Bush endorses Intelligent Design in the Classroom

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cquark

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2004
1,741
0
0
Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
Originally posted by: cquark

Of course, we know what the debate is about. It's not about the scientific evidence, because the answer there is the result of tens of thousands of researchers pursuing thousands of lines of evidence that all lead to the same answer: evolution. The debate is about a continual political campaign by Christian fundamentalists attempting to get their dogma taught as truth.

Unfortunately, this fundamentalist campaign has been largely successful, as 20% of K-12 biology teachers teach creationism and nearly 40% of K-12 biology teachers don't teach evolution in their classroom.

It IS about scientific evidence. I'm not sure if you realize this, but evolution has so many holes in it that if it was a fabric of some sort it wouldn't even hang together.

Repeating this old creationist canard again? It doesn't matter how many times creationists repeat this lie, it won't eliminate the vast amount of evidence out there. Scientists have established the fact of evolution with thousands of lines of evidence and the work of hundreds of thousands of researchers. This idea is based on material evidence and repeated experiment, extensively documented in the scientific literature.

Look at the world, all the intricate details of it, how it all works together, the beauty of it all - I can't see how you can look at it all and say "Oh, it is all a random happening of chance, nobody designed it" when there is absolutely NO WAY that it could have just "happened." Randomly throw parts of something on the floor. No matter how many times you do that, it will not fall together perfectly or even come close.

Once again. Let's all repeat it. Evolution is not random. Natural selection does not work in the random way that you're describing it.

Evolution is not science or a truth, it is a theory and should be taught that way - a theory that has holes in it.

Yet another classic creationist deception. Let's repeat: Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

 

Mean MrMustard

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2001
3,144
10
81
Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
Originally posted by: cquark

Of course, we know what the debate is about. It's not about the scientific evidence, because the answer there is the result of tens of thousands of researchers pursuing thousands of lines of evidence that all lead to the same answer: evolution. The debate is about a continual political campaign by Christian fundamentalists attempting to get their dogma taught as truth.

Unfortunately, this fundamentalist campaign has been largely successful, as 20% of K-12 biology teachers teach creationism and nearly 40% of K-12 biology teachers don't teach evolution in their classroom.

It IS about scientific evidence. I'm not sure if you realize this, but evolution has so many holes in it that if it was a fabric of some sort it wouldn't even hang together. Look at the world, all the intricate details of it, how it all works together, the beauty of it all - I can't see how you can look at it all and say "Oh, it is all a random happening of chance, nobody designed it" when there is absolutely NO WAY that it could have just "happened." Randomly throw parts of something on the floor. No matter how many times you do that, it will not fall together perfectly or even come close. Same with the universe, only on a much larger scale. It had to be put together intelligently, and by some intelligent Being who is God. Chance is not a force to do such things anyway.

Evolution is not science or a truth, it is a theory and should be taught that way - a theory that has holes in it. Students who are taught evolution should be aware of the holes. I find it pretty bad when evolutionists have to make their own "evidence" to try to support their theories (as was the case with the one so-called ancestor of man that was made up of a human skull and pig teeth filed to fit).

Who's arguing it isn't a theory.

The argument is that creationism should or shouldn't be taught alongside evolution. What scientific tests has creationism even attempted to pass?

Creationism a hypothesis at best, and that is a stretch. Therefore, it should not be taught in SCIENCE class. End of story.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Which brings us, finally, to intelligent design. Some of America's most powerful politicians have a deep hatred for Darwinism. Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, blamed the theory of evolution for the Columbine school shootings.

He did? :roll:
 

SparkyJJO

Lifer
May 16, 2002
13,357
7
81
Originally posted by: ELP

Who's arguing it isn't a theory.

The argument is that creationism should or shouldn't be taught alongside evolution. What scientific tests has creationism even attempted to pass?

Creationism a hypothesis at best, and that is a stretch. Therefore, it should not be taught in SCIENCE class. End of story.

Why shouldn't it be taught alongside of evolution. If evolution is a theory and it is taught, why can't creationism be at least taught as a theory too? Evolution is just a bypothesis, and it is taught in science class. I think the problem is you know deep down that evolution is a fake, but you just keep trying to bury it.

