Posted on 10/14/2002 4:59:49 PM PDT by RCW2001
| The Associated Press
|
| COLUMBUS, Ohio Oct. 14 — A state school board panel Monday recommended that Ohio science classes emphasize both evolution and the debate over its validity.
The committee left it up to individual school districts to decide whether to include in the debate the concept of "intelligent design," which holds that the universe is guided by a higher intelligence. The guidelines for the science curriculum simply put into writing what many school districts already do. The current guidelines do not even mention evolution. "What we're essentially saying here is evolution is a very strong theory, and students can learn from it by analyzing evidence as it is accumulated over time," said Tom McClain, a board member and co-chairman of the Ohio Board of Education's academic standards committee. Conservative groups, some of which had tried and failed to get biblical creation taught in the public schools, had argued that students should learn about intelligent design. But critics of intelligent design said it is creationism in disguise. On Monday, the committee unanimously forwarded a final draft without the concept in it to the full 19-member board. Board member Michael Cochran, who had pushed for intelligent design in the standards, said, "The amendment allows teachers and students in Ohio to understand that evolution really is a theory and that there are competing views and different interpretations. This allows them to be discussed." The Ohio school board will decide Tuesday whether to adopt the new standards or order that they be revised.
On the Net: Ohio Department of Education: http://www.ode.state.oh.us/ |
Easily. The 10 Commandments are moral laws, wheras ID makes no reference at all to morality or to the character or intentions of the inferred designer. For all ID knows, the designer may have created the universe as an inside joke. It's far more rigorous than neo-Darwinism and bears almost no resemblance to creationism.
Evidently the teaching of ID is the equivelent of rice cake when it comes to educational nutrition. Fighting the battle to introduce it would be pointless.
Win or lose, the left comes away having once again avoided the moral truths of the ages. A living God created us in His image. He set up a test of our own free will. We made the wrong choice. Despite this He devised a way to rescue us from the effects of sin. And by providing His Son as the sacrificial lamb, He did it. Without these truths included, ID is just empty calories IMO.
And it's just not realistic to think you can scientifically demonstrate the existence of the God of Abraham. "Scientific creationism" tried to do this and predictably fell on its face. OTOH, ID is rigorously scientific and if given a fair hearing in the schools and the public forum, it will easily displace Darwinism, exposing it for the junk science that it is. Nowhere in ID is the existence of the God of Abraham ruled out. It is left open scientifically as one of the many possible identities of the designer.<-p>Net result -- neo-Darwinism exposed and discredited, rigorous methodology restored to questions of origin, and intelligent designer ascendant. This is progress, even though it may not be the outcome you (or I) might ultimately wish for.
This just in -- the Bible is not a science text.
If you'll note, there doesn't seem to be a problem with the Koran being studied in our schools. I doubt there's much of a problem teaching certain aspects of other religious beliefs either, as long as they are not Christian, so I'm not quite as susceptible to this argument as some might be.
And it's just not realistic to think you can scientifically demonstrate the existence of the God of Abraham. "Scientific creationism" tried to do this and predictably fell on its face.
Well, there's the problem. Teaching it as fact is entirely different than teaching it as another theory. Our kids should be exposed to different theories. And that includes the theory of the God of Abraham. If the God of Abraham could be proven without a doubt, there would no need for faith. We would know the God of Abraham existed without it. We can study Stone Hinge. We can study American Indian mythology. We can study a lot of things, just so long as the one true thing isn't contemplated. And I admit it is truth by my standard. But we don't seem to have any problem at all studying truths by other's standards.
OTOH, ID is rigorously scientific and if given a fair hearing in the schools and the public forum, it will easily displace Darwinism, exposing it for the junk science that it is. Nowhere in ID is the existence of the God of Abraham ruled out. It is left open scientifically as one of the many possible identities of the designer.<-p>Net result -- neo-Darwinism exposed and discredited, rigorous methodology restored to questions of origin, and intelligent designer ascendant. This is progress, even though it may not be the outcome you (or I) might ultimately wish for.
I would settle for neo-Darwinism being debunked. Darwinism is a fact. The species do evolve. But like you, I recognize that there is as little proof of neo-Darwinism as there is of the God of Abraham. If one concept is taught, both should be. I feel that we concede too much when we allow neo-Darwinism, the Koran and a multitude of other studies to take place, but relinquish our demands for equal time.
Your comments do make sense, but I differ with you in some regards.
9 posted on 10/15/02 12:44 AM Pacific by Bonaparte
My questions is, "How does one "teach" intelligent design at all?"
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.