Another Response to my Letter to Editor

[Guest foolfromms]

I have yet another response to my letter stating Intelligent Design is Pseudoscience printed in my local paper August 6.

 

The first rebuttal to my letter was the subject of another thread. The following is a second rebuttal letter I would like suggestions to respond with, or feel free to respond yourself.

 

William

 

Rebuttal to Editoral by William Wallace

 

Evolution is just a theory

 

William Wallace ("Intelligent design is pseudoscience," Aug. 6) went ballistic over President Bush's endorsement of teaching intelligent design in public schools, mischaracterizing ID as "pseudoscience."

Why is he so scared?

 

First, the president did not recommend that teaching evolution be banned in public schools, merely that ID ought to be taught as well. Bush said, "I think part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought." Don't academics purport to champion free and open inquiry?

 

Second, Wallace says that ID has no scientific basis and should not be taught alongside "real theories," such as evolution. This is an oxymoron. The American Heritage Dictionary defines "real" as "being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence." It defines "theory" as "an assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture." So is evolution real or theoretical?

 

Third, Mr. Wallace challenges readers to submit evidence "proving intelligent design," as though evolution is a proven fact. But even scientists agree that key tenets of evolutionary theory are false. The first false idea in the theory is that non-organic matter can transform itself into organic matter. Pasteur proved that was impossible. Second, the enormous complexity of organic matter precludes accidental creation. How can evolution explain the creation of DNA? The natural laws of physics and chemistry imply the existence of a lawmaker.

 

If the "science" of Darwinism is so unassailable, why does Mr. Wallace vigorously resist subjecting it to academic scrutiny by scientists who question its validity? His real concern is not for scientific integrity, but that ID is a Trojan horse for sneaking biblical creationism back into the schools. Heaven forbid!

 

John Hanbury,

 

Hattiesburg

[Valgeir]

The first false idea in the theory is that non-organic matter can transform itself into organic matter. Pasteur proved that was impossible. Second, the enormous complexity of organic matter precludes accidental creation. How can evolution explain the creation of DNA? The natural laws of physics and chemistry imply the existence of a lawmaker.

 

I'm only gonna say one thing, because the more I talk the more likely it is that my head'll explode. ABIOGENESIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION. Drill that fact into this guy's head. Also, he obviously knows nothing of the current theory of abiogenesis- Pasteur proved that maggots wouldn't magically form from rotten meat, THAT'S ALL. The current theory of abiogenesis has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OLD BELIEF, WHICH WAS REJECTED OVER A CENTURY AGO. Make sure you tell this dumbass that. You might also want to point out that the old theory of abiogenesis that Pasteur disproved was also believed by Christians.

[MrSpooky]

A major problem is that Wallace here jumps all over the place. He goes to attach the fossil record, makes appeals to authority, then the hominids, blah blah blah.

 

If you want the public to understand you, you're going to have to do a couple things. First, you're going to have to reduce your rebuttals to be as simple and condensed as you possibly can. If you don't, either you won't be published, or the readers will only give your piece a passing glance.

 

For example, Neil's "Shroud of Turin" rebuttal is a great piece. Use it to elaborate a bit more on how a single hoax doesn't disprove an entire field. Rather, it is the field's response to inevitable mistakes that defines its veracity. With this, you can simplify the rebuttal to hominid hoaxes in a SINGLE PARAGRAPH, three or four sentences AT MOST.

 

Second, strike back. I've already mentioned you should devote a little more time to the very FOUNDATION of the Evolution-ID debate, which is to attack ID on its poor philosophical grounds. Spend half of your editorial to do this so you can have a more cohesive, identifiable position. You don't want to bounce around in a confused manner that your opponent does. One powerful stroke can best a host of weak prods.

[Samurai Tailor]

My suggestion:

 

In response to the letter from John Hanbury, I would just like to say...

 

You might take our science, but you'll never take our FREEEEDOOOOOOOOOOOMMM!!

 

Sincerely,

William Wallace

[Mr. Neil]

Evolution is just a theory

So is gravity. So is every other theory in science.

 

This link should help you out with a lot of this guy's nonsense...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

 

William Wallace ("Intelligent design is pseudoscience," Aug. 6) went ballistic over President Bush's endorsement of teaching intelligent design in public schools, mischaracterizing ID as "pseudoscience."

Why is he so scared?

 

First, the president did not recommend that teaching evolution be banned in public schools, merely that ID ought to be taught as well. Bush said, "I think part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought." Don't academics purport to champion free and open inquiry?

