[Coyoteman]

FYI ===> Placemarker <===

[VOA]

bump

[Blood of Tyrants]

The only way for one side to have its views reflected in the official curriculum is at the expense of the other side.

Totally incorrect. The correced version is as follows:

The only outcome evolutionists will accept is to have its views reflected in the official curriculum at the expense of the other side.>

They absolutely DO NOT want to allow ANYTHING other than evolution to be taught in schools.

[fizziwig]

This concept of "choice" I can support.

[wallcrawlr]

ping

Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info

[Rakkasan1]

get rid of gubmint education and you'll solve 2 problems.

[tallhappy]

Evolution is not a science to so many -- it is their religion, or world view. It's a visceral issue for them. They are evangelistic and zealous. It is a means to act out their adolescent rebellions.

The sceince is really of no consequence, it is about the Bible and God etc...Using evolutionary theory is just a means.

It harms actual science more than anything for them to distort and make an idol of it.

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

But why does everyone assume that we must settle it through an ideological death-match in the town square?

Because proponents of ID are making 100's of millions of dollars per year selling their programs to the public.

[Pondman88]

I was taught, in a Jesuit school, that evolution and Creationism (Genesis) actually reinforce each other, at least on the metaphorical level. It is probably the most profound lesson I learned in high school.

The whole ID debate bores me.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Publik skools no best.

[Pete]

Our founding fathers were prescient in calling for the separation of church and state, but failed to foresee the dire social consequences of entangling education and state. Those consequences are now all too apparent.

Not true. Benjamin Rush envisioned state run public schools where the Bible would be the primary textbook.

[trisham]

Our founding fathers were prescient in calling for the separation of church and state, but failed to foresee the dire social consequences of entangling education and state.

***************

He's got that right.

[MonroeDNA]

We're fighting because we don't want bible-thumpers to get their collective noses under the tent.

The religeous ID folks have damaged the Pubbie party enough. No more.

[Tom Bombadil]

Our founding fathers were prescient in calling for the separation of church and state, but failed to foresee the dire social consequences of entangling education and state.

An outstanding observation.

And a state monopoly on education is extremely wrong.

[doc30]

After generations in which evolution has been public schooling's sole explanation of human origins, only a third of Americans consider it a theory well-supported by scientific evidence. By contrast, 51 percent of Americans believe "God created human beings in their present form."

The problem is that sciecee isn't a democracy and the 51 percent of Americans who believe "God created human beings in their present form" are not 51 percent of scientists. It's not a matter of difference of opinion because science isn't a matter of opinion. Like the article says, these matters should give scientists pause, but for different reasons. It is because it is getting more and more obvious that we are not doing our best job of educating the public in basic scientific literacy. I'm not talking about evolution, but about scientific fundamentals. Perhaps it's because to understand much of modern science, it takes more than just quoting sound bites. The ID and creationsist types have done a very good job of co-opting scientific terminology and twisting it to suit their agenda and it does take quite a bit of knowledge to sift through a lot of the stuff that gets through. If we can't find a way to express that information to the general public in an easy to understand and quick to communicate way, the public will, by and large, remain truly in the dark about this subject.

[edsheppa]

I don't know what credence we ought to give to an argument about ID by someone who doesn't even know what it is (or purports to be). At the very least one ought to make an argument that discounts IDist explanations of what they want to show they're really only concerned about human origins.

[Antonello]

This article starts with a flawed premise, which results in misguided assumptions, and concludes with the right answer. Interesting.

[heldmyw]

QUOTE: "We're fighting because the institution of public schooling forces us to, by permitting only one government-sanctioned explanation of human origins."

Rubbish.

The Intelligent Design argument is essentially: "the existence of this beautiful and complex watch mandates the existence of a watchmaker."

Fine.

Seriously! Fine. The only problem is, that there is no measurable, testable, repeatable proof that can establish the existing of our 'watchmaker', call him/her/it what you will.

That makes I.D. "not science". That's all.

I.D. is fine for theology, philosophy, comparative religious belief studies and the like, but it does not belong in a science curriculum. It's not science.

Stop hyperventilating and accept the fact that some things exist through faith, and faith is a fine and decent thing. It makes life bearable for many, and comforts many more.

Comparing faith in a Creator with the hypotheses of evolutionists... well, they just don't belong in the same room.

[bahblahbah]

BTW, why are people bringing this into another evolution vs ID debate. Talk about the article which is about ending the political debate by ending the public education system. That should be something we all could agree on.

[stuartcr]

Why fight?...because some people just have to be right, and want the world to know it.