Posted on 09/19/2005 3:32:34 PM PDT by dukeman
The Dover Area School district in Pennsylvania will soon defend its policy to require ninth grade students to hear a short statement about intelligent design before biology lessons on evolution.
Dover is believed to have been the first school system in the nation to require students to hear about the controversial concept. The school adopted the policy in October 2004, after which teachers were required to read a statement that says intelligent design is different than Darwins theory of evolution and refers students to a text book on intelligent design to get more information.
All the Dover school board did was allow students to get a glimpse of a controversy that is really boiling over in the scientific community, said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which is defending the school district, according to the Associated Press.
The civil trial is set to take place on Sept. 26 and will only be the latest chapter in a long-running legal debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools.
The controversy over intelligent design in public schools has received national attention with statements by President Bush expressing approval for the theory to be taught in class, along with the recent approval by the Kansas Board of Education to give preliminary approval to science standards that allow criticism of evolution.
Intelligent design theory states that some parts of the natural world are so complex that the most reasonable explanation is that they were made as products of an intelligent cause, rather than random mutation and natural selection.
In contrast to "creationism," which states specifically that God is the creator, intelligent design is more general, simply saying that life did not come about by chance. The "designer" could be anything or anyone, though many place God in the position of the designer.
Experts on the case include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, who is proponent of intelligent design. He holds that the concept of irreducible complexity shows that there is an intelligent creator. He cites the example of a bacterial flagellum, an appendage to a bacterium that allows it to move about.
"Whenever we see such complex, functional mechanical systems, we always infer that they were designed. ... It is a conclusion based on physical evidence," AP reported Behe as saying in testimony before the state legislative panel in June where he was asked to talk about intelligent design.
Critics of intelligent design have dismissed the theory as a backdoor to creationism, with some calling it pseudo science.
In a 1999 assessment of intelligent design, the National Academy of sciences said the theory was not science.
''Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science," the NAS stated.
The controversy over Intelligent Design has been so highly talked about that the debate was also featured last month as a cover story for Time Magazine. In the feature article, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) President Albert Mohler, Jr., tackled the controversy with three other scholars in a forum addressing the question Can You Believe in God and Evolution? Behe was also among those whose views were addressed in the article.
haps-not side
I don't try to have a discussion with people who make up their own words. Sorry.
Tempting... But no, nobody should be asked to leave. This is FR!
The problem is that we need to keep science and its methods separate from belief and their ways.
Science works from data and theory, with theory being the attempts to explain those pesky facts (data). Sometimes theories have to change when new facts arise, or when better theory emerges.
Belief is unchanging, and based on faith. The two really are separate and should not be used to argue against one another.
You say you don't have time to study science and then proceed to trash science and its methods. Then don't enter into science-bashing.
But don't leave an FR thread (especially an old fossil like yourself!) because of something like this. ; )
Hey, I like your login AND your tagline.
Then you never had an understanding of what evolutionary theory is or what it's limits are.
***For purposes of social policy discussion, that doesn't really matter. I think I had a rudimentary understanding of the theory at the time, and I also think that I'm running into a lack of understanding from the proponents of TOE/abio that their theories have implications in the inductive realms that they need to address.
Was any of it a substantive dispute with what the theory says?
***Yes.
The president is not the arbiter of what is correct in science.
***I'm not saying that he is. In one stroke, it became a SOCIAL POLICY issue. It still has elements of an issue of science and science policy, but now those elements are now inextricably mixed with politics. That means you start having these kinds of discussions with numbskulls like me, and if you can't explain things in a clear fashion, politely - look up the word politic & compare it to polite -- without arrogance, they tend to wander away and vote against your policy down the road (maybe even become president & really stir things up). I have trouble seeing that ID is a pseudoscience when these guys were instrumental in finding that the fine structure constant of light (and most probably a resulting finding that the speed of light is not a constant) has changed. Scientists were not able to convince two of our greatest presidents that this is wacky pseudoscience. There is something to this controversy.
I gotta run, talk to you folks later.
OK. But can you falsify this? How. Please be specific in your answer.
The world was once nothing but water. The only land above the water was Black Mountain. All the people lived up there when the flood came, and their fireplaces can still be seen.Fish-eater and Hawk lived there. Fish-eater was Hawk's uncle. One day they were singing and shaking a rattle. As they sang, Hawk shook this rattle and dirt began to fall out of it. They sang all night, shaking the rattle the whole time. Soon there was so much dirt on the water that the water started to go down. When it had gone all the way down, they put up the Sierra Nevada to hold the ocean back. Soon they saw a river running down through the valley.
When they finished making the earth, Hawk said, "Well, we have finished. Here is a rabbit for me. I will live on rabbits in my lifetime." Fish-eater was over a swampy place, and he said, "I will live on fish in my lifetime." They had plenty to eat for themselves. It was finished.
Owens Valley Paiute creation story, eastern California
Well-earned ridicule. You think whining about it will cause us to spare you?
Some of it was by wearing it as a philosophy (I used to be an evolutionist) and finding that there really was very little that kept me from becoming a lawless individual if I wanted to carry it forward.
Well, there's your problem. You thought it was a 'philosophy', when in fact evolution is a scientific theory. If you were looking for a philosophy, why didn't you take up Feng Shui?
If mainstream science can't convince the president that teaching this stuff side by side is a bad idea, I doubt your ridicule and scorn would be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
If his advisors can't convince the President we need a viable immigration policy or a curb on federal spending, I doubt they'll have any more luck with biology. At least Bush has the sense to employ a science advisor who does know the difference between science and ID.
So why don't we discuss this social policy issue on its merits?
Evolution isn't a social policy any more than it's a philosophy. Why don't we discuss it as a scientific theory?
What is with that, by the way? Thomas More was one of the first victims of the English Reformation. When did he get adopted by literalist Protestants?
That's not true. Either you have faith and believe in one of the thousands of religions, or you deal with science. Many people actually can reconcile the two!
But when you really need to figure things out, who you gonna call? The ghost busters? A fortune teller or tarot card reader? Astrologer? Witch doctor? Shaman? The local politician? The neighbors? Divine revelation? Opinion polls?
I think you will look for the facts. What are the facts? And to how many decimal places. And that path leads to science.
I may be wrong in this, but I would not bet the rent money on the others.
Please, contemplate that thought.
So it is ipso facto is it, so let us not even look at that possibility. What a scientific approach.
Thanks for the ping!
I find this whole thing a bit offensive. The Bishop of whatever city they are located in would make an official statement declaring that they have absolutely nothing to do with the Catholic Church.
People also might get them confused with the St. Thomas More Society, a respectable organization of Catholic lawyers and law students that has absolutely nothing to do with this ID nonsense.
Again, I wish the Catholic Church would copyright the names of our saints.
Of that dreary and un-inspiring lot, at least the neighbors and opinion polls have the virtue of not directly conning you out of your money. All the others come right out and demand it. So as long as you're going to get inaccurate information, you might as well get it for free.
Actually, it's nice to see this admission. It neatly sums up the entire ID/creationist movement. I wish the balance of the movement's proponents were as honest.
Perhaps creationism and creationism-lite are just consequences of people being too lazy to think.
early bird gets the primes.....
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.