True, he's not advocating for removal of evolution, but what he's trying to do is just as bad. He's trying to masquerade the topic as a fairness issue under the guise of "teach both ideas and let the children choose."

 

This is an extremely disingenuous way of characterizing the issue, because this is absolutely not a fairness issue. Creationism has never demonstrated any scientific validity and therefore does not belong in a science classroom.

 

Furthermore, creationism actually ignores a lot of data, such as the existence of pseudogenes in DNA and angular unconformities in rock strata. Neither one of these can be explained with creationism without strenuous ad hoc rationalizations.

 

You don't put bad ideas in a science classroom and call it science. You wouldn't put alchemy in a chemistry course, you wouldn't put astrology in with astronomy, and you don't put creationism in a biology class. It's wrong. It doesn't belong there. It's not science.

 

Second, Wallace says that ID has no scientific basis and should not be taught alongside "real theories," such as evolution. This is an oxymoron. The American Heritage Dictionary defines "real" as "being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence." It defines "theory" as "an assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture." So is evolution real or theoretical?

A desperate twisting of words. The term "real theory" refers to an assumption based on limited information as opposed to an assumption which is based on useless conjecture or no data at all.

 

I'm astonished that this idiot would try such a lame tactic.

 

Third, Mr. Wallace challenges readers to submit evidence "proving intelligent design," as though evolution is a proven fact. But even scientists agree that key tenets of evolutionary theory are false. The first false idea in the theory is that non-organic matter can transform itself into organic matter. Pasteur proved that was impossible. Second, the enormous complexity of organic matter precludes accidental creation. How can evolution explain the creation of DNA? The natural laws of physics and chemistry imply the existence of a lawmaker.

Someone already mentioned this, but this idiot is mixing two different ideas; the modern theory of abiogenesis (i.e., prebiotic replicators becoming biotic compounds) and the completely falsified idea of spontaneous generation, in which scummy, rotten things turn into flies, bugs, frogs, and other life forms which, at the time, people didn't know from where these things came.

 

Pasteur did not disprove abiogenesis. He disproved that fully-formed complex life forms came from non-life.

 

If the "science" of Darwinism is so unassailable, why does Mr. Wallace vigorously resist subjecting it to academic scrutiny by scientists who question its validity? His real concern is not for scientific integrity, but that ID is a Trojan horse for sneaking biblical creationism back into the schools. Heaven forbid!

Every theory of science, including evolution, is subjected to vigorous acedemic scrutiny every day. All theories are constantly put to daily tests. The only theories in science that aren't being tested daily are those that have already been disproven.

 

What this idiot seems to be unaware of is that acedemic scrutiny does not mean doubt. It means subjecting them to battery of tests, whether making predictions about mutations or what humans will discover in DNA evidence. The theory of evolution has withstood the scrutiny and stands as one of the most successful theories in scientific history.

[Guest Joseph]

We are not afraid of ID, we are afraid of the influx of non-scientifc disproven ideas into a science class which give such ideas much more power than they deserve. It would be like trying to add astrology to astronomy and not being capable of seeing the utter lunacy in doing such. Mixing a scientific method, evidence driven science with utter crack-pot blind faith based metaphysics which have no application in real world except for those that would be servant their daily horoscopes because they will not question the source of such data outright through enculturational brainwashing.

 

[the quote function has a limit, thus my use of BOLD.]

 

First, the president did not recommend that teaching evolution be banned in public schools, merely that ID ought to be taught as well. Bush said, "I think part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought." Don't academics purport to champion free and open inquiry?

 

Actually, academics has been a champion of free and open inquiry from the get go. Religion has however always been a hinderance up through the ages including one of mankind's slowest progressive times, the Dark Ages, when theocractical rule was the way of life. You can look at the example of Galileo's trial by the church for [his] simply presenting to the world scientific evidence that the biblical record was at fault in its description of an Earth-centric universe (and his house imprisonment for saying so) while demonstrating quite clearly that we have a Sol centred universe.

 

It is all about what the powerful and influential will do to scientific minds in the future, and attempting to train children to trust in blindfaith instead of evidence driven science, or teaching them to adopt a skeptical mindset is not easily taught in a science class inwhich on one hand you are blindly saying that "God did it" while on the other are demonstrating the biological processes and how they are tied to natural happenings and that all life evolves/adapts over time. Such things are not taught together because they do not belong together. The skeptical mind is hard enough to instill in our youth which are brainwashed from the womb to believe without question in their church, leaders, government, etc. Even harder is to teach them to question in the youth mills we call highschools today. To mix into this horror story a faith-based ideology taught under the guise of a "science" without demonstrated evidence is to do nothing more than a pure injustice to those that come after us.

