Posted on 10/07/2005 7:35:38 AM PDT by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at discovery.org ...
Do you have a problem with the concept that things deteriorate with age?
That said, there are a great many transition fossils (many thousands) for later stages of evolution.
My guess is that it's arrogance. These guys have spent their entire lives studying and writing about this tripe. To introduce anything else would be an admission they've wasted their lives.
Neither theory can 'answer' that question.
Isn't "Theory" just another form of "philosophy"? A theory by it's very nature is something unproven. If it was proven it would be scientific fact. So, to exclude all "philosphical" elements out of a scientific curriculum would necessitate the removal of theoretical science as well, wouldn't it?
So you believe that science is advanced by the a priori dismissal of all but a single preferred theory? What an interesting position you have.
Your faith is commendable.
"Do you have a problem with the concept that things deteriorate with age?"
Right, someone ate the evidence?
Similarly, if spontaneous creation is your theory, who created the matter from which the universe/earth was made?
How long have you been reading?
I've been reading long enough to know that since that quote appeared in the article it would have been superfluous for me to repeat it. If you would rather me repeat exerpts from the article, word for word, before commenting on them, I could do that but I figured most FReepers could follow along.
That said, you comment about "where the intelligence came from" as a disqualifier for SCIENTIFIC (happy?) discussion in not valid, in my opinion. There are very similar questions that pop up on the evoloution side. That is the crux of my point.
So the turtle thing is out then.
"What does that have to do with the theory of evolution?"
Well, the poster I was responding to stated that the question of the origin of the "intelligence" in "intelligent design" disqualified intelligent design from scientific discussion. My questions about the origins of the matter and energy of Big Bang are of the same nature yet Big Bang IS included in scientific discussion.
"Isn't this the same mentality which convicted Galileo to life imprisonment for arguing that Coppernicus was right and that the Earth and planets DID revolve around the Sun? Ironicly enough, this time it's the secular authorities repressing alternitive views becasue they may be tained with a religious componant, rather than the other way around as with Galileo."
That's really not true - there is nothing in theory of evolution that precludes God. What science is saying is "only teach things in science class for which there is evidence."
If tomorrow I were to find proof of God that would stand up to scientific scrutiny I am positive I could get it examined by scientists and with enough proof get it added to the curriculum.
But it's not a waste! Isn't that what scince has always been about: looking at old ideas, pondering new ones, even if they don't lead to where expected? It's not just one guy in a lab going "AHA, I've discovered the secret of the universe!" It's dissention and cooperation and analysing new ideas, even unpopular ones.
Intelligent design may not be the answer, but how will they ever know if they won't even ask the question?
I second your opinion.
Not to mention the theory of evolution can not be tested by empirical means, which is the basis of science, period.
Finene, but in that case, students should take both science and philosophy. Without the other, each concept loses perspective. It's like teaching music theory but not mathematics.
if evolution is true AND God is true, why teach one but not the other?
More like Planned vs. Actual
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.