House Debate Over Evolution at Pa. Schools

[Judi Lynn]

House Debate Over Evolution at Pa. Schools

By MARTHA RAFFAELE
The Associated Press
Tuesday, June 21, 2005; 6:01 AM

HARRISBURG, Pa. -- Experts on both sides of the debate over whether public schools should teach "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution _ a question already before a federal court _ sparred in front of a state legislative panel.

The House Subcommittee on Basic Education heard testimony Monday on a bill that would allow local school boards to mandate that science lessons include intelligent design, a concept that holds the universe must have been created by an unspecified guiding force because it is so complex.

The legislation is sponsored by only a dozen lawmakers, and its prospects of passing the General Assembly are unclear as lawmakers try to meet a June 30 state budget deadline.

But a federal judge will consider the issue this fall, when a lawsuit against the Dover Area School District is scheduled to go to trial. The suit alleges that the school board violated the constitutional separation of church and state when it voted in October to require ninth-grade students to hear about intelligent design during biology class.
(snip/...)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/21/AR2005062100227.html
(Free registration is required)

[BlueJazz]

1. Experts on Intelligent Design????

Geez...That's like being an expert on the mating habits of the Easter Bunny.
How can you be an expert on a Ridiculous false premise?

[megatherium]

2. "Experts" include Michael Behe,

professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, and William Dembski, who hold PhDs in mathematics and in philosophy. Behe claims the machinery in each cell cannot have evolved because the machines are "irreducibly complex", in his book Darwin's Black Box. Dembski has developed a mathematical theory for detecting design in complex patterns. His book on the subject was published by the prestigious Cambridge University Press. He is now at Southern Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

It is a mistake to assume all the ID people are nothing but yahoos or ignoramuses. But of course, ID is still wrong. There are now several excellent books that rip ID apart. Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller is particularly good. Miller is a prominent Brown University biologist and textbook writer who is also Roman Catholic; he argues that ID is bad science and bad theology. He does a lovely job of ripping Behe's lungs out. There are good secular titles too (the Edis and Young volume published by Rutgers University Press is good).

[KittyWampus]

3. That Material Reality Descends From Consciousness Is Not A False Premise

any more then that which says Consciousness arises from the Physical.

The premise that Nature has an inherent, a priori capacity for Intelligence is no more false then the premise that Nature is merely a blind, random Machine.

The Reductionist, Materialist Philosophy behind Neo-Darwinism is not demonstrably "True".

[cap]

4. this wont get you into an Ivy League University...

I can guarantee you.

BTW, the Catholic Church has come down in favor of evolution.

[Bridget Burke]

5. So discuss it in philosophy class--or in Sunday School.

The book of Genesis is not Science.

[KittyWampus]

17. Okay, As Long As NeoDarwinism Is Also Only Discussed In Sunday School

or a philosophy class.

Science will ALWAYS have a Philosophical basis. Currently, the Scientific Industrial Complex is based upon Materialism and enforces its Reductionist view on society at large.

This needs to be changed or at least challenged.

Respectable Intelligent Design theorists have a valid point.

Unfortunately, there are some ID proponents who represent the theories improperly and deviously.

Learn the difference rather than allowing yourself kneejerk reactions.

[kypper]

6. Anyone recall the classic experiment?

The one where they inserted the essential chemicals that were supposedly present at life's beginning and they found basic amino acids developing after a time?

Seems to me that random works just fine, thank you, meaning that although we have some evidence toward 'blind, random', we have no evidence (the bible does NOT count) toward the intelligent direction of it. Being that you cannot disprove ID, however, it is a moot point. Not science, not to be taught alongside science.

[northzax]

7. when all else fails

use really big words and hope the other person didn't graduate from middle school.

[HannibalBarca]

9. For me

...its a desperate attempt to instil some element of Godly influence into a process which has been proven to work on a purely scientific level thereby updating the preposterous creation myth, that even some still believe.
I swear I am constantly amazed at the lengths some people will go to justify their own belief system.

[northzax]

11. I have no problem reconciling

evidence of evolution and belief in, well, something. There is no reason that God can't be attributed the start of the universe, and even occasional intervention in the universe. to the ants in a farm, the 10 year old kid is God.

[kypper]

12. But why must we always be ants...?

Can we not take pride in our accomplishments as a species?

[northzax]

13. can ants not take pride in the construction of a complex hill?

it is what it is, and we are what we make of it. We are neither the lowest form of life nor, likely, the highest form of life, in the universe (going by linnean taxonomy, not making judgements) <although it is unlikely that a species has evolved much faster than us, Earth has been pretty lucky in terms of massive extinctions, with only the permian and k/t, it's unlikely that any earth-like planet would have less than one or two mass extinctions, but that's another story> We are what we do and what we create, unlike other species that we know of at least, we have either the blessing or the curse of self awareness, but that only increases the burden on us to behave and to be better.

To the fungi the ant collects, it is God.

[William Seger]

8. Nothing wrong with talking about ID in a philosophy class

The issue is teaching anti-science and pseudoscience in a science class.

[KittyWampus]

16. Neo Darwinism Makes A Priori ASSUMPTIONS. It Is Based In Philosophy

just as ID is. And that Philosophy is Materialism.

[William Seger]

18. No, evolution's basis naturalism

... which is not the same thing as materialism (although creationists intentionally conflate the two). Anyway, the fact that science has a metaphysical basis -- that the universe can be known through observation and understood as natural causes and processes -- does not justify redefining science to include pseudoscience and anti-science, which is what the ID folks intend to do.

[msmcghee]

10. Really?

The premise that Nature has an inherent, a priori capacity for Intelligence is no more false then the premise that Nature is merely a blind, random Machine.

The premise that Nature is merely a blind, random Machine is not a scientific premise. Science is not concerned with how philosophers characterize her.

Science is concerned with falsifiable explanations of cause and effect. So far, none of the explanations that science has produced, such as natural selection, have shown Nature to be anything more than the effect of such causes.

So far, no-one, from the guy who claims to bend spoons with mental force to the esteemed proponents of ID, has presented any evidence to the contrary. Do you have any?

If not, then you have no case.

[gauguin57]

14. LOL

BlueJazz, that is HILARIOUS! Mating habits of the Easter Bunny. Bwaaaahhhaaaahhhaaaa

[mbperrin]

15. I'm sure that if Penn politicians are just as intelligent as our Texas

pols, that they can settle this issue once and for all!

Anybody in Penn introduced a tribute to Ted Bundy for his "work in population control" yet?

[brooklynite]

19. Here's the real issue...

"How many new biotechnology companies will want to locate here in Pennsylvania if our students are being taught a watered-down version of the complexities of evolution?" asked Larry Frankel, legislative director for the state's ACLU chapter.

The RW bible-thumpers are going to have to eventually realize that these attempts to screw with school curriculum have real consequences, unless their goal in life is to become Wal-Mart Stock Clerks.