 

Second, Wallace says that ID has no scientific basis and should not be taught alongside "real theories," such as evolution. This is an oxymoron. The American Heritage Dictionary defines "real" as "being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence." It defines "theory" as "an assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture." So is evolution real or theoretical?

 

Use this sentence for this one, the author was perfect in saying this:

 

Mr. Neil:

A desperate twisting of words. The term "real theory" refers to an assumption based on limited information as opposed to an assumption which is based on useless conjecture or no data at all.

 

I'm astonished that this idiot would try such a lame tactic.

 

Third, Mr. Wallace challenges readers to submit evidence "proving intelligent design," as though evolution is a proven fact.

 

Evolution is a demonstrated fact. Theory and fact are not opposed nor do they conflict in meaning. This is a common attempt by the faithful, and is nothing but wordgames. Reference this:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

 

I thought evolution was just a theory. Why do you call it a fact?

 

Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory.

 

See the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

...the Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

and the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ: Evolution is Only a theory:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-miscon...ions.html#proof

 

But even scientists agree that key tenets of evolutionary theory are false.

 

Make him, require him to offer a single quote backing such a moronic claim. Must include a cited source and the college the "scientist" comes from and graduated from.

 

The first false idea in the theory is that non-organic matter can transform itself into organic matter.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-miscon...ions.html#proof

 

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

 

Please let this moron know, from the rest of us, that abiogenesis is NOT evolution.

 

Pasteur proved that was impossible.

 

Pasteur did nothing but perfect the art of sterilization. He did not demonstrate that inorganic to organic did not take place.

 

Second, the enormous complexity of organic matter precludes accidental creation.

 

This is of course, stupidity and I would not even really common except to say it gives me a huge reason to laugh at the guy. Snowflakes and various other naturally created "entities" are highly complex. Ask the guy if his particular fairy creates snowflakes or if they are generated naturally.

 

How can evolution explain the creation of DNA?

 

Once again, this is a false question.

Evolution does not involve the creation of DNA.

Abiolgenesis does and that is for another topic/subject/thread/argumentation altogether.

 

The natural laws of physics and chemistry imply the existence of a lawmaker.

 

Laws of physics require a lawmaker! You are correct. A human sat down, observed nature, and wrote a law about the actions discovered in nature and the natural processes. There is however no demonstration that there was nor is something that exists which controls nor generates the actions found within nature except natural sources of very real chemical, biological, or force particle generation. The "lawmakers" are mankind in our attempt to address the mechanical world through our language system, nothing more. The qualities existing within the natural world are not so much laws with the more we learn, in fact for various human understandings about our environment or space-time there is very likely an exception to human made rules. Is light a wave or particle for instance?

 

If the "science" of Darwinism is so unassailable, why does Mr. Wallace vigorously resist subjecting it to academic scrutiny by scientists who question its validity?

 

Evolutionary theory is perhaps one of the more investigated theories of our day. It is testable on various levels including DNA/genetics, fossil record, comparitive genetic histories of similiar species, outside genetic influences (adoption of viri by ancestors of a given species), and of course we have the same flawed sections of DNA that our ancestors have (including other primates) which leads us once again back to the idea/theory of a common ancestor. Thus the actual and evidence driven science of evolutionary theory is constantly being tested while the idea of Intelligent Design gives us but one single phrase "God did it." It does not lead to developments of genetic medicine, learning of our genetic historys, learning new ways to fight infectious diseases which have very strange evolutionary histories (such as the cause of milaria), nor does it generate within mankind a sense to be skeptical, which is exceptionally important or we would still be burning witches at the stake and killing animals for sacrifices to respective deities so it would rain or we would have salvation and not be tormented forever by a god of love because we wouldn't believe upon his murdered son.

 

His real concern is not for scientific integrity, but that ID is a Trojan horse for sneaking biblical creationism back into the schools. Heaven forbid!

