Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

[Michigan Gov. Candidate] DeVos says he wants intelligent design taught in science classes
Michigan Live ^ | 20 September 2006 | Kathy Barks Hoffman

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy; US: Michigan
KEYWORDS: crevolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301-317 next last
To: teenyelliott

Your hypothetical is invalid. If ID starts presenting the resurrection of Christ in a science class, that would be a category mistake. But the resurrection isn't what ID is about.


41 posted on 09/20/2006 1:02:43 PM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U

>>Strawman, prove evolution, show something that evolved into something else.<<

I'm not seeing the answer to this.

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


42 posted on 09/20/2006 1:03:24 PM PDT by netmilsmom (To attack one section of Christianity in this day and age, is to waste time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
But the resurrection isn't what ID is about.

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

43 posted on 09/20/2006 1:04:11 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood

The fossil record, no doubt, establishes the "science" of evolution ? Further, it is for those on other threads to go ad hominem when a logical response is not available. I think better of us. Embarassment comes from lack of confidence, seeking the approval of others, etc. These "qualities" are lacking in me. The THEORY of evolution requires much more faith ("the substance of things hoped for") than the idea that things follow along on a logical (intelligent) basis. In my opinion.


44 posted on 09/20/2006 1:04:22 PM PDT by prov1813man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow; jennyp

An illustration of the intersection of two circles would be very helpful just about now.


45 posted on 09/20/2006 1:04:25 PM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
Strawman, prove evolution, show something that evolved into something else.

Strawman: one does not "prove" a scientific theory. One disproves it.

As for showing something that evolved: This link has a bunch of examples for your perusal.

46 posted on 09/20/2006 1:04:36 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

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


47 posted on 09/20/2006 1:05:10 PM PDT by INSENSITIVE GUY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom

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

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


48 posted on 09/20/2006 1:05:57 PM PDT by Beagle8U (Ronald Reagan didn't turn me into a Republican....Jimmy Carter did that!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

What an idiot.


49 posted on 09/20/2006 1:05:58 PM PDT by hawkaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GregH

"As usual the atheists, liberal kooks are up in arms over this, overreacting as usual."

This is like teaching that the world is flat or that the sun orbits the earth. ID is a relic of the dark ages.

I find it absurd that someone puts their faith in lies dressed up to look like science instead of putting their faith directly in their religion. I think people who choose to do that are weak in faith and easily taken in by the scam artists promoting ID.


50 posted on 09/20/2006 1:06:08 PM PDT by Kirkwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
I'm not seeing the answer to this.

After an interval of only three frickin' posts, you're having a panic attack? Sheesh.

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

No. See post #46.

51 posted on 09/20/2006 1:06:19 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: cornelis; RadioAstronomer
"ID is part of a field of study. It's strength (or not) lies in the operative inference. Works the same for scientific thinking on evolution."

ID does not rely on the scientific method. ID also says the laws of physics are insufficient to govern the universe and all interactions and phenomenon in it. ID contradicts science in that regard and then introduces and inserts arbitrary forces to account for the phenomenon. Those arbitrary forces are not subject to study by the scientific method also. Most often they take the form of a fleeting existence.

52 posted on 09/20/2006 1:06:45 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: cornelis
All out of circles, sorry. How about some DeVos geometry?


53 posted on 09/20/2006 1:06:50 PM PDT by Senator Bedfellow (If you're not sure, it was probably sarcasm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

Even better:
54 posted on 09/20/2006 1:06:57 PM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U; drubyfive

Druby's post made me wonder if you would "get it"; it seems apparent that you don't.


55 posted on 09/20/2006 1:06:58 PM PDT by linda_22003
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse

>>After an interval of only three frickin' posts, you're having a panic attack? Sheesh.<<

Lighten up, big shot.


56 posted on 09/20/2006 1:08:28 PM PDT by netmilsmom (To attack one section of Christianity in this day and age, is to waste time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
Lighten up, big shot.

After you.

How about taking up my original challenge? Provide us with a theory that explains the evidence better than the theory of evolution, is testable, and is falsifiable. A Nobel Prize awaits you if you are successful!

57 posted on 09/20/2006 1:09:49 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Here's an alternate theory that should be taught in math class.
58 posted on 09/20/2006 1:11:35 PM PDT by jennyp (There's ALWAYS time for jibber jabber!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse

Hon, you didn't ask ME the question and I do not push AI.
However, I see many holes in evolution that just don't make it absolute.

As a homeschooling mother, I teach that. Nothing is absolute. We touch on all theories.


59 posted on 09/20/2006 1:12:04 PM PDT by netmilsmom (To attack one section of Christianity in this day and age, is to waste time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: teenyelliott

oh puhleeze .. it is only a discussion about ID!
nothing about ID being taken up as a scientific theory.

'So what happens when the left decides that our children have to be taught about Islam and Buddhism and all the rest of it?'

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.


60 posted on 09/20/2006 1:12:41 PM PDT by GregH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301-317 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson