Students Learn Intelligent Design

Phillyburbs.com ^ | January 18, 2005 | Martha Raffaele

[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

[PatrickHenry]

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.

That has the outward appearance of religious behavior, but all by itself ... I think it's a stretch to call her position a religious one, based on that one activity. I guess it's possible for her (or anyone) to merely adopt the conclusions of another person, and thus one could be an unthinking atheist by just following the example of someone else. Such behavior could amount to something like a cult, I suppose. But this isn't what we usually think of when we think of atheism. Maybe some do see it like that.

[balrog666]

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.

Nice quibbling earlier. But here I meant worldview rather than religion. I should have clarified my response - but it was only a quibblette.

I figured you had the appropriate responses hotkeyed. ;P

[narby]

Re Exodus 20, It's not me that's claiming that a "day" isn't a "day". It's a whole bunch of IDers. If you try to force them into a 6 day creation and 6000 year earth, you'll be a lot more alone than you are now.

So you believe the Bible because it's Gods word, and you believe it's God's word because the Bible says it is. Ok.

I can say I believe in Evolution because respected scientists say it's true, and I believe in the respected scientists because they believe in Evolution.

But also there are all these fossils that I've collected myself, and virtually uncountable layers rock in the Grand Canyon. Bones of whales with vestigal feet. The list is endless.

And there is also that wonderful Discovery Institute, that for 25 years has sought to discredit Evolution. They haven't found the layer in the rock with evidence of Noah's flood. They haven't found modern fossils in ancient layers, or any other teeny tiny bit of evidence that would easily falsify Evolution if they could only find it. All they can do is whine "Evolution hasn't done this or that.... yet". So what? It would be possible to prove Evolution wrong, IF they collected the correct evidence that they claim should be there. Yet they're total failures.

Of all the things that convinces me that Evolution is correct, it's the obvious failure of a succession of entities that have tried to find evidence to disprove it, yet have not. You may believe otherwise, based on their arguments, but just like the Dems have been convinced by their propagandists that George Bush is satan, you have been convinced that Evolution is is as well.

There's a sucker born every minute.

[PatrickHenry]

I think it becomes scientifically legitimate to ask whether ID would help explain some of the trickier problems with the evolution of the species.

But first, the scientists should exhaust every possible natural explanation, and that's difficult to do. When there is ironclad evidence that some structure absolutely could not have evolved naturally, then -- and only then -- does it become appropriate to search elsewhere. I doubt that "alien tinkering" is among the first answers that spring to mind when a scientist is searching for the ancestral form of some particular biological structure.

[RadioAstronomer]

For example, why is the fossil record so lacking in examples of failed human evolution ?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

Here are some added links:

Ardipithicus ramidus

http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/ramidus.htm

Australopithecus anamensis
http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/Hominids/04_A_anamensis.html

Australopithecus afarensis
http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/Hominids/03_A_afarensis.html
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/afarensis.htm
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/afarensis.html

Australopithecus africanus
http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/courses/121/fyde/africanus.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/afri.html
http://www.msu.edu/~robin400/africanus.html

Australopithecus aethiopicus
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/aeth.html
http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant275/presentations/Human_evolution.PDF

Australopithecus boisei
http://faculty.vassar.edu/piketay/evolution/A_boisei.html
http://www.csus.edu/anth/physanth/an-img08.htm
http://www.sckans.edu/anthro/index.php?page_ID=305

Australopithecus robustus
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/rob.htm
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/robustus.html
http://www.oneonta.edu/academics/anthro/links/aust.html

Homo sp.
http://www.academie-sciences.fr/publications/comptes_rendus/pdf/CRPalevol_article4.pdf
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/atapuerca/gallery/africa.php?image=6&page=branches
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jasonww/africa/transvaal2.html

Homo rudolfensis
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/rud.html
http://calvin.linfield.edu/~mrobert/originsfigure1a.html
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/rudolfensis.htm

Homo habilis
http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/habilis/habilis-a.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/hab.html
http://dekalb.dc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/students/s97/bonetgar/habilis.htm

Homo ergaster
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/erg.html
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/ergaster.htm
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Ergaster_00.html

Homo erectus
http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/erectus/erectus-a.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/erec.html
http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/troufs/anth1602/pchomoer.html

Homo heidelbergensis
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/heid.htm
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/heidelbergensis.htm
http://www.archaeology.org/9709/newsbriefs/dna.html

Homo neanderthalensis

http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/neanderthalensis.htm
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/nead_sap_comp.html

Homo sapiens
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sap.htm
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/modern_humans.htm
http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/Science_2000_v290_p1155.pdf

[WASH]

Thanks - It's Those who bring up Intelligent Design as a purely scientific proposition yet believe in a Christian God that I have difficulty understanding.

