And the Evolutionists are upset? That's rich.
No such thing exists. Darwinism cannot be challenged, and it is utterly unfalsifiable. Anything claiming to be against Darwinism is automatically unscientific.
/sarc
Why is it that the will of the people is always attacked with lawsuits?
Can’t win the hearst and minds of the people with logic common sense compromise etc.? No problem, Sue them into submission.....
Our court system has become a sick joke on the people....
Someone, or a group of someones, will get carried away and step over the line in regards to what they are allowed to preach in class.
Then there will be a lawsuit, someone(s) will get fired, and the taxpayer will have pay for it all.
What interests me is that the same individuals who are worried that things might be sneaked into the classroom that shouldn’t be there seem to have no problem with homosexual activism or liberal climate propaganda in the classroom. Kids in public schools are drafted to be nuisances to their parents and community and save the world through light bulbs. Let teachers teach what is there. The evidence is hardly complete and the last word on the development of life on Earth as not been said. The conclusion of undirected design is not a scientific one it is a matter of belief. It can not be demonstrated in a laboratory. There is no harm in the belief in a higher order driving the development of life. It did not stop Newton, Galileo, Copernicus or any of the other great scientific minds who were also religious some radically so by today’s standards.
Informed scientific dispute is the province of informed scientists (by definition). Since when do teachers fall into that group? This is just another bullshit attempt to inject religious nonsense into the school system.
If you want to see the truth of what I said in my first post just think of how a bill to teach atheism would affair among supporters of this legislation.
Sooner or later somebody might develop a machine for viewing past events, and it might show God actually creating the world in seven days, 6000 years ago. My guess is that, IF that were to happen, these same “science” groups would be in court trying to ban the machine and pass laws forbidding anybody to show it to students.
Sooner or later somebody might develop a machine for viewing past events, and it might show God actually creating the world in seven days, 6000 years ago. My guess is that, IF that were to happen, these same “science” groups would be in court trying to ban the machine and pass laws forbidding anybody to show it to students.
The law requires that evidence must be supported by science. Since federal courts have ruled creationism and intelligent design are not science, this law only protects teachers who teach evolution as understood by mainstream science.
Unintended consequences. Teachers in rural areas who have been afraid to teach evolution now have a free hand, protected by law.
Amen to that Brother Jason. LOL
Just the facts PING!
Intelligent Design is a deliberate fraud. It is just creationism in disguise and has been proven as such in a court of law directed by a church-going Republican judge.
here is the smoking gun that proved that the Discovery Institute is a pack of Liars For God:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-tk7MkHKtI
Both sides are in error.
Science is like chess. Either you play by the rules, or you are not playing chess. Either you follow the scientific method, or you are not engaged in science.
Science has long been in error for permitting unscientific and non-reproducible theories and data, and unproven extrapolation and interpolation, and to base conclusions on these things. When a scientific experiment has been conducted by the rules, all that has been achieved is a scientific experiment. The results are not science, they just lay the groundwork for the next theory based on those results.
Otherwise, legitimate research can be done, but it is a study, not science. Social studies include history, psychology, philosophy, etc., and while each may have small elements that are scientific, such as statistics, their results remain studies, despite putting on airs of being scientific.
This is done because science has credibility, because when its experiments can be verified over and over again, trust is built that when they are performed again, the same or similar results will happen, unless new variables have been introduced.
A major component, arguable, about science, is that an experiment, any experiment, can be limited to known variables. That is, that all constants and variables of an experiment are known ahead of time, and that the scientist minimizes or ideally avoids influencing the experiment with their own prejudices and biases.
Again, a strong argument can be made that this is impossible, but practically speaking, it is reflected in reality, again because experiments are reproducible, but prejudices and biases are less so.
Which brings us to the teaching of intelligent design in science classes, and why there is no place for it there. It is not because intelligent design does not exist, but because there is no possible way to integrate it into the scientific method. It cannot be verified, it cannot be tested experimentally, it is non-reproducible, it cannot be measured, nor can it be eliminated as an experimental variable.
Thus, it is a football sitting on the chess board. It may be perfectly valid as a football, but it has no place in chess.
And this is the problem with advocating the teaching of intelligent design in the classroom. Like bad science, it wants to assume the mantle of credibility that exists for science. But like bad science, it cannot be scientific. It is not an acceptable scientific theory because it *cannot be* an acceptable scientific theory.
It is in contention not with science, as well, but with bad science. It demands equal time because it argues with unscientific extrapolations and interpretations that are being taught, but shouldn’t be, because they are not scientific either.
Finally, it should be pointed out that what is called Darwinism, is not just a single theory, but several, some of which are neutral in character and uncontested, even by advocates of Intelligent Design.
For example, almost nobody contests that dinosaur bones exist. They can and have been evaluated experimentally and tested many times. The problem is not in the static evidence that can and is tested, but the non-scientific studies based on theories surrounding the origins of such bones.
That is, studies, not science, about how the bones came to be in relation to each other and the world. But that is not, and cannot be a science, because the theory is not experimental, but circular reasoning.
This does not mean that these studies are invalid. And within the ground rules of studies, but not science, they are accurate. But classrooms should be very clear that these are studies, and not science.
So the bottom line is that both studies and Intelligent Design should be excluded from science classes. If taught, they should be taught together as studies, and left up to the students to decide.
For those who are interested in having more polite discussions on crevo topics, we now have the capability to open the same thread on an Ecumenical tag so that the rules of discourse are more closely watched. I opened a very similar thread with the tag so that the discussion would be more polite and not degenerate.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2044051/posts
I see the resident Evos here on FR still have their Netherlands caught in the wringer.
Truly great news! Thanks for posting this!!!