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.
Yep, real deal. There is certainly enough of the stuff that makes people cring to validate the negatives out there but, overall, I have found it to be very positive when done right and I certainly can't argue with the results.
No, lurkers, this is not a pitch. I haven't "registered" anyone in years and am not looking for the hassle. Life is good.
DeVos bump to the top.
We agree, except on one small point. While it's certainly true that "they can't all be true", there is objective truth. I certainly can't lay claim to it but just because they cannot all be true doesn't make them all equally untrue.
Y'know, I had that thought, but took it a step further. Start with what you said above, and then add "This class deals with, and I will teach, the best current scientific knowledge available, not religion or philosophy. I have no control over what you believe, but you will need to know and understand the science to pass this class. Now open your books ..."
Dang -- you have the same sense of humor I do!
We'll talk again, amigo. Buenos Noches.
There is the empirical observation that liberty has the greatest likelihood of contributing to human happiness.
There is the simple human quality of empathy, of seeing someone else as a being with the same feelings and desires as you have. That is the basis of the Golden Rule, or of Kant's categorical imperative, a notion that pre-dates the records of any current religion.
How did these qualities come to be present in most humans? You could point to natural selection, that social organisms hard-wired to cooperate are more likely to survive than ones that are hard-wired toward killing each other.
Or to get really deep, you could go with the Kantian notion of a synthetic a priori, an idea that is inherent to any system of logic that logic cannot exist without it.
Or you could subscribe to the notion of a social contract, which is not inherent in humans, but once tried turned out to work really well, and has been renegotiated -- or evolved, ooh, there's that word -- over the last several millennia.
None of those denies the existence of God, but they don't rely on Him to explain what we can observe. Just as observing evaporation, condensation and precipitation to explain the rain doesn't deny that God put those mechanisms in motion.
Which tide are you in touch with?
Every coastline has a high and low tide every day, a fact not mentioned in the Bible. In fact, the Bible is poor in observations about nature.
As to "intelligent design", the tide of thought is against them. The Discovery Institute has been shown to be charlatans with their own bank accounts as their agenda. Their screw-ups in politics in Pennsylvania, Kansas, Ohio, Washinton, Oregon, California, Iowa, South Carolina, ... are legendary for their malfeasance.
Whenever Meyer and Chapman at DI get involved, you can bet they are losers. Their record is 100%.
There are no church denominations that have endorsed "intelligent design". ID is like belief in psychics, ghosts, astrology, and crop circles.
That was pretty well de rigeur for scientists and philosophers up until the 18th or 19th century. No one wanted to be the next Galileo.
I have no doubt that many of those thinkers were profoundly religious and some others weren't, but that's impossible to glean from their published writings. The effort to jibe with the dominant theology of their places and times was par for the course, and in some cases the efforts to explain that their findings did not clash with church teachings -- which, frequently, they clearly did -- involve some tortured logic.
Something I would not expect to see on PBS.
You can't begin to cover the early history of science without talking about religion, which at various times served as both a history and an impediment.
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".
I have no problem with teaching it as a theory if it ever becomes one. As it is, it's just a belief without any scientific foundation or means of testing it.
A word tot he wise: P&G has been very aggressive in suing folks who spread the old myth about the "causes it supports," and I'll leave it that rather than spread the myth.
No.
Then you should read Jeremiah chapter 44!!!
I understand that mods have god-like powers, and {poof} any of us can disappear from Freeper life.
Ah, life is tenuous. But I prefer to believe that we got here via natural processes rather than via a {poof}. I think our understandinbg of the natural world came via hard work from many of our ancestors who looked carefully at the world and tried to describe it as they saw it, without limitations of doctrines or dogmas. I applaud them.
{poof}is a lousy explanation for anything. Precisely because it "explains" everything, and therefore nothing.
The scriptural literalists never understand this. {poof} a preacher emerges with "all the answers" and gets rich with his book. The ID group are trying to follow footsteps.
Rather than flatly state that that is false, I'll ask your source for the claim.
One wonders whether they can boil water without burning it.
You should be ashamed of yourself for such a lie.
If you are known as a liar in a matter of evidence, then we can assume that you are a liar in your faith. A liar before your god.
Obsequious lying is neither going to get you into heaven nor win you any respect on Freeper boards.
Gee, we have not heard that old, weary, tired out fable in some time, yet here it comes again...Darwin recanted!!!!!!!!yeah, right...
It boggles my mind, that anyone still believes that old story... this story that Darwin recanted has been refuted time and time again, on FR, and even most of the leading creationist websites themselves have made thorough investigations on this, and have agreed, that its quite unwise to argue this point that Darwin recanted, because it has no merit, and has no proof...
But there is always someone, somewhere, who seems to be uninformed about the truth of this story..a pity and really quite unnecessary, since Google can be anyones friend, and Google will be more than happy to bring up the true facts of this case, not the goofy story some want so desperately to believe...
It is pretty clear and concise!
"Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to OUR likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth." So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds in the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."!! Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good!!! And God said,"See I have given you every herb that yields seeds which is on the face of all the earth, and every three whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food": and it was so.
I think the article is pretty clear in my view, that a discussion on ID theory does not mean it needs to be adopted as actual Science. If you can read the article from all its AP spin, and get to the gist of it, then you would probably understand it.
I dont really care about Amway or another MLM schemes, I am not involved in it. But i am not a Lib to attack companies which are lawful and simply because of some class warfare concepts , jealously to attack a company which has succeeded pretty well. Petty jealously, class warfare achieves nothing productive in a free economy.
no , your point is?
I dont believe anyone with a rational thought would equate discussing homosexuality with discussing ID theory, the former is perversion, the later is not.
Do you dislike Amway or there is anyother companies you dislike as well in a free market economy.
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.