“bearmagnet, how do you explain away the flagellum of bacteria or sperm cells? How did this motor evolve?”

“Pheadrus, and you keep missing my OBVIOUS point... natural odds of apparent design in nature. Remember, I'm talking about odds and nature and apparent design. You can calculate odds, whether the apparent design is in physical or biological systems.

Right. And? The odds of one physical formation being produced by natural forces are not analogous in any way to the odds of natural selection resulting in a widely divergent number of creatures fitting into ecological niches on our planet. The analogy is flat wrong.

People pushing an agenda? Phaedrus, I can provide countless quotes from evolutionists touting their "religion" and "beliefs" and presupposed notions of naturalism and secular humanism and atheism, and using evolution as their vehicle to do so!

Couldn't care less what these people believe, and couldn't care less what the CSRC believes. What I do care about is what they can prove.

Science does not pretend that it has disproven the existence of God. Why should we pretend that we have proven it?

Here's a few "mild" quotes... I'll pull up some juicy ones for ya later since you refuse to look at the "scientific data" and only try and determine any various religious beliefs of scientists behind it. Sorta crazy and immature that is has to come to this kind of reasoning. Here's some quotes from your "scientifically neutral" and "no agenda here, folks" evolutionists:"

Perhaps you missed every post that I made addressing the "scientific data" you espoused to support your position. I believe I have given contrary evidence that clearly refutes the idea of Behe's moustrap analogy, for instance.

You have a number of quotes here, and seem to be driving off the path to avoid addressing the question of why your scientists at the CSRC are not publishing this work in science journals, but have instead chose to take the message to the political and public arena.

THAT is what speaks of agenda. Not whatever their personal beliefs on God are. When science cannot be discussed among scientists, but instead, must be taken to politicians - then that says agenda to me.”

“Yes great discussion, S.J. Gould is one of my favs.

Ahhh we hit this topic pretty hard a few yrs back. Sadly Matt, I believe, has discarded that thread.”

“SJ Gould is so misunderstood. His "observations" are often twisted and taken out of context by creationists.”

“When I think about intelligent design and public education I think about classrooms with roofs that don't leak, windows that open, working electrical outlets, running water and sinks that work, plenty of internet ports and computers to plug into them, seats for the 35-40 kids I'm expected to teach. Whether my students are offended by evolution or not is irrelevant.

Maybe all this BS about ID and such is a intended as a diversion.”

“USA - Take back 1-2 mutations from flagella and you have a weapon that can bore into competing orgsnisms and deposit a poison. These "weapons" still exist in many species.

There are many examples where previous uses for complex structures have been determined. I don't have all the answers nor does science, yet. :)”

“I personally feel that school is for book learning and home is for religious teaching.”

“Sounds great Nigal. Gotta keep'em separated!”

“Seriousely, who wants their kids to be told about religious issues from a public school? They can't even get the crap that is known and proveable right.”

“Right on, Nigal.

Look, there is already an area for people to get down with Jesus, Buddha, or what ever ya want. Go there. I resent the fact that religions (not all) feel the need to recruit in schools. That's all it really is, people. There is no other justifcation for this, they gots to spred the word of da Lord. The only reason why all you Chirstians even practice this religion is because of a past Roman Emperor. Get Down!

There's a bible study group that meets at the school I work at. I don't care if it's at lunch time (not on school hours), if people feel the need to be with God, go to his house. The bible thumpers want to be in this school, the Administration let's them, but then they give chit to the "gothic kids" because they dress in black and wear Wiccan symbols.

People! Public money need to be spent on state isses, not religous values. Whose to say which religion is right anyways?

Practice what ever the hell ya want, as long as it falls within the laws and ya don't cram it down my throat or the throats of others. I have a lot of resecpt for people who follow that. It's the out right in your face peeps I'm talking about.”

“My Catholic schooling taught nothing about evolution or creationism for the most part. It wasn't till my college days that I got exposed to Darwins theory, etc. I took a Intro to Anthropology course on a whim and that has made all the difference in my life.

I don't know who is to thank for that extra layer on my brain but I'm glad I have it on occassions.”

“And really Q, the evangelicals don’t realize that the door they want opened opens both ways. If you demand ID to be taught, thus allowing religion into the state (class room), then by the same token, how long would it be before the state is forced into the church? Especially in this day and age when things that religions hold as wrong and won’t allow into the church (such as gay marriage) are becoming so mainstream with the secular populous. I could see in the not too far off future churches being sued for not allowing gay marriages.

The separation of church and state is there for the protection of the church as much as it is for the state.”

