Posted on 01/19/2005 8:52:24 AM PST by FeeinTennessee
Pa. Students Learn 'Intelligent Design' By MARTHA RAFFAELE The Associated Press
HARRISBURG, Pa. - High school students heard about "intelligent design" for the first time Tuesday in a school district that attracted national attention by requiring students to be made aware of it as an alternative to the theory of evolution.
Administrators in the Dover Area School District read a statement to three biology classes Tuesday and were expected to read it to other classes on Wednesday, according to a statement from the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., which was speaking on the district's behalf.
The district is believed to be the only one in the nation to require students to hear about intelligent design - a concept that holds that the universe is so complex, it had to be created by an unspecified guiding force.
"The revolution in evolution has begun," said Richard Thompson, the law center's president and chief counsel. "This is the first step in which students will be given an honest scientific evaluation of the theory of evolution and its problems."
The case represents the newest chapter in a history of evolution lawsuits dating back to the Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee nearly 80 years ago. In Georgia, a suburban Atlanta school district plans to challenge a federal judge's order to remove stickers in science textbooks that call evolution "a theory, not a fact."
The law center is defending the Dover district against a federal lawsuit filed on behalf of eight families by two civil-liberties groups that alleged intelligent design is merely a secular variation of creationism, the biblical-based view that regards God as the creator of life. They maintain that the Dover district's curriculum mandate may violate the constitutional separation of church and state.
"Students who sat in the classroom were taught material which is religious in content, not scientific, and I think it's unfortunate that has occurred," said Eric Rothschild, a Philadelphia attorney representing the plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit.
Biology teacher Jennifer Miller said although she was able to make a smooth transition to her evolution lesson after the statement was read, some students were upset that administrators would not entertain any questions about intelligent design.
"They were told that if you have any questions, to take it home," Miller said.
The district allowed students whose parents objected to the policy to be excused from hearing the statement at the beginning of class and science teachers who opposed the requirement to be exempted from reading the statement. About 15 of 170 ninth-graders asked to be excused from class, Thompson said.
A federal judge has scheduled a trial in the lawsuit for Sept. 26.
---
Dover Area School District: http://www.dover.k12.pa.us
Thomas More Law Center: http://www.thomasmore.org
January 18, 2005 6:44 PM
Well, no, I think you are the one confused.
The term "Natural Selection" was the original theory backing up Evolution as described by Darwin. It is a process where nature favors a particular species trait for reproduction so that eventually the species changes in favor that trait. Enough accumulated generations of "natural selection" and a new species will result.
This is argued against by creationists who claim that so called "macro-evolution" could not happen. They give no mechanisim for WHY accumulated traits will stop at some limit, they merely claim that because only a limited amount of Evolution has been observed in the last 200 years, then that must be all there is.
Scientists believe that such an artificial wall limiting the effects of natural selection does not exist. Creationists have been unable to describe a mechanism for this supposed wall and have produced no evidence for it.
Which goes back to my original point that NEITHER of these theories is falsifiable
Creationists didn't start talking about falsifiability, until it was pointed out that faith in an omnipotent god could explain everything, and was thus non-falsifiable. Any observation could be explained by the magic words, "God did it".
Evolution, on the other hand, has several methods of falsifiability. One could find evidence of recent species in old fossil layers. Or, one could find old and new fossil types mixed in the same layer. Or, once DNA was isolated, it could have disagreed with Evolution theory. But amazingly, it verified Evolution, a hundred years after Darwin.
All it would take is ONE such find that would falsify Evolution as described above, and Evolution would have a serious problem. The fact that despite concerted efforts of creationists with money to spend and time to burn, they have not found even one magic fossil that would cause serious questioning of evolution.
That Evolution has withstood such intense examination for so many decades by such determined people is the reason I am so certian of it.
"Evolution defense often relies upon attaching any challenge to theology. "
On the contrary, evolution cares nothing for theology, evolution is science, which by definition, cares nothing about theology. Rather, the ONLY people who attack evolution with any vigor, are religious fundamentalists.
