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

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Why do you continue posting? Everyone already knows that you're a documented liar.

What are you, the truth police? You call more people liars than anyone I have ever seen. Sheeesh - give it a rest.

[Blzbba]

"They deserve better."


They deserve better than to be taught of the flat-earth of Creationism too. They deserve better than "Because it's written in some oft-revised old book" as a reason for the idea, also.

[Blzbba]

"Why is adaptation incompatible with creationism?"


Why is an evolutionary process incompatible with God?

[Thatcherite]

No, no need for an original, that is fine. I'll read it and get back to you.

[Blzbba]

"One word "Canopy"....and Noah lived to be 900....but live spans decreased rapidly after him "


NO!! Not the disproven 'Vapor Canopy'!! Questions about the Canopy include:

-How was the water suspended, and what caused it to fall all at once when it did?
-If a canopy holding the equivalent to more than 40 feet of water were part of the atmosphere, it would raise the atmospheric pressure accordingly, raising oxygen and nitrogen levels to toxic levels.
-If the canopy began as vapor, any water from it would be superheated. This scenario essentially starts with most of the Flood waters boiled off. Noah and company would be poached. If the water began as ice in orbit, the gravitational potential energy would likewise raise the temperature past boiling.
-A canopy of any significant thickness would have blocked a great deal of light, lowering the temperature of the earth greatly before the Flood.
-Any water above the ozone layer would not be shielded from ultraviolet light, and the light would break apart the water molecules.



"Have you ever read the bible? TOWER OF BABEL, if you need help let me know. "

Yes I have and it doesn't give any details on how the 2 Aussie kangaroos, the 2 Tasmanian devils, the 2 koala bears, etc. made the trip to (approx.) modern-day southern Iraq (where most Biblical scholars believe Noah resided).


Also, please tell me how Noah lived to be so long and why he was one of the last to do so. Thanks in advance!

[Blzbba]

"Old Testament again ... may I suggest you spend your time and effort with the New Testament since you are obvioulsy not Jewish and need to udnerstand hwo things changed with the birth and death of Christ. "


Ahhhh...but your original statement was that there "is no contradiction in the Bible".

With apologies, I have to point out that every Bible I've ever seen or read has both Old and New Testaments. Yet, above, I've pointed out several contradictions. The 'Old' says one thing - the 'New' says another. That, to me, is a contradiction. Thus, your original statement is incorrect.

[Right Wing Professor]

Thanks for the refs. They'll be useful.

[narby]

The four gospels in post #263 do have significant differences between them. Yes, it is possible to rationalize that they are really the same. But where it's relevant here is that the Bible is not word-for-word exact.

The Gospels demonstrate that it is necessary to take the exact meaning of the words in the Bible with a grain of salt. Genesis, interpreted in this light, allows plenty of room for God to have created Evolution. No problem.

When I made this point in an earlier post, a reply was, "so you don't mind teaching ID in schools". No, that's not the point at all.

You could say that God "designed" life, but if He did, then His mechanisim for doing so was Evolution. That doesn't mean that you get up in front of a class and say that "God made life". That's what you do in church.

In the same manner that God could have created life via Evolution, then God made it rain, and God introduced you to your wife, or litterally any little thing you can imagine. But you don't teach in school that "God made it rain". You teach about water evaporating and condensing and falling out of the sky.

What I really don't get is why it is so important that public schools teach that "God did it" with regard to species? Why can't it be left to schools to teach about Evolution, and churches to say that "God created life through Evolution". What's the problem with that?

[Fester Chugabrew]

They deserve better than to be taught of the flat-earth of Creationism too.

I am not aware of "flat earth Creationism" being taught or advocated except in a few circles of intractable folks. You're right. Children deserve to be taught the truth and to seek it out. They deserve to know the Theory of Evolution is not above question.

[Safrguns]

"Why is adaptation incompatible with creationism?" Adaptation is the alteration of that which already exists in response to an un-anticipated change in conditions. When we are faced with new conditions that were not anticipated, we as humans adapt. Creationism however teaches that the Creator has no need to 'adapt' because un-anticipated changes are non-existent. The Creator does not 'adapt', but rather decides to alter the conditions to suit the inhabitant, or the inhabitant to suit the condition. Why is an evolutionary process incompatible with God? The evolutionary process IS God to evolutionists. If you believe in the God of the bible, then you must believe in the supernatural, which according to evolutionists is anti-science.

[Blzbba]

"Children deserve to be taught the truth and to seek it out. "


Well by God, we are in total agreement on something!

[Blzbba]

"The evolutionary process IS God to evolutionists."


Not true. I believe in evolution, but I don't worship that concept (or anything else, for that matter)


"If you believe in the God of the bible, then you must believe in the supernatural, which according to evolutionists is anti-science. '"

My basic problem with Creationism is really the same flaw I have with 'Big Bang' evolution - Neither tackles the 'where did the mass of the universe that God used for Creation or that went BANG came from? Law of Conservation of Matter says matter is neither created nor destroyed. Both ideas are in violation of this principle.

[AnneFrank]

"Why not present more than one theory? How does that hurt anyone?"

I know what you mean. really. But it hurts the children. what should be of primary importance to a science teacher who's grappling with this issue is this: in the world we live in--for better or worse--people who question evolution are perceived to be a little outside reality. I'm not sure if it matters whether or not that's a fair perception. What matters is this: Why would a teacher actually go ahead and teach children something that could only make them appear really really really uneducated?

