Theory of intelligent design making its way into Broward textbooks (Florida)

Sun-sentinel.com ^ | December 9, 2005 | Chris Kahn

[mlc9852]

Broward County on Thursday narrowed its choices for high school Biology I textbooks to two finalists, both of which have been under scrutiny by Christian conservatives who want to change the way students learn about the origin of life.

Both have edited passages about evolution theory during the past few years after receiving complaints from the Discovery Institute. The think tank sponsors research on intelligent design, which argues life is so complicated, it must have been fashioned by a higher being. One of the books also has added a short section on creationism.

[Just mythoughts]

"The $7 billion textbook industry is extremely competitive, Driesler said, and publishers have to think about how parents will react to the book."

Follow the MONEY!!!!!!

[mlc9852]

Follow GOD.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Brain waves, pulse, and respiration are not things. They are processes possible on account of the way things are organized. But you seem to be convinced that "you" are co-terminous with the material that makes up your flesh, and there is nothing beyond that. That's okay. A good many people believe as much. But I would not be so bold as to say whether science is, or is not, capable of determining that you consist of more than the material that comprises your body. It is the work of science, after all, to explore what we do not understand.

[elbucko]

...the unimportance of human beings as creations of God.

I did not post that human beings were not unimportant creations of God. That is your concept. I did post that there was a time and place for everything, just as the Bible says. God belongs in church, science in the schools. It's actually a sin to dress God in a science smock to try and smuggle Him into the public schools as less than He is. "ID" is less than God.

[mlc9852]

I would think God can go anywhere he pleases, be it schools or anywhere else. I like knowing He's around.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Brain waves, pulse, and respiration are not things. They are processes possible on account of the way things are organized."

Actually, they are measurements of processes.

"But you seem to be convinced that "you" are co-terminous with the material that makes up your flesh, and there is nothing beyond that."

I have no evidence that there is anything else.

"But I would not be so bold as to say whether science is, or is not, capable of determining that you consist of more than the material that comprises your body."

It isn't capable.

"It is the work of science, after all, to explore what we do not understand."

But it is not the work of science to make up untestable propositions and try to pass them off as science.

[FOG724]

What they need are lessons on how to vote properly.

[elbucko]

I would think God can go anywhere he pleases, be it schools or anywhere else.

I would think that He can as well, and without your assistance. Much as you think He needs it.

I like knowing He's around.

I don't think that He is that into you, to concern Himself with being only in your custody.

[mlc9852]

Oh, He's big enough for everybody. And He is concerned about me and about you, too.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I have no evidence that there is anything else.

Do you have any evidence for "self-awareness?"

But it is not the work of science to make up untestable propositions . . .

To declare God as forever outside the purview of science is an untestable proposition in and of itself, and therefore, by your own definition, not the work of science (i.e. not a valid scientific proposition). Science does not declare what propositions will be forever untestable, unless it happens to be guided by a particular ideology. In your case the philosophical outlook is clear: atheism. As such there is good reason to believe you will always interpret and explain the evidence according you your fundamental understanding of reality. It may or not be correct, but for you and those like you it is "science."

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Do you have any evidence for "self-awareness?"

Yes, do you? :)

"To declare God as forever outside the purview of science is an untestable proposition in and of itself, and therefore, by your own definition, not the work of science"

We've been over this road before. Science says NOTHING about a deity or deities. Propositions about deities, and the supernatural in general, cannot be tested. There, by definition, they are outside of science.

"Science does not declare what propositions will be forever untestable, unless it happens to be guided by a particular ideology."

If the proposition that a deity or deities exist becomes testable, then science may have something to say about it. Right now, it isn't testable, so what can science say other than nothing at this time?

"In your case the philosophical outlook is clear: atheism."

You assume too much.

"As such there is good reason to believe you will always interpret and explain the evidence according you your fundamental understanding of reality. It may or not be correct, but for you and those like you it is "science.""

When any evidence comes about to support the claim that a deity or deities exist, I will make a judgment. Right now, there isn't any, and to me, that makes the whole thing a dead issue. I don't bother myself with propositions that have no evidence.

[elbucko]

Oh, He's big enough for everybody.

That's what science is trying to tell you, but you don't want to be convinced.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Science says NOTHING about a deity or deities.

That is an atheistic definition of science.

[Fester Chugabrew]

What is your evidence for self-awareness?

[mlc9852]

I thought science didn't say anything about God.

[mlc9852]

But on occasion they have been wrong. And it's usually medical professionals, not scientists, who make the determination.

[mlc9852]

Maybe scientists some day will be able to prove God exists. They should at least try.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"That is an atheistic definition of science."

You don't seem to know what the definition of atheism is. Atheism means that one is saying that there aren't any deities. Science is NOT saying this. Science says NOTHING about the existence of deities. NOTHING. The term for science's position is agnostic. It doesn't say they do or don't exist. It's not a scientific question. How can science deal with something untestable? It's ludicrous to demand it should.

"What is your evidence for self-awareness?"

I am.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"But on occasion they have been wrong. And it's usually medical professionals, not scientists, who make the determination."

That doesn't change the qualitative difference between being alive and being dead. And where do you think medical professionals get their definitions from? Medical scientists.

[dmz]

I think you misunderstand mlc's purpose for being on these threads. He/she has been pretty open about it on other evo threads. It's sport for him/her, just as it is for some of us on the evo side.

Let's face it, in however many threads about evolution there have been, does anyone think someone has changed their opinion on the topic?