Godless Mom in the Bible Belt

I agree with you about everything except the Intelligent Design point. I don't talk much about myself because I like my privacy, but trust me when I say I have a strong scientific background.

Intelligent Design theory is held by many scientists and medical doctors. It is not saying that evolution is necessarily WRONG and it's not saying creationism is RIGHT. It is simply saying that there is overwhelming evidence for I.D. An excellent book which I'd recommend to you is "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" which is not written by a christian, I should add.

great post! i listen to righty radio once in awhile for the exact same reason! to me rush is kinda boring, so i check O'Reiley. also, the idea of faith over science is not new, its been going on since the beginning of humanity, but certainly its in the spotlight of late here. all major scientific discovery that challenges faith in the slightest is met with decades or centuries of resistence.

Saurkraut, i completely appreciate your faith but I.D. is a political creation, and there cannot be "overwhelming evidence" (yet) since it science terms is essentially a brand new theory.

Great post, Godlessmom, I agree completely. The "intelligent design" stuff is so ridiculous that it's actually embarrassing.

Todays faith based Americans are not much different from the dark age christians who believed Rome fell because they bathed too much.
Ironic considering: Little Bar of Soap.
I don't know how people can be satisfied with "Mystery" when we can look, poke, measure and experiment to get the information rather than just think "Daddy will take care of us, we don't need to know how things work."

Great post. I've been watching the disdain for intelligence and science grow since Bush was first elected president. Actually it's kind of scary to think about where America will end up if this trend continues and grows.

I think you hit it early on. Bush simply is blind in his opinions. He refuses to consult with the minority on anything, which has everyone so polarized within the Beltway.

As for Rush? Blah, blah, blah...

Worst Weather Ever,

And I appreciate your faith. But you don't know mine, and I don't know yours, and ID has nothing to do with faith. Trust me on this. Read the book, get to know what ID is about first before you assume it's about faith.

You see, it's very easy to dismiss ideas and concepts if you haven't studied them yourselves. I know you dislike people who do so, but anyone who easily dismisses ID is committing the same sin we were just discussing. If we dislike ostriches, let's not become one ourselves.

Excellent post, you make some excellent points.

Confirmation bias, a term I learned from you, seems to be more and more prevelent today than ever.
The intelligent design infomration is simply insane.

OK, but to continue beating a dead horse, there are many scientists who feel that ID is the only answer.

What do they attribute ID to? Atheists say space aliens/interplanetary beings. Agnostics believe it is *A* god, but don't know which one. And then there are the fundamentalists and/or faith based believers who attribute it to their god (Muslim - Allah), Jewish and Christian (God) etc.

But, understand that ID is a growing belief based in science. Again, if you don't understand it by having read anything about it, you are not in a position to rule on it.

if it's any consolation, many right wing journalists in the UK pour scorn in the same way on 'the intelligensia'

there is also a particular dislike of 'guardianistas' (aka people who read the left-leaning guardian - much like myself really :))

although, the suppression of science is (thankfully) less of an issue here...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Intelligent Design, especially the way it is pushed by people like those in Kansas, is religion. It says that a higher being created humans. Even if you are one of the ID folks who say that it just says that a god set evolution in motion, and not that evolution is wrong, the theory still relies on a higher being. That is religion, no matter how you put it. Intelligent Design belongs in a theology or philosophy class and not in the science classroom

Limbaugh's definition of "intelligencia" typically includes but not limited to educators, commentators, Hollywood, the press etc.. In truth he has a point that as group, they are fairly liberal in their outlooks. Rush however forgets that as a commentator and self appointed expert, he is in that same group.

I am by no means a liberal, but I do love I good hypocrit

As regards ID? We are swimming in ignorance. Insufficent data. ID does have the distinct advantage of being a simpler explanation than most while still encompassing purpose. Even when the topic is tough, Occams Razor still cuts

Rush is just so mean that I have a hard time listening.

So I don't.

I don't like Rush, so as I said, I agree with everything that Godless Mom posted except the part about ID.

But ID is not a mere philosophy.

Again, without having read a truly scientific work on ID, you cannot assert intelligently that it is a religious belief although some religions use it to point to their higher power.

Look at it this way: If a religion worships rocket ships, does that mean that we can no longer have rocket science in the classroom?

What about the religions that worship animals? Should we ban veterinary science?

Be very careful to not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Saurkraut,

Your argument does not hold the water you are throwing out. No one is saying that we teach the tenets of the religions of animal worshippers in science class because we learn about animals in that class. If a religion worships rocket ships, it doesn't mean we don't teach rocket science, it means we don't teach the tenets of the rocket ship religion in the same class in which we teach the mechanics behind rockets.

If your family belongs to the church that worships animals or rocket ships, then you send your children to a private school that follows your religion. If you happen to live in one of those lucky cities in which they offer philosophy and theology electives in public schools, you let your kids take the class about animal worship. But you don't teach the ideas of that worship in the science classroom.

