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.
Haha this funny, when pointed out to an actual quote that Devos did not advocate ID teaching in science class you are running away embarrassed from your empty assertions.
It is very clear to me reading the article that he did not intend to teach ID as science, the very first few lines of the article made it very clear his intentions which were reinforced by his actual quotes in the article.
'This quote totally supports my point that DeVos would like to have ID taught in science classes.'
What??? Are you real?? The quote is pretty clear that Devos does not intend ID to be taken up in Science classes.
Again read the article fully once you once again totally embarrass yourself by making a false stupid allegation against a Republican candidate in this forum.
Nice try covering your lies.. you are caught out embarrassed by your allegations without even fully reading the article. Try to read the article fully before making a fool of yourself.
>>Why doesn't DeVos worry about the economic health of Michigan? <<
Do you get any of the MI stations where you are?
DeVos has had tons of commercials about the economy. Jenny is running us to the ground and it's easy to point out.
Don't believe the polls. They said years ago that the voucher proposal would go down in a huge defeat. It lost only 51% to 49%.
Since when is ID a theory?
Given that people and orangutans have the same genetic mistake that prevents the synthesis of ascorbic acid (aka vitamin C), normal biology predicts, correctly, that the same mutation will be found in gorillas and chimps, as it in fact was.
What is ID's prediction? Maybe it's in a chimp's genome, maybe it isn't, maybe it's in a gorilla's, maybe it isn't. Inshallah!
I live near the UP. My Green Bay stations sometimes cover the MI race.
DeVos has had tons of commercials about the economy. Jenny is running us to the ground and it's easy to point out.
DeVos is running a mediocre race against perhaps the worst Governor in America. He has no concrete solutions to Michigan's economic crisis. I don't give a rip about evolution/intelligent design and I avoid these threads like the plague. People in Michigan are leaving IN DROVES. I work for Schneider during the day and we deal with Michigan shippers all the time. These plants are being shut down left and right.
'Since when is ID a theory?'
You have to ask the people behind it, lots of theories are around which are advocated by people who are involved in it. Hysterical overreaction to some general discussion does not sound like a logical argument.
DeVos's ties to Amway highlights an important issue about the anti-evolution activists, whether ID-ists or Christian or Muslim creationists. Namely, how much is attributable to ignorance of science, and how much is conscious fraud and deception?
I INSIST that ID is a scientific theory and it MUST be taught in science classes, but I know absolutely nothing about it.
Doesn't matter. If you want to be Governor of Michigan, how in the world is attacking evolution -- that's what he's doing -- going to convince the voters that you can improve the state?
The full AP article includes this paraphrase of DeVos' statement, but not the one at this thread.
He says teaching intelligent design along with evolution would help students discern the facts among different theories. 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.
Later in the article Granholm's position is stated:
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. She says school districts can explore intelligent design in current events or comparative religions classes.
Now, there are two issues here: Whether school districts should be able to teach about ID, and what kind of classes they should be taught in. Granholm takes the reasonable position: ID is not science (demonstrably true statement), but should be allowed to be taught in current events or comparative religion.
DeVos' position (if the AP article paraphrased his position correctly) is that ID is a legitimate theory, and that it may or may not be taught in science classes. ("he wouldn't require that it be taught in science classes.")
This gives his a lot of wiggle room: It could be interpreted for rational voters as being similar to Granholm's position, and interpreted for religious right voters in Western MI, etc. as meaning that government schools in their districts could very well teach ID in science classes, he simply wouldn't require (wink, wink) it to be taught there.
Between that and the fact that he's a supporter of the Thomas More Center, this really does feel as slimy to me as an Amway presentation.
p.s. So what does that make me? Can I still be a Republican?
It's a fine example of a hypothesis that's not a theory because it's incapable of being tested. That's it.
"OK, so tell us where the theory of evolution got it wrong, and pray include an alternate theory that is testable and falsifiable."
"Strawman, prove evolution, show something that evolved into something else.
How is that a strawman?
If you had any idea about science that was not a strawman you would know that science is not 'proved' because all conclusions are tentative. There are different levels of confidence in the conclusions reached. You would also know that science's 'conclusions' are based on the quantity and quality of the evidence available. At some point the evidence is so convincing that it is doubtful it will ever be falsified so that it can be taken, with a great deal of confidence', that it is correct.
Now you may take one line of evidence, such as our inability to directly observe an even-toed ungulate evolving into a whale and conclude that our evidence for that transition is poor. However, science such as evolution does not just consider one line of evidence but uses many different lines of evidence.
In the case of the Artiodactyl to Cetacean transit we obviously do not have direct observation, but that really is unimportant considering the other evidences that we do have. We have a number of fossils that show a transition from a land bound animal to a water bound animal. Along with the fossils of the animals themselves we have fossils of the ecology they lived in, meaning the flora, fauna and geologic state at the time of fossilization. They add to the story and to the quantity and quality of the evidence.
Each of the fossils, when compared to the first (arteriodactyl) and the last (modern Cetaceans) share some morphological features. Even more telling are the morphological features that each fossil shares with the fossil immediately before, immediately after, and in some cases concurrent.
This taken by itself is not completely convincing, especially if we find no corroborating evidence in the phenotype of modern whales. This we have found. Modern whales will occasionally be born with hind legs and fuller pelvises than normal. This is an indicator that whales at one time had hind legs. Another feature that indicates an ungulate ancestor are the mini-hooves on the tips of the whale's 'finger' bones within their front flippers.
