NOVA - Intelligent Design On Trial

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

This is the idea that I was talking about.

Most of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence were not Christians. Not even close. I covered this in the posts above, but I'll stress it again. The U.S. was pretty much founded on secular humanist principles.

But even if they had been, your claim wouldn't follow--and this is where I suspect Dis and I are not that far apart. Christians can hold enlightenment principles. Enlightenment thinkers can be Christians. But to say that Jefferson was a "religious man" or that Franklin was a "Christian" is to use definitions of those terms that I for one don't recognize.

Dis: I can see what your point is re: the term "Christian principles," but I think that we may be quibbling a little over how the term is used. For me, part of the value of the real foundational principles of the U.S. is their roots in enlightenment thought. To me, describing them as "Christian" gives the false impression that somehow these beliefs derived from Christianity when in fact they were basically secular beliefs. I agree that Pat Robertson is a loon--but I think the perpetuation of the notion of the founding fathers as Christians is potentially damaging to the political conversation, because it runs the risk of justifying the agenda of theocracy that Robertson and the Christian right fairly explicitly state as their goal. One of "his ilk" in my opinion is the born-again George W. Bush, whose apocalyptic view of the intersection between religion and politics is well known.

That's not to minimize the role of Christianity in U.S. history: as I've said before, the U.S. was founded by secular humanists, but slavery was more or less ended by evangelical Christians, to give just one example.

Great post, and agree withe everything.

I think we have to be careful about labeling people who answer a question differently than we might. Their reason for answering might not be what is generally assumed.
'
It's also why I don't trust polls. Questions are often designed to obtain a more desirable answer.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Oh crap I repent I swear..

Going back to someone mentioned earlier about how it would take 1000 years to convince everyone religion is a sham.. I think it will take longer, since many people are unable to accept the fact they wont live forever.. Hence life after death.. They cling to religion or are faced with the haunting realization that aunt Mable isnt in heaven, shes actually rotting in a wooden box in the ground.

My mother made a good point last week:

Heaven - being with "Aunt Mabel" again
Hell - being with "Aunt Mabel" for eternity

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

It's also why I don't trust polls. Questions are often designed to obtain a more desirable answer.

Agreed. And the methodologies/differing margins of error, etc. make them at best a blunt instrument. I also hate how news stories so often start by presenting an issue and then give you the latest poll numbers, as if to say "here's the issue facing us today.... and here's what you think about it. Don't be a hero, buddy. Just look at the polls and nod your head."

But now we ARE off topic!

[Bobblehead]

I saw this show last night.

Good show. It really explained the whole case really well.

I found it really interesting about how the ID textbook changed after the Supreme Court ruling in '87.

[flamesfever]

[quote=Iowa_Flames_Fan;1069676]
Most of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence were not Christians. Not even close. I covered this in the posts above, but I'll stress it again. The U.S. was pretty much founded on secular humanist principles.

Iowa, it seems that the definition of a secular humanist is somewhat vague at times. In your definition do you allow for a belief in a deity?

Sorry you had to repeat yourself. I read back through the thread and discovered that you had indeed covered the subject.

[troutman]

Religious scholars mull Flying Spaghetti Monster


http://www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/perso....ap/index.html

An Oregon State physics graduate named Bobby Henderson stepped into the debate by sending a letter to the Kansas School Board. With tongue in cheek, he purported to speak for 10 million followers of a being called the Flying Spaghetti Monster -- and demanded equal time for their views.

"We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it," Henderson wrote. As for scientific evidence to the contrary, "what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage."

Between the lines, the point of the letter was this: There's no more scientific basis for intelligent design than there is for the idea an omniscient creature made of pasta created the universe. If intelligent design supporters could demand equal time in a science class, why not anyone else? The only reasonable solution is to put nothing into sciences classes but the best available science.

[peter12]

I suppose I would call myself a humanist. I love the arts and sciences. I take great joy in the fact that through human endeavour have progressed past past cultural institutions, like segregated schools. I know humans are responsible for this, I am certain that we all have evolved a built-in sense of morality and caring for our fellow human beings. Probably from being a cooperative species that lives in groups. Reciprocal morality makes sense.

However, I know humans all have a darker side. Unlike what many of the anti-Popes (Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens) want us to think, not only does morality predate Judeo-Christianity, evil does as well. Humans hurt other humans, sometimes for no reason. Our callousness and delight in suffering, is only matched by our strange altruism. I would also consider myself religious, an slightly agnostic evangelical Christian. I don't really know why. I've been reading quite a bit about the Judeo-Christian tradition. As much of it as I can, the good and the bad. I've found a lot to be embarassed about. A lot.

I've also found a lot to be proud. Morality, is at the heart of the grassroots Judeo-Christianity. A love of life and an intense compassion for your fellow human being. Guys like Jerry Falwell, Pope Benedict, and George Bush don't show that side. I tend to think that these guys aren't the real deal. I think the real deal is pretty difficult to find and that it's often where you least expect it.

