Writing Studies 3302 Spring 2009

I found the Bill Moyer’s interview with Richard Dawkins quite interesting. I was astonished to hear Dawkins explain that much of humans DNA is shared with the jellyfish and even more surprised to hear him say that we are distant cousins. I would like to hear Dawkins try to explain that to the lady in the clip at the beginning of the program who said that she believes the Earth was created in 6 days and it is only 6000 years old.
Richard Dawkins says that there has not been any scientific evidence to support the theory of Intelligent Design. I think that if any evidence was discovered scientifically supporting Intelligent Design, that evidence would prove the existence of God. I don’t think religion can or ever really be supported by science unless we find scientific evidence that specifically proves the existence of a God. My belief is that whatever created life, God was responsible. He planned on every creature evolving into what it is today. I don’t think he is constantly manipulating every event in order to create some new trait within a species. I think he set the course of action for the events of evolution to occur alone without any need of management.

Evolution strips humankind of any form of purpose–actual or perceived. In contrast intelligent design frames the principles of creation in a scientific scheme to say purpose is real, and purpose is deliberate. Intelligent design is not a science however. In Bill Moyer’s interview with Dawkins, Dawkins articulates the incongruence between science and ID quite effectively; ID relies on a counterfactual platform. ID could be considered a science if there was empirical evidence supported a designer, when scientifically interpreted; but this does not seem to be the case. To me, intelligent design is an attempt to rationalize creation within a scientific framework.
Teaching of intelligent design in schools should not be apart of the science curriculum. Similar to the situation seen in “what about god”, the petitioning students’ request was denied on the basis that creation/ID is not a science, but a philosophy. First, ID requires a sort of abstract, indefinite supernatural designer, which is outside the scope of science. If you look at the humanities as a field, there really is no “authoritative” voice as to what is and what is not as the humanities thrive in a ring of subjectivity. In contrast the sciences rely on an authoritative voice to progress. In most cases the authoritative voice is the data. In addition, science, in principle relies on a certain element of parsimony–something on the order of “the simpler, the better”. This principle is not just an ambiguous or arbitrary decision, but concurs with the observed patterns in the phenomena of the natural world. In contrast, ID makes a jump to complexity first by including a designer.

I thought that there was a lot of complex things going on. I am going to focus on the monkeys. I think that traditionally oppressive Europeans used the concept of evolution to perpetuate ideas about a man centric universe. Native Americans know that they are Just caretakers of our earth and that the animals are higher up than us. I love animals. I am a vegan. The concept that only humans can plan is the dumbest thing ever. Anyone who believes that has never seen a squirrel. The squirrel stores nuts fearing the winter. Anyone who believes only man can plan has never seen an ant. The mighty ant builds huge societies underground. The work together as a group to provide and care for every Citizen. Anyone who believes man is king is no one I want to meet. Even the plants plan ahead. They make the Sugars to attract the birds who Carry their seeds to a better life. I am not sure if I believe in evolution, creationism, or intelligent design but I am sure that man is the most savage animal who holds control over a natural order who will do anything to hold dominance.

Reading about the advocates for intelligent design, and hearing people say they believe that the earth was made in 6 days 6000 years ago sends shivers down my spine. I’m also scared to think that people actually rationalize these beliefs by saying stuff like “God hid dinosaur bones underground to test our faith.” I will admit that I am a theist along with majority of Americans; however, I whole heartedly believe that organisms evolve. I agree with Dawkins that there just isn’t the empirical evidence available to conclude that Intelligent Design occurred. Even in the event that Intelligent Design was the cause of life, would people have any reason to believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old other than a couple thousands year old book? I simply can’t take the Bible literally, and don’t see how people can. Anyone can say they have written the word of God.
I will never understand how people believe in a supernatural God when we as humans can never understand godliness. We assume God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-present, and for some reason (I assume it’s so we can better cope with the evil in our lives) attach omni-benevolence to the definition of God. In order to understand God, not only must we understand the definitions of all of those “omni” words, we must understand how one would be able to attain those traits. If God crafted us in “his” image, maybe we were supposed to place cooperation, community and utility above all instead of the sacred, miraculous and supernatural.