“Again, very correct Nigal! The big difference between the Church and State, at least in this counrty, is that the Church can be exclusionary on info, where that State has to alllow freedom of speech. Seeing as we are a melting pot in this country, I wonder what a Hindu in one of those classrooms feels like when that would be taught. Freedom of Religion my foot! As long as you believe in there Religion, it's cool.”

“Yeah, and look at all the crap that they started just with the Pledge thing. ID would never even make it in the school much less the class room. I also agree with the need to remain respectful of the beliefs (even the unbeliefs) of non Judao/christian students. I know I get force fed a lot of bullshlt from others for being a non christian (we’re christ killers, we’re of the devil, my faith is a false religion, you name it, I’ve heard it) so I know how uncomfortable it can be.”

“Not to beat a dead horse, but I'm looked down on daily at my "place of employment" because I don't believe. I got a real cross (no pun, pleaase) stare when I questioned the reasoning behind our Administartion bring back the Baccoloriate (sp?) ceramony at school. When I complained about thumpers in the building, my board office basically told me to shut up. Where I work, the foot is in the door.”

“Ya gotta watch yourself there man. I have a buddy who is Jewish and he got a new job at a place where the majority of the people there are evangelicals. He’s the IT department and he sets all the pass words for all the systems. He made all the pass words names of famous rabbis! LOL!”

“Now THAT'S great! I love it....heheheheeee

The perfect insult is when you insult someone and they don't know it.

Beautiful!”

“Q,,,do those religious students 'pay' to go to that school? If they do they should be allowed to hold meetings provided they go about it the proper way. I had guidelines to follow when I help start a Undergrad Arch. Club.

Comparing a religious groups to a bunch of Goths is a far stretch in my book.

Its funny how people can feel so threated religion. Where is the fear?”

“Briar - Nope, believe it or not, I work at a public school. The question about them meeting on school grounds was just that, why are they allow to mee in the building? what about seperation of church and state? I was told that since it wasn't happening during school hours, it was not a problem. Someone, please tell me it is, but I don't think that's the case.

The old "advisor" for the "club" was a hardcore Baptist. He has since moved to the west side of the state.

The comparision I bring is that Wiccan is seen as a religion, but to some (most in my district) it's seen as Non-Christian, Devil worship. That's the only reason. There is a lot of dissapointing things I see in my school daily. Lot's of hypocritical things.....really frustrating.....”

“Tell me this do you have two student union centers, my old college does now, one for blacks and another for everybody. Now that is frustrating.

Goths,, wiccan style aren't the norm. I see it mostly as a trendy subculture that eventually most 'kids' will out grow because exceptance of that 'lifestyle/fad' is to great of a challenge to overcome in the public eye. I wouldn't label all Gothheads as devil worshippers and I would be willing to bet most of them are not. Its a subcultural trend and a aging one at that. It peak yrs ago in my book well atleast here it did.”

“That is real sad, Briar, and I hope and do think, that we have made progress since then.

We do, however, have a new commons are tat the tax payers built. his structure was marketed to the public as an area where student could gather, have internet access, so homework, wait for rides home, etc. Our admin, since it's been built, had closed the doors to this area and will not allow any groups to assemble there. We have a large population of Black kids that gather around after school to wait for rides, because most of them are what we call in this area "School of Choice", we kids from the same county (or, they can have "dual resisdency status") can attend ay school that accepts School of Choice student. Not all SoC students are Black, however. Anyways, the Admin of our biulding, after school, will walk to halls and kick all of the Black kids out of the building for being loud, rowdy, what have you. At times, we go into "lock down" right after school because they are trying to get rid of these "trouble kids".

Maybe it's not the same thing, but just a little insight on the hyprocritical things I see.

Maybe we should get back on topic......”

“what's the topic? And how come no ones fighting about said topic?”

“This is pretty interesting. A long-time renowned atheist and philosopher, Antony Flew, now believing in "intelligent design" based solely on science and reason, not on faith. I have no idea why so many people are not open to discussing this philosophy/theory alongside random-chance philosophy/theory when it comes to the subject of "origins" in our public schools.

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/politics/10378501.htm

P.S. I hope this is a "fuego" thread, I just pulled up this thread on the subject. I'm not wishing to discuss it or anything, just bringin' it up as a topical related event. And yes, I DO like hiking.

This post sponsored by Leki® Super Makalu trekking poles.”

“Oops, I unchecked fuego and it was still here. Sorry folks, really. Nothing to see here... keep a move on people, nothing to see here... no rubbernecking, just keep on goin'... that's good... keep it movin'... your cooperation is appreciated... don't slow down, move along now... that's it...”

