Posted on 09/19/2005 3:32:34 PM PDT by dukeman
The Dover Area School district in Pennsylvania will soon defend its policy to require ninth grade students to hear a short statement about “intelligent design” before biology lessons on evolution.
Dover is believed to have been the first school system in the nation to require students to hear about the controversial concept. The school adopted the policy in October 2004, after which teachers were required to read a statement that says intelligent design is different than Darwin’s theory of evolution and refers students to a text book on intelligent design to get more information.
“All the Dover school board did was allow students to get a glimpse of a controversy that is really boiling over in the scientific community,” said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which is defending the school district, according to the Associated Press.
The civil trial is set to take place on Sept. 26 and will only be the latest chapter in a long-running legal debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools.
The controversy over intelligent design in public schools has received national attention with statements by President Bush expressing approval for the theory to be taught in class, along with the recent approval by the Kansas Board of Education to give preliminary approval to science standards that allow criticism of evolution.
Intelligent design theory states that some parts of the natural world are so complex that the most reasonable explanation is that they were made as products of an intelligent cause, rather than random mutation and natural selection.
In contrast to "creationism," which states specifically that God is the creator, intelligent design is more general, simply saying that life did not come about by chance. The "designer" could be anything or anyone, though many place God in the position of the designer.
Experts on the case include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, who is proponent of intelligent design. He holds that the concept of “irreducible complexity” shows that there is an intelligent creator. He cites the example of a bacterial flagellum, an appendage to a bacterium that allows it to move about.
"Whenever we see such complex, functional mechanical systems, we always infer that they were designed. ... It is a conclusion based on physical evidence," AP reported Behe as saying in testimony before the state legislative panel in June where he was asked to talk about intelligent design.
Critics of intelligent design have dismissed the theory as a backdoor to creationism, with some calling it pseudo science.
In a 1999 assessment of intelligent design, the National Academy of sciences said the theory was not science.
''Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science," the NAS stated.
The controversy over Intelligent Design has been so highly talked about that the debate was also featured last month as a cover story for Time Magazine. In the feature article, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) President Albert Mohler, Jr., tackled the controversy with three other scholars in a forum addressing the question “Can You Believe in God and Evolution?” Behe was also among those whose views were addressed in the article.
"Religion" is a code word.
No it's not.
I'm not so good at that stuff and will just confuse you more. I seem to have caused enough confusion round here.
You've confused no one. You are obvious and very full of misplaced pride and self righteousness.
I say let the &^%$ stew in it and just ignore him.
I second that. For now. He's got some serious weaknesses, and I don't just mean in his rhetoric.
Why is someone with no knowledge of math qualified to discus it's merits?
***Because in our analogy he’s on the school board.
It's not a FR rule, it's a rule of logical debate. You made an assertion and then refused to back it up.
***Did not George W make the same assertion?
"If a school board is made up of all art history majors, they’ll tend to handwave on any of the scientific stuff."…. And they will make horrible decisions on scientific issues
***How do you know they will make horrible decisions on technical issues? Most school boards don’t have so many PhDs and they seem to be doing pretty well in that regard.
…You talk as if ignorance is a virtue.
***What is the standard of whether it is a horrible decision? If their communities are safer or quieter or whatever as a result of their decisions, they did a good thing. I’m not advocating ignorance of the theory of evo, just that the burden of knowledge might be something that kids shouldn’t have to bear. They can carry that burden later on in life when they are better equipped for it. It’s not an advocacy of ignorance, it is an advocacy of wisdom for our children.
You can stick around, making ludicrous statements about a theory you refuse to engage. But that won't make you look like anything but a fool.
***OK, thanks for the invite.
No, I said where does the theory of evolution corrupt people. Evolution, and science in general, doesn't pretend to be a moral guide.
***We all know that. The fact that there is no moral guide is the problem.
No you aren't, you are ducking every attempt by us to get you to say what specifically about the theory is dangerous.
***I’ll get around to it.
You call it soulless but won't say how it is soulless.
