"Umm, I made life and stuff. Hehe." Might explain the backwards kneecaps on cranes. And it has as much scientific validation as ID.
They will. The cats out of the bag now.
I mostly agree with this except it's not a vote or a decision on how "it" happened. Humans have several theories and beliefs on this and examining them (all) cultivates unique things that make us different form the beasts, faith and science. In this classroom I could care less if anyone draws any conclusions if it just inspires a curiosity to discover humanity; faith and science.
This is stupid. If the objection to evolution concerns lack of evidence, how is intelligent design any better? At least evolution has the fossil record to back its claims; ID has nothing.
"Things are so complex, only an invisible sky-god could have made them." Some theory!
I thought the revolution was over and Evolution was dead?
This is going to turn out just like the environmental movement. Here this lawyer is, getting money from fools that blieve in litteral translations of Genesis.
The left has an entire class of lawyers that glean money from greenies. Now the right will create another class of lawyers to decide science in court rooms.
I suppose lawyers have to make money some way.
It's not just a question of Christianity vs. Darwinism. It's also a question of Constitutional freedom. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, among other things, which many SCOTUS decisions conveniently ignored.
Jews and Catholics joined in this legal process at an early stage, because they got tired of having their kids being taught that only mainstream Protestantism was correct and American. But I think most religious Jews and Catholics have had second thoughts about whether that was wise.
There will always be fights over what our schools should teach kids, but there is no justification for activist judges to lay down arbitrary and, yes, unconstitutional laws about what should be taught and what shouldn't be taught. Those matters are better left to the parents, the school board, and the teachers.
I'm not saying that in defense of ID or against evolution but common sense would allow open discussion of (even) scientific matters.
This is the truly shocking statement in this article. In my high school, if there was ever a reason to leave class, even for a few minutes, you took it! What's wrong with these kids today?
ping
Teaching biology students both evolution and 'intelligent design' makes about as much sense as teaching astrophysics students to calculate planetary orbits using both a Copernican (heliocentric) model and a Ptolemaic (geocentric) model.
"Umm, I made life and stuff. Hehe." Might explain the backwards kneecaps on cranes. And it has as much scientific validation as ID.
The difference between the two is some religions teach values or rights and wrongs about being civil in a world that teeters on implosion, this creates a fabric for a society to survive and this is its real power not who created it. Other less desirable religions cause death and hatred in a tormented logic bent on implosion. Science should only care about understanding what we have found ourselves to exist in and why, not to battle God as wrong because it doesn't matter. Science has enough to consume with whats already on its plate.
Regardless of where you stand on the debate, children and adults should be taught all possible "theories". It is fair and balanced just like FOX!
~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 just would like to note some reservations about that term, imo.
They are thus: The world and all things in it are FAR TOO COMPLEX for ANY amount of intelligence to maintain, much less create. The power both to (1) create the universe and (2) maintain it are beyond the bounds of ANY possible intelligence. That's my theory.
What kind of wussy kids would ask to be excused?
Based on rhetoric and the mysterious "stealth designer".
Funny how the left-wing states push the anti-science screed.