The Atheist Agenda Unleashed
by JoyWe here at Telic Thoughts have applauded the "Post-Wedge World" ever since the religious motivations of school board members in Dover, Pennsylvania caused defeat of the infamous 'Wedge' strategy. Yet we are still bombarded by the wedge-centric scare mongering tactics of critics, as if Dover never happened, as if we supported teaching ID in public schools, as if we reject evolution, as if individual's metaphysical beliefs must automatically determine what is or is not science.
In the wake of their victory at Dover, the so-called 'New Atheists' have dropped all pretenses that their concerns are truly about science. They've proudly embraced the role of up-front Evangelical Atheists, thus revealing that their motivations were metaphysical all along. I applaud their new-found honesty, as this evens the public playing field significantly. And the public is certainly paying attention now that it's not just science vs. creationists arguing about educational policies in a country where religion cannot be taught as 'truth' (scientific or metaphysical) in public schools.
The most famous EA, however, happens to be British. And Britain has an official state religion that IS taught to children in public schools. Their situation is quite different from ours, but since the US has its own officially deputized EA contingent (Sam Harris, PZ Myers - who will be working directly for Dawkins), it's worthwhile to take a look at Dawkins' new tactics in Britain to see how that translates to activities we may expect from associated organizations and spokespersons here in the States who also pretended it was all about science before Dover.
The British newspaper The Independent published a story today entitled Dawkins takes fight against religion into the classroom. Seems Dawkins' new foundation will now be subsidizing books, pamphlets and DVDs that it will provide to British teachers. These are materials that directly promote atheism to children, purportedly to "counter the religious indoctrination of young people," though it doesn't say whether those will be science teachers or religion teachers.
This would of course be legal in a country where there is no separation of church and state, where religious (and now anti-religious) indoctrination is allowed as a matter of course. I for one will be watching with interest to see how this project gets translated by the US contingent in an attempt to indoctrinate children in atheism now that biology textbooks have been stripped of anti-religious propaganda.
I don't think they'll be able to rely upon their unrestricted access to public science classrooms for this project, since too many in the public are following. What's good for the creationist school board members in Dover is good for the NCSE. They'll find themselves in court faster than they can whistle Dixie if they attempt to place atheist indoctrination materials in public schools. Though it would be a fun spectacle to watch if they did. Once again I'm glad I invested in popcorn futures - I could make a killing!
Post Script: I do have to mention one highly humorous slip of the journalistic pen by Sarah Cassidy, the author of the Independent article. She writes:
Truth in Science, a Christian group campaigning to have "intelligent design" - the belief that the universe was created by an intelligent designer rather than natural selection - included in science lessons recently sent DVDs and materials to every secondary school in the country.
For all you critics out there - Do you really believe the UNIVERSE was created by natural selection?
April 10th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Actually yes they do, that is the most popular theory among the atheist cognescenti right now.
That there are an infinite number of unobserved and unobservable physical universes, and the reason this one is "fine tuned" for life is just because we observers are here to see it. We can't see all the universes that didn't make it.
Indeed there is even a variant where black holes create new universes that inherit some of their properties from their parent universes, making the whole natural selection thing even more central and allowing multiple generations.
Epicycles, anyone?
Comment by mcromer — April 10, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
April 10th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Hi, mcromer,
They are actually trying to say that a process (natural selection) is what created the universe? Ask them who created the process, and watch the floodgates open up with one nonsensity after another. At their core, these sorts of athiests are both illogical and idiotic. Amusing too.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — April 10, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
April 10th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Careful there, Anaxagoras… If you get that belligerent, they're liable to ask you who designed the designer…
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — April 10, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
April 10th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
To be fair, the stupidity of the Dover creationists was not part of the Wedge strategy. No self-respecting Wedgie would bungle public relations and legal strategy that badly. The Discovery Institute advised against Dover, and Dembski sued the Dover legal team for mega bucks. The boneheads in Dover were self-appointed ambassadors of ID, not the real thing. They were not true defenders of the Wedge.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 10, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
April 10th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Yep it is Lee Smolin's idea, although he thinks it might have fallen on some hard times.
I actually did an interview with Lee Smolin a while ago for The Sci Phi Show about this idea if anybody is interested.
http://thesciphishow.com/?p=10...
He was an interesting guy to talk too and is much more upfront about his theory than some of those that have latched onto it.
Jason
Comment by thesciphishow — April 10, 2007 @ 7:37 pm
April 10th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
mcromer:
Biggest violation of Occam scientists ever tried to peddle, while at the same time claiming the razor as their own tool of slash-and-burn. And we don't see white holes any more than we see life spontaneously generating anywhere on earth from inanimate matter. Sometimes I wonder if they honestly expect us to be as dumb as we'd have to be to buy this junk.
Salvador:
Actually, it was my impression that the boneheads in Dover were arrogant (but not very smart) Creationists who knew nothing about ID, but wanted to try their hand at mini-theocracy and getting around the Constitution anyway.
That said, I've never been a defender of the Wedge. While it's not at all difficult to see that the issues plainly boil down to dueling metaphysics (materialism vs. Christianity), I wouldn't root for either camp to win a battle for the hearts and minds of other people's conscripted children.
And neither camp has any business whatsoever attempting to dictate or control my beliefs, about either science or gods. I value my liberty enough to fight any of 'em if it comes to that.
I'm where I am on the ID scale because what I know about science (and have seen of its applications) informs me that NDS is simplistic pablum and reductionist materialism is absurdly inconsistent. I am not afraid of Christian Reconstructionists (the real theocrats) because they're a way fringe minority wacky enough to be pitied for their poor contributions to the free marketplace of ideas.