Also, Michael Behe (who wrote Darwin's Black Box) is Christian.

From the New York Review of Books:
"In Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (1996), the Catholic biochemist Michael J. Behe has asked whether such amazing machinery could have come into existence by means of "slight modifications." His answer is no: God's intervention within the cell can be demonstrated through the elimination of every pos-sibility other than conscious design."

From Wikipedia:
"Behe, a Christian, once accepted the scientific theory of evolution."

The jury is NOT still out on global warming! This drives me crazy. ALL scientists agree that the earth is warming. There are a FEW rogue scientists who doubt that human activity is the cause of much of the warming. The VAST majority of scientists believe that human activity is a major (or the major) cause of the earth warming. Period.

Have a great weekend!

Valerie, if Behe is now a christian, he wasn't when he wrote the book. He said in the back of that book that he was NOT a christian and was open to ideas. Perhaps he felt that Christianity was his answer to ID. I have a friend who believes that space aliens are HER answer to ID.

And teaching ID is NOT teaching the tenets of a religion. It is discussing the scientific evidence that shows something OTHER than evolution. Why teach only part of the scientific evidence?

You wrote:

If a religion worships rocket ships, it doesn't mean we don't teach rocket science, it means we don't teach the tenets of the rocket ship religion in the same class in which we teach the mechanics behind rockets.

Which is my point exactly. Because ID is not a religion, nor is it the tenets of a religion. It is scientific evidence discussed. You can't get around the scientific evidence, as you would see if you bothered to read the book. You cannot make informed comments about ID without knowing ID by reading up on it. It would be like my arguing cardiology without ever having studied it.

EX.
Cardiologist: "...mitral valve relapse..."

Me: Sorry, I don't believe in that. And isn't there some screwy religion that worships hearts?

Cardiologist: This isn't about religion! I'm talking about a scientific concept.

Me: Oh don't bother me with the details, you heart worshipper, you.

I have read about ID. I was exposed to it more than five years ago while I was working on my masters of science degree in biological anthropology. Admittedly, it has been a while since I read up on the details of the theory, but my knowledge is not the passing knowledge of someone watching the nightly news.

I feel bad taking up Godless Mom's comment space on this topic, so I will only say this. No matter whether you agree with it or not, there has not been enough reproducable research on ID that is accepted by the majority of scientists for it to be taught in public school science classrooms. It is perfectly legit for science students at the college level and beyond to debate the issue, or even high school students in a class other than the standard science classes, but it is not accepted by enough of the scientific community to be taught as a valid scientific theory in a general, public school science classroom.

There is a process in the scientific community of peer review and research replication that ID simply has not yet gone through. And the proponents of the theory in places such as Kansas want to bypass that, and they want to do it because of their religious beliefs.

Valerie, I will be the first to say that I don't approve of ostriches, religious or otherwise. I also don't approve of people who try to cram their religion down others throats, which is why I don't discuss my beliefs (which are too difficult and nebulous to be defined easily).

I don't know your educational credentials and can't come over to your house to see them hanging on your wall any more than you can see mine. So let's dismiss claims of scientific backgrounds.

What I can do is tell you that ID is growing in popularity. Not because a bunch of religious nuts want to believe it, or because it's a psuedo scientific rationalization for creationism.

It actually is growing in popularity because it is irrefutable when you review the evidence. If you haven't read anything on it recently, I will tell you that I haven't always seen ID books that I felt were valid enough to make me consider it. Until I read "Darwin's Black Box..."

The reason ID hasn't been accepted in the school system is because most school systems are very afraid of the legal ramifications of teaching anything but evolution. It has nothing to do with the scientific community as a whole.

That doesn't mean I discount your point that it isn't accepted by all scientists. There are a great many scientists that argue against it. But there are a growing number that argue for it.

My point in all of this is simple: I hate the suppression of learning and science. I dislike Rush's pandering to the average morons by stoking their egos in a vain attempt to pander votes for the Republicans.

I am a moderate. I am a thinker. As a thinker, I must also acknowledge that ID is another viable alternative.

Godless, this was a good post. You obviously got people to "talk."

I think you are correct about trying to listen to, and to understand those who do not agree with you. Painful as it is.

As I said, I won't use up Godlessmom's blog comments to debate this issue (especially without her chiming in), but I cannot let you subtly imply that I am lying about my educational credentials without saying something.

I put my credentials out there in response to your statement: "You cannot make informed comments about ID without knowing ID by reading up on it." Don't attack my level of knowledge and dismiss any poster's scientific background when it suits you, especially when you previously said "trust me when I say I have a strong scientific background." Not once did I imply that you were lying about your science background, and even though I don't know you, based on what I have read in your blog, I would expect the same from you. Especially if you want me to "trust" you.