[Thor]

Trout, I'm hoping you have already read this, if not enjoy the brilliance:

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

[troutman]

The Discovery Institute Reaction:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...=discoMainPage

Now PBS and NOVA are teaming up to produce what may be Judge Jones’ dream come true. “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial” is a special 2-hour program devoted to the Dover trial as Judge Jones saw it. While they promise to deliver the true story behind this dramatic trial, this program instead provides a lopsided, incomplete portrayal of the Dover trial based largely on Judge John E. Jones’ poorly argued and scientifically inaccurate ruling. By reproducing the errors made in the judge’s ruling, NOVA is perpetuating a mythological story about Dover and intelligent design.

http://www.discovery.org/csc/traipsing/

Traipsing into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Decision is a critique of federal Judge John E. Jones's decision in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, the first trial to attempt to address the constitutionality of teaching intelligent design in public schools. In this concise yet comprehensive response, Discovery Institute scholars and attorneys show how Judge Jones's Kitzmiller decision was based upon faulty reasoning, non-existent evidence, and a serious misrepresentation of the scientific theory of intelligent design. Despite Judge Jones's protestations to the contrary, his attempt to use the federal bench to declare evolution a sacred cow turns out to be a textbook case of good-old-American judicial activism.

[Bobblehead]

Hmmm, I took that the story was taken from the court transcripts.

I'm not sure Judge Jones' ruling ever mentioned that he went to Clown School?

[troutman]

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/...11/st_thompson

Creationists and intelligent-design boosters have a guerrilla tactic to undermine textbooks that don't jibe with their beliefs. They slap a sticker on the cover that reads, EVOLUTION IS A THEORY, NOT A FACT, REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF LIVING THINGS.

This is the central argument of evolution deniers: Evolution is an unproven "theory." For science-savvy people, this is an incredibly annoying ploy. While it's true that scientists refer to evolution as a theory, in science the word theory means an explanation of how the world works that has stood up to repeated, rigorous testing. It's hardly a term of disparagement.

Turns out, the real culture war in science isn't about science at all — it's about language. And to fight this war, we need to change the way we talk about scientific knowledge.

For truly solid-gold, well-established science, let's stop using the word theory entirely. Instead, let's revive much more venerable language and refer to such knowledge as "law." As with Newton's law of gravity, people intuitively understand that a law is a rule that holds true and must be obeyed. The word law conveys precisely the same sense of authority with the public as theory does with scientists, but without the linguistic baggage.

Evolution is supersolid.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Iowa, it seems that the definition of a secular humanist is somewhat vague at times. In your definition do you allow for a belief in a deity?

Sorry you had to repeat yourself. I read back through the thread and discovered that you had indeed covered the subject.

No worries--these threads get long sometimes!

I do kind of allow for a belief in a deity--since most of the framers were in one way or another "deists"--and deism is of course not exactly atheism, though it is in its pure form a rejection of "revelatory religion," putting in its place a spiritualism that derives from the rational and the experiential. And in a sense, I guess what I mean is not that the framers WERE secular humanists--but that they were using secular humanist principles--which is an admittedly fine but (I think) important distinction.

[troutman]

I usually resist labels, but here is a typical defintion of secular humanism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Humanism

Some varieties of religious humanism, such as Christian humanism include belief in God, traditionally defined. Secular humanism is skeptical about God and the supernatural and believes that these are not useful concepts for addressing human problems

[MarchHare]

Unlike what many of the anti-Popes (Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens) want us to think, not only does morality predate Judeo-Christianity, evil does as well.

I'm not quite sure I'm understanding your intent with this sentence correctly...are you suggesting that those writers do not believe that both morality and evil predate the major Western montheistic religions?

[Hack&Lube]

-edit

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I'm not quite sure I'm understanding your intent with this sentence correctly...are you suggesting that those writers do not believe that both morality and evil predate the major Western montheistic religions?

Yes, please explain what you mean. Doesn't morality include the human constructs of good/evil or are you saying that evil is an innate quality in and of itself separate from morality?

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

No worries--these threads get long sometimes!

I do kind of allow for a belief in a deity--since most of the framers were in one way or another "deists"--and deism is of course not exactly atheism, though it is in its pure form a rejection of "revelatory religion," putting in its place a spiritualism that derives from the rational and the experiential. And in a sense, I guess what I mean is not that the framers WERE secular humanists--but that they were using secular humanist principles--which is an admittedly fine but (I think) important distinction.

Thank you. I thought so.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Yes, please explain what you mean. Doesn't morality include the human constructs of good/evil or are you saying that evil is an innate quality in and of itself separate from morality?

I would argue that morality and evil are innate qualities and indeed are separate from each other and from human constructs.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by peter12

I would argue that morality and evil are innate qualities and indeed are separate from each other and from human constructs.

Are you saying that evil is not a "human" construct? That there could be evil in a universe devoid of intelligent life to commit it? A morality without moral agents to express it?

I'm not sure I follow your logic either. Posit some kind of God, and you can have Evil and Morality defined by that God in the universe; otherwise you are incarnating abstract qualities into physical reality, like some new-skool Plato. As you say you are Xian, there is nothing wrong with saying God is the source of these ideas, but your argument should really just explicitly say so, whereas it seems to be saying something else - I'm just not sure what.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Are you kidding? There are no such things as Aliens? Talk about an overreaction here...how did that have to do with being in a catholic school? What was even the problem?

The question in my mind was more - why is this kid thankful for aliens? There must be more to this story than what little we've seen here.