I'm not afraid of macho atheist posers either, but they do have more authority than they deserve by virtue of their association with science. They have controlled exclusive access to kids for decades, despite the highly questionable constitutionality of their arguments. Science could save itself if it tried, but I don't see a lot of steel wool being applied to the rust. That's pitiful too, but the worst that can happen at this point if evolutionary science loses its access to the public teat is the development of biological WMDs will suffer a setback. We can live with that.
It is kinda fun to watch the games, though. §;o)
Comment by Joy — April 10, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
April 10th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
To be fair to Dr Smolin I thought it was a pretty cool idea. Certianly it was an inventive suggestion and has made for some good science fiction if nothing else.
Comment by thesciphishow — April 10, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
April 10th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Hi Joy,
As you can see by Salvador's comments the Wedge is as undead as Charlie. Probably for the same reasons.
You and I may be happy with a NOMA attitude, but not everyone is willing to play by those rules.
This is very similar to prisoner delemma of Game Theory. If both sides resist the temptation of claiming to hold the Ultimate Truth, both sides win. This is the NOMA-NOMA match-up.
However, maintaining a NOMA attitude is a weakness the other side can take advantage of. This is the heart of the Culture War, IMO.
It really doesn't matter who gave into temptation first. The fact is that the trust is broken and both sides are gearing up for what appears to be the inevidable. It could very well be the violent clash Dr. Wells implied in his "be afraid, very afraid" interview. Alternatively, we could try to look for a common proposal. I put forward my ideas (you called an "outline").
Do you have anything to counter-offer?
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 10, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
April 10th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
As of right now, I doubt single major proponent in the ID movement advocate mandatory teaching of ID in public schools. I would even venture to say, not a single major ID proponent would want government intervention against an atheist parent wanting to shield his child from ID. I certainly wouldn't.
The ID movement has had to live with the stigma of the kind of boneheaded antics by the creationists that were in Dover who were so eager to use their governmental office to proselytize. That's just plain wrong.
The Wedge doctrine was never one of coercion, but to win in the free market place of ideas.
The Wedge Strategy:
The only mention of public schools some what in passing, and under the provision of seeking "possible legal assistance". The anti-ID propaganda machine has been so effective that the Wedge has been characterized as centrally focused on COERCING others into Christian faith.
Regarding public schools, Bill Dembski only got into the public school issue in 2002. See: Then and Only Then: A Response to Mike Gene
For myself, if some parent wants to indoctrinate his kids into atheism and Darwinism, much as I dislike it, it is that parent's kids, and I would vigoursly defend the rights of such a parent.
If a parent doesn't want his kids exposed to ID in public schools, fine, I hope something can be worked out. I would wager large proportion of leaders in the ID movement would want nothing to do with government forced prosyletization.
I recall once giving a talk, and an angry audience member confronted me saying, "Why are you trying to get ID in the public schools."
I thought to myself, "huh? That's not what this is all about." After I set him straight that the public school issue was not my focus, he left in a bit of huff.
For what it's worth, I'd be curious to poll the pro-ID evangelical Christians here about their views of using the government and public schools to bring people to Christ. I would sincerely be surprised to see the majority in favor of it. That's yet another stigma that Darwinists have affixed to us, and regrettably we have boneheads in one rogue district like Dover helping Evangelical live down to that reputation…..
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 10, 2007 @ 8:25 pm
April 10th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
TP:
The radicals cancel each other out FAPP. It's the majority in between who will ultimately decide how all this works out. And they will, as soon as their attention span wanes and their patience gets used up. Things in the midlands aren't anywhere near as threaty as the wingnuts on both sides would like us to believe. Science will learn to play nice or there's whole sections that can be weaned cold turkey. The Rushdooneys are just an embarrassment, like inbred cousins. Neither camp has the resources to overthrow the government.
If they go postal, they'll be shooting at each other. Because if they start shooting at everybody, everybody's going to shoot back - and we've got bigger guns. This country is in no mood for a violent revolution fomented by evangelical atheists and wannabe theocrats, and will not tolerate one.
It's not my job to save science (or humanity) from their own evil tendencies. It's not up to me to answer other people's metaphysical questions either. It's just a circus. You should relax and enjoy the show.
Comment by Joy — April 10, 2007 @ 8:49 pm
April 10th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
I was under the impression that NOMA was a pile of condescending crap designed to encourage the religious to let their guard down.
There is no way for it to ever work outside of an assumption like, "science == facts" and "religion == fairy tales". In reality it is more or less formulated as a more polite version of that.
I would contend that it was never proposed in good faith in the first place.
Comment by thesciphishow — April 10, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
April 10th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Hi, Wonders For Oyarsa,
That's when I say, "I don't know. Next topic, please, unless you have some ideas about this, in which case let me put on my hip boots first, okay?"
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — April 10, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
April 10th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Hi Salvador,
I find your participation in Telic Thoughts interesting and hope you will continue to offer your insight into what I would refer to as the "ID Moverment". In hopes of facilitating that, I will restrain my reactions here. You see, I was introduced to Intelligent Design through my interest in the Dover trial.
As you no doubt know, this is from Page 99 of the supplimental TEXTBOOK Of Panda's and People. This is the textbook recommended by the President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, Richard Thompson and was co-authored by people like Dr. Behe.
It was obvious to me that the "boneheads" at Dover sincerely thought they were doing the right thing for the right scientific reasons and that it was totally legal.
My question…
What is the fundimental difference between the school board leaders in Dover and the leaders of the ID Movement, other than the latter use more nuanced language? For example…
Dr. Dembski, 19 June 2006
as compared to a more straight-forward…
Dover School board member William Buckingham.
Provoking Thought
P.S. If you follow the link to Dr. Dembski quote, you will find that it now includes a parenthetical that wasn't there originally. More nuance.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 10, 2007 @ 9:59 pm
April 10th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Hi Joy,
I suggest we are all part of the show, otherwise we would just be quiet lurkers.
