How to sneak ID and creationism into the public schools

_{Salvador Cordova

August 5, 2006

Intelligent Design}

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

Teach Origin of Species Chapter 14!

…the first creature, the progenitor of innumerable extinct and living descendants, was created.
…
To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes…

Charles Darwin,
Origin of Species, Chapter 14

Then cite peer-reviewed articles at least partially supportive of Darwin’s thesis.

Then discuss that Darwin was considering the issue of multiple versus single special creations.

They admit that a multitude of forms, which till lately they themselves thought were special creations, and which are still thus looked at by the majority of naturalists…

Then discuss peer-reviewed literature supportive or disconfirming of universal common ancestry.

Instead of “teach the controversy” how about “teach Origin of Species“.

Or how about this sticker as a textbook disclaimer:

I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.

Charles Darwin

(Note: this post was not a serious strategy suggestion, but to highlight the irony of what can and can’t be taught in the USA’s public schools given the current political climate.)

Comments

"In fact, there is an institution of higher learning in the United States where students do learn science by reading the original texts (the Great Books program). ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s St. Johns College in Annapolis and Santa Fe. Try to find any great scientists who graduated from it. HereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._JohnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s_College,_U.S." That's unfair for a couple of reasons. First, St. John's has a strong liberal arts orientation - not many future great scientists are going to go there (though a young lady I was mentoring when she was a student there just got a full scholarship and research assistant position in physics at George Mason - look out, Salvador! ;) ). Second, it's a tiny school - my graduating class had 75 people in it. MIT probably graduates more students than that just counting astronomy majors. But admittedly the main topic of conversation when my mentee and I got together was the weaknesses of the St. John's science curriculum.KevinWParker_{August 5, 2006
August
08
Aug
5
05
2006
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT}

I am neither a Darwinian nor a fundamentalist and neither were any of my sources, some of the finest minds of two centuries. I am content. A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable," John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison_{August 5, 2006
August
08
Aug
5
05
2006
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT}

idnet.com.au, I understand your point, but I see it differently. Dennett was explicit that his belief lies in Darwinian evolution, not Darwin. There is, of course, a world of difference.Comrade_{August 5, 2006
August
08
Aug
5
05
2006
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

That a chromosomal fusion event in humans is predicted by the common descent hypothesis and has been verified to have occurred should not be debated by intelligent Intelligent Design Theorists. For one to believe in a fission event requires the abandonment of parsimony and ignorance of the molecular data. The information for this chromosomal fusion event has been in existance since the Creation, and was inevitable according to His will.HodorH_{August 5, 2006
August
08
Aug
5
05
2006
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

The UD reference for the above is https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1165idnet.com.au_{August 5, 2006
August
08
Aug
5
05
2006
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

Comrade wrote "you ought not to call people who believe in evolution Ã¢â‚¬Å“Darwinists.Ã¢â‚¬Â I doubt anyone considers him- or herself a Ã¢â‚¬Å“follower of DarwinÃ¢â‚¬Â the way Christians are supposed to be followers of Christ. ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s why this quote is irrelevant." From UD earlier this year see the following directly contradict your statement. Daniel Dennett in March 2006 "The late Steve Gould was really right when he called Richard (Dawkins) and me Darwinian fundamentalists. And I want to say what a Darwinian fundamentalist is. A Darwinian fundamentalist is one who recognizes that either you shun Darwinian evolution altogether, or you turn the traditional universe upside down and you accept that mind, meaning, and purpose are not the cause but the fairly recent effects of the mechanistic mill of Darwinian algorithms. It is the unexceptioned view that mind, meaning, and purpose are not the original driving engines, but recent effects that marks, I think, the true Darwinian fundamentalist." There are plenty of Darwinian fundos out there. It is Darwin who after all "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" Dawkins. If they don't follow Darwin, who are they following? In essence, they all subscribe to Random Mutation and Natural Selection as the ultimate origin of all biological complexity. In fact they are even more extreme than Darwin who evidently thought an act of creation was necessary to start the whole thing off.idnet.com.au_{August 5, 2006
August
08
Aug
5
05
2006
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

I was trying to find that link to Luskin's info. on this matter. From my reading, even some Darwinists aren't sure. Most seem to think it was a fusion event from apes to humans. Others seem to think a fission event took place in apes before the rise of humans. Still others think it possible that there were numerous independent splits from 46 total to 48 within apes (chimps, orangs, etc.) Probability shows that this last one is the least likely, though we're told of supposed convergences ALL of the time.JasonTheGreek_{August 5, 2006
August
08
Aug
5
05
2006
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1392 *gingerly tiptoes out of discussion.Scott_{August 5, 2006
August
08
Aug
5
05
2006
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

This is why you ought not to call people who believe in evolution "Darwinists." I doubt anyone considers him- or herself a "follower of Darwin" the way Christians are supposed to be followers of Christ. That's why this quote is irrelevant. Oh, and Olegt--I went to St. John's in Santa Fe for a year and I can confirm that the science program is fairly awful as such. It makes a pretty good history of science program, though.Comrade_{August 5, 2006
August
08
Aug
5
05
2006
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

Jason Yes, we are sure. The homologous genes and broken chromosome markers are right where they should be. Argue that it's part of preloading if you will, but it's there. You and Bobo the chimp are distant cousins. And no, your analogy about the Cubs is wrong on two points. 1: They're not a great team :) ; and 2: These predictions are about future events - about what we will find. It's very much different from making a statement about what we already know. See http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.htmlMikeFNQ_{August 5, 2006
August
08
Aug
5
05
2006
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

