http://www.cnn.com...olution.debate.ap/

http://www.cnn.com...bate.ap/index.html

The National Academy of Sciences released a statement:

"Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge."

Is there really anyone outside of Kansas that still thinks that ID is not just a thinly veiled mask for teaching religion instead of science?

http://www.theonio...content/node/39512

Follow it? I live in it.

I don't at all think that intellegent design should be taught INSTEAD of evolution.

I think there should be definate teaching on the fact of evolution, that animals/plants and what not evolve.

I think that it should be put forth that Evolution is the leading theory on how our world came into being.

I also think it should be put forth that Intellegent Design is one of those theories.


I'm not saying an entire course on ID or replace Evolution with ID. But I'd like to see the concept of it put forth in the classroom as well.

that's my opinion.

In 1999, the board eliminated most references to evolution, a move Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould said was akin to teaching "American history without Lincoln."

Quite right. eliminating the concept of evolution is asinine.

I think the politicians of Kansas are dumbasses.

But, what are the requirements for being taught as an alternate theory?

Because I would assume that, by now, the Flying Spaghetti Monster has almost as many adherents as ID.

Posted by MutantMandias But, what are the requirements for being taught as an alternate theory? Because I would assume that, by now, the Flying Spaghetti Monster has almost as many adherents as ID.

I'm not saying 'teach that the christian God created the world.'

I'm saying at least make mention that there are arguments for intelligent design, which doesn't name any specific God.

It could well be the flying spaghetti monster.

Posted by journeylady I'm saying at least make mention that there are arguments for intelligent design, which doesn't name any specific God.

But.... there aren't.

There are faiths in other ideas, but not arguments.

Posted by MutantMandias But.... there aren't. There are faiths in other ideas, but not arguments.

Ok I admit that I don't actually know much about the concept of ID, I do know of arguments for the biblical flood and arguments against evolution.

That said, I basically think that out of entire science course, you take one day at most to touch on the concept.

That's all I'm saying.

Well, I agree that in an open and honest educational system, it should certainly come up, and hopefully be treated respectfully by the teacher.

It's sad that we have to make rules about things, but that's just a result of having so many people living together.

But as for the other things....

Arguments for the biblical flood?
I mean, yeah there has been flooding before, but does it make sense to find evidence of a large flood that happened some time ago and then say, "Since there was a flood, and the apparent date of the flood does not contradict the bible (when certain things are interpreted in a particular was so as not to contradict each other), therefore, we must assume that everything that the bible says about the flood is true."

And, as for arguments against evolution, they don't really hold up either (as far as I know them), because they focus on how evolution can't explain everything. Like all scientific models, it explain things the best way possible, given all of the information, without breaking the rules that we know.

I believe that they should discuss the limitations of all scientific theories. Teaching ID in the classroom I disagree with entirely. That is unless we taught a comparative religions course which gives fair treatment to the major belief systems and discusses the different forms beliefs systems take.

I agree that religion has played an important part in our and all societies so feel that a discussion of them should be warranted. The problem with teaching only ID and not other belief systems is that intelligent design is only true to monotheistic systems and Christianity in particular. It is the equivalent of demanding that we teach everything was formed from the dismemberment of a god (Purusa). Give that belief a fair treatment in science class and see if the Christians are happy.

(I understand that not all Christians want ID in the classroom. I apologize in advance for my broad use of the word Christian)

Posted by MutantMandias Arguments for the biblical flood? I mean, yeah there has been flooding before, but does it make sense to find evidence of a large flood that happened some time ago and then say, "Since there was a flood, and the apparent date of the flood does not contradict the bible (when certain things are interpreted in a particular was so as not to contradict each other), therefore, we must assume that everything that the bible says about the flood is true."

Who said that's what my argument was?

Again, I'm not a scientist, in fact I totally suck at science.

but I do know there was research into a world wide (not just large) flood and the resulting physical changes to the world and how it would mimic the 'millions of years' theory of carbon dating which has been proven to not be accurate.

LIke I said, I'm not a scientist so I'm sorry if that doesn't actually make much sense, I've read a book on it and seen other scientific arguments for it as well.

So, please don't try and come up with my arguments for me.

