Moved back to top since there is a raging debate that needs to be resolved — J.C.D.
The Wedge Strategy – Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture — Nova just ran an excellent special on the attempt in Pennsylvania a couple of years ago to introduce Creationism as Science in the public schools. Of course they cloaked it under the moniker “Intelligent Design.”
What cropped up in the piece was the “Wedge Document” which was a blueprint to roll back scientific advances in the USA to the tenth century and essentially push for a USA theocracy. I tracked this thing down on the net. The link is above. Below is an excerpt.
This game plan was developed by the shadowy Discovery Institute up near Seattle. This is that group that George Gilder is associated with.
Phase III. Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula. The attention, publicity, and influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate with design theorists, and we will be ready. With an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences.
GOALSGoverning Goals
* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
related links
Discovery Institute’s response to the appearance of the secret Wedge Document in 2006
#24 Creationist – I suppose you believe the Sun orbits the Earth because the Bible says so (and anyone can see the evidence for himself if he goes outside).
Quoting from Wiki: “Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 state that “the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved.” Psalm 104:5 says, “the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.” Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that “the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.”
If you believe in Creationism, you must believe in Geocentricism (Earth Centered Universe). If not, please explain what evidence you have to the contrary? Provide direct testable evidence, not just refer me to some book. I want your equations, and the numbers you personally collected on a specific day.
NOTE: It took The Church about 360 years to forgive Galileo for his heritical heliocentric model of the solar system. This fight will take at least as long.
#24, Creationist,
RE: #13,
Nice try, how can you have less than zero mass? When we are talking about material objects you cannot have less than zero as it is absolutely the lowest common denominator.
Are you speaking as a bible thumper or a physicist? A physicist will tell you there is matter equal to less than zero called anti-matter. An easier one would be the electrical charge of an ion. Hey, what about a magnetic charge?
OR, there is always that old explanation; How much dirt is in a hole six feet long, six feet deep, and three feet wide???
The answer is none. If there were dirt in it, it wouldn’t be a hole. The dirt is probably piled beside the hole.
RE: #17,
There is no proof of evolution.
Wrong. My daughter has a dachshund while I have a lab. Both originally evolved from wolves. Yet neither much resemble a wolf. Selective breeding (artificial evolution) has also given us specialized cattle that produce meat or milk.
Fossil evidence have definitely traced the horse from a wolf sized animal with five digits to the massive beasts like the 2000 lb Belgium with the single hoof.
Fossil and glacier evidence has also shown giantism prevails during extended cold weather and dwarfism prevails in closed, food scarce environments.
As I have stated above there has been no living creature that has evolved from new information been added.
Comparing DNA from related as well as divergent species show this is totally wrong. Anytime there is a change in DNA, that animal either makes use of the change or dies. Thus there is such a great difference between a Polar Bear and a Black Bear. Neither could survive in the other’s environment.
Animals have been observed to have adapted to their environment, but adaptation isn’t evolution.
True, on an immediate scale. Except, however, when that adaptation becomes strong enough that separate species evolve. There is significant difference between Polar Bears and Black Bears, physically as well as genetically. At one time however, both originated from a common ancestor.
Now, you have made several claims about these things don’t happen. Do YOU have any evidence to back that up?
It would appear that you are operating under the impression that the geocentric model has been accepted universally… well, I’m here ta tell ya that there remain loonies who believe just that.
If you want a real hoot, take a look at the “scientific proof” that the Sun does indeed orbit the Earth.
Just when you think religious crackpots can’t be any more cracked than they already are, they up the ante…
I very much enjoyed the NOVA program about the Dover trial. It showed the creationists as being dishonest, which was no surprise to me. For the creationists dishonesty is ok if it’s for god. Also interesting were the death threats against the judge after the trial. I guess it’s also ok to threaten to murder someone is if it’s for god. The program was an excellent education about evolution. Just what Ken Miller said about the DNA evidence should be enough to convince anyone evolution is a fact. The creationists, instead of trying to learn something from the program, just complain about it. They say the program was not fair to the creationists. They forget that the creationists lost that trial, and they lost badly. The reason they lost is because the evidence for evolution was very strong, and because the evidence for the creationists trying to sneak religion into a public school was very strong. The most disgusting thing I saw on that TV show was when a school administrator walked into a classroom, and lied to the students about evolution. Lying to students is horrible. These students go to school to learn something and instead some creationist who works for the school walks in and lies to them. It was just horrible to watch. Fortunately it will never happen again in Dover and probably not anywhere else in America. The creationists lost badly and it’s obvious they never will be able to get away with sticking their idiotic magical creation into a public school again.
