Intelligent Design at George Mason University

"If you look at the Kansas School board, they are allowing EXACTLY the same thing. ID is *NOT* required as a subject for discussion but the teacher, at his discretion is *ALLOWED* to present it. Simply discussing it briefly in class has nothing to do with the reputation of a school. It is about presenting EXISTING point of views, supporting and criticizing them as the case may be. I don't see what the big deal is..."

You're dead on. The school board should allow a teacher to present existing points of view in their own discretion. With any luck, your kids might get Timothy McVeigh for civics, David Irving for history, and Osama Bin Laden for sociology. It's up to them what to teach, not the school board. Yes, a very good idea!

With any luck, your kids might get Timothy McVeigh for civics, David Irving for history, and Osama Bin Laden for sociology. It's up to them what to teach, not the school board. Yes, a very good idea!

This is of course, using an extreme case to take the place of a reasonable case. Much like people shouting at Bush for his NSA surveillance and saying, with any luck, he'd be looking at every American's google searches, your e-mail and your library borrowing. There used to be a word for it... let me see -- ALARMIST is the first word that comes to my mind.

Alarmist?? A bit extreme, yes, but hardly alarmist. But you miss the underlying point. A school board allowing teachers to decide what is science based on their own personal beliefs is like a legislature allowing individual doctors to decide whether an abortion is legal based on the own opinions after research. Some doctors, based on their research, will say that science supports Roe v. Wade and say abortions are legal and do them. Other doctors will say that, based on their research (and probably their faith), science does not support Roe v. Wade and say that abortions are illegal and not do them. Both positions have substantial support, so it must be ok, huh?

I submit that the Kansas School Board's proposal is like a legislature refusing to make a law, instead suggesting that activist judges make their own independent legal decisions based on what the individual judge thinks the law should be. Of course, by doing so, the legislators are abdicating their responsibility (legislative duty) to review the relevant evidence, hear the proponents of relevant ideas, and make law based on the evidence, will of the people, and common good. It's just a bad idea, IMHO.

It's interesting that evolution has been around for 140 years and most people don't believe it, no matter how many times it is shoved down their throats.

First, Eienstein had a lot of difficulty believing in quantum mechanics. Actually, a lot of professors of quantum mechanics occassionally have trouble believing it. Even after studying quantum theory you have a hard time believing it even after seeing that it is true.

For example, in the next second, there is a probability that some parts of my body may travel to the moon and back. It is a really small probability, but it exists anyway. Second, if you shoot an electron at a pair of small holes, the electron behaves as if it goes through both holes at the same time. Lets try special relativity too. Special relativity says e=mc2. It also says if you travel in a circle at nearly the speed of light, you will not age relative to your peers.

A theory that is hard to believe does not mean it is not true. Every time the sun shines is proof, special relativity is true and every silicon chip that works is proof quantum theory is correct.

Further, every time you follow a doctors orders to take a full course of antibiotics even after you feel well is proof that evolution is correct. That is if you stop the antibiotics too soon, by survival of the fittest, a few bacteria mutate and evolve into something drug resistant that may kill you.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator…”

If the above quote is from The Declaration Of Independence (I believe it is) and The Declaration Of Independence is included in the United States Code as part of the “Organic Laws” (I believe it is), doesn't that mean it is a matter of law that there is a Creator? The dispute then might be whether or not what was created had an underlying design or perhaps whether or not said Creator is Intelligent, a point some might argue considering the state of humanity.

Type “Organic Laws” with quotes in the search word(s) field

Alarmist?? A bit extreme, yes, but hardly alarmist

Delete the words "a bit" from your statement and we agree. A school board allowing teachers to decide what is science based on their own personal beliefs is like a legislature allowing individual doctors to decide whether an abortion is legal based on the own opinions after research.

Add that is my point --- it isn't just a PERSONAL belief. There are thousands of scientists out there ( albeit a minority ) who hold the same doubts about Darwinism. The Kansas guidelines simply ACCEPT this as a given fact ( and it is ).

Your analogy to doctors using their personal opinion is not apt IMHO. The fact is, OVER 160 years have passed since Darwin proposed his theory and yet, the evidence, when perused does not unambigously support random mutation plus natural selection in creating biological complexity. Even prominent Paleontolists like Colin Paterson admit so over a hundred years later. The fact that the vast majority of Americans and even Brits hold the same skepticism simply shows that your analogy is an exagerration.

Other doctors will say that, based on their research (and probably their faith), science does not support Roe v. Wade and say that abortions are illegal and not do them. Both positions have substantial support, so it must be ok, huh?

I would say yes. If your argument is simply to use those who do not support Roe Vs Wade as an analogy to those who favor allowing teachers to let students know that an idea called Intelligent Design exists, hey, I congratulate you. It is an apt analogy. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the founders of NARAL and one of its leaders was COMPELTELY CONVINCED after studying high tech sonograms that were made available in the mid 70's (after Roe Vs Wade passed ) that what we are doing is killing a baby.

I submit that the Kansas School Board's proposal is like a legislature refusing to make a law, instead suggesting that activist judges make their own independent legal decisions based on what the individual judge thinks the law should be.

Nope, what the Kansas School Board's proposal is, is that it is simply acknowledging a LEGITIMATE DEBATE that exists TODAY. It is also allowing reasonable teachers to tell students ( without coercing them ) that DOUBTS EXIST ABOUT Random mutation + Natural Selection being able to create the biological complexity that we observe. I see no reason why a law has to be written preventing a teacher from making an OBVIOUS STATEMENT.

It's just a bad idea, IMHO.

Replace the word "bad" to "reasonable" and we agree, IMHO.

Would you endorse a teacher putting forth the proposition that homosexuality is a decent life style. Or that Communism, if applied properly, can result in a utopian society.

I would let the community where the school board exists VOTE ON IT( PARENTS AND GUARDIANS), and let the majority decide. I TRUST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO MAKE THE BEST DECISIONS FOR THEIR CHILDREN, NOT SOME JUDGE IN THE CITY WHO KNOWS LITTLE ABOUT THE COMMUNITY AND THE EDUCATIONAL DESIRES OF THE PARENTS.

That is what Democracy is all about. VOTE !!!

Do you think that allowing a judge to make the decision ( as in Dover) will guarantee that such lifestyles will not be taught and accepted ?

.

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.