While Einstein may have been wrong about quantum physics, he lived and died a strict determinist and so will I. Quantum physics has absolutely nothing to do with anything except quantum physics and chemical reaction kinetics. It certainly has no application in either ontogeny or phylogeny. Neither of these will ever prove to be intrinsic in the nature of matter. Trust me but of course you won't which is fine too. Otherwise this forum would not exist. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." John A. DavisonJohn A. Davison_{August 5, 2006
August
08
Aug
5
05
2006
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

The reason Darwin's book is not used in biology classes is bkz of the gross mistakes it has in there. Strangely enough, there are still Darwinists who preach that "Darwin was mostly right"Mats_{August 5, 2006
August
08
Aug
5
05
2006
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

As well- the whole chimp/human dna fusion event has 2 issues. 1. We're not totally sure this is the case. It looks as if it MIGHT be the case, but we're not sure. and 2. A prediction is made BEFORE an event. PRE-diction. Claiming that we should see some similarities between chimps and people and then claiming that this came true via a POSSIBLE fusion event is nonsense. That's no more a prediction than- "the Cubs are a great team." and after the World Series- "see, I said the Cubs are a great team...I predicted a world series win." That and even IF there was a fusion event, no way we know (as of yet) WHEN it took place...whether it was before or after the break from the supposed LUCA of both, etc. That and we could also see that event and conclude design. We could use car designs as an example. I'm sure there are many newer cars that have improvements on older designs which, to the outside viewer, COULD look like accidents (fusion events of 2 designs).JasonTheGreek_{August 5, 2006
August
08
Aug
5
05
2006
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT}

We don't use Darwin exactly as he originally stated it (we actually do for the most part)...does that mean that ID is okay and ISN'T merely warmed over creationism? The quote aboves looks like creationism to me- maybe NEOdarwinism is a trick to get theology into the schools! Put neo at the front and hide it's true nature. Sneaky Fundies and their NEODarwinism! Of course there's a big fat double standard. Darwin, of course, is almost a saint among many scientists. Heck- I saw a magazine article the other day that actually had a halo around Darwin in the sky. It was, of course, symbolic of the debate, but still- I believe many see him as a saint. Hardcore atheists (Dawkins immediately comes to mind) surely see him in that light. We should point out that Dawkins himself holds a very prominent position, though is a poor scientist overall. I don't see how showing how a lack of popular, well-known scientists from a particular school equals a bad school. Heck- we have guys supporting infanticide who hold powerful positions in the best known schools in the US. So, let's not pretend that's an indication of ANYTHING.JasonTheGreek_{August 5, 2006
August
08
Aug
5
05
2006
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

Joseph Predictions don't have to be of the nature "Species X will next evolve into Species Y", they can also be of "If we investigate a certain subject, this is what we will find". For example with the conclusion of the Human and Chimp Genome Projects we have confirmed that one of the Human Chromosomes (#2) is two Chimp chromosomes fused together, as predicted. Other examples would be predictions that we will find certain fossils in certain rocks, that we will observe certain similarities between certain organisms, etc.MikeFNQ_{August 5, 2006
August
08
Aug
5
05
2006
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

scordova, Your point is well taken. But the original Darwin is not used in the classroom for an entirely different reason, to which I alluded in my first post. Science is not a dead scroll, it changes all the time. It just doesn't make sense to use a textbook that is more than 100 years old. In the same way, physics textbooks don't simply copy and paste from Newton's Principia. Not because Newton was a deeply religious person, but simply because the original text is pretty dense, the notation is not particularly good, the units have changed, the math has improved, etc. etc. In fact, there is an institution of higher learning in the United States where students do learn science by reading the original texts (the Great Books program). It's St. Johns College in Annapolis and Santa Fe. Try to find any great scientists who graduated from it. Here's the Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._John's_College,_U.S.olegt_{August 5, 2006
August
08
Aug
5
05
2006
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

Olegt, You're missing the point of the post which I mentioned:
this post was not a serious strategy suggestion, but to highlight the irony of what can and canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be taught in the USAÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s public schools given the current political climate.
The irony is Darwin's book can't be taught in science classes because of it's supposed theological content.scordova_{August 5, 2006
August
08
Aug
5
05
2006
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

Olegt: Why? Because its predictions have been confirmed experimentally. What predictions does evolutionism make and how have they been confirmed experimentally? Please keep in mind that "there is no way to predict waht will be selected for at any point in time" (Dan Dennett). To further Sal's point- what would the ACLU say if biology teachers just read the following from Darwin (6th edition):
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Quantam Mechanics- Max Planck:
"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of the atom together . . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind."
Joseph_{August 5, 2006
August
08
Aug
5
05
2006
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

Cordova, It's a silly argument, in my view. You make it sound as if Charles Darwin is the most authoritative source on contemporary biology and that with a single quote from him you can turn the scientific world upside down. No way! Let me give you a well-known example from physics. Einstein was very unhappy with quantum mechanics. You probably know the quote about God and dice. But Einstein is dead and quantum theory is alive and well. Why? Because its predictions have been confirmed experimentally. And no amount of quote mining will change that.olegt_{August 5, 2006
August
08
Aug
5
05
2006
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply