Posted on 09/26/2005 1:53:21 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
A Pennsylvania school district's use of "intelligent design" in its high school biology curriculum goes on trial in federal court today in the nation's first legal challenge to the idea, which contends that evolutionary theory alone does not explain how life on Earth took shape.
The lawsuit, brought by 11 parents in the Dover Area School District, attacks as unconstitutional the year-old policy of telling ninth-grade biology students that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution "is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence." School officials also recommend a book on intelligent design, or ID.
The plaintiffs, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, argue that the policy -- which does not require students to study intelligent design -- serves religious, not secular ends, violating the First Amendment.
ID proponents say scientists can look at life forms and identify the work of a controlling "intelligence," although ID advocates are not specific about the nature of that force. While they do not reject all evolutionary theory, ID proponents argue that it incorrectly insists life took shape purely through a mindless process.
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
Just to get all this attention from you really smart guys. LOL
So anyone who doesn't agree with you is a fool? Typical.
That depends on what you mean by "accepting" the theory. Like I said, the validity of a theory rests on its ability to survive testing with new data. Understanding evolution is very important to fields like ecology and medicine. If we want to understand, for example, why certain diseases flourish in certain parts of the world, or why natural fish stock size is declining, for example, then people need to be trained to understand how biological evolution works.
Do you have to "accept" evolutionary theory to do any science? I don't think it matters whether anyone "accepts" any scientific theory, but if one is going to try to apply it, they'd better understand how it works. Science doesn't seek to "squelch" creation; there just aren't any observable empirical consequences to creationism that hold true under testing. You can believe God is responsible for Creation; I believe He ultimately is, but I won't pretend I can use science to prove that.
Yeah, anyone who doesn't agree with YOU is a troll! That's fair.
Nice reply.:)
I wouldn't trust a book that says I descended from apes.
But you would trust one that puts forward burning bushes, immaculate conception, resurrection from the dead, etc. as fact?
Trolls are people who make stupid, pointless, repetitive posts with no intent to listen to replies, to learn from experience, or discuss the material at hand; who seek only to disrupt the thread or provoke intemperate replies. Very similar, in general, to the behavior of poorly raised adolescents.
Want to see one? Look in a mirror.
Evidence "indicated" or "proved"? Big difference.
Where did you find this???? I LOVE IT!!!
My mind is closed...
Just put this on your clipboard and cut and paste it as your response to everything. It is accurate and it will save time.
Im not talking to mlc9852, but it should be pointed out that we are not only decended from apes.....we ARE apes.
I don't remember calling anyone names, unlike you evos. But it doesn't surprise me that manners wouldn't be your strong suit.
Seems the same could apply to you, doesn't it?
So far we've seen creationists demonstrate that they eschew the scientific method. This is not surprising to many of us, but it makes their case to get into America's science classrooms ever so weaker than it already was. I'd have more respect for them if they'd be honest about their motives and start lobbying to abolish science education altogether. Evolution is science, and the only reason they don't accept this is because they don't know what science is. When we make it clear to them, they make it clear to us that they just don't like science. They think they should be able to interpret evidence to mean whatever they want. Postmodernists, meet your newest and greatest ally.
Aw, but I used a question mark and everything! In seriousness, I suppose you could argue that it is a leading question along the lines of 'Have you stopped beating your wife?' so I will rephrase it as two questions:
Is the religious belief that a Creator is responsible for life as we know it being promoted as if it were science? And if so, is it in keeping with Christian beliefs to condone such an untruth?
2. If you believe this is unconstitional then that means you must consider the teacher in question to be congress, and the mentioning of a book about ID to be the establishment of a religion. Therefore--you're an idiot. I won't waste time on fools.
You asked a question and I gave a direct answer. That you intended it to be a loaded question is not my fault. It does surprise me that you profess to call me an idiot based on the premise that the public school system, not immediately being congress, isn't subject to the first amendment. Perhaps you are not familiar with EDWARDS v. AGUILLARD or Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District.
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.