"Acknowledging that something unexplained is possible makes jack a frustrated scientist."
Actually this is what drives science...
If man acepted 'magic' as a scientific explanation for natural phenomena, we'd all still be throwing spears at each other.
You are completly mistaken. God, or the Raelien, could have come down and seeded the earth with life. All that Evolution says is that it Evolved after that.
You want to believe that God continued His influence during that Evolution, fine. If God raised the sun this morning and caused the rain this afternoon, then He influenced Evolution. You could say He "Designed" it if you really want. No problem. It's just semantics.
But Evolution happend, and that's a fact. (now we'll get the "it's a theory" crowd suckered in)
The fact that despite concerted efforts of creationists with money to spend and time to burn, they have not found even one magic fossil that would cause serious questioning of evolution.
I would posit that the professional creationists don't really want to falsify Evolution. Like the Egyptologists that don't really want to discover how the pyramids were built, once the creationists falsify Evolution completly, what will they do for a job?
They are not employed as regular scientists. Their money comes from donations from congregations and sales of media products. If everyone accepted their theories, then those money sources would dry up.
Creationists depend on a never ending argument. Kind of like lawyers.
And my second point is to challenge their belief in a specific interpretation of Genesis. That book of the Bible is very confusing and contradictory. And although they've been told that the Bible is perfect and non-contradictory, I try to make them see that any direct reading of the clear text of the Bible really is.
My goal is to make believers conclude that allowing Evolution to fit in Genesis is the path of least resistance.
"Checking back in, it seems like a lot of people are confusing "natural selection" with "evolution""
Without natural selection, there is no theory of evolution, you can't attack one without attacking the other.
"What we don't see is evolution, which is when natural selection is taken to the degree that one species eventually evolves into a completely different species. This is only theory - no one has actually seen this happen, and this is where the ID / evolution debate comes into play."
This is not true, we cannot put stars in a lab, but we know what they are... We cannot 'see' certain particles in the lab, but we know they exist. This idea that that is it cannot be replicated in a lab, it's not science, only exists within the ID/creationism community. The scientific community sees it very differently.
From the National Academy of Sciences:
You offer "evolution" as an entity. I mentioned "evolution defense", which is a man-made (and faith-based, I might add) process. You're changing the subject. Platitudes and canned buzzwords do not suffice.
evolution is science, which by definition, cares nothing about theology
"Science" may not. But evo-worshipers do. It has become their theology, and they pervert science by supporting it in dogmatic fashion.
If man acepted 'magic' as a scientific explanation for natural phenomena, we'd all still be throwing spears at each other.
non-sequitor. Surely you can do better than that. The subject was ID.
"Actually, I do bring up religion in these Evolution threads. "
Are you sure you meant to address this post to me? Cause I'm not sure what this is all about...
"This is not a true statement."
You were replying to RadioAstronomers statement that ID implies a deity. If you are disputing the fact that ID implies a deity, I agree. It could be ANY higher power, such as an alien race, which falls fully within the realm of science. THough we all know the ONLY peiople who espouse ID are fundamentalists who see the IDer as GOD.
Second, if you are saying that positing a deity automatically causes the hypothesis to fall outside the realm of science is false, then you could not be more wrong. A 'magical' being who just makes things happen can never be a conclusion in science. We tried that for 1500 years, it was called the dark ages. In which case Radio is practically right and you are technically right.
How so? If that is "all" "it" says, then why the fuss? Does not ID recognize microevolution? Then how is I.D. a threat? If, in fact, it addresses a subject vacated or ignored by evolution...scientifically...then why should it not be discussed?
You see, the problem is that what you say above is not where you stop. This is where they retreat when the arguments get at evolution's limitations and evolutionists' (some) excesses.
You want to believe that God continued His influence during that Evolution, fine. If God raised the sun this morning and caused the rain this afternoon, then He influenced Evolution. You could say He "Designed" it if you really want. No problem. It's just semantics.
