Intelligent Design Seeks a Place in Utah Schools - ("creationism" not same as "intel. design")

CHRISTIAN POST.COM ^ | JUNE 6, 2005 | Susan Wang

[CHARLITE]

A new front has opened up in the debate over evolution and creationism in Utah, with a proposal to require the teaching of divine design in public schools.

State Senator Chris Buttars (R-West Jordan) has agreed to take the lead in pushing new legislation on the teaching of divine design, also known as intelligent design, in conjunction with evolution in schools.

Buttars is supported by a strong conservative lobby, headed by the Eagle Forum, which has previously sought the inclusion of divine design in the public school science curriculum.

School officials argue that any laws requiring the teaching of divine design could be found in violation of the separation of church and state under the First Amendment.

Supporters of the proposal contend, however, that divine design is not the same as creationism. Unlike creationism, divine design simply acknowledges that the world is so complex, its development must have been guided by some higher power. Proponents do not specify who that higher power is.

Currently, public schools in Utah are required to teach evolution, but not alternative theories. Some teachers have independently chosen to introduce the topics of creationism or divine design in their classrooms.

The issue of what to teach in schools regarding evolution has been an ongoing debate. Recent cases have gained nationwide attention.

In May, the Kansas Board of Education held hearings to decide on new science standards. A three-member committee heard arguments from proponents of intelligent design and evolution. Last week, written arguments from both sides were submitted to the Board. The Board is expected to decide on new standards by the end of the summer.

One of the most publicized cases last year concerned evolution disclaimer stickers that were placed on the cover of ninth grade science books in Atlanta, Georgia. The stickers said that “evolution is a theory, not a fact,” and warned students that “material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”

Six parents filed a suit against the Cobb County School District, charging that the stickers violated the separation of church and state. The school district argued that the stickers were meant to open up discussion on the topic of evolution and alternative theories of the origin of life.

In January, a federal judge ordered the stickers to be removed. The school district began removing stickers from over 30,000 books in May, although an appeal is pending on the judge’s ruling.

The new proposal in Utah is yet another iteration of the creation-evolution debate. The issue is expected to be brought up when the next legislative session begins in January.

Comments: susan@christianpost.com

[pby]

I ask for evidence of vertical evolution in the fossil record and in observeable form today and you show me another theory based on retro-viruses? Fossils please. Animals turning into other animals today please. How about non-living turning into living?

[pby]

...just give your direct evidence from the fossil record or observeable evidence today. Natural history museums around the world will want it, if you can provide it.

[pby]

Cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, stellar and planetary evolution, organic evolution and macroevolution are all taught in public school science classes with pure naturalistic explanations, which is philosophical not scientific. The National Center for Science Education defends a "fully naturalistic" explanation for evolution.

[malakhi]

...just give your direct evidence from the fossil record or observeable evidence today. Natural history museums around the world will want it, if you can provide it.

Such evidence has been posted on these threads repeatedly. Perhaps Ichneumon can accommodate you.

[pby]

Remember what Dr. Crick did years after he won the Noble Prize for his co-discovery of DNA? He theorized that life on earth came from aliens via rocket ships...the theory of directed panspermia.

BTW, just what naturalistic process produced all that genetic information?

[pby]

retro-viruses again? Don't you have your own answer?

[Fester Chugabrew]

The only problem is that there's no proof that God exists.

So nice of the proponents of evolution to demand proof of God's existence while denying science the capacity to "prove" anything.

[malakhi]

Ichneumon has posted some highly detailed compilation of such information. No need to try to duplicate his efforts. If you go to PatrickHenry's profile page, you can find plenty of links to peruse.

[Dimensio]

Cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, stellar and planetary evolution, organic evolution and macroevolution

You've been reading too much Hovind, Chick or both. The theory of evolution covers biological systems. That's it. It does not delve into cosmology.

[pby]

I went to the links as you proposed...And you have to be kidding right? Have you looked at them for evidence of vertical evolution from the fossil record?

Archaeopteryx is listed as a transitional fossil on a University of Ill. website. Archaeopteryx was determined to be an extinct bird by Stephen Jay Gould and a sinificant portion of the scientific community some time ago!

