Posted on 11/08/2005 4:10:06 PM PST by WestVirginiaRebel
TOPEKA, Kan.-New science standards for Kansas' public schools, criticized for promoting creationism while treating evolution as a flawed theory, won approval Tuesday from the State Board of Education.
The board's 6-4 vote, expected for months, was a victory for intelligent design advocates who helped draft the standards and argued the changes would make teaching about evolution more balanced and expose studels teach science.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Yes.
As I said, to hell with the Republic and federalism apparently. I have no problem with paying taxes. They're there and they have to be paid. However, it is wrong to be forced to support something I do not use and will see no gain from.
Looks like a link to me, not an owner.
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/index.htm
Sounds like America wants to revert back to superstition while America's rivals continue to progress their scientific infrastructure. Will those children who grow up believing earth is 10,000 years old will become future scientists? Or religious broadcasters?
Michael Denton, author of "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis, has written a new book, "Nature's Destiny," on intelligent Design. In it he says this:
"it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes.This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law.
Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies."
Behe, the chief defence witness at Dover, has this to say about evolution:
I didn't intend to "dismiss" the fossil record--how could I "dismiss" it? In fact I mention it mostly to say that it can't tell us whether or not biochemical systems evolved by a Darwinian mechanism. My book concentrates entirely on Darwin's mechanism, and simply takes for granted common descent.
Yeeaaahhh!!! BOOOYYAAAHHH!!! Cry about it, O you who bow before apes. : )
You fit in just fine! Don't listed to these trolls.
"listed" of course means "listen"
You are just absolutely wrong there. You are working from faith, not science. But if you want to ignore reality, it is useless to try to explain it to you.
Wow...they really do breed 'em stupid in Kansas. What an unbelievable regression.
OK, so it's actually the hypothesis of ID.
I still can't think of any observation that would contradict it.
In fact, I don't think it's possible in principle. Unless there are some limits placed on the hypothetical designer's abilities, anything is possible.
If ID is ever to replace standard biology, it will have to account for all the facts that existing theory does. I just don't see how anyone can say with a straight face that the hypothetical designer made sure that every mutation common to both whales and cows is also found in hippos; or every one common to cats and dogs is also found in bears; or every one common to chimps and gorillas is also found in people....
Well, I guess it could have designed them that way, but ID cannot make another prediction like the ones I just listed, whereas standard biology can, and has, and has been right every time so far.
Because ID is not science, yet it is being forced into the classrooms by political means.
Some years ago, the Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture developed the The Wedge Strategy. We are now seeing that strategy in a number of different areas, including Kansas and Dover, PA. It is, in effect, bringing religion--and a single, specific religion, into public schools in violation of the US constitution.
All of this effort is not about teaching Buddhism in schools, or Old Man Coyote, or Nordic creation stories. It is about teaching the biblical version of creation. If it was, do you think it would be starting in Kansas?
Why do you think we are upset?
I say we have Chapter 1 the science book state that there's two theories of how life began. Both have pros and cons. Chapter 2 and beyond simply deal with facts w/out arguing for either origin, which is possible, See post 35 for example.
Opinions from both sides. That's what most people want.
I did not read the article yet but I like the title!
Thanks for pinging me wallcrawlr!!
Wolf
Please explain why you are posting outright lies like that. We'll wait.
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.