Skip to comments.
Science and Scripture - 'Intelligent design' theory definitely belongs in biology class
LAT ^
| September 28, 2005
| Crispin Sartwell
Posted on 09/30/2005 3:33:47 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
I DON'T BELIEVE that the universe was intelligently designed. I don't think that "intelligent design" is a scientific theory: It appeals to the supernatural and cannot be empirically tested. I think its proponents have religious motivations for trying to insert it into the curriculum.
But I also believe it should be taught in high school biology classes.
The federal court case that began this week originated in York County, Pa., where my kids go to the public schools. The school board of the Dover district mandated that a four-paragraph statement be read in high school biology classes, setting out intelligent design as an alternative to evolution for explaining the current configuration of organisms. Several Dover parents brought suit to prevent that statement from being read.
The issue is symptomatic of the continuing divisions in American culture, as severe now as when the Scopes Monkey Trial was raging in 1925. It tracks fairly closely the conflict between red states and blue states, the religious and the secular, Republicans and Democrats, and so on.
And though Pennsylvania is nominally blue, this county in the middle-south of the state is rock-ribbed red and Christian to the hilt.
To understand what the Dover school board was trying to accomplish, consider how you would feel if your children, in the course of a compulsory education, were taught doctrines that contradicted your most cherished beliefs that blandly invalidated your worldview without discussion. Think about being heavily taxed to destroy your own belief system. That's how the people in this community feel.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: biology; crevolist; scalpstaken; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-139 next last
To: PatrickHenry; RadioAstronomer; Right Wing Professor; Ichneumon; Mylo; Quark2005; VadeRetro; ...
Now this is something new...anarcho-syndicalists for creationism.
To: Tailgunner Joe
I wonder if the Church of the FSM will chime in on this?
May his noodley appendage touch you.
3
posted on
09/30/2005 4:07:33 PM PDT
by
ASOC
(Insert clever tagline here: _______)
To: Tailgunner Joe
It belongs not in a biology class but in a theology class, or maybe in the class dealing with the history of religion and culture, together with the flat earth resting on the backs of three gigantic elephants, the solid vault of heavens separating the waters below from waters above, or the astronomy of Dante's "Paradiso". I am not sure that such a class could be taught at lower than college level.
4
posted on
09/30/2005 4:11:12 PM PDT
by
GSlob
To: Tailgunner Joe
Now I have seen everything.
5
posted on
09/30/2005 4:37:11 PM PDT
by
Jeff Gordon
(Lt. Gen. Russel Honore to MSM: "You are stuck on stupid. Over.")
To: Tailgunner Joe
"It's total nonsense, but these people are too ignorant to know any better, so let's teach it"
That about it?
To: RightWingAtheist
Hey I'm on your immediate 'creationist claptrap' ping list.
I'm honored oh great RightWingAtheist.
Thanks! I hope my knowledge of Molecular Biology and the Scientific method can be of service; my Liege.
7
posted on
09/30/2005 4:41:17 PM PDT
by
Mylo
( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
To: Tailgunner Joe
"Bother..." said Pooh, as he shot out his monitor upon seeing yet another bloody crevo thread.
8
posted on
09/30/2005 4:42:44 PM PDT
by
RichInOC
("The coffee is strong at Cafe du Monde, the doughnuts are too hot to touch..." Save the Big Greasy!)
To: Right Wing Professor
It sounds to me like he understands that maybe it shouldn't be up to him to decide who get to teach what in a free country. He understands that Christians don't want to be taxed so the money can go to the anti-Christian brainwashing proprgams of the commie ACLU and NEA.
9
posted on
09/30/2005 4:43:02 PM PDT
by
Tailgunner Joe
(Millions for defense but not one penny for tribute!)
To: GSlob
For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.
10
posted on
09/30/2005 4:46:14 PM PDT
by
wgeorge2001
(For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.)
To: All
There are a lot of things that cannot be tested scientifically...like gravity and infinity. We have no idea what is at the end of the universe or why we do not fly off into space. Better get off of that high horse and realize that our finite minds simply cannot understand the infinite.
To: bennowens
Ummmmmm.....
Gravity cannot be tested? Maybe your mind is a little TOO finite. Why don't you take two Physics textbooks and call me in the morning.