And I'd like to see a scrap of evidence for evolution. Last time I asked for some from someone, he couldn't come up with any. All he could say was, "Well, its out there" but couldn't give a real piece of evidence. Can you give me something? Odds are, no.

If humans did indeed evolve from apes or, better yet down the line, slime, then what value is life? What is so special about it? Do you see the problem with it? If we truely evolved from goo, then life has no real value. So, if you truely believe that, go out and kill somebody, then at your trial give the defense "But we evolved from a lower form anyway, so it doesn't really matter" and see how far you get.

Natural selection is true, yes. But natural selection IS NOT one species changing into another, which is what evolution teaches.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
Originally posted by: ELP

Who's arguing it isn't a theory.

The argument is that creationism should or shouldn't be taught alongside evolution. What scientific tests has creationism even attempted to pass?

Creationism a hypothesis at best, and that is a stretch. Therefore, it should not be taught in SCIENCE class. End of story.

Why shouldn't it be taught alongside of evolution. If evolution is a theory and it is taught, why can't creationism be at least taught as a theory too? Evolution is just a bypothesis, and it is taught in science class. I think the problem is you know deep down that evolution is a fake, but you just keep trying to bury it.

And I'd like to see a scrap of evidence for evolution. Last time I asked for some from someone, he couldn't come up with any. All he could say was, "Well, its out there" but couldn't give a real piece of evidence. Can you give me something? Odds are, no.

If humans did indeed evolve from apes or, better yet down the line, slime, then what value is life? What is so special about it? Do you see the problem with it? If we truely evolved from goo, then life has no real value. So, if you truely believe that, go out and kill somebody, then at your trial give the defense "But we evolved from a lower form anyway, so it doesn't really matter" and see how far you get.

Natural selection is true, yes. But natural selection IS NOT one species changing into another, which is what evolution teaches.

So your argument is that evolution is offensive to your sense of self-worth, and your opinion of the value of humanity?

Cue moonie please.

The misuse of the word 'theory' by creationists is stunning - a scientific theory is not like a layman's 'theory' in any significant way. Before you can use the word theory in the scientific sense, you need a working model with many testable hypotheses, a significant number of which have already 'passed' the appropriate tests.

In this sense, creationism is not a theory at all, and neither is ID. Both are untested, and at the present time untestable hypotheses.

Evolution has been established by the fossil record, genetic analysis and biology beyond any real reasonable doubt; darwinian evolution could very well be replaced by a better model if someone were to propose and test a better mechanism.

You can choose to ignore the real world all you want, and you can even choose to beleive in ID as an untested, unproven, unscientific mechanism for evolution, but the fact of the matter is that creationists are the ones holding a scientifically untenable position, not the other way around.
 

cquark

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2004
1,741
0
0
Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
Originally posted by: ELP

Who's arguing it isn't a theory.

The argument is that creationism should or shouldn't be taught alongside evolution. What scientific tests has creationism even attempted to pass?

Creationism a hypothesis at best, and that is a stretch. Therefore, it should not be taught in SCIENCE class. End of story.

Why shouldn't it be taught alongside of evolution. If evolution is a theory and it is taught, why can't creationism be at least taught as a theory too? Evolution is just a bypothesis, and it is taught in science class.

No, evolution is a set of scientific facts and scientific theories, not a hypothesis. Creationism is not either a hypothesis or a theory; it's a myth. Scientific theories must be falsifiable and creationism cannot be falsified.

And I'd like to see a scrap of evidence for evolution. Last time I asked for some from someone, he couldn't come up with any. All he could say was, "Well, its out there" but couldn't give a real piece of evidence. Can you give me something? Odds are, no.
...
Natural selection is true, yes. But natural selection IS NOT one species changing into another, which is what evolution teaches.

Sure, I can point you to thousands of pieces of evidence. Much of the evidence is freely available to the public in displays at natural history museums and in scientific journals in libraries around the world.