And, yes, I am enjoying myself.
Provoking
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 10, 2007 @ 10:04 pm
April 10th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
What on earth is this? Honest reevaluation of preconceived ideas as two people strive to understand and respect each others views?
Sheesh - only on Telic Thoughts…
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — April 10, 2007 @ 10:17 pm
April 10th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
To thesciphishow,
The phylosophical idea that Truth (capital "T") is beyond understanding has a very long tradition (see Socrates, Tao, etc.)
Ironically, I think Dawkin's agrees with you, but the other way around.
As in "NOMA is a pile of condescending crap designed to encourage scientists to let their guard down." (my rephrasing, not Dawkins).
One of these days I will put together a four quadrant map that plots the two dimensional and independent aspect of NOMA and religion. See link for more details.
Should I put you down for the religious-OMA quadrant?
(the others are atheist-OMA, atheist-NOMA, religious-NOMA).
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 10, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
April 10th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
The difference is the way business is done, and what are the core values in the way business is done. The ID Movement is against government entities meddling in certain affairs, and if one follows the the DI's other think tank activities (20% is only devoted to ID), one sees the DI has a highly libertarian views about how government should conduct itself. Thus what Dover did was highly distasteful to DI culture, and the culture of others I know in the ID movment.
If you look at the infamous Wedge Strategy document, the focus was on public relations. The method to achieve cultural change was through vigorous exercise of first amendment free-speech rights. I surely did not see the main message of the the Wedge Strategy focused on "let's get ID into schools" and "let's take over elected offices".
With respect to Dover, it seems apparent the school board wanted to proselytize and abused their power. The infraction they were sued for was a very watered down version of their original more ambitious creationist agenda.
Having myself been a part of the both the creation science movement and ID movement, I can tell you that lots of Evangelical would feel deeply unconfortable having non-Christians public school teachers teaching the Bible to their kids. And if we consider less than the noble reasons of self-interest, why would churches want to set up competing institutions to teach God's truth?
Where the churches have been involved in school issues is things like sex education and Gay Straight clubs. One can understand that Christian parents might be quite disturbed over what their daughters might be taught as acceptable behavior in regards to those issues. So in my church circles, that's the only time I've heard an alarm bell raised for some sort of involvement….
In contrast, it really has been like pulling teeth to see churches get excited about the ID controversy. Part of it is the fact that 27% of Evangelicals believe in evolution (see Newsweek Poll). It's not in the pulpit's interest to drive away 27% of their congregation! For example, in the somewhat notorious case of Caroline Crocker (See: Crocker, Sisson, Cordova, Chenette: TV special on ID in Higher Education), even though Crocker was married to the minister of the influential and highly evangelical Truro Episcopal Church, I don't recall much outrage over the issue happened in her church. Large numbers of evolutionists inhabit her mostly Evangelical church. In fact I used to go out with the daughter of one of the more prominent evolutionists in Crocker's congregation. It was not that big a deal….
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 10, 2007 @ 10:39 pm
April 10th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
You can if you like, though that might not quite be accurate.
It is clear based on comments by Dawkins, Dennett and others that they have no intention of "staying on their side of the line" in the case of NOMA.
But more than that, such divisions can never be done because most "religions" make claims about the nature of the real world.
Comment by thesciphishow — April 10, 2007 @ 11:36 pm
April 10th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Hi Salvador,
(I hope you don't mind my informality, it is my attempt to keep this friendly).
Thank you for your response, especially the link to post that included your picture. I quickly skimmed it, I will try to read the post in depth later.
Before you think I am too nice, I very much question DI's motives and methods. However, rather than delve into why DI representatives spend so much time in Washington DC and state capitals like Kansas and Ohio (my home state) I want to focus on something else you said…
I like to think of myself as a libertarian and statements like this causes my alarm bells to go off. There is a HUGE difference between after-school activities like Gay Straight clubs versus government sanctioned school curriculum.
I have no doubt that those in "church circles" would be upset about a devil worship club meeting on school grounds. However, a libertarian would fight equally for (or against) devil worshipping and bible study. Personally, I can see arguments either way for religious after-school activities. I tend to lean towards allowing it as long as it is clear such groups receive no special treatment or recognition.
Clubs concerning sex (be it promoting homosexually or abstinence) shouldn't run afoul of the constitution and shouldn't be any business of government officials.
Being a libertarian only when it supports a biased cause, isn't being a libertarian.
Just like asking the government to selectively "teach the controversy" isn't being libertarian.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 10, 2007 @ 11:39 pm
April 11th, 2007 at 12:00 am
To thesciphishow,
So what is to be done?
Do those that reject NOMA (either atheist or religious) have a valid point?
Is it time to quit pretending and have it out?
At the risk of being called a NOMA coward, I think a prudent compromise would be to look for common ground that can be embraced by both sides.
At further risk being overly repetitious. Here is my sketchy outline to what I am talking about.
Provoking Thought through Compromise
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 11, 2007 @ 12:00 am
April 11th, 2007 at 12:32 am
Hi Salvador, (again)
I am probably pushing this friendly conversation too far, but it might provide some fuel for thoughtful discussion"¦
One of the legal arguments made in the Dover case was that the Santorum Amendment forced school districts to "teach the controversy".
Unfortunately for the school board, their actions didn't match this allegation.
As you probably know, the Discovery Institute was a chief instigator behind this amendment that was basically federal goverment meddling in how schools were ran. I offer that, with a different cast of characters in Dover, the meddling may have succeeded.
Are you really going to suggest that the Discovery Institute would be condemning the use of it's supplemental textbook (Of Panda's and People) in a public science classroom?
In other words, was what the school board attempted in Dover fundamentally wrong or just an unfortunate set of circumstances?
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 11, 2007 @ 12:32 am
April 11th, 2007 at 1:20 am
Well I obviously think so
That seems to be what the "new atheists" desire, so perhaps we should simply take them up on the offer.