[RightWingNilla]

Now that's not a very Christ-like attitude....

Amazing how its so prevalent among self-professed Christians.

[ValenB4]

You would be better off not relying on the words of others and more on your own reasoning and opinions. But I will give it a try.

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 ?

We don't need the fossil record! There are thousands of living examples of failed human evolution. For example, the Democrats. The popularity of reality television.

But seriously, there is fossil evidence of failed human, or more accurately, humanoid evolution. The Neanderthal humanoid species is extinct, mostly because of the pressures put upon them by Homo sapiens. Homo habilis is another species. Every extinct primate species that we can find is such evidence. Unfortunately, the fossil record will always be incomplete. We will never be able to dig up the entire crust of the earth and sift through it.

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.

It is entirely reasonable to make such a claim. The Industrial Revolution began at around 1800 in England. Evolutionarily speaking, is an extremely recent event. Many momuments from the ancient world, Middle Ages, and the Renaissance have doorways that middle sized people of today have to duck under. This is the case of The Duomo in Florence. Yet only a few centuries later, things begin to change and humans begin to get taller.

As human civilization became more advanced with antiseptic techniques, better healthcare, better nutrition, better drugs, better medical knowledge and techniques, better exercise awareness, better food preservation methods - better everything, many of the evolutionary pressures placed on man in his natural environment, which is that of the caveman, are removed. Whatever negatives exist from the Industrial Evoltion, such as pollution, do not outweigh the positives.

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 ?

That's pretty ridiculous. If that was the case, we would be seeing a similar growth in height in all of nature, taller trees, taller elephants, taller giraffes. But this is not the case, only a human phenomenon. The changes in human heighth have taken place too quickly and too uniformly for it not to be the result of human cultural advancement. Furthermore, physicists would be able to measure such a change in the planet.

[narby]

As such, they rely upon texts that have been handed down from generation to generation and accept the propositions therein as worthy of acceptance.

Handed down, from where?

I lived in Tulsa when Oral Roberts claimed he saw a 600 ft high angel, or some such sight, that told him to go beg for more money to build his new iconic hospital. Do I believe he saw it? Maybe. Do I believe it really happened? Nope.

Who's to say that the Bible isn't just a set of texts handed down by sects with no greater claim to truth than the Raeliens. After all, the Raeliens believed so much they killed themselves to go visit that spaceship behind the comet. It wouldn't surprise me one whit that they could write a "Bible" that after a few generations of handing down would be followed by equal ferver as today's Christians follow the Bible.

Believe it or not, I support Christianity. I think there needs to be more Christians, not less. Which is exactly why I'm fighting this creationism/ID stuff. I firmly think it harms Christians because they get into deep discussions like this one where their faith is challenged head on. And proposing to start this type of discussion in government high schools is just madness.

I also think insisting on litteral interpretations and fighting Evolution "dumbs down" Christian congregations by chasing away people who see the obvious contradictions. I don't know whether or not this might be purposeful, as slower people are more easily led. But for whatever reason, it's obvious it's occuring.

I hear Bill O'Reilly is coming out in favor of ID in schools on his show tonight.

My predictions that the left will provoke this Evolution fight in order to distract from Bush's goals may be coming true right now. It's too bad there are some people around here who don't get it.

I'm sure I've insulted enough people around here tonight. Sorry, but I can't say nice things when I don't think them.

[nmh]

"Really? So the Ten Commandments are null and void now to a practicing Christian?"

Now that you bring up the Ten Commandments, even though we were discussing Jewish theocracy, the Ten Commandments apply to Christians in the New Testament as well as Jews. The only difference is that Christ came, lead a perfect life and was the sacrificial lamb for those who are unable to keep the Ten Commandments. We still have to strive to do our best but we are not under the Law and it's associated punishments - Jews or Christians. Of course belief in Him is required.

[nmh]

"Really? So the Ten Commandments are null and void now to a practicing Christian?"

Just curious, have you reached perfection yet?

[Celtjew Libertarian]

But first, the scientists should exhaust every possible natural explanation, and that's difficult to do.

I'm not sure that's the case. There are a number of archaeological finds, where the debate is whether something is an artifact or just something that looks man-made. If something, at first glance, looks like it could be man-made, I'm not sure it's wise to assume otherwise.

Mind you, I have a problem with the dichotomy between natural and man-made. Bird's nests, beaver dams, and game trails are natural, but condos, hydroelectric plants, and super-highways are not?

