Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

New Hampshire sci tech geek blunders to the defense of “science”

arroba Email

And the situation is far too important to justify stopping to find out what is going on.

Here, “Granite geek” David Brooks warns, “Creationism trying to sneak into New Hampshire laws” (July 4, 2011):

… two possible bills may come up in the fall to get creatonism into the classroom. One would mandate teaching “intelligent design”, the other would mandate teaching evolution “as a theory”.

Both lawmakers agree there are theological/philosophical elements to their proposals – one wants to examine how much atheism is being the push for evolution in classes; the other is concerned by the lack of a deeper meaning in evolution. I argue in the column that evolution, linking us to the understandable reality of the universe, has more meaning that an arbitrary creation by some other-worldly being or beings, but I also note that the argument is irelevant: Science classes should teach science.

The Granite one seems unaware that just saying that “evolution, linking us to the understandable reality of the universe, has more meaning that an arbitrary creation by some other-worldly being or beings” means that he has a definite theological position, and saying that “Science classes should teach science” only raises the question of what he means by “science.”

Happily, he answers that. Interviewing the sponsor of one of the bills, he reports,

Rep. Gary Hopper, R- Weare, approaches the matter more directly with an LSR “requiring instruction in intelligent design in the public schools.”

In a phone interview, Hopper said his concern with evolution as a science involves the beginning of life.

“Darwin’s theory is basically antiquated,” he argued.

This is such a big unknown that some scientists would be happy to believe some unspecified Designer created life and then sat back to let evolution take over.

Hopper doesn’t agree with this idea, because of what he says are too many problems with evolutionary theory, which he thinks is fueled by scientific group-think, driven by research funding that ignores creationism.

Yeah, that’s it. When Darwin is doubted, it must be those slimy creationists at work. Brooks, whose sci tech geekiness exempts him from keeping up with the news, probably doesn’t know stuff like this: Darwinist David Penny (Massey University, New Zealand) is constructing a face-saving strategy for how how Darwinism can encompass non-Darwinian processes of evolution, provided we junk the central metaphor of the Tree of Life. Which means jettisoning Brooks’ most sacred belief – common descent – so that Darwinism can continue in name only. And Penny pretends to find justification for this in the Sayings of the Master.

Whether he succeeds or not, the important thing to see is that he is doing it in Darwin’s name, to save face and maintain both perks and perches while the theory crumbles.

That’s only to be expected. What’s unexpected is the vast ignorance that envelops geeks, like some kind of smoke bomb. They used to be up-to-date types.

Brooks finishes, predictably, with his theology of evolution. Given that he thinks that doubts about Darwin could be taught in

Religion or philosophy class? Of course. History class? You bet. Literature, too. But not science class

the only reasonable approach is to teach his pro-Darwin theology in those venues too.

Given the current ferment, one wonders whether science classes should teach very much about evolution at all.

My prescription? Move both origin of life and human evolution to social science class – not because they are controversial but because of their minimal, contradictory, highly politicized information streams.

In a study of biological evolution in science class, I would teach Darwinism as one theory among many, and focus on timelines for the history of life. Origin of life theory and human evolution would make great “across the curriculum” projects – solo, group, or for science fairs.

My nightmare? Students graduate knowing about the gay gene, the Big Bazooms theory of evolution, and that cell phones cause cancer, but they don’t know the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the science around radioactivity, or even how ecologies maintain stability. In other words, they’re well set up to be passive recipients of junk science, without the tools to free themselves.

Scarier nightmare: For many current lobbies, that’s a solution, not a problem. Oh wait, I have always been wide awake when I observed that dynamic at work.

