I would have to disagree with the premise that either side really does treat one another with much civility. In most discussions I’ve ever witnessed or experienced (public or private) folk enter the debate with the full force and utter confidence that they hold the truth – coming into any discussion with the presumption that the other is a fool.

I don’t want to presume too much, but if you’ve only heard of the Discovery Institute recently, I have to doubt the breadth of your experience with the tactics and ideas of the Intelligent Design movement.

The initial post was not so much a defense of the Discovery Institute (didn’t know they existed till a few months ago) but a recognition that both “sides” tended to use each others’ words to gain a foothold in the public debate.

Yes, both sides use each others’ words. That’s what politics is about. But again, there is not some sort of equality here. ID proponents are notorious for taking quotes out of context–wildly and obviously out of context–when making their arguments. I’m not exaggerating in the least here. Some ID editorials contain quotes with whole pages expurgated between two sentences the editorialist is trying to connect. This isn’t honest, I think you would agree. Google “quote mining” sometime to get an idea of what I’m talking about. There are whole pages dedicated to this particular ID tactic.

At some point in the not too distant future I’d like to discuss the epistemology of modern science and the history of the scientific method. Many here have some good insights and experiences and I think it’d be worth talking through as well.

That would be great.

When you’ve dealt with the ID crowd as long as some people have, you’ll learn how truly dishonest and political they are. Give them an inch, and they’ll drag you into the mud for miles and miles.

From this statement it seemed like a safe assumption to deduce that you’d been in some personal battles. “Dealt with” that often emerges after some exasperating discussions.

I would have to disagree with the premise that either side really does treat one another with much civility. In most discussions I’ve ever witnessed or experienced (public or private) folk enter the debate with the full force and utter confidence that they hold the truth – coming into any discussion with the presumption that the other is a fool.

The initial post was not so much a defense of the Discovery Institute (didn’t know they existed till a few months ago) but a recognition that both “sides” tended to use each others’ words to gain a foothold in the public debate.

At some point in the not too distant future I’d like to discuss the epistemology of modern science and the history of the scientific method. Many here have some good insights and experiences and I think it’d be worth talking through as well.

I would add that the culture wars have been going on as long as we’ve had a culture.

I was ambiguous, so I take your correction. I was more referring to the culture wars over evolution.

The conflict resolution did and does exist and was one of the core elements of the The Federalist Papers – extending into modern democratic theory.

Which compromises came out of the conflict resolution which got the Constitution ratified? I can think of a few nasty ones. Not that I’m not grateful that our Constitution was ratified. I’m just not willing to “compromise” science for the sake of conflict resolution.

I’ve known plenty of Darwinists, ID, and ADD that would fall into the same category – I find myself there sometimes.

People are emotional. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s not the issue. The issue is that ID advocacy organizations (specifically the Discovery Institute) have been shown time and time again to be disguised religious outfits. There’s simply no comparing the political tactics of ID creationists with scientific advocates. There’s no equal footing there. I’m talking about prominent, mainstream ID proponents, not the wacky fringe proponents.

We choose to treat one another with respect or not.

Yes, that pretty much exhausts all the possibilities.

There was a time when biologists did give ID proponents the benefit of the doubt. Many scientists still do. They do treat and speak of them quite civilly, even if they stridently refute their arguments. But this ID movement is going on twenty years old. They’ve long since lost the benefit of the doubt with the vast majority of scientists.

Science is a meritocracy, ultimately, and ultimately, civility is simply a tool to facilitate discussion. When no real discussion emerges over the course of twenty years, even when civility is employed, some people become jaded. Such is the state of the conflict now. At least while the same main people run the ID organizations. (They are, as it happens, the same people who started the whole movement)

You’ve obviously been in some ugly situations and for that I’m sorry.

I haven’t, personally. I’ve talked with many ID proponents over the Internet, but that has no bearing on me personally.

I would add that the culture wars have been going on as long as we’ve had a culture. It’s only been in recent centuries that we’ve had societies that abided cultural dissidence though only in isolated incidences even then. The conflict resolution did and does exist and was one of the core elements of the The Federalist Papers – extending into modern democratic theory.