 

John Hanbury,

 

Hattiesburg

 

Not so much heaven forbid, but of course this trojan horse is a backdoor methodology for putting anicent mythos back into science classes under the idea of "fairness of treatment." The problem is that in the grand scheme of things there is no greater lie than the ancient ideas passed down by our ancestors who would not question simply because they were taught not to. In our day we have learned to question everything and everyone so as to not be servant to lies, and in doing so we have removed such ancient ideas to their rightful place...churches, synogogues, mosques, et al. And in such places the youth of their respective culture can be brainwashed into whatever that particular sectation deems they wish to be servant to. The problem is when the majority of a social structure attempt to place their particular ideas (unproven and undemonstrated) upon the populace as a whole, and at such a point all skeptical minds must fight hard to preserve the freedoms and liberties granted to us over the past few centuries by men who were not afraid to fight for freedoms we all take for granted.

 

I have nothing against another man's idea about Intelligent Design, in fact I leave open the idea as it is not demonstrated either way. However, when that person attempts to place their ideas within a classroom and represent them as science we have a huge problem. Those making a given claim must first demonstrate that claim and then it can be taught, until then they are merely yelling "witch" and hoping for mob mentality to take over in an attempt to claim freedoms are being quashed which is of course a red herring.

 

Carl Sagan, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

[MrSpooky]

And think about it... ID proponents are probably masturbating to this bullshit as we speak.

 

EDIT: Well... except the Mormons. And JWs.

[MrSpooky]

Okay, another piece of advice... DO NOT try to address both replies at once.

 

You want to keep each response as clear as possible.

[MrSpooky]

Here is how I would respond to Hanbury....

 

 

 

If we are to have a society well-educated in science, we must teach fact, not fiction.  Schools must have the highest academic standards to teach students how to distinguish between the two.  This is why we do not teach astrology in astrophysics classes, or alchemy in chemistry classes, and today, we must also reject creationism and intelligent design.

 

While it certainly feels fair to include any and all viewpoints on a given topic, established and fully empirical facts aren't subject to negotiation.  No amount of votes will change the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun.

 

Despite what Mr. Hanbury would have you believe, scientists are NOT afraid of subjecting previously established facts and theories to objective inquiry.  What scientists ARE afraid of is the dilution of science with a pattern of misrepresentation, ignorance, and dishonesty.

 

When practiced habitually, it is these qualities which are fatal to the validity of any study. 

 

For example, Hanbury argues that a theory is "an assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."  While this is true in normal everyday discourse, scientific inquiry is not everyday discourse.  Just as philosophers have a definition of "rational" that does not conform to common speech ("rational" means "true by the definition of the concept, a priori"), so does science have such a definition for "theory," which is, roughly, "a thoroughly supported explanation of observations."  Hanbury here perpetuates misrepresentation.

 

Secondly, Hanbury argues that Pasteur disproved abiogenesis, the concept that cellular life can arise from pre-biotic chemicals.  This is wholly false.  Pasteur's experiments disproved "spontaneous generation," which was the belief that mice can suddenly sport from bales of hay, or that maggots can suddenly spring out of meat.  Without realizing this key difference, Hanbury demonstrates a terrible ignorance of basic biology.

 

These facts are out there, on any reputable website or science textbook, and have been for many years.  And yet Hanbury was able to acquire them from Creationist and ID sources.  It is unbelievable that such sources would dole out this tripe unknowingly, and thus one can only conclude that such sources are dishonest.

 

It by Hanbury's terribly flawed arguments that demonstrate the critical need for stricter academic standards.  If members of the public such as Hanbury cannot distinguish truth from falsehood, it is the fault of the educators for not weeding out such fallacies beforehand.

 

If this is the best the Creationist camp has to offer (and I have found few Creationist arguments that are either factual or relevant), we must not allow Creationism to sully our science classrooms any more than we can allow Alchemists or Astrologers.

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT:

 

There. It is...

 

1. Short and to the point

2. Addresses some of the guy's crappy arguments

3. And yet has a unified, singular thrust!

 

Write your response like this and you'll be the talk of the town. Or steal from me, I honestly don't care.

[Kay]

It by Hanbury's terribly flawed arguments that demonstrate the critical need for stricter academic standards.  If members of the public such as Hanbury cannot distinguish truth from falsehood, it is the fault of the educators for not weeding out such fallacies beforehand.

 

That's the punch line right there.

[Guest Joseph]

Here is what I sent:

 

The scientific community is not afraid of Intelligent Design, we are afraid of the influx of non-proven ideas into a science class which give such ideas much more power than they deserve. It would be like trying to add astrology to astronomy and not being capable of seeing the utter lunacy in doing such. Mixing a scientific method, evidence driven ideology with utter crack-pot blind faith based metaphysics which have no application in the real world except for those that would be servant their daily horoscopes because they will not question the source of such data outright due perhaps to enculturational brainwashing is a grave injustice to those that come after us.

