Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pennsylvania School District to Defend Policy on Intelligent Design
The Christian Post ^ | 9/19/05 | Francis Helguero

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: behe; creationism; evolution; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181-198 next last
To: Kevin OMalley

haps-not side

I don't try to have a discussion with people who make up their own words. Sorry.

81 posted on 09/19/2005 7:32:49 PM PDT by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Kevin OMalley
I am trying to stay away from the scientific end of this argument for the same reason that I stayed away for 7 years: It's too acrimonious, requires too much time/knowledge/digging/etc, and I see very little ROI for myself. If you folks are discussing science on this thread, please ask me to leave.

Tempting... But no, nobody should be asked to leave. This is FR!

The problem is that we need to keep science and its methods separate from belief and their ways.

Science works from data and theory, with theory being the attempts to explain those pesky facts (data). Sometimes theories have to change when new facts arise, or when better theory emerges.

Belief is unchanging, and based on faith. The two really are separate and should not be used to argue against one another.

You say you don't have time to study science and then proceed to trash science and its methods. Then don't enter into science-bashing.

But don't leave an FR thread (especially an old fossil like yourself!) because of something like this. ; )

82 posted on 09/19/2005 7:34:13 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Is this a good tagline?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Hey, I like your login AND your tagline.

Then you never had an understanding of what evolutionary theory is or what it's limits are.
***For purposes of social policy discussion, that doesn't really matter. I think I had a rudimentary understanding of the theory at the time, and I also think that I'm running into a lack of understanding from the proponents of TOE/abio that their theories have implications in the inductive realms that they need to address.



Was any of it a substantive dispute with what the theory says?
***Yes.



The president is not the arbiter of what is correct in science.
***I'm not saying that he is. In one stroke, it became a SOCIAL POLICY issue. It still has elements of an issue of science and science policy, but now those elements are now inextricably mixed with politics. That means you start having these kinds of discussions with numbskulls like me, and if you can't explain things in a clear fashion, politely - look up the word politic & compare it to polite -- without arrogance, they tend to wander away and vote against your policy down the road (maybe even become president & really stir things up). I have trouble seeing that ID is a pseudoscience when these guys were instrumental in finding that the fine structure constant of light (and most probably a resulting finding that the speed of light is not a constant) has changed. Scientists were not able to convince two of our greatest presidents that this is wacky pseudoscience. There is something to this controversy.



I gotta run, talk to you folks later.


83 posted on 09/19/2005 7:34:54 PM PDT by Kevin OMalley (No, not Freeper#95235, Freeper #1165: Charter member, What Was My Login Club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Kevin OMalley
" I am trying to stay away from the scientific end of this argument..."

Too bad, science is the center of this debate.

"I guess you're stuck with smoke, sorry about that. I would love to discuss social policy and politics in this here, ahem, POLITICAL forum, but if all you can come up with is basic ridicule that proves you're a true holy warrior for your chosen belief system, you lose all those sincere lurkers that have so much say in our social policies. So, keep 'em coming, eventually you'll realize that, they do your side more harm than you really intended in the beginning."

So, you really can't provide any scientific critiques of evolution. I didn't think you could. I don't see how you expect to bring anybody over to your side with no argument whatsoever. Not even an attempt.

" I trust that GWB consulted some pretty high falutin sources when he made up his mind on this social policy issue..."

So, you look to the president for science? How odd.

"The answer is, no, I don't WANT such people deciding what the science curriculum is, but I ACCEPT that such people are, I AGREE with them on a philosophical level, I SEE some of the same problems with this theory that they see, and I THINK that there could be some good science that results from all of this discussion and exercise."

What problems? You refuse to even touch on the science, why should anybody care what you think?

"Science doesn't deal with the spiritual....

It's not a cop-out, its a fact.
***Baloney."

Your *Baloney* means nothing when you hide from discussing the science. Just more smoke out yer butt.

"Name ONE scientific theory that uses supernatural, non-material causes. Just one.
***I don't know what you're saying here. "

Are you capable of understanding English? What did you not comprehend?

