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?”
Funny, seems to me that I've seen others do the same thing recently.
The Science behind ID:
Intelligent Design Science: http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm
AND
http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/irredcomplex.htm
AND The Science Behind Intelligent Design Theory
http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/idscience.htm
Not true.
True.
Evolution is not even a theory. It is an hypothesis.
Wow, are *you* confused... Where did you "learn" this falsehood?
In rebuttal to your "irreducible complexity" link: My critique of Behe's "irreducible complexity" and its fatal flaws
In rebuttal to your third linke ("The Science Behind Intelligent Design Theory"), all I need do is point out that it doesn't contain any material that actually supports its title -- it discusses neither "the science" nor describes any "theory" of "intelligent design". It just hand-waves about the author's belief that function requires design, which is just the fallacy of assuming the conclusion, and is addressed and rebutted in my first link.
Please do not try to pontificate about what is and is not science when you clearly don't understand the subject. Your statement is false at an elementary level. You're misunderstanding what it means to make a scientific observation. It does not mean necessarily actually being able to sit there and watch a thing or process as it takes place in front of you. Indeed, if we could do that in all cases, we wouldn't need science in order to investigate them. Science exists precisely to explore the things which *aren't* so directly apparent.
What needs to be "observable" in science is not necessarily the thing or process being explored, but its consequences, its effects, its results -- the evidence of its existence and/or workings.
And there is a vast amount of evidence along multiple independent cross-confirming lines that macroevolution has occurred and been involved in the production of modern life forms, and is still taking place today.
ROFL! You just post any fantasy that comes into your mind, don't you?
So you agree that evolution isn't a fact?
So you agree that red giraffes play poker by night?
And then someone else will refute your refutation, and you will refute that, and so it goes.......
But let's keep it simple. There has been no proof that one species has become an entirely different species, and THAT is the core of evolution.
And, wouldn't it be exciting if students could debate this in the classroom, just as we are doing?
Can you just imagine how exciting that class would be?
According to a Gallup Poll 95% of scientists accept evo. The figure is undoubtedly higher for biologists.
"According to a Gallup Poll 95% of scientists accept evo. The figure is undoubtedly higher for biologists."
Well, at least 5% are free thinkers. :)
Well said!ID is the academic equivalent of a push-poll. It doesn't care how the questions are answered because the questions aren't presented honestly. The questions are merely there to tarnish, in the listener's mind, something the questioner opposes.
Be happy! Why let reality bite you?
Or blinkered by supersitious twaddle, depending on your persepctive.
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?
More likely a conscious being. There's abundant proof that conscious human beings are the most intelligent life in existence. It's highly probable that a conscious being created our Universe. Look at how man has increasingly created evermore advanced technologies. Conscious intelligence dwarfs all other animals. And that is a huge understatement.
The advancement of technology is on an upward curve. That is, the manipulation of the laws of physics -- nature's laws -- to create something that nature itself could not "produce" sans consciousness -- a pair of shoes, computer, nuclear reactor, internal combustion engine, the Hover Dam, space shuttle etc. The advanced technology man has created in just the last hundred years is several magnitude more benefit to man than the first 3,000 years of conscious advancement of technology. Yet none of the technologies we benefit from today could have been created without the preceding technologies that lead the way.
How long -- or soon -- will it be to the time Earthlings control the cosmos? According to the technology curve that should happen in 1,000 years or less. Perhaps half that.
The conscious mind/body is the most valuable thing in existence. That humans live only a brief time and then die is a gross injustice. It's an ugly insult to man's magnificent conscious mind/body.
Conscious man increasingly understands nature to control nature. Including the greatest achievement -- curing human death.
Yes a limited perspective could have that view. However perspectives can evolve.
The evolutionists have no proof human life evolved from other Terran life more than those who would say humans were marooned and/or engineered here by extraterrestrials.
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.
Not at all scientific of them; it is a faith based theory no different in logical fallacy than creationism in the ‘appeal to false authority.’
There is no evidence any of them originated from this earth...
The evolutionists have no evidence that any species, flora or fauna, evolved on this planet at all more than anyone who would say it was delivered and/or was/is engineered by extraterrestrials!
The evolutionists have no more proof human life evolved from other Terran life than those who would say humans were marooned and/or engineered here by extraterrestrials.
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.
Not at all scientific of them; it is a faith based theory no different in logical fallacy than creationism in the ‘appeal to false authority.’
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.