Posted on 08/04/2005 10:31:34 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
WASHINGTON - "President Bush, in advocating that the concept of 'intelligent design' be taught alongside the theory of evolution, puts America's schoolchildren at risk," says Fred Spilhaus, Executive Director of the American Geophysical Union. "Americans will need basic understanding of science in order to participate effectively in the 21st century world. It is essential that students on every level learn what science is and how scientific knowledge progresses."
In comments to journalists on August 1, the President said that "both sides ought to be properly taught." "If he meant that intelligent design should be given equal standing with the theory of evolution in the nation's science classrooms, then he is undermining efforts to increase the understanding of science," Spilhaus said in a statement. "'Intelligent design' is not a scientific theory." Advocates of intelligent design believe that life on Earth is too complex to have evolved on its own and must therefore be the work of a designer. That is an untestable belief and, therefore, cannot qualify as a scientific theory."
"Scientific theories, like evolution, relativity and plate tectonics, are based on hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification," Spilhaus says. "The President has unfortunately confused the difference between science and belief. It is essential that students understand that a scientific theory is not a belief, hunch, or untested hypothesis."
"Ideas that are based on faith, including 'intelligent design,' operate in a different sphere and should not be confused with science. Outside the sphere of their laboratories and science classrooms, scientists and students alike may believe what they choose about the origins of life, but inside that sphere, they are bound by the scientific method," Spilhaus said.
AGU is a scientific society, comprising 43,000 Earth and space scientists. It publishes a dozen peer reviewed journal series and holds meetings at which current research is presented to the scientific community and the public.
Correction, it's liberal myths that are at risk.
Competition is a good thing, unless you are hiding something.
Because they fund it?
I am unable to lay my finger on that section of the Constitution that gives the Federal Government any role whatsoever in influencing or attempting to determine education curricula.
I agree. It's unconstitutional, and the federals should close the NEA and get out of our schools. Then people could choose where to send their kids, to learn which curricula.
"...puts America's schoolchildren at risk,"
Hmmm, I wonder if America's school children are put "at risk" when they find out that their President is getting bl*wj*bs in the Oval Office from an intern half his age???
No, but you know I actually had a conversation with the late, great Stephen Jay Gould, the High Priest of Evolutionism. (God rest his soul, R.I.P., etc. ;-)
No it does not add to their educatation nor does your statement.
What is stated in the article is very correct and as a former University Grad, 43 should have known the difference between science and belief.
Beliefs such as ID can be taught in school but only in the religious classroom. However, ID is NOT a defined scientific theory and as such should never be taught in science classroom.
So, belief in science is not a belief?
In the scientific community, about as much.
I'm not sure public schools can be made much worse.
On the positive side, the Chicago Tribune is running a front page story that Chicago students' test scores have significantly improved.
***No, it doesn't require that.***
So then science can be "safely" conducted both WITH and WITHOUT the presupposition that there is and intellegent designer.
What do you mean by 'belief in science'? Belief that it exists?
Either the universe was created or it created itself.
The government has been taking the side that the universe created itself and nobody is allowed to question that or even mention that somebody questions it.
Education is supposed to be something to get people to think, not to restrict thinking to one view. Of course the atheist socialists running things can't have people going around thinking that there is a God when we have such a powerful government to look after us.
I, for one, have never subscribed to the belief that the existence of evolution (in some form) and the existence of God are imcompatible. Einstein himself stated that, "God does not play dice with the universe."
By all means, we know the education establishment limits itself strictly to proven science--like "new math" and "new, new math", whole language, peer teaching, not to mention sex education concepts. (sarc off)
No, the belief that science (and science alone) can provide irrefutable answers to existential and metaphysical questions.
To bad we're talking about the ENTIRE COUNTRY, not the "scientific community". Nice side step
Science is descriptive. If you have evidence of non-chance events influencing biological variation, feel free to post it.
The ID crowd has a simple problem.
They just have to tell us all in exact scientific detail.
How God created the world. Wether or not this also includes defining exactly what god is.
String theory and the Big Bang are no more easily verified.
Simply asking if not ID, then what organized the universe? is a scientific question, avoided by science because of it's implications.
No, the opposite of 'I assume X exists' is not 'I assume 'X does not exist'. The opposite of 'I assume X exists' is 'I do not assume X exists'.
Occam's razor tells us not to assume what is unnecessary.
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.