Posted on 12/22/2004 11:39:49 AM PST by ThinkPlease
Last week, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the Dover, Pennsylvania School Board. The ACLU argues that the School Board violated the Constitution's Establishment Clause by mandating that students in public school biology classes be taught the theory of "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution.
Proponents of intelligent design--which is closely related to what is sometimes called "creationism"--point to gaps in the fossil record and other uncertainties to argue that evolution by natural selection cannot explain the emergence of new species. They contend instead that an intelligent agent must have been guiding the course of life on Earth.
Evolution opponents have recently scored political victories outside Dover, Pennsylvania as well. In Cobb County, Georgia, public school textbooks discussing evolution must now contain a disclaimer warning that evolution is "a theory, not a fact." That policy, too, is the subject of pending litigation.
And the November election returns in Kansas have given critics of evolution a majority on that state's school board. It is only a matter of time until Kansas mandates the teaching of alternatives to evolution.
Yet Supreme Court precedent holds that state-sponsored attacks on evolution in the public schools are unconstitutional. Why, then, are evolution opponents in Dover, Cobb County and Kansas, trying to change curricula? Aren't these efforts doomed to fail once they are challenged in court? Are the evolution opponents engaging in mere symbolic protest?
The surprising answer is: Perhaps not. That is because the leading Supreme Court decision, in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard, contains an apparent loophole that evolution's critics may hope to exploit.
(Excerpt) Read more at writ.news.findlaw.com ...
What is the scientific theory of intelligent design?
How do you test it?
Until proponents answer those questions with answers from research programs, there's no question that it shouldn't be taught in a science class.
One for your list-o-links.
How do you test to see if a sharp piece of flint is just a natural rock or has been shaped by an intellegent being?
How do you test it?
Cordially,
How do you test it?
Cordially,
Exactly. It's up the IDers to determine scientific tests of their theory and give it a run for it's money. So far I don't see anyone doing that.
But the same is true for atheistic portrayals of evolution. Insistence that complex systems arose without intelligent direction is just as much a philosophical/religious stance, and just as inappropriate for anything that claims to be science.
Why teach either? It's not as though evolution is one of the fundamental sciences. You can get along very well in life without understanding it. It's more important to learn the 3 Rs.
How to test it? There are many ways, the most simplistic is to find a fossil drastically out of sequence in the fossil record, in a place untouched by any sort of catastrophe. This is a good idea of what scientific means, as well as tests.
ID assumes that anything that cannot be explained is necessarily evidence for design.
Actually the sharp rock question is at the center of a number of ongoing controversies.
IDers argue that we have a spidey sense that detetects design. It will be interesting to see if this can ever be defined in a useful way.
I think the main thrust of most curricula is to teach evolution in Biology courses in the junior and senior high school levels, well past the time of the three 'R's.
Put that aside for a moment: Do you agree that such a test is possible to construct and scientific to pursue?
"How do you test to see if a sharp piece of flint is just a natural rock or has been shaped by an intellegent being?"
The crystalline structure of a human-chipped flint will be far different on the surface than that of a naturally-chipped piece of rock, which will contain no 'impact-altered' faces.
BTTT. Can't leave you all alone to fight the argument. :-)
Yes, it's gonna find a place there. Alas, we've got so many crevo threads going now, this one will get lost in the shuffle. But I'm gonna ping the list anyway.
Agreed. I wasn't trying to be flippant, so much as to show that it is an important question to be answered.
I can't keep up!
There are all manner of scientific and mathematical "theories" that are no more or less "provable" than intelligent design. According to your logic, schools would be forbidden from teaching chaos theory, transfinite numbers, causal factors of diabetes, just to name a few. With ID, we are talking about a theory of promulgation of life that can be evaluated from a scientific standpoint. Evaluated, not necessarily proven. Until someone can tell me what "religion" is established, or what "free exercise" of religion is hindered, by discussing this theory, they have no basis for calling such discussion unconstitutional.
They still don't know the 3 Rs though.
|
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.