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

But it hurts the children. what should be of primary importance to a science teacher who's grappling with this issue is this: in the world we live in--for better or worse--people who question evolution are perceived to be a little outside reality.

Are you serious about what you are saying, or are you being facetious?

[Safrguns]

Not true. I believe in evolution, but I don't worship that concept (or anything else, for that matter) It is within the nature of man to explain his own existence. That explanation, whatever it may be, defines what is considered to be greater than man himself in complexity. A belief in God does not require worship... only the recognition of a higher form of intelligence. My basic problem with Creationism is really the same flaw I have with 'Big Bang' evolution - Neither tackles the 'where did the mass of the universe that God used for Creation or that went BANG came from? Your real problem is that your understanding is limited to the physical realm. Science is incapable of observing the spiritual realm, and therefore must leave it to matters of faith... hence... 'Evolution does not attempt to explain the origins of life'. The bible teaches that God spoke the physical realm into existence. The bible teaches that God is Spirit. Even creationists cannot comprehend this, but can easily conclude that there is a much larger reality involved outside of the observable physical realm. All laws of science are limited to the physical realm. The spiritual realm operates above it.

[donh]

but we are not under the Law and it's associated punishments - Jews or Christians. Of course belief in Him is required.

So, in other words, the 10 commandments are like an optional exercise in the appendix? It's ok to murder someone, as long as the love of jesus is in your heart?

Have you reached perfection yet?

No, but on the other hand, the requirements of due care placed on me are not so very rigorous, as I haven't been forcing jews into ghettos and kidnapping their children for the last 1400 years. Nor, at the present moment, do I plan to enforce my religeous beliefs on the unwilling in compulsory public schools at the expense of science education.

[balrog666]

Blithering buffoons placemarker.

[JeffAtlanta]

Nature couldn't care less that we think of something as a catfish, it's merely an organism somewhere on the continuum between single-cell organism and whatever complex form it will result in.

This point gets lost on most. The concept of "species" or "kind" is just a man made classification we use for convenience. In reality, organisms are truly just part of continuum that are not very easily pigeon holed.

I see in these threads that many define organisms as being in the same "species" if they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. This is not the true definition of "species" however - it totally disregards organisms that reproduce asexually and is totally turned on its head by ring species.

The theory of evolution predicts that the concept of "species" will be muddy and arbitrary rather than concrete and that is what the evidence bears out. For example, is a dog the same species as a wolf? Some say dogs are a subspecies and some say they are a different species but closely related. In the western states there is a lot of debate on whether some type of mouse is actually endangered or is actually just a slightly different looking variant of one that is very plentiful and in no danger of extinction.

This is where the argument that "kinds" can adapt but cannot become another "kind" falls apart. "Kinds" are just arbitrary pigeon holes that we put organisms in.

[donh]

What we don't see is evolution, which is when natural selection is taken to the degree that one species eventually evolves into a completely different species. This is only theory - no one has actually seen this happen, and this is where the ID / evolution debate comes into play.

It is only a theory that stars go through a natural sequence delineated on the Hartzsprung-Russell diagram. No one has actually seen a star coelesce and die. No one has actually seen a continent drift with their own two eyes. It is only a theory. No one has seen gravity at work in the intersteller void in order to operate at galactic distances, it is only a theory, and a somewhat troubled theory, at that. Are you ready to attack the theory of gravity?

Could you tell us what is happening when a zebra, a horse, and a donkey mate? Could you tell us why God created ring species? Could you tell us why a Camel and a Llama can mate? How about a lion and tiger? Are they all the same species? Do you think a teacup poodle and a Great Dane can mate successfully?

By being extremely selective about what evidence you are willing to consider, You are constructing your own version of evolutionary theory, based on kind of a comic-book oversimplification of what a species is (treating it as if it were a physical entity with boundaries, rather than an arbitrary human convienience) and soundly refuting that. Nice, easy work, if you can get it.

As is often the case with soft degrees, Your education was, on the available evidence, extremely lightweight regarding the nature and philosophy of science. You are entitled to your rude opinions about how gullible or venal, or uncritical scientists are, but you are misrepresenting the depth of your authority on the subject. Evolutionary theory is highly falsifiable, and has withstood enumerable tests, every time, for example, that we send grad students out to dig for specific things, and they find it in greater abundance than pipeline diggers find it. If your allergy to historic data were to be taken seriously, we'd have to abandon galactic astronomy entirely, and I don't see that happening, do you? Before you throw your intellectual weight around on this forum, you'd be well served to come to a better understanding of why we have to trust inductive reasoning, dispite it's inherent frailties, about historical events, if we are to do science.

As the vast majority of scientists would tell you, if asked, evolutionary theory stands on ground that is, at present, much firmer than that of, for example, the astronomical theory of gravity--which presently can't explain the outer orbits of galaxies by referring to anything you can, at the present moment, touch, taste or feel--even with the help of instruments.

It is a shame to turn an advanced degree into a validation token for marginal crackpot theories that fly in the face of the most profoundly amazing co-incidence of correlating evidence--the triple co-ordination of the geological column, the fossil tree, and the DNA mutational clock-- that science has ever seen. As much as anything else on this planet, evolutionary theory is a confirmed science, and needs to be taught as such, if we are going to teach science in the classroom. if you want to teach Sci-fi, or religeous history, then you have my blessing on ID. If you want to teach science. Teach science as a scientists understand it, not as politicians, or science cranks with obvious axes to grind, understand it.