Gwen Ifill's Crazy Blue 1980s Style Jacket Politics Thread!

by gr » Fri Oct 03, 2008 16:05:26

not to sound like bush-gore debate #2, but dajafi, we agree. mccain showed a fleeting interest in education stuff last year, but that was long before the surge resurrected his campaign. that was, as chris rock might say, the grand opening and the going out of business sale rolled into one.

isn't rhee a democrat though? maybe that's what you meant.

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 16:06:56

People... Intelligent Design is code for Creationism. As a term, "Intelligent Design" was first floated by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was quickly picked up on by Conservatives looking for a back door method of getting god-based creation theories into the schools. Read all about it here. The most important sentence:

In 1994 Meyer made contact with the Discovery Institute, and in the following year they obtained funding to set up the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture to promote the intelligent design movement seeking public and political support for teaching "intelligent design" as a creation-based alternative to evolution, particularly in the United States

While the more 'liberal" Intelligent Designers concede that the Earth is as old as geologists know it is, the theory at root still denies evolution, because it posits that man was directly created by a strategically unnamed "intelligent force" (again, so as to avoid the charge that this is introducing religion into science class, and thus violating the establishment clause).

Intelligent design in the late 20th and early 21st century can be seen as a modern development of natural theology that seeks to change the basis of science and undermine evolutionary theory.[43][44][45] As evolutionary theory has expanded to explain more phenomena, the examples that are held up as evidence of design have changed. But the essential argument remains the same: complex systems imply a designer. Examples offered in the past included the eye (optical system) and the feathered wing; current examples are mostly biochemical: protein functions, blood clotting, and bacterial flagella (see irreducible complexity).

In other words, fully accepting evolutionary theory while still believing in a God who knowingly set the conditions for this evolution in motion, as Catholics are encouraged to do, is NOT what is meant by Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design begins as a denial of evolutionary theory.

by **Woody** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 16:07:41

Woody wrote:Didn't the PA supreme court rule that Intelligent Design was "creationism in disguise"? Didn't they find evidence that the ID folks basically took a creationism text and did and Edit>>Replace to make it replace creationism with "intelligent design"?

by **Camp Holdout** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 16:09:27

mozartpc27 wrote:In other words, fully accepting evolutionary theory while still believing in a God who knowingly set the conditions for this evolution in motion, as Catholics are encouraged to do, is NOT what is meant by Intelligent Design.

is there a useful word for that belief then?

i think there may be a fair number of those people in the world, they might call themselves "spiritual" or something.

by **dajafi** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 16:09:43

Woody wrote:Didn't the PA supreme court rule that Intelligent Design was "creationism in disguise"? Didn't they find evidence that the ID folks basically took a creationism text and did and Edit>>Replace to make it replace creationism with "intelligent design"?

Yes and yes.

MP I think referred to the "God the watch-maker" theory: to me, if one wants to assert that The Great Winding happened pre-Big Bang, rock on. (The Founding Fathers, that bunch of Deists, allegedly were of this view.)

But my understanding of ID is that its adherents believe that God kept putting His hand in: a reversible thumb here, a complex optical nerve there... they just can't produce any credible science to back this up.

by **dajafi** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 16:14:14

gr wrote:not to sound like bush-gore debate #2, but dajafi, we agree. mccain showed a fleeting interest in education stuff last year, but that was long before the surge resurrected his campaign. that was, as chris rock might say, the grand opening and the going out of business sale rolled into one.

isn't rhee a democrat though? maybe that's what you meant.

No, I hear you. And I was just goofing on the Rhee thing because I, um, love her.

(Actually, I'd never seen her before I found this pic. But this is what she looks like.)

Speaking of which, she gota shout-out on the NYT ed pagetoday.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 16:15:46

Number of times Sarah Palin winked last night: 3. Number of times any portion of Joe Biden's forehead moved: 0.

Hotline Swizzle Stick :lol:

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 16:17:03

Right. The Catholic Church's position on this one is about as reasonable (suprise, surprise) as one can be: God created the conditions at the Big Bang needed to start the universe, knowing full well what would eventually happen. Yay! No way anyone will ever be able to prove that God did or didn't do that. It's the St. Thomas Acquinas first mover thing.

Other liberal religions (not that Catholicism is exactly liberal, but definitely more moderate than some) take this position. It's most definitely NOT Intelligent Design theory.

by **Woody** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 16:20:48

If we're being literalistic, you can't even call intelligent design theory. Theories are by their very nature testable.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 16:21:16

Camp Holdout wrote:
mozartpc27 wrote:In other words, fully accepting evolutionary theory while still believing in a God who knowingly set the conditions for this evolution in motion, as Catholics are encouraged to do, is NOT what is meant by Intelligent Design.

is there a useful word for that belief then?

i think there may be a fair number of those people in the world, they might call themselves "spiritual" or something.

Not a complete whack job? You can be Catholic, as the post indicated, or Episcopalian, or Quaker, or Presbyterian, and so on.

There's an interesting essay by a philosopher named Derek Parfit "Why Anything, Why This" that makes a case for a creator based on physics that is consistent with physics.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 16:22:52

dajafi wrote:
Woody wrote:Didn't the PA supreme court rule that Intelligent Design was "creationism in disguise"? Didn't they find evidence that the ID folks basically took a creationism text and did and Edit>>Replace to make it replace creationism with "intelligent design"?

Yes and yes.

MP I think referred to the "God the watch-maker" theory: to me, if one wants to assert that The Great Winding happened pre-Big Bang, rock on. (The Founding Fathers, that bunch of Deists, allegedly were of this view.)

