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
"Are you serious about what you are saying, or are you being facetious?"
No. I'm serious. If some science teacher is going to tell their students that creationist theories are as valid as anything in their science text book, they've got to at least be aware of how the world at large views creationism. The disclaimer needs its own disclaimer! Whatever. I merely follow these debates with interest. I'll leave it to the scientists to clear all this up.
"Why do you continue posting? Everyone already knows that you're a documented liar."
I must REALLY bother you. As you already know I am NOT the one that is the "documented liar". It is YOU who is the "documented liar".
You simply don't like the fact the evolution is a farce and when I see a thread on it I literally laugh at people who believe it.
That's avery good point. A High School that cares about how it's students do in college are doing them a disservice by presenting ID. There are many college courses, biology, etc. where a student that carried a solid belief in ID would be flunked. Students need to be told that.
No I'm not,
Yes you are,
No I'm not,
Yes I am,
No you're not,
Yes it is,
No it isn't
" Everything written in the OLD Testament doesn't always have God's approval "
How can God's Word not have God's approval? Sorry to sound nitpicky, but this all just comes across as contradiction.
Here's another:
"we are NOT under Jewish Law in the Old Testament. That doesn't mean you discard the Ten Commandments."
Why not? We aren't under Jewish Law. The Jews don't appear to be either, since they no longer stone adulterers, etc.
TOH, you'd rather force your atheists, godless beliefs on everyone even though objective science does not support these godless "theories" that also continue to "evolve". Swell. Every hear of the word - hypocrite?
Friend truth doesn't "evolve". This nonsense of "we don't know enough yet" doesn't cut it either. Your theories along the way contradict each other - truth doesn't contradict itself when you are learning it.
I've wasted enough time on this ... have a good day! BTW spell checker might help you at least look convincing. Geesh!
Your ranting and raving does not change the fact that you were caught in a lie regarding your comments regarding Antony Flew, who you claimed had rejected evolution in spite of an article that specifically stated that he accepts it -- and then later denied making any claim at all despite my linking directly to your posting.
"Looks like a bandwagon appeal to me. Look beyond your favorites list. "
It's not bandwagon appeal, I'm simply pointing out that while you may call evolution unscientific, the scientific community wholly endorses it. The links I provided are a very considerable portion of the biology research community, not just molecular biology. So when you say "look beyond your fanourites list," where exactly do you refer to? Not anywhere within the scientific community...
"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."
How some people fit evolution into their lives is completely irrelevant to the topic of the scientific integrity of evolution.
"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? "
I'll read anything you give me on ID from within the scientific literature. Not being in the literature does not mean it is unscientific, but it could just as easily be a complete fabrication, so I won't waste my time. If Dembski could write an actual biology paper that is scientific, he would publish it, he hasn't, neither has anyone else.
"Try scads of other posts from thousands of crevo threads on this board alone."
You are presenting posts on a debate board by people with absolutley no science background as proof? While in the same breath you dismiss what the people with years of education, who have devoted their lives to researching the subject say? You seem awful selective about which science you trust.
Post some links to actual science information. Saying "read Dembski" and you'll understand ID is like me saying "read Jules Verne" and you'll believe in sea monsters. I can find tons of links to people trashing Behe and Dembski's books, but I would not post them because there is no accountability, anyone can publish a rebuttal to ID nonsense, same way no one can stop IDers like Behe from publishing whatever they want.
But there is forum with accountability for this subject, peer reviewed publications from the biology community.
"And you're the science expert?"
I never called myself a science expert! I'm the only person on these boards who does not pretend to know so much about molecular biology to debate the mecahnisms. I trust what the people who devote their lives to the subject say, and they say evolution is true, no doubts... period.
So what's your point about Crick?
"Panspermia Info"
I already looked it up, on science websites thanks...
"You really do need to look more deeply into what ID really is studying."
Why? I have no personal interest, and according to the scientific community, it's not science. The only time science is even mentioned in ID, it's EVOLUTIONARY science. Like when they talk about irreducible complexity, ALL the science in that argument is taken directly from research by actual molecular biologists. Why is ID talking about evolution? I thought it was its own theory... Really it is not an argument for an alternative to evolution, it is simply an argumetn against evolution. So how does disproving one theory prove another, completely unrelated theory? If I can prove the theory of flight wrong, does that mean I get to make up my own arbitrary explanation, no matter how unscientific and everyone will accept it? Or would the scientific community just start looking for the real explanation...