Posted by Cabiria I believe that they should discuss the limitations of all scientific theories. Teaching ID in the classroom I disagree with entirely. That is unless we taught a comparative religions course which gives fair treatment to the major belief systems and discusses the different forms beliefs systems take.

Hm. I never really thought of it that way.

I suppose my only argument left then would be that both the USA and Canada were formed to be Christian nations. If we were a Hindu nation, I'd say that the Hindu creation beliefs should be mentioned.

All these things said, I'm starting to think that maybe teaching ID isn't the answer.

My only real concern is that if there's someone who DOES believe in something other than evolution, that they are not ridiculed. they can be asked not to disrupt the class fine, but don't put the kid down for standing up for their beliefs.

Here's how it ought to be:

ID would not be taught in science class. And evolution, when taught, would be prefaced by saying, "Evolution has not been fully proven and many people dispute it."

That would be the fair and honest way to do it. But the evolutionists won't accept any (real or perceived) criticism of evolution, and the creationists won't stand for ID not being offered as a scientific theory (which it isn't).

Posted by White Rabbit Here's how it ought to be: ID would not be taught in science class. And evolution, when taught, would be prefaced by saying, "Evolution has not been fully proven and many people dispute it." That would be the fair and honest way to do it. But the evolutionists won't accept any (real or perceived) criticism of evolution, and the creationists won't stand for ID not being offered as a scientific theory (which it isn't).

That would be the totally perfect way to do it!

Posted by White Rabbit Here's how it ought to be: ID would not be taught in science class. And evolution, when taught, would be prefaced by saying, "Evolution has not been fully proven and many people dispute it." That would be the fair and honest way to do it. But the evolutionists won't accept any (real or perceived) criticism of evolution, and the creationists won't stand for ID not being offered as a scientific theory (which it isn't).

I'm sure I'll sound like the closed minded jerk by saying this, but that's not good enough. That's kowtowing to the demands of the people who's only goal was to subjugate and infiltrate the science classroom.

Evolution is currently the ONLY acceptable theory for <all that stuff which evolution covers>, just like Gravity is the ONLY acceptable theory for why the Earth sucks. We can't explain every detail of it. There will always be parts which are elusive, especially with historic events which can never be witnessed.

But, of course, the science room should (and from my experience DOES) discuss the general limitations of science. Some teachers are probably idiots and say things like "Science is the truth blah blah blah." Well, that's just not true. Science doesn't provide the truth. It provides the best model of the truth, based on as much objective information as can be attained.

The atom was considered the smallest possible particle, until more information made people think that some things would be better explained by smaller particles (electrons, etc). Then smaller particles still. Now there's quarks with flavours, spins, and colours. I don't think anyone believes that reality matches the ridiculous model they have created, but it is an extremely useful model, because it can be used to predict behavior.

Just like the sun centric model of the solar system makes predicting the positions of planets much better. Sure, the sun is the center, apparently. All evidence points to this, yet some people still insist, for faith based reasons, that it's not. And we DON'T have all of the details of the sun centered system. Kepler made some simple and beautiful theories for the motions of planetary bodies, which hold up to high a high level of precision, but it just not totally right. Smaller and weirder stuff will always be going on, and science exists to challenge itself to always improve upon the existing model and come up with the best.

And by the way, if religious people were to be upset by scientific models, it makes much more sense for them to be upset by quarks.
There are three generations, and hence six flavours of quarks — the up-type quark flavours are up, charm and top; the down-type quark flavours are down, strange, and bottom
If that is not an affront to God, I don't know what is. They ever spell "flavour" like the infidels from the north.

I'll tell you why this is not the target. Because people can not be rallied behind something they can not understand. Quantum physics can not be broken down into a catch phrase, and THAT is the key. The right wing conservative movement in the 70's identified religion as an easy market to subvert and control. They researched and theorized and realized that people can be motivated if their interest can be held for a few seconds with something that fits nicely into a little pre-packaged box.

They targeted evolution and abortion and homosexuality because those can all be reduced to simplistic phrases and fears. No worrying about complex issues like real morality or ethics or hunger or peace or love, just simple Us vs Them and This vs That with 30 second sound bites.

My grandma's no monkey!

You're killing a child!

Homosexuality is unnatural!