I'm not sure there can be "prudent compromise" with the Darwinist camp because they are essentially commited to a religious position that is incompatible with those they are advocating adopt NOMA.
That is the real problem. You have two religious worldviews in conflict with science caught in the middle and trying to be co-opted by one side.
Comment by thesciphishow — April 11, 2007 @ 1:20 am
April 11th, 2007 at 1:36 am
"Selectively" teach students that there is more than one opinion on certain issues? As opposed to selectively teaching just one side?
Comment by onething — April 11, 2007 @ 1:36 am
April 11th, 2007 at 1:51 am
Hi thesciphishow,
I see your "real problem" and raise it with a suggestion that it goes beyond co-opting. It is a search for rationalization and righteousness to destroy the other side in the name of "morality".
I would be interested in hearing your comments on my "common ground".
Here is the link.
Provoking Thought through Compromise
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 11, 2007 @ 1:51 am
April 11th, 2007 at 2:25 am
Hi onething,
It is the choice of the "certain issues" that is the problem.
If you are interested in making a proposal, make one. You have seen mine.
If you are manufacturing a reason to start a fight, don't complain when you get one.
If you really want to teach controversy, there are plenty of controversial subjects to choose from. Most of them involve the subject of sex. Questioning the ethics of America's current imperialistic tendencies would be a prime subject for middle school children today. Dawkin's would like us to explore the possibility that traditional religious upbringing is similar to a social disease. If you want to talk about a theory in crisis, look at Gravitational Theory. What the children are being taught isn't even close to the multidimensional reality.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 11, 2007 @ 2:25 am
April 11th, 2007 at 11:11 am
TP:
And you wish to play a starring role, which is why you think it's up to you to 'solve' the issues and come up with a theory of life and evolution everyone can accept. Me… I'm just the plucky comic relief. §;o)
Comment by Joy — April 11, 2007 @ 11:11 am
April 11th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
OK, at least now I understand what you meant by the word 'selectively.' However, what you have done is change the subject. I would agree that there are a lot of controversial issues that get one-sided treatment. I think there are intelligent detractors from Big Bang theory who are being ignored. Perhaps the idea of teaching the controversy could/should spread to other topics. But the problem of one-sidedness in other areas does not invalidate the point that there are and have been serious detractors from NDE from the beginning, and that the public is misled and ill served by having that downplayed.
Comment by onething — April 11, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
April 11th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Would you be so kind as to explain what said indoctrination would consist of? So far, I've seen suggestions to not teach creationism in biology class and not threaten gay (or Jewish, or Muslim, or atheist) teenagers with hell and damnation. Are you all so scared of what an atheist curriculum would leave out, or is there something you're worried they'll bring in?
Comment by grendelkhan — April 11, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
April 11th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
If religious folks really believed in NOMA, they wouldn't be making empirical claims about the world. The Answers in Genesis crowd is the most blatant, but it's ridiculous to pretend there's not a habit among the religious of claiming divine justification for those empirical claims.
Comment by grendelkhan — April 11, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
April 11th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
TP,
I am not at all familiar with what American Jr. High and High School students are being typically taught today in their science classes. So, what I am suggesting may be something that is already going on.
What is the problem with teaching students that Quantum Physics, as it is presently understood, appears to be, in a number very significant ways, conceptually irreconcilable with classical physics, including Einstein's theories of relativity. What is wrong with teaching students that in the late 19th, when a number of physicists thought they were close to putting the finishing touches on Newtonian physics, that two apparently insignificant anomalies: one concerning the speed of light and the other the emission spectrum of black body radiation led to not one but two new and distinct theories. Of course it is the same two "˜irreconcilable' theories, Quantum Physics and Einstein's theories of General and Special Relativity, which we have just been discussing.
What's wrong with teaching students that science is incomplete, that it's a work in progress? Or, that sometimes this progress moves in fits and starts, and that every theory in science has unsolved problems and anomalies? Or that sometimes the anomalies lead science in a totally new different direction? Or, that they sometimes result in new discoveries and breakthroughs?
Now, what's wrong with discussing the similar problems and anomalies that arise in the biological sciences and with Darwin's theory of evolution? Are there such problems? Why should there be any difference? Is there something sacrosanct about biology and the theory of evolution?
IMO it's not so much about teaching the "˜controversy" as it is as having an open and honest discussion of the problems. Maybe this is a way that we could have some genuine compromise.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — April 11, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
April 11th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
grendelkhan:
Click on the link to the story in the OP, which documents the intent of the Richard Dawkins Foundation (when and if it ever gets its official "charity" designation so it can take "charitable" donations from the public) to produce books, pamplets and DVDs for distribution to teachers in Britain so they can teach atheism. It doesn't say whether this teaching would be in science classes or in Britain's requisite religion classes.
Now, if the RDF intends that atheism should be taught in science classes, I predict a serious reaction against the idea from within science itself. Or, I'd hope for one, though science may be so corrupt by now they'd go along with it. If they can accomplish that in Britain, it becomes easier to link science directly with atheism everywhere else. Goodbye science, hello the Church of Dawkins!
On the other hand, if they get atheism into religion classes, that pretty much clinches it for the evangelicals like Dawkins who want to claim it's all about science. They'll suddenly be in exactly the same boat as fundamentalist Christians, Jews and Muslims - metaphysics is not science and science doesn't deal in metaphysics. Case closed.
So I'm interested to see how this goes. Should be fun.
Religious folks can make empirical claims about the world all they want. The term "empirical" means knowledge gained through sensory means. Billions of human beings ever since there have been human beings have direct sensory experience of things they've variously defined as spiritual, holy, ineffable, mystical, universal… god-like.