"Of course, the THEORIES don't rise or fall, but when it comes to giving professors money so that they can teach my kids a soulless philosophy, I and 2/3 of the public draw the line and say, "No More.""

So you want science by poll. And 2/3rds of the population do NOT want evolution out of the classrooms.

"I'd rather have an ignorant child who has the ability to make excellent moral progress than a brilliant amoral scientist."

False dichotomy. Show how science is making people *amoral*.
84 posted on 09/19/2005 7:39:24 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
"Verb unnecessary. Intelligible anyway. Simpler language. Adverbs, adjectives sufficient. Universal stasis."

Intelligible maybe; sloppy definitely.
85 posted on 09/19/2005 7:42:05 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Kevin OMalley
"Was any of it a substantive dispute with what the theory says?
***Yes."

This was about why you allegedly discarded evolution, you had said,

""Some of it is with experience. Some of it is with instinct. Some of it is still undecided." "

You have not shown you even know what the theory says. Smoke is still rising from your butt.

"That means you start having these kinds of discussions with numbskulls like me, and if you can't explain things in a clear fashion, politely - look up the word politic & compare it to polite -- without arrogance, they tend to wander away and vote against your policy down."

You haven't shown the least inclination in wanting to know anything about evolution. You want to discuss the politics of a science debate without any mention of the science. That is impossible.

"I have trouble seeing that ID is a pseudoscience when these guys were instrumental in finding that the fine structure constant of light (and most probably a resulting finding that the speed of light is not a constant) has changed."

The speed of light is still constant and hasn't changed. What are you talking about?

"Scientists were not able to convince two of our greatest presidents that this is wacky pseudoscience. There is something to this controversy."

You only argument has been that Bush and Reagan like ID so we must take it seriously as science. You DO know that the argument from authority is a logical fallacy, right? Especially when they have no science backgrounds.

You are way, WAY out of your league.
86 posted on 09/19/2005 7:52:23 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Tim Long
Evolution opponents often believe the Bible is infallible, but they do not hold the scientific evidence they present to be unfalsifiable.

OK. But can you falsify this? How. Please be specific in your answer.


Creation of the Earth

The world was once nothing but water. The only land above the water was Black Mountain. All the people lived up there when the flood came, and their fireplaces can still be seen.

Fish-eater and Hawk lived there. Fish-eater was Hawk's uncle. One day they were singing and shaking a rattle. As they sang, Hawk shook this rattle and dirt began to fall out of it. They sang all night, shaking the rattle the whole time. Soon there was so much dirt on the water that the water started to go down. When it had gone all the way down, they put up the Sierra Nevada to hold the ocean back. Soon they saw a river running down through the valley.

When they finished making the earth, Hawk said, "Well, we have finished. Here is a rabbit for me. I will live on rabbits in my lifetime." Fish-eater was over a swampy place, and he said, "I will live on fish in my lifetime." They had plenty to eat for themselves. It was finished.

Owens Valley Paiute creation story, eastern California


87 posted on 09/19/2005 7:52:33 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Is this a good tagline?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kevin OMalley
Ridicule

Well-earned ridicule. You think whining about it will cause us to spare you?

Some of it was by wearing it as a philosophy (I used to be an evolutionist) and finding that there really was very little that kept me from becoming a lawless individual if I wanted to carry it forward.

Well, there's your problem. You thought it was a 'philosophy', when in fact evolution is a scientific theory. If you were looking for a philosophy, why didn't you take up Feng Shui?

If mainstream science can't convince the president that teaching this stuff side by side is a bad idea, I doubt your ridicule and scorn would be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

If his advisors can't convince the President we need a viable immigration policy or a curb on federal spending, I doubt they'll have any more luck with biology. At least Bush has the sense to employ a science advisor who does know the difference between science and ID.

So why don't we discuss this social policy issue on its merits?

Evolution isn't a social policy any more than it's a philosophy. Why don't we discuss it as a scientific theory?

88 posted on 09/19/2005 8:00:30 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor (Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory - John Marburger, science advisor to George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
That is the point! While I have no way of knowing whether, intelligent design, evolution or out-right creation is responsible, neither do any of the others. It is all opinion and as we know all communication is persuasion, I have decided, like one rooting for the underdog in a football game, to oppose evolution. (That I believe in God might factor in as well)
89 posted on 09/19/2005 8:14:36 PM PDT by TheHound (You would be paranoid too - if everyone was out to get you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: TheHound
But there are zero ways to prove the Intelligence behind ID. It can never be subjected to scientific inquiry.
90 posted on 09/19/2005 8:17:03 PM PDT by Wormwood (Iä! Iä! Cthulhu fhtagn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
Poor St. Thomas must be rolling over in his grave.

What is with that, by the way? Thomas More was one of the first victims of the English Reformation. When did he get adopted by literalist Protestants?

91 posted on 09/19/2005 8:24:49 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor (Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory - John Marburger, science advisor to George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: TheHound
While I have no way of knowing whether, intelligent design, evolution or out-right creation is responsible, neither do any of the others. It is all opinion

That's not true. Either you have faith and believe in one of the thousands of religions, or you deal with science. Many people actually can reconcile the two!

But when you really need to figure things out, who you gonna call? The ghost busters? A fortune teller or tarot card reader? Astrologer? Witch doctor? Shaman? The local politician? The neighbors? Divine revelation? Opinion polls?

I think you will look for the facts. What are the facts? And to how many decimal places. And that path leads to science.

I may be wrong in this, but I would not bet the rent money on the others.

92 posted on 09/19/2005 8:28:59 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Is this a good tagline?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
That's not true. Either you have faith and believe in one of the thousands of religions, or you deal with science. Many people actually can reconcile the two!

Please, contemplate that thought.

93 posted on 09/19/2005 8:45:11 PM PDT by TheHound (You would be paranoid too - if everyone was out to get you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Wormwood
But there are zero ways to prove the Intelligence behind ID. It can never be subjected to scientific inquiry.

So it is ipso facto is it, so let us not even look at that possibility. What a scientific approach.

94 posted on 09/19/2005 9:04:01 PM PDT by TheHound (You would be paranoid too - if everyone was out to get you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Thanks for the ping!


95 posted on 09/19/2005 9:40:52 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
On their website they do not call him by his title "saint." The site is also suspiciously Protestant-like in its tone and attitude. In their description of St. Thomas, they fail to mention that was martyred for failing to accept Protestantism.

I find this whole thing a bit offensive. The Bishop of whatever city they are located in would make an official statement declaring that they have absolutely nothing to do with the Catholic Church.

People also might get them confused with the St. Thomas More Society, a respectable organization of Catholic lawyers and law students that has absolutely nothing to do with this ID nonsense.

Again, I wish the Catholic Church would copyright the names of our saints.

96 posted on 09/19/2005 9:49:40 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
But when you really need to figure things out, who you gonna call? The ghost busters? A fortune teller or tarot card reader? Astrologer? Witch doctor? Shaman? The local politician? The neighbors? Divine revelation? Opinion polls?

Of that dreary and un-inspiring lot, at least the neighbors and opinion polls have the virtue of not directly conning you out of your money. All the others come right out and demand it. So as long as you're going to get inaccurate information, you might as well get it for free.

97 posted on 09/20/2005 4:37:33 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Kevin OMalley
I am trying to stay away from the scientific end of this argument for the same reason that I stayed away for 7 years: It's too acrimonious, requires too much time/knowledge/digging/etc . . .

Actually, it's nice to see this admission. It neatly sums up the entire ID/creationist movement. I wish the balance of the movement's proponents were as honest.

98 posted on 09/20/2005 6:26:24 AM PDT by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: atlaw

Perhaps creationism and creationism-lite are just consequences of people being too lazy to think.


99 posted on 09/20/2005 6:58:42 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

early bird gets the primes.....


100 posted on 09/20/2005 7:35:45 AM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181-198 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson