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.
Good. ID is losing the battle.
Even better!
"At our best, we're not even animals... we're trash! Our highest aspirations, our hopes and dreams, our best efforts are not even mediocre, they're foul!"
Yeah, that'll jack up the level of morality *real* high.
They lost all the science arguments generations ago. But there are always those who don't seem to figure it out.
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.
Now you're not making sense.
If you can articulate your position in English, I might be able to respond to it.
I believe any number can be divided by any number. It may not come out an integer, but I believe it can be done.
Yeah, that'll jack up the level of morality *real* high.
It is not the job of science to "jack up" morality. That's another subject altogether.
What is the moral stance of prime numbers? Tectonic plates? Subject-verb agreement? What do those to do "jack up" morality?
except zero...
""Evolution wins out in Michigan science curriculum debate"
Big time slip here in that truth is out it is evolution that wins not the truth or the children."
Good point and true
Maybe to some people, but I've personally never been to a stag party where they showed films of dinoflagellate endosymbiosis in foraminifera plankton...
Evolution should be taught in religion class. It already stands side by side with Islam in California as yet another state religion.
Actually, there is a very advanced view of the morality created by evolutionary theory. It's called evolutionary psychology. Although not complete, it does provide a framework for observed morality.
I recommend Robert Wright's, "The Moral Animal".
Name one? Will these suffice?
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_as_platetectonicsl/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i2/information.asp
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_jb_largescaletectonics
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_as_igneousbodies/
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_lv_r05/
http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/003.pdf
http://answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/crater.asp
http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/opbsg/006.html
Proof positive that evolution is not a religion: in a lot of evolution and related classes in grad school, not once did they pass the plate!
The remainder and avoiding disputes, respectively.
OK, present your two best (but different) Creationist theories; how each one differs from the other; and how what observations falsfify both.
> It is not the job of science to "jack up" morality.
According to some, it apparently *is* (read back up the thread). The ignornat complaint has been repeatedly made here and elsewhere that the reason why kids act wild is that evolutionists have told them that they are Just Animals.
Stupid? You bet. But what do you expect from people who fight tooth and nail against the idea of Cause And Effect reigning in science class?
Designed by a deeper turtle.
"How did the "Designer" come to existence?"
It's turtles....all the way down.
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.