In a couple of recent threads here the subject of brain hard-wiring for such sensory experience has been discussed. Quite a bit of neurological and neurophysiological research has been done, and establishes that the experiences do in fact occur upon stimulation of certain brain areas or "modules."
It could be that these processing modules pre-exist the development of specific in-line sensors (like retinal cells, taste buds, aural apparatus, skin sensors, etc.), in which case *what* causes stimulation of the modules is still a big mystery. Some spiritual systems have certain practices that can lead to self-stimulation, but that's a meditational thing rather than subject-object interaction like sight or sound.
But just as the color red existed before certain primates developed cones to detect the wavelength of light, *what* is being perceived now likely pre-existed the hard-wiring to enable perception. An interesting evolutionary research project would be to examine lemurs - some of which have trichromatic vision already, some of which don't - and see if the wiring in visual processors for 'red' is present in those species who haven't yet developed the retinal cells sensors.
I imagine that in species that are in the process of developing sensory equipment to perceive greater depths and qualities of reality, those who CAN do it seem mighty strange to those who can't. Evolution's weird that way - individuals are either born with it or without it. They don't personally evolve in real-time. I'd guess that's also true of human beings.
We do not know if our empirical sensory data - or the extensions of those we design for our use - are anywhere near able to sense all there is out there in reality. And we don't know that our cognitive ruminations about what we are able to perceive (rationalism) tell us the truth about any of it. Thus science has no business at all proscribing the limits of reality and pronouncing the doors forever closed. That's simply NOT it's job.
The magesteria overlap wherever there are questions of experience and/or possibility that science might be able to investigate. It may develop tools to extend our perceptions to see the unseen (infrared, ultraviolet, for instance). Questions don't arise from nowhere, they arise from human experience and cognition about human experience - empiricism and rationalism. Science may be out of its league at any point (a realm we classify as "metaphysical"), but humans can go where science can't. It has always been thus.
Comment by Joy — April 11, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
April 11th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
You are of course correct, and I found myself in a difficult position in that to get ID into schools I was advocating equal access initiative in Virginia which would ironically support the allowance of Gay Straight Clubs. There was of course the "nuclear option" which would put a clamp on all student clubs…..
When in coversation with Michael Shermer, given these sorts of issues, he said he was in favor of home and private education. The ultimate libertarian option. It was one of those rare moments when I was in very strong agreement with Shermer.
Regarding the GSA clubs, it was not that Christian parents wanted to proseletize other gay kids, they were being protective of their own kids. The issue is a little more nuanced than trying to merely impose ones mores on others. I think many parent want to insulate their kids from "the wrong crowd".
The main point of what I wrote however was the relative AMBIVALENCE of the ID issue relative to:
1. Gay issues
2. Sex Ed
3. Abortion
4. everything else
ID in the public schools is a low priority. How do I know? It's hard to get them excited about the topic in the churches, much less any sort of school activism. And even then, as I pointed out, there would be a good number of evangelicals opposed to non-Chrisitians teaching either ID, creation science, or the Bible.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 11, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
April 11th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
What the Dover Board was guilty of was stupidity and many prior infractions in the of abuse of power. The little 1-minute disclaimer for which they were sued, was not the whole story of their misconduct.
Compare how Dover did business to Larry Calwell in DCalifornia School District Adopts Policy Allowing Scientific Criticisms of Evolution. Caldwell argued for the constitutional defense of students right to believe and not be infringed upon. The wording and the approach was acceptable to all school board members, and it seems a lot of work was done to hammer out something acceptable to parents [I have no data on the parents, but the unanimity of the board was very telling, so I'm going by circumstantial evidence].
No. And there legal ways to day it can be admitted, and it's being done quitely [with other books] in Virginia. For example, a bio teacher can invite students to write about current events in biology. If the student chooses, he is free to get the textbook on his own.
The DI has made it clear, any sort of mandate is bad policy. And regarding motivations, let's say for the sake of argument that we ID proponents are nothing more than
self-interested business men with an agenda. From a PR perspective, any hint of infringing on other people's rights is just bad PR, and it just bad business. There is no need to make more enemies for a project than we need to.
Now, if you are inclined to be suspicious of the ID movement's motivations, I would simply say, for the sake of argument you can assume we're dirty rotten scoundrels. At the end of the day, the questions of science are still there.
By way of comparison, I have an intense distaste of YEC culture and the authoritarian snooty attitudes within that community. On the other hand, I found myself independently arriving at similar conclusions despite my distaste for their authoritarian, belligerant conduct. If we discounted ideas because they were promoted mean-spirited opportunists like Isaac Newton, where would we be today?
I can appreciate your worry over motivations and civil liberties. I doubt I can do anything to alleviate them, but in the end, at least with respect to the hypothesis at hand, it is just a side show.
And by the way, I appreciate your comments here at TT as well.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 11, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
April 11th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Yes, exactly so. I believe there can be a wide agreement that no topic in science should be treated with the dogmaticism currently given to Darwinism. Science is a work in progress, not a fixed body of facts to memorize. Students should come to an understanding of how even well-established theories may be faced with contrary evidence and may in fact be replaced at some point.
There is no legitimate reason to shield students from awareness of the scientific difficulties faced by Darwinism (and here I do mean the claim that the Darwinian mechanisms of random variation and natural selection adequately account for the diversity of life).
Other scientific topics should likewise be treated with an appreciation of scientific issues and disagreements. Such a treatment is both more true to life and more engaging of the student's interest.
This does not mean that I think ID has sufficiently earned a place in the curriculum to be mandated. I agree with DI's position on this. Thought Provoker asked:
I'm surprised that you ask the question. If you have studied their position at all, you should know that they consistently opposed the Dover policy and advised against it, even though the Dover policy didn't even actually bring those textbooks into the science classroom.
Comment by eric — April 11, 2007 @ 8:20 pm
April 11th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Yeah I guess the new atheists are guilty of trying to do this.
