Posted on 01/19/2005 8:52:24 AM PST by FeeinTennessee
Pa. Students Learn 'Intelligent Design' By MARTHA RAFFAELE The Associated Press
HARRISBURG, Pa. - High school students heard about "intelligent design" for the first time Tuesday in a school district that attracted national attention by requiring students to be made aware of it as an alternative to the theory of evolution.
Administrators in the Dover Area School District read a statement to three biology classes Tuesday and were expected to read it to other classes on Wednesday, according to a statement from the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., which was speaking on the district's behalf.
The district is believed to be the only one in the nation to require students to hear about intelligent design - a concept that holds that the universe is so complex, it had to be created by an unspecified guiding force.
"The revolution in evolution has begun," said Richard Thompson, the law center's president and chief counsel. "This is the first step in which students will be given an honest scientific evaluation of the theory of evolution and its problems."
The case represents the newest chapter in a history of evolution lawsuits dating back to the Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee nearly 80 years ago. In Georgia, a suburban Atlanta school district plans to challenge a federal judge's order to remove stickers in science textbooks that call evolution "a theory, not a fact."
The law center is defending the Dover district against a federal lawsuit filed on behalf of eight families by two civil-liberties groups that alleged intelligent design is merely a secular variation of creationism, the biblical-based view that regards God as the creator of life. They maintain that the Dover district's curriculum mandate may violate the constitutional separation of church and state.
"Students who sat in the classroom were taught material which is religious in content, not scientific, and I think it's unfortunate that has occurred," said Eric Rothschild, a Philadelphia attorney representing the plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit.
Biology teacher Jennifer Miller said although she was able to make a smooth transition to her evolution lesson after the statement was read, some students were upset that administrators would not entertain any questions about intelligent design.
"They were told that if you have any questions, to take it home," Miller said.
The district allowed students whose parents objected to the policy to be excused from hearing the statement at the beginning of class and science teachers who opposed the requirement to be exempted from reading the statement. About 15 of 170 ninth-graders asked to be excused from class, Thompson said.
A federal judge has scheduled a trial in the lawsuit for Sept. 26.
---
Dover Area School District: http://www.dover.k12.pa.us
Thomas More Law Center: http://www.thomasmore.org
January 18, 2005 6:44 PM
SF speculation is not scientific proof. But SF is often strongly based on speculation -- and some of it turns out to have been fact.
One thing is certain: In that we humans have bred species and now are starting to genetically engineer species, intelligent design exists with us as intelligent designers.
You're delusional.
What if he was in a hurry?
It's a well know scientific fact that God is a man.
May I ask why you don't believe in the 6 day creation account, what would make you believe the 6 days (scripture being the context)aren't literal? Why wouldn't God just say over many, many generations the world was created? Just wondering what your thoughts are.
You tell her that she needs to stop reading Genesis literally and replace it with a reading that is more consistent with "science." Frankly, you are in no position to tell anyone what they should do.
On the other hand, you are trying to impose your form of religious orthodoxy on someone who does not share your view. You label those that disagree with your view of orthodoxy as ignorant. Then you suggest that anyone who disagrees as trying to impose some form of political correctness.
You reject the literal view of Genesis in order to adopt a materialist view of the origins of life. This is an issue that theologians addressed in the 19th and in the last century. You try to avoid it but the fact is that your view of the Bible and origins is just as steeped in a religious presupposition as the creationist.
Because these are, at bottom, religious questions, they should not be addressed in the public schools and certainly do not demand that others adopt your religious views.
Just like a "round" earth, right?
There are two entirely different creation stories in Genesis. Gen 1:1 and Gen 2:4. They have different sequences and timing periods. Arguments that Gen 2:4 is a clarification of Gen 1:1 rather than a separate and different story, can be, and have been debated
THIS IS NOT TRUE, IF YOU WOULD REREAD IT IN CONTEXT, YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND IT. READ SLOWLY.....Genesis 1 is an overview and two fills in the details.
Then He would be in such a hurry that he wouldn't spend time planting such detailed fossils of ancient species.
What if you're just wrong on your interpretation of Genesis? People disagree on the meaning of the Bible all the time. It's OK if your wrong.
I disagree as do half of all Christians and the vast majority of God's chosen people disagree as well.
Jesus Christ is my Lord and savior. That is all that matters.
Wonderful. We totally agree. Creationism and Intellegen Design are religious issues that should be completely kept out of government schools.
That's my agenda, and I'm sticking with it.
People can think whatever they want about the creation. Just don't teach it as "science", because it is'nt.
~By Richard S. Brown
------------
From all their shrill cries, Darwinians can't seem to be able to handle the challenge to their version of science, which, when unmasked, is essentially "goo to you via the zoo."
Darwinian evolution -- sometimes called naturalism-- and scientific creationism are irreconcilable worldviews and their basic tenets require acceptance of unproved assumptions about the origin of the universe.
Both origin theories, instead of just naturalism, should be presented in high-school science. Biblical Genesis or other creationist religions need not be studied in this setting in order to present concepts of and evidence for special (supernatural) creation.
Naturalism postulates that everything that is or ever was in this universe is the result of natural laws and processes currently operating just as they always have.
Naturalists believe the universe in all aspects evolves itself into higher levels of order by means of its innate properties. No external agent such as God is required or permitted.
In short, Darwinian evolution is all about attempting to explain the created without the creator.
Well-known proponents of evolution include the late Carl Sagan and Stephen Jay Gould of Cornell and Harvard universities, respectively. Neither of these two men could see God or a need for a creator through his telescope or microscope.
Currently, the secular interests are championing British biologist, author and lecturer Richard Dawkins as the leading evolutionary spokesman and creationist basher.
