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.
***1) The theory of evolution makes no claims regarding the origins or development of the universe in general,.***
No? Is not the questions assumed, "What is the cause of evolution?"
***2) Current theory of evolution would quite specifically deny that species evolve randomly,***
If there is no design then everything is by chance - you can't esape that.
***No, because scientifically the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. ***
Is that not, in a larger sense, what science is doing? Seeking to understand the nature of the universe and, by implication, whether it is 1. created, 2. self-creating or 3. eternally existant?
Your burden of proof does not work in this situation because you are giving priority to opinions 2 & 3.
I thought the president's physical conditioning was putting America's schoolchildren at risk? These people need to make up their minds.
|
What part of the curriculum in those schools is independent of counsel by government agents?
Do you advocate eliminating the public school system?
Are you telling us scientists are ignorant of history?
That's a informal logical fallacy, argument ad ignoratium: Concluding/assuming that something is true (say, evolution) because it cannot be disproved. Assuming that something must be false (evolution) because it can't be proven, same thing.
The Greeks thought there were cyclops and other large strange beasties upon unearthing dinosauer bones.
I'm going with Paschal's wager, and Devo and "Mexican Radio".
Telling them that ID is science is lying to them. But hey, lying is par for the course in some quarters.
Einstein was wrong ~ God not only plays dice with the universe, He tosses them where He can't see them!
Heck, they didn't even have CALLER ID!
At least, that's my theory.
Dude! The King is alive. I saw him leaving a flying saucer after his alien abductors released him.
Stephen Hawking already weighed in saying that, "All the evidence shows that God is indeed an inveterate gambler." :o)
Hey, the Global Warming junkies seem to get by on it.
Your hardline approach to the Scientific Method is commendable, but claiming that the scientific community relies solely on "independent empirical testability" is naive.
And about Gloria Goes to Gay Pride Parade?
Can we also teach astrology as a viable theory?
A substantial fraction of Americans think the population of the US is between 1 billion and 3 billion. Should we teach that in school as an alternative to the Census bureau numbers?
I think Jimmy Carter created it in the 1970's. I don't understand why we can't get rid of the Education Department.
Panspermia does not make the mistake the Darwinians make of assuming (with evidence) that all life on Earth arises from a single source, or that it only arose once.
You do realize the single source, one-time-only hypothesis in the current paradigm is rather religious in its scope.
Actually, its a faith-based concept for which there is not the slightest evidence of any kind.
The fact that we teach them one sort of rubbish already is not an argument for teaching them another sort of rubbish.
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.