I just got to see Barbara Forrest give a lecture on "Creationism's Trojan Horse".

[alarimer]

It was very cool. There were some creationists in the audience who asked some very stupid obvious questions. Interestingly, ALL the questions were from anti-science types. But she was cool and refused to get into a debate over the facts of evolution. I have to read her book. I am complete atheist. In fact I fall into the Richard Dawkins school of though on religion- it is a delusion. But I don't really care very much about what someone personally believes. It has absolutely NO place in school. Creationism is by no means equivalent to evolution in terms of evidence. You can't have a debate when all the evidence is on one side. It's like fighting a blind man with one arm tied behind his back. It really isn't a fair fight.

[chascarrillo]

1. I bought her book a few years ago - still need to read it.

I'll get to it next, I promise!!!

[keep_it_real]

2. While I don't think Creationism should be taught in schools I do think Intelligent design should

Because the question is who or what started the evolution of the species? Was it a higher intelligence, God or Alien, or did the creation just "luck up" on the intelligent design in evolution?

I don't think we really know.

[hoosier_lefty]

4. so do you think intelligent design should be taught..

.. in science class? It doesn't seen very scientific to me.

[htuttle]

5. Well, 'we don't really know' if there are pixies in the woods either...

...but that's no reason to teach it in school. Other than literature class, perhaps.

[caraher]

6. Not in a science class

It's perfectly legitimate to acknowledge non-scientific ideas about these matters. Intelligent design is not, and can never be, science. Our pre-college science education is already minimal; teachers should not be forced to waste precious class time teaching material that does not belong in a science classroom.

Put more succinctly by Ruben Bolling...

The question is not who or what kicked off evolution. The issue is that in science, only naturalistic explanations of natural phenomena are permissible. That is not to say that "science has all the answers" by any stretch of the imagination. Now I suppose one could turn up some evidence that would suggest life on Earth originated with some non-human intelligence, but that only pushes the scientific question further back to account for this other being or race of beings. And it's flat-out against the rules of science to halt a line of inquiry because "magic man done it?"

[LDB]

7. well put

two cents worth from a physicist: Science, especially physics, and most particularly astrophysics and cosmology are today leading us incontrovertably to the truth that we just get more questions as we learn more about the universe at large. Look at the incredible images of black holes and dark matter that Hubble is producing.

Faith is certainly not scientific, but the pursuit of the unknown scientifically requires a great deal of faith in being able to eventually understand the unknown itself. Religion is NOT science and those who seek to "scientifically" support their religious doctrines have themselves contravened their religious faith.

"creationism" and "intelligent design" fly in the face of both faith and science. IMO.

[alarimer]

8. No it shouldn't.

Dr. Forrest's point was that ID is religion and, as such, has NO place in public schools. The judge in the Dover case agreed. Which is why she entitled her book "Creationism's Trojan Horse". ID is like a Trojan Horse computer virus. It is a malicious attempt to discredit evolution (for which there is copious evidence) and sneak religion into the public schools.

And for those who would say "teach the controversy", there is no controversy. Not among scientists anyway.

[Johonny]

10. I think "we" know

It's not that hard. Evolution is a process. The start of the process is explained by the process itself. When the conditions of the process is met the process will start. When a sugar cube meets a pool of water the cube starts the process of dissolving into the water. The dissolving process will continue so long as conditions favor the process. The physics and chemistry govern the process of dissolving and are well understood. You can say ah but I have to put the sugar cube in the water to start the process. But our oceans are filled with dissolved salts that were dissolved in that water without anyone placing them there. The Earth Hydrological cycle is all the was needed to allow water to slowly accumulate salt into the ocean. It's a process that occurs without any need of a starter other than the natural laws that govern the Universe. Ah but you say God could have designed the universe exactly so this all would happen. This may be true. Certainly many (most) scientist believe in god. But if you place God as a part of your science theory it has to conform to the scientific method. God then becomes falsifiable. Since God is generally considered unknowable and not bound by the natural laws of the universe but is a spiritual being. Science waves it's hands and says that enters the realm of religion. Saying I don't know, must be God isn't conducting science and should not be mistaken as doing such. Most people find it ultimately both offensive to the field of science and the field of religion.

[Tesha]

11. Random chance and time, lots and lots of time, started it all off.

After that, believe in panspermia if you like (the evidence
isn't "in" one way or the other), but no god need be involved.
When you have billions of years, a lot of odd things can happen
just by random chance.

Tesha

[hunter]

12. Intelligent Design is Blasphemy of the worse sort.

The "god" of intelligent design is a lazy sadistic tinkerer.

It is blatantly obvious that the design of human beings is in no way "intelligent" and that we are evolved creatures in every way, and that we are related 100% to every other creature on the planet. Every living thing shares common ancestors going all the way back billions of years to the first life -- and there's not even a clear line between life and not-life, so maybe it goes right back to the ultimate beginning when the physics of this universe was established by some unknown and perhaps unknowable process.

I see science as an exploration of the Creation. I have some respect for strict Creationists, God creates the world/universe in six days, sees that it is Good, and now it's Sunday. No human being can comprehend what God's Saturday was like or what the days before that were about, or exactly when they occurred on God's calendar.

But Creationism does not appeal to my curiosity, which is why Evolutionary Biology was my favorite subject in college, and is indeed my minor. I strive to understand how we got here; to understand what the physical mechanisms that brought us here were.

"Creation Science" and it's stealthy wicked twin "Intelligent Design" are anti-intellectual deceptions meant to disrupt the teaching of all sciences that make mankind look small. As much as we wish to be the center of this universe, it is very clear that we are not. If entire galaxies are as motes of dust, then what are we? That's the reality the Creation Scientists and Intelligent Design proponents can't face. The observable universe, all of time and space, is simply too big for their simplistic concept of God.

Rather than expanding their concept of God to encompass this universe, they try to make their understanding of science smaller, and evolution becomes another scary thing people shouldn't think about because it threatens some know-nothing authority who wants to believe humans stand at the pinnacle of a hierarchy of life.

A Sea of Galaxies:



http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/hubble_UDF.html

[chaplainM]

3. Christine Castillo got fired

in Texas for forwarding an e-mail announcement of an upcoming Barbara Forrest lecture.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/us/03evolution.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1196698684-2Id3x9twDu9j44tDmq0+dw

[alarimer]

9. She mentioned that.

And talked a little bit about that case, as well as McElroy, the President of the TEA (or school board, I can't remember which right now).