Religious agenda in opposition to teaching ID

[Micaiah]

AIG have advised a letter was drafted opposing the teaching of ID in Australian schools. The letter was instigated by dean of the Faculty of Science at the University of New South Wales, and known antitheist Mike Archer. The letter was submitted to Brendon Nelson, Federal Miniter for Education regarding the teaching of ID in schools.

Here is the letter and signatories.

Intelligent design makes a mockery of science teaching

As Australian scientists and science educators, we are gravely concerned that so-called “intelligent design’ might be taught in any school as a valid scientific alternative to evolution. While science is a work in progress, a vast and growing body of factual knowledge supports the hypothesis that biological complexity is the result of natural processes of evolution.

Proponents of ID assert that some living structures are so complex that they are explicable only by the agency of an imagined and unspecified ‘intelligent designer’. They are free to profess and believe whatever they like. But not being able to imagine or explain how something happened other than by a leap of faith to supernatural intervention is no basis for any science: that is a theological or philosophical notion.

For a theory to be considered scientific it must be testable—either directly or indirectly—by experiment or observation. The results of such tests should be able to be reproduced by others as a check on their accuracy (and, importantly, if repeated testing falsifies the theory it should be rejected rather than taught as part of the accumulating body of scientific understanding). Finally, a scientific theory should explain more than what is already known: it should be able to predict outcomes in novel situations. Evolution meets all of these criteria but ID meets none of them: it is not science.

We therefore urge all Australian governments and educators not to permit the teaching or promulgation of ID as science. To do so would make a mockery of Australian science teaching and throw open the door of science classes to similarly unscientific worldviews—be they astrology, spoon-bending, flat-earth cosmology or alien abductions—and crowd out the teaching of real science.

Mike Archer
Dean of Science, University of NSW

Bradley Smith
Executive director, Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

Sue Serjeantson
Executive secretary, Australian Academy of Science, Canberra

Paul Carnemolla
President-elect, Australian Science Teachers Association

 

[vipertaja]

Well letting ID in freely because of someones opinion is like inviting scientology with wide open arms.

 

[Ophis]

AIG have advised a letter was drafted opposing the teaching of ID in Australian schools. The letter was instigated by dean of the Faculty of Science at the University of New South Wales, and known antitheist Mike Archer. The letter was submitted to Brendon Nelson, Federal Miniter for Education regarding the teaching of ID in schools.

Here is the letter and signatories.

I can't see where the "religious agenda" is in that letter. The objections within it are based on ID's lack of scientific value, rather than religious reasons. Whatever the religious beliefs of the writers are, they have not included those religious beliefs in this letter.

It seems to me as if AiG are trying desperately to find pro-evolution version of the "wedge strategy" document, and that this is the best they can come up with.

 

[Elduran]

Good to know that it's being pre-empted in Aus. Hopefully thise ridiculous pseudo-science will never get in to any school outside the USA, where I'm sure it will soon be banished from science classes again.

 

[Micaiah]

A denial of the existence of God is one of the fundamental axioms of the athiests beliefs. This belief logically influences their views on origins. For the athiest, any explanation of origins must be forumlated without reference to God. It is not surprising then that an athiest is leading the charge against introducing into the science class a view of origins that allows for the possibility of a creator.

 

[vipertaja]

A denial of the existence of God is one of the fundamental axioms of the athiests beliefs. This belief logically influences their views on origins. For the athiest, any explanation of origins must be forumlated without reference to God. It is not surprising then that an athiest is leading the charge against introducing into the science class a view of origins that allows for the possibility of a creator.

It is also a well known fact that Micaiah is in fact a very powerful telepath.
His superpowers also inculde strong unintentional abilities in irony.

 

[Ophis]

A denial of the existence of God is one of the fundamental axioms of the athiests beliefs. This belief logically influences their views on origins. For the athiest, any explanation of origins must be forumlated without reference to God. It is not surprising then that an athiest is leading the charge against introducing into the science class a view of origins that allows for the possibility of a creator.

But the writers are not trying to prevent any discussion of a creator, they are saying that it is unscientific. ID has no merit as a scientific theory for the reasons explained in the letter. The opinions of the writers do not change the truth of the points they make.

 

[Elduran]

A denial of the existence of God is one of the fundamental axioms of the athiests beliefs. This belief logically influences their views on origins. For the athiest, any explanation of origins must be forumlated without reference to God. It is not surprising then that an athiest is leading the charge against introducing into the science class a view of origins that allows for the possibility of a creator.

First of all, ID is not scientific.

Second, Evolution is not atheism, but it IS science.

Thirdly, the only religious agenda here is that of the people trying to push creationism In Disguise into science classes at school.

