Bachman: not teaching creationism is censorship

[Lamuella]

Originally Posted by randman

ID also is not a specific Judeo-Christian doctrine. Not sure where you get that from, but that's simply not true. It's neutral on the specifics of the Designer.

so why, if that's the case, does one of Intelligent Design's main proponents (William Dembski) say that "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."?

[randman]

Originally Posted by Lamuella

so why, if that's the case, does one of Intelligent Design's main proponents (William Dembski) say that "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."?

Because the idea that information is primary is a very old idea but one that has become popular in physics and also in Intelligent Design and information theory.

It'd be the same if the gospel of John were not written but I suppose if something is mentioned in the Bible, that means even if true, you must pretend otherwise in order to conduct real science???

[randman]

Some of you might have a point if all the school taught was creationism but since no one is advocating evolution not be taught in public schools at all, just that ID or creationism or other alternatives should be presented, your argument falls apart.

Can't be forcing religion on people when you are merely following the Constitution and allowing freedom. The whole idea of the first amendment is the State does not get to choose which beliefs are correct. The people themselves do that, and if a school board or community wants to teach an alternative alongside evolution, it's obscene to call that a violation of church and state and so turn the meaning of the free exercise and establishment clauses upside down.

The establishment and free exercise clauses were not designed to exclude religious ideas from science or anything else. They were designed to protect religion and religious ideas, not limit them.

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by randman

That's up to the schools, the local community, the school board, and the state to decide.

Local communities can decide by majority rule to brainwash my kid with lying propaganda in my public school? Don't think so.

[randman]

Quote:

My tax money going towards religious education is empirically the same thing as government establishing a state religion...

Nope. You got it completely backwards. The State has no right to exclude religious ideas and religious education in public schools. You can argue the State has the obligation perhaps to not engage in EXCLUSIVELY religious education in the sense of favoring one religion over another, but it's sheer stupidity to think someone can become educated and understand history, the world, and even English literature and not be educated on religion.

As far as science, the State has no right to say alternatives to evolution cannot be taught if they are based on or connected to religious ideas. The State is forbidden to disfavor religion and discriminate against religion. The first amendment says the State cannot "prohibit the free exercise" religion. Restricting religious-based hypotheses and ideas in science is point blank a violation because it prohibits the free exercise of religion.

And it cannot be an establishment of religion if evolution is still being taught. In fact, just teaching evolution and excluding by law any alternative has the effect of an establishment of secularism as a religion, and that's wrong.

Some religions are philosophies without a specific Deity. Science should not be made into a religion by trying to exclude religious-based hypotheses.

[randman]

Originally Posted by fishbob

Local communities can decide by majority rule to brainwash my kid with lying propaganda in my public school? Don't think so.

How is it brainwashing if they are also teaching evolution?

Oh, I get it. You want kids to be brainwashed (indoctrinated) by limiting alternatives.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by randman

How is brainwashing if they are also teaching evolution?

Oh, I get it. You want kids to be brainwashed (indoctrinated) by limiting alternatives.

Except ID isn't an alternative, it's hooey.

[randman]

Originally Posted by Resume

Except ID isn't an alternative, it's hooey.

That's your opinion but for this argument, it doesn't matter. What matters or should matter as far as the law is the State cannot discriminate against religion and that includes religious based ideas in science. Just is 100% forbidden by the first amendment.

Hopefully the Courts will return to a correct ruling like they have done in a limited way with the 2nd amendment.

ETA: you know evo theory is in trouble when it cannot stand on it's own and has to resort to the courts to silence alternatives.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by randman

How is it brainwashing if they are also teaching evolution?

Oh, I get it. You want kids to be brainwashed (indoctrinated) by limiting alternatives.

Evolution is not religion. ID is - it depends on a deity. Name a nonreligious competing theory to evolution and you have a case.

[Lamuella]

Originally Posted by randman

Because the idea that information is primary is a very old idea but one that has become popular in physics and also in Intelligent Design and information theory.

It'd be the same if the gospel of John were not written but I suppose if something is mentioned in the Bible, that means even if true, you must pretend otherwise in order to conduct real science???

the problem is that the gospel of John explicitly identifies the Word as being Christ:

Quote:

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.'"

John 1, 14-15

Additionally, Dembski was explicit in saying that he saw Intelligent Design as a Christian movement:

"If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient."

[Lamuella]

Originally Posted by randman

That's your opinion but for this argument, it doesn't matter. What matters or should matter as far as the law is the State cannot discriminate against religion and that includes religious based ideas in science. Just is 100% forbidden by the first amendment.

you're certainly entitled to that opinion, Randman. Unfortunately the people who make the laws, interpret the laws, and enforce the laws disagree with you and have done for a very long time. Oh well, have fun being "right".

