Posted on 09/30/2005 7:45:00 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
The Campaign to Defend the Constitution, a group organized to promote the teaching of evolution, sent letters Thursday to all 50 governors, urging them to ensure that science classes teach material based on established science.
The letters were signed by more than 100 scientists and clergy of various faiths, the group said.
Although Gov. Ed Rendell had not received the letters as of Thursday afternoon, spokeswoman Kate Philips said he is committed to the idea of teaching evolution in science classes.
Rendell "believes that (intelligent design) is more than appropriate to be taught in religion classes, but has no room in science classes in public schools," Philips said. "But this is in the court's hands now, and other than his opinion, he has no influence."
But a spokeswoman for DefCon, the group's nickname for itself, said the group hopes that after governors receive the letter, they will make a public announcement opposing the teaching of intelligent design.
"It would be nice if (Rendell) took a stance and said, whether it's in the Dover district or any other Pennsylvania district, 'We need to protect the teaching of science in our science classrooms,'" Jessica Smith said.
The group named Dover its top "Island of Ignorance" in the country. It has targeted areas in the country where it says evolution is being challenged at the state level or in public school science classrooms. They include Cobb County, Ga.; Kansas; Blount County, Tenn.; Ohio; Grantsburg, Wisc.; Alabama; Utah; South Carolina; and Florida.
Advocates of intelligent design say life is so complex that it is likely the result of deliberate design by some unidentified creator, not random evolutionary mutation and adaptation.
Critics say it is essentially creationism and violates the separation of church and state when it becomes part of a public school curriculum.
"We can do better when we let science do its job, and ask religion to do its job," former ACLU executive director Ira Glasser said Thursday, "and if there's a need for conversation, please, let's not do it in the classrooms of our children."
If you believe in the literal truth of the Ark story, you believe that the Ark contained 20,000,000 different species, all tended to by eight people. That's nothing, if not remarkable.
Wow, I certainly got cheated in my education. I was never taught Hitler was a scientist! I demand my parents' tax money back.
Yes, however that's not what science says.
I guess we just have to agree to disagree until we have proof, which we probably never will in our lifetimes.
Don't be tired, we have proof!
You're definitely right.
Personally, I really don't think that winning the Dover trial is as important as people are making it out to be. Whatever the outcome, it will not change the outcome of scientific research, and as you pointed out, if these concepts do find their way into the science classroom, teachers (the competent ones, anyway) will be there to use their training to point out the extant flaws.
If the ID advocates do win this trial (a very likely outcome, in my opinion), the result will be that newly trained biology teachers looking for jobs will avoid the Dover school district like the plague; this does not fare well for the ID side. Remember that the pro-evolution side lost the famous Scopes trial, but the verdict of public opinion was definitely won on the opposite side.
The science teachers I have known, if forced to present ID, would rip it apart like a soggy paperbag! You would see ID advocates screaming for them to stop talking about it.
That fossil studies do not show "advanced" features in old strata (thus evolution is not falsified), and that they universally follow patterns of transitions *is* important.
But beyond fossils, thousands of recently discovered DNA ERV sequences common between primates and humans *do* prove we share a common ancestor with them. They demonstrate that a single individual got an ERV virus inserted in its DNA millions of years ago and passed that virus sequence to apes and humans.
That is the smoking gun demonstrating both common ancestry and evolution, and nit picking the shortcomings of fossil studies will not make it go away.
Evolution is a scientific theory, and evolution occurs and is thus a fact.
Deal with it.
Slandering Darwin because he's not 21st century PC will not make evolution false.
Why do you assume they would have needed 20 million species? That isn't logical. If they had some of each kind I imagine they could have reproduced. Where did you come up with 20 million? Does the Bible say that?
Because there are 20,000,000 different species in the world today. Are you saying they only took a few species and they evolved afterwards into what we have today? Maybe a housecat, which later evolved into lynx, cougars, leopards, etc.
Hey, they like the way schools teach sex education. They'll love it when religion can be examined in science class.
What's a "kind"?
Hitler said: 'The whole of nature is a continuous struggle between strength and weakness, and eternal victory of the strong over the weak.'
Sounds very Neitzsche-like and Hegelian.....and Darwinian
Just FYI: He also said this; "I regard Christianity as the most fatal, seductive lie that has ever existed."
What is ironic is how knee-jerk Liberals can spout out 'Nazi' at right wing Christians like myself when nothing could be further from the truth.
I know they'll use any handy point to attack conservative issues. Whether it's the 2nd amendment or ID is irrelevant to their agenda.
I don't support doing away with the 2nd amendment because there are genuine self-defense issues at stake. But ID is just a wild, and false, fantasy that does no positive good to the conservative cause. Thus it needs to go away, in order to remove the handy attack point the left uses against us.
Creationists need to find another political issue, because evolution, being true, isn't going away. Attacking it is banging your head on the wall just because you can.
Somebody has to keep ID nonsense from rotting science to it's core.
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ? will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.Now here's the original, with the fraudulently minded snippet in blue:
The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies — between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridæ — between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.Source (which isn't filted through Morris): Descent of Man, chapter 6.
In classic, fraudulent, creationoid fashion, the "quote" is lifted out of context to make it appear that Darwin says something he does not say. He's talking about breaks in the fossil record. He's explaining why they appear, and that they may appear from similar causes in the future. (It's an observed fact that apes are approaching extinction, as are various primitive tribes. This isn't news. Darwin saw it happening. It's still happening.) Darwin is not advocating genocide or anything else. He's attempting to explain the fossil record.
(back-to-work placemarker)
No. If creationists abandon their public promotion of their religion in public schools, it frees up their time, energy, money, and political capital for more important things.
Wouldn't it be better to get rid of Roe vs. Wade that spend time promoting creationism? Particularly since the evidence and facts are on the side of evolution meaning that any effort promoting creationism/ID is doomed to failure.
Your previous post (Thanks for identifying it so I didn't have to go searching for it, by the way. I hope I identified the correct one.) only proves the correctness of your first one if you can either show where Gov.Rendell has explicitly endorsed that passage or that Evolutionist supporters in general are acknowledged to be in support of that particular passage.
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.