Comments on: Interesting Quotes From Biology Textbooks http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/interesting-quotes-from-biology-textbooks/ Serving The Intelligent Design Community Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:51:17 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Mats http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/interesting-quotes-from-biology-textbooks/comment-page-1/#comment-69963 Mats Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:10:14 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1724#comment-69963 I know this has been heard/read plenty of times, but it's never too late to say it again: If it hadn't been for the religious implications of Darwinism, that theory would have been erased from biology books decades ago. It still survives because there is no other 100% naturalistic theory for the origin and diversification of the biosphere. I know this has been heard/read plenty of times, but it’s never too late to say it again: If it hadn’t been for the religious implications of Darwinism, that theory would have been erased from biology books decades ago. It still survives because there is no other 100% naturalistic theory for the origin and diversification of the biosphere.

]]> By: bj http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/interesting-quotes-from-biology-textbooks/comment-page-1/#comment-69951 bj Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:35:57 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1724#comment-69951 A word to those who criticize Darwinisn and its perceived effects. I understand your concern, especially as it affects young people in high school. But, I don't think a goal like teaching both sides (teach the controvery) is going to be allowed. I think that Phillip Johnson has stated as much. BUT, a reasonable and possible goal is to make high school textbooks metaphysically neutral. For instance, if the term random can be misunderstood, then why not drop it altogether and just speak of mutations. The words "undirected" and "purposeless" should be dropped. These are metaphysical words. Textbooks could speak of how living organisms have the ability to change in response to environmental pressures, or just change period, and then teach mechanisms with a caveat that our knowledge of these mechanisms is limited but growing. Statements about differences of opinion in these matters in the scientific community could be discussed but also mention that this is the nature of science and how knowledge is advanced. There is a way to teach what we know and not use words which shape the mind in any direction regarding the ultimate questions. I think the ID movement would find some allies in the scientific community if this was a stated goal. A word to those who criticize Darwinisn and its perceived effects. I understand your concern, especially as it affects young people in high school. But, I don’t think a goal like teaching both sides (teach the controvery) is going to be allowed. I think that Phillip Johnson has stated as much. BUT, a reasonable and possible goal is to make high school textbooks metaphysically neutral. For instance, if the term random can be misunderstood, then why not drop it altogether and just speak of mutations. The words “undirected” and “purposeless” should be dropped. These are metaphysical words. Textbooks could speak of how living organisms have the ability to change in response to environmental pressures, or just change period, and then teach mechanisms with a caveat that our knowledge of these mechanisms is limited but growing. Statements about differences of opinion in these matters in the scientific community could be discussed but also mention that this is the nature of science and how knowledge is advanced. There is a way to teach what we know and not use words which shape the mind in any direction regarding the ultimate questions. I think the ID movement would find some allies in the scientific community if this was a stated goal.

]]> By: Is there purpose in Darwinian life? « Reasons http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/interesting-quotes-from-biology-textbooks/comment-page-1/#comment-69950 Is there purpose in Darwinian life? « Reasons Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:27:06 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1724#comment-69950 [...] This is partly from an article on the uncommondecent site, which I made comments on. Only my own comments are here. The article quotes from various school biology text books. [...] [...] This is partly from an article on the uncommondecent site, which I made comments on. Only my own comments are here. The article quotes from various school biology text books. [...]

]]> By: Borne http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/interesting-quotes-from-biology-textbooks/comment-page-1/#comment-69947 Borne Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:52:27 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1724#comment-69947 It seems rather confusing that here we have this article showing what's in the bio-books stating that there is no purpose but self propagation (i.e. selfishness) and no goals or direction in life, and at the same time we have another article called "Darwin Loves you" wherein the author attempts to banish all these ideas and give Darwinism some "purposeful" credibility. And this just happens to concur with creationist/ID camp's having exposed the clear metaphysics involved! Coincidince? I don't think so. They've been exposed. So the high priests of Darwinian fundamentalism and are now rushing to save the precious theory, once again, from inevitable public disaster seeking to reconcile it again to reason and common sense. Glaring contradictions abound in the postmodern mindset indeed. When will these people awaken from their dream? Sometimes I fear it will take another world war before the consequences of this atheistic Darwinian intellectual suicide are realized. It seems rather confusing that here we have this article showing what’s in the bio-books stating that there is no purpose but self propagation (i.e. selfishness) and no goals or direction in life, and at the same time we have another article called “Darwin Loves you” wherein the author attempts to banish all these ideas and give Darwinism some “purposeful” credibility.