For example, we have hundreds of fossilized ancestors of the horse from Hyracotherium to pre-modern equines, showing how an evolutionary tree of dozens of species. As for speciation, the scientific literature is full of examples of one species changing into another. Scientists have made it happen explicitly in the lab with genus drosophila, and they've observed it in the field in a variety of plants like the yellow monkey flower. See articles like the following:

Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.

Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.

Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.

Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.

Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.
 

cquark

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2004
1,741
0
0
Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
If humans did indeed evolve from apes or, better yet down the line, slime, then what value is life? What is so special about it? Do you see the problem with it? If we truely evolved from goo, then life has no real value. So, if you truely believe that, go out and kill somebody, then at your trial give the defense "But we evolved from a lower form anyway, so it doesn't really matter" and see how far you get.

You seem to admit that your own suggestion that the unsupported idea that evolution is a justification for violence is baseless in your last sentence, so why bring it up? It's also worth pointing out that there is no concept of lower forms in biology, and many species like the social insects are considerably more altruistic and cooperative than humans.

 

abj13

Golden Member
Jan 27, 2005
1,071
902
136
Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

And I'd like to see a scrap of evidence for evolution. Last time I asked for some from someone, he couldn't come up with any. All he could say was, "Well, its out there" but couldn't give a real piece of evidence. Can you give me something? Odds are, no.

Time for someone to run and hide in the corner:

Caldwell, M. W. and Lee, M. S. Y. 1997. A snake with legs from the marine Cretaceous of the Middle East. Nature 386: 705-709.

"Although snakes are descended from limbed squamates ('lizards'), all known snakes lack well developed legs and their nearest lizard relatives have yet to be identified1-4. Here we provide compelling evidence that the Cretaceous squamate Pachyrhachis problematicus, previously interpreted as a varanoid lizard5-7, is actually a primitive snake with a well developed pelvis and hindlimbs. Pachyrhachis is a sister-taxon of all other snakes. The skill exhibits most derived features of modern snakes, and the body is slender and elongated. But unlike other snakes, Pachyrhachis retains a well developed sacrum, pelvis and hindlimb (femur, tibia, fibula, tarsals). Pachyrhachis was marine, and provides additional support for mosasauroid-snake affinities."

Cronin, T. M. 1985. Speciation and stasis in marine ostracoda: climatic modulation of evolution. Science 227: 60-63.

Domning, D. P. 2001. The earliest known fully quadupedal sirenian. Nature 413: 625-627.

"Modern seacows (manatees and dugongs; Mammalia, Sirenia) are completely aquatic, with flipperlike forelimbs and no hindlimbs1, 2. Here I describe Eocene fossils from Jamaica that represent nearly the entire skeleton of a new genus and species of sirenian?the most primitive for which extensive postcranial remains are known. This animal was fully capable of locomotion on land, with four well-developed legs, a multivertebral sacrum, and a strong sacroiliac articulation that could support the weight of the body out of water as in land mammals. Aquatic adaptations show, however, that it probably spent most of its time in the water. Its intermediate form thus illustrates the evolutionary transition between terrestrial and aquatic life. Similar to contemporary primitive cetaceans3, it probably swam by spinal extension with simultaneous pelvic paddling, unlike later sirenians and cetaceans, which lost the hindlimbs and enlarged the tail to serve as the main propulsive organ. Together with fossils of later sirenians elsewhere in the world1, 4, 5, 6, 7, these new specimens document one of the most marked examples of morphological evolution in the vertebrate fossil record."

Eldredge, N. 1974. Stability, diversity, and speciation in Paleozoic epeiric seas. Journal of Paleontology 48(3): 540-548.

Lee, M. S. Y., Bell, G.L. Jr., and Caldwell, M.W. 1999. The origin of snake feeding. Nature 400: 655-659.