When I was younger I had read the Scopes trial in grade school and was dreading going over it once again because the reading was pretty dry back than, but I was pleasantly surprised when I read Larson’s account. He did seem biased towards the defense but he brought good insight into the case that I did not read before. The background information on what happened on both sides before the trial was useful. He made it very clear that the trial was more of a publicity stunt since Scopes did not actually teach biology. I found it amusing that Darrow’s main objective was not to get an acquittal and he was willing to let Scopes be found guilty so he can appeal the case to a higher court. What an interesting defense.

Since the original manuscript “Of Panda and People” was indeed edited to change all words relating Creation to Intelligent Design, I think Judge Jones’ ruling was appropriate. People will insist on believing what they will and that is fine but somewhere down the line there will be confrontations and someone will need to make a decision before people’s outrage get out of hands. This is where the courts come into play. I see it as the courts upholding the law and that is that. I do not really think religion and science are at war with eachother. I for one believe in both miracles and science but there needs to be a separation. Faith should be a personal choice instead of going along with the general opinion. The Dawkin’s interview was interesting to watch; he seemed very reasonable. At the end he mentions that one should always ask for proof, but it is still up to the individual to accept if it’s the ‘correct’ evidence.

After reading the article about the chimp that through stones at the zoo visitor I would have to agree with the above post by Matthew. I guess I have never really thought of the ability to plan ahead something that is uniquely human at all. I think that in general humans just like to think that they are above the rest. I have written in papers and postings before about how I think that there is a control issue with mankind. We often have a reason and an excuse for everything. Even if somewhere down the line we find out that something was irrational or harmful to others we have a reason for why we continued to pursue that certain discovery before looking at the big picture. When I was reading Chapter 22 and learning about the different cases and situations regarding the restriction to teach about evolution in school it kind of made me think about Nazi Germany or the U.S. in the 1950’s with segregation. Although these topics are all on different playing fields they all involve teaching half the truth to society. The Nazi’s told people that people of the Jewish faith were bad, basically because he wanted control and it was not what he believed. White supremacists said how black people were bad and evil because they wanted to be on top of society with all of the rights and zero limitations forever. The schools want to teach children what history has already done which means continuing to teach people with closed minds. Doing this also meant that they are only teaching what they want and not the other half of the story, another very likely possibility. Very often we are so afraid of what is new to us and straying from what we have done in our countries history. However, every time we have made societal changes we have almost always changed for the better, somehow though, we still fear the change that has brought us to some really great places as a country.

In middle school, my science teacher introduced our year with a discussion about the origins of the universe. The way he went about this was to present science “fiction” ideas first, then to present more mainstream ideas such as the big bang and intelligent design. His point was that these are all theories and as scientists, it is our job to gather evidence and draw conclusions. The conclusions form these theories. Even though the discussion was simply to jump-start our thinking after three months, it made me realize that there are different ways to seek conclusions and theories. I think that ID could be considered a legitimate way to explain the world around us, but it does not belong in a science class. Our high school offered a comparative religions class that had a unit devoted specifically to such topics as ID and Creation Science. It also covered other creation explanations from non-western religions, since ID and creation science go in this category. The important thing to teach in high school science classes is the scientific method and critical thinking.

There is really mainly one thing that I want to say about today’s readings and that is that I think the whole argument is becoming too focused on the black and white of evolution versus creationism. It is starting to bother me. I feel like the articles we have been reading lately are forgetting about the gray area that occurs when Christians incorporate evolution into their personal beliefs. The argument for 6-day creationism is a really conservative view of the beginning of the earth and one that is not shared by all Christians. Many more Christians believe in an integrated view of these two theories and I feel we are losing sight of that.

What set me off about this was when Dawkins said that he thinks Christians are dangerous. He thinks they are dangerous because they say “I know I am right” instead of “let’s look at the facts and come to a conclusion that we can change if we discover we’ve made a mistake.” I think this is kind of ignorant of Dawkins to say because many, many Christians do not think they are right in knowing how everything comes together or why it does. There are Christians who are open to looking at scientific discoveries, such as evolution and then trying to incorporate both into their beliefs. I just don’t think he should make a generalization about that.