And this just happens to concur with creationist/ID camp’s having exposed the clear metaphysics involved! Coincidince? I don’t think so.

They’ve been exposed. So the high priests of Darwinian fundamentalism and are now rushing to save the precious theory, once again, from inevitable public disaster seeking to reconcile it again to reason and common sense.

Glaring contradictions abound in the postmodern mindset indeed. When will these people awaken from their dream?

Sometimes I fear it will take another world war before the consequences of this atheistic Darwinian intellectual suicide are realized.

]]> By: SteveB http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/interesting-quotes-from-biology-textbooks/comment-page-1/#comment-69939 SteveB Fri, 20 Oct 2006 14:05:21 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1724#comment-69939 So, all of evolution is purposeless, heartless, blind, and continues “only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor.” Evolution doesn’t prefer, consider, care, or love. The elegance of our physical bodies is the “appearance of design;” “all mental and spiritual phenomena are [evolution’s] by-products.” And while I would still disagree with it, I could respect the view if one—even one—of the proponents of this view actually lived in a way that was remotely consistent with its presuppositions. If even one would conclude that he is just as purposeless and meaningless and the system that made him, upon which he is entirely and inescapably dependent. If his own concerns were just chemical reactions; if his own intellect was a mere “mass of evolving neurons.” But the fact is that no one does. Not one. These, in a great twist of irony (and hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance…), are somehow able to turn on a dime, and claim that their lives, their research, their relationships (pick what you want…) are meaningful, significant and important! The Titanic upon which we have all been placed is hollow, directionless, vacuous and rudderless, but I can still find “meaning and purpose” in re-arranging the deck chairs! Balderdash. The view is as vacuous as it is patronizing. So, all of evolution is purposeless, heartless, blind, and continues “only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor.” Evolution doesn’t prefer, consider, care, or love. The elegance of our physical bodies is the “appearance of design;” “all mental and spiritual phenomena are [evolution’s] by-products.”

And while I would still disagree with it, I could respect the view if one—even one—of the proponents of this view actually lived in a way that was remotely consistent with its presuppositions. If even one would conclude that he is just as purposeless and meaningless and the system that made him, upon which he is entirely and inescapably dependent. If his own concerns were just chemical reactions; if his own intellect was a mere “mass of evolving neurons.”

But the fact is that no one does. Not one. These, in a great twist of irony (and hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance…), are somehow able to turn on a dime, and claim that their lives, their research, their relationships (pick what you want…) are meaningful, significant and important!

The Titanic upon which we have all been placed is hollow, directionless, vacuous and rudderless, but I can still find “meaning and purpose” in re-arranging the deck chairs!

Balderdash. The view is as vacuous as it is patronizing.