But my understanding of ID is that its adherents believe that God kept putting His hand in: a reversible thumb here, a complex optical nerve there... they just can't produce any credible science to back this up.

Just like socialism. We can make the economy work better!

by gr » Fri Oct 03, 2008 16:25:16

dajafi wrote:
gr wrote:not to sound like bush-gore debate #2, but dajafi, we agree. mccain showed a fleeting interest in education stuff last year, but that was long before the surge resurrected his campaign. that was, as chris rock might say, the grand opening and the going out of business sale rolled into one.

isn't rhee a democrat though? maybe that's what you meant.

No, I hear you. And I was just goofing on the Rhee thing because I, um, love her.

(Actually, I'd never seen her before I found this pic. But this is what she looks like.)

Speaking of which, she gota shout-out on the NYT ed pagetoday.

passed this around the office a few weeks ago, in case you didn't see it as well. all that love for her and you didn't know she's a tiny cartoon character of a person? check out the photo gallery in the story, frame #2. i love the look on the kid's face: "yes, mrs. rhee, i'm learning today, i swear!"

by **Werthless** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 16:25:50

Camp Holdout wrote:
mozartpc27 wrote:In other words, fully accepting evolutionary theory while still believing in a God who knowingly set the conditions for this evolution in motion, as Catholics are encouraged to do, is NOT what is meant by Intelligent Design.

is there a useful word for that belief then?

i think there may be a fair number of those people in the world, they might call themselves "spiritual" or something.

I refer to these people as IDers. Creationists (who believe the universe is 6,000 years old) who simply call their views ID does not make them IDers, anymore so that McCain calling himself Maverick makes it so, or Biden saying that paying taxes is patriotic makes it so.

But it's purely semantics.

by **phdave** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 16:31:26

TenuredVulture wrote:I wouldn't let an intelligent design guy work on my furnace, as I suspect they are pretty much con artists, somewhere between Don Lapre and prosperity gospel preachers.

If your furnace is broken, isn't that pretty much evidence against intelligent design?

Website · by **Wolfgang622** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 16:32:41

Werthless wrote:I refer to these people as IDers. Creationists (who believe the universe is 6,000 years old) who simply call their views ID does not make them IDers, anymore so that McCain calling himself Maverick makes it so, or Biden saying that paying taxes is patriotic makes it so.

But it's purely semantics.

It's not just semantics, Werthless; people who believe like Catholics, Quakers, Episcopals, liberal Baptists, Lutherans, etc., don't ever suggest that evolution should not be taught in public school, or some dippy "theory" about an intelligent designer who created things directly should be taught in public schools. Self-identified IDers do advocate at least the latter of those things, and some creationists advocate both.

In short, it's unfair to lump the sane with the insane.

by **mpmcgraw** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 16:33:13

I think we can all agree creationism is stupid.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 16:34:35

Werthless wrote:
Camp Holdout wrote:
mozartpc27 wrote:In other words, fully accepting evolutionary theory while still believing in a God who knowingly set the conditions for this evolution in motion, as Catholics are encouraged to do, is NOT what is meant by Intelligent Design.

is there a useful word for that belief then?

i think there may be a fair number of those people in the world, they might call themselves "spiritual" or something.

I refer to these people as IDers. Creationists (who believe the universe is 6,000 years old) who simply call their views ID does not make them IDers, anymore so that McCain calling himself Maverick makes it so, or Biden saying that paying taxes is patriotic makes it so.

But it's purely semantics.

No, it's not semantics.

The theory Mozart described is not ID. If it was, it would entail a lack of free will.

IDers take money from the credulous claiming that they will find evidence for intelligence in the design process. Of course they can't, which is why I believe they're perpetuating a scam little different from the Psychic Friend Hotline.

Here's a description from the Discovery Institute:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.

That's not the same thing in substance as what Mozart describes.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 16:35:36

phdave wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:I wouldn't let an intelligent design guy work on my furnace, as I suspect they are pretty much con artists, somewhere between Don Lapre and prosperity gospel preachers.

If your furnace is broken, isn't that pretty much evidence against intelligent design?

If my furnace had evolved, instead of being designed, it wouldn't break.

by **phdave** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 16:38:35

Laexile wrote:Democrats seem to think that being pro-life or believing in creationism somehow disqualifies a person from seeking office.

Does that include the Democrats who are pro-life?

by **dajafi** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 16:41:52

gr wrote:passed this around the office a few weeks ago, in case you didn't see it as well. all that love for her and you didn't know she's a tiny cartoon character of a person? check out the photo gallery in the story, frame #2. i love the look on the kid's face: "yes, mrs. rhee, i'm learning today, i swear!"

I missed that--my Ed Week reading is occasional hit, most often miss.

But it's awesome. And that Randi Weingarten, whom I really can't stand, doesn't support what Rhee is doing, makes me all the more disposed to believe she's on the right track.

What Weingarten knows, but won't say, is that "rookies who will work their hearts and souls out for a few years and then burn out” describes HALF of New York City teachers right now; 50 percent of new teachers leave after three years, either for easier gigs in the 'burbs or out of the profession altogether. That isn't all about money, and the reformers need to figure out how to better support young teachers--not assigning them to the worst schools might help--but a greater financial reward would seem like part of the answer.

To get back to your original contention, "professionalize the teaching profession" would seem to be a winning strategy on education, for either party. But the Dems almost certainly aren't brave enough to take on the Weingartens of the world, and the Republicans can't or won't get beyond their traditional destructionist impulses (from "close the Dept of Ed" to "privatize it all") in this area.

Archived

Gwen Ifill's Crazy Blue 1980s Style Jacket Politics Thread!