University of Idaho Bans All Alternatives to Evolution

Discovery Institute ^ | 10/06/05 | John MIller

[Sopater]

University of Idaho President Tim White has entered the debate pitting Charles Darwin's theories of life against religious-based alternatives by forbidding anything other than evolution from being taught in the Moscow school's life, earth and physical science classes.

"This (evolution) is the only curriculum that is appropriate to be taught in our biophysical sciences," he wrote. "Teaching of views that differ from evolution may occur in faculty-approved curricula in religion, sociology, philosophy, political science or similar courses. However, teaching of such views is inappropriate in our life, earth, and physical science courses."

[<1/1,000,000th%]

For years the scientific community has made interpretations based on many assumptions, such as that all life processes must be explained by natural processes and NOT with any external (supernatural or "Intelligent") intervention.

This is incorrect. Evidence has to be something available to anyone who wants to look.

This is why there's no supernatural evidence in science. No on can agree on what it is.

[Sopater]

If we teach kids that whatever we don't understand must be God then that just encourages giving up on scientific exploration. What if that had been the attitude in 1800? Think of all the things we didnt understand then.

Are you trying to say that most scientists of the 19th century didn't believe that God was responsible for the creation? Dude, what truck did you just fall off of? Have you ever heard of:

• John Dalton (1766–1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry
• Michael Faraday (1791–1867) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator
• Samuel F.B. Morse (1791–1872) Telegraph
• James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics
• Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) Genetics
• Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
• William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable
• James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics

That's just from the 19th century. Many more can be found at Answers in Genesis.
The fact is that most scientists believed in God and in creation and that nevers stopped any of them from investigating the creation.

[gondramB]

"Are you trying to say that most scientists of the 19th century didn't believe that God was responsible for the creation? Dude, what truck did you just fall off of?"


Nope, I am saying that this new trend to try to force science to teach unscientific things to students is a threat to our economy and our wellbeing.

If religion forces science to teach non-science what makes you think it will stop at this first issue?

[GreenOgre]

I'd love to read something for a change that proves ID is correct. Not that Evolution is flawed, something that shows ID is the correct theory.

[A Mississippian]

Look at the Grand Canyon geology lessons and what is being done to various radiometric dating techniques for a starter.

Grand Canyon strata show geologic time is imaginary

by Tas Walker

Click here for larger image.

Visitors to Grand Canyon hear the usual geological interpretation involving millions of years. We are told that the horizontal formation at the bottom, the Tapeats Sandstone, was deposited 550 million years ago, and the Kaibab Limestone that forms the rim is 250 million years old (see diagram below). It is difficult to imagine the immense time involved in this interpretation.

Interestingly, the Grand Canyon strata extend over 400 km (250 miles) into the eastern part of Arizona.¹ There, they are at least 1,600 m (one mile) lower in elevation. Supposedly, the uplift of the Grand Canyon area occurred about 70 million years ago—hundreds of millions of years after the sediments were deposited. One would expect that hundreds of millions of years would have been plenty of time for the sediment to cement into hard rock.

Yet, the evidence indicates that the sediments were soft and unconsolidated when they bent. Instead of fracturing like the basement did, the entire layer thinned as it bent. The sand grains show no evidence that the material was brittle and rock-hard, because none of the grains are elongated.¹ Neither has the mineral cementing the grains been broken and recrystallized. Instead, the evidence points to the whole 1,200-m (4,000-ft) thickness of strata being still ‘plastic’ when it was uplifted. In other words, the millions of years of geologic time are imaginary. This ‘plastic’ deformation of Grand Canyon strata dramatically demonstrates the reality of the catastrophic global Flood of Noah’s day.

Recommended Resources

Grand Canyon: A Different View (Hardcover) Visit the Grand Canyon yourself, through the photographs and essays in this book.

The Young Earth (Softcover) Explains in easy-to-understand terms how true science supports a young age for the Earth.

The Grand Canyon: Monument to the Flood (DVD)

Reference

1. Morris, J.D., The Young Earth, Master Books, Arizona, pp. 106–109, 1994. Return to text.

Also see: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp

[Right Wing Professor]

Do you mean "real-time changes" or just "real-time observations" of those changes?

Real time changes.

[KMJames]

Real time changes.

OK, I'll bite. What are some of these real-time changes showing species-to-species evolution?

