Posted on 09/20/2006 12:34:51 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Republican gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos says Michigan's science curriculum should include a discussion about intelligent design.
He says including intelligent design along with evolution would help students discern the facts among different theories.
"I would like to see the ideas of intelligent design — that many scientists are now suggesting is a very viable alternative theory — that that theory and others that would be considered credible would expose our students to more ideas, not less," DeVos told The Associated Press this week during an interview on education.
Intelligent design's proponents hold that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher force rather than evolving from more primitive forms. Some want science teachers to teach that Darwin's theory of evolution is not a fact and has gaps.
However, a federal judge in December barred the school system in Dover, Pa., from teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in high school biology classes. The judge said that intelligent design is religion masquerading as science, and that teaching it alongside evolution violates the separation of church and state. [Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al.]
Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm has said that Michigan schools need to teach the established theory of evolution in science classes and not include intelligent design, but can explore intelligent design in a current events or a comparative religions class.
The State Board of Education last week postponed adopting new science curriculum guidelines until state lawmakers get more time to weigh in on what the state's public schools science curriculum should be and how it should approach the teaching of evolution.
Many Republican politicians are doing this. Personally, I think it's just shoring up the vote and I doubt DeVos would really make a push for ID if he beats Granholm. I would still vote for the guy, because pandering is the name of the game in campaigning.
Well, a discussion of the theory (technically still a simple assertion) begins:
"ID proposes that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher force rather than evolving from more primitive forms."
Now, what gets discussed?
If this is a serious proposal, it seems to me that we ought to be providing some guidance to science teachers.
Your comments suggests that you *know* ID is a theory. If that is the case then you should be able to formulate that theory in such a way that it can be communicated to the rest of us.
Please tell us what the Theory of ID says. Take your time and include as many tenets as necessary.
Are practicers of 'scientism' called 'scientists'?
What have your questions to do with the current discussion or the article that spawned this discussion?
Really. When you get a moment could you send me a verse ?
What are you... hard of reading?
Direct quote from the article: "He says including intelligent design along with evolution would help students discern the facts among different theories."
Yeesh! If you are going to discuss something on FR please at least read more than the first sentence of an article.
I've asked this question 100,000,000 times and I have yet to hear a substantive answer. Ping me if you get one.
Seven Spanish Angels
Push the Planets
Around the Earth.
'Please tell us what the Theory of ID says. Take your time and include as many tenets as necessary.'
This is irrelevant to this discussion, I dont have to explain ID theory which is not in my knowledge arena. A meaningless diversion from the debate.
The qualification that causative attributes must be seen is merely restrictive. As I understand it, no translation is necessary just for restricting the search.
I must say that I consider myself to be a physical machine. A machine which enables the identity and essence of personhood. Jumping ahead, the soul is the Heavenly machine that supports the same. It is also physical, but not as in the physics common in this world, although both must arise form the same physics.
Well he did come out and say it in no uncertain terms.
At any rate, why does he need to "shore up" his base? None of his base are going to vote for Granholm. None of her base is going to vote for him. The swing votes are the moderates right now who are questioning Granholm, and I strongly doubt they will be terribly impressed with this statement of his. If anything, he just made an enormous blunder by taking the pressure and criticism off of Granholm and putting it on himself.
Its up to the school to work it out ( if they wish) to come out with suitable discussion classes without it being adapted in to the science curriculum. A perfect reasonable proposal from Devos.
Are you illiterate or something, or finding it difficult to read?
Read the article fully,
This is what Devos said in the article
'He'd like to see local school districts be able to teach intelligent design if they choose to, although he wouldn't require that it be taught in science classes.'
Better change that to, "seven angels of diversity", ot you'll have the touchy feelys on yer butt.
The opening line of the Detroit Free Press version of the article was "Republican gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos says Michigan’s science curriculum should include a discussion about intelligent design."
So, which Freepers are really libs?
Point them out to me.
I just struck out. Someday, maybe . . .
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.