“Intelligent design talking points” are now legitimate science?

_{News
February 2, 2012

Darwinism, News, science education

2}_{Categories
Darwinism
News
science education}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In “Texas’ evolution teaching meets science standards” (Austin Statesman, February 2, 2012) Don McLeroy, a former State Board of Education chairman, points out, regarding the muchy-contested Texas science standards,

The big story concerning the release of the Fordham Institute’s “State of the State Science Standards 2012” is not the overall grade that Texas received but that the controversial high school evolution standards were described as “exemplary.”

See also: Darwin lobby trashed Texas evolution standards, but Fordham Institute says they’re mostly okay

Here are the changes that drew such ridicule at the time, but not this week. The board added two standards: “Analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the sudden appearance, stasis and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record,” and “Analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the complexity of the cell.”

The fact that, after three years, these standards have not even been challenged, supports the findings of the Fordham report and not the hysterical statements made at the time of their adoption by some evolutionists.

[= The standards were “intelligent design talking points.”]

Thus, Texas high school evolution standards have passed the test of time and have been proven to represent sound scientific reasoning and legitimate science.

Semi-amusingly, this allows for a final observation. Because Texas evolution standards represent legitimate science, and because, according to [Darwin lobbyist] Eugenie Scott, they include “intelligent design talking points,” does this mean she would now argue that “intelligent design talking points” represent legitimate science?

McLeroy may have trouble getting her attention, asshe gets up to speed on climate change.

You can’t comment there, but you can here.

Comments

"The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West’s greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences." Is that true or false? Many historians - regardless of theology, will agree with that point. In fact, that was one of Nietzche's main points, too. He felt he had to re-envision morality and society precisely because the concept of freedom, rights, and morality in Western Civilization is based on the imago dei. "Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies." So what? As I said, the Humanist Manifesto is essentially the same thing from the other direction, and Eugenie Scott is a signer of it. However, as they declared in the same document, they plan to do it using scholarship, reason, and argument. How is that nefarious? You can disagree with their ideas, but they have said at the outset that their foundation will be with scholarship. Why not just engage them as scholars? It is at this point that the real ideologues come out. The ID movement wishes to engage others as scholars, while the signers of the humanist manifesto, do not wish to engage others as scholars. So, I agree that there are ideologies at play. However, it is clear from the behavior of the parties that it is the ID movement who wishes to engage using reason and scholarship, and it is the materialists who wish to engage using name-calling, political lobbying, and marginalization.johnnyb_{February 3, 2012
February
02
Feb
3
03
2012
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth, Does the Richard Lewontin quote need to be pasted (yet) again? Obviously, not everyone agrees with you. I’d say, very few, in fact.
You misunderstand, and it's important. Let me repeat exactly what you said:
At least not for being able to tell that many theists naturally gravitate to ID because it leaves open the possibility that there may be a God; this opposed to the standard Darwinian evolution adherents who shut the question out a priori.
In other words, you appeared to claim that "the standard Darwinian evolution adherents" shut the question as to "the possiblity that there may be a God" out, a priori. This is not true. What Lewontin said, essentially, was that when doing science, we cannot posit divine explanations. Actually, he was saying something much more complicated than that, but most people who quote Lewontin's review of Sagan's book don't actually read the review. But that is his point, nonetheless, and I agree with it. The a priori of science is that things are explainable - which is why, when we reach something we cannot explain, we say that "we do not know" the answer. And we continue to try to find out. But that is not the same as the a priori that there is no God. Far from it. You do not need to assume there is no God to do science. All you need to assume is that there is a bit of the causal chain you have yet to discover. As I pointed to vjtorley in a recent post: there is no way that science can rule out God's intimate involvement in every event in the universe, in every throw of every coin, as well as in every apple that falls to the ground. Even if we had a complete materialistic account of every event in the universe, it would not rule out God; it would simply indicate that, if God designed the universe, it was defined in such a way that unfurled according to a meticulous set of rules, both stochastic and non-stochastic, and ensured that the rolls of the relevant dice would produce his intended creation. In science we trust to the operation of those meticulous rules, because they are the only ones we know how to discover. That does not require the assumption that there is no God. It merely requires the assumption that we need not stop when we are stumped and say: God musta done that bit. In other words, to "let the Divine foot in the door" of science would kill enquiry. But that does not mean that we must assume that there is no Divine foot.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 3, 2012
February
02
Feb
3
03
2012
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

Does the Richard Lewontin quote need to be pasted (yet) again?
Not necessary. It's permanently burned into our screens from all the times that KF posted it.champignon_{February 3, 2012
February
02
Feb
3
03
2012
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