The rest of the fossils are explained with verbiage like "may" or "probably".

The quotes I liked best were "traces are so fragmentary that actual ancestors can't be identified" and "few or none of the speciation events are present."

Again, please provide direct and accepted evidence of vertical evolution from the fossil record.

[pby]

I am aware of what the theory covers...Are you saying that public school science classes do not present the topics that I mentioned at all and from a purely naturalistic perspective?

And the NCSE does defend a "fully naturalistic" evolutionary theory...It can be found on their website.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Actually, Hyperion drives his chariot across the sky to cause the day. Teach the controversy! (Cf. P.D.Q Bach: "Iphigenia in Brooklyn.")

[Oztrich Boy]

Archaeopteryx was determined to be an extinct bird by Stephen Jay Gould and a sinificant portion of the scientific community some time ago!

You of course have no reference for this assertion.

Scientists like to classify things. Long before Stephen Jay Gould, it was decided that a bird was "a vertenrate animal with feathers".
By this definition Archaeopteryx was a bird. this does not mean it was not transitional.

And now it seems that some dinosaurs are also birds, by the definition. This is only a problem for Creationists who still class Dinosaurs as Reptiles.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[aNYCguy]

You have confused evolution with abiogenesis. Don't feel bad; it's a common misunderstanding.

[aNYCguy]

Too late...Public school "science" classes already dove into the realm of philosophy when they taught evolutionary theory as purely naturalistic and completely Godless.

Do you judge them just as harshly for teaching gravitational theory as purely naturalistic? Are you aware that science seeks only naturalistic explanations for observations?

And the creation itself is "proof" that God exists.

"Things exist, therefore God exists."

I think you'll need to add a couple intermediate steps to this argument. As it stands I find it lacking.

[aNYCguy]

isn't the converse true...It's not the "job" of public school science classes to explain that God is not all around us?

You seem to have unfounded feelings of persecution. Just because a science lesson does not mention your particular god does not mean the writer of the lesson is denying your religious beliefs. Science deals in the natural and does not mention supernatural forces in one way or another. Scientists will say that the earth orbits the sun due to gravity, a natural force. You are free to believe in any supernatural forces as the ultimate causes of these natural forces. Teaching kids about gravity is not the same as teaching them that "God is not all around us."

Scripture interprets Scripture.

I wasn't aware that books were particular interested in interpreting themselves. I figured people had to do it. If you believe in religion being taught in state-sponsored schools, please explain how the religion and sect (that is, interpretation of holy books) would be decided upon. Majority rules, decided by district?

[aNYCguy]

isn't the converse true...It's not the "job" of public school science classes to explain that God is not all around us?

You seem to have unfounded feelings of persecution. Just because a science lesson does not mention your particular god does not mean the writer of the lesson is denying your religious beliefs. Science deals in the natural and does not mention supernatural forces in one way or another. Scientists will say that the earth orbits the sun due to gravity, a natural force. You are free to believe in any supernatural forces as the ultimate causes of these natural forces. Teaching kids about gravity is not the same as teaching them that "God is not all around us."

Scripture interprets Scripture.

I wasn't aware that books were particular interested in interpreting themselves. I figured people had to do it, and people disagree. If you believe in religion being taught in state-sponsored schools, please explain how the religion and sect (that is, interpretation of holy books) would be decided upon. Majority rules, decided by district?

[shuckmaster]

How about non-living turning into living?

You want to see a non-living fossil turn into a living fossil?

[pby]

In 1993, evolutionary orintholigist Allan Feduccia wrote in Science, "I conclude that Archaeoptyrex was arboreal and volant, considereably advanced aerodynamically, and probably capable of flapping, powered flight to some degree. Archaeoptyrex was...in the modern sense a bird."

In 1984 an international Archaeoptyrex conference was held in Eichstatt, Bavaria to evaluate the official status of the fossil. The consensus of the evolutionary scientists present was that Archaeoptyrex was a bird that could fly, but not necassrily the ancestor for modern birds.

In addition, fully formed bird fossils 75 miilion years older than Archaeoptyrex have been found... Protavis Texenis .