"Snakes are renowned for their ability to engulf extremely large prey, and their highly flexible skulls and extremely wide gape are among the most striking adaptations found in vertebrates1-5. However, the evolutionary transition from the relatively inflexible lizard skull to the highly mobile snake skull remains poorly understood, as they appear to be fundamentally different and no obvious intermediate stages have been identified4,5. Here we present evidence that mosasaurs ? large, extinct marine lizards related to snakes ? represent a crucial intermediate stage. Mosasaurs, uniquely among lizards, possessed long, snake-like palatal teeth for holding prey. Also, although they retained the rigid upper jaws typical of lizards, they possessed highly flexible lower jaws that were not only morphologically similar to those of snakes, but also functionally similar. The highly flexible lower jaw is thus inferred to have evolved before the highly flexible upper jaw ? in the macrophagous common ancestor of mosasaurs and snakes ? for accommodating large prey. The mobile upper jaw evolved later ? in snakes ? for dragging prey into the oesophagus. Snakes also have more rigid braincases than lizards, and the partially fused meso- and metakinetic joints of mosasaurs are transitional between the loose joints of lizards and the rigid joints of snakes. Thus, intermediate morphologies in snake skull evolution should perhaps be sought not in small burrowing lizards, as commonly assumed, but in large marine forms."

Malmgren, B. A., Berggren, W. A., and Lohmann, G. P. 1984. Species formation through punctuated gradualism in planktonic foraminifera. Science 225: 317-319.

"A reanalysis of the wrist bones of early human fossils provides the first good evidence that humans evolved from ancestors who 'knuckle-walked', as chimps and gorillas do today."

Shu, D.-G. Morris, S. C., Han, J., Zhang, Z.-F. and Liu, J.-N. 2004. Ancestral echinoderms from the Chengjiang deposits of China. Nature 430: 422-428.

"Deuterostomes are a remarkably diverse super-phylum, including not only the chordates (to which we belong) but groups as disparate as the echinoderms and the hemichordates. The phylogeny of deuterostomes is now achieving some degree of stability, especially on account of new molecular data, but this leaves as conjectural the appearance of extinct intermediate forms that would throw light on the sequence of evolutionary events leading to the extant groups. Such data can be supplied from the fossil record, notably those deposits with exceptional soft-part preservation. Excavations near Kunming in southwestern China have revealed a variety of remarkable early deuterostomes, including the vetulicolians and yunnanozoans. Here we describe a new group, the vetulocystids. They appear to have similarities not only to the vetulicolians but also to the homalozoans, a bizarre group of primitive echinoderms whose phylogenetic position has been highly controversial."

Also feel free to answer some specific cases:
1)What is the significance of the ancient bacterial plasma membrane being the site of lipid, secretory, soluble, integral protein, and complex carbohydrate biosynthesis, and the site of chromosomal attachment? What is the significance when compared to the endoplasmic reticulum, the site of lipid, secretory, soluble, integral protein, and complex carbohydrate biosynthesis, and the site of DNA packaging?

2)What is the rationale behind human anatomy where we have a extensor coccygis, a muscle on the posterior side of the coccyx, a muscle that when it contracted, it would raise the coccyx (rudiment of the tail)?

"The Extensor coccygis is a slender muscular fasciculus, which is not always present; it extends over the lower part of the posterior surface of the sacrum and coccyx. It arises by tendinous fibers from the last segment of the sacrum, or first piece of the coccyx, and passes downward to be inserted into the lower part of the coccyx. It is a rudiment of the Extensor muscle of the caudal vertebræ of the lower animals.

http://www.bartleby.com/107/115.html"

3)Why does our mitochondria have circular DNA, and on its membrane is the cite of ATP production? Keep in mind that bacteria have circular DNA, and ATP production is located on its plasma membrane.


 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
I'm sure Bush said it just to pander to the Ridiculous..err the Religious Right.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: loki8481
if they want to teach that evolution is a theory, I'd have no problem with that, because it is (albeit a fairly solid and widely accepted theory). in that regard, saying "the sun is going to rise tomorrow morning" is also a theory, because there's no way of knowing whether or not it will happen until it does.

and if they want to teach other theories, I'd be fine with that too, but please, find ones that have more of a scientific basis than ID, which pretty much just says "it's too complicated to figure out by using science."

