[cvq3842]

Interesting article.

I personally never saw a conflict between the theory of evolution and my religious faith, as I understand them both. But it is possible that some of the Darwinists are adopting their own "blind faith approach" to any questions about evolution. Scientific method requires constant collection of new information and questioning of prior assumptions. Evolution is not like, say, the "theory of gravity," which can be expressed in relatively simple mathematical formulas and which can accurately PREDICT future events. I say, keep studying with no preconceived notaions and let the chips fall where they may. But the question of how this is taught is indeed important. I don't have all the answers.

[BeAllYouCanBe]

"Once you allow yourself to say God did it, you stop looking for naturalistic explanations. If you stop looking, you won't find them," she said.

I guess the evolutionists are not guilty of this though -- since they are scientists -- they say evolution and stop looking for an explanation too.

With no scientific way to really explain how we got here except for saying -- "may have", "possibily caused", or the favorite "could have" the evolutionists don't have much either.

[anniegetyourgun]

Oh look, the Seattle Times just discovered the Discovery Institute....right there, under their nose for nearly 2 decades!

[dominic7]

Looks like it's catching on:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=000E555C-4387-1237-81CB83414B7FFE9F

Intelligent design is not science nor should it be treated as such.

[js1138]

The institute's call to "teach the controversy" meets strong resistance.

[RadioAstronomer]

His goal - a big one - is to change the very definition of science so that it doesn't rule out the possibility that an intelligent designer is actively at work.

Very bad idea IMHO.

[Elsie]

Ya wanna call your usual crew??

[concerned about politics]

The teach-the-controversy approach, he said, avoids "unnecessary constitutional fights" over the separation of church and state, yet also avoids teaching Darwin's theories as dogma.

Teaching evolution alone is Federally forced atheism.

[MEGoody]

"But what the center calls a compromise, most scientists call a creationist agenda that's couched in the language of science."

And what these 'most scientists' call taking a stand for science, I call a show of desparation.

[thejokker]

i am ex-military and a 2nd amendment activist; i support the conservative movement and regard religious activists as "allies" in the fight against liberal radicals. however those of you who seek to attack evolution are wacko-nut-jobs and i will not support that position.

leave scientists and science alone.

[Doctor Stochastic]

His goal - a big one - is to change the very definition of science...

At least the reporter noticed this. DI's (now openly stated) purpose is to destroy the idea that scientific inquiry is a valid method of obtaining knowledge. In this aim, they have powerfull allies such as the postmoderndeconstructionists, the new-agers, and scientologists to name a few.

[moehoward]

bump

[Aquinasfan]

Just require teachers to discuss evidence that refutes Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, as well as what supports it.

We can't have that because... uh, why not?

[trubluolyguy]

I live very near Seattle and when I read the words "Seattle Think Tank" I broke out laughing uproariously.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

"Why fight when you can have a fun discussion?" asks Stephen Meyer, the center's director. The teach-the-controversy approach, he said, avoids "unnecessary constitutional fights" over the separation of church and state, yet also avoids teaching Darwin's theories as dogma.

Since Dembski, Behe and others have already admitted that evolution occurs, what's the controversy?

[hosepipe]

Seattle-think-tank ... WHAT A CONCEPT...
(hold it, I'm trying to absorb this all)
Carry on... NEXT...

[aposiopetic]

Who knows whether natural selection explains the Cambrian body plans. ... So what?

Such intellectual curiosity!

[AndrewC]

Flight.