“I think people believe in God when they are close to dying like this old coot, lol.

What does this have to do with the heading about design and school? I remember when I was in elementary school, and they had a big girl's bathroom. Well, they split it in half, but on the connecting walls, there was this metal mesh above the toilets where you could see right into the boys bathroom......it was a learning experience.”

“Now how will I be able to get back to sleep tonight?

Did you have to make so much noise with your posting and wake me?
last edited: 12/10/04 1:41:41 AM”

“nowslimmer, I see you are in Florida. I was going to say watch Jay Leno, because he is having the fruitcake lady on tonight. She's the old lady that speaks her mind about life and sex. She's funny.”

“Thanks, lipstick hiker. I clicked on a few channels, but did not see anything interesting. So I have WUOT.com playing on the computer.
last edited: 12/10/04 1:57:41 AM”

“nowslimmer, wow, it's almost 3am your time, no wonder there's nothing good on. Actually, Jay repeats his show again in the am, maybe about 2:30am or 3:30am. I'm not sure if it's a repeat from earlier this evening. My mom is hoping it is, because she will be up and missed the fruitcake lady on the earlier broadcast. She's in NY.

She's on now, gotta go and call it a night. Goodnight!”

“LH - Intelligent Design is the beleif that "intelligent causes" are responsible for the universe and it's creation. "Intelligent causes" can be anything; a diety, aliens, etc.

Some people want Intelligent Design taught in the classroom as an opposing idea to Evolution. Problem (imo) is, Intelligent Design is still based on faith, of some sort. So, I'm of the opinion that Evolution is the only thing that should be taught in the classroom; Teach Science in the classroom and faith in your home/church.”

“Hi Tara.”

“Hi Chris.”

“Evolution is taught as a "theory" although it is portrayed as "fact" in a lot of textbooks. Creation is also a "theory" that should be discussed. From my science textbook, Prentice Hall - "The Nature of Science & Technology", p. 13 "Scientific inquiry refers to the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidense they gather." There is room for both to be presented.”

“I keep trying to get up to D-town.. Maybe the gods will favor me one day.”

“Maybe”

“Theory based on science
vs.
Theory based on faith

I'm not discounting the theory of creation or Intelligent Design. I'm just arguing that they don't belong in the Science Classroom.”

“I was listening to 'Ideas' on CBC and they were talking about the Big Bang, quantum physics and biology. One wag said modern science is all about, 'Give us one free miracle and we'll explain everything else.'

Personally, I dunno.”

“Oops. Here's an edit of my last post:

Theory based on Science
vs.
Supposition based on Faith



"Evolution is taught as a "theory" although it is portrayed as "fact" in a lot of textbooks. Creation is also a "theory" that should be discussed."
-applesauce

By definition, "theory" is a set of statements specifically designed to explain facts. Evolution is a scientific theory. ID and creationism are suppositions, not theories (by definition).”

“ID and creationism are suppositions, not theories (by definition).
I agree

But I don't think you can ignore religious theory/supposition when teaching science. Both have been intrinsicly entwined for centuries and I do think it provides a valuable insight into the workings and social dynamics of the scientific process. Especially in showing the factors that influence scientific research.

To simply state that their are several (choose your most comfortable label: theories, suppositions, traditions, myths) of divine intervention does not constitute teaching faith.”

“Why do you do this Buck? Please try to also remember through all the Religious-fundemental-rightwing-Buck-Kentucky Crap That Flew IS NOT A SCIENTIST. ;)

Antony Flew is considering the possibility that there might be a God. Sort of. Flew is one of the most renowned atheists of the 20th century, even making the shortlist of "Contemporary Atheists" at About.com. So if he has changed his mind to any degree, whatever you may think of his reasons, the event itself is certainly newsworthy. After hearing of this, I contacted Antony directly to discuss it, and I thought it fitting to cut short any excessive speculation or exaggeration by writing a brief report on, well, what's going on.

Once upon a time, a rumor hit the internet that Flew had converted to Christianity. The myth appeared in 2001 and popped up again in 2003. On each occasion, Flew refuted the claim personally, standing by his response to its first occasion with his own reply for publication at the Secular Web (Antony Flew, "Sorry to Disappoint, but I'm Still an Atheist!" 2001). So I was quite skeptical the third time around. But this time, things have indeed changed somewhat from where Flew stood in his 2001 article. Antony and I exchanged letters on the issue recently, and what I report here about his current views comes from him directly.

