14 thoughts on “Bush Want's God's Hands on Schoolbooks”

  1. Craig Anthony says:

    I disagree … “intelligent design” may be considered a HISTORICAL SCIENCE viewpoint. It is based on the teachings of the Bible – based on documented history.

    For example, in the case of Julius Ceasar, you only know that he existed because of HISTORICAL SCIENCE. You can’t see a picture of him, you can’t study his bones, you can prove that he ever existed … but you believe that he DID exist. Right?

  2. Tristan says:

    Craig, that only works if it’s taught as “this is, historically, what some people thought about how we were created.” Any other way is just religious teaching in schools, which is not acceptable in any way.

    Caesar did exist, but we’re talking about “intelligent design,” an idea, not a person, whose _validity_ (if not its existence) can certainly be disputed.

    Douglas Adams (author of the Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy) had the definitive word on this I believe. Essentially, he said that God used to be the ultimate explanation for everything — when looking at the world, seeminginly made for us, we had to assume that some higher intelligent power designed it just to explain it all. We had no other explanation. Today, we have brilliantly simple and wonderful explanations for nearly everything in the world; evolution, physics, biology — _science_. Today, an _intelligent creator_ is what needs a lot of explanation and faith and belief. It’s backwards these days, and backwards isn’t usually what we teach in schools.

    Joen’s completely right. It’s a new level of stupidity.

  3. Craig Anthony says:

    It boils down to whether or not you believe the Bible … which, I do. If you don’t believe the Bible, what I say won’t make any sense in the scientific realm.

    In my humble opinion it requires more faith to believe the theory of evolution than it does to believe in a Creator.

    Thanks for the discussion. Again, however, I must repsectfully disagree.

  4. Robert says:

    I suppose many evolutionists don’t mind that text books today are floating around wtih falsified information in them. Ones that have been falsified for over 50-100 years.

    If one actually goes back into history when evolution first fought to be introduced into the teaching of public schools, its foundation was that there should be an alternate view point taught. Since, they believed that Creation was not correct, they said you cannot teach something you are not 100% sure about. Yet, today evolution is taught with falsified information.

    The theory of evolution, or more precise, common descent, is just a guess at best. Yet, it is taught as if it is a fact.

    If the scientific community was not worried about its own theory, it would have showed up to debate intelligent design scientists, it wouldn’t mind competing theories, and it wouldn’t mind it being challenged in the public arena. Instead, they have been sueing intelligent design scientists over the issue.

    Personally, evolutionists know their theory is a lost cause.

  5. Joen says:

    Craig, I respect people who can agree to disagree. Tolerating other people’s opinion is something this world could use a whole lot more of.

    That said, the responses to this single entry scares me. It proves my fear that this opinion of teaching “Intelligent Design” (henceforth _ID_) alongside evolution is not held by George W. Bush alone. The reason it scares me is that I find it so far fetched that anyone can even _think_ of teaching the idea of ID and the theory of evolution side by side in _schoolbooks_!

    I’ll elaborate, but first some definitions.

    Google defines *science* as the following:

    bq. Science is a process for evaluating empirical knowledge (the scientific method)

    That means evaluating all known information. This can be used to form a theory:

    bq. a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; “theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses”; “true in fact and theory”

    Now the reason I bring up these two definitions is because it seems to have been forgotten what exactly a theory is. Evolution is not taught as a fact; it is taught because it’s the best theory around, explaining the origin of mankind. If a superior theory comes along, that theory should be taught alongside the theory of evolution, and the two should be discussed in class.

    ID is not a theory.

    From Wikipedia:

    bq. Intelligent design (ID) is the assertion that empirical evidence supports the conclusion that the initial life on earth, and perhaps some of its present details, was deliberately designed by one or more intelligent agents; additionally, or alternately, it may include the idea that different empirical evidence supports a similar conclusion regarding the universe itself.

    First of all, ID is not a _well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world_. It is an _idea_ spawned in the mind of a person with faith who believes life is too complex to have evolved from apes.

    Secondly, it is not _accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena_. In fact, it doesn’t _explain_ anything. It removes the explanation, and simply says “magic!”.

    Hence, the discussion is whether a _religious viewpoint_ should be taught alongside a _scientific viewpoint_.

    In Denmark, where I come from, we had a hour of “religion” class every week from I was 12 til I was 15 (as far as I remember). It taught us about Hinduism, Christianity, Catholicism, Buddhism, Islam, and all the other religions. It told us each of those religions view on evolution, and of those religion’s stories of how the earth, the sky and people were created.

    It was not taught in biology, where we instead learned about Charles Darwin’s theory of Evolution.

    This is how it’s supposed to be. To be honest, I can’t even imagine why ID should be taught in any other class than religion. What would be next? The creation of the universe? Should we learn in Astronomy class that God created the earth and the stars 4000 years ago, and the next day learn the opposing viewpoint that God *could not* have created the stars 4000 years ago because we can see the light from stars that are 5000 light years away?

