Posted on 06/08/2007 10:45:45 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
How were the oceans, puppies and human beings formed? Was it through evolution, creationism or something in between?
It's a heavy topic that's generated debate for years. That discourse landed in Chesterfield School Board members' laps recently when they set about adopting new science textbooks for middle and high schools.
At issue was the concept of intelligent design, and why none of the proposed textbooks offered an alternative to evolution for how the universe came to be.
Intelligent design proponents urged the School Board to include that theory in the school system's science curriculum so students can consider differing viewpoints in the classroom. But, federal law requires school systems to remain neutral on the topic, making it illegal for teachers to prompt discussions involving intelligent design or creationism.
In the end, members unanimously approved the proposed textbooks, but issued a formal statement saying, "It is the School Board's belief that this topic, along with all other topics that raise differences of thought and opinion, should receive the thorough and unrestricted study as we have just articulated. Accordingly, we direct our superintendent to charge those of our professionals who support curriculum development and implementation with the responsibility to investigate and develop processes that encompass a comprehensive approach to the teaching and learning of these topics."
(To read the School Board's complete statement, visit www.chesterfieldobserver. com and click on the link for "special" in the menu on the left.)
Superintendent Marcus Newsome was also asked to ensure teachers are aware of federal laws regarding any discussions of religion in the classroom. Currently, any discussions of creationism or intelligent design must be raised by students – not teachers – and teachers must remain neutral on the topic.
But some proponents of intelligent design who spoke before the School Board last week believe limiting discussions to evolution is anything but neutral.
"Our children are not being educated; they are being indoctrinated," said Cathleen Waagner. "Let the evidence speak for itself and let [the students] draw their own conclusions."
Another speaker, Michael Slagle, presented a document containing 700 signatures of scientists worldwide who have questioned the validity of evolution.
"Students are being excluded from scientific debate. It's time to bring this debate into the classroom," he said.
On a personal level, some School Board members appeared to agree that discussions on the beginning of life should encompass more theories than just evolution. Dale District representative David Wyman said limiting discussions to evolution is "counterscientific" and said religious topics are already frequently touched on in classrooms. He cited the Declaration of Independence, the paintings in the Sistine Chapel and the Crusades as examples.
School Board Chairman Tom Doland stressed that students are not discouraged from discussing alternatives to evolution or any religious topic. "They do not leave their First Amendment rights at the door," he said.
"As individuals, as parents, we have the right to instruct our children, and we should never turn that over to someone else," he added.
Clover Hill District representative Dianne Pettitt reminded everyone that "teachers are agents of the government…Students are free to initiate discussions…but we do have to stay within the limits of the law. We cannot just do what we personally want to do."
Midlothian District representative Jim Schroeder said he didn't want those who attended the meeting to "walk out of here thinking, 'There goes the public schools kicking God out of the schools again.'"
"I believe God is the author of life, and I don't want anything taught in schools that denigrates that," he added.
Bermuda District representative Marshall Trammell Jr. was more cautious, saying he was afraid to have teachers deal with such issues in the classroom because they might infringe on students' personal religious beliefs.
"I don't want that in a public school," he said. "That is a matter for church and home."
Students will begin using the new textbooks this fall.
Again, I refer you to the EXPLICIT statements from the Discovery Institute and the founders of the ID movement, that it is NOT about science but about GOD. What you read now is simply a whitewash attempt. All claims of "we don't know what the designer is, it could be anything" are absolute lies.
Which leads back to the original question --- if it is a creationist book, where again is the reference to Genesis, the Bible, the Flood and God ?
You must be missing the point on purpose. There is no explicit reference to Creation because those references have been replaced by the words "Intelligent Design" or variations thereof, but the rest of the text supporting Creation is substantially the same. In other words, Intelligent Design is equal to Creation, only an attempt at being more scientifically palatable.
Which earlier titles and how do they relate to this book ?
The earlier titles I just stated. The previous titles of "Of Pandas and People" were, in order, "Creation Biology" and "Biology and Creation" until the Aguillard decision (no creation in the science class), after which it was re-edited, replacing Creation with Intelligent Design. Then they tried the title "Biology and Origin" and eventually settled on "Of Pandas and People."
To solidify this point, consider the deposition testimony of Charles Thaxton as to why he started to use the term intelligent design in the Pandas book:
Before you start believing anything they say, please remember that that side of the issue in Dover flat-out perjured itself on the stand. They will say and do anything, including lying under oath to God, in order to further their agenda.
Interesting that the text change came just after that court case. Too much of a coincidence? Definitely.
