Posted on 05/06/2005 10:47:50 PM PDT by Jeff Gordon
CHARLES DARWIN’S theory of evolution is facing a new challenge in America from Christians who argue that life shows an “intelligent design”.
The Kansas Board of Education has begun taking evidence from anti-evolution scientists in a bid to rewrite the state’s teaching standards to ensure that pupils learn alternatives to evolution that suggest a guiding hand in the origin of life.
Kansas is one of a growing number of states to consider authorising schools to teach religious alternatives to Darwin — but a four-day hearing of the Kansas board has outraged mainstream scientists, who are boycotting the meeting and holding protests outside.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science declined an invitation to testify, arguing that the hearings would confuse rather than educate the public.
“This is a showcase trial,” Jack Krebs, vice-president of Kansas Citizens for Science, said. “They have hijacked science and education.”
On the first day of testimony in Topeka, the audience heard lectures on “primordial soup”, fruit-fly mutations and whether human beings were related to worms as six anti-evolution scientists argued that the theory of evolution could not explain gaps in the fossil record, the complexity of DNA or the origin of life itself.
William Harris, a professor of medicine who specialises in omega-3 fatty acids and co-founded the Intelligent Design Network, said that Darwinism clashed with the biblical teaching that life was created by God. “Part of our overall goal is to remove the bias against religion that is currently in schools,” he said. “This is a scientific controversy that has powerful religious implications.”
Other witnesses included Jonathan Wells, an embryologist and senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, who described himself as “an old Berkeley antiwar radical”. “The way Darwinian evolution is usually presented is that the evidence is overwhelming, and there is no controversy about it,” he said. “That’s clearly not the case.”
Dr Wells, who holds PhDs in theology from Yale University and in biology from the University of California, Berkeley, confirmed under cross-examination that he was a member of Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church.
Pro-Darwin scientists distributed an internet posting outside the hearing in which Dr Wells declares: “Father’s words, my studies and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism.”
The anti-evolution scientists faced sharp questioning from Pedro Irigonegaray, a lawyer defending Darwin at the hearings. He said that he fantasised that he was defending John Scopes, a Tennessee biology teacher who in 1925 was found guilty of illegally teaching evolution at what became known as the “Monkey Trial”.
“The delicious fantasy of being in a courtroom-like environment, with the overhead fan slowly twisting and being able to question witnesses about all of these issues, is very appealing,” he said.
The US Supreme Court outlawed the teaching of biblical beliefs, or “creationism”, in state schools in an Arkansas case in 1987, forcing Christians to embrace “intelligent design”.
All three members of the Kansas sub-committee support a change in the standards to tell students that evolution is only a theory, not a fact, and to include alternatives. The full Kansas school board, which is controlled by a 6-4 conservative majority, is expected to rewrite the standards in June, joining Ohio, which took a similar step three years ago. Legislators in Alabama and Georgia are also considering Bills to allow teachers to challenge Darwin in class.
You're sliding deep into the bigotry pool.
You still haven't replied to either argument. Still a snotnose and still a contemporary of Baghdad Bob.
Yeah, whatever.
Keep insulting me, it really makes your position more credible. :P
constitutional illiteracy
What does this have to do with intelligent design?
the "fact" that intelligent design happens daily in our lives
Were we not talking about non-human (i.e. GOD intelligent design?) Because that's usually the case. BTW, if we were, calling it a scientific "fact" is insane, since how do you detect the difference between a random occurance and something God did?
You're neither God nor the owner of the website. You don't get to set limits on the discussion. There are non-theists who posit a non theistic intelligent designer. But that's neither here nor there. You said evoultion,small e, is a fact. I agree. I said intelligent design, small id, is a fact. Do you deny this?
Because that's usually the case.
Usually doesn't cover the whole set of views on intelligent design. Theistic ID theory does but there are others that don't. One prominent Evolutionist even posits the design of this universe in the garage of Joe Blow somewhere in the multiverse.
BTW, if we were, calling it a scientific "fact" is insane, since how do you detect the difference between a random occurance and something God did?
Insanity happens.
Evolution happens, allele frequency is changed. Monsanto does the same thing with bioengineering, ie: intelligent design.
Homo sapiens hasn't been around all that long and yet there are folks changing allele frequency as we speak. You really think it is that far fetched in a 15 billion year old universe that somewhere, something else can also do the same?
Now, just for honesty's sake, I admit to being a creationist. I believe God created the universe and all that's in it. But being the species "Creationist Dreadist" doesn't preclude an interest in science. I have faith in how the big picture started but I admit to a curiosity as to all the mechanisms used to get from exploding grapefruits to the present.
Well, I do try to set limits on what I personally discuss, because there are lots of things I know nothing about. :)
I said intelligent design, small id, is a fact. Do you deny this?
Define it precisely and I'll give you an answer. Honestly, I don't really know what you mean by it anymore.
As to the rest of your comment, I tend to make no arguments for or against (theistic?) intelligent design from a philosophical point of view. I kind of like the basement creation idea.
My personal belief (although cosmically irrelevant) is that God or something like it did make it possible for us to be here today, by whatever means.
However, science has a very strict and limited scope, which is how organized advancements in the understanding of the observable world can be made. Forcing into this scope various philosophical, unlogical, unobservable tenets will do nothing but prevent us from learning more about the world.
I have faith in how the big picture started but I admit to a curiosity as to all the mechanisms used to get from exploding grapefruits to the present.
Me too.
Maybe you and I are on different threads, but as I look back over the thread that I've been on, I see numerous people giving as a reason for their disbelief in Darwinism that it contradicts the Bible. I was pointing out that there is no contradiction, because most of the sections that they are referring to are allegorical, not historical in nature. I sorry but I really miss your point.
I am embarrassed to admit that this is a word I have never laid by beady little eyes upon, until YOU brought it into my life. Thanks so much. :)
> You're sliding deep into the bigotry pool.
Incorrect. I am simply pointing out the logical consequences of the illogical statement made by "Right in Wisconsin" in post 135: "The past is 100% unknowable and anyone who claims to "know the truth of the past" is lying."
I suggest you take things in context.
No, your the only one calling people names like liars. Having faith in God and believing that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Light is totally different than claiming to know the truth based upon eye witness. Don't be so quick to judge against the faithful.
> No, your the only one calling people names like liars.
Ahem: "The past is 100% unknowable and anyone who claims to "know the truth of the past" is lying."
I have heard people claiming to be Christians cite eyewitness testimony as relevant to their faith.
Eye witness testimony of the disciples, not personal eyewitness testimony - through their own eyes
I generalized "anyone", you specificied creationists and christians
> I generalized "anyone",
Yes, you did. You called anyone who claims to know anything about the past a liar. "Anyone" would include "anyone" who claims that things happened as the Bible said they did.
> you specificied creationists and christians
Actually, just Creationists. One need not stoop to the moral and intellectual muck that is Creationism in order to be a Christian.
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.