I'll read your peice and respond when I get a chance.
Comment by thesciphishow — April 11, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
April 11th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
There is a religious perspective that could potentially be non-overlapping in its claims in comparison with science, namely deism. Theism (in contrast to deism) implies participation by God within the universe. When it comes to events such as the virgin birth or the resurrection of Jesus, as a pair of examples, its obviously the case that natural world claims are being made. Whether human nature is or is not merely material/physical is another such overlapping point of contact.
NOMA only works for deistic perspectives, at best.
Leaving religion aside and just looking within science itself, one unavoidable point of difficulty within the current paradigm is the origin of language and biological information. I know you have asked why "Intelligence" is required. One reason is that we know of no other source for language and information than intelligence.
Science is empirical and it makes inferences based on uniform extensions from observations. Do you know of any observed source for language and symbolic information other than intelligence?
Comment by eric — April 11, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
April 11th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Why do people always omit detail when talking about Kitzmiller v. Dover? Is it because they think it's a hard sell that because you can't teach Creationism in school that you cannot mention a text book that used to contain the word "Creationism" and substituted ID?
People fear the "coming theocracy" because some Christians settled on reading a four paragraph statement to classes of bored students enticing them with salacious things like textbooks that could be read on their freetime!!. The first paragraph of which contains the reason WHY they'll evolution will continue to be taught. "The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part." (So you Christian/Muslim parents need to simmer down about this.)
That the Constitution was written to forbid mention of books in Science classes in government schools is simply an untenable, unless you buy into this expertocracy idea that some seem to be selling. I laugh when I think that supposed out-of control theocrats seek to indoctrinate people first by telling them that they need to learn evolution and that all they could do is offer a book to read on the side. The beauty of their deception is that you almost get the idea that they listened to feedback or compromised somewhere. But that's how they GET YA!
And the nefarious Wedge Document is somewhat disturbing to me–not that I disagree with all of it. But I read through this document that opponents can't decide whether it's an intercepted top-secret communique or a posturing press bulletin. Phase II is not so much the problem, publicizing legitimate science is not really a problem. But as the document also proposes, it all relies on Phase I, and I doubt that they are on schedule with Phase I — which is doing research.
But just remember, our oligarchs have spoken: mentioning == establishment. A chemical analysis on the slope tells us it's getting slipperier all the time.
Comment by Axeman — April 11, 2007 @ 9:37 pm
April 11th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
"Are you really going to suggest that the Discovery Institute would be condemning the use of it's supplemental textbook (Of Panda's and People) in a public science classroom?"
"classroom"?
"Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves."
Where does that specifically say that any classroom (or time) is involved?
And they might mean what they say, mightn't they? People do it all the time. Many people use words for exactly that purpose–to convey a meaning.
Being a commie yourself, you might not understand that.
Comment by Axeman — April 11, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
April 11th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Hi Salvador T. Cordova,
I am in awe of your ability to see what you want to see. Truly.
Good, let's talk science. What is your scientific proposal? Here is mine.
Thank you.
BTW, there is a easy way to alleviate my worries. Present your "hypothesis" clearly and openly so we can judge its merits for ourselves. And please don't steer me to the local bookstore to buy one of Dr. Dembski's book.
What is your hypothesis? Do you have at least an outline? You have mine.
Provoking Independent Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 11, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
April 11th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Truly insulting, TP. I offered speculation, not a claim of absolute fact.
I have already mentioned my specific proposal:
1. The Designer is the Ultimate Observer. See: Peer-Reviewed Stealth ID Classic : The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1987)
2. Genetic Entropy suggests special creation. Solexa technology may give clues as to when the event took place.
3. ID is only a component in my hypothesis. ID refutes that Darwinism is a plausible mechanism in OOL and Organic Evolution. ID speaks nothing of #1 and #2. Where you'd like to discuss the specifics you may mention, since this thread is not about my ideas, but rather Joys topic.
4. I argue for a Young Cosmos based on the work of Walter Brown, Barry Setterfield, and John Sanford.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 11, 2007 @ 10:20 pm
April 11th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Salvador T. Cordova:
I'll chime in, although I'm an ID-neutral evangelical. I don't need ID and we don't need the schools. I can't imagine a Christian that I know that well who thinks that we need the schools to evangelize for us. I think authority creates the wrong dynamic for evangelism. Paul said, "Let each man be convinced in his own mind." I'd rather go with that.
Theocracy alarmists are always cherry-picking beliefs to come up with the most ominous picture possible. They get riled up about the number of Christians awaiting the second coming, but have no idea that most of these people would be called pre-millenials. The rap on premils from other theologies is that premils would watch the world slide down hill if they thought Jesus was coming all that much faster. Hence, premils are the least motivated to enact a theocracy. It's dominionists and some postmillenials that think we need to build the kingdom, Pat Robertson, for example. And as a result, they are the most interested in passing laws that Jesus would be proud of. But they are minority, as I understand it.
Of course, I belong to a relatively urban evangelical church.
Comment by Axeman — April 11, 2007 @ 10:51 pm
April 11th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Hi Salvador,
You wrote…
Yes it was. But trust me, it was a lot better than the litany of comments I was preparing but scrubbed. I did not suggest you were presenting fact. Quite the opposite, you "speculated". I was impressed (not in a good way). So I made a short remark to get to the important stuff. Thank you for your response.
You are right, you did say this before and I apologize for forgetting that
If you are not too angry, I would like to discuss it further.
I was impressed with the Anthropic Cosmological Principle and if you look at what I offer as my "ID proposal", you will see it is quite similar.
I looked up Solexa when you first mentioned it. I need to review that.
I have a simple blog if you wish, we can use that.
Alternatively, we might try to talk one of the TT moderators in creating an open thread (we haven't had one in a while).