So you have not problem with ID being studied in schools?
Naaah - I'd say it's more like "This is your Life"
"You offer "evolution" as an entity. "
I offer evolution as a tested scientific theory. The scientific community agrees with me 100%, so what do you base these accusations on?
Here are some bold statements from a good portion of the scientific community:
Thank you, thank you. Thank you for saving me the time of having to type my own explanation. That was excellent, very well rounded.
Is Crick a fundamentalist? According to Panspermia, a "higher" power is not necessarily the case, is it? I say this honestly questioning. I may hold a faith position, as many darwinists do, but fair treatment of ID theory is denied by the harbingers of the scientific process...I think because many of them fear or detest those who find hope in it.
Second, if you are saying that positing a deity automatically causes the hypothesis to fall outside the realm of science is false, then you could not be more wrong. A 'magical' being who just makes things happen can never be a conclusion in science. We tried that for 1500 years, it was called the dark ages. In which case Radio is practically right and you are technically right.
I don't see it that way. I do not think that the invocation of "magical" enhances your position other than rhetorically, but I do appreciate (how sad I have to say this) being addressed thoughtfully. I do not think, either, that anyone expects scientific acknowledgement of "A" deity. To acknowledge the possibility is sufficient. There is no proof of alien life either, yet science is better-prepared to accept its existence without said proof because of probability. ...something ID is rather interested in. Sorry, but the "dark ages" comment is a stretch.
Well, if everyone can be right, then kumbaya...baby.
This is probably the most dishonest post I've ever seen. You cut off Narby's post in mid sentence. Here is the what Narby actually wrote...
So you believe the Bible because it's Gods word, and you believe it's God's word because the Bible says it is. Ok.I can say I believe in Evolution because respected scientists say it's true, and I believe in the respected scientists because they believe in Evolution.
Narby was demonstrating how silly circular logic is. I think you knew that or you wouldn't have snipped the post so carefully. The way you cut it off, it makes it seem like Narby treats evolution as a religion which just so happens to be the way that creationsists like to portray evolutionists.
This is a classic example of the anti-evolutionist technique of quote mining. Darwin is often quote mined this way since his writing style makes it pretty easy.
"Is Crick a fundamentalist? "
I'm not familiar with this 'Crick.'
"According to Panspermia, a "higher" power is not necessarily the case, is it? "
You made me look up a new word. I wouldn't call that intelligent design... Where is the intelligence? Life evolved elsewhere, then was transferred to earth... no ID required...
"There is no proof of alien life either,"
But it is very likely, and very much within the realm of sciecne.
"yet science is better-prepared to accept its existence without said proof because of probability."
Why not? At least there is a possibility? The universe is incomprehensibly huge. Chances are there is other life out there right now dreaming about us.
"Sorry, but the "dark ages" comment is a stretch."
What signalled the end of the dark ages? The enlightenment. What was the most important element of the enlightenment? Secularism, when we told religion to shut up and sit down. After that, science took off. During the dark ages when religion was the absolute authority, we barely progress at all for 1500 years. Just look at the islamic world. When the christian world had our enlightenment, the islamic world was at least as advanced as us. Since the enlightenment, we've rocketed ahead of them tenfold. Why? Secularism of course, no religion to hold back progress.
"You offer "evolution" as an entity. "
I offer evolution as a tested scientific theory. The scientific community agrees with me 100%, so what do you base these accusations on?
This was a statement about YOUR argument as it related to mine. Not the holy science of evolution. You're either shifting,straying, or misdirecting. I'll leave that up to you.
Note the first two go so far as to say ID is trash. Also two of the most influential scientific institutions, the NAS and the AAAS.
Looks like a bandwagon appeal to me. Look beyond your favorites list.
""Science" may not. But evo-worshipers do. It has become their theology, and they pervert science by supporting it in dogmatic fashion."
This is 100% your opinion. The scientific community has no problem with evolution. Where are your refernces for these outrageous claims?
