ContraCostaTimes.com | 01/29/2006 | Intelligent design has local roots — I was wondering how the Pennsylvania Intelligent design controversy disappeared so quickly and now the whole movement backtracked and is regrouping. This fascinating story in the small California paper explains it completely. Apparently the constant assertions that Intelligent Design is about science and has nothing whatsoever to do with Creationism turned out to be a pack of lies! I guess being truthful wasn’t in the arsenal of these phonies.
The center’s work on a case in Dover, Pa., that drew national attention helped lead a judge to conclude that intelligent design was essentially creationism in disguise.
The case stemmed from a school district’s requirement that teachers read a statement in biology class about gaps in evolutionary theory and point students to the pro-intelligent design text, “Of Pandas and People.”
So lawyers subpoenaed early drafts of the book. The first version was called “Creation Biology,” and drafts up until 1987 were full of references to creationism. But the wording changed after the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987 struck down a Louisiana law banning the teaching of evolution. References to creationism in the Pandas drafts after 1987 had been almost entirely replaced by intelligent design.
“Once we figured that out, it was really a slam dunk,” Matzke said. “How much clearer could the evidence be?”
First of all, we have to remember that the Bible, as well as all other holy books encompasing all religions of the world, our world, were written by humans and is therefore false unless they were written by God him/her/itself. Some may argue that Jesus came close, but even he did not write the Bible. Second of all, we know so little about the beginning of the Universe that some intelligent “God” (intelligence used loosely because “it” would obviously encompase entirelly different dimensions of senses and “thought”) created the BANG is as “plausible” (sorry Steven but i had to) the Universe beginning “inside a sphere smaller than this period.” Man was obviously not created in the image of God because the Bible was written by man, nor was the Universe was created for man to live in, but what can’t immediately be proven false is some intelligent force beginning the BIG BANG merely because science hasn’t even come close to proving their theory(s), whateven they are. No, “God” most likely did not create life, which out of billions of billions of stars can probabily occur not only once but many times, nor did “it” create evolution or Earth, but we cannot just completely ridicule the idea that some force (because that is what “God” is, an “intelligent” force) started the ball rolling for the Universe. Yes, life could have began in a tube of chemicals, but who’s to say that the tube of chemicals which came from a BANG did not begin with an “intelligent force”. There is no evidence for this theory, which is not Creationism or Intelligent Design, like the Big Bang because the Bang could be proven to have occured but not the force behind the Bang.
Good Blog. Although I to use the translation of google to read
Does this ever end??
The classic philosophical end of the question hasn’t changed in decades. I mention the infinite resolution of material reality.
Something always comes from something. Something never comes from nothing. If you examine the theoretical universe [to include believers], matter and extensions of matter [which includes energy], there has never been an instance of something ever coming from nothing.
The basic premise of religion is that something came from nothing.
I know that’s too easy for people who talk to burning vegetation.
Briefly? No. You opened up a can of worms 😉
Even the Pope, most bishops, and many many leading religious figures have said “evolution is compatible with a belief in God.” However there are always nut-jobs out there that claim otherwise, and poorly.
There is also no reason why science is incompatible with it either – what it is incompatible with is blind faith. That is what most of the people attacking it are trying to defend – their blind faith. Their perception of how the world works (often not the same as their religeons officall view either).
You can’t destroy faith, as Marx said – it’s the opiate of the masses. Just like junkies they will defend their fix, because the concept isn’t what they are trying to defend. It’s their perception of it.
Which is probably why stoners think weed = world peace.
re: 43.
Yeah, too many people take the Big Bang theory as: “First there was nothing, then it exploded.”
Really it’s more “first there was everything, and it was really small. For some (as yet unknown) reason.. it didn’t stay that way”
Science wants to find out that unknown reason. Religious people think they already know. Maybe they are right, science doesn’t care, but what it does car about is knowing if they are right or wrong.
I believe the real issue is people who want religion taught as science in the class room. Its not. Thats why its called religion. People who teach science as religion in the class room are just as irritating and just as wrong.
When schools taught as oppose to baby sit, there was a place for such a conversation. It was called philosophy class. A philosophy class would be a great and appropriate venue for this discussion in a school room context.
Blogs are a great venue as well.
Is God willing to to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
– Epicurus
Re: #42
Does this ever end??
Comment by site admin — 1/31/2006 @ 12:09 am
No, actually it doesn’t.
P.S.
Fix the page for Safari.
I’m typing blind, I CAN’t see the bottom(won’t scroll).
Sounds
The problem with teaching religion in a philosophy class is it must not be a one sided subject. If the debate about creationism were to center around one view, say the Bible’s, as happened in California lately, then I have a problem. If the discussion concerned different views of how the world religions believe it all started with equal insight to all, then no problem.
The issue of religion is that it should not cloud the subject as truth. Because all religions are based on faith instead of objectivity they should only be discussed in the abstract. If they can’t be discussed in the abstract then they run a risk of being discussed as fact.
I am not sure I understand what you meant by teaching science as a religion. Could you explain that a little for me? Or am I misreading it? Thanks.
Tod
Try writing in a word processor. Then copy and paste into the blog. You can also use spell check too.
Pardon my simplicity but, what does it matter. We dont know. We have some great ideas but in the end we dont know. Thats it, I’ve solved the problem with the school systems. We dont know and if we say we dont know then nither side wins and we can get back to our regular diet of depresion and “reality” tv
The point is, I can’t SEE the “Say It” button!
Or anything else (not much) below about 1/2 the comment box.
And, ONLY after about a standard and a half of a web-page.
In other words…
no scrollee.