Science and Scripture - 'Intelligent design' theory definitely belongs in biology class

LAT ^ | September 28, 2005 | Crispin Sartwell

[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.

[RightWingAtheist]

Now this is something new...anarcho-syndicalists for creationism.

[ASOC]

I wonder if the Church of the FSM will chime in on this?

May his noodley appendage touch you.

[GSlob]

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.

[Jeff Gordon]

Now I have seen everything.

[Right Wing Professor]

"It's total nonsense, but these people are too ignorant to know any better, so let's teach it"

That about it?

[Mylo]

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.

[RichInOC]

"Bother..." said Pooh, as he shot out his monitor upon seeing yet another bloody crevo thread.

[Tailgunner Joe]

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.

[wgeorge2001]

For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.

[bennowens]

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.

[Mylo]

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.

[Sun]

There is absolutely NO PROOF for Evolution, so what is that doing in the schools?

[Sun]

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

[Ignatius J Reilly]

"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.

[Mylo]

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.

[bennowens]

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.

[Coyoteman]

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.

[Mylo]

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.

[Mylo]

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.