Evolution wins out in Michigan science curriculum debate

mlive.com (Michigan News) ^ | 10 October 2006 | TIM MARTIN

[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.

[atlaw]

and the biblically illiterate Christians who think that God used evolution to bring all this about

Not to mention the Biblically illiterate Christians who think that Scripture and Christianity are incompatible with the theory of evolution.

[munin]

You can have both evolution and creation of man, (Homo sapien Sapien) without contradiction, after all, aren't we
constantly working to improve our cereal crops and our domestic animals like cows and horses dogs etc.? I see no difficulty in this, it is silly to insist that only one road lead to Rome

[highball]

evolution-soaked curriculum.

Was this before or after your "integer-soaked" mathematics class?

[Just mythoughts]

Actually while you are patting yourself on your back about 'catching' me I do not subscribe to the ID presentation. However, you would like even less what I do find as acceptable instruction as to the how and the why you and I are here this day having this chat.

So I am NOT about imposing what I believe upon you or anyone else.

[cookcounty]

"It is, however, amusing that evolutionary biology is the only field of science where millions of uneducated yahoos feel that they're somehow qualified to declare it "not real science" or dictate how it should be properly taught (or that it should not be taught at all)..."

YES! We should let the self-appointed Priests of Darwinism make the decisions. Citizens are under obligation to shut up and fork over their kids to the state. This is democracy, after all. And that's how Papa Joe told us democracy works.

[Dimensio]

You always get the same 5 rabit anti-God Darwinists on here,

To whom do you refer, and what specific statements that have made that indicate that they are "anti-God"?

ridiculing those who acknowledge what's plainly observable -- that there is design, and therefore a Designer.

Claiming that design is "plainly observable" does not actually demonstrate that there is design, much less that it is "plainly observable".

Perhaps your statements would be more productive if they demonstratably resembled reality.

[cookcounty]

"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."

Don't hold your breath. They ain't gonna back down.

[Quark2005]

Oh really, truth you claim, now evolution is about what exactly... reproduction??? Right??? so basically it is a sex theory???

No

[Dimensio]

Are you suggesting that it is unreasonable to expect that an individual have actually studied a subject before claiming expetise in it?

[Theo]

The problem for Creationists is that they have failed to articulate a single scientific alternative that addresses the evidence.

A lie told often enough is still a lie. That cliched sentence of yours is a lie, backed up by lots of repetition, but not backed up by fact.

You have been covering your eyes and ears and shouting down those scientists who've been articulating scientific alternatives to Darwin's failed theories. If you'd spend even one minute googling for IDers' theories, you'd be surprised by how many scientifically sound Creationist theories are out there. While there are a number of articles refuting evolution on http://answersingenesis.org there are also a good number of explorations of ID theories there as well.

[cookcounty]

"Not to mention the Biblically illiterate Christians who think that Scripture and Christianity are incompatible with the theory of evolution."

So you believe that God brought about the world, before sin entered, by torturing animals for 500 million years? What kind of god is that?

[Just mythoughts]

It's ok to be honest, else why is it called evolutionary biology... 'reproduction'??? It is a HOT steamy critter crossing sex theory!!!!

[highball]

So I am NOT about imposing what I believe upon you or anyone else.

This isn't about what anyone believes. It's what the evidence demonstrates. There's a distinct difference.

What you believe about a subject is interesting but not terribly relevant, be it science or mathematics.

You might believe that prime numbers can be divided by a number other than themselves or one, but that doesn't mean your belief should be taught in schools.

[Quark2005]

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.

Sorry your education was so tainted with hatred.

None of this changes what we know about evolution, though, or its importance in modern biology.

[highball]

"The problem for Creationists is that they have failed to articulate a single scientific alternative that addresses the evidence."

A lie told often enough is still a lie. That cliched sentence of yours is a lie, backed up by lots of repetition, but not backed up by fact.

You have been covering your eyes and ears and shouting down those scientists who've been articulating scientific alternatives to Darwin's failed theories.

Nonsense.

Name one. Just one.

Keep in mind, AiG has already been caught lying, so maybe they aren't your best resource....

[Just mythoughts]

Yes I am familiar with that word demonstrates, it takes 'designers' to do the action or to demonstrate, and modern day designer has NO evidence only make believe fantasies about who was doing what.

[highball]

Are you suggesting that it is unreasonable to expect that an individual have actually studied a subject before claiming expetise in it?

There you go again, advocating standards....

[Clemenza]

A victory for sanity.

[PatrickHenry]

Are you suggesting that it is unreasonable to expect that an individual have actually studied a subject before claiming expetise in it?

Heavens no! Any uneducated lunk can emerge from his trailer park, Jack Chick comic book in hand, the wisdom of creationist websites swirling though his beer-soaked brain, and do better than tens of thousands of scientists have done over the last 150 years. It's a democracy, doncha know?

[munin]

So who exactly are you calling "uneducated yahoos"
Just because not all of us have part-taken of the lemonade and bought into mono-thought on this subject
ID or creation does not exclude the fact of evolution