"I had both a tough and a rewarding day yesterday; the tough part was reading posts like yours (a sample quoted below):......"
It's only a posting board. You are taking having a difference of opinion waaaaay to seriously. Maybe you need a bit of a break.
More on scientists and $$ in case you missed it:
The purpose of the "Understanding Evolution" website is to instruct teachers in how they should teach evolution, and the federal government (through the National Science Foundation) came up with $450,000 for the project.
snippet from: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/west200404010900.asp
A theory is based on guesses, but ID is based on logic. I am a logical person.
Why did the ACLU sue?
Even though the school, like all schools, has textbooks teaching the Evolution THEORY, the ACLU sued for a mere 4-paragraph statement to be read at the beginning of the school year to students.
What are they afraid of? Are they perhaps afraid of even a HINT of God?
Here is the 4 paragraph statement again:
"The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
"Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
"Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, 'Of Pandas and People,' is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.
"With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments."
http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/nati...design20050927
Sorry, that is absolutely incorrect. It might be so in the vernacular, or in creationist's wishful thinking, but it is not true in science. Please take a look at these definitions.
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)
Observation: any information collected with the senses
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith
Faith the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
Based on this, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
On the other hand, from the current Dover trial:
319. Intelligent design does not qualify as science for a variety of reasons:
(a) It violates the ground rules of science, as they have been practiced for hundreds of years since the scientific revolution, because it i) posits a supernatural actor as an explanation for natural phenomena and ii) it cannot be tested.[Dover] Plaintiffs' Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, pp. 140-141.(b) It has been universally rejected as science by the scientific community.
(c) It finds no support in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
(d) It is not the subject of scientific testing and research.
(e) It makes no predictions and offers no explanations other than “the intelligent designer did it.”
(f) It is primarily a negative argument against evolution.
(g) The arguments made against evolution distort and misrepresent the real state of scientific knowledge.