Posted on 03/14/2006 10:49:13 AM PST by LouAvul
Intelligent design theory is creating quite a stir.
Most recently Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher said he supported school boards teaching Intelligent Design. In December, a Pennsylvania judge ruled against a Dover Township school board decision to include the theory in text books, costing the taxpayers about a million dollars in legal fees. Movements to begin teaching the intelligent design theory have popped up in dozens of states forcing local legislators and courts to address the issue.
The concept is simple: Were humans created by some sort of intelligent designer, possibly a deity, or by did we evolve scientifically based on Charles Darwin’s theories of natural selection?
However, as parents, school boards and taxpayers debate the larger issue, students locally have shared some interesting views.
Clarksville High School junior Kyle Banks is a member of Morton Memorial United Methodist Church and said he believes God created the world and its inhabitants, but has adapted to the idea of keeping his church beliefs separate from his schoolwork.
“I don’t necessarily agree with (evolution), but I don’t mind it, as long as they teach it as a theory,” Banks said.
Indiana’s educational standards concerning evolution were developed five years ago by a 60-person committee made up of teachers, scientists, administrators and parents.
In the ninth grade, students are taught how living things function in their environment through laboratory and field work, according to information from the Indiana Department of Education. The goal is to help students recognize that living organisms are made of cell or cell products that consist of the same parts as other matter, involve the same kinds of transformations of energy and move using the same kinds of basic forces.
“It’s based on getting a logical idea and testing the hypothesis,” said David Winship Taylor, head of biology at Indiana University Southeast in New Albany, who has expertise in the area of evolutionary botany. “We know we have genetic variations and changes in genetic variation — and we have time.”
Students interviewed for this story came from extreme religious to agnostic backgrounds and each one said they looked at learning evolution as just another one of their academic requirements. With the exception of Banks, all were open to the idea of adding intelligent design to classroom discussion.
“If we have a problem with evolution, we could go into the hallway or office,” said Quincy Jones, a New Albany High School senior.
During his ninth grade study of evolution, Jones couldn’t remember one student leaving the classroom for personal reasons related to the topic.
“It wasn’t forced upon us, we just went over theory,” added NAHS sophomore Stephanie Medley.
A local youth minister supports the idea of teaching the competing theories.
“I think the students would benefit from hearing both sides of the story,” said Chris Tanner, a youth minister at Georgetown Christian Church. “You can teach it without saying it’s a God to who you’re held accountable. You could just say ‘a creator.’”
Matt Holloway, a Clarksville High School junior and also a member of Morton Memorial, has come up with his own hybrid belief that blended the ideas of evolution and religion.
“I probably have a different belief than most people,” Holloway said. “I view it as evolution and creation can co-exist.
“I believe in God and that he created all humans and if he wanted to create humans that could evolve, he could do that.”
Clarksville High School Science Teacher Sherri Abromavage said sensitivity is still a factor when discussing evolution.
“We’re just seeing how science explains some of the questions we have,” Abromavage said.
To date, she said she has never had a student not complete the evolution portion on her biology class because they were uncomfortable with the theory.
“Once they realize they’re not expected to give up their personal beliefs, they’re fine,” Abromavage said.
However, there are a few schools within Clark and Floyd counties where God and science are on the same syllabus.
“We teach the principles behind evolution and we include the means of origins, the origin of that idea and why scientists believe that,” said Tim Ferree, assistant principal and former science teacher at Christian Academy in New Albany. “We teach is the biblical record of origins.”
It makes for more well-rounded students to present them with all the information, Ferree said.
“Both ideas of how we got here are accepted by many different people and an educated person has to know all the ideas,” Ferree said. “There’s going to be some overlap in some areas and you have to open your eyes to that. “We shouldn’t be afraid to take a look at different types of origins.”
However, as far as teaching creationism in public schools, the U.S. Supreme Court has made its position quite clear.
“Evolution is a scientific fact and the problem one has when one teaches something besides evolution is you’re going to be teaching opinion, and usually a religious opinion, and that raises first amendment concerns,” said Ken Falk, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana.
In Kentucky, the word “evolution” was recently deleted from guidelines of what Kentucky public school students should know and be tested on when officials from the state education department substituted the phrase ”change over time” for evolution.
Deputy Commissioner Gene Wilhoit said he and other Kentucky state department officials saw no need to keep the word evolution in the guidelines for high school and middle school students.
“The word is a lightning rod that creates a diversion from what we’re teaching, and we did not want to advocate a particular doctrine or a specific view,” Wilhoit said.
It seems this kind of creative editing is spreading throughout the country.