Ooooooh, how dare I. My, ...outRAGEOUS claims, indeed! It is my opinion. You're getting a bit silly, really. I merely said that a lot of folk [shucks, darn] are hangin' their hat on the whole "ain't no God" thing. Evolution makes their atheism intellectually fulfilling.
"non-sequitor. "
How? If we just accepted "god dunnit" as an explanation for all natural phenomena, then science would never progress, since there is nothing to research. Do you know what non-sequitur means?
Because it was. We dudnt....you facetiously posited it. Science DID progress, and does, for many modern moons with God or Gods as an acceptable possibility. humility does not kill the human spirit or the inherent insatiable desire to explore....unless it's a weak one. I suggest that it is the religious evolutionist who has occupied the flat world. and yes, it's my opinion.
" The subject was ID."
I'm glad you brought that up. Can you please provide a link to the body of research on ID? You know, peer reviewed papers written on it, data... research and conclusions... I want to learn more about it. I want to learn what ID has tio say about genetics and diversity... Oh wait... there IS no research body on ID. How strange... almost like it's not a real field of study...
Yeah, as I expected. Not scientific at all. That's you, not ID. I've got the same google you do. Would you read it? objectively? Try "Dembski", or "Behe", or the access research network. Try scads of other posts from thousands of crevo threads on this board alone. The information is out there. You're too busy digging into the dark ages.
Without any positive evidence, science is not in the business of recognizing a diety, or recognizing the possibility of the existance of one. It is inappropriate for science to even contemplate such an idea, for such an idea is not within the realm of science.
Philosophy and religion are affected by evolution and have to consider matters pertaining to evolution - what it means, how it changes our worldview, how it changes our interpretation of holy texts, and the ethics of a Darwinian social code (which proponents of evolution don't advocate). ID belongs in a philosophy class. It is a worldview, a philosophy.
The relationship of science to other fields is a one way street. Science affects other fields, but other fields do not affect science. Science is neutral on all fields outside of its realm. It does not concern itself with worldviews, philosophy, religions, and moral arguments. And any effort to make science address those issues can only be done by the application of force - namely, from the state, which has politicized science on behalf of the ignorant - as in Cobb County and York.
In regard to the point about alien life, not only is there no proof, there is no evidence. As of now, as far as we know, we are alone in the universe. Everything is just speculation about perceived probabilities.
You seem more open to the possibility of panspermia, which is science fiction and supported by no evidence, than evolution, which has plenty of evidence. Panspermia is certainly a more destructive idea to religion than evolution. Religion can accomodate and make peace with evolution. How can religion make peace with the idea that we are the creation of an advanced galactic civilization?
And you're the science expert?
Francis Crick
Co-Discoverer of DNA
You made me look up a new word. I wouldn't call that intelligent design... Where is the intelligence? Life evolved elsewhere, then was transferred to earth... no ID required...
You are correct...You really do need to look more deeply into what ID really is studying. You should save the facetiousness, IMO.
But it is very likely, and very much within the realm of sciecne.
So...aliens planted advanced life on this planet...a scientific possibility, which some of us backward-ass people decided to call God. Tell me how this makes ID not scientifically possible.
Why not? At least there is a possibility? The universe is incomprehensibly huge. Chances are there is other life out there right now dreaming about us.
lol. Chances are there is life far more advanced than the tiny human brain...even ...Godlike. It's a possibility. So science should not write either off.
What signalled the end of the dark ages? The enlightenment. What was the most important element of the enlightenment? Secularism, when we told religion to shut up and sit down. After that, science took off. During the dark ages when religion was the absolute authority, we barely progress at all for 1500 years. Just look at the islamic world. When the christian world had our enlightenment, the islamic world was at least as advanced as us. Since the enlightenment, we've rocketed ahead of them tenfold. Why? Secularism of course, no religion to hold back progress.
That would be your opinion. Try not to hold back next time. LOL... (ps - you could not be more mistaken)
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.