The perfect answer to the intelligent design group.

[liberal N proud]

West Wing last night covered the intelligent design question in a way that I thought was perfect.
Santos was on the campaign and in a town hall meeting, one where people could actually ask unscripted questions. I believe the group was all teachers.
One lady stood up and asked if he believed in intelligent design, his answer was basically a yes.
That launched a whole series of questions on the subject, one asking why it shouldn't be taught in school along side science.
His response referred to the founding fathers intentions of freedom of religion and if you are teaching intelligent design in schools that would violate the church and state rules.

[displacedtexan]

1. The only thing missing in his answer (IMHO) was...

"Public" means everyone: little Wing Ho, little Ali, little Satinder, and all the rest of the non-Christians who already feel left out and not as important as little Matthew, little Mary, and little Joseph.

And don't tell me that "tradition" trumps the Constitution. Slavery, women voting, and being denied legal representation were also "traditions" in this country.

That's what I wanted to hear.

[izzie]

3. In this country every one was to protect the rights of the fringe

I can not figure out how the fringe think it is OK to not protect the 'every one's rights. Interesting how this has turned out.

[WildClarySage]

2. Trouble is, there are people out there who think that the separation of

church and state is a quaint notion that needs to be overruled.

My response is simply that if they won't teach their religion in my school, I'll refrain from teaching my science in their church.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Turn the argument on its head: Make churches and Sunday schools

teach the Darwinian "theory" of evolution alongside of Adam and Eve. Equal time everywhere. If their proposition of free thought is valid, then it shouldn't matter where both ideas are propounded.

[Perky]

5. yeah ok

Not in my Church not if I have anything to say about it. I appreciate the sentiment...but yu want to start a Holy war.. Just try and tell a Church what they can and can't teach.

[Bridget Burke]

6. Those who truly understand Church/State separation...

Know that it benefits both sides. If Churches could dictate State policies, the reverse would also be true.

Some Fundamentalist churches remember their history as minority faiths, oppressed by Established churches. Others, alas, have forgotten.

(Quite a few Churches don't have a problem with Evolution, anyway.)

[no_hypocrisy]

10. Thank you for developing my point.

Church/State separation works both ways. Churches don't tell public schools what to teach and Government doesn't tell churches what to preach. Can't have it any other way and not destroy neutrality.

[whatever4]

8. Especially if they receive federal dollars

Otherwise, without that crucial bit of knowledge, how will they even know science exists? I mean, they'll never know. You know?

Need to "edumacate" them, as to the existance of the "others" and their godless beliefs. Because, apparently, being "godless" is against the law now.

It's good to know.

[HereSince1628]

7. I thought the script misrepresented science. But it states the

position of many science educators very well.

The Santos character spoke of science being based on "facts" that he suggested can be "proven." That rhetoric isn't correct.

Speaking of "facts" is legal language. Science deals with data which every scientist would admit is vulnerable to mistakes and biases at the levels of collection, analysis and interpretation. Which as the foundation of otherwise perfect theoretical constructions makes those theories subject to being modified or discarded by subsequent and more reliable contrary findings. Biologists, although they strive to get things done correctly, must maintain the possibility that their data is in error to a greater or lesser degree.

Moreover, biological scientists are very circumspect and skeptical that observations or understandings constructed via science can be "proven." Proofs are something for photographs, math, logic, and again the rhetoric of the legal system. Scientists would not say they conduct tests to prove facts, or prove theories. Scientific testing mostly works by negation rather than affirmation or acclaim (although fields using surveillance--involved in such things as finding the Flores hominid--do, at least in part, work this way. And Scientists admitted also conduct post hoc review of data for signal(s) of something potentially interesting for future study). Consequently, as in statistics, biologists would typically say that they reject or fail to reject hypotheses under test. That failure may ripple through understanding to knock down previously accepted conceptual understandings.

But, having rejected an alternative doesn't mean the remaining hypothesis correctly and perfectly reflects phenomena in the empirical realm. Neither does failing to reject. Consequently, scientist treat most of their understanding as tentative rather than proven.

[Hekate]

11. I was still writing while you posted: you explain science better than I

thanks

Religion is more my area since I'm a mythologist, but my mother was a rational daughter of the Enlightenment through and through, so certain ideas remain part of my being...

Hekate

[Hekate]

9. "Santos" gave the perfect answer, imo

Essentially it's the answer I gave some students I met several years ago: science and intelligent design are from two separate disciplines, and belong in separate classes.

Science and the scientific method deal with the realm of the provable, and theories are always subject to revision as new evidence is discovered and proven. Theories can even be disproven outright. Scientists accept this, or they soon find themselves outside the ranks of able scientists.

"Intelligent design" takes you into the realm of "the first cause, itself uncaused" -- and that's theology, the realm of faith. Issues of faith are neither proven nor disproven, they simply are. Theological discourse can be as complicated as the best minds want to make it, or as simple as memorizing a catechism, but those who set out to disprove elements of a given faith soon find themselves outside it.

I have no trouble with anyone who wants to teach creationism or intelligent design -- in a religion class, or from a pulpit, or in Sunday school.

If the proponents of these religious notions were sincere about wanting schoolchildren to be exposed to "all points of view," they would be willing to have classes in *comparative* religion taught K-12. Comparative religion is a very worthy subject, and enhances young people's ability to be tolerant and accepting of other faiths.

However, the folks who want to push creationism/intelligent design into science classes would be appalled at the very idea of a class that would encourage schoolchildren to compare world religions in a non-judgmental atmosphere without endorsing any of them.

As it is, West Wing remains my favorite Washington DC fantasy. Santos said what I have been hoping (one might even say praying) that Democratic politicians would just say flat out: religion and science are two separate areas of study, period.

Hekate

[displacedtexan]

12. I loved my undergrad comparative religion courses.

In fact, I ended up with a minor in Religion.

People would be stunned to learn where Jesus got some of his ideas. (Most people have never even heard of the Silk Road.)

Also, the 40 years of wandering (OT) allowed the people to come into contact with others who already had virgin birth stories, flood stories, etc.

I'm no religious scholar, but I found studying world religions fascinating.

[ComerPerro]

13. Way too simplistic

It overlooks the fact that ID nuts don't believe in separation of church and state.

And, even if they acknowledged that statement, they still come back with "but what's wrong with teaching all views?"

That's why I prefer either

"Because Intelligent Design is bullshit"

or

"Fine, lets teach ALL views. Forget science. We will teach every single creationary theory that has ever been put forward by mankind, and will will give them all equal weight. We will cover everything, from Genesis to Darwin to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And we will give them all the same weight. But your kids won't learn anything else."

[BiggJawn]

14. That's a "perfect" answer?

OK, I didn't see the show, so I may be missing something, but ID has NO place being taught as "Science" because when you bring in the Supernatural, Science and Rational Thinking go right out the window.

This is why the Flying Spaghetti Monster has as much validity as ID. it passes (or more accurately fails) the same tests as ID does.

Reminds me of a cartoon I saw once. 2 guys in white coats are looking at a chalkboard covered with numbers and equations leading up to a box marked "And then something MIRACULOUS happens" and the caption is "I think you need to flesh out that step just a LITTLE bit more..."