(I hate that I can't edit my comments in blogger.)

Re: my previous reply, my statement "when it suits you" came out more sarcastic and generalizing than I intended.

Over and out,
Valerie

Valerie, you are being oversensitive and missed my point by a mile. My point was simply that neither one of us honestly can state anything from an expert position because we are relatively anonymous. (I don't know you and can't verify who or what you are any more than you can do that with me). So I believe in letting the facts stand for themselves.

You can certainly verify what I am saying if you get a good book on I.D. Remember, I didn't recommend just any book, any more than just any book truly represents the concept of evolution.

That was my point.

Thanks for your blogging. You are a beacon of hope for me.

ID, as I understand it, says this (I am really summing it up by the way)

The universe is so complex, and everything is so inter-related, that SOMETHING other than chaos and randomness had to set everything up

Thats it. There had to be some "intelligent designer" involved at some point. Something to make up all the rules, like gravity and the speed of light.

This also means that everything is a result of that design.

Now the next question is who or what was that designer? In steps theology.

I am certified to teach science in Florida. I will not go near ID in my class, and if it comes down to being forced to teach it, it will be covered in the last 5 minutes of class on a Friday before a three day weekend.

Why? Simply because I do not think that I am qualified to teach religion in a science class. What I will do is throw out the basic points of a theory (after I explain the difference in a theory and a law). Then it is up to the students to take it from there.

ID is in my opinion, a backdoor to getting creationism in the classroom. Look at the groups pushing for its inclusion.

Here is another problem with using ID in a middle or high school classroom. The answer "because God made it" becomes acceptible as an answer. For example, say I short essay question on plate tectonics. I ask "what causes earthquakes?". I get papers that answer "earthquakes are caused by the plans of the intelligent designer". Is this wrong? Not under the theory of ID. But for the purposes of understanding plate movement it is.

And once a student decides that "because the designer planed it that way" is an acceptible answer, why read the textbook? Why study? Just claim that the test did not include the answer, then have your parents bitch and bitch and bitch some more till every multiple choice question includes "because the intelligent designer said so". Free A for everyone!

ID discussion is best left in the college level, in a philosophy classroom, or up to parents to include as part of Sunday School. NOT as part of middle or high school general science.

General science is for general ideas, like Newton's laws. Never mind that in the sub-atomic world Newton's "laws" do not apply! That is for later! You must learn basic physics before you dive into special relativity and quantum mechanics.

Same for ID. Students should learn the generaly accepted atuff first, then get into the alternative theories AFTER that already have a good foundation in the subject.

Iguana,

Great post. I agree with a lot of it, because I don't believe in introducing religion to students. If *I* were a parent whose child had been lectured about religion by a teacher, I'd be furious.

ID does of course indicate a designer. But the religious aspect of it should not be covered. After all, as I pointed out before, ID could be a result of extraterrestrial beings. My friend (an intelligent buddhist) thoroughly believes that this is the correct answer. Now, she does argue it with religious fervor...but she isn't of a classic religion and she's not coming at it from a religious point of view.

*I* believe in evolution. When I look at most of these kids in baggy clothes, slouching about, I am more convinced than ever that we descended from big, stupid, hairy primates.

Of course, then one has to wonder where the rest of the population came from... Maybe I'll choose Intelligent Design for them, and evolution for the monkey kids. Who says we can't have both?

The "designer" could be aliens, or the Douglas Adams theory could be correct - that Earth is a giant computer designed by mice to figure out the answer to everything.

But I do not think that science class is the place to discuss The Hichhiker's Guide To The Galaxy.

This is why alternative theories, like ID, are best left out of public school.

What ID really represents is an attempt by the religous right wing to mix politics with science class. They think that science "brainwashes" kids into atheism. They think that science class is why their kids question religous dogma.

So they are attacking the subject. In Texas, there are stickers on all the books saying "evolution is only a theory", which is EXACTLY what the book presents it as. So why the sticker?

Because the religous right wing is at war with science. And politics has a lot to do with it. ID is just an attempt to get full blown creationism back in the books.

After all, if they call it a theory....

your blog is very interesting despite its liberal bias

Oh, I don't deny for a minute that ID gives people more options as to what to believe. But just because we don't agree with something doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered.

Again, if you read up on ID (from reliable, scientific sources - not religiously biased ones) then you will be forced to see that there is a valid alternative view. You don't have to accept it, but it is foolish to ignore it.

Or is everyone in here mistakenly operating from the belief that evolution is a proven theory? Because I can assure you that no reliable scientist can show you definitive proof. All they can show you is what science indicates and what conclusions they can draw from it.

Let me also add that evolution and ID are very compatible. ID just says that there are certain complexities that indicate the impossibility of evolution because they could not have conveniently evolved simultaneously. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that evolution couldn't have continued afterwards.

