Evolution vs. Intelligent Design : Chesterfield School Board takes up debate on theories of life.

Richmond.com ^ | 06/05/2007 | Donna Gregory

[SirLinksalot]

There's a new book out that seeks to improve the teaching of Evolution by the Inquiry-based approach. This will be based on arguments FOR and AGAINST Darwinism.

See here :

http://www.exploreevolution.com/

"The purpose of Explore Evolution, is to examine the scientific controversy about Darwin's theory, and in particular, the contemporary version of the theory known as neo-Darwinism. Whether you are a teacher, a student, or a parent, this book will help you understand what Darwin's theory of evolution is, why many scientists find it persuasive, and why other scientists question the theory or some key aspects of it.

Sometimes, scientists find that the same evidence can be explained in more than one way. When there are competing theories, reasonable people can (and do) disagree about which theory best explains the evidence. Furthermore, in the historical sciences, neither side can directly verify its claims about past events. Fortunately, even though we can't directly verify these claims, we can test them. How? First, we gather as much evidence as possible and look at it carefully. Then, we compare the competing theories in light of how well they explain the evidence.

Looking at the evidence and comparing the competing explanations will provide the most reliable path to discovering which theory, if any, gives the best account of the evidence at hand. In science, it is ultimately the evidence-and all of the evidence-that should tell us which theory offers the best explanation. This book will help you explore that evidence, and we hope it will stimulate your interest in these questions as you weigh the competing arguments"

[stuartcr]

If it’s a heavy topic that’s generated debate for years, then why the big fuss?

[Red Badger]

Liberal: The universe sprang from in infinitesimally small point called a singularity....

Conservative: We call that "And God said, "Let there be light and there was light".........

[ClearCase_guy]

Strikes me as ironic that one of the trends in education is -- not to educate. For example, in Math class, when discussing division of fractions, many teachers do not "teach the algorithm" (they don't tell or show how to do the work). Instead, the allow the students to "discover it for themselves". Geometry is great this way -- Every 6th grader can be as wise as Euclid. Or not.

But in the area of Evolution, someone who says:

"Let the evidence speak for itself and let [the students] draw their own conclusions."

Is a reactionary who dares to indicate that there are people who question Evolution and its role in the origin of species. Letting students "draw their own conclusions" is (in this case) crippling them for life with a flawed ability to do science.

Uh huh. No urge to indoctrinate here. No sir.

[trumandogz]

I never saw Evolution v. Creationism as a Liberal v. Conservative issue.

Do you have any evidence to support your theory or do you have data that show that most all scientists in the fields of geology, biology, chemistry and astronomy are liberals?

[Red Badger]

My theory?....I don’t have a theory......

[trumandogz]

I don’t have a theory......

Well that may be obvious.

Why do you think Evolution and Creation are liberal and conservative issues?

[Red Badger]

Why do you think Evolution and Creation are liberal and conservative issues?

They aren't.......

[dan1123]

So true. We seem to live in backwards land where the proven is taught as speculative, and the speculative is taught as proven.

[dan1123]

do you have data that show that most all scientists in the fields of geology, biology, chemistry and astronomy are liberals?

""There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats." http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8427-2005Mar28?language=printer

[trumandogz]

That would be in academia.

I would like to see poll on political philosophy of scientists in the private sector.

[antiRepublicrat]

ID proponents constantly claim that their mission is about science, not about theology. To turn their theology into science, they claim that their god is not necessarily the designer, just that the scientific evidence shows that the world must have been designed.

"I believe God is the author of life, and I don't want anything taught in schools that denigrates that,"

Liars.

[antiRepublicrat]

BTW, the site is a sham. It is ostensibly a balanced look at the Theory of Evolution, but it is run by the Discovery Institute, a religious organization with the stated goal of replacing science with Christian theology.

[DaGman]

So the school board included creationism, they get sued, they lose (as they should), they appeal, they cost the property owner/taxpayers millions of dollars. All because they won’t accept science.

[js1138]

So the school board included creationism, they get sued, they lose (as they should), they appeal, they cost the property owner/taxpayers millions of dollars.

The language used by the participants guarantees that they will be perceived as having a religious motive. This is the same kind of language that sank ID in the Dover trial. A couple of school board members were cited (but not charged) for perjury.

If any action results from this debate, it will cost the school board big bucks in legal fees and court costs.

[dan1123]

Aren’t you up to speed? Scientists in the private sector are by default in the pocket of big business and biased toward whoever hires them. School boards will only trust university faculty.

[onedoug]

Though The Discovery Institute's Jay W Richards is one of the authors of The Privileged Planet: How Our Place In The Universe Is Designed For Discovery. The other is is Guillermo Gonzalez, late of denied tenure at the University Of Iowa.

They make an extremely compelling case, and I have some science background, as I think one should in being able to discuss theology...particularly say, with Christopher Hitchens.

[taxesareforever]

Another speaker, Michael Slagle, presented a document containing 700 signatures of scientists worldwide who have questioned the validity of evolution.

NO, this just can't be! I mean the evos keep telling us that there aren't any "real" scientists out there who don't believe in evolution. I bet this puts a frown on their smiley faces.

[editor-surveyor]

"Do you have any evidence to support your theory or do you have data that show that most all scientists in the fields of geology, biology, chemistry and astronomy are liberals?"

Strawman Alert No such assertion was made.

Geology and chemistry are science, while evolution is religion. Biology has been polluted with the illogical philosophy of the evolution/death culture. The death culture is distinctly leftist.

"I would like to see poll on political philosophy of scientists in the private sector."

Scientists are not the problem, it's the evolutionist/humanist philosophers and propagandists.