To the notion of “cranks”: there are all sorts of folk out there. Some rational people end up being “cranks” because their concerns haven’t been heard over and over again and they fall back on emotional and at times aggressive tactics to be heard. I’ve known plenty of Darwinists, ID, and ADD that would fall into the same category – I find myself there sometimes.

There are just enough irrational folks out there to keep us all humble. Being right or wrong doesn’t help one win a debate or settle an argument. We choose to treat one another with respect or not. Someone who’s a crank to me likely identifies me as one as well. If we’re looking to understand one another and move forward we have to move past this.

You’ve obviously been in some ugly situations and for that I’m sorry. I would imagine however, that the “crowd” you speak of feels much the same way.

…while our social pluralism is exaggerating we are losing our ability for conflict resolution – drifting more toward “team” loyalty and the jabs associated with sports affiliation.

Hate to break it to you, but these “culture wars” have been going on for over a century. The conflict resolution you’re talking about never existed.

I have to ask, though. At what point do you consider someone a complete crank not worth anyones’ time? Not everyone has a valid viewpoint. Not all sides of a discussion are equal. This is a myth of modern media. Some people are wrong, some are right.

When you’ve dealt with the ID crowd as long as some people have, you’ll learn how truly dishonest and political they are. Give them an inch, and they’ll drag you into the mud for miles and miles.

As one who studied biology and some sub-disciplines for many years I can say that science wasn’t the only subject taught in those early classrooms. ID and other cultural models seem to seek a foothold in the classrooms because everything else wants a foothold there as well. What really seems to be at issue is “does my pet cultural idea have a foothold there?”

True, faith presupposes “science” but science is a variable notion to our different cultures and sub-cultures. Even our current Western culture approaches the discipline of science within a variety of epistemologies. Presupposing this isn’t the case would be creating an “alter of ignorance” as well (to borrow the phrase from Jon).

What prompted the initial post, the questions and the like was a notion that while our social pluralism is exaggerating we are losing our ability for conflict resolution – drifting more toward “team” loyalty and the jabs associated with sports affiliation.

I’m glad for the input here. Most have well thought out opinions though the tendency towards defensive/offensive positions is evident and not altogether unexpected.

Peace to you all; keep talking this out as you like.

I think it’s the responsibility of science to work on discovering meaning.

That’s pretty much the exact opposite of what science’s responsibility is.

Since when is this notion of separation of church and state so absolutely stretched that man may no longer analyze truths and meanings in the classroom?

Analyze truths? Tell me, how would one verify the claims of Intelligent Design? Say some designer designed you. How would you verify that? Can you reproduce it in an experiment?

The fact is that ID is intrinsically untestable. The designer is postulated exactly in such a way so that he’s undetectable by experiment, no matter how crude or complex the experiment might be.

To make a long story short:

Untestable = Not science

I would rather open the windows to a room of discovery, then bar them down and narrow the vantage point of those looking outward.

So I suppose tarot card reading, crystal reading, water dowsing, mind-reading, talking to the dead, astrology, Islam, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Wiccan, Judaism, Sihkism, Hinduism, Taoism, Shintoism, Daoism, Confucianism, telepathy, Big Foot, Loch Ness monster, Chupacabra, alien abductions, Jainism, homeopathy, and every other religion, belief, claim, or conspiracy invented over the course of human history should also be taught in the science classroom?

Perhaps we should just get rid of math and history and writing and music and art, and put all this other crap into the schools instead. That’s the only way we’re going to make room for it.

Alas, you don’t really want all that crap in schools. You just want your specific brand of crap: creationism. But you’re willing to sacrifice the education of school children at the altar of your own ignorance.

Unless you were kidding. Which is what I thought.

Evolution is a religion to the same extent that heliocentrism is a religion. Evolution is a religion to the same extent that quantum mechanics is a religion. Evolution is a religion to the same extent that relativity is a religion. And so forth.

The only difference between evolution and the others is that evolution provides a kind of creation story, which had heretofore been the sole province of religion. But that single shared characteristic does not make evolution a religion. The way to tell the difference is that evolution is based upon observation and logical inference, whereas religion is based upon revelation and authority.