Posted on 08/19/2005 1:02:07 PM PDT by SmithL
NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Echoing similar comments from President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said "intelligent design" should be taught in public schools alongside evolution.
Frist, R-Tenn., spoke to a Rotary Club meeting Friday and told reporters afterward that students need to be exposed to different ideas, including intelligent design.
"I think today a pluralistic society should have access to a broad range of fact, of science, including faith," Frist said.
Frist, a doctor who graduated from Harvard Medical School, said exposing children to both evolution and intelligent design "doesn't force any particular theory on anyone. I think in a pluralistic society that is the fairest way to go about education and training people for the future."
The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation. Nearly all scientists dismiss it as a scientific theory, and critics say it's nothing more than religion masquerading as science.
Bush recently told a group of Texas reporters that intelligent design and evolution should both be taught in schools "so people can understand what the debate is about."
That comment sparked criticism from opponents, including Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean, who called Bush "anti-science."
Frist, who is considering a presidential campaign in 2008, recently angered some conservatives by bucking Bush policy on embryonic stem cell research, voicing his support for expanded research on the subject.
Frist said his decision to endorse stem cell research was "a matter of science," but he said there was no conflict between his position on stem cell research and his position on intelligent design.
"To me, I see no disconnect between that and stem cell research," Frist said. "I base my beliefs on stem cell research both on science and my faith.
1Co 2:14* But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1Co 3:19* For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
The natural sciences have yet to explain the origin of life from inanimate matter. To assume that one day it will is just that, an assumption and matter of belief, not science.
However, you are missing one key difference here, Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a Scientific Theory, Intelligent Design is nothing but a cloaked attempt to disquise Religious Doctrine as Science.
BTW, Taxes, Evolution Theory IS Science. ID Is NOT.
However, We'll Teach Both as Science until the day the Sun, the Moon, The Stars, and the Rest of the Galaxy cease orbiting the Earth...
After that we'll revert to a System that Teaches Science Theory in Science Class, and Religious Theory in Sunday School...
That is the greatest thing about evolutionary theorists, they have the luxury of ignoring anything that doesn't support their pre conceived positions.
But even the slightest mention of the existence of reality or truth on the level of religion is prohibited from being taught. Even the basics of the philosophy of science or knowledge is not taught. And, by ommission, public education infers that only what can be known by science is true.
Also, it is not an "interpretation" that scientific knowledge is a subset of knowledge and reality. It is a "provable" fact.
My objection is not to evolution, and I'm not a fan of ID. I object as strongly to using science to infer metaphysics as I do using religion to deduce science. If Dawkins is the example of an evolutionary scientist then a great deal more than science is being taught under the disguise of science.We may be creating better scientists, but our education has lost more valuable things that used to be part of a basic education.
Thanks very much for your reply.
This is the elephant in the room that the evolutionists do not want to acknowledge.
"In 1835, Auguste Comte, a prominent French philosopher, stated that humans would never be able to understand the chemical composition of stars. He was soon proved wrong."
We are nowhere near the end of the road to our fullest understanding of DNA, and the progress in the fifty years since its discovery as the carrier of the genetic code gives no reason for pessimism.
You show your ignorance of the Bible. The Pharaoh called that judgement on his own people, not that Herrod had not already done the same thing in an attempt to kill Jesus.
Yes, I think so, if I'm understanding correctly.
It's not that evolution is being taught its that scientism and secularism are taught as part of it.
D, Science has been down the road of allowing Religion to meddle in Science before, hasn't it?
What was the result of that?
I wonder what Galileo thought about that "gentle" fusion of Religion and Science.
How many others found themselves basking in some dank cell, or worse, because their Science didn't toe the Church's line.
Religion has it's place, Science has it's place. Do we want Science Professors preaching evolution Theory in Church?
If the answer to that question is No, then why is it any more appropriate to have Ministers teaching Religious Doctrine in a Science class?
Won't be any classes after the Sun the Moon and the Stars and the rest of the galaxy cease orbiting the earth. School will be out, permanently.
In 1835 for someone to insist on a particular nature of the stars without empirical observation would have been a statement of belief, not science. When the observations were made and confirmed then it could rightfully be called science.
One day you may be able to show how life arose from inanimate matter, but until that day it is not science.
In 1835 for someone to insist on a particular nature of the stars without empirical observation would have been a statement of belief, not science. When the observations were made and confirmed then it could rightfully be called science.
One day you may be able to show how life arose from inanimate matter, but until that day it is not science.
They do exactly that, but when they get to your classes, they are ridiculed and belittled, until they either lose their faith, or fail you class. Many just shut up and take it.
You are more of an evangelist(• a zealous advocate of something) than you want to admit. You are not satisfied to present your evidence, you demand that everyone accept it is the absolute truth, just as Islam does.
Go to JAIL.
Go directly to JAIL.
Do not pass GO.
Do not collect $200
OK Itsa, I'll bite, What evidence do you have for ID.
Be Specific, and do it without quoting Scripture...
Doesn't Genesis give an account of life arising from inanimate matter?
"And the earth brought forth grass."
It is written.
Inquiries as to how exactly the earth did bring forth grass may or may not succeed, but it would seem to me that such inquiries must remain in the realm of natural science, if they are to be actual inquiries.
hehehehehehehehehe....
That has got to be one of the funniest responses I've seen in these ID threads so far....
I will take your example. You still do not seem to understand the difference between science and metaphysics. A natural cause is in the realm of science but there is no guarantee that there was a natural cause. God could just have said: "Let there be grass." Such a cause would outside the realm of science. Also, the statement "there must have been a natural cause" is a metaphysical one, not a scientific one.
Irrelevant to science and also outside the capability of science to know. Which was my point in reply to the question. The questioner was asking of the same requirement of a sphere of knowledge outside of science.
Not necessarily - wouldn't you consider maths a science? Theoretical physics?
Higher level math dealing in symbol manipulation - no, this does not completely require reference to reality detectible by the senses. It can be purely datum from the intellect. It is a special and very interesting case that illustrates some fundamental truths about knowledge.
Theoretical physics – somewhat in the same category although it deals with the requirements of realit that I described in my definition, only in a theoretical rather than empirical method. [For example theorizing about what particles must/could exist in order to maintain symmetry through transformations of matter.]
Both these examples tend more to prove the rule by their exceptions and both cases have their applied or experimental application. In the case of theoretical physics this necessary for them to accomplish the scientific requirement of "proof" or "exists." [e.g., Dirac's theoretical work was only "proven" by experimental evidence of the positron.]
I'm not sure what you mean by the "rest of reality".
Those aspects of reality, things that exist, that cannot be known using science alone. We all know a great many of them, some are the most important aspects of being a human.
And I enjoy living in a universe governed by science
This is not a very scientific statement. Science doesn't "govern."
rather than the whims of a temperamental deity.
Perhaps you've chosen to accept someone else's description of diety rather than explore, test and know for yourself. Again, not very scientific.
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.