"It doesn’t mean that the ID movement cannot be science, nor especially that it cannot be correct in its observations/inferences." Did I say either of those things? Bariminology, old earth creationism or hindu cosmology all COULD be true, or turned into 'sciences' of sorts. ID is scientifically meritless, but not because the supporters of ID are Christian. However, given its history, current supporters, and the focus of its leaders and henchmen, I don’t have “irrational fears of creationist subterfuge” when I see "teach the controversy" or "Design Theory" being proposed as school curriculums.DrREC_{February 3, 2012
February
02
Feb
3
03
2012
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

"Or is it that you’re claiming that because the ID movement contains some Christians, it should be discarded? Because that’s exactly how your post reads." Then you've misread it. Here's what I said: "I’m using historical documents" which are fairly undeniable "and the current obsessions of this website" http://bit.ly/y1Hj2F http://bit.ly/Apg2iL http://bit.ly/yqEUQq to demonstrate that I don’t have “irrational fears of creationist subterfuge.”"DrREC_{February 3, 2012
February
02
Feb
3
03
2012
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth, Does the Richard Lewontin quote need to be pasted (yet) again? Obviously, not everyone agrees with you. I'd say, very few, in fact.Brent_{February 3, 2012
February
02
Feb
3
03
2012
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

DrRec, Barb just undermined the premise of your argument. Even if you have the documents, it doesn't mean that the ID movement cannot be science, nor especially that it cannot be correct in its observations/inferences. How would you respond if someone said that evolution could not be scientific because those who adhere to it are atheists? It's a simple non sequitur.Brent_{February 3, 2012
February
02
Feb
3
03
2012
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

"No Barb, I’m using historical documents, and the current obsessions of this website to demonstrate that I don’t have an “irrational fears of creationist subterfuge.” And you are absolutely sure about the current obsessions of this website...how? You can read the webmaster's mind? Or is it that you're claiming that because the ID movement contains some Christians, it should be discarded? Because that's exactly how your post reads.Barb_{February 3, 2012
February
02
Feb
3
03
2012
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

"Some do, but it isn’t at the heart of evolution."
And I offer you the same answer.Brent_{February 3, 2012
February
02
Feb
3
03
2012
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

BA@ 2.1.1.3.3 Your rant that "you very well know the implications of overturning the neo-Darwinian worldview would give you absolutely no rational basis for your nihilistic atheism:" and linking to the Institute for Creation Research only help to strengthen my point.DrREC_{February 3, 2012
February
02
Feb
3
03
2012
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

DrREC, then it is funny that you fight tooth and nail to protect the pseudo-science of neo-Darwinism if it means absolutely nothing to your atheism and you are merely an unbiased participant. No DrREC, the reason you fight so hard is that you very well know the implications of overturning the neo-Darwinian worldview would give you absolutely no rational basis for your nihilistic atheism: Here is an atheist professor who openly proselytizes his religion in his classroom: Dr. Will Provine - EXPELLED - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpJ5dHtmNtU Evolution Is Religion--Not Science by Henry Morris, Ph.D. Excerpt: Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality,,, Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse - Prominent Philosopher http://www.icr.org/article/455/bornagain77_{February 3, 2012
February
02
Feb
3
03
2012
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

"Have you actually read the wedge document? Here’s an excerpt: “Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade.”" If you can read the wedge document, and take that home as the message, you have some insanely selective reading skills. Here's how the wedge document summarizes itself: "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences. ... Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies." "I’m actually a big Phillip Johnson fan myself."DrREC_{February 3, 2012
February
02
Feb
3
03
2012
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

"You appear to be using these instead of reasoning ability." No Barb, I'm using historical documents, and the current obsessions of this website to demonstrate that I don't have an "irrational fears of creationist subterfuge."DrREC_{February 3, 2012
February
02
Feb
3
03
2012
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