 

Mr. Hanbury said, “…the president did not recommend that teaching evolution be banned in public schools, merely that ID ought to be taught as well.  Don't academics purport to champion free and open inquiry?”

 

Actually, academics has been a champion of free and open inquiry from the get go. Religion has however always been a hindrance up through the ages including one of mankind's slowest progressive times, the Dark Ages, when theocratic rule was the way of life. You can look at the example of Galileo's trial by the church for [his] simply presenting to the world scientific evidence that the biblical record was at fault in its description of an Earth-centric universe (and his house imprisonment for saying so) while demonstrating quite clearly that we have a Sol centered system.

 

It is all about what the powerful and influential will do to scientific minds in the future, and attempting to train children to trust in blind-faith metaphysics instead of evidence driven science is a fallacy outright.  Teaching them to adopt a skeptical mindset is not easily done in a science class in-which on one hand you are blindly saying that "God did it" with any evidence while on the other are demonstrating the biological processes and how they are tied to natural happenings and that all life evolves/adapts over time.  Even harder is to teach them to question in the youth mills we call high-schools today. To mix into this horror story a faith-based ideology [intelligent Design] taught under the guise of a "science" without demonstrated evidence is to do nothing more than a pure injustice to those that come after us.

 

Hanbury continues that the term “real theory is at fault.”  This is quite incorrect and is nothing but word games.  The terms “real theory” refers to an assumption based on limited information as opposed to an assumption which is based on useless conjecture or no data at all.” (Neil).

 

Hanbury further fails reasoned and rational investigation by saying, “as though evolution is a proven fact.”  There is very clear information on this topic (and anyone interested is invited to visit talk.origins) on the web.  Clearly however there is no flaw in labeling evolution as a fact.  In fact (pardon pun) it is both a theory and fact.  Evolution is a demonstrated fact. Theory and fact are not opposed nor do they conflict in meaning. This is a common attempt by the faithful, and is nothing but word games.

 

Reference this:

See the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

...the Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

and the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ: Evolution is Only a theory:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-miscon...ions.html#proof

 

Hanbury then states, “the first false idea in the theory is that non-organic matter can transform itself into organic matter.”  Please let him know that abiogenesis is NOT evolution.  This would be for an entirely different discuss entirely and thus I will not address this red herring.

 

 

Hanbury then states, “Pasteur proved that was impossible.”  Pasteur did nothing but perfect the art of sterilization. He did not demonstrate that inorganic to organic did not take place at another time, in another way.  He continues, “Second, the enormous complexity of organic matter precludes accidental creation.”  From talk.origins, “nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).”  Thus Mr. Hanbury was at fault yet again in his attempt to attack evolution through bringing up abiogenesis, which evolution does not deal with.  Anyone saying that complex things do not form randomly in nature should look at snowflakes and various crystal structures, even life itself is a testament to the ability of the complex to form when energy from the Sun enters our Earth.

 

Hanbury ends in, “[t]he natural laws of physics and chemistry imply the existence of a lawmaker.”  Laws of physics require a lawmaker! You are correct. A human sat down, observed nature, and wrote a law about the actions of material discovered in nature and the natural processes. There is however no demonstration that there neither was nor is something that exists which controls and/or generates the actions found within nature except natural sources of very real chemical, biological, or force particle generation. The "lawmakers" are mankind in our attempt to address the mechanical world through our language systems, nothing more is demonstrated by the terms “natural law.”  And the qualities existing within the natural world are not so much laws with the more we learn, in fact for various human understandings about our environment or space-time there is very likely an exception to human made rules. Is light a wave or particle for instance?

 

Hanbury states, “If the "science" of Darwinism is so unassailable, why does Mr. Wallace vigorously resist subjecting it to academic scrutiny by scientists who question its validity?”  Evolutionary theory is perhaps one of the more investigated theories of our day. It is testable on various levels including DNA/genetics, fossil record, comparative genetic histories of similar species, outside genetic influences (adoption of viri code by ancestors of a given species), and of course we have the same flawed sections of DNA that our ancestors have (including other primate species) which leads us once again back to the idea/theory of a common ancestor. Thus the actual and evidence driven science of evolutionary theory is constantly being tested while the idea of Intelligent Design gives us but one single phrase, "God did it." It does not lead to developments of genetic medicine, learning of our genetic histories, learning new ways to fight infectious diseases which have very strange evolutionary histories (such as the cause of malaria), nor does it generate within mankind a sense to be skeptical, which is exceptionally important or we would still be burning witches at the stake, killing animals for sacrifices to respective deities so it would rain, or we would have to worry about salvation and being tormented forever by a god of love because we wouldn't believe upon his murdered son.