We now have two lines of evidence, the fossil evidence of a gradual move to water, and the remnants of morphological features from an earlier time. Add the two up, and by the amount they correlate, we can increase our confidence that whales evolved from land based animals.
There is yet another line of evidence that can be added to the two we already have and that is the DNA evidence. There is a good similarity between the genomes of modern hippos and modern whales, enough similarity that computer programs designed to find the most parsimonious link between the genomes of multiple organisms reliably link the two.
Now it can be claimed that the genomes of the hippo and the whale are similar because of 'code reuse' by the designer. Although it is possible for a 'coder' to reuse code in programs that are designed for very different purposes, that is not the most parsimonious path to take. It would be much more parsimonious to copy code from a fish (or other aquatic animal) than from an artiodactyl to create a water bound animal. In the case of whales this did not happen.
When drawing conclusions from a line of evidence, the theory in question is always compared to some other theory, even if the second theory is that it just did not happen the way claimed by the first theory. This is to enable the formulation of tests that will consider both theories. If the tests formulated can be answered by both theories equally well then the test is useless and needs be rejected. The test has to be able to give different results, to some degree, for each theory.
Similarity in the genomes of two organisms can be explained by both common descent and by reuse of code, although they do not explain commonalities equally well; design has some problems with inherited mutations and ERVs that the SToE does not have.
If we compare the similarities between the Cetacean line and the Arteriodactyl line we find functions that do not make sense in light of the ecologies in which each group finds itself. It would be more sensible to find functions based on the different ecologies. In other words whales should have more in common, both phenotypically and genotypically, with fish than with land based animals.
If we grant the ability of design and evolution to produce the genome we have a situation where one does not have an advantage over the other. We then have to introduce other evidences available. When we introduce the morphological features, such as hooves and hind legs, that are not sensible for an aquatic animal but are sensible for a terrestrial animal but are found on both of those animals (which also have a high correlation between their genomes), the evidence starts to favour common descent.
If we add in the fossil record which shows a sequence of organisms experiencing a transition from land based to water based, the power of ID to explain the three different lines of evidence loses ground to common descent.
When the fossil record, the genome and common morphological features are considered in relation to one another common descent is a much better explanation than is ID.
Devos is presenting a case for discussing ID theory in schools when the schools themselves want it and repeating it again if you missed it.. if the schools themeselves want it . This is a clear support of local control of Schools which Devos supports .
He also makes it clear that he does not want it to be taught as Science.
It is pretty clear where he stands on this issue, a very rational and straight forward commonsense approach.
Btw what all this cheap attack on Amway? It is a company which has invested lots in michigan and its economy. Why does a reference to Devos somehow ends up as a cheap attack on Amway, this is also very much noticeable when you browse the DU threads. They attack Amway as well, so some of the critics of Devos attacking Amway in FR and their Republican credentials are questionable.
When it is a crime to run a company that has created jobs? After Granholm has been useless in running the State, Devos family atleast has invested,knows and cares lot about the State of Michigan to be involved in politics.
I disagree. If he actually thinks that ID is some sort of science, he lacks the gumption to be governor. If he understands science and says stuff like this, he lacks the morals necessary to govern.
Having been in it, I can tell you Amway is Scientology with soap in place of Thetans.
Saying it's a theory when it isn't is lying to children. So is claiming that there's some kind of controversy in science.
IMO, the appropriate action to take when a school board mandates either of these is impeachment and conviction by the state legislature, which includes a lifetime ban on holding offices of "trust and honor". Of course lawsuits by the ripped-off taxpayers and students would also be appropriate, but I don't think criminal penalties should obtain.
Devos is presenting a case for discussing ID theory in schools when the schools themselves want it and repeating it again if you missed it.. if the schools themeselves want it . This is a clear support of local control of Schools which Devos supports .He also makes it clear that he does not want it to be taught as Science.
NO, you didn't comprehend what is said in that paragraph. He wouldn't force the schools to teach ID in science classes. That means something significantly different than if he had said that he wouldn't allow ID to be taught in science class. He's giving a classic weasel statement so he can have it mean both things depending on what the reader wants it to mean.
It is pretty clear where he stands on this issue, a very rational and straight forward commonsense approach.
Hardly.
Btw what all this cheap attack on Amway? It is a company which has invested lots in michigan and its economy. Why does a reference to Devos somehow ends up as a cheap attack on Amway, this is also very much noticeable when you browse the DU threads. They attack Amway as well, so some of the critics of Devos attacking Amway in FR and their Republican credentials are questionable.
So... how many people ARE in your downline, anyway? ;-)
When it is a crime to run a company that has created jobs? After Granholm has been useless in running the State, Devos family atleast has invested,knows and cares lot about the State of Michigan to be involved in politics.
I'll grant you that it's possible that this is true. Obviously, as voters we have to hold our noses a lot. And there is over a month to go before the election. Maybe DeVos will make a more intelligent statement on this subject between now & then. But I get the impression that he really does believe that ID is a real, live scientific theory - and it's hard to believe that he simply needed to shore up his Western Michigan vote.
Has Vern Ehlers weighed in on this yet?
Ha, good one! Having lived next door to an Amway dealer and across the street from a Scientologist, I can see where you're coming from.
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.