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.
You teach children they are animals then take the responsibility when they act like animals. There is no morality in evolution.
So ID *is* about teaching morality and religion in public schools.
Thanks for confirming my suspicions.
It would be more accurate to say humans and apes both evolved from a common ancestor.
Nor in chemistry and physics. Why should there be? They are all sciences, not religion.
BEFORE: I will ask you: "How do you think the human species originated?" If you cannot truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation for admittance to further education in the biomedical sciences.
AFTER: I will ask you: "How do you account for the scientific origin of the human species?" If you will not give a scientific answer to this question, then you should not seek my recommendation.
Typical that you have to resort to personal attacks of calling me a liar. But anyways to me the first one is a religious test asking for an affirmation of your beliefs, the second one asks for a scientific explaination. You may disagree, but to call me a liar is just pure bullcrap. Dini backtracked for a reason.
What religion is ID?
Cordially,
Can you name one scientific theory that DOES contain a "moral message"? What's so special about the ToE?
It's a debate? What kind of science is that?
Woo Hoo!
OK then, and who exactly observed that? To me scientific theory should be based on observation and repeatable tests. That ranks as sciences best guess.
So. Chemistry and physics are not in the same realm as humanity.
ID just can't cut it.
...well, not with liberal judges, it can't.
Nor is there morality in geology, hydrography, thermodynamics, or metallurgy. Investigating morality is not a function of science. It's a function of philosophy.
Rhymes with prime.
D'oh!
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.