Posted on 02/10/2005 6:39:50 PM PST by gobucks
PHILADELPHIA - Evangelical Christians, buoyed by the re-election of President Bush, are turning American schools into a battleground over whether evolution explains the origins of life or whether nature was designed by an all-powerful force.
In at least 18 states, campaigns have begun to make public schools teach “intelligent design” — a theory that nature is so complex it could only have been created by design — alongside Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.
“It’s pretty clear that there is a religious movement behind intelligent design,” said Steve Case, chairman of the Science Standards Committee, a group of educators that advises the Kansas Board of Education. The board will decide later this year whether to include intelligent design in biology classes.
Some scientists who espouse the theory say intelligent design does not question that evolution occurred, but how it occurred: They believe more was at play than random mutation and natural selection. The theory, they insist, does not support the religious concept of a creator.
Those who advocate giving it equal treatment in schools have a different interpretation.
*snip*
The poll found greater support for teaching creationism among Republican voters — 71 percent of Bush voters favored teaching creationism alongside evolution.
*snip*
John West, (located) at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which pioneered intelligent design research, said the theory was too complex to teach at high schools and was better-suited to a college setting.
“There is a concern that intelligent design has been hijacked by people who don’t really know what it says,” he said. “We don’t think it should be a political football.”
*snip*
“Intelligent design is a religious doctrine,” said Wayne Carley, executive director of the National Association of Biology Teachers. “There is no research to support it, and it is clearly religious in that it posits a higher being.”
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
A twin prime to your prime.
Do you understand the concept of a "poll"?
But on the whole, I think Dembski has had more negative an effect on American society than Kaczynski, so he can spot him the five papers.
Sure. I voted at the polls.
I replied to the headline.
I do hope you are joking. From the article:
The poll found greater support for teaching creationism among Republican voters - 71 percent of Bush voters favored teaching creationism alongside evolution.
They did a public opinion poll, just like any other public opinion poll. Statistically, if you use a large enough sample, you'll get a reasonably accurate picture of public sentiment. Depending on the sample size, the actual percentage is probably within 3-5% either way -- so say from 66% to 76%.
Science is defined as the state of knowing.
Your tired metrics would also eliminate as science other fields of study in geometry and modern physics.
Pardon me for my skepticism of any and all polling done by the "establishment" media. I watched their coverage of the last two presidential elections, and I saw how awful their exit polling results were in relation to actual vote tallies around the country. It will be a while before I believe their polling numbers again.
Barracade yourself with Huxley's monkeys if you wish...
Or barricade, even.
Nearly all the mainstream polls taken before the election showed Bush winning by the margin that he did.
You wish however belatedly to deny the article's characterization "'intelligent design' -- a theory that nature is so complex it could only have been created by design." Your problem is that, while the statement is indefensible, the characterization is not.
I also notice you are not volunteering any substitute, having seen the bullet holes in what came down the flagpole the last time.
Websters Dictionary, my friend, is usually considered an acceptable source for definition.
I also suggest you do a bit more research in Modern Physics. The physical bounds of the planck length, the laws of thermodynamics and black holes, and the real probability of imaginary states are all consequences of science which violate your proclaimed definition.
You can argue the conditions, but this problem of time, resources, and coherent matter is irreducible—impossible to be transformed into a simpler condition, and complex—a group of obviously related chemical and energy units of which the degree and nature of the relationship to life is imperfectly capable of being known.
For brevity, I omit the detailed tautology. Simply: Temporal life exists (truth of fact), temporal life must have a beginning and an end (logical truth) but natural laws submit temporal life cannot exist (truth of reason). Therefore either life does not exist, or something supernatural created life (factual truth).
Of course, if you believe in Huxley's monkeys...
Recommended Video - "The Triumph of Design (2002) " - Compelling Case For Creation vs. Darwinism
An excellent Video that I recommend to all! I previewed it through the local library (reference department special order) and then purchased a copy for myself.
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.