Regards,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 11, 2007 @ 11:08 pm
April 11th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Salvador wrote:
Salvador,
If it's all about the ideas, and not about the character of those holding them, then why are you constantly stooping to tactics like quote-mining Darwin in order to portray him as a puppy-beater?
Comment by keiths — April 11, 2007 @ 11:46 pm
April 11th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
The speculation was not in a vacuum. Typically if something like this happens there will be threats of lawsuits will shut things down quickly like, Intelligent Design Group Urges California High School to Change Course or Remove Intelligent Design.
I have been surprised I've not heard negative reaction to what happened in Lancaster, especially in light of the fact it happened post Dover. If my facts are wrong, they are wrong, however, an analogous situation happened in Virginia, but because deals were worked out with the ACLU prior to a courtroom fight, situations like Dover were avoided. The ACLU was helpful in outlining what they would and would not prosecute. The result was peace. If you have other facts you may present them, otherwise, you are merely speculating as well.
The Virginia case in question was: Bible Classes Get Blessing of School Board.
Now, I personally have reservations about the wisdom of the Staunton Bible Classes as a matter of policy, but what was not mentioned in the article was the ACLU gave its blessing. The issue was more over the wisdom of the decision, not the legality. The ACLU's role was mentioned here. This incident demonstrates that policies can be worked out in a manner that is no where near as confrontational as Dover.
My speculation was Caldwell was savvy enough to help engineer a similar deal. I have been trying to keep tabs on the outcome of what Caldwell engineered as I think, if successful that would be the model to follow in Virginia.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 11, 2007 @ 11:52 pm
April 11th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
This seems to me like the wrong place to make that point, Keiths. What Salvador says is true - so when you point it out the next time he quote mines Darwin in order to portray him as a puppy beater, it will be true too.
That way we get two rights, rather than two wrongs.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — April 11, 2007 @ 11:55 pm
April 12th, 2007 at 12:07 am
Not to mention that the ACLU becomes a power-broker or a semi-legitimate ruling authority in their own right. Neat.
Comment by Axeman — April 12, 2007 @ 12:07 am
April 12th, 2007 at 12:07 am
If you see a picture of a bunny, it's open thread time.
Comment by MikeGene — April 12, 2007 @ 12:07 am
April 12th, 2007 at 12:11 am
Thank You Mike
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 12, 2007 @ 12:11 am
April 12th, 2007 at 12:17 am
I think the bunny open threads would be good. What do you think?
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 12, 2007 @ 12:17 am
April 12th, 2007 at 12:44 am
I am creating a comment there as you read this.
(trying to make it a reasonable length)
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 12, 2007 @ 12:44 am
April 12th, 2007 at 1:07 am
WFO wrote:
Only if you think quote-mining is right. One egregious example is usually enough to convince people otherwise. Let's use Salvador's:
Salvador's quote-mine of Darwin:
Now look at everything that Salvador had to cut away to get the desired effect:
Now consider, phrase by phrase, each of the deletions that Salvador made, and ask yourself why each one was made.
You can then explain to the rest of us why quote-mining is a good thing.
Comment by keiths — April 12, 2007 @ 1:07 am
April 12th, 2007 at 1:22 am
Keiths,
It may be my fault in not communicating clearly, but I meant the opposite of what you took me to mean.
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — April 12, 2007 @ 1:22 am
April 12th, 2007 at 1:48 am
TP,
Two complaints-
In your proposal, you propose that purpose is sufficient. Someone asked you earlier, how you define purpose as opposed to intelligence. Perhaps you answered at some point. But I would say that NDE already has use of purpose, in that the prime directive is to survive, and that is purpose right there. So have you said anything new? Your use of purpose does not seem sufficient to answer the challenges to ID theory coming from information and irredicible complexity.
I'm not sure where anyone has claimed that, if I understand you correctly. It is quite one thing to claim to know the one and only OMA truth, versus what I claim, which is that NOMA is incoherent, and ultimately impossible. Even if it is so that we do not know the metaphysical details that underlie or are interwoven with what we choose to call 'physical reality' yet
1) IF there is any metaphysical/unknown aspect to reality, then
2) it most certainly overlaps.
There is ONE REALITY, NOT TWO
Comment by onething — April 12, 2007 @ 1:48 am
April 12th, 2007 at 2:00 am
I said:
Since nobody took the bait–especially not TP–I have to reel my line in, just for my own self-respect. The thing is that when you accuse your opponent of not honestly meaning their statement, you're done with any kind of argument, and the political campaign begins.
Comment by Axeman — April 12, 2007 @ 2:00 am
April 12th, 2007 at 2:32 am
Hi Axeman,
I totally missed your "commie" argument. I doubt I could have resisted that.
BTW, I did like your…
and I generally like the ACLU. (being a commie and all)
Regards,
TP
P.S. onething, please look in the Rabbit thread for my response
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 12, 2007 @ 2:32 am
April 12th, 2007 at 10:14 am
keiths, take your grudge match elsewhere, please. This thread is not the place for it.
Comment by Joy — April 12, 2007 @ 10:14 am
April 12th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Axeman:
Well, the ACLU *is* a power-broker in issues like this, because they're the ones who will represent parents who sue for violations per constitutional issues. This is actually a good thing, because policies don't have to get fought about in the actual courts if they can be shaped constitutionally in the first place.
You can't call the US attorney or fed/state AG to do this negotiation or advise. You can't call the chief judge of the Supreme Court to tell you what to do. So including those lawyers who would represent complainants prevents the problems before they arise. ACLU does nothing by individual lawyer's passion for rights or money. That makes them more trustworthy than any lawyer you could pick out of the contingency phone book.
In Staunton the off-campus religious instruction has been going on for 65 years. The issue was what children who opted out would get from the school while their classmates were out. This would be the same issue that would arise if religious students opt out of evolution or sex-ed classes (which they have a right to do).