This is just getting too ridiculous. It's like you're holding your hands over your ears and going "nananananana." Thinking like yours is dangerous. You only see what proponents currently say about themselves and completely disregard all of their actions and statements that show the current statements to be a whitewash.
The reminds me of Al Gore. The public listens to him talk about the environment, yet and accept the lame excuses he has for his own excesses. They want to believe, so any evidence to the contrary is dismissed, current lies are wholly trusted. They listen to Hillary too, ignoring her evil past because she says good things about herself today.
This is the big difference between us. You care that ID is true, because without it there is no need for God (such statements have been made by the DI). I don't care if evolution is true. I don't care if Intelligent Design is true. I only care that the integrity of science is preserved.
Show me a scientific theory that falsifies evolution and shows a better way. I'll dump evolution in a heartbeat. And as I've said before, I'll gladly be the one to take credit for the discovery, as fame and fortune awaits the one who succeeds.
Hey, I agree with you that Behe looked bad on the business of the reviews of his book. I’m not sure what to make of it, but I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was just carelessness on his part. He may have left the review process in the hands of the publisher and assumed that they did a better job than they actually did.
What you need to understand is that the peer review process is not always absolutely rigorous. In engineering, research papers usually get three reviews, and sometimes the reviewers are not intimately familiar with the exact micro-topic addressed in the paper. Also, sometimes the mathematics is too difficult for some of the reviewers to follow in detail. Think you know mathematics? Try reading a few papers in the IEEE Transactions and see if you can follow the mathematics in detail.
The other thing that sometimes happens is that a particular journal has a group of “insiders” who scratch each other’s backs. So you give me a favorable review, and I’ll return the favor. Yes, reviews are supposed to be anonymous, but the reviewer can always violate the anonymity by simply telling the author.
And the most important thing to understand is that certain taboo topics are often simply prohibited by the review process. ID is one, for example. The powers that be in much of the scientific community has simply decided that ID is off limits, and it cannot get past the review process. If a particular reviewer signs off on it, the editor rejects it. And there is a strong feedback effect: if reviewers know they will be “punished” for accepting claims of ID, most will refuse to do so. Ditto for editors. How could a reviewer be punished? By making it harder to get his own papers published.
The bottom line is that peer review, while it may be the only alternative, is far from foolproof.
But this should hardly be surprising here on FR. After all, imagine trying to get a paper advocating school vouchers published in some Leftist sociology, education, or political science journal. It won’t happen.
quote:
Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. There’s no question that it happens. The question is, “How does it happen?” A theory attempts to answer that question.
My reply:
Although perhaps unintentionally, you are engaging in classic equivocation. Yes, evolution is a theory. And yes, evolution is a fact too — but not with the same definition of the word “evolution.”
On the one hand, the word “evolution” can simply mean change over time, which absolutely *nobody* denies. On the other hand, the word “evolution” can be used to refer to purely naturalistic, unguided evolution from inanimate matter (or alternatively, from the first living cell) to human beings. If you think that is an established “fact,” you are extremely confused.
By the way, these truths have been pointed out many, many times in many ways right here on FR, but evolutionists never seem to remember.
Another mole whacked. How long before it pops up again? And bets?
quote:
I provided evidence in my post, where I stated that “I defend this assertion by saying that the universe is too complex to simply be by itself. It needs support, and that support can be found on the back of a turtle.”
my reply:
And what does complexity have to do with the back of a turtle? Please explain that to me.
I think what you are demonstrating here is your own lack of understanding of the concept of “evidence.” Check back when you learn what it means.
By the way, forensic *scientists* routinely check for evidence to determine, for example, whether a death was “intelligently designed” or was an accident. And what is their field of study called? Forensic *science*. Get it?
And trust me: it has nothing with turtles. Well, maybe in some bizzare case ...
Many creationists haven't gone with their brethren and hopped on the ID bandwagon. You didn't notice that creation museum that recently opened?
If you think that is an established “fact,” you are extremely confused. By the way, these truths have been pointed out many, many times in many ways right here on FR, but evolutionists never seem to remember.
These truths are almost always pointed out by evolutionists when a creationist is confused on the issue. It usually happens when creationists try to play with the definition of "theory."
Actually, ID can observe those changes just as easily as the naturalists. Let's not pretend that the difference is in the observations, shall we?
"The second population should be affected more so than the first. Testing – again, something that intelligent design can not do."
Actually, ID can test those changes just as easily as the naturalists. Let's not pretend that the difference is in the testing, shall we?
"I hate how certain American liberals like to play word games when they defend affirmative action as not being discrimination. Likewise, I hate how certain American conservatives like to play the exact same word games when they claim that intelligent design is scientific."
