quote:

---

For that matter, macro evolution only has been disproved by overwhelming evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dude

quote:

---

For that matter, macro evolution only has been disproved by overwhelming evidence.

---

Typo?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by R.Wreck

A good article on evolution & Ernst Mayr in the Chicago Tribune.

quote:

---

Despite its--and other--scientific advances in the 20th Century, evolution is under assault in America. People with thinly disguised religious and political agendas are demanding that alternative "theories" with euphemistic names such as "creation science" and "intelligent design" be given the same or greater weight than evolution in our textbooks and classrooms.

But thanks to people like Mayr, there is a big difference between these theories and the theory of evolution. That difference is science. Mayr took Darwin's abstract theory of evolution and turned it into the science of evolutionary biology.

.......

Conversely, proponents of alternative theories such as intelligent design cannot produce a single testable, repeatable experiment to support their position. They want us to take it on faith. They argue that some things in nature are so complex that they must have been designed by a higher being and that there is some greater purpose in the universe.

Pre-Darwin religion

They're especially fond of tired examples and arguing from analogy--the old "watch must have a watchmaker" kind of fuzzy logic familiar to 18th and 19th Century minds. That doesn't sound like science to me; it sounds like religion before the age of Darwin. And here's the irony: While they would like you to believe that their arguments have the support of current mainstream religions, they do not.

---

Nice to see someone clearly stating the difference between science and nonsense. I can't wait for the letters to the editor from IDers and other fundies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beskeptigal:

I would first answer the alternatives question to dismiss it. "Yes, it is correct, alternatives should be taught." Get it out of the argument. When that isn't done, it remains the question and IDers remain in control. I know it sounds irrelevant, but it isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawks

I know what i have to say is oversimplified, but I think it still has some validity.

I have a sneaking suspicion that any kind of "intellectual" approach to this problem is going to fail, at least in the short-term. Most people haven't got the time/energy to read up on these kinds of issues, and if they did, they might not have the right mind-set to comprehend them. Science is not necessarily intuitive and can be difficult to grasp. A long term solution would be to have better science education. By this I don't necessarily mean that we need to have more time spent in science classes. More important is to teach (from whatever age kids are able to comprehend it) HOW scietific results are produced, and WHY the methods used are important. My own recollection of science education is that you are taught a lot of disparate facts (a lot of WHATs) that have to be recalled at a later test (this continued at university level). You could have this for 8 hours/day, 5 days/week without really knowing anything worthwile about science.

But even if someone has basic knowledge about science and can understand something "intellectually" they might still not accept it because of for example emotional reasons. So, instead of appealing to peoples brains, it could be more beneficial appealing to their hearts/stomachs/chakras/energy-fields/whatever-you-want-to-call-it. Unfortunately, science doesn't seem to have the charismatic show-people that creationism has (think Kend Hovind) who can charm/appeal to the masses (science doesn't have the luxury of being able to lie at will either, but that's a side point). These people are sorely needed. I know that for example Richard Dawkins is doing his fair share, as did the late Stephen J Gould, but I think their main readers were mainly people already interested in science. Robert Winston would be another example, but his programs (BBC) can sometimes simplify things to the extent that they are wrong.

A last option for dealing with the ID/creationism problem: Wait for it to go away on its own. Just like peoples tastes in clothes/music/movies change over time, so do peoples belief in religion. It might happen that in a few years time (when dubya has left power in the case of the US) that people simply loose interest in the whole issue. This might of course be wishful thinking on my behalf, and the ID/creationists could in any case by then have a foothold in the classroom that is difficult to get rid of. But on the other hand, science has managed to handle that before.


So my "solutions" to the ID/creationism problem:
1. Proper science education (ie, HOW are scientific results produced).
2. Appeal to the masses (there are more charismatic scientific spokespeople needed).
3. Ride it out. Fashions come and go, and so will religious ideas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by R.Wreck

quote:

---

Originally posted by beskeptigal:

I would first answer the alternatives question to dismiss it. "Yes, it is correct, alternatives should be taught." Get it out of the argument. When that isn't done, it remains the question and IDers remain in control. I know it sounds irrelevant, but it isn't.

---

Or would it be more correct (or complete) to say: "Yes, it is correct, alternative theories should be taught. Get back to me when you have a credible one."? It seems that if you dismiss the question by answering in the affirmative, without pointing out that that the "alternative" suggested is crap, you haven't gained anything. Or am I missing your point?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawks

....
So my "solutions" to the ID/creationism problem:
1. Proper science education (ie, HOW are scientific results produced).
2. Appeal to the masses (there are more charismatic scientific spokespeople needed).
3. Ride it out. Fashions come and go, and so will religious ideas.

---

polished strategy crafted by activists
calculated pleas to teach what advocates consider gaps
Discovery Institute spends more than $1 million a year for research, polls and media pieces supporting intelligent design.
using lawsuits and school board debates to counter evolutionary theory.
new strategy speaks of "teaching the controversy"
The [Southern Baptist Theological Seminary of Discovery Institute] said the move, along with the creation of a Center for Science and Theology, was central to developing a "comprehensive Christian worldview."
"We'll take money from anyone who wants to give it to us," Meyer said.
They formed Intelligent Design Network Inc., which draws interested legislators and activists to an annual Darwin, Design and Democracy conference.
The 2001 conference presented itsWedge of Truth award to members
"The strategy this time
If evolution's boosters can be forced to back down, he said, the Christian right's agenda will advance.

it is the anti-evolutionary scientists and Christian activists who say they are the ones being persecuted, by a liberal establishment
a school board member in a Tennessee county wants stickers pasted on textbooks that say evolution remains unproven.
"It's an academic freedom proposal. What we would like to foment is a civil discussion about science. That falls right down the middle of the fairway of American pluralism,"
"Anyone who expresses anything other than the dominant worldview is shunned and booted from the academy," Santorum said in an interview. "My reading of the science is there's a legitimate debate. My feeling is let the debate be had."
"teaching the controversy"
"Kids need to understand it, but they need to know the strengths and weaknesses of the data, how much of it is a guess, how much of it is extrapolation."

"The movement is a veneer over a certain theological message. Every one of these groups is now actively engaged in trying to undercut sound science education by criticizing evolution," said Barry W. Lynn,
"If you believe God created that baby, it makes it a whole lot harder to get rid of that baby," Fox said. "If you can cause enough doubt on evolution, liberalism will die."

Alabama and Georgia legislators recently introduced bills to allow teachers to challenge evolutionary theory in the classroom.
Policymakers in 19 states are weighing proposals that question the science of evolution
"As the Christian right has success on a variety of issues, it emboldens them to expand their agenda," Hankins said. "When they have losses . . . it gives them fuel for their fire."
[Bush emboldened them] by declaring that the jury is still out on evolution.
That approach appeals to Cindy Duckett, a Wichita mother who believes public school leaves many religious children feeling shut out. Teaching doubts about evolution, she said, is "more inclusive. I think the more options, the better."
"If students only have one thing to consider, one option, that's really more brainwashing," said Duckett, who sent her children to Christian schools because of her frustration. Students should be exposed to the Big Bang, evolution, intelligent design "and, beyond that, any other belief that a kid in class has. It should all be okay."