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 ...
Elijah Muhammed, founder of the Black Muslims, taught that the white race was created by black scientists in a test tube 10,000 years ago. Is that an acceptable intelligent design explanation?
Well, we should at least teach the controversy and make students aware of differing ideas. /postmodernist mode.
Let's take it a step further. The majority of citizens of a respective state vote representation into their legislature, who in turn passes legislation that certain values must be taught in school systems. Now even though the majority of these citizens want these values taught, they are not allowed because of the d*mned national government. What are they to do? Send all their children to private schools even though their tax dollars continue to support the public school system?
Yep, that's fair. All hail the d*mned 'republic'
That's just an embarrassment. If ever there was a great argument for home-schooling, this is it.
If your faith teaches you that one race is superior to another or that the earth is, in fact, 6000 years old or that Jews are the center of an international conspiracy should the schools alter their curriculum to 'respect' those theories? If you don't like science, or whatever else the schools teach, then pull your kids and teach them yourself.
What are they to do? Send all their children to private schools even though their tax dollars continue to support the public school system?
Yes.
The problem is conflicting beliefs! If everyone believed the same way there would be no problem. But they don't.
One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.Robert A. Heinlein
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
ID is science
Design detection involves three steps.
• First: Find a pattern of events that is functional, carries a message or has some discernable structure - that reflects "specified complexity."
• Second: Rule out Necessity as a cause of the pattern.
• Third: Rule out Chance as a cause of the pattern. If you find such a pattern and you conclude that it is not likely that it results from chance or necessity, then you should be able to reasonably infer that the pattern is designed. - i.e, the product of some mind. This method of design detection is outlined in considerable detail by William A. Dembski who holds Ph.Ds. in mathematics and philosophy in the "Design Inference."
Lets look at the first step - determining whether the pattern reflects "specified complexity. Although this may be an oversimplification of the detailed description in the Design Inference, generally specified complexity exists when the pattern conveys a message, consists of a direction or performs some function that is independent of the function of each of the events that make up the pattern. Specified complexity reflects an ordering of events by intention. Hence, once we do see function, direction or purpose in a form or a pattern of events then we have evidence of intention that supports a design inference.
Lets assume that the pattern of events to be analyzed is the sequence of nucleotide bases that appear in the DNA sequence of the first cell. Current science textbooks suggest that this sequence along with the sequence for all of the other genes needed was arranged only by chance and necessity operating on a prebiotic soup containing the necessary chemical constituents. The alternative explanation is that the patterns of events consisting of the DNA together with all the other machinery necessary to the existence of a replicating cell, was arranged by design.
Using design detection, we would consult with biochemists and inquire whether the DNA sequence has structure, function or carries a message. The answer is that the sequence does all three. In fact the sequence reflects a language. This observation is reflected daily in the science literature. The apparent design exhibited by living organisms is reflected by the labels put on cellular systems by modern science:
• the genetic "code"
• the "blueprint" of life
• this biological mechanism was "invented"
• this biological system uses this "strategy,"
• "biological information"
• "hardware and software" in the cell
Perhaps the most famous critic of design is Richard Dawkins who admits that living organisms give the appearance of design: "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." [Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, at 1 (W.W. Norton & Company, 1996)]. Accordingly, the first step in the design detection process is more or less acknowledged by modern science. No one seriously argues that living systems do not appear to be designed.
The next step is to rule out necessity (physical and chemical laws) as an explanation for the arrangement of the DNA sequence. Scientists interested in design detection note that there is no known chemical or physical characteristic that requires any particular arrangement of nucleotide bases along the sugar and phosphate backbones of the DNA strand. Since there is no required arrangement, law or necessity does not appear to play a role in the arrangement of the precise instructions which provide the "blueprint" for the formation of the entire living organism. Scientists have also noted that if there was a law that would require a particular arrangement, it would be impossible for the DNA to have the capacity to effectively carry any biological information. The purpose of this discussion is not to prove this point, but merely to show how design detection works and to also note that it involves observations that are guided by the use of physics, chemistry and biochemistry.
The final step is to rule out chance as a mechanism for producing a pattern of events which appear to have been arranged by design. Without attempting to get into the detail, the estimates of the probability of a simple DNA sequence coding for a single protein with a 100 amino acids by chance has been set at effectively zero. Recent scientific studies suggest that the first cell is thought to have had DNA that would code for at least 300 proteins, each consisting of 100 or more amino acids.
Ruling out chance thus involves a knowledge and use of statistics, mathematics and probability theory as well as biochemistry. Because probability is affected by the amount of time involved and the number of trials that may be involved, the fossil record comes into play. Darwin postulated that his theory would not work if there were not enough time over which change could be effected gradually in a continuum of numerous small steps. Hence, a design theorist will examine the fossil record to determine the amount of time that exists between changes in the development of diversity. Sharp bursts of development with intervening periods of biological stasis support design theory, while gradualism tends to support chance based mechanisms.
Chance explanations also are vulnerable to observations relating to the nature of complexity itself. Biochemist Michael Behe has demonstrated that biological mechanisms in living organisms are irreducibly complex. He uses as an example a bacterial flagellum that requires 40 moving parts. This biological machine that is believed to be a component of the most primitive cell will not work at all unless all of the parts are assembled at the same time. Natural selection can not build such a machine because the individual parts have no selective value in isolation. They have selective value only when they become a part of a functional whole. The conclusion that one draws from this observation is apparent when one considers the efficacy of a mechanism that operates on chance and necessity alone. It operates merely like a sieve. Because it does not have the tools that a mind has to perceive, think, decide and to direct the arrangement and coordination of future events, it is a mechanism whose competency for assembly is questionable in concept alone.
Is science God? Is the belief in science the established religion of America?
What's refusing to believe in science called?
ID is science
No need for me to read further. You lost me there. Even Behe concedes that 'science' must be redefined for ID to be defined as science.
At last - sanity has been injected into the education system. At least there is now a partial antidote for the silliness of evolutionary "science." Way to go Kansas!
The very concept that people have inherent dignity and that they have unalienable rights VIOLATES THE SEPARATION of church and state. Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and Constitution should be banned in public schools.
Excellent point! Science shows clearly that races differ in their abilities and character. It is the Christian RELIGION that teaches people are equal before God.
So which race is superior?
Patently false.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=9
One further note should be made about the now infamous “separation” dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase “separation of church and state.” It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment-as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did.
In summary, the “separation” phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson’s explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. “Separation of church and state” currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant.
An example of evolution in action. Evolution of the language.
I wish I had the choice to not have read about evolution.
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.