The growing problem for evolutionists is that interest and attention for creation is rising rapidly among people with inquiring minds. Stirring this interest is a newfound wealth of broadcast, Internet and published information made understandable to lay people. Just as the jaded public is abandoning network news for other sources, evolutionists in mainstream academia are losing their stranglehold on matters of metaphysics.
Among creationists, are many credentialed, practicing scientists who buck the prevailing worldview of our origins. Many of these scientists are Christians or practice some other faith. Others are agnostic, but all are not buying what Darwinian dogma is selling.
This group of critics asks embarrassing questions, such as: How is it possible to jump-start replicating life out of non-life chemicals? Why isn't the fossil record replete with specimens of macro-evolution such as the supposed transition from invertebrate to vertebrate life forms?
Creationists conclude, partly from deduction, that an omniscient entity using supernatural means must have created the universe in a one-time series of acts and was the early source of energy and design information required for the existence and functioning of the entire cosmos. Nothing is going to develop complexity from a primitive origin without intelligent input as well as energy. In short, nothing could work until every complex system is up and running in symbiotic relationships.
Creationists are often falsely accused of not acknowledging obvious biological micro-evolutionary change. We observe that plants and animals are restricted to the wide-ranging variables found in the DNA code that was endowed to the original kinds. Nowhere do scientists document an upward or increase in DNA language in reproduction. Only a level or downward (loss or misprint) transfer of genetic information can be inherited by offspring. Thus, creationists predict and observe ongoing speciation as well as extinctions for those species unable to adapt to the rigors of natural selection.
Scientists who are philosophical creationists work in various fields together with their Darwinian counterparts. Since most scientific research is empirical (documentation of observable, testable, repeatable subjects), it is rare for either group to question the validity of professionally performed work. Only when interpretations and extrapolations beyond all proof are presented do the various advocacy factions lock horns.
After more than two decades of reading books, viewing or attending scientific debates and lectures, I am convinced that the creationist's tenets are based on solid, scientific evidence. I have also observed over the years that it is the evolutionists who obfuscate the ever-changing details of their theory and continue to use vituperation and ad hominem attacks on those who question their claims.
None of the creationist organizations that I monitor have called for the banning of the teaching of Darwinian evolution theory in the public schools. None want biblical Genesis instruction by public-school teachers. What they want is the unfettered liberty to present creation theory just the same as the Darwinians present their theory.
It's a free country. Evolutionists can choose not to acknowledge the possibility of a spiritual realm or supernatural dimension to our existence. But does truth and reality depend on the politically correct consensus found among establishment intelligentsia?
Who is this elite group to stand as arbiters of information to the masses?
Funny coincidence. Stephen Jay Gould was a Marxist.
I would love to spend all day debating you, but you bring no legitimate arguments to the table. If you would like to read up a little more about Intelligent Design, why not go to www.answersingenesis.com, get fully informed and come back to the debate. Thanks!
Anyone who thinks the human body represents "intelligent" design is not familiar with the anatomy of the human male's groin area.
Exactly. I don't think ID (in the non-human sense) is something that can be proved or disproved at present. I don't even consider it anti-Darwinian, thinking of it as something that would happen parallel with Darwinian evolution.
The problem is that the possibility of ID adds the possibility of divine interaction with science. Science is supposed to steer clear of religious matters. Problem is, if there is, shall we say, supernatural interaction with the world, then science cannot be pure of such matters.
I'm not approaching this as a scientist (to which I hear a loud, "You're telling me!"). I'm approaching this as someone who is trying to get to the big picture that includes science. You can have an ideal that "This is science. This is religion. And never the twain shall meet."
But neither science nor religion seems to be the big picture to me. And I do not feel obliged, in my personal philosophical quest, to keep the two entirely separated. Indeed, every instinct tells me that I can't.
And if ID is true, science may not be able to, as well.
And, the appropriate question in a science setting, is where did the sky god come from? ID does not answer the question of origins, merely adds an untested, unobservable and superstitious layer to question of where we came from. If we were designed, then where did the designer come from? Our origins would ultimately coem from how a designer came into existence. There is no place for this in science. If the Merican people want our science to be distilled down to "God did it" then this country will become an ignorant part of the third world. We will need more H1B visas to import the scientists, doctors and engineers that make this country technologically strong so the local population can stay dumb and ignorant of how the physical world works. Sounds like it would be like Saudi Arabia.
We've discussed this on other threads. Genesis 1 is a sequence, and Genesis 2:4 IS ALSO A SEQUENCE. Gen 2 demonstrates it is a sequence by making claims such as A happend, before B happened. It uses languages such as B had not happend, because A was not there.
This is a sequence of creation, and a sequence that does not agree with Gen 1.
And then we have the light problem in Genesis 1 where light was created on day 1, but the sun/moon/stars was created on day 4. I suppose it could be talking about glowing matter, but still it is unclear on the issue.
The bottom line is that litteral translations are not possible, unless you assume some wierd exceptions. Perhaps the animals that didn't fit on the Ark were floated in the air for the duration, stuff like that.
It just becomes so much easier if you will accept that Genesis is a parable, like Jesus told, with meaning beyond exact word-for-word litteralisim. It becomes easy to decide that there neednt be any conflict with science. Evolution is a detail that God created, but just didn't tell about it in Genesis because that wasn't what He wanted to tell.
The theory of Intelligent Design does NOT ignore the fossil record, but posits that these changes have been planned rather than random.
The liberals believe that creatures evolved merely by random chance. Some theory!
Very thoughtful and concise post. thank you.
Well, we've taught evolution for years and years....
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.