The news of his "conversion" this time came from a number of avenues, but the three I have good information on are an interview with Gary Habermas soon to be published by Philosophia Christi in which Flew appears to depart from his past views about God, a letter Flew wrote to a popular philosophy journal expressing doubts about the ability of science to explain the origin of life ("On Darwinism and Theology," Philosophy Now 47, August/September 2004, p. 22; cf. also Flew's Review of Roy Varghese's The Wonder of the World), and, just recently on national TV (the October 9 episode of "Faith Under Fire"), J. P. Moreland used Flew's "conversion" as an argument for supernaturalism.

The fact of the matter is: Flew hasn't really decided what to believe. He affirms that he is not a Christian--he is still quite certain that the Gods of Christianity or Islam do not exist, that there is no revealed religion, and definitely no afterlife of any kind (he stands by everything he argued in his 2001 book Merely Mortal: Can You Survive Your Own Death?). But he is increasingly persuaded that some sort of Deity brought about this universe, though it does not intervene in human affairs, nor does it provide any postmortem salvation. He says he has in mind something like the God of Aristotle, a distant, impersonal "prime mover." It might not even be conscious, but a mere force. In formal terms, he regards the existence of this minimal God as a hypothesis that, at present, is perhaps the best explanation for why a universe exists that can produce complex life. But he is still unsure. In fact, he asked that I not directly quote him yet, until he finally composes his new introduction to a final edition of his book God and Philosophy, due out next year. He hasn't completed it yet, precisely because he is still examining the evidence and thinking things over. Anything he says now, could change tomorrow.

I also heard a rumor that Flew claimed in a private letter that the kalam cosmological argument proved the existence of God (see relevant entries in Cosmological Arguments). But he assures me that is not what he believes. He said that, at best, the kalam is an argument for a first cause in the Aristotelian sense, and nothing more--and he maintains that, kalam or not, it is still not logically necessary that the universe had a cause at all, much less a "personal" cause. Flew's tentative, mechanistic Deism is not based on any logical proofs, but solely on physical, scientific evidence, or the lack thereof, and is therefore subject to change with more information--and he confesses he has not been able to keep up with the relevant literature in science and theology, which means we should no longer treat him as an expert on this subject (as Moreland apparently did).

Once Flew gives me permission to quote him I will expand this article with more information about his views and the reasons for them. That will have to wait for when Flew himself has finally mulled things over and come to something like a stable decision about what he thinks is most probable, and that may not happen until the release of his 2005 edition of God and Philosophy. For now, I think his view can best be described as questioning, rather than committed. And there is much to criticize in his rationale even for considering Aristotelian Deism. He is most impressed, he says, by Gerald Schroeder's book The Hidden Face of God: How Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth (2001), but Schroeder (a Jewish theologian and physicist) has been heavily criticized for "fudging" the facts to fit his argument--see Mark Perakh, "Not a Very Big Bang about Genesis" (1999); and my own discussion in "Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept?" (2000), as well as my peer-reviewed article "The Argument from Biogenesis," soon to appear in Biology & Philosophy. Flew points out that he has not yet had time to examine any of the critiques of Schroeder. Nor has he examined any of the literature of the past five or ten years on the science of life's origin, which has more than answered his call for "constructing a naturalistic theory" of the origin of life. This is not to say any particular theory has been proven--rather, there are many viable theories fitting all the available evidence that have yet to be refuted, so Flew cannot maintain (as in his letter to Philosophy Now) that it is "inordinately difficult even to begin to think about" such theories. I have pointed all this out to him, and he is thinking it over.

For now, the story of Antony Flew's change of mind should not be exaggerated. We should wait for him to complete his investigation of the matter and declare a more definite conclusion, before claiming he has "converted," much less to any particular religious view.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update (December 2004)

Flew has now given me permission to quote him directly. I asked him point blank what he would mean if he ever asserted that "probably God exists," to which he responded (in a letter in his own hand, dated 19 October 2004):

I do not think I will ever make that assertion, precisely because any assertion which I am prepared to make about God would not be about a God in that sense ... I think we need here a fundamental distinction between the God of Aristotle or Spinoza and the Gods of the Christian and the Islamic Revelations.
Rather, he would only have in mind "the non-interfering God of the people called Deists--such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin." Indeed, he remains adamant that "theological propositions can neither be verified nor falsified by experience," exactly as he argued in "Theology and Falsification." Regarding J. P. Moreland using Flew in support of Moreland's own belief in the supernatural, Flew says "my God is not his. His is Swinburne's. Mine is emphatically not good (or evil) or interested in human conduct" and does not perform miracles of any kind. Furthermore, Flew took great care to emphasize repeatedly to me that:

My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.
He cites, in fact, the improbability arguments of Schroeder, which I have refuted online, and the entire argument to the impossibility of natural biogenesis I have refuted in a forthcoming article in Biology & Philosophy.