In August, the Kansas Board of Education also garnered attention when it adopted new testing standards that play down the scientific importance of evolution.
Kentucky biology teacher Ken Rosenbaum said these types of decisions will discourage schools from covering the topic.
“A lot of teachers are upset about this,” said Rosenbaum, who is also director of the Kentucky Science Teachers Association. “They know it was done for political reasons. It’s either a scientific theory or it’s not. Why don’t we just stop calling the sunrise the sunrise?”
There is no evidence that any species, flora or fauna, evolved on this planet at all, more than there is for anyone who would suggest it was delivered and/or is engineered by extraterrestrials unobserved in our midst.
You make the fallacious assumption this planet is the starting point for all life and is the encapsulated center of the universe unaffected by anything (or anyone) beyond it.
It is akin to saying the sun revolves around the earth...
Very true. Good point.
The very same thing can be said of the Creationists, couldn't it?
If I'm not mistaken, these would be the very same creationists, who at one time demanded that everyone toe the 'Earth is the center of the universe' line.
"control the cosmos"?
Yes.
You mean intersteller travel?
Won't be necessary until prior Sun burnout. Control much more than travel.
You realize that it's not just an engineering obstacle that's involved. There are severe limitations on our ability to travel interstellar distances in a reasonable amount of time, most importantly special relativity. Star Trek is a great show, but it's called "science FICTION" for a reason.
I don't watch Star Trek. One-hundred-fifty years ago a person couldn't imagine the possibilities of quantum mechanics, nanotechnology, gene therapy, super computers and a slew of other technologies. "Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, they're yours." -- Illusions, by Richard Bach
How many scientists and inventors didn't argue for their limitations? Many have increasingly understood nature to control nature. Probably the greatest fiction believed by people is God, Allah etc.
Complain all you want.
I'm not complaining. I acknowledge conscious man and conscious woman's greatness and supreme value.
And why do take it personally?
I take my life personally -- nobody else will. I have zero use for death. Youth rejuvenating biologic immortality I do have great use for.
A lot of people are 'afraid' of death, or want to 'cheat' death, or even 'welcome' death, but I don't know that I've met anyone who has felt 'insulted' by death.
Insulted by man's puny view of himself that death is natural for the greatest known controller of nature.
Activist Judge Jones said in the Dover case: "We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom."
So I'm trying to figure out WHICH religion. No one seems to know.
Perhaps it is a belief in God that the secular zealots are worried about.
Yes... under the strict rules of categorical logic, both the evolutionists and creationists say Terra (our planet) is the center of the Universe... neither has any greater claim to validity than the other. They are both illogical.
These evolutionists always talk about science, but have no idea how to apply logic to the scientific method, both of which Aristotle discovered thousands of years ago.
I think the evolutionists are really only here to bash the creationists and other non-believers of evolutionism (like me).
And your authority for this is what?
Reproduceability in science applies to effects or changes that occur in a controlled setting. Reproduceability also applies to observations.
An expert like yourself must agree that biology is an observational science, like astronomy. Unless you want to claim that astronomy is not a science.
The world is still waiting for creationists to present their evidence proving that the Book of Genesis is a science textbook. Or maybe you don't believe Genesis is real because it's not reproduceable?
2nd time for easier reading:
Sun says: "Or maybe the 5% free-thinking scientists have the common sense to realize that if there if no proof that one species has ever become another species, then the evolution theory is bunk."
CG says: "Or maybe they're a bunch of boobs."
So then Sun says: I'd say that the scientists who believe that one species can become another species WITHOUT PROOF are a bunch of.., well as a compassionate conservative, let's just say the evo scientists are lacking in wisdom.
And isn't it sad how the evo scientists kept picking on those poor little fruit flys for decades, STILL never proved that once species can become and entirely different species?
Evolution skeptics are still waiting for evos to prove that one species can become an entirely different species.
You say it is scientific. In order for it to be scientific it must be reproducible. That's how we verify an hypothesis. If it cannot be reproduced then it remains an hypothesis. I.e., a mere guess.
Scientifically demonstrate, therefore, the beginning of a complex, fragile universe from nothing.
Until you can prove this, nothing else you say will matter since nothing else could ever come into being (without the beginning of our universe).
(Crickets chirping.)
That's what I thought.
No, sir, you're wrong. Until your hypothesis can be verified it remains an hypothesis. Viz., a mere guess.
Otherwise all guesses are equally scientific.
That's nonsense.
Bravo! And no matter how long they dance around their smoke and mirrors, your stated fact remains obvious!
ID is not the "whatever you want it to be" theory.
Why do you use the term "darwinism" rather than evolution or ToE?
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.