]]> By: bj http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/interesting-quotes-from-biology-textbooks/comment-page-1/#comment-69938 bj Fri, 20 Oct 2006 14:03:20 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1724#comment-69938 I suppose I could be called a religious agnostic. I'm certainly agnostic on ID being science. I think that creation science is incorrect. BUT, one thing all of these movements do is try to keep SOME scientists honest. There is a metaphysical line which is crossed and not acknowledged in some of these textbook quotes. In fact, that line is crossed so easily by all of us. You look at the natural world. Some instantly think of a higher power. Some think the data doesn't support such a view. When we make these judgements, we have taken the data and made a metaphysical judgment. It happens very quickly and early. Scientists do the same. Some look at the data and make judgements about ultimate reality and then put those judgements in the textbooks. Words like random, unguided, undirected, can be misunderstood. Even if Darwinists have it exactly right, evolution has "created" many products. Natural selection as a guiding force can be considered teleological. And then there's the question of who made the "evolution machine". Randomness can be seen in the context of overall purpose. I hope we are coming to a time when the writers of textbooks, especially those used in public schools, will think long and hard about just how they present their material. I remember Jack Webb in Dragnet saying "just give me the facts maam". Then, all of us can make our own metaphysical commitments. I suppose I could be called a religious agnostic. I’m certainly agnostic on ID being science. I think that creation science is incorrect. BUT, one thing all of these movements do is try to keep SOME scientists honest. There is a metaphysical line which is crossed and not acknowledged in some of these textbook quotes. In fact, that line is crossed so easily by all of us. You look at the natural world. Some instantly think of a higher power. Some think the data doesn’t support such a view. When we make these judgements, we have taken the data and made a metaphysical judgment. It happens very quickly and early. Scientists do the same. Some look at the data and make judgements about ultimate reality and then put those judgements in the textbooks. Words like random, unguided, undirected, can be misunderstood. Even if Darwinists have it exactly right, evolution has “created” many products. Natural selection as a guiding force can be considered teleological. And then there’s the question of who made the “evolution machine”. Randomness can be seen in the context of overall purpose. I hope we are coming to a time when the writers of textbooks, especially those used in public schools, will think long and hard about just how they present their material. I remember Jack Webb in Dragnet saying “just give me the facts maam”. Then, all of us can make our own metaphysical commitments.

]]> By: niwrad http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/interesting-quotes-from-biology-textbooks/comment-page-1/#comment-69928 niwrad Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:44:49 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1724#comment-69928 Borne wrote: Again, as CS Lewis so aptly said, “Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning…” True. In fact, as someone else metaphysically said: “who recognizes the illusion, is not illusory”. Moreover who says “all has no meaning” is self-contradicting because that would involve his agnostic proposition too. Borne wrote: Again, as CS Lewis so aptly said, “Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning…”

True. In fact, as someone else metaphysically said: “who recognizes the illusion, is not illusory”. Moreover who says “all has no meaning” is self-contradicting because that would involve his agnostic proposition too.

]]> By: russ http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/interesting-quotes-from-biology-textbooks/comment-page-1/#comment-69881 russ Fri, 20 Oct 2006 09:18:02 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1724#comment-69881 I seem to remember that Ken Miller did some backtracking on a textbook co-authored with Joseph Levine, specifically on the "no plan or purpose" statements. As I remember, Levine is said to have put that in without Miller's knowledge/approval. Maybe someone else knows more. I seem to remember that Ken Miller did some backtracking on a textbook co-authored with Joseph Levine, specifically on the “no plan or purpose” statements. As I remember, Levine is said to have put that in without Miller’s knowledge/approval. Maybe someone else knows more.

]]> By: Patrick http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/interesting-quotes-from-biology-textbooks/comment-page-1/#comment-69871 Patrick Fri, 20 Oct 2006 07:15:55 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1724#comment-69871 <blockquote>Hello! My comments are not showing up. Have I been blocked?</blockquote> Le* sigh... Why is that everyone thinks they're blocked or banned when their comments don't immediately show? :P More seriously, mods usually make a comment when someone has been banned. French sighs are more sophisticated, don't you know.

Hello! My comments are not showing up. Have I been blocked?

Le* sigh… Why is that everyone thinks they’re blocked or banned when their comments don’t immediately show? :P More seriously, mods usually make a comment when someone has been banned.

French sighs are more sophisticated, don’t you know.

]]> By: idnet.com.au http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/interesting-quotes-from-biology-textbooks/comment-page-1/#comment-69868 idnet.com.au Fri, 20 Oct 2006 07:05:04 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1724#comment-69868 It is the Evo PR machine like the NCSE that is cautioning book publishers to keep what everyone believes about the implications of naturalistic evolutionary theory secret from young children. It is the Evo PR machine like the NCSE that is cautioning book publishers to keep what everyone believes about the implications of naturalistic evolutionary theory secret from young children.

]]>