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by randman

What matters or should matter as far as the law is the State cannot discriminate against religion and that includes religious based ideas in science.

Since the bolded part is an oxymoron, there's no discrimination possible. In science, a theory is evaluated on how useful an abstraction of reality it is. Intelligent design has been found to have no useful applications and no uses in codifying existing knowledge, and is therefore not taught in science classes because it has no merit. The theory of evolution by natural selection has been found to be one of the most powerful predictive tools available to the biological sciences, and is therefore universally taught in science classes because it has egregious merit. If people want to teach their unfounded beliefs, let them do so in comparitive religion classes; that's where creationism and intelligent design belong.

The state should, if it's behaving responsibly, at the very least advise strongly against intelligent design theory being taught as biological science in schools, not because it's religiously motivated, but because it's worthless. This is not censorship; it's just an attempt to apply design principles intelligently to the education system.

Dave

[Resume]

Originally Posted by randman

ETA: you know evo theory is in trouble when it cannot stand on it's own and has to resort to the courts to silence alternatives.

What alternatives? ID is creation hooey dressed in a suit. A clown suit with squirting flower.


It's over and the world is passing you by.

[Lamuella]

Originally Posted by LSSBB

Evolution is not religion. ID is - it depends on a deity. Name a nonreligious competing theory to evolution and you have a case.

that actually leads to a good secondary point.

Even if someone came up with a vertain of intelligent design that was 100% nonreligious (and the current version does not meet this definition, google "cdesign proponentsists" to see one reason why not), it still shouldn't be taught in science class because it is flat out wrong, and the overwhelming majority of both biologists and academic works on biology would demonstrate.

Lamarckism is a completely secular theory about the origin of species. No god is needed in its explanations. I wouldn't want it in science class except as an example of scientists being wrong.

[randman]

Doesn't matter one whit. Other IDers don't see it as Christian but hey, nothing wrong with seeing where science has begun to catch up with religion on certain ideas. That's to be expected.

Information-centric thinking is very biblical, and yes, the Logos is Christ which is very interesting when you think the Bible says all things exist and come into existence first through information (some physics are now saying the same thing) with the material aspect being secondary. Of course, the part about that information matrix itself being Christ Himself may be outside of what science can touch on, but the information being central is certainly valid science.

[randman]

Originally Posted by Lamuella

you're certainly entitled to that opinion, Randman. Unfortunately the people who make the laws, interpret the laws, and enforce the laws disagree with you and have done for a very long time. Oh well, have fun being "right".

Yea, and they used to say the right to bear arms was a collective right for a militia and overturned that and ruled it is an individual right.

I'd expect this to be overturned as well.

It really was just more about protecting minorities of other religious faiths and not the law. In other words, more a pragmatic ruling but times have changed. Now, it's religion being discriminated against in the classroom.

[randman]

Quote:

Lamarckism is a completely secular theory about the origin of species. No god is needed in its explanations. I wouldn't want it in science class except as an example of scientists being wrong

Lamarckism is taught in the classroom but taught as former discarded theory. NeoLamarckism is making an interesting comeback though with epigenetics.

[randman]

Originally Posted by LSSBB

Evolution is not religion. ID is - it depends on a deity. Name a nonreligious competing theory to evolution and you have a case.

I'd say it's become a religion and a matter of faith for many. Lots of religions don't have a deity per se.

[Lamuella]

Originally Posted by randman

I'd say it's become a religion and a matter of faith for many.

Then your definition of "religion" is both convoluted and utterly bloody ridiculous.

[Halfcentaur]

Originally Posted by randman

Imo, evos are the loons.

Says the person who believes there is a global conspiracy embedded within every nation on Earth to favor a scientific theory which is supposedly easily disproved, and now you're claiming secularists have somehow infiltrated the government to champion an agenda in a society where an atheist could not even run for office. If only someone had the courage to speak out against this conspiracy.

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by randman

How is it brainwashing if they are also teaching evolution?

Oh, I get it. You want kids to be brainwashed (indoctrinated) by limiting alternatives.

Science is supported by data, Creationism is not. You are proposing to indoctrinate kids with demonstrably false concepts - proposing to make science class into lying weaselry class. I would kind of would like to see your ideas put into practice in some limited area. Tracking the utter failure of the products of such an eduction would be an interesting, although tragic, experiment.

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

Oh, I get it. You want kids to be brainwashed (indoctrinated) by limiting alternatives.