So what of the claim that Flew was persuaded by the Kalam Cosmological Argument? Flew "cannot recall" writing any letter to Geivett claiming "the kalam cosmological argument is a sound argument" for God but he confesses his memory fails him often now so he can't be sure. Nevertheless, I specifically asked what Antony thought of the Kalam, to which he answered:

If and insofar as it is supposed to prove the existence of a First Cause of the Big Bang, I have no objection, but this is not at all the same as a proof of the existence of a spirit and all the rest of Richard Swinburne's definition of 'God' which is presently accepted as standard throughout the English speaking and philosophical world.
Also, regarding another rumor that Flew has been attending Quaker meetings, Antony says "I have, I think, attended Quaker meetings on at least 3 or 4 occasions, and one was at the wedding of a cousin," and thus hardly a religious statement on his part but a family affair. Nevertheless, for him and his family generally, he says "I think the main attraction" of Quakerism has been "the lack of doctrines." On the whole God thing, though, Flew is still examining the articles I sent him, so he may have more to say in the future.

Source: http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369”

“"But I don't think you can ignore religious theory/supposition when teaching science." -HPM

I simply don't think you can teach religion in the science classroom. Even ignoring the Separation of Church and State argument... Science Teachers are trained to teach Science. They are not prepared to teach religious ideas or carry on religious or world view disputes. Why put the onus on them?

"To simply state that their are several (choose your most comfortable label: theories, suppositions, traditions, myths) of divine intervention does not constitute teaching faith.”" -HPM

So, where do I stop? Where can I draw the line? My point is, if you agree to teach those ideas that differ from Evolution, you could really be opening Pandora's Box. There are plenty of ideas/myths/suppositions/beliefs outside of and opposing Evolution. When I am standing in front of a sixth grade class, I do not want the responsibilty of making sure everything is taught, fairly and equally. I always risk leaving somebody out.

Here's what I'll do:
I'll tell my students that Evolution is a scientific theory which is why I am teaching it in science class. I will also tell them that there are many different opinions out there and if they wish to investigate those on their own, with their parents, or through their church, etc... I encourage it. I will tell them that practicing the art of investigation and exploration will make them wonderful scientists.”

“Your conclusion is exactly what I was saying.

At no point did I state that you should teach religion. I agree, that is not your place. Nor do I see how stating that opposing ideas exist constitutes teaching religion.

You simply state there are several faith based ideas about the subject, that a faith based idea can not be measured by scientific means and don't go further than that. You simply make them aware that there are opposing views but those views are outside the boundaries of scientic endevour at this time.

It might also be helpful to explain why those are outside of scientific study but I would be extremely wary of attempting that as all too often people assmue they understand what you are saying based on their own biases and don't actually listen. It's not a problem a new teacher needs to be burdened with.

But much the same, I fail to see how you have any onus to teach or expound on the Christian myth, Musim myth or any other myths when you inform students that there are other faith based ideas out there.

All through my science classes I was made aware that there are are always opposing views, some scientific in nature and many others faith based and that many times a preconvieved notion or bias (such as faith or politics) influenced the findings of scientific study. BUT in class we were going to concentrate on those concepts vetted by scientific study and the empirical method.”

“I misunderstood you when you said not to ignore religios theories.

So, I guess we agree. Geez. You sure take the fun out of debating. lol”

“Tarabull, excellent approach! I try to approach my 8th graders the same way. That is what I meant when I said that creationism can be taught... I don't have the luxury of a large time block to go into the differing views, but I think it needs to be explained that there are other views besides evolution.”

“Maybe I could have stated it clearer.

I'm good like that. lol.”

“No. Now that I go back and read your post again, you stated it clearly.

The only thing that made me assume you didn't agree was the But at the very beginning... They're tricky like that.”

“My but drives people crazy.”

“LOL, I thought this had to do with school design. Can't wait to see if the school building referendum passes here next Tuesday. My guess? ...NOT!”

“I am not sure if I completely agree with your statement of evolution being completely scientific Tara. Evolution deals with the creation of the species (for the most part of what they teach in schools) but what was the start of it? Was it the big bang or some other type of cosmic event that started matter? This, I believe, takes faith to believe whether it be creationism or the "big bang." What are your thoughts?”

“I think it would be fine to require teachers to explain that other opinions about the origins of life exist while making circling gestures by their ear.”