Somebody above said “Dawkins says that people who don’t believe in evolution are stupid and ignorant.”
I doubt Dawkins used the word “believe” because that word is for religious stupidity, not proven scientific facts like evolution. If dawkins really did say evolution-deniers are stupid and ignorant, I would have to agree with him. The evolution-deniers are most definitely ignorant. They might be good at something, and in fact I have worked with creationists who were experts at their jobs, but when the subject is science, all creationists are extremely stupid.
I call creationists flat-earthers, because their belief in magical creation is just as stupid as a belief the earth is flat. Believing some supernatural magician said “poof” to make creatures appear is just a children’s fairy tale. Even children know fairy tales are fiction, so the creationists are even more stupid than the dumbest child.
Since the trial in Dover, their constant lying about evolution does not matter any more. Creationists will never again get away with forcing their idiocy into a public school.
Never again? Sorry, Ace, but they have more idiot sympathizers on school boards around the country that you’re apparently aware of, and they are mos’ def’ not intelligent enough to cease their efforts.
No, unfortunately this is not a diminishing trend, it’s a growing one, as the ever-declining American IQs and literacy rates demonstrate.
• • • • •
Believing in geocentrism, Creationism, Bibblical inerrancy or the Rapture is proof positive of stupidity, beyond all doubt. But the difference between believers in those stupendously improbable things and those people who reject them, yet still believe in the Invisible Big Da-Da In The Sky, is only a matter of degree, not kind.
Until people learn to divorce their emotions from their reasoning machinery, they’ll remain slaves to peer-pressure-and-tradition driven ancient fairytales, foolishly equating emotions they don’t comprehend with the existence of an absurd invisible father figure. It’s a gamble whether humanity will survive the consequences of these superstitions long enough for a critical mass of people to reject childish nonsense…
My children,
Fossils are prove that evolution exists.
*floats away*
Lauren the Ghoti , I agree our nation’s school boards are infested with flat-earthers. Of course they might try to stick their insanity into science classes, but I don’t think they will ever get away with it because after the Dover trial we know they will always lose in court. The Dover trial cost the taxpayers one million dollars and I hope the creationists won’t want to waste so much money again.
However, I agree there’s still a big problem, and school boards are only part of the problem. Some teachers, especially in smaller communities, are not competent enough to teach evolution, and also they often quietly throw out evolution to avoid harassment from Christian thugs. Even worse, some science teachers are so incompetent they are creationists who teach creationism and nobody ever complains about it. How to solve these problems I don’t know. As far as I know America is the only Western country that has so many god-soaked science-deniers, and unfortunately I have to agree with you about how dumb Americans are and how the problem is getting worse.
I remember decades ago in an evolution class, the various theories of the origins of life on earth were presented. One was that life was extra-terrestrial, that is, that microbial life first arose on Earth as the result of it originally hitching a ride on a meteor from somewhere else. That sounded very far-fetched in those days and only slightly less so today. Certainly there is only a small amount of iffy evidence for such a thing. Probably even less than there is for the generic version of ID. Never-the-less, this theory was presented in class simply because it was out there.
I say the reason ID is not to be mentioned in schools has less to do with science than personal politics.
Further, I would bet good money that ID continues to be, regardless, briefly listed as a theory – right alongside life-from-meteors – in many classrooms by professors, in the interest of completeness. ie: “…and there are a great many people who believe life arose spontaneously in its present form.” Or it should be.
My evolution prof had a very neat way to handle the whole religious issue. He announced that he would not entertain any religious debate on the subject but he would permit anyone to write at the top of their exam paper words to the effect, “I do not believe the theory of evolution to be correct but here is the theory and evidence as supported by science and as taught in this class:”
RBG
RBG said “I say the reason ID is not to be mentioned in schools has less to do with science than personal politics.”
The reason ID is not part of any science class is because ID is not science. Invoking intelligent design is of course the same thing as invoking the invisible magic man the god nuts believe in. It’s not science, it’s childish idiocy and that’s why no competent teacher would waste valuable class time talking about it.
One of my favorite scientists explains why creation science or intelligent design or whatever the flat-earthers call their insanity these days is not in science classes.
Creation science has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage — good teaching — than a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise?
— Stephen Jay Gould
RBG also said “Further, I would bet good money that ID continues to be, regardless, briefly listed as a theory – right alongside life-from-meteors – in many classrooms by professors, in the interest of completeness. ie: ‘…and there are a great many people who believe life arose spontaneously in its present form.’ Or it should be.”