***It is soulless by its silence on the moral issues that arise from processing the theory on a behavioral level. Kids think they are not accountable, that they can get away with animalistic behavior, that it is a world of “survival of the fittest” so I might as well just start getting mine right now.
Hey, you are the one who wants everybody to be as ignorant as you.
***Another good zippy one liner.
Now we know your motives.
***If you want to know my motives, ask. I’ll tell you.
"Do you want a godless, soulless religion that the bible calls “mystery, Babylon” to be the forced creed that every school kid in the world must follow?"… That isn't evolution.
***That’s my point, that you don’t want me telling you what you want so why do you tell me what I want?
When you tied NAMBLA and Islamic terrorism to evolution.
***Again. They’re not tied. They’re not Associated. It is an analogy.
You presume to tell me what I think? "… It's not a difficult task.
***Go ahead.
You didn't make any points. We are still waiting for some substance.
***If I make the points again will you answer them?
That is not authority. You have no knowledge of evolution and yet want to influence policy on evolution in the classroom. It's not that someone has more knowledge than you, it's that they address the subject and you evade it. The social policy is evolution.
***Why is knowledge of evolution required in the discussion of whether it is good social policy? GWB didn’t have the knowledge enough to take you guys on, neither does the average school board member. You are right, in my limited knowledge of evolution I “want to influence policy on evolution in the classroom”. That is my right as a freeper, an American, a voter, etc.
Look, you gave away your plan earlier; you want to shut down these crevo threads.
***No. I prefer to discuss things rather than have the other side just give up or throw one liner zingers or ridicule or whatever 2nd grade game is the order of the day. “I gave away my plan?” I didn’t know I had a plan. Could you please tell me what the plan is so that I can have it back, you’re so good at telling me what I think and what I want.
You are proud of the threads you have shut down.
***Now you are telling me how I feel? Well, if you are right, please please tell me what stock I should buy tomorrow.
They make your side look stupid.
***My guess is that my side can handle it. So far, no freepmail asking me to pipe down or apologize or anything like that.
Glad I was amusing for you.
Sorry, we won't play your game anymore. You'll have to get the thread pulled or someone banned another way.
Don't ping me again.
I think he gave away his scheme in his post to me,
***Actually, on my first crevo thread someone pointed out that I hadn't been involved in a crevo thread "in your life." So now I've gotten past that, and the criticism no longer holds. I have no scheme.
He is baiting us to attack him and get the thread pulled, or one of us banned.
***uhhh, no. But I do admit that it would have been fun if someone asked me to leave, it really did look like that was gonna happen. Sometimes I just go into aggressive pursuit mode, that's all. I don't understand -- it is nothing more than what I have observed while lurking on the crevo threads. You guys can handle it, you sure dish it out enough.
Very Christian of him.
***If you are truly serious about that charge, feel free to explore it and I will apologize if it is the right thing to do.
I say let the &^%$ stew in it and just ignore him.
***OK, whichever. Gotta go now. It's been real, it's been fun....
"Religion" is a code word....No it's not.
***It is in the evangelical christian community.
You've confused no one. You are obvious and very full of misplaced pride and self righteousness.
***Please point it out and if it is true, I will renounce it. Misplaced pride? That self righteousness thingie is probably closer to the truth because you're not the first to say it, but if you're going to engage in personal attacks you need to back it up.
Gotta go now.
I said don't ping me again.
You've confused no one. You've revealed yourself.
BullGooseLoony (1000+ posts) Tue Sep-20-05 09:18 PM
Original message
Philosophical question: Are humans the "top" of the natural intellectual hierarchy?
I look at my cats, and I understand that they don't fully comprehend everything that's going on with my decision making. Clearly, there is an intellectual and power hierarchy in nature. Certain creatures understand more, or understand things differently, than others.
The question is, though, are we at the top? Are we that lucky?
Or...no...maybe the question is, if we weren't at the top, would we understand that fact? Or would we look at the food bowl, our world, being filled with the same appreciation, but still the same lack of understanding, as our cats' experience in seeing our actions?
