For the time being I prefer to limit myself to one thought. On the ID thread, I spent a considerable amount of time making a distinction regards this topic.

You state: "But there still remains a large segment of the population who believe in Intelligent Design, and oppose scientific innovation."

By this, atomchik, I assume you mean individuals who knowingly employ the so-called formal theory dubbed "Intelligent Design" as a self-admitted fundamentalist Christian ploy to reintroduce Bible studies back into the educational system; despite it's ban by the Supreme Court?

This would exclude those individuals who believe, or who are intuitively disposed to believe that there must be some generic force (that could be called intelligent design) at work within the the basic stuff of the universe. Rather than being anti-science, they either embrace science or are content to allow science to function in it's own way according to it's own internally determined rules.

I bring this up as there are many people who rightfully belong in the latter case, but who are unwittingly endorsing a specific religously based political strategy due to the intuitive appeal of the generic idea of intelligent design. This confusion is no accident. This entire "theory" was a fabricated deceiptful ploy on the part of the Christian right to sneak the Bible into the classroom through the back door.

I think that the debate about whether a research is done in an ethical or unethical way is a bit biased. A research is done and no matter your intents you'll always find people who'll use your work for the very good and the very bad. The question is more, should a research be avoided if there's a risk of using it with bad perspectives? Scientists seem to always display the best intents but they perfectly know that their researches can be used for the worst all the time. I'm not saying they are hypocrits because they actually often warn about the possible implications of risky researches.

My personal opinion is that scientific progress shouldn't be bypassed because of the risks it may generate, but i also think that a necessary link should exists between politics and science, at the root, so that the worst can be avoided (laws, treaties, ect...) .The problem really is in the hands of political leaders, and for sure they won't handle it correctly if they are uneducated. I'm not sure that theology should be a required teaching, i tend to think that mixing politics with religion is a mistake right from the start, leading to nonsenses like Intelligent Design ideas ending up in school books.

atomchik:

The thought of being associated with the Democratic Party in any way actually makes me feel ill.

The unrelenting quest by the educational wing of the Democratic Party, the NEA, to dumb-down and feminize the entire clientele of the American public school system over the last 50 years has succeeded. Ignorance in all academic fields abounds, not just science. The rush toward the least common denominator and the suppression of excellence over this period has created millions of people destined to regard tattoos and body piercings as their major accomplishments in life.

Higher standards and expectations in all academic areas is what Americans want in education. What's needed is an educational system that is open and influenced by competition. American parents need to be able to send their children to any school they desire, be it private, public or home-school, without financial penalty.

You think the religious right in America is the Taliban? You're wrong. Americans have never been that way and never will be. They're just common, decent, fair people that want their kids to be taught classical academic skills, morals, virtues, and a belief in a higher power or providence(because they regard it as very important). They also want their children protected from ideas and beliefs they consider harmful to their well-being. The scientific method is not one of those, because at the root of science is truth.

Order, complexity and intelligence defines our existence. Our striving to understand why will never end.

You are sincerely, quite welcome, ac. Let’s just hope you feel the same way after we have all had a chance to respond to you. Please understand that my intention with this post is just to have some fun by playing the Devil’s Advocate. Honestly, I have no real “position” in this debate other than not even science can simply evoke an idea to use as an “a priori right” to dismiss or demean anyone else’s “sacred cow.” So please take this post as a general statement that is not meant to be directed at your statements (many of which I agree with). My only point is that there is no “correct view” (not even “science”). There is only the open-minded inquiry that is the act of continually rediscovering the miracle of life guided by clear vision, intellectual self-discipline and a kind and compassionate heart. So please do not personalize this post.



Not to split linguistic hairs here, but I believe that you mean to say that religion can not postulate a fact as "scientific truth" without first testing it's validity in a "scientifically accepted" manner? A religious assertion can claim to be "truth" as an article of faith, for example, but this claim has no justification to be regarded as "scientific fact." The purpose of the distinction is to clearly identify the specific processes upon which "the truth (proof)" of a given statement has been determined.



This is not necessarily true. Science stipulates a precise methodology. Religion does not make these same stipulations. In fact, some religious sects utilize empirically based methodologies to arrive at their conclusions. These conclusions (ie, quantum mechanics) have subsequently been validated through formal scientific experimentation as being essentially correct, though arrived at through a more intuitive-based and intuitively-expressed manner (read “The Dancing Wu Li Masters”). In fact, I would personally argue that the substantive difference between religious thought and scientific thought is biology; or, the manner in which the neural structures are employed during the inquiry process itself.



Well, we certainly agree about religion having no place in a science class.

Still, the current lack of a clearer understanding of the real nature of the differences between science and religion is due to the inability of science to recognize its own arrogant prejudice which precludes a proper scientific exploration of the real and obvious differences in our human perceptions of the self and the world. Science is most assuredly disingenuous in the extreme when it makes the claim (no matter how “politically correct” it may sound) that it can not study invisible entities, supernatural beings, etc. This is quite condescending and entirely fallacious. Science has all it needs to work with right here and right now in the physical world. Are there not people who believe in the existence of a divine being; those that do not; and those that don't know? Are these not just as suitable subjects for scientific exploration as is a comparison between the operation of a bacterial flagellum and a rotary engine?

But let's just be blunt. I will gladly put my God on the table of science, just as soon as you put your evolution on it.



Again, you have forgotten that it is only the theory of evolution (or language) which is so elegant, not the invisible process of evolution itself. Scientists, it appears, can make the same mistake as primitive peoples who concretely believe that by naming a thing, they somehow gain control over and understand that thing. It does not logically follow that whatever constitutes the observed phenomenon we call "evolution" is necessarily that simple. In fact, there is no reason to assume that this "evolution reality" is even necessarily "rational." Remember, the phenomenon merely needs to be observable and predictable.

The fact that we can successfully identify a logical and predictable process to explain biological change/diversity by no means implies that we understand anything more about this mysterious force called evolution than we do about any other supremely powerful, but invisible entity which controls and shapes our destiny.

Now that the intellectual sparing is over, ac, I would like to add just one point. As unbearable as it may be to both sides of this issue, it is obvious that we are all talking about the same thing. For goodness sake, just think about it. Call it evolution or God, but exactly what else could we possibly be talking about if it isn’t really the same thing?

You will find more pertinent information in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy.

You have a false premise AND a logical fallacy. Can you spot them?