Well, it's really the Hugh Hefner, but still ...

http://blog.chron.com/believeitornot/201...gh-hefner/

How ironic! Clearly Parliament material. Who else could garner a Freedom of Speech award by trying to suppress it?

Yeah, was wondering that myself. Not sure how this is promoting freedom of speech.

"First Amendment rights"

Um, that one's not all about speech y'all.

Quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is an award for those who “have made significant contributions in the vital effort to protect and enhance First Amendment rights.” How does a law that "allow(s) open discussion and criticism of scientific theories on evolution, origins of life and global warming in public school classrooms." somehow equate to "establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? If, as many suggest, creationist or intelligent design theories are so flawed, wouldn't open discussion and criticism thereof show they are flawed? Similarly, if global warming theory is as flawed as many suggest, wouldn't open discussion and criticism thereof show it too is flawed? My whole point is that an open and honest discussion must include even those views that are quickly or ultimately rejected as flawed. In that vein, I think we should be looking at evolutionary theory, creationist theory, intelligent design theory, Mormon came from a distant planet as children of alien gods theory, Native American mankind sprung from Mother Earth (not sure that is really accurate, but you get the drift), Muslim origin theory (which as I understand it dovetails with Judeo-Christian beliefs) and whatever other theory is out there. Discussing what the beliefs are does NOT establish a religion. Preventing that discussion DOES abridge the freedom of speech in that area.

NOTE: on a related topic, the establishment of religion clause should not, in my view, be taken in a vacuum, but rather in the context of the societal issues and norms at the time that the Constitution was written. The fear was that a religion would be established as a state religion with all others being outlawed, aka The Church of England or nothing. The Evolutionary theorists who espouse Evolution or nothing are, in my view, espousing a view of what the law should be that is contrary to the First Amendment precisely because it prohibits discussion of other belief systems!

JMHO.

(05-30-2012 04:38 PM)texd Wrote:  "First Amendment rights"

Um, that one's not all about speech y'all.

Quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Ummm, dude, how does this fit the bolded part?

(05-30-2012 05:23 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  It is an award for those who “have made significant contributions in the vital effort to protect and enhance First Amendment rights.” How does a law that "allow(s) open discussion and criticism of scientific theories on evolution, origins of life and global warming in public school classrooms." somehow equate to "establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? If, as many suggest, creationist or intelligent design theories are so flawed, wouldn't open discussion and criticism thereof show they are flawed?

It's not that they're flawed. It's that they're not at all scientific. Which, BTW, is allegedly one of the requirements of the law. They're being equated to science in a callous attempt to inject particular religious beliefs into public education and provide a foothold for such.

And does anyone seriously believe that the appropriate people to have an open discussion of the merits of a religious system vs a scientific system are grade schoolers?

(05-30-2012 06:08 PM)texd Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 05:23 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  It is an award for those who “have made significant contributions in the vital effort to protect and enhance First Amendment rights.” How does a law that "allow(s) open discussion and criticism of scientific theories on evolution, origins of life and global warming in public school classrooms." somehow equate to "establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? If, as many suggest, creationist or intelligent design theories are so flawed, wouldn't open discussion and criticism thereof show they are flawed?

It's not that they're flawed. It's that they're not at all scientific. Which, BTW, is allegedly one of the requirements of the law. They're being equated to science in a callous attempt to inject particular religious beliefs into public education and provide a foothold for such.

And does anyone seriously believe that the appropriate people to have an open discussion of the merits of a religious system vs a scientific system are grade schoolers?

We can agree to disagree at this point. Creationist and intelligent design theories DO have scientific and mathematical, as well as religious, support. In fact, as far as I can tell, there is MORE evidence that the Biblical story of human existence is supported than there is evidence to support evolution. Note I said "evolution", not "natural selection" - there is a difference. Is there "proof" of either? No. That's why they are "theories" and not "laws" at this point. By the way, while we are on that distinction, why is it that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is taught, but Darwin's later recantation in favor of natural selection (which does not involve changing from one species to another) is NOT taught?

(05-30-2012 06:44 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  By the way, while we are on that distinction, why is it that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is taught, but Darwin's later recantation in favor of natural selection (which does not involve changing from one species to another) is NOT taught?

I'm unfamiliar with this. What did Darwin recant?

(05-30-2012 08:27 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 06:44 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  By the way, while we are on that distinction, why is it that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is taught, but Darwin's later recantation in favor of natural selection (which does not involve changing from one species to another) is NOT taught?

