The Dover trial

[Kenny'sID]

You once asked me to explain as if to a 5 year old. Did you understand my explanation?

Funny. I missed that, must have been after I give up on getting anything out of anyone and stopped checking the thread.

I started reading but stopped after the first sentence for obvious reasons.

 

[AV1611VET]

should have driven a stake through the heart of anti-science "education", but no, these people are determined to push America back to the Dark Ages.

Where the Light shines the brightest?

 

[Juvenal]

Interesting. It seems Darwin was a bit of a theist. Wonder why his followers haven't been.

The vast majority of evolutionists in the US are theists, and more specifically Christian.

 

[pitabread]

I like the optimism here, that school age children can learn to understand controversial scientific issues by exploring both sides

The problem is there really isn't "both sides" here. On the one hand, you have legitimate science. And on the other hand, you have people that flat out reject science because of beliefs in magic.

The day that creationists can bring forward a rigorous theory with both the same level of explanatory power as the ToE (and no, "goddidit" is not an explanation) and at least the same level of application in biology related fields is the day there will be "both sides".

Until then, creationists are firmly living in la-la land.

 

[joshua 1 9]

should have driven a stake through the heart of anti-science "education", but no, these people are determined to push America back to the Dark Ages. I'm glad I don't live there.

Revamped "Anti-Science" Education Bills in U.S. Find Success

You can not have one without the other. You need both Paley and Darwin.

"Paley's Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy was one of the most influential philosophical texts in late Enlightenment Britain. It was cited in several parliamentary debates over the corn laws in Britain and in debates in the US Congress. The book remained a set textbook at Cambridge well into the Victorian era. Charles Darwin, as a student of theology, was required to read it when he did his undergraduate studies at Christ's College, but it was Paley's Natural Theology that most impressed Darwin even though it was not a set book for undergraduates. Portraits of Paley and Darwin face each other at Christ College still today.[7]" wiki

 

[essentialsaltes]

Then why do evolutionists object so strongly to creationism, or even intelligent design?

Because it is bad science or not science. Neither should be taught in place of, or alongside, science in science class.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Funny. I missed that, must have been after I give up on getting anything out of anyone and stopped checking the thread.

I started reading but stopped after the first sentence for obvious reasons.

I really think you should give it a try.

 

[mark kennedy]

The problem is there really isn't "both sides" here. On the one hand, you have legitimate science. And on the other hand, you have people that flat out reject science because of beliefs in magic.

You mean God, there's a difference, most who practice magic do not believe in gods per se. The real power of magic is in earth, air, fire and water. That's why I don't want institutionalized education teaching creation, they haven't a clue what a Christian doctrine is.

The day that creationists can bring forward a rigorous theory with both the same level of explanatory power as the ToE (and no, "goddidit" is not an explanation) and at least the same level of application in biology related fields is the day there will be "both sides".

There is no theory of evolution, there is a phenomenon in nature. Goddidit isn't an explanation unless God did create life and Goddidn't do it isn't an explanation unless God really didn't and don't act in time and space.

Until then, creationists are firmly living in la-la land.

It's been my experience that Darwinians are the modern mythographers, creating elaborate myths of stone age ape men and insisting there is no alternative. That's not science that's supposition and there is no controversy here, just two worldviews.

 

[mark kennedy]

You can not have one without the other. You need both Paley and Darwin.

"Paley's Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy was one of the most influential philosophical texts in late Enlightenment Britain. It was cited in several parliamentary debates over the corn laws in Britain and in debates in the US Congress. The book remained a set textbook at Cambridge well into the Victorian era. Charles Darwin, as a student of theology, was required to read it when he did his undergraduate studies at Christ's College, but it was Paley's Natural Theology that most impressed Darwin even though it was not a set book for undergraduates. Portraits of Paley and Darwin face each other at Christ College still today.[7]" wiki

“I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley’s Natural Theology: I could almost formerly have said it by heart.” (Charles Darwin, 1859. Letter to John Lubbock.)
​

Darwin ultimately rejected intelligent design in favor of natural selection, that's a simple choice. Would we deny that choice to future generations because Darwin's theory is the only option?

 

[mark kennedy]

Because it is bad science or not science. Neither should be taught in place of, or alongside, science in science class.

Ok so what about climate change? Do we teach the controversy or assume the scientific consensus is immutable?

 

[pitabread]

You mean God

I tend to equate *poof* Goddidit with magic.