You would lose that bet RBG. If any science teacher mentioned ID she would be violating our wall of separation between church and state. If she talked about ID anyway she would not call it a theory because it isn’t a scientific theory. Most likely she would call it an idiotic religious belief because that’s what it is.
By the way, most people by now know intelligent design was invented by the thugs who work for the Discovery Institute to disguise god-did-it creationism look like science. They didn’t get away with their disgusting dishonesty and after the Dover trial it’s obvious they never will get away with it, but the professional liars who work for the Discovery Institute will probably keep trying anyway.
It would seem that evolution dove-tails nicely into either (or both) the primordial soup or extraterrestrial origin or life (or any other means that doesn’t prejudicially state that all the animals existed in their final state at their start). However, an extraterrestrial origin only offsets the primordial soup theory to some extraterrestrial location (maybe a planet far far away).
ID is not a theory, it is a prejudicial belief that taints all evidence it contacts. It is dogma that is heretical to disagree with. It is fundamentally untestable by anyone who can not have a two-way conversation with The Creator. Its only evidence thus far is the Creation Story.
If someone, or even space aliens, proved Evolution did not happen, a few hold-outs would not accept that proof. However, the vast majority of people would accept the proof and move on. The dogmas of science are fundamentally volatile (subject to change at a moment’s notice).
I found another quote from Gould I like so much I would like to share it. He explains why our species was the result of some good luck, and not part of any supernatural magician’s plan.
We are here because one odd group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into legs for terrestrial creatures; because the earth never froze entirely during an ice age; because a small and tenuous species, arising in Africa a quarter of a million years ago, has managed, so far, to survive by hook and by crook. We may yearn for a ‘higher’ answer—but none exists.
— Stephen Jay Gould
What is “dvorak.org/blog” afraid of here? Education should be about discussing theories, debating issues, and allowing people to make up their OWN minds.
But all I see here is … CHRISTIAN WACKOS THE SKY IS FALLING!
You gotta be careful with that one. Some people believe it is “statistically improbable” for life to have originated in this place in space without the hand of the Creator. Gould’s argument feeds these people’s misunderstanding of statistics.
If it were true that there was no supporting science to ID, I would be with you 100%. But I am going to guess that this is not the case. I am going to guess that there is what can be considered scientific evidence for ID. Flimsy as it may be. Paling as it might to current evolutionary theories. Misinterpreted as it might be by it’s proponents. Evidence none-the-less. This alone should immediately qualify it for discussion relative to the strength of that evidence.
Now consider the state of human understanding of our natural world. Who would disagree that it is not even close to being 100% complete? Yet that has not stopped tens of thousands of learned people from offering tens of thousands of theories about how the world and the universe works. All using the same and differing evidence to support their current pet theories that often can be diametrically opposed to each other. Psychology and particle physics immediately comes to mind. (How is Freud doing these days, anyway?)
There are renown physicists right now wishing to debunk the new E8 physics as “a joke.” If they had their way, it would not even be mentioned in any school as a possible alternative to string theory. A theory, by the way, that has no way to be proven correct.
The fervor with which some people wish to control the thinking of others can only be described as “religious.”
“Most people grow old within a small circle of ideas, which they have not discovered for themselves. There are perhaps less wrong-minded people than thoughtless.”
Marquis De Vauvenargues 1715-1747, French Moralist
RBG
Ooops. 46 for 40 BobC if it isn’t obvious.
RBG
41 BobC. Total nonsense. There’s no way Nova’s manufactured Li’l Abners can possibly hold a copyright on the scientific idea that life spontaneously arose much as we see it now. If the church suddenly holds evolution to be true as part of their core belief, does that then mean schools can no longer teach it? Hmmmm.
RBG
Matt Garrett said “Education should be about discussing theories, debating issues, and allowing people to make up their OWN minds.”
Should we teach students some people think the earth is flat and let the students “make up their own minds”. Some ideas are so idiotic, they are a waste of class time to talk about. Those insane ideas include a flat earth, and the even more insane idea a magician created people out of nothing. In any case, everyone already knows about the creation myth. What’s unfortunate is some people don’t know it’s a myth. It certainly isn’t a scientific theory. It’s a religious belief and it’s not appropriate to waste time talking about religious myths in a science class.
Dorksters said “Gould’s argument feeds these people’s misunderstanding of statistics.” OK, good point. Still, I think it’s interesting any number of things could have prevented our ancestors from ever evolving into modern humans. For example, if that asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago hit the much larger Jupiter instead of our small planet, our little mammal ancestors would still be trying to not be some giant animal’s lunch.