I'm unfamiliar with this. What did Darwin recant?

After postulating his Theory of Evolution, Darwin proceeded to note that "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Darwin called such a complex organ an "irreducibly complex system", defining that as one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. Darwin then stated, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 155. Thus, even in his book setting forth his Theory of Evolution, he calls it ultimately "absurd". He later expressly recanted the Theory of Evolution, calling natural selection clearly supported, but the extension evolution unsupportable by all the evidence.

In doing a little searching, I find that there was apparently a story of a deathbed recantation by Darwin, but his family denied the story. I think that story is suspect. However, in a letter to Hugh Falconer in October 1862, Darwin wrote, "I look at it as absolutely certain that very much in the Origin will be proved to be rubbish." Not a complete recantation, but certainly suggests he did not believe that his theory beyond natural selection was supportable.

I was always partial to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.............

(05-30-2012 06:44 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  We can agree to disagree at this point. Creationist and intelligent design theories DO have scientific and mathematical, as well as religious, support. In fact, as far as I can tell, there is MORE evidence that the Biblical story of human existence is supported than there is evidence to support evolution. Note I said "evolution", not "natural selection" - there is a difference. Is there "proof" of either? No. That's why they are "theories" and not "laws" at this point. By the way, while we are on that distinction, why is it that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is taught, but Darwin's later recantation in favor of natural selection (which does not involve changing from one species to another) is NOT taught?

Never expected this on a Rice board.

(05-30-2012 09:12 PM)tanq_tonic Wrote:  I was always partial to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.............

Ahh, a Pastafarian in our midst.

(05-30-2012 09:26 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 06:44 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  We can agree to disagree at this point. Creationist and intelligent design theories DO have scientific and mathematical, as well as religious, support. In fact, as far as I can tell, there is MORE evidence that the Biblical story of human existence is supported than there is evidence to support evolution. Note I said "evolution", not "natural selection" - there is a difference. Is there "proof" of either? No. That's why they are "theories" and not "laws" at this point. By the way, while we are on that distinction, why is it that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is taught, but Darwin's later recantation in favor of natural selection (which does not involve changing from one species to another) is NOT taught?

Never expected this on a Rice board.

Far more likely on a Rice sports board that an ESU sports board!

(05-30-2012 09:26 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 06:44 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  We can agree to disagree at this point. Creationist and intelligent design theories DO have scientific and mathematical, as well as religious, support. In fact, as far as I can tell, there is MORE evidence that the Biblical story of human existence is supported than there is evidence to support evolution. Note I said "evolution", not "natural selection" - there is a difference. Is there "proof" of either? No. That's why they are "theories" and not "laws" at this point. By the way, while we are on that distinction, why is it that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is taught, but Darwin's later recantation in favor of natural selection (which does not involve changing from one species to another) is NOT taught?

Never expected this on a Rice board.

I recall seeing some statistics while I was at Rice ('04-'08, can't remember what year specifically). Something like 20% or more of campus was young Earth Christians.

owl7886,

Lest you are categorizing me as a young earth Christian, I wish to correct your view of me. Without getting into all of the theology and study that I have done on the subject on my own, I simply note that I believe the young earth Christians are in error in their view - not on the all important issue of salvation through Jesus Christ, but on their view of the age of the earth and interpretation of Genesis. My view is far more in line with that set forth IN THIS ARTICLE.

(05-30-2012 09:05 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  After postulating his Theory of Evolution, Darwin proceeded to note that "if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Darwin called such a complex organ an "irreducibly complex system", defining that as one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. Darwin then stated, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 155. Thus, even in his book setting forth his Theory of Evolution, he calls it ultimately "absurd".

You seem to be misunderstanding Darwin's use of "seems" (my emphasis added in the above).

This line of discussion is new to me, so I ran a search. Google's first hit on your quotation yields a web page titled "How to misquote Darwin" (http://www.aquaticape.org/darwin.html). I don't think I can improve on it, so I'll simply quote its entirety:

Quote:Misquoting Darwin is a cottage industry amongst creationists and, sadly, others use their methods. It's easy to do, just take the first sentence (or part of one as Morgan did) and pretend it's the point he was making. This quote is one of the most famous misquotes of Darwin in this style, as used by many many creationists. They quote the first sentence only: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." This, however, is merely Darwin's rhetorical setup; they have to stop fast before they get to what he was actually saying. From On the Origin of Species, on the subject of the evolution of the eye:
ORGANS OF EXTREME PERFECTION AND COMPLICATION.
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 6th Edition (above from Project Gutenberg)

(05-30-2012 09:05 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  He later expressly recanted the Theory of Evolution, calling natural selection clearly supported, but the extension evolution unsupportable by all the evidence.

