I am the Great and Powerful Ooze!
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.
I am the Great and Powerful Ooze!
Intellectual stimulation placemarker...
Whether or not those in ancient times believed in ID were Christian or not has nothing to do with whether or not ID is based in a belief in God.
"In addition, the question of whether ID is religious or not is immaterial."
Are you denying that ID is based in religion? Are you denying that the I in ID is God?
"The inextricable specific complexity of organisms makes it impossible to change them by chance."
Why?
Is God subject to natural law?
I do not presume that a person is Marxist because they are evolutionist. I think it would be helpful to the discussion if, likewise, it were not presumed that intelligent design proponents are Christian.
No. Is there any evidence God used anything but natural law to achieve the world around us? No. Does this indicate Genesis is an allegory? Yes.
This is a misquote. And I'm not talking about quoting a sentence out of context; there is a word in your "quote" that is not in the sentence Darwin wrote. I have personally pointed this out to you many times on this post, but you persist in using your doctored quote.
No you never pointed out what word does not belong, just like you are not pointing it out now. The sentence does not include the word evolution. It does not change anything though. The paragraph still means the same thing. Your whole point has been to insult not to correct anything. Your whole point has been to take away from the point being made that this is the definition of evolution, which you folk cannot support and have never been able to find scientific evidence for in 150 years. The quote defines evolution and shows the barbarism which Darwin glorifies and your attempts at saying otherwise are dishonest. The FULL CONTEXT can be found in the TalkOrigins text of the Origins all the way at the end of the page:
"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse;. a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows."
God created metaphor, too.
I will take the above as an admission that my statement is true - that the Bible specifically says that God created man. Interesting that when evolutionists are called on to back up their statements they start dancing around and trying to confuse the issue.
Whether or not those in ancient times believed in ID were Christian or not has nothing to do with whether or not ID is based in a belief in God.
Of course it does. It shows that it is a scientific conclusion not arrived by religious beliefs which is what the evolutionists are FALSELY asserting.
The question is whether ID is true or false. As I have said this is scientifically verifiable therefore it is a scientific question which needs to be answered before evolution can claim itself to be true. That evolutionists instead of answering the challenge instead try to dismiss ID out of hand shows quite well that the propositions made by ID are absolutely correct - life, the Universe, the creation of species cannot be accounted for by materialistic means. That is why evolutionists whenever asked to scientifically back up their theories only answer with rhetoric and insults. There is no science to evolution. "In addition, the question of whether ID is religious or not is immaterial." Are you denying that ID is based in religion? Are you denying that the I in ID is God? "The inextricable specific complexity of organisms makes it impossible to change them by chance." Why?
No, because He specifically states otherwise in the Bible. Evolution is scientific materialism, it is the basis for Communism and other materialistic beliefs which totally degrade the uniqueness and divinity of man.
One of the best exponents of ID is Dr. Lee Spetner who wrote "Not by Chance" a very detailed exposition and defense of Intelligent Design. He is an Orthodox Jew.
There is evidence indeed that He intelligently designed the Universe and everything around us. The impossibility of abiogenesis by 'natural law' is proof of it. First of all is Pasteur's proof that life does not come from inert matter (and this was of course at one time the prediction of materialists). Then came the discovery of DNA and the chemical basis of organisms. This poses a totally insurmountable problem to abiogenesis. The smallest living cells has a DNA string of some one million base pairs long and some 600 genes, even cutting this number by a quarter as the smallest possible living cell would give us a string of some 250,000 base pairs of DNA. It is important to note here that DNA can be arranged in any of the four basic codes equally well, there is no chemical or other necessity to the sequence. The chances of such an arrangement arising are therefore 4^250,000. Now the number of atoms in the universe is said to be about 4^250. I would therefore call 4^250,000 an almost infinitely impossible chance (note that the supposition advanced that perhaps it was RNA that produced the first life has this same problem).
The problem though is even worse than that. Not only do you need two (2) strings of DNA perfectly matched to have life, but you also need a cell so that the DNA code can get the material to sustain that life. It is therefore a chicken and egg problem, you cannot have life without DNA (or RNA if one wants to be generous) but one also has to have the cell itself to provide the nutrients for the sustenance of the first life. Add to this problem that for the first life to have been the progenitor of all life on earth, it necessarily needs to have been pretty much the same as all life now on earth is, otherwise it could not have been the source of the life we know. Given all these considerations, yes, abiogenesis is impossible.
Therefore your belief that the Bible is an allegory to be interpreted as you wish is just based on your materialistic/atheistic desires, not on fact, not on the Bible.
BTW - it should be noted that once I asked you to back up your statement that the Bible said that man was created by natural laws you declined and changed your tune. Shows how hard it is to extract the truth from an evolutionist.
Gosh, Gore3000, what a stupendous discovery! Thank your for sharing it with us.
Next from Gore3000; how the Sabbath came into being. And breaking - the Philistines, art-hating villains, or misunderstood victims of oppression?
Nice try.
The vast majority of evolutionists are not Marxists. Perhaps you can name one ID proponent who is not Christian, but I can't.
Isn't there also something, somewhere in the Bible ... I'm probably just paraphrasing here ... about "not bearing false witness"? It appears not to apply to Pope Gore MMM, but then, being the Supreme Galactic Theological Authority may supply him/her/it with immunity from that particular injunction.
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.