There are some people who will always regard everything as a mere speculative theory in spite of the tremendous amount of evidence backing the theory. I invite such people, including the advocates of "Intelligent Design" to test the theory of gravity by jumping off the Sears Tower. After all, it's just a mere theory. Surely having enough faith in God will allow one to fly.


 

NJDevil

Senior member
Jun 10, 2002
952
0
0
Originally posted by: dannybin1742
There is no testable scientific answer for how life began, so leave THAT part out of the classroom.

obviously you don't read enough science journals, to understand that his has been studied over and over again,

a combination of statistics and organic chemistry can explain the evolution of pre-biotic life, go read a book, or some journals, there are literally tons of papers on this subject

do you have any idea how easy it is for spontaneous formation of vitaminB12, under early earth conditions? (and yes it is a complex molecule used in molecular rearrangements)


***end rant by a biochemist

I forgot the name of the experiments, but a scientist created plenty of organic compounds using the conditions that existed on earth billions of years ago. While they produced those organic compounds, no scientist can test how exactly they created life. It's the best guess right now, but as I said, it's not testable. I believe what you are saying, and didn't mean to imply that science will never know for sure, but at the moment, there are several theories as to how those organic compounds formed life.

 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,778
6,338
126
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: loki8481
if they want to teach that evolution is a theory, I'd have no problem with that, because it is (albeit a fairly solid and widely accepted theory). in that regard, saying "the sun is going to rise tomorrow morning" is also a theory, because there's no way of knowing whether or not it will happen until it does.

and if they want to teach other theories, I'd be fine with that too, but please, find ones that have more of a scientific basis than ID, which pretty much just says "it's too complicated to figure out by using science."

There are some people who will always regard everything as a mere speculative theory in spite of the tremendous amount of evidence backing the theory. I invite such people, including the advocates of "Intelligent Design" to test the theory of gravity by jumping off the Sears Tower. After all, it's just a mere theory. Surely having enough faith in God will allow one to fly.

They always fail on the first jump. So failure basically means nothing.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: NJDevil
Originally posted by: dannybin1742
There is no testable scientific answer for how life began, so leave THAT part out of the classroom.

obviously you don't read enough science journals, to understand that his has been studied over and over again,

a combination of statistics and organic chemistry can explain the evolution of pre-biotic life, go read a book, or some journals, there are literally tons of papers on this subject

do you have any idea how easy it is for spontaneous formation of vitaminB12, under early earth conditions? (and yes it is a complex molecule used in molecular rearrangements)


***end rant by a biochemist

I forgot the name of the experiments, but a scientist created plenty of organic compounds using the conditions that existed on earth billions of years ago. While they produced those organic compounds, no scientist can test how exactly they created life. It's the best guess right now, but as I said, it's not testable. I believe what you are saying, and didn't mean to imply that science will never know for sure, but at the moment, there are several theories as to how those organic compounds formed life.

Actually, theory is too strong a word for such speculation;)
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Don't be so egotistical as to assume anything you don't personally understand must be beyond human comprehension and attributable to God.
It has nothing to do with ego, nor does it have to do with things I do not "personally" understand. There are many things about this universe that none of us understand. Science, like religion before it, provides a number of theories that ultimately drive towards answering the universal question of human existance..."why are we here." Science is perhaps a more rational approach, where the divine is more philosophical, but there is no reason that God and science cannot co-exist.

The only thing I don't understand is the when, how and why the universe came to be...science has yet to provide an answer to this question...religion has provided an answer, but it is not a scientific one...it is not something I don't personally understand, because none of us do...if there was one distinct answer, there would be no reason to hold this debate.

The equations that describe nature are typically too difficult to solve for most complex systems.
Even if humanity were to gain the knowledge and technology to model such a complex system, it still wouldn't explain what set that system into motion.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,778
6,338
126
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Don't be so egotistical as to assume anything you don't personally understand must be beyond human comprehension and attributable to God.
It has nothing to do with ego, nor does it have to do with things I do not "personally" understand. There are many things about this universe that none of us understand. Science, like religion before it, provides a number of theories that ultimately drive towards answering the universal question of human existance..."why are we here." Science is perhaps a more rational approach, where the divine is more philosophical, but there is no reason that God and science cannot co-exist.