Nothing is that simple. But thats what the conservative religious movement depends on. And, here we go, that's what terrorism depends on too. Blinding people with tiny little thoughts that they can focus on so they don't have to deal with reality.


Any way. Maybe I should do some work.

I also strongly believe that all kids should have a required comparative religions class in school. In fact, I think they should have it every few years, to deal with the different level of understanding. My high school offered one, but I didn't take it, and I really regretted it, even back then.

A friend of mine teaches a comparative religion course at my church to 7th graders, so every kid who comes to my class has already had it. I am embarrassed sometimes by their level of knowledge of world religions, and I know far more than most people on the street.

Anyway, again, I hope you have enjoyed this missive. Maybe it allowed you to take a nice refreshing dump, or vigorously enjoy a cup of coffee, or a smoke, if that's yer thang.

Posted by MutantMandias Evolution is currently the ONLY acceptable theory for <all that stuff which evolution covers>, just like Gravity is the ONLY acceptable theory for why the Earth sucks. We can't explain every detail of it. There will always be parts which are elusive, especially with historic events which can never be witnessed.

You don't have to tell me. I believe in evolution.

But thing is... Saying, "evolution hasn't been fully proven and many people dispute it," isn't technically untrue. Yes, there is MORE than enough evidence for reasonable people to conclude that evolution is true. But, technically, you can't 100% prove it. So, if you just say, "Evolution has not been fully proven," you will shut up at least some of the anti-evolution crowd. And you want them to shut up, right? Saying, "Many people dispute it" will do the same, even though those many people are 99% Christians with no scientific basis for disputing it.

Then you can actually teach the science behind evolutionary theory, and hopefully get a few more people to understand it.

The United States and Canada were occupied by the natives long before christians settled here. Should the native's faith not be the faith of choice when deciding which ID model to teach.

I have an idea... do not teach ANY ID model in public schools, if your child goes to a religious school, then they can be taught whatever BS theory you want. In fact, don't even force the teaching of evolution in religious schools, people pay for their children to attend these brain-washing institutions and they have the right to teach whatever crap they want. Where my tax dollars go, I have a right to express my opinions, public schools should be void of all religious teachings and such crap. Seperate schools should have freedom to express any religious beliefs or teachings.

Posted by White Rabbit But thing is... Saying, "evolution hasn't been fully proven and many people dispute it," isn't technically untrue. Yes, there is MORE than enough evidence for reasonable people to conclude that evolution is true. But, technically, you can't 100% prove it. So, if you just say, "Evolution has not been fully proven," you will shut up at least some of the anti-evolution crowd. And you want them to shut up, right? Saying, "Many people dispute it" will do the same, even though those many people are 99% Christians with no scientific basis for disputing it.

What I'm saying is that that is stepping waaaay over the bounds. That is the religious right mandating how science is taught. Like i said, science is a method, and the education of science should include it's limitations. Most things can not be 100% proven. There are Theories and Laws and all of that is covered in "what is the scientific method?"

But when you get to the particular subject of evolution, you can't start saying specifically that this isn't proven. It's like me requiring a church to say, before every mention of god, lots of people think that the concept of god is complete bullshit.

Posted by MutantMandias But when you get to the particular subject of evolution, you can't start saying specifically that this isn't proven. It's like me requiring a church to say, before every mention of god, lots of people think that the concept of god is complete bullshit.

Well, I agree that schools shouldn't have to say that about evolution. But what's better? That the theory of evolution gets taught with that one sentence prefacing it, or that it doesn't get taught at all? Because that's a very real possibility.

Because for worse or worse, the majority of people in this country don't believe in evolution. If you want to teach it and enlighten them, a little ground is going to have to be given.

Yeah, well, they also believe that Jesus is coming next week.

Psychopaths.

Posted by MutantMandias Yeah, well, they also believe that Jesus is coming next week. Psychopaths.

Hey, people used to think the idea that the Earth revolved around the sun contradicted Christianity. Eventually, they realized it didn't and accepted it.

The same thing will happen with evolution (hopefully). It's just not going to happen overnight. Maybe not even in our lifetime.

You're right. Evolution can be a wonderful example of glory of God, but like I said, understanding and compassion will not be tolerated by the people who have subverted Christianity for their own purposes.

I am really moving more towards the violent revolution is the only option side of things.

But that is another topic.