That's not to say that the human intellect, as it is today, might be the greatest possible, as far as potential. I think we're still evolving. But, do you think it is even the greatest in existence?
How can someone in our condition, with our limited intellectual capacity, make the conclusion that there is nothing that understands things in a greater capacity than we do?
Query: Is a moonbat smarter than a house cat?
One is a scientific theory, the other is not.
I know science.
You may "know" science but you don't understand science. There is a huge difference between the two.
I thought you guys would never ask! Here's another one.
At first all was water. A water-fowl though that there must be earth below. So all the water-fowls dived for it. Finally Turtle said he would try. he made himself a waterproof suit to travel in under water. Then he got much rope. He said, "If I jerk on the rope pull me out. If there is no earth I shall come to the surface all alone." Finally they pulled him up. He was helpless when he came to the surface. His mouth and ears were all plugged up with mud. They saw mud under his nails. They got a little mud this way. They dried it and made an island. It grew and became the world.Wintu Indian creation story, north-central California
Can you please tell carolina guitarman that his fence wasn't up when I posted my comments. I am not sure how this particular game is played.
Not my job.
This is an interesting development. I've never seen it before in 7 years of freeping. The closest I can come up with was what happened when I was playing soccer in 4th grade, the PE teacher knew there was one good soccer player and he loaded up the other side with all the best offensive players (the good one was a fullback). It was an interesting game and the fullback found himself surprised to be ahead near the end, but he could tell they had his number. So he came up with a quick plan to disrupt the game by kicking the ball out of bounds, catching it with hands (causing a penalty kick, but it gave his team time to get back into position), and various other tricks to make the time run out. The key was the runout of time. He got sent to the principal's office and had to write a thousand sentences, something like "I will cooperate". His team ended up winning even without him there. This new tactic reminds me of that same strategy, based upon the knowledge that time is the critical element here. It may just work, I can't tell yet.
I think he gave away his scheme in his post to me,
......
and close down a couple of crevo threads." "
***After mulling this over for awhile, trying to figure out why there is such a hypersensitive reaction, I think it may have to do with my choice of using the phrase, "close down" rather than "finish out" or "stick with" or [fillintheblank]. In the silicon valley, I've noticed a new term arising which is that people go drinking and "close down" the bar, which used to mean that there was a fight or something and the bar would have to close when the police came, but it is developing a new meaning which is simply, "drinking till closing time". The mental imagery of technogeeks "closing down" a bar still strikes me as whimsical. Perhaps I used the wrong term, feel free to substitute the politically correct term if it makes y'all feel better. It is easy enough to check my latest posts to see that the crevo threads I was on are still open, they haven't been pulled so that is an independent verification of my use of the phrase. But my suspicion is that someone is looking to escape the heat and get out of the kitchen, and they will find something to hang their hat on rather than answer my points. As the rancor increases, I tend to get obnoxious and there are plenty of places to hang one's hat if that is what one wants to do. Just let me know if I get to keep the hat.
That's pretty funny, thanks.
Now you can see what will happen when the philosophers move in on this topic. Some folks may find me exasperating, just wait 'til you're up against one of those guys (on either side), that's how hair pulling was invented.
And you've repeatedly said you weren't religious or or interested in religion.
***I'm not. You don't see me very often on those threads where they talk about 5point Calvinism or whether Mary was assumed to heaven or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. That's religion. I am, however, interested in spirituality, which is a tough distinction for some to parse. I draw the line at the deity of Christ -- that isn't so much doctrinal chatter, it is the center of the issue (and why Jesus was put to death, BTW). Even then, I consider it a personal faith matter what one does with the information when confronted with the trilemma, that might be religion or it might not, I'm not quite sure.
Good points, except that the Bhagavad Gita doesn't say that earthquakes are caused by elephants jumping up and down.
Not my job.
***Ok, please give him back his hat. Oh, I know... not your job.
Good points, except that the Bhagavad Gita doesn't say that earthquakes are caused by elephants jumping up and down.
***Darn it, I dislike being wrong. I guess I'll have to dig up where I heard that. This could take some time.
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.