There is no theory of evolution

Whatever you say there, chief. Good luck with that.

It's been my experience that Darwinians are the modern mythographers

Then your experience sucks. Get new experience.

(Of course, I know that you're likely using some private definition of the term "Darwinian" and likely equating it with atheism in some way, so it's probably beside the point to begin with.)

 

[pitabread]

Ok so what about climate change? Do we teach the controversy or assume the scientific consensus is immutable?

What controversy? There isn't really a scientific controversy around climate change. The controversy is almost entirely political.

 

[Speedwell]

“I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley’s Natural Theology: I could almost formerly have said it by heart.” (Charles Darwin, 1859. Letter to John Lubbock.)
​

Darwin ultimately rejected intelligent design in favor of natural selection, that's a simple choice. Would we deny that choice to future generations because Darwin's theory is the only option?

If ever Intelligent Design rises to the level of a scientific theory...

 

[mark kennedy]

I tend to equate *poof* Goddidit with magic.

That's called equivocation.

Whatever you say there, chief. Good luck with that.

It's not a theory, it's a phenomenon, what is known as the theory of evolution is the assumption that everything 'evolved' by exclusively naturalistic processes. Another equivocation fallacy.

Then your experience sucks. Get new experience.

like talking to you, that's an experience that just confirms the fact that Darwinians don't really care about evidence.

(Of course, I know that you're likely using some private definition of the term "Darwinian" and likely equating it with atheism in some way, so it's probably beside the point to begin with.)

This is Darwinism:

The doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

The doctrine, or teaching, that all change is the result of natural law not miraculous interposition. It's a presuppositional logic known as naturalism in Darwin's day and equivocated as science and evolution today.

 

[mark kennedy]

If ever Intelligent Design rises to the level of a scientific theory...

It's never been a naturalistic epistemology, it was, is and always will be metaphysics. That would be for Intelligent Design to rise, that would be to drag it down to a base naturalistic worldview it opposes.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Ok so what about climate change? Do we teach the controversy or assume the scientific consensus is immutable?

This thread is about the Dover Trial.

But to dispense with this briefly -- there is no controversy to teach.

 

[HereIStand]

Huh?

I too am confused.

A the time Origin was published, Darwin was a unorthodox Christian.

Glad to hear that he retained a semblance of faith.

Not sure what that has to do with the fact that Darwin is not some spiritual leader or whatever you seem to be implying.

Again, no idea what any of this has to do with the fact that Darwin is not a spiritual leader nor is he held a some sort of law giver or whatever straw man version you imagine him to be. That said, I see you're still using hyperbolic and emotional language rather than addressing any evidence for evolution.

Any chance you can actually address the evidence rather than attack people?

Darwin has been hugely influential (and detrimental) to Christian theology. There are plenty of books on creationism and intelligent design for those interested.

 

[Speedwell]

The doctrine, or teaching, that all change is the result of natural law not miraculous interposition. It's a presuppositional logic known as naturalism in Darwin's day and equivocated as science and evolution today.

Right--exactly as God intended it.

 

[mark kennedy]

This thread is about the Dover Trial.

But to dispense with this briefly -- there is no controversy to teach.

That's what it's called but discussion of the Dover trial hasn't been part of the thread. The link in the OP was:

Eleven bills designed to alter science-education standards have been proposed this year across the United States. A handful of those measures have either abandoned the traditional academic freedom model for more roundabout methods, or are using watered-down versions of it. (Revamped "Anti-Science" Education Bills in U.S. Find Success)​

Not one of the eleven legislative actions mentions creationism. The article is alarmist and dragging Creationism and Intelligent Design through this typical mess is more of the intolerance that makes a substantive argument on controversial issues impossible.

Honest question, did you even read the article linked in the OP?

State Representative Byron Donalds (Republican, Florida District 80), who sponsored the bill, does not think that it is anti-science. Instead, he says, it gives parents the power to hold school districts accountable for what their children are learning. “One of the key things about this bill, and why I think it passed, is that we didn’t target any one subject matter.”

But to Branch, it seems clear what sorts of issues might come up. “The people pushing the bill have been complaining about evolution and climate change,” he says. “It’s obvious that a strong motivation is getting that out of the textbooks.”
​

The thread has nothing to do with the Dover decision, which is why no one wants to talk about it. It's about how controversy is going to be discussed moving forward.

 

[mark kennedy]

Right--exactly as God intended it.

Unless he created life on earth about 6000 years ago.