Likewise, I hate how naturalists like to play the exact same word games when they claim that evolution is scientific.
I knew you had no support for your claim that ID invoked the supernatural. It's just fun watching you dance around trying to support your previous errors.
"You ask me to provide “a reference showing that our origin is best explained by natural processes - observable and testable, according to your own requirements for ID.” Please check out Biology by Campbell and Reece."
The requested document does not exist on this server.
Right, Behe's point was that astrology was a scientific theory because it was falsifiable and was, in fact, falsified. Now, there are still people who believe in astrology even after it has been falsified and continue to claim that it is scientific.
In the same manner, evolution has been falsified, but there are still people who believe in it and claim that it is scientific. In this context, naturalism and astrology are on the same level.
When did this happen? Did I miss the biggest scientific news in decades, that one of the oldest, most researched, most tested theories in science has been falsified?
The problem with mathematical "reasoning" of this type is that you have to have a model. Models are often flawed, just look at Global Warming. Odds calculations are personal awe put into mathematical guesswork.
If I am not mistaken, Frances Crick (or was it Watson), the co-discoverer of DNA, also seriously entertained the concept of panspermia for the same reason.
You may like to know that Crick later retracted that, admitting his view was overly pessimistic in light of later scientific discoveries.
Someone might want to remove Crick from the Creation Handbook of Rebuttals, filing it with the gross misuse of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You're the second person on this thread to bring up this deceptive reference.
Wait a minute. I got confused. You aren't the second person to bring this up, it was you who brought it up both times.
You brought it up a second time after I already told you of Crick's retraction of that position in light of scientific advances. This is no longer a mistake, it is dishonesty to use materials known to be false.
What could I expect, it is coming from the ID movement, which is chock-full of lies, half-truths, out-of-context quotes and shoddy agenda-driven "research."
I'll trust you on the engineering peer review process. It seems that's not significantly different from economics peer review, which I'm slightly more familiar with. (My dad is an economics professor.) I have no doubt that the mathematics can be very difficult in engineering - it's already pretty difficult in economics and finance, but I do have some doubts that the reviewers wouldn't be able to follow the math in detail. Unless I'm mistaken, the reviewers of a paper should be very familiar with the subject area of that paper (i.e. should know how to at least follow the steps of the math.)
It's unfair to ask an engineer to think of a proof on the spot. It's fair, though, to ask him to follow the steps of a proof.
A few pages back, the theories of gradualism and punctuated equilibrium were brought up to demonstrate how there are different ways to explain what happens. Neither proponents of gradualism nor proponents of punctuated equilibrium deny that "change over time" happens. They argue on how is that change best described (i.e. theory).
On the other hand, the word “evolution” can be used to refer to purely naturalistic, unguided evolution from inanimate matter (or alternatively, from the first living cell) to human beings. If you think that is an established “fact,” you are extremely confused.
No, I don't think I'm confused on this matter. Your word choice is appropriate. If it were not purely naturalistic and unguided, then it would be supernaturalistic and guided, the result of which would be beyond the realm of science.
It's obvious. Anyone with basic high school science (university science not necessary but recommended) can see it. The universe is so complex. Thus, I propose that the back of a turtle serves as a physical support to house the immense complexity of our universe.
If you think that's poor evidence, which it is, how is that any different from the evidence cited by intelligent design advocates?
I made sure to use similar wording (i.e. "it's obvious" and "it's too complex.")
Likewise, I hate how naturalists like to play the exact same word games when they claim that evolution is scientific.
But, evolution is scientific. It conforms to the scientific method and has a large body of reproducible experiments and peer-reviewed papers.
I direct you to the ruling of Judge Jones, as follows:
Let’s take a look at the name, shall we?
Unless the title is a misnomer, intelligent design in the context of biology indicates a belief that some aspects of life were created by an entity that no one has ever encountered, either in the lab or in the real world. The identity of this entity is vague. But, nevertheless, the ideology posits that an entity is responsible.
I again direct you to the ruling of Judge Jones, as follows:
Also, if you were unable to google the textbook, please click here. Hopefully, you won’t wait a week to click the link.
Evolution as a fact has not been falsified.
Do you think our President would nominate a judicial activist?
Do you think a judicial activist would have been unanimously confirmed by a GOP-dominated Senate?
Judge Jones adhered to precedent and took into account the testimonies of expert defense witnesses in his ruling, including their confessions that intelligent design is at best a "fringe science."
We live in Chesterfield, VA and our son is kindergarten age. It is issues like this (among others) that have led us to homeschool.
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.