Do you have a citation for his express recantation of evolution?

(05-30-2012 09:05 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  In doing a little searching, I find that there was apparently a story of a deathbed recantation by Darwin, but his family denied the story. I think that story is suspect. However, in a letter to Hugh Falconer in October 1862, Darwin wrote, "I look at it as absolutely certain that very much in the Origin will be proved to be rubbish." Not a complete recantation, but certainly suggests he did not believe that his theory beyond natural selection was supportable.

A bit fuller version of that quote to Falconer is "Now, I can fancy you holding up your hands and crying out what bosh! To return to your concluding sentence: far from being surprised, I look at it as absolutely certain that very much in the "Origin" will be proved rubbish; but I expect and hope that the framework will stand. " Read a lot more of the quote here: http://www.freefictionbooks.org/books/m/...?start=137

It's not clear to me exactly what he's saying, but it sounds like the opposite of your conjecture. It sounds like he believed in "framework" he had laid out, but was certain that some of his observations didn't have the specifics exactly right.

(05-30-2012 05:23 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  In that vein, I think we should be looking at evolutionary theory, creationist theory, intelligent design theory, Mormon came from a distant planet as children of alien gods theory, Native American mankind sprung from Mother Earth (not sure that is really accurate, but you get the drift), Muslim origin theory (which as I understand it dovetails with Judeo-Christian beliefs) and whatever other theory is out there. Discussing what the beliefs are does NOT establish a religion. Preventing that discussion DOES abridge the freedom of speech in that area.

Only one of those things you listed is a theory (and not "just a theory"). The others are beliefs. And there is the stark distinction. No one has the right to use the public schools to teach faith as science.

I'm not finding the express recantation that I referenced, although I've seen it somewhere before. The more I research it, the more I suspect it may have been a partial quote along the lines of the quotes we have been discussing. I do note that I was NOT aware that the quote I gave you had been truncated. Thanks for the refutation on that point.

Regarding Darwin's "but I expect and hope that the framework will stand.", it seems to me that the quote as a whole could be taken to mean that "the framework" references natural selection (which I agree is well supported in the records) while the "much in the Origin will be proved to be rubbish" references the unsupported leap from natural selection within a species to interspecies development, i.e. evolution. I suppose either interpretation could be made and nobody really knows at this point what Darwin meant. In that light, perhaps instead of "By the way, while we are on that distinction, why is it that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is taught, but Darwin's later recantation in favor of natural selection (which does not involve changing from one species to another) is NOT taught? ", I should have said, "By the way, while we are on that distinction, why is it that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is taught, but the enormous and unsupported gaps in the Theory are not generally discussed but rather glossed over with an 'It's a missing link' response."

(05-31-2012 12:05 AM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  

(05-30-2012 05:23 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  In that vein, I think we should be looking at evolutionary theory, creationist theory, intelligent design theory, Mormon came from a distant planet as children of alien gods theory, Native American mankind sprung from Mother Earth (not sure that is really accurate, but you get the drift), Muslim origin theory (which as I understand it dovetails with Judeo-Christian beliefs) and whatever other theory is out there. Discussing what the beliefs are does NOT establish a religion. Preventing that discussion DOES abridge the freedom of speech in that area.

Only one of those things you listed is a theory (and not "just a theory"). The others are beliefs. And there is the stark distinction. No one has the right to use the public schools to teach faith as science.

Either you have to acknowledge that evolution is a belief as well as a theory or you have to acknowledge that the others are theories as well as beliefs. Some require more belief and have less supporting evidence for the theory that others, but ALL are theories and depending on the individual, may be beliefs. Notably, the dictionary doesn't differentiate, defining (at least in Merriam Webster's dictionary) "theory" to be (among other things) "a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>". And no one has the right to use the public schools to teach evolutionary theory as the only plausible theory when it is certainly not even the majority accepted position. Schools should be presenting the scientific evidence and noting the various theories which attempt to explain them, i.e. the beliefs/theories that I listed. If you want to take the faith out of science in schools, you need to start by taking evolution out of the natural selection discussion. Natural selection has scientific support - evolution from one species to another doesn't (or at least I have never seen any credible scientific support for it).