[Michigan Gov. Candidate] DeVos says he wants intelligent design taught in science classes

Michigan Live ^ | 20 September 2006 | Kathy Barks Hoffman

[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.

[b_sharp]

"I'm not seeing the answer to this.

You spoke too soon.

"Do you think you'll get an "I asked to first!"?

When have we evos done that?

[b_sharp]

"Perhaps you can enlighten us by telling us what attributes the Designer does have."

He's really bad at his/her job.

[b_sharp]

"Those who do not want creationism taught in our schools are definitely AFRAID OF SOMETHING!"

Indeed we are. We're afraid that our children and grandchildren will be taught pseudoscience and consequently lose ground to foreign students when it comes to the sciences.

[b_sharp]

"No, I think I'll get a WAAA WAAA You don't like science."

You seem to be on a roll. You are wrong again.

Buck up, you're bound to be right eventually.

[b_sharp]

However, I see many holes in evolution that just don't make it absolute."

Nobody considers it absolute. No science is consider absolute.

We do consider the SToE to be well supported by the evidence. So well supported that it is unlikely to be falsified in the future.

[b_sharp]

"This is a meaningless question, Michigan is a majority Christian state and they can choose theories of discussion that involves Christian viewpoints if they wish, this is a democratic society where majority voters values shoild prevail."

Why do you believe the the correctness of a science is up for democratic vote?

Should we have the ability to decide that Geocentrism is a better explanation than Heliocentrism by vote? Should we be able to vote Astrology to be part of Astronomy class? Or should the validity of the opposing concepts be determined in the arena of science?

If Creationism is taught, should the type of creationism also be subject to a vote?

[b_sharp]

"Actually, I thought the same about the religion of evolution. At what point will this "belief" be abandoned, and why is it held so dearly?"

How do you define 'religion'?

Which of the many fields of science that contribute to the SToE do you believe is/are religion?

[b_sharp]

"Has science ever shown where life formed from nothing? Where no life has existed before and then just appeared?

"Has science ever explained how DNA was formed from the beginning?

The short answer is 'no'. The long answer is we've just started to investigate that possibility.

My question to you is: how does the current inability to conclude a specific path to life affect the study of life as it transits between one species and another?

[Coyoteman]

So then, the THEORY (religion) of evolution (all faith based since no scientific facts have been unearthed to support it) should be taught in "religion class"?

The theory of evolution is a part of science.

No facts? That's a flat out [misstatement], and you should know better. The following is just one example of a fact that supports the theory of evolution. If you want to see more, just let me know.

This is also a transitional. Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the upper center):

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

[b_sharp]

"This is irrelevant to this discussion, I dont have to explain ID theory which is not in my knowledge arena."

If ID is a theory and not just an hypothesis then you are correct. However by stating that it is a theory you give it value it does not have unless it can be shown to be a theory. If that is not possible and ID is not a theory, then it has no place being compared to the SToE.

" A meaningless diversion from the debate."

ID's state as a theory is not meaningless and is very much a part of the debate. It is in fact central to the debate.

[b_sharp]

"I do not agree with some of the ID teachings, young earth for one, but I see no harm in presenting it as another "theory".

Careful not to conflate the scientific and common definitions of 'theory'.

[montag813]

DeVos was doing so well. WHY did he have to get into this crap? Stupid.

[Coyoteman]

I do not agree with some of the ID teachings, young earth for one, but I see no harm in presenting it as another "theory".

We have been told repeatedly that ID has no relation to religion and creationism, yet you place young earth creationism as a part of ID.

Interesting. (Da judge was right!)

[Non-Sequitur]

Those who do not want creationism taught in our schools are definitely AFRAID OF SOMETHING!

What about those of us who don't want alchemy taught in our schools? What are we afraid of? I don't want astrology taught to my kids, what does that make me afraid of?

[Kirkwood]

"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."

I take direct quotes from the article, direct quotes from DeVos himself, and you call them lies? You are basically calling DeVos a liar! LOL!!! I guess when you decide you've lost the argument, you also shoot yourself in the foot. Funny!

PS: You might want to learn to spell DeVos correctly.

[cornelis]

Mike, the scientific method is a philosophy of science.

[freedumb2003]

Having lived next door to an Amway dealer and across the street from a Scientologist, I can see where you're coming from.

Wow -- heck of a neighborhood! ;)

[Hot Tabasco]

Watch the party go down the drain.

Not true, its already been router-rootered but it ain't the fault of the GOP. The socialists are too firmly entrenched with the career unemployable and the UAW loyalists both employed and unemployed in the epicenters of liberalism in Detroit, Flint, Bay City and Saginaw. These cities represent the densest areas of population in this state and that is why a Republican has never won the state since Reagan but yet our house and senate are republican controlled.........

[RippyO]

There is only one comparison between the two - neither should be taught in a health or science class.

[RippyO]

Has Vern Ehlers weighed in on this yet?

Good point. He would probably think this was all a bunch of malarkey. Of course then he would be labeled a RINO, etc... ad nauseum.