By Selwyn Duke
While the debate over evolution in schools has been developing for many years in a primordial soup of passion, generally speaking, it hasn't reached a very high level of complexity. The opponents of Intelligent Design Theory (ID) tend to dismiss its advocates as serpent-handling dogmatists who make a sport of spitting on Galileo's grave, while some at the opposite end of the spectrum may portray anyone entertaining evolution in any context as the serpent in Eden.
But what is often overlooked in this debate — so much so that it may surprise some people — is that not all those who entertain ID are religious. As an example, consider New York University law and philosophy professor Thomas Nagel, an avowed atheist who wrote an essay entitled "Public Education and Intelligent Design." In it he makes the case for including ID in school curricula, writing:
Read the rest here.
Here, Here!!!! Very nice Selwyn!!! One of your best!
Posted by: Walt | November 28, 2008 at 04:30 PM
"not all those who entertain ID are religious"
Anyone who has anything good to say about intelligent design, which are just fancy words for supernatural magic, and calls himself an atheist, is a lying pig. He's either lying about his acceptance of intelligent design magic, or he's lying about his atheism. Some people are liars to make a living, and some people are just plain stupid. Thomas Nagel is very likely both stupid and a liar.
Posted by: bobxxxx | November 28, 2008 at 05:28 PM
IDers and Evolutionists, are missing the point: our Government schools have bigger problems than this dogma; they're brainwashing students with PC, Anti-Americanism, Racism, and Marxist philosophy. Of course, Atheisim would fit here nicely. Look how badly American children do in science and math as compared to much of the world. Most kids and adults in this Country could careless and hate science and math anyway.
Give students the choice to consider both ID and Evolution then reach their own conclusions.
Posted by: Soviet Amerika | November 29, 2008 at 11:45 AM
"Give students the choice to consider both ID and Evolution then reach their own conclusions."
Translation: Give students the choice to consider both MAGIC and SCIENCE then reach their own conclusions.
This is typical. The uneducated creationists, who feel threatened by modern science, want to force biology teachers to lie about evolutionary biology. Lots of luck with that. Competent biology teachers would resign before agreeing to lie to their students about science.
How about giving students in math class the choice to reach their own conclusions about the sum of 2 plus 2. They can choose 4 or 5 or any number they want.
Your childish belief in intelligent design supernatural magic is as stupid as believing 2 + 2 = 5.
Keep your total ignorance of science and your childish medieval beliefs in your churches and out of our schools.
Posted by: bobxxxx | November 29, 2008 at 12:02 PM
"Keep your total ignorance of science and your childish medieval beliefs in your churches and out of our schools"
Question for bobxxx; Are you a scientist? I have found the "scientific" community pretty evenly split on the concept of intelligent design versus evolution, with a fair amount of belief in a mix of the two.
As long as my tax dollars are spent to "educate" in publically funded schools, I think I'll say whatever the hell I please about what they should or shouldn't be "teaching". Key word here, tax dollars.
Posted by: Gettinolder | November 29, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Bobxxx, did you bother to actually read the article? I don't think so. If you had you would understand that it's a deeply intellectual article. It provides intellectual reasons for its position. It isn't just a guy saying, oh this is what the Bible says. You seem very closed minded.
Posted by: John | November 29, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Boxxx,
Wow, I have seen a many evangelists in my day and you pale most of them. Your dogmatic and fervent faith is inspiring. Yes, I do call it faith because it is not possible for you to know all so you must chalk it up to faith in nothingness.
As for your first post you even questioned the atheism of other atheists. You mean to say that if other atheists do not believe the way that you do [not], they can't not believe? Is your particular nothing you passionately promote better than the other atheists nothing? Perhaps you should write all of your non-beliefs down and start a non-church, you obviously have a doctrine.
Posted by: Walt | November 29, 2008 at 01:18 PM
Well written article. Just an FYI, bobxxxx is an atheist troll who posts on any blogs about ID that will allow him to do so.
Posted by: The Country Shrink | November 29, 2008 at 09:09 PM
Country Shrink:
"Religion is excellent for keeping the common people quiet." So be quiet.
Posted by: City Shrink | December 07, 2008 at 01:29 PM
Man, this site sure attracts a lot of nuts. Country shrink, I think you shrunk your brain!
Posted by: John | December 07, 2008 at 01:35 PM
John,
Couldn't agree with you more.
Posted by: City Shrink | December 07, 2008 at 01:50 PM
So, bob x, you believe you are just a cosmic accident. The result of billions of years of cells just mutating any which way they feel like to produce "YOU". All the laughter, pain, sadness, joy,..... whatever, that you've experienced in your life has just happend by mere chance. Please, for your sake show your maker some gratitude. And along the lines of your thinking..... when your time comes to die, you better hope, (I would say pray but it would'nt make any sense) that you're are right.
Posted by: K.D. | December 08, 2008 at 08:12 AM
From K.D. - “..... when your time comes to die, you better hope, (I would say pray but it would'nt make any sense) that you're are right.”
Boy, that’s the hammer isn’t it; the threat of an eternity in Hell? A misspelled and grammatically incorrect hammer, but a hammer none the less. Live the way we say or oh…oh; “Damned for All Time.” The boogeyman is going to get you for sure. “You better hope that you’re right.”
Well K.D., how do you know that bobxxxx isn’t correct? “What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.” Or, would you find fault with that too?
Posted by: City Shrink | December 08, 2008 at 06:57 PM
"Well K.D., how do you know that bobxxxx isn’t correct?"
