Posted on 10/10/2006 10:00:04 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
The State Board of Education on Tuesday approved public school curriculum guidelines that support the teaching of evolution in science classes — but not intelligent design.
Intelligent design instruction could be left for other classes in Michigan schools. But it shouldn't have a home in science class, based on the unanimously adopted guidelines.
"The intent of the board needs to be very clear," said board member John Austin, an Ann Arbor Democrat. "Evolution is not under stress. It is not untested science."
Some science groups and the American Civil Liberties Union had worried that state standards would not be strong enough to prevent the discussion of intelligent design as the course expectations developed over the summer.
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.
The curriculum expectations are being developed by the state board as Michigan moves toward stricter high school graduation requirements.
Starting with the class graduating in 2011, Michigan students will have to take four years of math and English, three of science and social studies and one each of physical education and arts. They'll also have to complete some type of online experience.
Two credits of foreign language also will be required, but that requirement will be phased in starting with the class of 2016.
Did you observe the formation of the Hawaiian islands? Continental drift? The impact the made the meteor crater in Arizona? The last ice age? The one before that? Can you repeat them?
So we've been wrong all along calling it the theory of evolution. Evolutionary hypothesis it is, since you insist. (Or perhaps the philosophy of evolutionism?)
Do you hear what you are saying.... morality in geology?? and you all have no clue why our kids are totally turned off by theories???
Interesting how that to accept evolution one must equate humanity to stones, layers of the earth's surface, etc......
Liberal judges? you mean like the Bush appointee who levelled a well-deserved judicial smackdown on the IDers in Dover?
Since when are judge-regurgitated ACLU briefs dispositive of what is science and what is not? Do you really want judge (read, "lawyers") hegemony over the philosophy of science? What makes them competent? When they agree with you?
Cordially,
> Interesting how that to accept evolution one must equate humanity to stones, layers of the earth's surface, etc......
Yes, it'd be much better to equate humanity to "filthy rags," wouldn't it.
Hmmm. I'll wager good money that your average IDer didn't observe the Napoleonic wars. And certainly can't replicate the Holocaust. So, your average IDer, if he chooses to be honest, must also deny the Holocaust.
And the Crucifixion of Christ, for that matter....
Because instead of leaving unproven things as best guesses, it fills in the blanks with 'facts'. I would be happy if holes in evolution were taught as 'this is what scientists currently believe', but instead there is no disclaiming or nothing. It is all taught as scientific fact. There is no room for alternatives.
To blame the depravity of the school system on the teaching of evolution is absurd. I attribute it more to the decline of parent involvement and children's poor attitudes towards education.
So what can be more like science than creating a new life-form in a lab. situation? Accidental happenstance out in nature? I just ask?
Enki is amused at their ignorance and Ninhurshag is crying
These threads are funny. You always get the same 5 rabit anti-God Darwinists on here, ridiculing those who acknowledge what's plainly observable -- that there is design, and therefore a Designer. Same every time.
(You also get the same fairly uninformed Christians who denounce Darwinism because it's "just a theory" and the biblically illiterate Christians who think that God used evolution to bring all this about.)
You Darwinists go on and pat yourselves on the back for your predictability. It's like the clapper -- someone pings the Darwinists, and they pop up with vigor to slam those who disagree with them. Stupid Christians. Stupid IDers. Smugly smart anti-God Darwinists who believe the fairy tale that a frog can become a prince, given enough time....
What puzzles me is why you're so dogmatic about your theory. Why so adamant at proclaiming your "truth" if all this is a result of randomlf lkrlk wlekr2o l;5 lkjl5jk3 th that lacks any ultimate meaning? Why do you even care what truth and meaning are if you don't ultimately believe in such a thing? Why string concepts together in an effort to convey meaning when we all came about meaninglessly anyway?
Are you anti-God Darwinists intelligent? Surely. But also arrogant and misled and hypocritical.
No- it is taught as scientific theory, and scientific theories are always challenged. It is the fact that evolution has held up to these challenges that justifies its teachings in public schools.
So ID *is* about teaching morality and religion in public schools.Uh-oh, Just mythoughts. Got caught there....
Thanks for confirming my suspicions.
One day he came to class and sat in the corner wearing a dunce cap with the Tetragrammaton written on it (I think he assumed we went and played with snakes in Sunday School, and wouldn't catch it). The school board didn't invite him back for a second year.
Years later, he showed up in Chicago representing the American Atheists or somesuch org, in a debate over evolution where he challenged the Almighty to send strike him dead. That night the most horrific slam-banging thunderstorm rolled through Chicago, more spectacular than I had seen in a decade. I was, perhaps with mischief aforethought, praying that Mr. Z's bed was close to a window, though I didn't want him to get hurt, just have his hair straightened.
Actually, he was pretty entertainng, some students expressed their doubts openly, and he's get red-faced, his veins looking ready to burst. Once he cried in class over the unbelief of a student. From Mr. Z, I learned not only Darwinian theory, but that some of it's apostles act out of hatred for God more than love of science. Ever since, I always wonder what really motivates any scientist with symptoms of high blood pressure.
Mr. Z was utterly enamored with the "power of science", and told us we'd probably never die, because we'd have spare parts invented by the time we got old. I'm a grandpa already, so will you folks step up the tempo? You're definitely gonna be late.
You just gave away your reading list.
There is no room for alternatives.
Of course there are. The problem for Creationists is that they have failed to articulate a single scientific alternative that addresses the evidence.
Once you've done that, then we can talk about teaching it in school. Until there is one, there's not much point in talking hypothetically about it.
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.