Evolving doors: Students say they wouldn’t mind hearing both sides (Re Intelligent Design)

AP via News/Tribune ^ | 3-14-06 | kyle lowry

[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?”

[stands2reason]

The works of Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Mara Bar-Serapion, the Talmud, and Eusebius.

Not that it has anything to do with the thread, but please show where these sources document Jesus' miracles.

[LouAvul]

ID is not the "whatever you want it to be" theory.

Oh, but it is whatever "you" want it to be?

So, enlighten us, omniscient one.

[JCEccles]

Darwinism denotes the materialist faith. Evolution is its central tenet, its "must not be disputed" mechanism of materialist salvation.

Darwinists are small-minded quasi-religious zealots who seek to use the coercive power of the state to stifle all criticism of the materialist salvation faith claims.

Does that answer your question?

[stands2reason]

Darwinism denotes the materialist faith

Where do you get this from? Can you name anyone who believes as such and self-identifies as a Darwinist?

[ufans]

Evolution skeptics are still waiting for evos to prove that one species can become an entirely different species.
-----
How about this then.
"In 1975, Japanese scientists reported the discovery of bacteria that could break down nylon, the material used to make pantyhose and parachutes. Bacteria are known to ingest all sorts of things, everything from crude oil to sulfur, so the discovery of one that could eat nylon would not have been very remarkable if not for one small detail: nylon is synthetic; it didn't exist anywhere in nature until 1935, when it was invented by an organic chemist at the chemical company Dupont."

Is it possible that this new type of bacteria that has the ability to digest nylon arose spontaneously as a result of mutation (evolution). Because it allowed the bacteria to take advantage of a new resource, the ability stuck and was eventually passed on to future generations. There is also another type of bacteria that have been found to eat Styrofoam and turn it into useable plastic. Evolution while you watch.

[LouAvul]

Simply because they "discovered" such bacteria in no way proves your point.

They simply "discovered" such bacteria exists.

It proves nothing.

[ufans]

Evolutionists 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.
------
Actually it was the church that decreed that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the sun revolved around it. If anyone said different they were put on trial and then killed, or they just dissapeared to some dark dungeon and forgotten. Also according to most, if not most all, creationists, in all the galaxies, around all the stars, on all the planets that revolve around those stars, we here on Earth are the only inteligent living beings. If there are others then they must be demons or fallen angels, according to scriptures. That sure seems like an aweful lot of wasted space.

[Sun]

Now THAT is a stretch, lol, and an example of countless stretches, which is why commonsensical people do not believe in evolution.

[ufans]

It proves nothing.
----
I guess that was what the bacteria were eating before the man made inventions of styrofome and nylon also. Now that would be a discovery. News flash ** "New bacteria found that survive by eating nothing! Scriptures tell us that this new bacteria are waiting on man to develope some non-natural product for them to eat." Uhh..yeah...right.

Maybe a creator decided that there was just to many picnics with styrofome and that women should not ware pantyhose so he, poof, created these new bacteria to solve those problems. I guess that since the dead sea scrolls were "discovered" then they mean nothing either. Go figure??

[ufans]

Now THAT is a stretch, lol, and an example of countless stretches, which is why commonsensical people do not believe in evolution.
-----
Which part? The part about the church stating that the Earth is the center of the Universe and killing those that say otherwise? Or that a NEW bacteria, that eats something that was not here before man created it, has evolved the ability to eat what was never here before man created it? A new type of life is here, just put the blinders on so that you will not see it, or will a creationist try to destroy it since it shows that something has evolved??

[ufans]

Both sides? Why wouldn't they include all religious creation myths?

Exactly. If it's okay to teach Christian/Jewish views of creation, why not Wiccaism? Hinduism? Occultism?
-----
I honestly do not have any problem with the teaching of myths and religions in schools, teach all of them not just a select one or couple. I think that it could actually help us understand who we are, as humans, and where we came from, historicaly, better. BUT I also DO NOT think they should be taught in a SCIENCE class.

Here is a link to 10 different Intelligent Designs (or Creation Myths)
http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_intelligent_designs.html

[LouAvul]

You still haven't produced evidence of anything. You've alluded to an isolated event wherein you try to force your conclusions.

BTW, your sarcasm is an ineffective dodge of your weak argument.

Produce some facts, please.

You obviously know nothing about science.

[Sun]

I've asked so many evos to provide me with proof of one species becoming an entirely different species, and I never get a straight answer.