 

Hanbury concludes, “His real concern is not for scientific integrity, but that ID is a Trojan horse for sneaking biblical creationism back into the schools. Heaven forbid!”  Not so much “heaven forbid,” but of course this Trojan horse is a backdoor methodology for putting ancient mythos back into science classes under the idea of "fairness of treatment." The problem is that in the grand scheme of things there is no greater lie than the ancient ideas passed down by our ancestors who would not question simply because they were taught not to. In our day we have learned to question everything and everyone so as to not be servant to lies and in doing so we have removed such ancient ideas to their rightful place...churches, synagogues, mosques, et al.

 

And in such places the youth of their respective culture can be brainwashed into whatever that particular group / occultation deems they wish to be servant to. The problem is when the majority of a social structure attempt to place their particular ideas (unproven and undemonstrated) upon the populace as a whole, and at such a point all skeptical minds must fight hard to preserve the freedoms and liberties granted to us over the past few centuries by men who were not afraid to fight for freedoms we all take for granted from those that would supplant them.

 

I have nothing against another man's idea about Intelligent Design; in fact I leave open the idea as it is not demonstrated either way. However, when that person attempts to place their ideas within a classroom and represent them as type of “science” we have a huge problem. Those making a given claim must first demonstrate that claim and then it can be taught, until then they are merely yelling "witch" and hoping for mob mentality to take over in an attempt to claim freedoms are being quashed which is of course a red herring.  There should not be equal representation of methodological evidence driven science and Intelligent Design because they are not equal.  Intelligent Design is the metaphysical ideology of men who wish to accept blindly that a Creative Source may exist without methodological evidence to back their claim, while actual science works with the scientific method and draws conclusions based upon it.

 

To quote Carl Sagan, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

 

J. B. A.

[MrSpooky]

Wait, anyone can reply to this? This isn't just a small local news thing?

[Sokudo Ningyou]

I say, let them teach ID....as long as it includes the Aztec creation story, the Native American -- all, uh, how many hundreds of them -- creation stories, the Japanese creation story -- which is fun, and involves tears and snot -- the Hindu creation story, the Nordic creation story, the African -- also probably numbering in a few hundred -- creation stories....

 

Actually, it'll probably be a four-year class, though I'd have to guess most of the kids would drop out by the end of the first semester from sheer brain sploodgy. After all, the land was formed on the back of a turtle, which was held up by a tree, which was rotated by a wheel, which was washed out of a nose.....

[Mr. Neil]

To simplify the most important point of this issue, it's not so much that they want to teach it; it's where they want to teach it. They want to include in a science curriculum a topic which has nothing to do with science.

[MrSpooky]

Ugh. There's yet another response. Dude you have to strike back hard and smooth now!

 

But be sure your rebuttal is of the highest quality.

[Pariah]

From the new response here:

...Intelligent design could be defined generally as the study of anything which indicates an organization or pattern that reveals thought behind its origin. The study of ancient Egyptian civilization reveals an intelligence in medical science and physics which still baffles modern scientists. What about approaching the pyramids with the idea that they formed themselves out of sand and wind? All honest study requires an approach of looking for intelligent design.

 

I have a couple of problems with this paragraph.

 

First of all, the author likens acceptance of evolutionary theory to believing that pyramids "formed themselves out of sand and wind". This is a straw-man arguement as no one says that life formed itself, which is obviously an absurd concept, but that life was formed and changed by certain environmental conditions. Maybe the author meant "were formed by sand and wind" instead of "formed themselves out of sand and wind". Of course, the appearance of life from non-life is not really part of evolution but is instead the theory of abiogenesis.

 

Another problem I have with this comparison is that we already have strong evidence of the existence of egyptians so it's reasonable to say that they probably created the pyramids. We do not, however, have strong evidence of the existence of any kind of intelligent designer or creative deity so it's not the same thing to say that these theoretical deities created life. In summary, gods are theoretical, egyptians are not.

[vargo]

I would love to have an update on this post...

 

 

I thinking about getting into the battle with some of our local jesus freaks