[balrog666]

Your anti-science nonsense is refuted here.

[aNYCguy]

Evolution is a scientific theory based on a natrualistic/materialistic/humanistic philisophical worldview.

You're aware that science, by definition, examines only naturalistic causes, correct?

[Right Wing Professor]

species-to-species evolution?

Species to species evolution is your phrase, not mine.

But if you want historical evidence of speciation, it exists.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

[gondramB]

There is a reason for peer review - we don't take any one scientist's word for anything. If has discovered something new about the grand canyon and he is a scientist then he knows other scientists and periodicals to submit his findings to.

If the theory about the grand canyon needs to be changed then it will be.

[Coyoteman]

How many decades did science embrace the Piltdown man and only to find out it was a hoax.

How many decades? No more than two. Some researchers recognized early on that Piltdown didn't fit. Friedrichs and Weidenreich had both, by about 1932, published their research suggesting the lower jaws and molars were that of an orang (E.A. Hooton, Up from the Ape, revised edition; The MacMillan Co., 1946). This is what a 1946 textbook shows, several years before the claims for Piltdown were completely falsified.

[Coyoteman]

My original post: All you have to do to believe in a young earth is pervert any science that disagrees with your preconceived notions. Look at the Grand Canyon geology lessons and what is being done to various radiometric dating techniques for a starter.

Thank you. Your reponse makes my point completely.

[doc30]

In a philosophical way, evolution can be thought of as the mechanism of intelligent design. However, the compatibilty is between science and creationism. Science is a rigid, objective method that requires factual observation and testing. Evolution falls under this scope. Creationism lacks these parameters and cannot be construde as science. Creationism is a supposition of faith. Faith is not proof or fact based. Creationism, in the sceitific sense, does not offer testable hypothesis or predictions. That's the backbone of science. Scientists can't use creationism for research because there is nothing to test. The offense to sceintisits is to insert non-science as science. It denigrates both.

[balch3]

Withdraw all federal aid to the University of Idaho. That includes research grants to faculty, and Federal grants and loans to students.

[WKUHilltopper]

Yeah, but the point is...it was 20 years--at least 20 years of touting it as factual. There was no caution, no "let's test this out" before we claim it's real. It was "let me jump on the bandwagon so my peers will know I'm in agreement with them and thus obtain social and political capital". It was all an ego race. Nothing ever changes, btw.

[MortMan]

Well, the point for me is that while intelligent design may be a great topic for a philosophy course, it might have no place in a science course, if it can't offer a scientific response to the question of how the "intelligence" came to be.

So, what created the first form of "life". What force animated that first form of life? You can't argue chemical interaction (even with the incidence of energy forms such as lightning - there is far too much documented evidence that life cannot be created that way). So what happened?

I guess if creationism can't answer that question, it cannot be taught in science class, either.

[B Knotts]

Maybe I was not clear. I'm not advocating that creationism be taught in science classes. I was just saying that there is not necessarily a contradiction between evolution and belief in a Creator.

[doc30]

There was sarcasm in my post but it was there to illustrate a point.

There is no issue with believing ID and accepting evolution. The big problem is masquerading a theological and/or philosophical arguement into a scientific one.

Scientific theories, like the Big Bang, have root in observable facts. There is a lot of purely (at this point) theoretical research done in physics and cosmology, but that doesn't invalidate the work. One of the challenges is coming up with methods to test these very advanced theories.THe problem is that there are no scientific theories that allude to a higher power. Remember, a scientific theory is constructed from factual observations. There are no factual observations that can be used to construct a 'higher power' theory. There is no way to prove a higher power exists, let alone is responsible for the structure and properties of our universe. It would be like me saying I saw Humpty Dumty yesterday and I put him back together. How can you prove me wrong? You can't. For such a claim, the burden of proof should be to demonstrate that I did. Same thing with ID. It postulates a designer without any way to disprove it. The burden of proof needs to be on the IDers to show the existence of this creator is it is to be accepted as science. By extending the logic of including ID as science, then and non-falsifiable argument must be acceptable as science. That's how the Flying Spaghetti Monster satire came into existence. No one can disprove the existence of his noodly appendages and hence has equal validity, in the schools of logic, with ID.

[doc30]

I agree with you on that point. Sorry for going onto my what-isn't-science tirade.