Posted on 01/20/2005 12:54:58 PM PST by Jay777
ANN ARBOR, MI — The small town of Dover, Pennsylvania today became the first school district in the nation to officially inform students of the theory of Intelligent Design, as an alternative to Darwin’s theory of Evolution. In what has been called a “measured step”, ninth grade biology students in the Dover Area School District were read a four-paragraph statement Tuesday morning explaining that Darwin’s theory is not a fact and continues to be tested. The statement continued, “Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view.” Since the late 1950s advances in biochemistry and microbiology, information that Darwin did not have in the 1850s, have revealed that the machine like complexity of living cells - the fundamental unit of life- possessing the ability to store, edit, and transmit and use information to regulate biological systems, suggests the theory of intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of life and living cells.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm representing the school district against an ACLU lawsuit, commented, “Biology students in this small town received perhaps the most balanced science education regarding Darwin’s theory of evolution than any other public school student in the nation. This is not a case of science versus religion, but science versus science, with credible scientists now determining that based upon scientific data, the theory of evolution cannot explain the complexity of living cells.”
“It is ironic that the ACLU after having worked so hard to prevent the suppression of Darwin’s theory in the Scopes trial, is now doing everything it can to suppress any effort to challenge it,” continued Thompson.
(Excerpt) Read more at thomasmore.org ...
sweet. very sweet. well done.
Yes. ID. Hence the ability to teach the entirety of the discipline by reading four paragraphs. If this particular effort survives in the PA school system, they will be reading the same four paragraphs to students in 2050.
In my experience over several decades, no, it isn't. Anti-evolutionists have a fundamental misunderstanding on that issue.
"Of course, there are "mainstream churches" which don't believe in Christ, in sin, in the resurrection, or in the Bible, so that example isn't very compelling."
I'm not aware of any such churches, and certainly not in the mainstream, which would include the RCC, Anglican, Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, and others. All believe in all the things you mention. Perhaps you know of some churches that don't believe in the above. Perhaps you could list them for me. Are you sure they are "mainstream" churches?
You could have just made links. Did you have to post an entire book?
My favorite is the pepper moth example. They used to have light colored wings, and could blend in well with the light colored bark of neighboring trees. But as the industrial revolution cranked up, the light bark got darkened by soot, and the light-colored pepper moths became bird bait. When the population of pepper moths became predominantly dark-winged, this (according to what I was taught in public school) became an example of observable evolution. Nonsense. The pepper moths didn't become some new specie; a recessive trait simply became dominant. But this is the flimsy evidence the evolutionists have foisted upon innocent kids in school to "prove" their theory.
So he did discuss the origin of HUMAN life, and the origin of all variations of life but the first. Evolutionists certainly include the origin of life from non-life in their theories, and it has long been talked about in kids' textbooks. So, where's your beef? It is part of the theory as I learned it in high school. You can't have it both ways. Kids are not studying Darwin's book, so whether he attempted to explain the origin of the very first life is irrelevant to this discussion. WHAT IS IN THEIR CURRICULUM is what is relevant to this thread.
[Thunderous applause!]
I think we should give alchemy equal billing to chemistry, too. Maybe astrology equal to astronomy...
My, my, this thread really took off. Its gettin rowdy in here. I gotta go home, I'll bump this for later, and see how it goes. I really got something started didn't i?
Well, maybe so. Still, "utter and complete moron" is rather strong. Nobody's going to gain any understanding if the communication's on that level.
"There's a sign the author of the statement is an utter and complete moron."
Or completely uneducated about evolution, a trait common amongst Creationists, er, IDers.
one inconvenient fact: genetic mutation occurs.
in case you do not know, a genetic mutation is not a change in the expression pattern of an existing code, but is instead a change in the code itself.
as this tenet of a constant, unchanging, pre-scripted code is the central leg of your proposal, your proposal fails the test of empirically observable fact.
next!
"Of course, there are "mainstream churches" which don't believe in Christ, in sin, in the resurrection, or in the Bible, so that example isn't very compelling.
"
All of the churches I mentioned earlier have adopted the Nicene Creed, which includes all your points. Name me one "mainstream" church which does not believe in all of those, please.
Directing creationists to links is invariably met with derision. It goes something like this -- "Why can't you just give me the evidence right here? Why do you always point to some stupid internet site somewhere. Well, your site contains nothing! Nothing I tell you!"
And his "how" has been taking a beating lately, by advances in science no less.
Say what you will, but Darwin was relieved to have come up with a theory which took God out of the equation, so to speak. He may not have formally questioned "why" or "who," but his theory brought comfort to his unbelief. Do you think Richard Dawkins, to mention one prominent evolutionist, doesn't have an anti-religious axe to grind as an apologist for Darwinism? The fact that most evolutionists, including the vast majority I see on these FR threads, consider believers in God to be supertitious nimrods belies your suggestion that Darwin, or his followers, were religiously neutral.
I believe in astrology, but its not the same as astronomy. We're talking spiritual philosophy vs. physical study. The spiritual universe is real, and it isn't seperate from the physical one, but the study should be seperate. In my opinion, the theory of Intelligent Design should be allowed to be taught as a theory since some people believe it, and perhaps aspects of astrology should be taught in school too.
Waiting for the science nazis to show up and tell us all we're pinheads for not buying into their myth.
"Waiting for the science nazis to show up and tell us all we're pinheads for not buying into their myth."
I'm waiting for the creationist nazis to show up and tell us we're pinheads for not buying into THEIR myth. 6000 years hold when you can see stars that are much older, ha ha ha ha!
That doesn't mean I'm anti intelligent design, as an engineer there are some theremodynamic hints of God and the Devil contained in the second law. But at some point, it is what it is, things evolve, so deal with it.
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.