[Victoria Delsoul]

You would be better off not relying on the words of others and more on your own reasoning and opinions.

Is that how you got your education? LOL, just kidding. Thanks for the post. :-)

[Victoria Delsoul]

I'll take a look as soon as I get some free time, thanks for the links, RA.

[nmh]

"Now that's not a very Christ-like attitude....
Amazing how its so prevalent among self-professed Christians."

I don't know what the exchange was but I really get WEARY over these comments. To err is human. The best we can do is to try our best and imitate Christ. Perfection is not a possibility so when someone stumbles don't throw perfection in their face.

Even Christians get frustrated!

[RadioAstronomer]

What you need to do is sit down with someone who knows the Bible and have them help you. It's not a matter of "interpretation". The original language is Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament). THe truth is revealed through the original language.

If so, why all the fights and interpretations between the different Christian sects?

I get the impression that you don't want to understand anything. You are looking to bolster your disbelief via me - LOL!

Do you really believe I would need to do such a thing? My other question to you is where have I stated what my "beliefs" are? Remember, accepting the evidence for the theory of evolution does not require a "belief". For example; do you "believe" in the element called gadolinium? Or do you know that such an element exists without the need for a belief structure.

I could sit here and tell you what to believe but with you that will not work. You NEED to start looking at the Hebrew and Greek and start answering some of your own questions.

Been there done that. Bet I would surprise you with just how much I do know.

You mention accounts by 3 different people, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. WHY is it so odd that 3 different people would have slightly different accounts?

Slightly different? Good grief.

Yet, you will willingly believe evolutionary theory when there are more than three diametrically opposed theories without question. These accounts in the Bible complement each other. That's more than I can say about evolutionary theory.

Describe those three diametrically opposed theories please.

Best regards back

[nmh]

"Believe it or not, I support Christianity. I think there needs to be more Christians, not less. Which is exactly why I'm fighting this creationism/ID stuff."

I'm glad to see you "support Christianity" but believing the Bible which is the heart of it seems to be too much to ask.

I have to scratch my head in awe that you can throw out Genesis and other books at will that state God created all we see and don't see. I'm also not impressed with the human yardstick you apply to Him in creation. The evidence also DOES point to Him as the Creator.

[RadioAstronomer]

You are most welcome. I think you know me well enough by now to know I am not trying to shake anyone’s faith nor belittle it.

I just hate religion trying to masquerade itself as science or vice versa. Each belongs in their respective domains.

[Idisarthur]

NARBY said; I believe in the respected scientists because they believe in Evolution.

Amazing.

Whoa, you guys are sick. It has been a whole six hours and I return and you are still with the same assertions and the same ad hominem attacks.

Scientific theories come and go.

I wonder how Evolutionists will deal with the Proteins, the DNA sequences that make them up and their complexity in the coming decades.

What cames first the Protein or the Egg?

Someone said, "Good idea evo-boy cuz youre all going to HELL!"

Narby said, " Now that's not a very Christ-like attitude...."

Actually this is very Christian. If you where intellectually curious enough you would learn that this is what Christianity is all about, Salvation.

Good night.

[nmh]

"If so, why all the fights and interpretations between the different Christian sects?"

Ask them. Could it be that they have an agenda to live up to? Don't you think there is a reason why at one time a particular group did NOT want the Bible in the hands of the "believers"? ;)

"Do you really believe I would need to do such a thing? My other question to you is where have I stated what my "beliefs" are? "

You have a very high opinion of yourself ... so yes to your question ... . You've stated your beliefs in other threads. Some of us notice.


"Remember, accepting the evidence for the theory of evolution does not require a "belief". For example; do you "believe" in the element called gadolinium? Or do you know that such an element exists without the need for a belief structure."

TO accept evolution is to put your faith in it since you were not there. Good science is repeatable. You cannot repeat your "theories".


"Been there done that. Bet I would surprise you with just how much I do know."

If you had searched the Hebrew and Greek you wouldn't have these questions. That is how I know you didn't do it.

"You mention accounts by 3 different people, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. WHY is it so odd that 3 different people would have slightly different accounts?"

Ever seen three people have IDENTICAL accounts to say a crime or some other event? It's not that they are lying per se, the see the same thing but state it differently. Take a car accident - one may believe the car is zooming along at 50 mph when it's just going 40. Some may think the slick road caused the accident. Another might think the driver was a Hispanic where perhaps I thought the driver was Italian. It happens all the time. As it happens Matt, Luke and John do not contradict one another. Different things were emphasied.


"Describe those three diametrically opposed theories please."

No I'm not going to waste my time on evolutionary theory. That's your specialty. You simply don't want to see it or admit it.