Skip to comments.Intelligent design on trial
Posted on 09/28/2005 3:28:36 AM PDT by Crackingham
It's unfortunate that intelligent design is standing trial in Pennsylvania. Scientific theories require decades, sometimes centuries, to develop, to withstand scrutiny before they are accepted as legitimate. Trying to force acceptance -- or denial -- quickly is an end-run around the scientific method and the spirit of free inquiry. Whatever the lower courts decide about whether intelligent design can be mentioned in public schools, the controversy will probably reach the Supreme Court, which will be asked to determine what is scientific and what is not.
Clearly, the Dover Area School District, by forcing the issue with its requirement that teachers read a four-paragraph "statement" identifying intelligent design as an alternative theory to Darwinian evolution, has done neither science nor students any favors. Intelligent design is a proposition in a state of infancy, and has not earned a place in public school curriculums. A wide range of alternative propositions are never taught precisely because there is no structure to challenge prevailing opinion. That doesn't mean the alternatives are wrong; but students should learn first the best explanation, given what is known. Despite its many flaws, Darwinian evolution remains the standard.
It's no surprise that 11 Dover parents, with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is ever eager to advance atheism as secular theology, sued the school district on the grounds that intelligent design is "a 21st century version of creationism." In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that teaching creationism in public schools violates the Constitution's establishment clause, separating church and state. Both critics and proponents with no advanced scientific degree, who have so eagerly judged the supernatural premises of intelligent design, only demonstrate their political or religious biases.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
What we recommend," the institute says, "is that teachers and students study more about Darwinian evolution, not only the evidence that supports the theory, but also scientific criticisms of the theory."
Yea, please explain how the beginning of the world began. Was it the "Big Bang Theory"? That sure sounds scientific!
Criticizing Charles Darwin does not make one a creationist, despite the allegations of many Darwinists, whose arguments often are reduced to petty ad hominem attacks
Never heard that here!
Is this the one thread we'll ping for today, or should we wait for another? I don't want to ping the list for more than one thread per day on this subject. It drives everyone crazy.
As I've often pointed out, if the folks criticizing evolution knew one-tenth about the subject they think they know, they wouldn't be criticizing it.
"A wide range of alternative propositions are never taught precisely because there is no structure to challenge prevailing opinion. "
Because the infrastructure of prevailing opinion is owned by communists ... the Left University. And Machivellian politics are employed to eliminate competition. Funny, with all the Anti ID effort out there, you'd think the obviousness of Darwinism would be enough for people to say, well, yes, right, the 'evidence' is just overwhelming.
Dunno. However, if everyone who stumbles across a crevo thread would ping me (for completeness sake), I would appreciate it.
Here's another one for your perusal:
I would like to know more about how the world began......was it "Big Bang"?
My assertions have been called myopic in the past but the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the anthropic principal, and irreducible complexity make sense to me (I see evidence in nature every day). My problem is that there can never be a DISCUSSION on FR because those that agree with evolution do not explain the holes in their own argument and reduce the ID argument to creationism or religion.
Is it just all imagination? Or does it just "be what it is" -- that curiousity stopping zen koan?
Personally, I'd reckon anyone who is NOT at some level a creationist is insane, either by chemistry or choice. Why? Because things started somewhere and somehow.
Moreover -- and this is to many (but not to me) a seperate point, but the very very physics and chemisty that we have come to learn by scientific study is to an unimaginably high degree unlikely to have arisen from some random process -- and just as or more impossibly likely to be able to continue in some stable state of being for any time. Therefore not only is there a Creator, but a Maintainer. One and the same, for the two activites are too close, too cohesive to be otherwise.
And that's just plain sense -- to deny is the insanity.
Good point! I agree!
Yes, I am a creationist but the argument of most naturalists disregard ID simply because they consider it faith or religion, but never science. There is a scientific component to ID in addition to what you mentioned in your previous thread.
Well thanks! 'ave a good day!
Ping for latah!!
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.