It was interesting to see how many cases have gone through the legal system either making the teaching of intelligent design mandatory in the classroom or outlawing it. In my opinion, it should not be in the classroom, simply because it is not very science-based. If I remember correctly, in my high school science classroom, they taught us evolution, saying it was a theory, but one of many. My teacher emphasized that he was not advocating that or any other idea of creation. What is wrong with teaching evolution, since it is science-backed, and mentioning the possible ideas that others have? This way, public schools are not taking time out of a science classroom to learn something that is not science, to learn something that should be learned in a religion class. The students can know of the existence of other ideas, and find resources on their own to learn about other hypotheses.

The Scope's trial has been talked bout throughout my school career. As a junior in high school we were even assigned to do a skit of a trial. Being that I went to the School of Environmental Studies so you can imagine which way we were leaning, this was also after the class read "Beak of the Finch." I could never agree with a trial like this going on, especially today. There is suppose to be a separation between church and state in the country. In my opinion public schools, which are funded by state and federal government money, should not be given restrictions on what can be taught based on Christian scripture.
What shocks me more is that things like this still happens. When the Harry Potter books came out there was a mother in Georgia that tried to have them banned from schools because the books "encouraged" witchcraft. To me this hole idea seems outrages. For any one to ban a fictional book from a public school is off his/her rocker. Knowing that our government bans books is unnerving to me as this is suppose to be a country of free speech and publication. Some of the reasons books are banned to me are so silly, usually it is due to language, like Mark Twain's book for use of the "n" word. I do not use or encourage the use of this word, but in the CONTEXT of the STORY it fits. Like in rap music, it fits. Much of this comes down to sheer ignorance of the public. Hopefully it can change, otherwise when I become president, I will ban mothers from Georgia.

I was stunned by the interview with Richard Dawkins. I personally found it extremely interesting that over half of the citizens in the U.S believe that teaching about creationism should be included in school curriculums and furthermore one school went so far as to place a warning sticker on biology books. There is a certain line that should not be crossed when considering the education of the nation’s youth about the origin of living species. Evolution is essentially a proven fact, the evidence in support of it is overwhelming, I find it surprising that such a large proportion of the population finds it hard to believe that humans have portions of their genome in common with jellyfish. The teaching of subjects lacking substantial proof such as religion belongs in voluntary settings such as churches. Schools are not voluntary and forcing the teaching of a unproven fact such as creationism should not be tolerated. Every individual is entitled to their own opinions, but attempting to convert students through the public school system is not right. I also found it interesting that the majority of court cases regarding evolution versus creationism took place in the Southern region of the country. I feel that this helps to display the variety of views in this country and exhibits that the northern region of the country is much more tuned towards a scientific approach about the origin of species.

I was stunned by the interview with Richard Dawkins. I personally found it extremely interesting that over half of the citizens in the U.S believe that teaching about creationism should be included in school curriculums and furthermore one school went so far as to place a warning sticker on biology books. There is a certain line that should not be crossed when considering the education of the nation’s youth about the origin of living species. Evolution is essentially a proven fact, the evidence in support of it is overwhelming, I find it surprising that such a large proportion of the population finds it hard to believe that humans have portions of their genome in common with jellyfish. The teaching of subjects lacking substantial proof such as religion belongs in voluntary settings such as churches. Schools are not voluntary and forcing the teaching of a unproven fact such as creationism should not be tolerated. Every individual is entitled to their own opinions, but attempting to convert students through the public school system is not right. I also found it interesting that the majority of court cases regarding evolution versus creationism took place in the Southern region of the country. I feel that this helps to display the variety of views in this country and exhibits that the northern region of the country is much more tuned towards a scientific approach about the origin of species.

I was stunned by the interview with Richard Dawkins. I personally found it extremely interesting that over half of the citizens in the U.S believe that teaching about creationism should be included in school curriculums and furthermore one school went so far as to place a warning sticker on biology books. There is a certain line that should not be crossed when considering the education of the nation’s youth about the origin of living species. Evolution is essentially a proven fact, the evidence in support of it is overwhelming, I find it surprising that such a large proportion of the population finds it hard to believe that humans have portions of their genome in common with jellyfish. The teaching of subjects lacking substantial proof such as religion belongs in voluntary settings such as churches. Schools are not voluntary and forcing the teaching of a unproven fact such as creationism should not be tolerated. Every individual is entitled to their own opinions, but attempting to convert students through the public school system is not right. I also found it interesting that the majority of court cases regarding evolution versus creationism took place in the Southern region of the country. I feel that this helps to display the variety of views in this country and exhibits that the northern region of the country is much more tuned towards a scientific approach about the origin of species.

I actually wanted to comment on the article about how religion and belief in god is diminishing in the United States. I have talked about this subject in previous classes, as well as read articles similar in context to that one from the ABC News website. For me, the most surprising thing about this decline in belief is that I am not all that surprised about that conclusion. The United States is experiencing a social change unlike any other change any culture has gone through. This change hasn't come overnight. In fact, the reformation I am speaking about can be traced back over one hundred years ago. But what makes this change so difficult to study and analyze is the fact that we are living in and experiencing this change first hand, rather than studying the beginnings of it and the ending results. The change is liberalism. Think about it. What other society or culture took so much pride in individualism, independence, and freedom the same way we do? Our liberal spirit, combined with previously unfathomable technological utilities, has given us a source of happiness, purpose, and life in the same manner, but by different means, that religion provided in the past. For example, where in the past one would pray for a loved one to get better, today we would get them medicine or take them to the doctor. As a result, it is not surprising to me that over time people would begin losing faith in the midst of this technologically superior civilization.

What makes this cultural change difficult to study, like I said before, is the fact that we are experiencing right now. It is easy to look back on the past and see what happened and why it happened but it is no so easy to do that in the present. As one of my high school history teachers said, "Every empire has risen, peaked, and fallen, and American will be no exception, but it is impossible to truly know where we are on that spectrum." Not a very cheery sentiment, but the lesson to be taken, and the connection to this article, is that world changes, as does societies and cultures. One might read this article and say that the fading of religion is detrimental to America, while another might say it is progressive. But there is know way to know.

I think that ID has its positive aspects, because it is trying to integrate some science principles into religion. The only thing I really do not like is that its supporters are trying to make it into a science theory, when it doesn’t adhere to scientific rules. I wonder if they could make an elective ID course that was not a “science” course, but that could teach the theories of ID? I mean, why not give students the option to learn about it and make their own decision?
I really cannot decide if I like Dawkins or not. I really did not get a great feel from him when I went to his speech here at the U, but I really enjoyed this interview. I was very intrigued when he talked about DNA and our relations to jellyfish, and how the size of our brain leads to “deep” questions. He said a lot of things that I have felt concerning religion concerning the art, literature, etc. I think that religion can be a beautiful thing, but that does not necessarily mean that I agree with it. His argument about the percentages of intellectuals that believe in God compared with the rest of the population was very intriguing, especially when he compared it to politics. And I loved the letter that he read at the end, about how people believe things because they are tradition or they have been told to believe them by an authority figure. I think this is such a true statement. I think overall, he is a very smart man and he makes a lot of good points, but he can be a tad condescending and arrogant at times.

I agree with Elle--too much time is spent giving validation to the polarization of ID/creationism-evo. Dawkin's statement that Christians are dangerous because they know they are right can easily be applied to scientists. It made me think of Aubrey de Gray, who knew he was right and would not consider the evidence that contradicted him. This polarization seems to me to be an extreme expression of the internalization of the idea 'knowledge is power'.

Science and Religion are the expressions of what can be proven and what can't be disproven. The two are irreconcilable. ID cannot be empirically proven by scientific means any more than science can explain love and hope (though that hasn't stopped scientists so far--apparently love can be completely distilled into a slew of neurochemical reactions). I think that Dawkins is right about one thing, the hellbent I Am Right is a dangerous state of mind.

While reading about the Scopes Trial, I found it interesting how much of a publicity event it became, rather than a true trial. Scopes hadn’t even taught evolution at his school, and that was what he was on trial for doing! It sounds like this was just an excuse for the evolutionists to try and get the Tennessee statute ruled unconstitutional. I also thought it was interesting how both sides had such different agendas. It seems like the prosecution really just wanted to prosecute Scopes for violating the law. However, the defense really tried to use this trial to have the law overturned, which wasn’t even something that could result from the trial directly.

As far as the article describing how less people are claiming to have a religion in the United States, that’s what I would expect (or at least hope to). In our modern times with modern technologies and science, it’s becoming harder and harder for people to put their faith in something that can’t be proven. I still wonder how reliable these recent studies have been, however.

I find it interesting that the, "The world's most famous court case," the Scope's trial, the reading anyway, didn't even involve Scope himself but an debate between Bryan and Darrow. Though not too surprising, the two view points expressed were of course subjective; completely their own.

I completely agree with the conclusion of the trial in Dayton, that being intelligent design should not be taught in a science classroom. Since the theology is based on belief and not evidence it should be left out of a study of science, ie. something interpreted by evidence. I agree with many people above me, ID can be taught as an idea, a theology in some other humanities class but not a scientific classroom.

A question I have though is why does ID want to be in the science classroom so badly and not others?

Edward Larson's essay on The Scopes Trial was really interesting. I think this was one of the best pieces from the book so far. I'm interested in law and trial strategy, and I give credit to the ACLU for bringing this to trial. The ACLU has been known for devising some creative trial strategies, and this was one of the better. The prosecution, including Bryan, should have done everything they could have to keep this about whether or not Scopes broke the law. It seems like Bryan's testimony would have discredited him and those that pushed for the law in Tennessee. The law banned the teaching of evolution, but it did not mandate the teaching of creationism. The beauty of the defense's strategy is that they made fundamental creationism, as told by Bryan, the only alternative to evolution. I think most people agree that Bryan's version of fundamental creationism is too extreme, even if they don't believe in evolution. The defense portrayed evolution in a much better light by making the end of the trial about fundamental creation, not evolution. I wish Larson would have provided a better conclusion about the outcome of the case--what was the jury's verdict? I guess I'll have to look somewhere else for that.

Why have a trial to begin with? It seemed like more of a debate than anything if you ask me... and as we all know debating really only entrenches the opposite parties viewpoints further. The interrogation of Bryan seemed like a Dawkins/Crowd Q&A session to me, except in reverse. To me, the theory of evolution is a tricky one to get around teaching in school, simply because of religious beliefs. It will always be an ongoing problem... Intelligent Design is trying to bridge the partisanship but I do not believe it will ever successfully happen. Just the same as Liberals and Conservatives will never combine, you will always have the extreme ends with people, with whom will not concede their perspective because it is "the right one".

Lastly, I can see the perspective of the government trying to ban teaching evolution in schools. Obviously it has to do with the church, but I feel that it may have been an attempt to steer clear of conflict between the subjects. In public schools, religion isn't taught... so why have evolution?

As I said before in a previous post, I don’t have a problem with a creator hypothesis being brought into the science classroom. It only takes one sentence, “it’s possible that some form of intelligence had something to with creation of life.” BAM done, nothing more to say.

I personally come from a community of friends and family that are part of this growing trend of rejecting organized religion. I think the main reason is access to information. Spend even one day on the Internet critically researching the history of your religion and you wont be a part of it anymore. Realizing the truth doesn’t mean you can’t be spiritual.

That Monkey is crazy. I hate reading stories like this that speak to the intelligence of animals because I don’t want to be a vegetarian.

The Scopes Trial once again displays the true problem of the judicial system, that in fact justice is not blind and church and state will never be separate. Larson states the judge was "eager to hear Bryan defend the faith." It seems obvious that the judge was not impartial and that evolution posed a great danger to the Christian faith and Scriptures. Larson also states that the judge found the law not to be on trial and the trial "ended without ever directly taking up the promised issues of science and religion in public education." I understand the immediate issue was the Scopes broke the law by teaching evolution, but how can any person of intelligence, especially a well educated judge not allow all sides to be heard. Though the court system has transformed drastically and there are many cases found in favor of evolution, the fact that any type of religious teaching is even proposed or allowed in public schools is offensive and a blast to our constitutional rights.

I was familiar with the Scopes trial before reading this chapter, but I really enjoyed reading more about the people involved and how it made the case as big as it was (and still is). Up until reading this I had been unaware of the strong presence of any anti-religious sentiment in that time period, which made Darrow's strategies even more interesting.

The problems I have with religion often revolve around when it is forced upon me in a situation in which it shouldn't be, or when religious individuals or groups make false claims. Intelligent Design is just as dangerous as Creationism because they are both twisting scientific data to fill in the current gaps. With this in mind, there is absolutely no reason why it should be taught in a public education system.

The thought that so many people think that these ideas should be taught in public schools is horrifying. The need that some people have to fill in those gaps is such a primitive mindset, and I believe that it is extremely limiting to what we can really achieve in science.