Though to tell you the truth, I don't know why students need mid-week religious instruction during school hours if they get Sunday School and Wednesday night fellowship (that could be instruction if they wanted), or after-school religious group time.
Comment by Joy — April 12, 2007 @ 10:40 am
April 12th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
More evidence there is no theocracy!
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 12, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
April 13th, 2007 at 3:50 am
Joy:
But they are unelected power brokers, who worry about people who get their self-esteem as citizens over whether or not there is a cross not yet sand-blasted off a city's shield.
One of the original purposes of that document that they channel is that it was set up to organize a democracy. Which means that people vote on policy and it's not always a matter of expert judges triangulating the cross-sections of laws and reading tea leaves, and bemoaning the burden of governing as if they just had to make a decision in every case.
Comment by Axeman — April 13, 2007 @ 3:50 am
April 13th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Hi Axeman,
Actually, the U.S. Constitution was set up to organize a Republic, and a bill of rights was added to limit the powers of that republican government, regardless of what the majority of people might want to do.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 13, 2007 @ 9:09 am
April 13th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Axeman:
They're civil rights lawyers. With resources quite well versed in constitutional law. I have no problem at all with ensuring the constitution's enumerated and reserved rights are protected.
I don't have a problem seeing religious symbols here and there, mine or other people's. When somebody got all up in arms complaining about a cell tower disguised as a cross on a church conference facility nearby that could be seen from the interstate highway, I just laughed.
It was quickly determined that nobody's precious eyes are immune from seeing symbols they don't like, on other people's private property.
Public property is something else. I don't mind if religious symbols are removed, or if everybody's are displayed. It's just symbols, holy to some, but not to all. I'm always baffled by people who think everybody must worship their religion's symbology, and by people who are offended by any religion's symbology. Makes me wonder if humanity can ever grow up.
Actually, it's a republic (as Aagcobb noted), or a representative democracy. We do not vote on policy, we vote for representatives and administrators. Parties 'stand for' this or that general thrust, but that doesn't guarantee any given policy, nor does it prevent bad policies. Politics is a game of compromises. When that is unbalanced - as it has been recently - half the citizens have no say at all in general policy and none of the citizens have any say in specific policy. Such as unilateral wars of aggression launched on lies.
The courts adjudicate issues and policies of law. The USSC only gets final appeals, and only on constitutional issues. School district officials and school administrators should always consider constitutional issues in matters of first amendment concern, thus should seek out expert legal analysis when considering breaking (or enforcing) the law. If they don't, their money will go for lawyers later and that's not a good use of educational tax revenues that could better go to facilities, teacher's salaries, textbooks and supplies.
Comment by Joy — April 13, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
April 13th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Very good post, Joy. One minor point though is that the US Supreme Court does make rulings on other than constitutional issues. Since they can only review a tiny fraction of the cases appealed to them, they usually only take cases with important constitutional issues, or where there is a split among the US Circuit Courts on an important point of law which needs clarification.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 13, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
April 13th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Well, you'd know more than I! I once had 4th amendment rights violated when my legal files were seized, searched and held sans warrant. Important PI investigation reports and evidence pertinent to a pending suit in another state were conveniently "lost" in this process, and we had to put off a trial we'd been seeking for 6 long years.
3 Attorney Generals, a state SC Chief Justice and the ACLU told me all I could do was sue the official (DA of New Orleans) for trouble caused, since if I have not been convicted of a crime using illegally obtained evidence, I have no 4th amendment rights - could assert it only on appeal. Not being wealthy, of course I had to let it ride.
And that was years before the so-called "Patriot Act." Go figure.
Comment by Joy — April 13, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
April 13th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Sorry to hear that Joy. As illustrated by the Duke Lacrosse team rape case, prosecutors have enormous power which, if abused, can ruin people's lives. You would have the option of bringing charges against the prosecutor before the state bar association for ethics violations.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 13, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
April 13th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Oh, that was Harry [Connick]. He's comfortably retired now.
The ACLU, by the way, didn't deny that I might have a case for suit. They said my "class" wasn't big enough to bother with. IOW, I'm the wrong color [insert minority status of choice here]. Now that the "class" of illegally searched (and wiretapped) Americans is much larger, I hear there are cases pending… §;o)
Comment by Joy — April 13, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
April 17th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Joy: "Actually, it's a republic (as Aagcobb noted), or a representative democracy."
I knew somebody was going to nitpick that. I kind of guessed it's not a participatory democracy. But, how does that change the relationship that they experts are unelected and representatives of a public are? Furthermore, they are not even answerable to the people. It's all about restraining the power of the people and their elected representatives to interpretations of where the Constitution should be by now.
The court–and not the states–were the problem for the 14th amendment. The states ratified it. Chief Justice Taney wrote that black people could never warrant a full interpretation of the Cons. and were never meant to. As a result, the states unwittingly gave up 9th amendment rights through "Incorporation" which is not really something they did ratify. That means in order for the Cons. to travel over that line of precedent it took the intercession of the states, which limited themselves and lost all rights on successive interpretations.
Taney's arguments were unbelievable to say that a slave owner forever retains the property of a competent slave managing his owner's business in another state. But the funny thing is is that when Scot first tried to be legally emancipated, they threw it out. The court said that they couldn't decide on it because he couldn't prove he was owned!!. After this, Taney decides, he's just property. Just property that you can count on to manage your business living for years in a free state.
That was some property.
But Taney invoked the takings clause, because…well…he could. It only cost a war, though–and tens of thousands of lives to set it right. (despite that it was an illegal war against a country that parted with us the same way we parted with Britain) But they didn't know the law as well as Taney, or the fella that argued for Sandford.
Comment by Axeman — April 17, 2007 @ 1:34 pm