Yes. Same way we teach heliocentric theory and flat earth theory along our current worldview. Same way we teach children that washing your hand works, and that it doesn't work.

Oh, wait. School's for learning. My bad. Evolution only, then.

Quote:

I'd say it's become a religion and a matter of faith for many.

How is this relevant? What if I believe that atomic theory is becoming a matter of faith for many? Or that believing that Hitler invaded Poland is becoming a religion? What does this matter?

[Resume]

Originally Posted by randman

I'd say it's become a religion

You'd be wrong.

[cwalner]

I have a challenge for you Randman:

Tell us what experiments can be done to verify or falsify the concept of ID. Tell us what predictions ID makes that are currently unverified.

Then convince the Discovery Institute to fund those experiments. Once the experiments are completed and they verify ID and a prediction of two comes true that it makes, then we will consider teaching it as science. Until then, it is not science and should not be taught as such.

[Cainkane1]

Originally Posted by LSSBB

You are muddying the waters between science and religion.

The only way you can unmuddy the waters is to keep the two separated. If you want to learn religion do it in sunday school.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by randman

I'd say it's become a religion and a matter of faith for many. Lots of religions don't have a deity per se.

You are free to say that. You would be wrong, for purposes of the separation of church and state. There are no supernatural aspects to the Theory of Evolution, there is no church backing it. Is supply-side economics a religion for purposes of the constitution? Many have faith in it. The New York Yankees? People have faith in them.

[randman]

Originally Posted by cwalner

I have a challenge for you Randman:

Tell us what experiments can be done to verify or falsify the concept of ID. Tell us what predictions ID makes that are currently unverified.

Then convince the Discovery Institute to fund those experiments. Once the experiments are completed and they verify ID and a prediction of two comes true that it makes, then we will consider teaching it as science. Until then, it is not science and should not be taught as such.

Guess you never read the Axe papers and many others. Not surprised. You also missed one branch of ID, though not necessarily so, predicting molecular studies would show greater genetic complexity with the earliest last common ancestors to plants and animals and last common metazoan ancestor. Evo predictions failed.

You also likely missed the prediction that so-called pseudo-genes would have a function. Evo predictions failed again.

How about epigenetics, predicted by some front loaders and men like Grasse that would be called IDers today. Evos failed again.

Just how often does mainstream evo theory have to fail and others be correct before we start admitting the truth here?

One disturbing thing about evos is their refusal to accept data until they think they can make it agree with them. The history of the view of the fossil record is a good example. Creationists, men that would be called IDers today and others for decades pointed out it didn't show phyletic gradualism; didn't show evolutionary transitions. Evos insisted it did, and yet contradicted themselves in saying the fossil record was too incomplete. So they held 2 different views at the same time depending on what they were arguing.

PE advocates came out and said, yep, no fine-grained transitions because of PE and had a heck of a time getting evos to accept the reality of the data in the fossil record, but when they did, they acted like no one had informed them all these years of the facts.

Imo, it's not real science because it ignores data and even promotes faked data in order to push an agenda.

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

The only way you can unmuddy the waters is to keep the two separated. If you want to learn religion do it in sunday school.

Agreed. However randman wants to make my kids learn his religion by turning our schools into mouthpieces of his religion.

[Shalamar]

Originally Posted by randman

Some of you might have a point if all the school taught was creationism but since no one is advocating evolution not be taught in public schools at all, just that ID or creationism or other alternatives should be presented, your argument falls apart.

Can't be forcing religion on people when you are merely following the Constitution and allowing freedom. The whole idea of the first amendment is the State does not get to choose which beliefs are correct. The people themselves do that, and if a school board or community wants to teach an alternative alongside evolution, it's obscene to call that a violation of church and state and so turn the meaning of the free exercise and establishment clauses upside down.

The establishment and free exercise clauses were not designed to exclude religious ideas from science or anything else. They were designed to protect religion and religious ideas, not limit them.

Lets that that is remotely true (It is not) How would a local school board decide what religion to teach? Unanimous? a mere majority of a vote? A decision based on the religion of whomever is in charge?

What if people attend the school who are NOT of that religion? why do their rights get trampled on? Are you advocating tyranny of the majority?

[Lamuella]

Originally Posted by randman

Guess you never read the Axe papers and many others. Not surprised. You also missed one branch of ID, though not necessarily so, predicting molecular studies would show greater genetic complexity with the earliest last common ancestors to plants and animals and last common metazoan ancestor. Evo predictions failed.

You also likely missed the prediction that so-called pseudo-genes would have a function. Evo predictions failed again.

How about epigenetics, predicted by some front loaders and men like Grasse that would be called IDers today. Evos failed again.