You also said “Some people believe it is ‘statistically improbable’ for life to have originated in this place in space without the hand of the Creator.” and obviously you don’t agree with that. I’m convinced if the conditions for life are favorable, it would be very likely life would get started very easily. We know life began here from some natural process for the simple reason life is here now. Of course it wasn’t supernatural magic even though some god-soaked people believe that.
One statistic that’s important to remember is the unimaginably large number of solar systems in the universe, I have heard there are more stars than grains of sand on earth. I’d be surprised if there were not several thousands of planets with life, and at least some of those planets with species as successful as ours.
43. BobC. Wow, what a tremendous stroke of luck for us… in a universe with 100 billion billion stars.
RBG
“If it were true that there was no supporting science to ID, I would be with you 100%.”
Not only is it true ID has no evidence at all, also there is massive evidence ID is pure garbage, not science, and not possible. Anyone who has listened to and studied the evidence against ID presented at the Dover trial would understand why ID is pure crap. In any case, ID will never be taught in a public school science class because it’s against the law. The Dover trial settled it. ID lost and this is no longer an issue.
In the biblical creation myth, Yahweh created man from the “dust of the Earth.” It doesn’t go into any great detail exactly how that works. It seems that the creator expressly went out of its way to rub it in that man was nothing very special. Evolution from from pre-biological origins makes the same humbling statement. The creationists and intelligent design folks seem to have their vanity rather than their faith talking out their ass for them. Their own holy book makes this point again and again. “From dust ye came and to dust thou shalt return. Pride goeth before a fall.” etc.
I think they’re just pissed because evolution shows that we’re all just monkeys, in severe need of improvement, whether we just evolved, or the Grand Cosmik Pooh-Bah of Everything and Then Some made us out of dirt and spit. What if it’s like the Mark Twain statement, “That God first made a School Board for Practice, then he made an idiot.”??
We could just be prototypes, you know. A whole heap of folks higher cognitive functions are still definitely in beta.
Oh, and it’s not like Evolution is much of a “Theory” any more. EVERYTHING that we learned in biological and related science in the past 300 years completely supports it. Every. Thing. No question.
“Wow, what a tremendous stroke of luck for us… in a universe with 100 billion billion stars.”
There’s a lot more stars than that and even more planets.
Yeah, a bit of luck, you are right. Anyway we know it happened. We know life appeared here naturally and we know life evolved into several thousands of species including us for the simple reason we are here.
I know there’s a few million ignorant people who think it was all magic but no competent scientist would even consider the idiotic idea anything was magic.
49 BobC. “…and the even more insane idea a magician created people out of nothing.”
Not to mention nothing created people out of nothing.
RBG
“Not to mention nothing created people out of nothing.”
Nobody ever said that.
53 BobC. And since you know that we are here, why don’t you take a stab at calculating the luck, that is, the probability that in all those 10^22 billions of stars that we should be the lucky star.
RBG
54BobC. I said it.
If it seems such an insane idea that a magician might create people out of nothing… how insane an idea must it be for nothing to have created people out of nothing. (The unsupernatural alternative.)
RBG
“And since you know that we are here, why don’t you take a stab at calculating the luck, that is, the probability that in all those 10^22 billions of stars that we should be the lucky star.”
Why bother? We are here. The issue is settled for that simple reason. What are you getting at? Are you trying to say it was all magic? If that’s what you think, please prove your magic.
I wish people would grow up and accept reality. All processes are natural. There’s no invisible man in the clouds making things happen.
Also, like I said earlier, I would bet there’s thousands of planets with life. It’s not a big deal for life to begin. It happened here so it could happen anywhere else conditions are good enough. It’s likely our 8 planets is close to the average for every star. At least one of those 8 planets will be the correct distance from a star to make life likely. The god nuts think life starting is such a big deal it has to be magic, but no scientist would agree with that nonsense.
“how insane an idea must it be for nothing to have created people out of nothing. (The unsupernatural alternative.)”
Nobody ever said that. Nobody. Now you are making things up.
I suggest you read your bible, instead of wasting people’s time. The idea there has ever been anything supernatural is childish and boring.
58. C’mon, we can calculate the odds of winning a lottery ticket. Do you feel lucky?
Given that we’re talking about some infinitesimally small odds here, do you think these probabilities might be better or worse than the probability of a supernatural being creating the universe?
So “thousands of planets with life” you say? That’s a very interesting theory. That would be a very good point for a teacher to bring up in class, don’t you think? How would you rate the evidence for such a position: slightly better or slightly worse than for ID?
RBG