Personally, I know God. I understand that Bobxxxx doesn't. I pity him. He doesn't know my wife, either. He can be a skeptic about whether she exists. But at least, she is inaccessible to him. God isn't. He would like to know Bobxxxx. God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him. Get on the stick, Bob. There's still some life left to live more fully.
Posted by: Larry Perrault | December 09, 2008 at 03:04 AM
Larry Perrault,
It is clearly possible that you have a wife. That you have an angel sitting on your shoulder is an entirely different matter I’m afraid. You see, women exist.
Posted by: City Shrink | December 09, 2008 at 09:01 AM
City Shrink wrote:
"It is clearly possible that you have a wife. That you have an angel sitting on your shoulder is an entirely different matter I’m afraid. You see, women exist."
Now matters edge toward clarity. "Shrink's" problem is that God is impossible. I mention it not as authoritative but as descriptive. John 10:27 (Contemporary English Version)
27 My sheep know my voice, and I know them. They follow me,
Now, given the voice I, many friends, and millions upon millions over history know unmistakeably, hy would I suppose that clear voice is an illusion rather that "Shrink" labors in a self-enclosed ignorance? It isn't even a live question.
Posted by: Larry Perrault | December 09, 2008 at 05:29 PM
Larry,
I don’t have your point of reference, so you’re going to have to try that in English. I was following, until you got to the sheep part. Then, I started to get uncomfortable. As far as the voices go, there are medications that will help. You seem like a nice fellow…good luck.
Posted by: City Shrink | December 09, 2008 at 06:48 PM
Jesus is referred to as a shepherd who leads and guards his sheep. He's just saying that his followers recognize his message. Of course, those millions of us don't refer to an audible voice. Frankly, if it was as uncertain as an audible voice, I'd wonder if I'd had some bad food.
Anyway, do you seriously suppose that all those millions require medication? Why? So they can be as dour and scornful as Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins? Daniel Dennett was a thoughtful guy before he embarked on his atheistic evangelistic crusade. I first read him nearly 25 years ago. Hitchens is bright, historically educated and articulate. But, he's pretty thin on philosophy and theology, not to mention science. Dawkins, I'm not terribly impressed with.
I know you can't relate. Neither can they. And, I understand that. But the English is straightforward and dead serious when I say I know God: more surely than I know basic logic or mathematics.
Posted by: Larry Perrault | December 10, 2008 at 01:03 AM
Its unsettling that atheism, nowadays, is being equated with rationality, enlightenment, intelligence. Young people are being lured into atheisms grasp by that erroneous notion.
God is real fellas. Do you think a notion of a God would even survive time immemorial if all the Millions of people that espouse to have felt his presence in one way or another were and are merely in a state of wishful thinking?
The problem is, No one can prove for you that God exists. Only You can prove it to yourself. Seek him. This is how alot of us Christians have come to the conclusion that He is real. Lose the pre-suppositions and seek Him with an open heart.
Posted by: the Theist | December 11, 2008 at 03:52 AM
Yes, but that's just not the "cool" thing to do! Stuffy bible-thumpin' belief is sooo uncool it's not funny, you see. And it is so much easier to dismiss such seventh-century suppositions out of hand. And regular "cool" people, like plants, prefer to follow the path of least resistence.... why bother to expend unnecessary energy and effort to seek meaning in the (evidently) meaningless? Hmmm?
Oh, unless there's something "special" about human beings. Something that would set us apart from nature's mundane designs. But that would make us more of an exception to the rule, rather than conformist entities. And we wouldn't want to be THAT "cool", because then we would just be oddities and outcasts, subject to ridicule and rejection. Wouldn't want that now, would we Frosh?
Ugh. Friggin high school, this is...........
Posted by: W. Tieff | December 11, 2008 at 05:27 PM
I was going to respond to the last comment.. But after pondering for a moment about what my response should be. I realized I didnt have it in me to try and be childish enough to formulate a "cool" counter-argument to this guys retort which was so unambiguously childish.
Young man (I'm assuming you are young judging from the way you responded), when you grow up, and hopefully mature, you will realize there is more to life than your current shallow perception of it.
Posted by: the Theist | December 11, 2008 at 11:22 PM
Theist,
I have a hunch you missed Tieff's sarcasm. He is one of the good guys.
Posted by: Walt | December 12, 2008 at 09:55 AM
Whoa.. Shame on me. I read it too quickly. My apologies.
Posted by: the Theist | December 12, 2008 at 10:53 AM
No worries, mate. I wrote it too quickly!
Though, at the young age of 32, I am still doing my best to "mature". And I will continue to do my best, despite my perceptions and prejudices....... The hardest part is coping with others' perceptions and prejudices, which is exactly what I was addressing by posting a (sarcastic) reply to the topic thread. :)
Posted by: W. Tieff | December 12, 2008 at 01:06 PM
Larry Perrault,
I’ve got to admit that the passion displayed by believers is impressive, even to me. And because of their adherence to the teachings of Christ; of which, although I have limited knowledge, I do not necessarily disagree; I’d be more likely to trust than I would some others.
Also, I do not discount the intelligence and sophistication of those of faith. I’ve been around a couple of Jesuits who were scare-you-to-death smart.
Even with that in mind, it is impossible for me to make the mystic leap you have and embrace a cosmology which, cast in an objective light, doesn’t make sense. (And, I do understand that for you...it does not have to.)
Posted by: City Shrink | December 12, 2008 at 08:49 PM