Posted on 11/07/2002 7:07:47 PM PST by Nebullis
The AAAS Board recently passed a resolution urging policymakers to oppose teaching "Intelligent Design Theory" within science classrooms, but rather, to keep it separate, in the same way that creationism and other religious teachings are currently handled.
"The United States has promised that no child will be left behind in the classroom," said Alan I. Leshner, CEO and executive publisher for AAAS. "If intelligent design theory is presented within science courses as factually based, it is likely to confuse American schoolchildren and to undermine the integrity of U.S. science education."
American society supports and encourages a broad range of viewpoints, Leshner noted. While this diversity enriches the educational experience for students, he added, science-based information and conceptual belief systems should not be presented together.
Peter H. Raven, chairman of the AAAS Board of Directors, agreed:
"The ID movement argues that random mutation in nature and natural selection can't explain the diversity of life forms or their complexity and that these things may be explained only by an extra-natural intelligent agent," said Raven, Director of the Missouri Botanical Garden. "This is an interesting philosophical or theological concept, and some people have strong feelings about it. Unfortunately, it's being put forth as a scientifically based alternative to the theory of biological evolution. Intelligent design theory has so far not been supported by peer-reviewed, published evidence."
In contrast, the theory of biological evolution is well-supported, and not a "disputed view" within the scientific community, as some ID proponents have suggested, for example, through "disclaimer" stickers affixed to textbooks in Cobb County, Georgia.
"The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry," the AAAS Board of Directors wrote in a resolution released today. "AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of `intelligent design theory' as a part of the science curriculum of the public schools."
The AAAS Board resolved to oppose claims that intelligent design theory is scientifically based, in response to a number of recent ID-related threats to public science education.
In Georgia, for example, the Cobb County District School Board decided in March this year to affix stickers to science textbooks, telling students that "evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." Following a lawsuit filed August 21 by the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, the school board on September 26 modified its policy statement, but again described evolution as a "disputed view" that must be "balanced" in the classroom, taking into account other family teachings. The exact impact of the amended school board policy in Cobb County classrooms remains unclear.
A similar challenge is underway in Ohio, where the state's education board on October 14 passed a unanimous, though preliminary vote to keep ID theory out of the state's science classrooms. But, their ruling left the door open for local school districts to present ID theory together with science, and suggested that scientists should "continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." In fact, even while the state-level debate continued, the Patrick Henry Local School District, based in Columbus, passed a motion this June to support "the idea of intelligent design being included as appropriate in classroom discussions in addition to other scientific theories."
The Ohio State Education Board is inviting further public comment through November. In December, board members will vote to conclusively determine whether alternatives to evolution should be included in new guidelines that spell out what students need to know about science at different grade levels. Meanwhile, ID theorists have reportedly been active in Missouri, Kansas, New Mexico, New Jersey, and other states, as well Ohio and Georgia.
While asking policymakers to oppose the teaching of ID theory within science classes, the AAAS also called on its 272 affiliated societies, its members, and the public to promote fact-based, standards-based science education for American schoolchildren.
Yeah, well everyone also thought the world was flat back then too. But what interests me more in your response is...
"Because it's the truth that ID is not based on religion."
Just what or who is the "Intelligence" behind the design that "creationists" believe in.
You got the wrong guys, DG. Aristotle, Pythagorus and Ptolemy all believed the world was a sphere, a globe. They based these beliefs on actual observations, such as the varying altitudes of star sight lines, shadows cast by Earth on the moon, the appearance of distant ships approaching at the horizon, etc.
Yeah, well everyone also thought the world was flat back then too. But what interests me more in your response is...
As Bonaparte shows in the post above that is incorrect. The point is that many people who were not Christians also believed in ID - which answers your other question.
In addition, the question of whether ID is religious or not is immaterial. Evolutionists routinely assert that materialism is true yet they do not wish to test their assertion against non-materialist explanations. ID is a non-materialist explanation, that's for sure. However, it has to be disproven scientifically not out of hand as you and evolutionists would like to do. ID asks some very pertinent questions of evolution which neither you nor other evolutionists care to answer:
1. Because species cannot mate with other species (and this is a scientific fact) it is impossible for them to transform themselves into other species and have someone to procreate with.
2. The inextricable specific complexity of organisms makes it impossible to change them by chance. We did not know even a millionth of how complex they really were until the 20th century but nevertheless, even then they were known to be too complex for them to transform themselves at random.
Evolutionists cannot answer the above, they have no evidence to dispute the above claims of ID which are well supported by SCIENTIFIC evidence. That is why they wish to rule out an Intelligent Design explanation out of hand.
We now return you to your regularly-scheduled crevo thread.
Nonsense. There is no such survey and I doubt its truth anyway. Regardless, legislators cannot do anything about it.
It is also interesting that you keep defending atheists from this crime - and all other crimes. It almost seems like you have a personal interest in atheists not being found guilty of murder. Why is that?
While you're at it, you should go after that 'writer' Mark Twain, who used the same contraction with some frequency.
There some little blue words on the thread today
It's the same old crap as yesterday
There's no little bright spot in his anti-evo pap
Ragging us all with his pre-enlightened crap.
I have posted against his anti-science crime
Not in blue like water or green like lime
Refuting his posts in four-quarters time
But it's my destiny to be the king of slime
There some little blue words on the thread today
(That's my placemarker there)
It's the same old crap as yesterday
(That's my placemarker there)
There's no little bright spot in his anti-evo pap
(That's my placemarker there)
Ragging us all with his pre-enlightened crap.
(That's my placemarker there)
I have posted against his anti-science crime
Not in blue like water or green like lime
Refuting his posts in four-quarters time
But it's my destiny to be the king of slime
The fossil record doesn't doesn't prove a thing at all
(That's my placemarker there)
According to Little Boy Blue and his creo cabal
(That's my placemarker there)
He says that blue whales they never had legs
(That's my placemarker there)
And no known mammal has ever laid eggs
(That's my placemarker there)
I have posted against his anti-science crime
Not in blue like water or green like lime
Refuting his posts in four-quarters time
But it's my destiny to be the king of slime
There's a blue strawman who cannot see
A mass of evidence as plain can be
"All biology is anti-E"
Which is simply wrong as wrong can be
King of slime
There a platypus picture on his latest post
(That's my placemarker there)
That and euglenia he loves the most
(That's my placemarker there)
They don't mean quite what he thinks they may
But he goes on and posts them anyway
I have posted against his anti-science crime
Not in blue like water or green like lime
Refuting his posts in four-quarters time
But it's my destiny to be the king of slime
King of slime
King of slime
King of slime
I'll always be the king of slime
I'll always be the king of slime
I'll always be the king of slime
If it were, you would have been able to demonstrate it to be a strawman. Since you did not, it's evident you hoped name-calling would be enough. It ain't. :-)
They most certainly can -- who do you think appoints and confirms Supreme Court justices?
I can't believe you posted this to the Pope of the Free Republic! Do we not have endless examples of his/her/its ability to miss ... well, just about anything and everything?
I have done some research, by the way, and discovered that there is actually a double meaning to the nom de net, "Gore MMM." Of course, the meaning everyone assigns to the "MMM" is 3,000. That much is obvious. But it turns out that the MMM also stands for "Misconstrue, Misquote, and Mislead." (They're also his legal council).
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.