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
Indeed. Atheism -- without theism -- is a lack of theism. No beliefs are implied in it. Agnosticism -- without knowledge -- is the belief that it is impossible to know whether or not gods exist.
Actually, atheism isn't a religion or lack of one. It's a lack of theism. As there are non-theistic religions (such as Buddhism), atheism cannot be accurately termed an abscence of religion.
Well said.
But to your argument: The Bible believing Christian says that they believe the Genesis account because they believe that the Bible is true. And it is true because God's word says that it is true. In other words, they accept that the Bible is self-authenticating. You may not agree with that form of epistemology, but at least they are up front about it.
OTOH, why do you believe scientists' interpretation of evidence? Is it because of the strength of their "evidence" or because their interpretation seems plausible or because it is the only logical explanation of things? Why do you accept evolution as fact? Cannot one's belief in evolution be because they think that evolution is self-authenticating? It seems to me that belief in evolution is just as much a matter of faith as belief in creationism.
I do not believe that it is the role of government to educate children. It is the role of parents. But, if we are to have true neutrality in education, neither creation, ID or Darwinism should be taught in the public schools.
Now please address my question regarding Exodus 20 that I raised in my previous post. If you refuse to do so, I would suggest that you not use the "confusion" of Gen. 1 and 2 as justification for your views.
Because there is no other theory. You can't just come up with a theory and expect it to be held in equal status to the current one. There was at one time, in the 19th century, another scientific theory that attempted to explain the complexity of life. It was Lamarckism, which faded away.
We see the fossil record, we can observe evolution take place in a lab, we can see how species change through artificially induced evolution - such as the selective breeding for particular traits of animals and plants. On top of all of this, a consensus for the mechanism of how evolution works in nature is made. As of now, there is no scientific idea that can disprove that.
Who knows, perhaps someday we will learn that all of the Earth's species are the result of genetic manipulation by a supremely advance extraterrestrial civilization. As of today, such a theory is flimsical and can only be believed because of faith - because people choose to believe it. But if we discover billion year old genetic labs buried under the earth's crust someday, that would be evidence.
By definition, ID is not science. What are the scientific criteria to measure "intent" on the part of the Creator? Such perceptions are based on human subjectivity and our amazement at the wonders of life.
ID is a perversion of science and a demonstration of a weakness in faith. Faith is not to be be supported by science. They are two different worlds. Because we are a part of the universe, our understanding of it will be forever incomplete. Therefore, faith is above science. But to deny the obvious of what science explains is foolish and to defy reason, which those of faith believe to be a gift of God.
Great news, thanks.
Would you say this is intelligent design with the intelligence -- i.e., human beings -- known?
As soon as someone finds some problems with the theory of evolution, Richard Thompson will have a point.
My understanding, from discussions with people who teach philosophy, is close to that. Atheists actually come in two flavors. The more extreme form (and rather rare, but usually quite vocal and obnoxious) flatly asserts that no gods exist. This is probably untenable, as it can't be literally true without proving the negative. Some may have arguments they think do the job. I haven't studied this enough, but I've got doubts.
The more common form of atheist says that he doesn't believe because there's no evidence for such a belief. In theory, this type of atheist has an open mind, but of course, opinions vary as to what constitutes acceptable evidence.
The agnostic, as you say, takes a middle ground between theism and atheism, asserting that he has no way to figure out what to believe, so he has no belief. As I see it, this position isn't based on evidence or lack of evidence. Rather, it's based on weak epistemology.
The theist believes on faith, which is belief that is not based on evidence or rational proof. (Although lots of theists assert that they've got convincing evidence, or something that they consider proof.)
How about this: Extreme atheism is a faith; uncommitted atheism is a philosophy, but not a faith.
So it seems, but I really don't know enough about the extreme atheist's position to flat-out say that it's held on faith. It may be just faulty reasoning. In any event, it's certainly not a religion. At least not what I would consider a religion. (Not unless it's coupled with other things, like rituals, scriptures, dogma, etc., which I've never heard of.)
I guess I would. Sorry for stealing your idea about the aliens. But it is a good example.
Evolution - is it all that it's cracked up to be ? Whilst I lean heavily towards darwinism and accepted evolution theory, I still have some difficulties with the gaps. For example, why is the fossil record so lacking in examples of failed human evolution ? Evolution, as far as I can see, also has some problems in explaining some of the things that we know to be true today. For example, why are humans getting taller - and have been for several hundred years ? Since the tendency has been for humans to get taller over a long period of human social history, it would be reasonable to say that it is unlikely to be a consequence of our recent social framework with better healthcare vs increased pollution etc. So, from a darwinist point of view I would expect there to be a good evolutionary reason. Perhaps the planet is slowing down, gravity getting weaker, so less constraints on height ? Fanciful, but I'm sure you get the gist ? -- Robert Barlow
On of my sisters-in-law, I am told (since this was years before I met her) used to carry around a book on atheism with her wherever she went and would quote from it freely to defend her belief.
She later became a born-again, conservative Christian. She still is but is less preaching than just living as one.
I borrowed it, so you borrowed it, too. 8>)
Good questions.
Biblical Creationists attribute personhood to an Intelligent Designer responsible not only for bringing the observed universe into existence but also for sustaining it in all of its aspects and attributes according to this moment and beyond. As such, they rely upon texts that have been handed down from generation to generation and accept the propositions therein as worthy of acceptance.
These texts bear out, to some degree, WHO this Intelligent Designer is - enough so that one may even approach this Designer and boldly ask for help. The "exact" nature of the Designer has yet to be revealed, but all indications are it will happen eventually. The closest one can come to "seeing" the Designer's essence is, of all things, a single Man despised more than any other, bloodied, and nailed to a cross.
It would be impossible, as far as I can tell, for a Biblical Creationist to believe and confess anything different than an Intelligent Designer being responsible for the creation and sustaining of the universe as we know it.
Those who do not accept Biblical propositions are left to their own reason and senses to gather how the universe came into being and operates as it does. One would think, since man is intelligent and has the capacity to arrange and communicate information, that he would also recognize a certain degree of order and communication in the universe as well. So much so, that this order and communication would likewise be the result of an operative intelligence, albeit more powerful.
Alas, many do not even recognize this much.
Well, by now it is apparent that I believe what the Bible says about God, man, and the universe. So far my own observations and readings have not contradicted the same, including the fact that many people reject the Bible altogether. Nothing new under the sun.
Those who bring up Intelligent Design as a purely scientific proposition are rare. They are not off the mark insofar as they acknowledge the obvious. In a public school setting there is little reason to go beyond the obvious. But then, I never could figure out who died and made public schools God.
Those who profess that science and religion are mutually exclusive erect a fasle dichotomy that is detrimental both to learning and to the human spirit. Public schools, with all their talk about "open mindedness," are predisposed toward the exclusion of Intelligent Design as a viable explanation for the universe as we know it. This does not speak well for their usefulness as far as the human race is concerned.
"Festival of Extreme Placemarkers"
And what does that have to do with the theory of evolution?
So I forgot to make my main point....
I have little doubt that Darwinian evolution is the basis (or at least, the best-fitting theory at the moment) for most of evolutionary history. However, given that ID exists, at least on a recent basis, as a result of non-supernatural agents, I think it becomes scientifically legitimate to ask whether ID would help explain some of the trickier problems with the evolution of the species.
And at this point, not being up on the subject enough, I back out without giving any specific problems that ID might answer.
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.