"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. "
You serious? Alien life would have evolved within the natural world just like we did, but on another planet. This is absolutely 100% within the realm of science. In all likelihood life was NOT intentionally placed here by a sentient race. And if it were, there is no possible way they could have predicted that life would evolve to man, so in that case, your designer would care nothing for us, since to them we are simply one of the many products of earths eco-systems. What could have happened, is a comet hit earth carrying protein chains, or simple organisms to start life. Regardless, there is no 'designer' in this scenario, even if intelligent beings left life here long ago, there was no 'design.'
"Tell me how this makes ID not scientifically possible."
It doesn't since there is no way to prove a supernatural hypothesis like a designer. Why on earth would we just stop biology research, throw our hands in the air, and say god did it? Should we do that with all science, or just molecular biology? Do we continue with genetics research? Maybe germ theory is wrong too, maybe the priests from the 12th century were right, we get sick cause we pissed god off. Maybe we should shut-down the pharm industry since killing infections are thwarting the wrath of god. Where do we stop with supplanting science with supernatural explanations?
"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."
It is very possible there are highly intelligent alien beings, but that is scientifically viable. What does that have to do with the supernatural idea that the universe, and life on earth, was 'designed?' There is zero proof for ID.
If ID really were an alternative to evolution, it would have it's own data, make it's own predictions and explanations for life. But take away the stuff in ID that directly talks abotu evolution (for some reason) and what is left? Nothing... except magic. THat is why it is not science, it is not even a good attack on evolution.
Oh, Joyous Festival of Nutcakes; watch them frolic in their Luddite Inanity!
.
Hi Jennyp! I was so busy on the Ga thread, I nearly missed your thoughtful ping.
Hmmm. Jenny, methinks you think I am a silly man for all my postings about, ahem, sex.
Now, just an observation here: it is odd to me you posted to me out of nowhere regarding the topic. Odd. Just an observation.
Heck, you signed the agreement, so I am figuring you are not trying to goad me either (and btw, I am assuming you pretty much of the same mind as VR, and PH, and the others, so pardon me if I am way off).
It is just a bit odd...
I'm normally a regular on these threads, but I've been weaning myself away a bit. But sometimes I come upon some rather - odd - postings from the other side that just have to be responded to. :-)
Why not? You just got thru saying we could ignore everything else in the OT because Jesus king's-Xes it--or something.
Fair enough! :-)
I do not pretend, nor will I pretend to be a biblical scholar. From here out I will stick to my science. Sorry if I offended.
Just to clarify a bit :)
Your points on glactic astronomy are well taken - I freely admit I know nothing of this field and I understand that the vernacular might be quite different when discussing evidence on this level. I have been out of my own "ivory tower" for ten years now, (and the only reason I brought up my much-maligned "soft degree" was in response to a cheap-shot by narby, who suggested I lacked the education to be homeschooling my kids.) I am not putting myself out there as an expert on anything - including the ID / evolution debate. If anything, this speaks to my frustration that my own education was lacking in this regard! In my courses, it was just understood that everything evolved from slime, and no one in all of my years of school took the time to look critically at the theory of evolution and talk about its strengths and weaknesses. It has only been in the last year that I have started educating myself on the debate and I am astounded at the amount of (scientific, not religious) information never even touched on in my high school and college biology courses. Right now, evolution is being re-evaluated in scientific, educational, and policy circles, and most of us grew up never even knowing it was anything less than the gospel truth.
This is why I think that evolution should be presented as a theory (with an explanation of what a theory is) alongside competing theories so that the strengths and weaknesses of all can be examined. There would be no problem with this if we were talking about Superstring Theory or galactic astronomy, I'm sure - the problem here is that the Left has an agenda to keep anything which might call the secular explanation of our existance out of the minds of our young people, even if it means telling them something is the truth, when it may not be so.
It is THEIR politics getting in the way of the search for the truth because they are afraid that anything other than evolution will mean God and that would be unacceptable to them.