Have you actually read the wedge document? Here's an excerpt: "Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade." Hmmmm.... a strategy which bases itself on scholarship as the cornerstone. Yep, sounds like irrational fundy dogma to me. Note that this is the *internal* document. So, looking at how they speak to each other in private, we can see that their first objective is solid scholarship. That does sound menacing, doesn't it? I'm actually a big Phillip Johnson fan myself. While I haven't read Darwin on Trial, I have read many of his later works, and enjoyed them thoroughly. My two favorites are "Reason in the Balance" and "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds", especially the second one. In fact, I would suggest that perhaps what you need to do is to *stop* googling Phillip Johnson, and instead, read what he actually wrote, rather than what some irrational chickle littles wrote about him. "If you are religion neutral" I am not, personally, religion neutral. But does that automatically make my every move sinister? Does that mean that I can't be for academic freedom because it's a good idea? Shoot, let's pretend I'm for academic freedom because I have a mischevious end goal. Does that invalidate arguments for academic freedom? No, it doesn't. Most people forget that there is a difference between a *motive* and a *purpose*. Laws are required to have secular *purposes* not *motives*. As an example, most anti-slavery movements were religiously motivated. But that didn't invalidate their arguments or their proposed legislations, because those had secular *purposes*. As other people pointed out, the atheists are not religiously neutral either. Eugenie Scott is not religiously neutral - she's a signer to the Humanist Manifesto, which "recognizes nature as self-existing". Does this invalidate her work at the NCSE? I don't think it does. I think the NCSE is wrong, but I don't think that Eugenie's signing of the humanist manifesto is what makes her wrong, and, if she makes decent proposals, I'm not going to infer that they are really nefarious because she's a humanist. Instead, I'll treat her with the respect she denies to others.johnnyb_{February 3, 2012
February
02
Feb
3
03
2012
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

"Why do Darwinists trumpet atheism, and denounce theism?" Some do, but it isn't at the heart of evolution. Theistic evolution, Francis Collins, and so on. Historically and currently it is undeniable the goal of ID remains: "....the purpose of the Discovery Institute is plain. Phillip Johnson, a senior fellow at the Institute, stated last year on a Christian radio talk show that "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit, so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." http://www.christianity.ca/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=2830 You won't see Francis Collins arguing the goal of evolutionary biology is to get atheism in the schools, now will you?DrREC_{February 3, 2012
February
02
Feb
3
03
2012
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

DrREC, it wouldn't matter if all IDists were born again Christians. It also wouldn't matter if all scientists were atheists. Science isn't determined by consensus, and you know that. There are logical fallacies where the argument is directed against the person and not the subject (ad hominem and tu quoque). You appear to be using these instead of reasoning ability.Barb_{February 3, 2012
February
02
Feb
3
03
2012
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

Oh, I'm not upset, nor do I have disdain for any deity. I'm quite apathetic about the whole thing, and certainly don't use science to advance atheism. I'm just pointing out that you, KF and others perfectly represent what ID is historically and currently about.DrREC_{February 3, 2012
February
02
Feb
3
03
2012
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

1) Sour grapes about not getting invited to the prom--seriously, one of the more significant legislations in the last few years, and you got ignored 2) The bill specifies "The curriculum for the course must include theories from multiple religions, which may include, but is not limited to, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Scientology" ... and that is not what the DI is about: 'The worldview of scientific materialism has been pitted against traditional beliefs in the existence of God, Judeo-Christian ethics and the intrinsic dignity and freedom of man." http://www.discovery.org/about.phpDrREC_{February 3, 2012
February
02
Feb
3
03
2012
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

kf,
the issues of origins science are inextricably intertwined with worldviews and cultural agendas.
I can see how this is so. And yet how, when, and in which cases someone chooses to veer into those areas can make an impression. This is just my hopefully constructive $.02, since again, I'm just a user of this free site. But a first-time visitor who sees numerous references to religion and Republican US presidential candidates might wonder, at first glance, whether the content is aligned with certain political or religious views. Maybe it is and I'm just the last one to realize that. I just ignore it because I have no political alignment, and I only have myself to blame if I enter a religious discussion. Or whatever else I get myself into.ScottAndrews2_{February 3, 2012
February
02
Feb
3
03
2012
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

the standard Darwinian evolution adherents who shut the question out a priori.
By no means do all Darwinian evolution adherents "shut the question [that there may be a God] out a priori." In fact, I don't know any that do.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 3, 2012
February
02
Feb
3
03
2012
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