 

[Jet Black]

A denial of the existence of God is one of the fundamental axioms of the athiests beliefs. This belief logically influences their views on origins. For the athiest, any explanation of origins must be forumlated without reference to God. It is not surprising then that an athiest is leading the charge against introducing into the science class a view of origins that allows for the possibility of a creator.

you appear to be having trouble sticking to your own opening post. where is this denial of the possibility of a creator and so on?

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

A denial of the existence of God is one of the fundamental axioms of the athiests beliefs. This belief logically influences their views on origins. For the athiest, any explanation of origins must be forumlated without reference to God. It is not surprising then that an athiest is leading the charge against introducing into the science class a view of origins that allows for the possibility of a creator.

Science is a-theistic not anti-theistic. As an atheist I simply refuse to believe in your god™. Like the sig says, "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." You are still under the impression that a-theists are anti-theists and you project this misunderstanding on science.

 

[Micaiah]

Science is a-theistic not anti-theistic. As an atheist I simply refuse to believe in your god™. Like the sig says, "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." You are still under the impression that a-theists are anti-theists and you project this misunderstanding on science.

To admit the possibiliy of a god would render a person an agnostic, not an athiest. I note you claim to be an agnostic.

 

[Ophis]

To admit the possibiliy of a god would render a person an agnostic, not an athiest. I note you claim to be an agnostic.

I admit the possibility of a god, as in my experience do most atheists. However I call myself an atheist because I consider the existence of a god to be unlikely, rather than impossible.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

To admit the possibiliy of a god would render a person an agnostic, not an athiest. I note you claim to be an agnostic.

I am agnostic because I believe that it is impossible to know whether god exists. I am also an atheist because I don’t believe your god exists.

 

[Micaiah]

The dictionary defines atheism (sorry about previous spelling) as a belief that God does NOT exist. Note this is different to the idea that He probably does not exist. According to your comments then most atheists on this site would be more properly called agnostics.

 

[vipertaja]

The dictionary defines atheism (sorry about previous spelling) as a belief that God does NOT exist. Note this is different to the idea that He probably does not exist. According to your comments then most atheists on this site would be more properly called agnostics.

One can believe that a god COULD exist and yet believe a god doesn't exist.
I don't see what your problem is.

 

[Ophis]

The dictionary defines atheism (sorry about previous spelling) as a belief that God does NOT exist. Note this is different to the idea that He probably does not exist. According to your comments then most atheists on this site would be more properly called agnostics.

Dictionaries reflect rather than define the meaning of words (and this dictionary gives a poor reflection). Whatever the dictionary may say, the general use of the term "atheist" especially by those who call themselves atheists means "having no belief in god". That is how I use the word, and it is also closer to the original meaning of the word. In my opinion the term "agnostic" does not imply the sceptical view that I hold, though it may be technically accurate.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

The dictionary defines atheism (sorry about previous spelling) as a belief that God does NOT exist. Note this is different to the idea that He probably does not exist. According to your comments then most atheists on this site would be more properly called agnostics.

There has often been ambiguity surrounding these terms. The best way to understand is; agnosticism speaks to what you know, atheism speaks to what you believe.

agnostic n. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

atheist n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

I am an agnostic atheist. I do not know if there is/are god(s) but I do not believe there are. I have even met agnostic theists. They admit that they do not know but believe in their god anyway.

 

[Micaiah]

Dictionaries reflect rather than define the meaning of words

Dictionaries attempt to provide the generally accepted meanings of words. I obtained my definitions from the 'Concise Oxford Dictionary' which I submit is one of the most respected. If you have a definition that varies significantly from the commonly understood term, then you need to make that clear when you introduce the word, or better still, use the word that fits what you intend to mean.

 

[Loudmouth]

A denial of the existence of God is one of the fundamental axioms of the athiests beliefs.

No, the absence of objective evidence for the existence of God is the fundamental axiom. Atheists deny the existence of God for the same reason that you deny the existence of Leprechauns.

This belief logically influences their views on origins.

No, a reliance on objective evidence influences their veiws.

For the athiest, any explanation of origins must be forumlated without reference to God.

Nope, it must be formed on objective evidence.

It is not surprising then that an athiest is leading the charge against introducing into the science class a view of origins that allows for the possibility of a creator.

What the author was "leading the charge against" was lazy science. From the letter: "They are free to profess and believe whatever they like. But not being able to imagine or explain how something happened other than by a leap of faith to supernatural intervention is no basis for any science: that is a theological or philosophical notion."

What the author is trying to say is that we shouldn't put the "GodDidIt" label on everything that we don't understand or have a poor understanding of. This is exactly the trap that ID falls into, only replacing the "GodDidIt" with "DesignerDidIt" hoping that no one will notice.

 

[Micaiah]

In the last paragraphs you have identified what they would like the community to think motivates them. But is this the case? Is it possible they could be seeking to promote their own atheitic biases in letters such as these. To answer those question, you would need to take a broader look at the life of these people and the messags they are promoting.