12
posted on
09/30/2005 5:03:02 PM PDT
by
Mylo
( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
To: GSlob
There is absolutely NO PROOF for Evolution, so what is that doing in the schools?
13
posted on
09/30/2005 5:26:25 PM PDT
by
Sun
(NOW is the time to contact President Bush; tell him to pick a strict Constructionalist, 202-456-1111)
To: All
Educators must keep up with science. And it is science that is pointing to the inevitable conclusion that an intelligent Creator was the architect for this magnificent universe.
http://www.aclj.org/news/Read.aspx?ID=1190
14
posted on
09/30/2005 5:27:15 PM PDT
by
Sun
(NOW is the time to contact President Bush; tell him to pick a strict Constructionalist, 202-456-1111)
To: Tailgunner Joe
"Christians don't want to be taxed so the money can go to the anti-Christian brainwashing proprgams"
Since when is science anti-christian? The early Roman Catholic church believed that but have changed thier tune. Truth in science does not make judgements about God, trying to understand the way the world works without throwing up your hands and saying ' I don't understand, therefore God did it' is not an atack on your faith. If it is may I suggest your faith is not what you think it is.
To: Sun
No proof?
Hmmm......
Seems that Darwin postulated genetic diversity within a population. DNA testing shows that there is indeed such a thing.
Darwin postulated that some individuals that exhibited a beneficial trait (being heterozygous for sickle cell anemia infers malaria resistance)would be more likely to pass on their genetics to successive generations. DNA testing of populations where malaria is endemic show this to be true.
That is mostly all there is to evolution through natural selection. The rest is mostly details about speciation, hybridization,genetic drift, founder effect, Hardy-Weinburg equilibrium. You know, really boring stuff. But there are some good "proof"'s for that as well.
16
posted on
09/30/2005 5:35:08 PM PDT
by
Mylo
( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
To: Mylo
Hi Milo
Sure you can quantify gravity...but not explain how it works. I believe you are a scientist as well. Einstein was working on this before he died...the Unified Field theory...but nothing has been done on it since.
To: Sun
There is absolutely NO PROOF for Evolution, so what is that doing in the schools? Right, everybody knows that (except CS types). Scientific theories cannot be proved, but they can be disproved (falsified).
But in 150 years evolution has not been disproved. There is actually a huge amount of data now that Darwin didn't have available back then, and it supports the theory of evolution. Geology, paleontology, genetics, biology, archaeology, and most of the other sciences have all made great advances in the past 150 years. Some of these sciences didn't even exist as we know them 150 years ago.
Evolution is in the schools because it is science.
18
posted on
09/30/2005 5:36:15 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: bennowens
Gravity is one of the three fundamental forces of the universe; along with the Strong force and Electromagnetism (they once thought there was a "weak force" of atomic decay, but it has been seen to be an aspect of Electromagnetism).
Electromagnetism is the easiest to understand in that we know the carrier; photons. It is also easy to measure and predict. It can be "tested". It is both an attractive and a repulsive force (opposites attract, like repels).
The Strong Force opposes the Electromagnetic repulsion that protons exert upon each other in the atomic nucleus. The carrier is also known. It is also easy to measure and predict. It can be "tested". It is only an attractive force.
Gravity is the universal attraction of mass. The carrier is unknown. It is also easy to measure and predict. It can be "tested" (they tested Einsteins theory that gravity would effect time). It is also only an attractive force.
On an atomic scale the Strong Force is predominant, and keeps our atoms together.
On our scale Electromagnetism is responsible for photosynthesis, oxidative phosphorylation, electricity, microwaves, light, X-rays and just about everything else.
On a celestial scale Gravity is predominant and the other forces really don't even register on the scale.
So if you mean "not explain how it works" you mean that the carrier particle is unknown you are correct. But we know how to measure and predict Gravity and can measure Relativistic effects with it, and therefore I would say that we certainly "know how it works".
And I'm still shaking my head in disbelief about you saying that Gravity cannot be tested.
19
posted on
09/30/2005 5:48:42 PM PDT
by
Mylo
( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
To: bennowens
And I'd say reconciling the Electromagnetic and the "weak force" would be a something that has been done on the Unified Field Theory. Now there are only three forces to reconcile.
20
posted on
09/30/2005 5:52:30 PM PDT
by
Mylo
( scientific discovery is also an occasion of worship.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-139 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson