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."
But not everybody is a Young Earth Creationist. Did you see my post a few back where I mentioned Ussher, the man responsible for the 6,000 year old idea? (post#296) The calculations he did were questionable at best. Since science obviously disproves this, then his calculations were wrong. This issue is addressed in a book "The Fingerprint of God" by Hugh Ross, which I've also mentioned before. Scientists like Newton, Kepler, and Galileo who believed in creation, saw no conflict between what their calculations predicted for the size and age of the universe and the Bible. This only became an issue after Ussher's calculations, which some people have accepted as fact. If he had not done this, there would be no controversy.
I see the point you're making. One of the problems of interperting the Bible is the fact that it was written in different languages and we're reading an English translation. Are you aware of the Gap theory concerning the creation account in Genesis? That's based on knowledge of Hebrew. Taking a literal interpretation of a translation can lead to error. I'm afraid that a lot of error is from Christians not studying and knowing the Bible well enough. The Bible also contains poetry which should not be taken literally. I have found the Bible to be surprisingly accurate to science in some of the comments made by the different authors. There are things they make reference to that I don't think they'd have any way of knowing but when I read them, I recognize them because of our current knowledge of science.
Indeed.
Any many of us who are scientists are also Christian and see no controversy between science (including evolution) and Christianity. Indeed, I would argue, as a matter of my personal faith, that the pursuit of understanding of God's magnificent creation (in the form of science) is one form of worship.
Sometimes it is just the observation:
The quiet of early morning, with the first rays of the sun angling through the rising mist among the towering coastal redwoods.
Sorry, I wasn't terribly clear. What I meant was that changes as large as a cat to a dog (they are related) within one generation does not happen. That is not how changes from one taxon to another occur. The change is gradual, and by that I do not mean gradual in time, evolution does not proceed at a constant rate, I mean that the changes are small, very hard to see, and cumulative.
All changes are the result of small, cumulative changes at the species level.
I was an eleven year old Christian, living in a creationist household, intending to become Lutheran minister. By the time I was 13 or 14 I was an agnostic, by 15 an atheist.
Why? Are you retarded? Or just stupid?
Then you've never understood a even a third grade science book. Now why does that not surprise me?
Why are you evos always calling those who disagree with you names? Childish.
Speaking of childish ...
You've just elucidated why Intelligent Design is not science. There is no way to identify or differentiate between designed that looks designed and designed made to appear natural.
ID also infers that complexity is a hallmark of design, without showing that nature can not produce complexity; it is nothing but an argument from incredulity. They need to show, unequivocally, that nature can not produce complexity, rather than just claim that that is the case.
So obvious, so simple - why don't these people ever think before they post?
Do I detect a little bias against NYers?
How do you feel about Canadians?
But you used it well, even if the Creationist buffoons continue to stick their fingers in their ears.
How old do you think the earth is? I too had assumed through previous posts that you are a YEC.
The evidence only points to a global flood if you cherry pick your evidence, distort the interpretation, ignore all the laws of physics possible, and ignore geological evidence that can not be countered.
Btw, the evidence against a global flood is from geology, not evolutionary biology.
According to my sources, you have it right.
True, but how do you test for I, D, or P?
"$It also depends on whether it appears or is random because what we think or expect to happen doesn't happen when we think it should.
Randomness is determined by statistical analysis not by unexpected results.
"The randomness could have simply been incorporated as a design feature; programmed in, as it were. There's no way to know if the randomness is truly ramdon in a non created universe or part of a greater plan which we are not aware of.
This is why ID cannot be considered a science, any number of hypotheses can be proposed with no way of eliminating any of them.
BTW, evolution, although not directed by an ID, it is directed by whatever selection forces are found in the organism's environment.
Strictly speaking, mutations are not truly random as some areas of the genome are more prone to mutations than others and some areas of the genome have corrective mechanisms that limit mutations.
"I don't think randomness can be a very good support for the ToE.
By itself, randomness is not support for or against the ToE. The ToE has many other supportive lines of evidence.
I am originally from Long Island, NY. I moved to NC when I was 21; I am 34 now. Somehow my not being a native Southerner (which I never claimed) is supposed to count as an argument against my positions. I had asked him why he sarcastically implied I was claiming Hitler as a scientist. He still hasn't answered. I guess that's what counts as creationist argumentation these days.
"Rendell back evolution---"
Completely understandable as he thinks the majority of voters in Penna are just a 'bunch of monkeys' to do his bidding---sorry to admit it but so far he has been right
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.