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.
If you dont have the intellect and arguments to respond, then dont.
OK. So now that you have voiced your opinion, not that you are an authority, would you care to discuss some science?
But no, I just can't ignore the empirical evidence showing how dangerous this sort of geometry is...
Ok, gotta go do something else. Have you read "Godless". I ask because it seems that various posts here make Coulter's point that evolutionists challenge us to disprove what they are unable to prove.
Hi cornelis. It's called being mathematically complete. Also Occam's razor applies, so adding arbitrarily to what is already complete and sufficient doesn't mean anything.
If this were true, scientists would know it and people outside of science like Mr. DeVos wouldn't have to lobby for the change to science classes. School textbooks would already have chapters on "The Controversy" if the controversy was ongoing within science.
None of it is true, and there's no excuse for Mr. DeVos to be this ignorant--if that's his problem--at this stage of things. "The Controversy" that we're supposed to teach is being whipped up by creationists like the Dover, PA school board that took a whipping in court recently and famously. Somebody needs to get the word to Mr. DeVos.
Translate that into something that can be searched for and seen.
There is very little proof in science. Things are not black or white, they are shades of gray. Evolution is a much darker shade of gray than ID.
Well why not a discussion then? Because A.) the Discovery Insitute and the like clearly believe that ID is the truth, so their appeals for a mere 'discussion' is weak as all get-out and B.) it makes science negotiable, as retmd said. "Science conflict with your beliefs, kids? It's not good enough to have more faith in your religion than science? Ok! Let's change that pesky science! Make them the same!"
Again, another with strong opinions but no foundation. What evidence do you believe has been unearthed and what do you believe is necessary? Do you believe that *only* paleontological evidence is considered by scientists and/or that *only* paleontological evidence should be accepted as evidence?
The theory is held so dearly for the same reason the theories of physics are held dearly -- because those theories don't require magic or some spirit being be there to hold the hand of the universe and to make it function in the way we see it function.
People once thought that lighting was caused by evil spirits. They would literally ring church bells to drive them away. But now we know that no spirits are necessary.
At some point I hope most people will realize that the existence of human beings doesn't require spirits or magic.
"At what point will this "belief" be abandoned, and why is it held so dearly? "
It will be abandoned when it can be replaced by a scientifically validated and testable theory that explains the observations and data. ID doesn't do it. Evolution does. It is "held so dearly" in your words because science is needed to explain the natural history of the world. ID cannot replace evolution because it is based on faith and not strictly on observable scientific data.
"there is no mention of religion or theology in the Bible"
You clearly know nothing of the Bible. The Bible is filled with religious content. Christ was crucified because of his threat to the Jewish religion. He spoke of forming a new religion.
Causative attributes in nature apply to physical forces.
Some fast googling tells me that DeVos is pretty much in a tie with Granholm, the dem governor who's running for re-election. So it looks like DeVos is reaching out in a desperate effort to get some traction. I suspect this move toward the uneducated end of the spectrum will cost him more votes than it gains him.
True. And they also apply to non-physical forces, like you and me.
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.