Posted on 11/08/2005 4:17:17 AM PST by PatrickHenry
For the past six weeks, the debate over evolution and intelligent design has played out in a Pennsylvania courtroom.
Today, Kansas gets the national spotlight back — and with it, the possibility of a federal lawsuit here.
“What’s going on in Kansas,” said Kenneth Miller, a Brown University biologist, “is much more radical and much more dangerous to science education” than the contested decision in Dover, Pa., to mandate the teaching of “intelligent design” in public school science classes.
Intelligent design speculates that the world is too complex to have evolved without the help of an unknown designer — an alien, perhaps, or God. Such teachings in public schools, the ACLU says, violate constitutional restrictions on the separation of church and state.
“Absolutely, absolutely,” said T. Jeremy Gunn, director of the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, when asked if the new science standards Kansas is expected to adopt today could be vulnerable to litigation.
An official with the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, which helped defend the Dover school board, said Kansas should be able to avoid legal scrutiny. Casey Luskin said the standards here critique evolution, but they don’t promote intelligent design.
“It’s definitely a different issue in Kansas” than in Pennsylvania, Luskin said.
‘More radical’
It’s a different battle, perhaps, but definitely the same war. Many of the participants in the Pennsylvania trial are veterans of the Kansas evolution debates, and are keeping a close eye on today’s meeting of the Kansas Board of Education.
Miller, for example, testified in the Pennsylvania trial against intelligent design. He came to Kansas in 2000 to campaign against conservative school board members the last time the evolution debate flared up here.
The new Kansas standards literally change the definition of science, he said, so that natural explanations aren’t necessary to explain natural phenomena. That opens the door, he said, for astrology to be taught in public school classrooms.
“Is this what proponents on the Kansas Board of Education have in mind?” Miller asked.
Michael Behe, a Lehigh University scientist, wrote “Darwin’s Black Box” — a touchstone text of the intelligent design movement. He testified in Pennsylvania, and before the Kansas Board of Education when it held hearings on the science standards.
“I think having students hear criticisms of any theory is a great idea,” Behe said. “I think in one respect, it’ll mean it’s permissible to question evolution. For odd historical reasons, questioning evolution has been put off-limits. If Kansas can do it, it can be done elsewhere.”
More evolution?
Luskin agreed.
“In contrast to what everybody has said, Kansas students will hear more about evolution and not less about evolution,” he said. “This is a victory for people who want students to learn critical thinking skills in science.”
But Gunn noted that the vast majority of scientists believed in evolution as a proven explanation for the origins of life. The “handful” who don’t, he said, have resorted to making their case through politics instead of through traditional scientific methods.
“Do we teach both sides of the controversy on astrology in science class? Do we teach both sides of phrenology?” Gunn said. “This is not a scientific controversy, it’s a political controversy.”
Testimony in the Pennsylvania trial wrapped up on Friday. A ruling in that case is expected in January.
Actually, if you are right and atheists go to Hell, then at least they would still exist. Arguably, that would be an improvement over not existing at all.
If, on the other hand, atheists are right, then instead of getting a harp and halo, you will no longer be around on any level of existence.
Sounds like you have more to lose in your wager than they do. And that gives me a little chuckle, too.
Referring to your post #280...you really are nasty mouthed...to laugh at those who you think are f--ked is really, really awful...
What in the world makes you think that one who believes in evolution is f--ked?...in spite of what you might want to think, many Christians do believe in evolution, that evolution is Gods way of doing things...now you may not want to believe that, and that is certainly your right...
But you have absolutely no authority to determine who will or will not be f--ked.....It may very well be, that whether one believes in ID or evolution, it is of no consequence to God...all you have is your own narrow supposition on this matter...and to laugh at those who may be f--ked, as you so crudely put it, is certainly something God would take notice of...because He sees all, and knows your heart...I dont know of any authority that can make the claim that if one believes in evolution, that same person cannot believe in God...certainly not you...
I believe that God did create the beginnings of this natural world, and its entirely possible that He has used evolution...at least I keep an open mind about that, and prefer to think that God is so grand, and so powerful, that he can set things in motion, and that includes evolution...
What irks me, is when an IDer says that God had to do things in a particular way, because that particular way is the way they have chosen to believe and God had better fit into their tiny little narrow box, so they can believe in Him...
And that is what I believe many IDers do...they have a certain notion about the way God should be, and cannot admit the possibility that God may not be that way at all..
I suppose the IDers and the evolutionists will go round and round about this, and frankly I do enjoy the frank discussion of ideas...
However, you and the vile stuff coming out of your mouth, just shows, that all those who claim to love God and claim to be Christians, are just mouthing empty stuff...
The current statement mandates the teaching of "problems with evolution" that professionals in biology recognize as strawman models originated by non-scientists outside of the usual literature. Most of these "problems" can be directly traced to creationists of the Morris/Gish/Sarfati stripe.
Shouldn't be too hard. It's the same crap as Dover for anyone to see. There's evidence for it.
So evolution is a cabal?
As opposed to a pleonastic redundancy?
Under the aegis of a Department of Redundancy Department sheepskin.
Personally, I find it kinda amusing when atheists, who believe they will completely cease to exist upon death, are 'threatened' with an afterlife, albeit a miserable one.
From the site:
"Basically unknown to the world until about a decade ago is the now revealed and undisputed fact that the 15 billion year evolutionary model is derived from a holy book (the Kabbala) of the Pharisee religion."
Apparently. Does this mean they will be adding a 'Cabal Campaign Ribbon' to the standard uniform at Darwin Central?
Correction to my last sentence to you in my post...change the phrase 'all those', to 'some of those'...,
I should have proofread my post...and please, dont try to say I had some sort of Freudian slip, and tried to say that all God loving, God fearing people are guilty of the vile behavior of some of those who claim to love God, but allow their words betray them...
I dont believe that any true atheist fears what happens after death...apparently they believe that is just the end of things, and for many, that simply does not frighten them...when they start believing in an afterlife, they are no longer atheists..as least that is how I see it...
Oh, no! The Jooooze! And the very ones who killed Christ!
I do think it humorous that the only thing a teacher can say will be "Here's some things that evolution doesn't quite explain and the only answer to these problems is Space Aliens"
Yeh, there'll be a lot of laughing at the expense of Kansans and their kids.
Sitting on a cloud, wearing a halo, and mucking about with a harp might be fun for hours at a time. If we're talking about eternity, I'm calling it Hell.
The Almighty isn't a sadist. Atheists simply cease to exist. There is no "punishment" or any sort of retribution. God is a class act; He doesn't act like some snubbed two-year-old.
On the contrary - there is a consubstantial resemblance between your remark, my statement, and your comment.
Yeah. Superstition in general. Could be the Greek gods on Mt. Olympus. Could be voodoo. Could be creationism.
Here's a link to their Life Sciences standards. It's a pdf file, but only 4 pages long. The entire document is much larger. This one doesn't mention the supernatural. Item 7, starting on page 3, discusses their objections to evolution.
Here's a pdf file with their entire science standards, the August draft. It's 117 pages long: Science Education Standards. I can't pinpoint the problem area.
Darwin Central has just renamed their cafeteria from the Beagle's Barf to the Cabal Corral.
Now, now - they can take a page from the Behe manual. "Here are some things that evolution doesn't quite explain, and one possible answer is God. Who may be dead."
However, I find the misuse of the phrase "origin of life" by high school level biology teachers, and their ilk, to be a major part of the problem.
I understand descent of the species as a part of Darwinian observation. It doesn't bother me. What is bothersome is the attempt to misuse Darwin as an explanation for life's origin.
Everyone who knows Darwin on this list seems to agree that such an application is wrong, yet it is a VERY commonplace overstepping of the limits of Darwinian theory, which causes unnecessary confusion and aggravation.
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.