WoW! Quite a debate going on here!

I agree with you, godlessmom, that an economy needs more than just tourism, restaurant and bar jobs. Both the US and the UK are losing their manufacturing industry.
Everyone is going to China, I`m afraid...cheaper labour costs. One of my American glass suppliers have shut down their manufacturing plant, and now manufacture in China.
From what I can gather, they not only get incentives from the Chinese govt to relocate, but grants or tax breaks from the US govt too? ....?
Bush is ignoring the whole global warming issue, but the bad news is its going to speed up, the more it goes. Won`t be easy to ignore it in 20 years time. Crops will be failing, and droughts and floods where there shoudn`t be.
Aral peppermint patsy pez is right.
The verdict is that it is happening ...the only one saying .".perhaps."..is Bush.
The religious debate in the US regarding genetic science will, if the religious sectors are allowed their way, allow another job sector to leave the US.
My own country, Scotland, has always had strengths in science,(Dolly the sheep etc),and would be only too happy to have the genetic science industry come to stay.
It`s up to you guys to ensure that the religious groups don`t wrap the US back into the Dark Ages scientifically, and keep those jobs in place!
Believe me, if the religious groups in the US win, scientific development isn`t going to hang around waiting for people to wake up...it will just get up and go, and the US will lose any advantage it had in the field of genetic science.
There will still be American scientists alright, but in the UK, or Japan, or Europe...there is a big list of places who would jump at the chance.
Personally, religion should really stay in the home. School is for education.
I said on another blog that I had a young friend come to stay from the US. She asked me one night if I believed in Evolution..when I said yes,and asked why, she told me that she did not know anything about evolution...she had only been taught the Adam and Eve Creation theory at school.
I was completely shocked.
Keep religion out of science, and well away from the classroom.
Look forward to you returning, godlessmom, hope you had a nice weekend!

Quite the debate on ID.

The fact of the matter is, "ID Theory" is not a theory at all, it is an attack on another theory based almost entirely on incredulity and incredibly scare in the evidence department. Essentially saying: "Since no one can prove how an eye evolved and since I can't adequately explain it, God must have done it."

This is a "God is in the gaps" philosophy and it is not science, however much some may want it to be and regardless of how many "scientists" espouse it.

The beauty of ID is that it is so easy to believe and that it essentially continues to "work" even as specific examples of it are refuted. If someone were to demonstrate how a certain component of a supposedly irreducibly complex system was actually formed by simpler components, the ID proponent simply takes that demonstration and says "yes, but how were those components formed without an intelligent hand?"

It's a neat little belief system but it is not science. You do not prove a theory merely by punching holes in the existing explaination.

Behe's book is the most commonly touted, but the name tells you everything you need to know. It is an attack on exisitng thought with the completely fallacious conclusion of "so if evolution isn't the answer, it must be ID, case closed." His book purposely misleads its readers by pretending that the evidence and research into evolution is a lot more thin than it really is.

There is, for instance, this passage:

"A survey of thirty biochemistry textbooks used in major universities over the past generation shows that many textbooks ignore evolution completely."

Which, coming from a biochemist, is an inexcusably misleading thing to say. Once you've reached the level of biochemistry, you've already learned what there is to know of evolutionary biology in earlier study. Evolution is the foundation of biochemisty, so its texts don't ignore it, they treat it as a known fact and move on.

Now, whether you agree with this approach or not is one thing, but for a biochemist to intentionally mislead his audience this way is anti-science in the extreme and it is shameful. Unfortunately, it is a precursor to the rest of the text which is not the postulation, examination, proof and advancement of a theory, as any good science book should be, but a dishonest attack on the principles of evolution already agreed upon by the overwhelming majority of the community.

Behe has a clear agenda, one that has been exposed many times over. And again, the proof is in the very title of his book.

Imagine if Isaac Newton, instead of publishing a book called "mathematical principles of natural philosophy" explaining mechanics and refuting heliocentrism, instead called it "Aristotle, what a freaking moron."

In the end, I agree that it is good to be open minded, and that the accepted views of science should be constantly challenged. But that challenge has to come in the form of a better theory that provides a more reasoned and more strongly supported hypothesis or else it's just chatter and personal incredulity. And ID is all of that and an insidious, anti-intellectual and pro-creationsit movement wrapped up in a harmless looking piece of "science".

Sadly, ID is a theory based on a lack of facts, while evolution (while slightly incomplete) is based only on what has been observed. This doesn´t mean ID is wrong, but without evidence, why should we teach it as a possibility? (there are many 'possibilities' we don´t teach). The manner in which ID 'theory' is arrived at is incompatible with accepted scientific method.
But cheers for strong personal beliefs and the possibility of the unknown.

And Mom, you´re a bastion of rational thought in a difficult place. Keep thinking for all of us.