How hypocritical of them. It's fine and dandy to promote atheism in schools ....and that's a religion, at least according to the courts: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874 Blue_Savannah
semi OT: William Lane Craig vs an Empty Chair? Richard Dawkins vs a Banana? - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC1xgS1XGSg bornagain77
Creationists are disqualified from making a positive case, because science by definition is based upon naturalism. The rules of science also disqualify any purely negative argumentation designed to dilute the persuasiveness of the theory of evolution. Creationism is thus out of court and out of the classroom-before any consideration of evidence. Put yourself in the place of a creationist who has been silenced by that logic, and you may feel like a criminal defendant who has just been told that the law does not recognize so absurd a concept as "innocence." ~ Phillip Johnson My issue is not that my view is not taught. My issue is that competing views are taught. If we are going to address the topic of origin of life in the public classroom, we need to acknowledge that the topic is inescapably intertwined with metaphysics and we need to examine various metaphysical positons. We could ignore the origin of life topic completely -- that would be boring. If we do address the topic, I dont have a preference for venue. It can be Biology, History, Philosophy, or wood shop -- as long as my view is permitted a fair hearing. bevets
as to this comment by the lawmakers: 'one wants to examine how much atheism is being the push for evolution in classes;' 'The push' pretty explicit here (as well as on PZ Myers blog); Here is an atheist professor who openly proselytizes his religion in his classroom using the pseudo-science of neo-Darwinism as his tool: Dr. Will Provine on Religion and Creationism - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnMjaw8zUxQ ================= fn; I think Michael Behe does an excellent job, in this following debate, of pointing out that denying the overwhelming evidence for design in biology makes the science of biology ‘irrational’. As well Dr. Behe makes it clear that materialistic evolutionists themselves, by their own admission in many cases, are promoting their very own religious viewpoint, Atheism, in public schools, and thus are in fact violating the establishment clause of the constitution: Should Intelligent Design Be Taught as Science? Michael Behe debates Stephen Barr - 2010 - video http://www.isi.org/lectures/flvplayer/lectureplayer.aspx?file=v000355_cicero_040710.mp4&dir=mp4/lectures ===================== Moreover, the kicker in all this, is that science is not even possible unless Theism is held as true in the first place: THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS - DAVID P. GOLDMAN - August 2010 Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel's critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes. http://www.faqs.org/periodicals/201008/2080027241.html BRUCE GORDON: Hawking's irrational arguments - October 2010 Excerpt: The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world. Neither is it the case that "nothing" is unstable, as Mr. Hawking and others maintain. Absolute nothing cannot have mathematical relationships predicated on it, not even quantum gravitational ones. Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency - a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what "breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.,,, the evidence for string theory and its extension, M-theory, is nonexistent; and the idea that conjoining them demonstrates that we live in a multiverse of bubble universes with different laws and constants is a mathematical fantasy. What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse - where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause - produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the "Boltzmann Brain" problem: In the most "reasonable" models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ Even neo-Darwinian evolution, itself, can be used to point out this 'nihilistic irrationality' that destroys the very possibility of science. What is the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? ('inconsistent identity' of cause leads to failure of absolute truth claims for materialists) (Alvin Plantinga) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yNg4MJgTFw Can atheists trust their own minds? - William Lane Craig On Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byN38dyZb-k "But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin - Letter To William Graham - July 3, 1881 It is also interesting to point out that this ‘inconsistent identity’, pointed out by Plantinga, which leads to the failure of neo-Darwinists to make absolute truth claims for their beliefs, is what also leads to the failure of neo-Darwinists to be able to account for objective morality, in that neo-Darwinists cannot maintain a consistent identity towards a cause for objective morality; The Knock-Down Argument Against Atheist Sam Harris – William Lane Craig – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvDyLs_cReE "Atheists may do science, but they cannot justify what they do. When they assume the world is rational, approachable, and understandable, they plagiarize Judeo-Christian presuppositions about the nature of reality and the moral need to seek the truth. As an exercise, try generating a philosophy of science from hydrogen coming out of the big bang. It cannot be done. It’s impossible even in principle, because philosophy and science presuppose concepts that are not composed of particles and forces. They refer to ideas that must be true, universal, necessary and certain." Creation-Evolution Headlines etc.. etc.. etc.. ============= Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated) - updated regularly http://www.discovery.org/a/2640 Is Intelligent Design "Creationism in a Cheap Lab Coat"? - Casey Luskin - September 2010 http://www.idthefuture.com/2010/09/is_intelligent_design_creation.html bornagain77

Leave a Reply