Just how often does mainstream evo theory have to fail and others be correct before we start admitting the truth here?

One disturbing thing about evos is their refusal to accept data until they think they can make it agree with them. The history of the view of the fossil record is a good example. Creationists, men that would be called IDers today and others for decades pointed out it didn't show phyletic gradualism; didn't show evolutionary transitions. Evos insisted it did, and yet contradicted themselves in saying the fossil record was too incomplete. So they held 2 different views at the same time depending on what they were arguing.

PE advocates came out and said, yep, no fine-grained transitions because of PE and had a heck of a time getting evos to accept the reality of the data in the fossil record, but when they did, they acted like no one had informed them all these years of the facts.

Imo, it's not real science because it ignores data and even promotes faked data in order to push an agenda.

that seems a lot more like vague criticism of evolutionary theory than like a scientific theory in its own right.

Setting evolution aside, can you explain to me the mechanism of how intelligent design works?

[randman]

Quote:

Are you advocating tyranny of the majority?

No, I think evos are. They control the levers of science in this area and use that to silence anyone else as much as they can.

Allowing alternative views to be presented is not tyranny. It's freedom.

[Dinwar]

The problem with viewing DNA as information is that it overextends the "code" metaphore. DNA is not, in any rational sense of the word, a code. For one thing, a code is a top-down system, where each piece is created by some entity. DNA is a bottom-up system, held together by numerous functionally independant pieces (by this I mean that it really makes no difference to the DNA mollecule's stability whether it's a T, A, C, or G in any given possition).

People who want to view DNA as a code, and who insist on treating it as such when studying evolution, forget that DNA is a molecule, and subject to the rules of thermodynamics like any other molecule. So long as the thermodynamics doesn't render something impossible, it can happen. And the process of DNA duplication is pretty complex in cells, allowing ample opportunity for errors.

Anyone who says that new information cannot be added is simply a fool who's revealing their own ignorance. Plants can absorb other plant genomes wholesale, bacteria can exchange DNA in ways that increase the total DNA, and there are numerous methods of adding DNA during cell division. Double-crossovers are a common one--they allow for duplication of genes, which in turn allows genes to evolve in ways that sidestep the whole fitness issue (unless a gene is expressed, it doesn't contribute at all to the survivla of the organism).

As for evolution as a matter of faith, for many it probably is. Most of science is taken on faith by many. However, that's irrelevant. Evolution has literally tonnes of evidence supporting it (I've got more than my fair share sitting on my desk right now), including innumerable transitional forms,biochemical evidence, fossil data, and even dozens of observed speciation events (go to YouTube and type in AronRa to see a pretty good introduction to the topic). The people who don't study evolution take it on faith--but those who DO study it DO know the hows, whys, and wherefores. Even if the average person accepts evolution for the same reason they accept religion, that doesn't make it non-scientific. It simply means that the average person doesn't want to study it. And in science uninformed opinions are meaningless.

Which, by the way, is why much of the ID and Creationist [but I repeat myself] literature is rejected--they don't take the time to learn what's already known about systems they describe. Take the eye, for example. It's insane to use that as an example of irreducible complexity because we have transitional forms for every stage from random clusters of light-sensitive cells to eyes that make ours look downright simple.

[Lamuella]

Originally Posted by randman

No, I think evos are. They control the levers of science in this area and use that to silence anyone else as much as they can.

Allowing alternative views to be presented is not tyranny. It's freedom.

"The levers of science"?

Why is it that the moment someone's crackpot ideas are rejected by scientific consensus they start to see science as a vast conspiracy?

[randman]

Originally Posted by Lamuella

that seems a lot more like vague criticism of evolutionary theory than like a scientific theory in its own right.

Setting evolution aside, can you explain to me the mechanism of how intelligent design works?

I could present my own view but that'd be a whole different thread. I think the mechanism is embedded within the universe and illustrated in quantum physics; and shows that the universe is fundamentally immaterial (informational) with so-called physical or material properties as a derived function of that.

The connections within entanglement, unless one wants to invoke a gazillion parallel universes, exists outside of what we think of as space and time since it works regardless of distance. Once you understand there is an informational realm governing behavior in space and time but that the realm is outside space and time, it gets a little easier to see how that can be used as an ID mechanism to introduce informational design directly into physical reality.

Another way to look at this is that particles are not first and foremost physical but informational. They exist as potentials for discrete physical form even when they have no discrete physical form. The physical universe arises from this informational matrix that underlies reality. We have observed information directing physical reality when we see particles behave either wave-like or particle-like based on the questions we ask of it, even when we ask those questions after the fact. What we can know about a particle determines what it is, which is one reason scientists say objective reality is violated. The reality of what the particle will be is partly dependent on what we ask; it's not in a definite fixed state regardless of our questions of it.