OK. So the 10 commandments are not optional--but everything else in the OT is? This isn't rocket science--either it is or it isn't--which is it? Are there other exceptions to the rule of "ignore the OT?". Or is this the only one?
It's unwise to mock Him that way ... .
I don't believe I was mocking Him--I believe I was trying to get you to answer a simple question in a straightforward manner--a vain hope, apparently.
Have you reached perfection yet? "No, but on the other hand, the requirements of due care placed on me are not so very rigorous, as I haven't been forcing jews into ghettos and kidnapping their children for the last 1400 years. Nor, at the present moment, do I plan to enforce my religeous beliefs on the unwilling in compulsory public schools at the expense of science education." What a strange answer ...
Except, I guess, for those who remember what the subject of this thread is.
If it makes you feel better neither have I!
So...you now favor keeping ID out of the science classrooms in our public schools?
Ah, there you go again, linking creation to "religion".
Gee. I wonder where I got that idea?
LOL! Evidence supports God as the Intelligent Designer.
Evidence also supports Odin the mighty, the Great Turtle, careless aliens and Raynor the Fox, however, this has little to do with science, which is only concerned about most recent proximate causes inferred from potentially refutable positive forensic evidence.
TOH, you'd rather force your atheists, godless beliefs on everyone even though objective science does not support these godless "theories"
There is nothing "Godless" about modern science. Most of its practicioners, last anyone checked, were self-professed christians, or buddists--and there is no inherent reason why they should be--except to a special class of scientific cranks called Creationists. Modern science has no interest in, nor capability to address transcendental, ultimate causes.
that also continue to "evolve". Swell. Every hear of the word - hypocrite?
Ever heard the phrase, "mindless, irrelevent prattle?"
Friend truth doesn't "evolve". This nonsense of "we don't know enough yet" doesn't cut it either. Your theories along the way contradict each other - truth doesn't contradict itself when you are learning it.
What a bunch of silly, pathological nonsense. Anyone with half an eye for history can see that science "evolves" or refines truth as it goes, and that each successive refinement usually produces better results.
I've wasted enough time on this ... have a good day!
I, on the other hand, have all the time in the world when it comes to bracing the hoards of half-baked scientistic nonsense presently attempting to muddy the waters in science classrooms.
BTW spell checker might help you at least look convincing. Geesh!
Would you be so kind as to post a pointer to the mis-spellings to which you aver?... Fulminating with your brain in gear might help you at least look like your wig is screwed in tight. Gee whillikers.
Utterly wrong, no significant number of serious scientists entertain any doubt whatsoever at the present moment about the likelihood of the evolutionary explanation.
, educational, and policy circles, and most of us grew up never even knowing it was anything less than the gospel truth.
Gospel truth is for gospels. Science is just as good a guess as we can make at the present moment about why things are like they are.
This is why I think that evolution should be presented as a theory (with an explanation of what a theory is) alongside competing theories so that the strengths and weaknesses of all can be examined. There would be no problem with this if we were talking about Superstring Theory or galactic astronomy, I'm sure - the problem here is that the Left has an agenda to keep anything which might call the secular explanation of our existance out of the minds of our young people, even if it means telling them something is the truth,
You make this sound as if it's sensible and fair, which is why this tact appeals to schoolboards far beyond it's inherent merit. It is the giant conspiracy theory of evolutionary support, and it discounts the honesty, brains and goodwill, not to mention the generally non-leftist makeup, of the world's assembled scientists to an astonishingly ludicrous degree.
Again, this sounds fair, which appeals to schoolboards, but it is not sensible when you examine it in detail: would you favor teaching street eubonics to 9th graders in order to be fair to alternative grammars? How about Shakespearean era spelling alternatives? How about alternatives to hygene in hygene class? 9th graders are in the business of absorbing our culture, not re-designing it, and "being fair" comes with an unavoidable freight of official sanction for the few things chosen to be fair to. When what you are asking for is special pleading for biology, for reasons that are, all fluff aside, religeous, but not for gravity, or, for that matter, UFOlogy and astrology--both of which have their adherents and their "science",--then your prejudice is plain to see, even if you won't admit it to yourself.
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.