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.
The tension between Genesis and modern science about the origins of the universe and of living species is largely resolved when it is recognized that they are speaking from different perspectives. Genesis is concerned about who created and why, NOT about how and when. Science cannot answer the former questions, and Genesis is largely mute about the latter.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."
Long before any science...................For nearly four hundred years, and throughout several revisions of its English form, the King James Bible has been deeply revered among the English-speaking peoples of the world. The precision of translation for which it is historically renowned, and its majesty of style, have enabled that monumental version of the Word of God to become the mainspring of the religion, language, and legal foundation of our civilization.
As on the Grand Canyon thread, the "gosh--it must be supernatural" types lost their credibility when they failed to address real observations.
It is amusing that the whole ID movement was started by Phillip Johnson when his kids asked about how could Noah's flood be true. Johnson, with a law degree who never had a paying client, conceived ID as a way to divert attention from Noah's flood. Johnson recognized that Noah's flood could never be defended--even with his meagre knowlege of any science---and became a co-founder of the "Discovery Institute". Johnson is widely believed to be the author of the infamous "Wedge Document". http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/wedge.html
The ID types on these threads love the {poof} "explanation". No understanding of history, or the world, it is all just {poof} . Via a supernatural {poof} .
"I am the biggest supporter of an Awesome God on these threads. I also credit Him with giving us the ability to differentiate, discern and reason. I think that throwing that back in His face due to willful ignorance is one of the greatest sins Man can commit"
On this you and I are in complete agreement. Also, you are exactly right when you make my point that a THEORY, by it's very nature, cannot be proved (better?). Which is why teaching it as the "truth" is harmful.
Now, for something completely different in the area of the meaningless and mundane, "disconnect" is a fairly common usage which I consciously chose and "proven" is synonomous with "proved".
I am sure, however, there are many things on which we agree.
Honestly and interestingly enough; WHY did you sign up in Amway in the first place???
I was very, very young. My Mom thought it would give er a chance to make a few extra bucks (she also did the Tupperware thing, which was actually pretty fun).
Amway had no problem with recruiting a teenager to do their bidding.
The heliocentic model surely did not succeed on the basis of common people's observations. As we know, church "authorities" opposed it. Nonetheless, it is accepted today in almost all human religious societies.
Similarly with the Germ Theory of Disease. The vehement "christian opposition" in favor of demon possession/god's punishment quickly lost traction.
Why, then, is evolution such a lightning rod?
There must be something that the evolution deniers fear. I do not understand what they are afraid of.
The TToE is as close to scientific "truth" as we can hope to get. It has more substantiating evidence that The Theory Of Gravity, The Theories of DNA assemblage, etc.
"Truth" is meaningless in a scientific context. We have what we know and we assemble those data into theories that provide a workable framework. TToE is a VERY workable framework.
Now, for something completely different in the area of the meaningless and mundane, "disconnect" is a fairly common usage which I consciously chose and "proven" is synonomous with "proved".
I sometimes give the improper use of "disconnect" as a noun (argot doth suck) and "proven" for "proved" a similar bye. But please, please don't use "begs the question" in place of "raises the question."
That is, indeed, assassination of the language.
I am sure, however, there are many things on which we agree.
Probably -- that is why I try (straining at times) to at least be a little civil (although I do get a little pointedly peaked at times).
It is the place I prefer to go to and avoiding HELL!!!
Do you think that possible could be the reason for all their present problems and violence i their country???
We're getting along so well now. It's probably not a good time to tell you I also signed up in Amway (Quixtar now but what's the dif) some time back. It worked. I have a rather large organization that operates without me and I haven't had a job in over ten years. Devos is a bedrock conservative, the corporation is a meaningful force behind conservatives and has been for decades. But, P&G probably has better stuff and who cares what causes they support, right ?
Just my experience.
No.
Evolution implies an awesome God that is so far beyond the ken of human thinking that He becomes unrecognizable.
The God that creates Man and animals and stuff in a few days is recognizable and comfortable -- Gandalf writ large.
A God that can create a Universe (and perhaps more) that has such things as DNA markers, quantum strings, variable gravitons, puppies, flowers, love, Jesus, an ever-expanding Universe, the big bang, mosquito bites, variable time effects and ants is too massive for their poor minds.
Better to have the personal God that makes everything happen immediately than one that creates rules that Mankind may NEVER be able to discern (and we should thank Him for giving us the brains to TRY to discern them).
Can you join that business before you are 18???
Noooo -- really?
You have one of those distro systems?
Well, good for you. I ever said it didn't work.
But it was too quasi-religious for me.
You can, if you don't know about Contract Law (who does before 18?)
A small risk for them -- a few cases of L.O.C. lost if the contract is repudiated. And, repudiation is nullified if services or goods of value are exchanged.
"Evolution implies an awesome God that is so far beyond the ken of human thinking that He becomes unrecognizable"
I find this God highly recognizable. It is exactly this point that causes my questions about the "swallowed whole" theory of evolution. To me, this is the "comfortable" explanation. His power is too great to condense into simple theory.
We really must move beyond "the poor simple minds" redoubt of the left to explain why some may differ.
I really do have to turn in now. But I do sincerely promise to never "beg the question", a term that I used to associate with what I used to call "limey's" until I renounced all negative reference to the British after the awesome courage exhibited by Tony Blair in supporting our President and our mission to stay alive.
Nice talking to you.
I got upbraided by the mods for using "{poof}."
Thank God the tide is turning.
Exactly right. Teaching any dogma, whether Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Wiccam, etc, as being "the truth" is harmful. Christians who claim to know "truth" are particularly amusing, since they have schismed into 190 or so denominations, each with their claim to "truth".
Surely, with 190 contrasting claims, they can't all be true. The pope does not speak for all Christians; Mormons do do speak for all Christians; Orthodox Patriarchs do not speak for all Christians; Ayatollahs do not speak for all Muslims, etc.
Doctrinal differences are manifest.
There is a common ground. An understanding that there is a natural world and it can be discovered by observation and evidence. This is totally different from faith notions of {poof} to "explain" any thing whatsoever.
"And Darwin should be taught in a barnyard, with the rest of the BS. "
LOL!
In the end Darwin himself recanted his own so-called theory of nonsense and thought and turned to God.
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.