Tag Archives: Question

Commentary

How should intelligent design affect education policy?

Leave a comment

The best people to read on that question are the people from the Discovery Institute. And you can find a nice summary of their approach on the Sententia blog.

Excerpt:

I decided to gather together an easy-to-follow outline of the evolution of (how apropos) science education policy and intelligent design with a particular focus on the role of the Discovery Institute.

The New Debate over Teaching Evolution

  • It’s about science, NOT religion.
  • It’s about teaching MORE about evolution, not less.
  • The problem isn’t that we are teaching too much about evolution rather we are not teaching enough about evolution.
  • It’s about freedom of speech and academic freedom.
  • Discovery Institute has “transformed the debate [over evolution] into an issue of academic freedom rather than a confrontation between biology and religion.” New York Times, August 21, 2005

Discovery Institute’s “Teach the Controversy” Approach

  • Teach the scientific evidence for and against Darwin’s theory, but don’t try to mandate the study of alternatives to Darwin like intelligent design.
  • This tries to not politicize intelligent design.
  • This was DI’s policy before Dover, and it remains the policy after Dover.

The rest of the article explains how this approach has been applied to the education system in different states, and how the Darwinian Empire is responding.

News

How should Michele Bachmann answer the evolution vs intelligent design question?

3 Comments

From ID proponents Jay Richards and David Klinghoffer. (H/T Stephen C. Meyer)

Excerpt:

Rep. Michele Bachmann is the latest to get pulled to the side of the road, lights flashing in her rear-view mirror. Talking with reporters in New Orleans following last week’s Republican Leadership Conference, she said “I support intelligent design,” referring to the theory that nature gives scientific evidence of purpose and design.

She continued: “What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide. I don’t think it’s a good idea for government to come down on one side of a scientific issue or another, when there is reasonable doubt on both sides.”

Government neutrality would be welcome, as Bachmann rightly notes. But unfortunately the candidate’s statement generated headlines (“Bachmann: Schools should teach intelligent design,” as CNN.com summarized) that made her sound like she was ready to go a lot further than the intelligent design (ID) movement, which merely advocates that Darwinian theory’s weaknesses be taught along with its strengths. Allowing teachers to discuss ID in class would be much more appropriate and advisable than requiring them to do so.

[…]Fortunately, there’s an easy way to answer that takes account of the dilemma. Asked about evolution, here’s what Michele Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, or Chris Christie could have said:

“Life has a very long history and things change over time. However, I don’t think living creatures are nothing but the product of a purposeless Darwinian process. I support teaching all about evolution, including the scientific evidence offered against it.”

Dogmatic neo-Darwinians won’t like that answer (they admit of no scientific arguments against their theory, unlike in any other area of scientific inquiry). But some other scientists will be fine with it, and, according to  Zogby polling data, so will the 80 percent of Americans who favor allowing students and teachers to discuss evolutionary theory’s strengths and weaknesses.

Such a formulation, true to the scientific evidence and to the Constitution, would also be devilishly hard for rival candidates to disagree with. Campaign staff and advisors would do well to commit something like it to memory.

I actually thought Michele’s answer was fine, but the suggested answer is better. If Michele Bachmann is picking a science adviser, either Stephen C. Meyer or Jay Richards would be a good choice. Pick someone with experience.

Polemics

William Lane Craig answers questions from an arrogant atheist

7 Comments

Mary sent me this question and answer from William Lane Craig’s Question of the Week.

Here are the questions:

Hi there, I’m writting in regards to your “Q&A 170: So many athiests, so little time” answer. First of all, your two simple questions have very simple answers, and an athiest who can’t answer them isn’t a true athiest.

1)
Q. What do you mean by (you don’t believe in God)
A. I mean that I have a lack of belief the the existance of a deity, your christian God or any other.

2)
Q. What reasons do you have to think that (there is no God)
A. The Earth shows no proof of creation, every single thing on this Earth has a natural explanation, simply becasue modern science has not yet solved every problem, does not mean it never will. I’d go in to detail, but no need to bore you with the science of it all.
So, I’ve given my proof and will give far more if you ask it of me, and any wel linformed athiest will be able to answer those questions in a flash and have the burden of proof back in your hands.
In regards to scholarly work, may I point out Charles Darwin’s “The Origins of Species”, the works of Gregor Mendel, father of Genetics, William “Strata” Smith, father of Geology, Alfred Wegener “The Origin of Continents and Oceans”, Issac Newton, Galileo, On and on I go, where I stop, nobody knows!
Now, if I may turn to the real point of this e-mail besides to point out that you havent really told anyone how to argue christianity other than asking easy questions and throwing names at them. Your God is Omnicient so you say, operating on this assumption, here is how morality plays out in the bible…
1) God creates heaven and Earth and then he creates Humans.
2) God KNOWS that humans will sin
3) God puts the tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden KNOWING it will drive Adam to sin.
4) God Determines that Adams sin is transmutable down to every single person that will ever exist. (Moral objection 1: The sins of the father are logically not related to the son in any way shape or form)
5) God decides that to punish people for this one sin they had nothing to do with or anything else he deams bad, they shall be sentenced to an eternity of burning hellfire. Infinite punishment for a finite crime? That sounds like Moral objection #2 to me!
6) When God sees that his creations have really gone bad, he drowns the world, killing millions of innocent people.
7) only 1600 years after the mass murder of his creations(following biblical chronology) they’ve already fallen back in to sin. So God, in his infinite wisdom, determines the best course of action, is to sacrafice his Son, who is part of himself, TO HIMSELF, to make up for the sins of the creations he made knowing they would sin!

How in the world do you rectify this!?

Cheers,

Luke

I think that Bill is doing a great thing to come down to the level of village atheist once in a while and reply, and if you read his answer, he’s actually pretty mean. And it’s a good thing, in this case, because the worldview of village atheists is a lot like the worldview of Islamic terrorists. They are so insulated from outside criticism that you really have to thrash them around a little bit in order to get them to see that they have been involved with a cult their whole lives. That’s not going to be the case with some of the better atheists like Austin Dacey and Paul Draper, but it is going to be the case with many rank and file atheists, and we need to know how to answer them, too.