SA: Prob is, Dr REC is hardly to be described as a novice or newbie. And, there is a talking point agenda from objectors to ID that does tie into some pretty sordid history on subjects like those linked to eugenics -- "the self-direction of human evolution." Unfortunately, like or lump it -- and I do NOT like it -- the issues of origins science are inextricably intertwined with worldviews and cultural agendas. that6 is why, for instance something that should be unexceptional like the log reduction that yields Chi_500 = Ip*S - 500, bits beyond, is subject to hot and contentious debate. Similarly, when Lewontin, Coyne, Provine, Crick, The US NAS and the US NSTA line up on a point, that should not be a subject of hot and contentious, too often personality-laced debate, but the implications are such that never mind issues tracing back to Plato's remarks with the story of Alcibiades et al in mind, we are going to have a fight. As for the notion that it is a legitimate move to redefine science as seeking NATURAL[istic] explanations of empirical phenomena (and imply or assert that this is the longstanding -- centuries, plural -- self-understanding of science), that speaks for itself. So, let us hope that we can keep enough rubble of rhetoric clear that we can address significant issues, but let us realise that for instance when I put up Geno's guest posts, the discussion threads promptly began to veer off track, and not from the side supportive of design. KFkairosfocus_{February 3, 2012
February
02
Feb
3
03
2012
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

I think a much more balanced first look can be had here, and it makes a telling contrast with the presentation we can say find at Wikipedia's article on the same topic.kairosfocus_{February 3, 2012
February
02
Feb
3
03
2012
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT}

Not to be critical, as I'm just someone who enjoys this site for free, but the content about religion, atheism, and politics often sends a mixed signal. If someone heard about ID for the first time, including the controversy over whether it is religious, and then came to the site for the first time, could they be blamed for getting the wrong impression? It's a valid point that atheism, anti-religious sentiment, and quasi-religious views do permeate the message coming from mainstream science. That's just pointing out the pot calling the kettle black (even though neither is intrinsically "black" in whichever sense that it meant.)ScottAndrews2_{February 3, 2012
February
02
Feb
3
03
2012
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

I don't think you're morons, DrRec. At least not for being able to tell that many theists naturally gravitate to ID because it leaves open the possibility that there may be a God; this opposed to the standard Darwinian evolution adherents who shut the question out a priori. The science is not the problem, no matter how much you think it is. It's metaphysical presuppositions that cloud your judgement. But, by the same standards, I could ask you the same question, substituting atheism and Darwinian evolution. Why do Darwinists trumpet atheism, and denounce theism?Brent_{February 3, 2012
February
02
Feb
3
03
2012
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT}

Here you go DrREC:
From Atheism to Theism In Reverse http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=9C2E1MNU
further notes DrREC; https://uncommondescent.com/genetics/why-you-are-not-your-genes-and-even-your-genes-are-not-your-genes/comment-page-1/#comment-418320bornagain77_{February 3, 2012
February
02
Feb
3
03
2012
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT}

DrREC, though I am certainly nobody and nothing as far as ID itself is concerned, and indeed am only a sinner saved by grace, why would it be that you are so upset with my links to Godtube? Why are you not equally upset with the many other references I cite from peer-review, and main stream science articles, many from neo-Darwinists themselves, that completely undermine neo-Darwinism from a purely evidential point of view? i.e. Why is it that you would specifically single out 'God' in your disdain of my posts? i.e. If you were truly unbiased in your investigation of this matter why should this be so?,,,, Unfortunately for you DrREC, it seems you have revealed you own personal underlying motives in your post. Motives which have nothing to do with the science but your irrational disdain for God.bornagain77_{February 3, 2012
February
02
Feb
3
03
2012
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT}

So how exactly does this: Discovery Institute Condemns Passage of Creationism Bill by Indiana Senate as Bad Science and Bad Education fit into your little conspiracy theory?
Come on man, do you think we’re morons?
Well... why would the Discovery Institute condemn a pro-Creationism Bill if that was their end goal? Perhaps an attempt at misdirection to achieve an even greater goal!! :) Sheesh come on man. Discovery Institutes Science Education PolicyStu7_{February 3, 2012
February
02
Feb
3
03
2012
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT}

Yes the origins of ID can be traced back to Aristotle and the ancient Greeks.Joe_{February 3, 2012
February
02
Feb
3
03
2012
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT}

"irrational fears of creationist subterfuge." Are you aware of the origins of "ID?" The wedge document? "cdesign proponentsists" Google Phillip E. Johnson for me before you reply. Or, hell, look at this site. If you are religion neutral, why the rants agains atheism? Why the testimonials to conversion by Gil...the endless bornagain links to godtube? Come on man, do you think we're morons?DrREC_{February 2, 2012
February
02
Feb
2
02
2012
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT}

DrRec - I think that you think this because you assume the worst motives behind the ID movement. If the opponents of ID didn't just baselessly assume the worst about the motives of everything any ID'er does, we might wind up finding a lot we agree about. But, sadly, every good idea that the DI puts out about science education is quashed by the NCSE because of their irrational fears of creationist subterfuge.johnnyb_{February 2, 2012
February
02
Feb
2
02
2012
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply