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."
You seem to be confused about what the scientific definition of a theory means.
theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
--As opposed to the more colloquial definition:
theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
When scientists call something a theory, like the theory of evolution, they mean the former definition, not the latter. ID, on the other hand, is not a scientific theory at all; it doesn't qualify as a scientific "alternative" to evolutionary biology.
I think it would be great if biology teachers could talk about ID in class - then qualified teachers would be free to expose the "science" behind it as the sham it really is.
I hate trying to scrape up the periods at the ends of certain sentences from off my computer screen. Ruin more monitors that way!
"This statement demonstrates you do not even know the definition and meaning of evolution."
Oh great knowledgable one, please concisely define evolution for me so that I can benefit from your knowledge. Or at least so we can have an intillegent discussion since basically all you did was say "no it's not" and stick your tongue out at me.
"This is the statement that proves that you have no understanding about scientific theories. After that, everything else your wrote is moot at best."
See answer number one. I've been told that on evolution thread before and all I get from people are circular definitions and logical fallacies.
However, please feel free to try. The worst thing that might happen is that I might learn something, and I'm definately not afraid of that.
"Please educate yourself before posting things like this. People that actually know what they are talking about get tired of repreating the same facts over and over to closed IDer minds."
Arrogant insults. How quaint and childish.
I obviously believe in one Creator but everyone is free to believe in however many they choose.
Why does sarcasm need to be funny?
Call it whatever you feel comfortable with. But humans didn't evolve from anything other than other humans.
Shh! Not too loud. Next thing you know we'll be fending off attacks from creationists claiming that catfish are a chimera form that falsifies evolution.
All known paleontological, anthropological, genetic, morphological and biogeographical evidence tells us quite clearly you are incorrect.
And you obviously didn't get my point, that A) Including those scientists who didn't even know about the existence of evolution makes their opinions irrelevant on the matter and B) That there are plenty of Christian scientists-great scientists even, as that's what each of the individuals I mentioned were- who don't let their beliefs get in the way of the facts.
Are you telling us Mrs. 4paws is a Freeper? :)
Well, I'm not alone in my opinion so I feel pretty comfortable with it as do millions of other people.
If someone thinks facts debunk their beliefs, then how can they still have beliefs?
Scientific illiteracy is (and always has been) pervasive in society - people can believe what they're "comfortable with" if they want to, that's their right.
Just keep in mind that something isn't necessarily true because a lot of people believe it, and don't expect what's taught in a school science class to accomodate your comforts, that's all.
In that case, champagne for everyone! Oh wait, he's a liberal moron! Hold that order!
If you want to teach ID with other superstition, then have a superstition class. You could include astrology, palmistry, wiccan, and whatever else. Right along with ID. Our problem is that ID is superstition, not religion, and certainly not science.
Priceless. On it's own, without being dressed up as religion, it doesn't even belong in a philosophy class. Where's the philosophy?
" You seem to be confused about what the scientific definition of a theory means.
theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena,"
We're good so far.
"especially one that has been repeatedly tested"
Just don't infer from it being "widely tested" that it has been proven. Theories by definition are not proven fact.
"or is widely accepted"
That's a subjective defiition which is of little practical use.
"and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."
If you want accurate predictions you're much better off basing them on facts rather than theories, however since there's far more about the universe that we don't know than we do know theories are often all we have to make predictions with.
A theory is a compelling argument. It's a starting point from which we can build other theories around in an attempt to get a better idea of how the world really works.
However, you always have to keep in mind that theories are unproven and therefore you cannot prove anything based on a theory.
"When scientists call something a theory, like the theory of evolution, they mean the former definition, not the latter. ID, on the other hand, is not a scientific theory at all; it doesn't qualify as a scientific "alternative" to evolutionary biology."
You've just made a claim. Now I'm going to ask you to prove it. While theories are unproven factual claims must be proven.
Let's go back to your definition.
"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena"
Why does ID not fit within this.
It seems to fit for me.
Let's look at the rest.
"especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena"
The problem with subjective definitions is that they're not very useful once someone asks you to prove an assertion based on them.
Theren there's this wonderful adjective "scientific".
How are you going to define that? Some variation of the things other than the supernatural definition? Hasn't science been used to explain things that were through to be surpernatural.
Once we get the definition of a scientific theory nailed down I've got another theory for you, or at least a hypothesis if that makes you happier than calling it a theory. :)
The theory of evolution tells us that species have evolved through random mutation and natural selection.
There is no evidence that shows that evolution through random chance is more likely that evolution by an intelligent design that includes a level of randomness for diversity. After all why have a design in which everything is the same, that would be boring.
The weakness of the theory of evolution isn't the part of the theory that says things evolve. It's that is theorizes that they evolve due to random mutation rather than by design.
Suggesting that they evolve by design is an alternate theory that is still supported by the fossil record as well as is the theory of evolution.
The problem I have with teaching ONLY evolution in schools is that it obscures the fact that evolution is only a theory.
I'm not professing the accuracy of ID or evolution.
I have a serious problem with how we educate students in schools.
You're definition of a scientific theory is an example of what I see as the problem. Scientists know that theories are unproven, yet the try so hard to define a scientific theory in such a way as to give it so much credibility as to treat it like a fact.
We need to quit fooling ourselves about what we know and what we do not know. We also need to teach children to think logically and to think critically. We need to educate students, not teach them to repeat dogma. We need to think for ourselves. Otherwise our society stagnates.
I seriously believe this is one of the most important issues facing our society, and it's not really an argument between religion and science. It's more a battle between freedom of thought and conformance with dogma.
Do you still think I don't understand what a scientific theory is?
Did I make you question what you think a scientific theory is?
Am I just full of crap?
I find it puzzling that creationists argue on one hand that evolution couldn't possibly occur, while at the same time arguing that it occurred at an impossibly fast pace since the Flood to account for today's biodiversity. Explanation, anyone?
The IDer did it. A busy IDer that IDer is.
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.