Why is that?

Well, we all know the answer to that, INCLUDING the evos. Because there IS no proof.

[LouAvul]

Exactly. Then they (sometimes) come up with some obscure event that is grossly subject to interpretation.

They are desperately hoping against hope to reinforce a choice they've already made.

Kind of like a gambler who keeps throwing money into the game because he's already invested too much.

Ok, any analogy is a bad analogy, but you get my point.

[Sun]

It's a good analogy.

My dad always says, never throw good money after bad money.

[ufans]

You still haven't produced evidence of anything. You've alluded to an isolated event wherein you try to force your conclusions.
---
I understand that you will probably just gloss over this but if you do answer then I would like to know what "evidence" you would accept as evidence.

I did not "allude" to an isolated event, unless you mean an isolated event where one type of bacteria evolves into another type of bacteria? But even then I gave 2 instances of where it happened, even though there are many other instances I just chose those 2. I did not try to force any conclusions at all. I just presented the facts as they are and you came to your own conclusion as others will do. Since you did not like the factual evidence that I produced before I will expand on it a little more and add some other interesting factual evidence.

I produced factual evidence that there was a new type of bacteria, one that did not exist before, that could eat man-made, not nature-made, items, Styrofoam, nylon, and even TNT.

Two species of bacteria, Flavobacterium sp. K172 and Pseudomonas sp. NK87, were identified that eat nylon compounds. "Nylon didn't exist before 1935, and neither did this organism. Detailed examination of the DNA sequences of the original bacterium and of the nylon-ingesting version show identical versions in the gene for a key metabolic enzyme, with only one difference in over 400 nucleotides. However, this single microevolutionary addition of a single thymine ('T') nucleotide caused the new bacterium's enzyme to be composed of a completely novel sequence of amino acids, via the mechanism of frame shifting. The new enzyme is 50 times less efficient than its precursor, as would be expected for a new structure which has not had time to be polished by natural selection. However, this inefficiency would certainly not be expected in the work of an intelligent designer. The genetic mutation that produced this particular irreducibly-complex enzyme probably occurred countless times in the past, and probably was always lethal, until the environment changed, and nylon was introduced."

Bacteria aren't the only living things to come up with new mutations to handle new man-made substances. There's also mosquitoes, cottom budworms, and houseflies that have undergone some ingenious mutations since the advent of DDT (another man-made chemical ending in T):
"Mosquitoes that are resistant to DDT have evolved multiple copies of the esterase genes that enable them to detoxify it; the cotton budworm has altered the target of the poison, and houseflies have altered the proteins that transport the poison.

If that is not good enough then why do some whales still have leftover body parts from when they walked on land? "There are many cases where whales have been found with rudimentary hind limbs in the wild, and have been found in baleen whales, humpback whales, and in many specimens of sperm whales. Most of these examples are of whales that had only leg bones, but there were some that included feet with complete digits."

My sarcasm was not used as an "ineffective dodge to a weak argument" as you state.

Produce some facts, please.
----
I did provide factual evidence that you simply want to ignore, there was no "weak argument" as I just provided the facts. I can not show someone that the sky is blue if they will not open there eyes to look.

You obviously know nothing about science.
----
I see that since you can not dispute my factual evidence you first try to sidestep it by saying that I have not provided any then you have gone on the offensive and try to attack the messenger of information that you will not look at. As you have no idea who I am and what knowledge I hold I would suggest the withholding of such comments till you know me better.

[philetus]

Student: Encyclopedia? You mean we could actually learn at home?

[ufans]

Student: Encyclopedia? You mean we could actually learn at home?
----
Probably a better place to learn than most of the "Guberment run skools" now days.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"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."

I'd say that Sun is very misinformed about what science is all about. The difference between evidence and proof, for instance, comes to mind. As a compassionate conservative, I'll just chalk it up to ignorance.


"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?"

They weren't trying to make a new species. They were mapping genes. Try reading up on what the experiments were actually supposed to do before making such silly statements.

[LouAvul]

what "evidence" you would accept as evidence.

In order for your "facts" to be "scientific" they must be verifiable, no? Until you prove your hypothesis, one opinion is as good as another.

The first, and most crucial hypothesis that must be proven is that our exceedingly complex, delicate yet durable universe simply "popped" into existence from nothing. Until you verify this (ridiculous) hypothesis, nothing else you say is of any consequence.

Certainly not that highly dubious example to which you earlier alluded.