    You are welcome to believe in ID. In fact, I will admit that I cannot prove you wrong, and that you _might actually be right_. But people must accept that religious viewpoints should be taught in _Religion class_, and scientific theories such as evolution should be taught in _Biology class_.

    I will try and end this on a lighter note, by quoting a Calvin and Hobbes comic:

    *Calvin*: Do you believe in evolution?
    *Hobbes*: No.
    *Calvin*: You don’t believe humans evolved from monkeys?
    *Hobbes*: *I* sure don’t see any difference.

  6. Tristan says:

    Thank you, Joen, for that wonderfully intelligent explanation.

    Personally, I’m tired of agreeing to disagree. I’m not going to say “okay, you’re viewpoint is just as valid as mine” anymore, because it’s not. If I told someone the moon was made of rock, and they said “No it’s not. It’s made of Vermont Cheddar, and you’ve never been there or seen it, so my theory that it’s made of cheese is just as valid as yours that it’s made of rock,” then I would say, “Um, sorry. No. You’re an idiot. We’ve got some pretty good science that says it’s made of rock, and it trumps your belief that it’s made of cheese, and just because it’s a belief doesn’t mean I can’t challenge it.”

    Beliefs go unchallenged these days, and that’s accepted for some reason because of some unwritten law that says that we don’t question each other’s beliefs. It takes great intelligence and insight to be able to cast away belief; to know that there is no such thing as absolute truth, and to be able to shift your thoughts based on what makes the most sense given the evidence you have and a lot of people thinking really hard about it.

    No one believes in evolution. It’s just a _really good explanation_ for why things are the way they are, and it makes a _lot_ of sense. If some better explanation came along, then we would use it instead. We’re not stuck on evolution because we believe in it.

    Intelligent Design is the opposite — it’s based on beliefs — mythology and completely unchallengable ideas that have no scientific, logical, thoughtful, rational, or sensical merit. People _believe_ in ID, and they do so without questioning it or thinking about it logically. It needs no explanation because it “just is” and that’s the way it is. To speak out against its believers would be opression of beliefs; taboo and shunned. So it has no proof, it doesn’t make sense unless you “just believe” or “have faith”, and it’s attached to only one set of views, which are unchallengable and unchangable. I’m sorry, that just doesn’t fly with most intelligent people.

    If you don’t understand the beauty of evolution — that such complex organisms capable of complex thought could arise from such simple beginnings shaped by their environment and the randomness around them — then it’s your loss, and I pity you. The understanding of _how much it makes sense_ is better than any religious experience anyone could ever have.

    _I apologize if I’ve sparked something bad, and I encourage all not to get into a heated discussion and to remain rational and calm._

  7. Joen says:

    Tristan,

    I totally agree, on some subjects we (as a society) are too touchy and taboo.

    What I meant by agreeing to disagree, is that too few are able to, and are simply adamant in their opinion, right or wrong. Being able to agree to disagree, truly, is in my experience the first step towards agreeing. Or in other words, words are not futile.

  8. Tristan says:

    Very much agree, Joen. In a way, I hope I got that sentiment in my previous post — that it’s smart to be able to change your views, even about someone else’s views. If you can come to the conclusion that neither party can change their stance, then it’s usually good to avoid hostility and cool it down and find some common ground on some other subject. I’ve kept many friends that way.

  9. Chris says:

    I don’t know how to approach this quite right. Joen, folks in America believe this sort of thing to their core. What I can’t believe is that you didn’t know that.

    You thought you had a reason to fear us before? Ha! Pales in comparison to the sudden realization that most Americans are just as big a bunch of religious zealots as the people in the islamic terrorist world. Only Christian zealots are even crazier.

  10. Chris, and even worse; ostensibly much more palatable to the western world.

    As long as they keep it inside.

  11. Chris says:

    Chris, and even worse; ostensibly much more palatable to the western world.

    As long as they keep it inside.

    The thing is, I prefer that I know extermist islamists want me wiped off the earth. They’re very clear about that. Extremist Christians want the same thing, they just never admit it.

  12. Joen says:

    The thing is, I prefer that I know extermist islamists want me wiped off the earth. They?re very clear about that. Extremist Christians want the same thing, they just never admit it.

    Good point. Shocking also.

    Now I have to wonder whether I prefer a sea of holy fire to a glistening glass paradise.

  13. Joen says:

    Related note: Google AdSense is hilarious at times. Unless you’ve adblocked it (which I have no problem with), you’ll see Google ads below articles. One “contextual” ad for this article linked to http://thercg.org (The Real Church of God).

    Some pretty funny books available there… Just lookie here:

    http://thercg.org/topic-salvation.html

Comments are closed.