[randman]

Originally Posted by Lamuella

"The levers of science"?

Why is it that the moment someone's crackpot ideas are rejected by scientific consensus they start to see science as a vast conspiracy?

Um, when you litigate in court, it's silly to say it's a conspiracy theory. That's direct action by evos to prevent and silence dissent and alternate views in the classroom.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by randman

Allowing alternative views to be presented is not tyranny. It's freedom.

Yeah...the "freedom" to be ignorant.

Why should these "alternative views" be treated as valid, when they can not withstand scientific scrutiny?

[Lamuella]

Originally Posted by randman

I could present my own view but that'd be a whole different thread. I think the mechanism is embedded within the universe and illustrated in quantum physics; and shows that the universe is fundamentally immaterial (informational) with so-called physical or material properties as a derived function of that.

The connections within entanglement, unless one wants to invoke a gazillion parallel universes, exists outside of what we think of as space and time since it works regardless of distance. Once you understand there is an informational realm governing behavior in space and time but that the realm is outside space and time, it gets a little easier to see how that can be used as an ID mechanism to introduce informational design directly into physical reality.

Another way to look at this is that particles are not first and foremost physical but informational. They exist as potentials for discrete physical form even when they have no discrete physical form. The physical universe arises from this informational matrix that underlies reality. We have observed information directing physical reality when we see particles behave either wave-like or particle-like based on the questions we ask of it, even when we ask those questions after the fact. What we can know about a particle determines what it is, which is one reason scientists say objective reality is violated. The reality of what the particle will be is partly dependent on what we ask; it's not in a definite fixed state regardless of our questions of it.

OK, next step: Identify which parts of this make testable predictions.

Then design an experiment that tests these predictions.

Then conduct it.

Then publish the results.

See you back here once you're done.

[cwalner]

Originally Posted by randman

Guess you never read the Axe papers and many others. Not surprised. You also missed one branch of ID, though not necessarily so, predicting molecular studies would show greater genetic complexity with the earliest last common ancestors to plants and animals and last common metazoan ancestor. Evo predictions failed.

You also likely missed the prediction that so-called pseudo-genes would have a function. Evo predictions failed again.

How about epigenetics, predicted by some front loaders and men like Grasse that would be called IDers today. Evos failed again.

Just how often does mainstream evo theory have to fail and others be correct before we start admitting the truth here?

One disturbing thing about evos is their refusal to accept data until they think they can make it agree with them. The history of the view of the fossil record is a good example. Creationists, men that would be called IDers today and others for decades pointed out it didn't show phyletic gradualism; didn't show evolutionary transitions. Evos insisted it did, and yet contradicted themselves in saying the fossil record was too incomplete. So they held 2 different views at the same time depending on what they were arguing.

PE advocates came out and said, yep, no fine-grained transitions because of PE and had a heck of a time getting evos to accept the reality of the data in the fossil record, but when they did, they acted like no one had informed them all these years of the facts.

Imo, it's not real science because it ignores data and even promotes faked data in order to push an agenda.

none of which answers my challenge.

To simplify, how would one go about falsifying ID? What predictions does ID currently make that we don't yet know if true or not? What experiments would you propose to confirm/deny those predictions.

What I asked has nothing to do with whether ID is religious or not. It does not even have anything to do with whether it is correct or not. My questions have to do with whether ID is science or not. If it is not science, it does not belong in a science class.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by randman

...when you litigate in court...

Irrelevant...

Quote:

...it's silly to say it's a conspiracy theory. That's direct action by evos to prevent and silence dissent and alternate views in the classroom.

Alternative views are considered that FOR A REASON, so give it a rest.

No need for "conspiracies" about censorship.

[randman]

Originally Posted by Lamuella

OK, next step: Identify which parts of this make testable predictions.

Then design an experiment that tests these predictions.

Then conduct it.

Then publish the results.

See you back here once you're done.

How about the 2-slit experiment and the delayed-choice experiment and so many others. Already been done and published.

Of course, physicists don't necessarily always like to talk about applications for biology and ID is a loaded term but some still suggest these principles may hold the key to the origin of life.

Creationists also do experiments such as the experiments on sedimentation and research on boring showing sediment layers thought to be laid down vertically were laid down horizontally. That upsets the whole applecart and one reason some don't want to think too much about it.

The whole claim critics of mainstream evo theory don't do research or publish is specious. It's just another smear by those that want to avoid looking at the data.