The only thing I don't understand is the when, how and why the universe came to be...science has yet to provide an answer to this question...religion has provided an answer, but it is not a scientific one...it is not something I don't personally understand, because none of us do...if there was one distinct answer, there would be no reason to hold this debate.

The equations that describe nature are typically too difficult to solve for most complex systems.
Even if humanity were to gain the knowledge and technology to model such a complex system, it still wouldn't explain what set that system into motion.

Religion doesn't "theorize", where'd you pull that from? Religion disseminates "Truth" and doesn't make suggestions that followers are to Test and Prove False. Your attempt to paint Science as a new Religion is ridiculous.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Religion doesn't "theorize", where'd you pull that from? Religion disseminates "Truth" and doesn't make suggestions that followers are to Test and Prove False. Your attempt to paint Science as a new Religion is ridiculous.
Read my post again...in the absence of science, religion, or perhaps more appropriately a belief in the divine, attempted to explain the universe in which we live...religion extends far beyond the Christian church, as regionally isolated ancient civilizations the world over provided theological explanations for many things that we can now explain through science.

The human construct of religion has transformed into a controlling entity that limits the exchange of thoughts and ideas, but there was a time when the theological embraced both the philosophical and the scientific.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,239
136
This line of arguement for ID reminds me of The Gods Must Be Crazy. Something seemingly mysterious to us may actually be something quite simple given the right background knowledge and prespective.

ID is not a scientific theory. It is just one other creation myth that cannot be tested nor invalidated. ID belongs in a science classroom about the same time Scientology does. (At least the word "science" dirives its name. ;) )

 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,778
6,338
126
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Religion doesn't "theorize", where'd you pull that from? Religion disseminates "Truth" and doesn't make suggestions that followers are to Test and Prove False. Your attempt to paint Science as a new Religion is ridiculous.
Read my post again...in the absence of science, religion, or perhaps more appropriately a belief in the divine, attempted to explain the universe in which we live...religion extends far beyond the Christian church, as regionally isolated ancient civilizations the world over provided theological explanations for many things that we can now explain through science.

The human construct of religion has transformed into a controlling entity that limits the exchange of thoughts and ideas, but there was a time when the theological embraced both the philosophical and the scientific.

oops, my bad. Couldn't read earlier or something. :( :)
 

cquark

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2004
1,741
0
0
It looks like some schools in Indiana already teach creationism outside of biology classes, as reported in http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050817/NEWS02/508170482
When some residents in Columbus petitioned the School Board three years ago to give the Bible's creation account equal time with evolution, school officials came up with a novel response.

They created a new class -- under the heading of social studies -- that examines all the theories on human origins. Not only did the class cover evolution and creationism, it also surveyed Navajo beliefs, the Hindu creation story and a host of other perspectives.

Greg Lewis, the social studies chairman at Columbus East High School, figured a skeptical public would put his Human Origins class under the microscope. "Teaching the course was like walking a tightrope," he said.

In the end, the dissection Lewis expected never came. The course's treatment of the issues seemed to soothe the population to the point that, after two semesters, so few kids were interested in the subject there weren't enough to fill a course section.
However, that wasn't enough for the creationists and now the Indiana intelligent design movement is kicking into gear and attempting to get ID creationism into biology classes:
The group -- headed by Delaware County resident Alex P. Oren -- has a stated mission to stop "the influence of atheism and immorality" in public schools. While his faith motivates his effort, Oren insists he isn't seeking equal time for God, just the arguments against evolution.

"This is not science versus religion," he said. "This is science versus science."
...

Oren freely acknowledges that his challenge to Hamilton Southeastern is motivated by his belief in the biblical account of creation. And for him, the stakes in the fight for public schools couldn't be higher.

"For many kids, this is where it begins," he said. "The choice between God or no God often comes right here."

Of course, science is all about atheism and immorality, right? Wait, it's not, and ID creationism isn't science either and this group's religious motivations are obvious.
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
What I don't get is WHY are they teaching creationism when obviously everyone isn't Christian!!! I mean even the Muslim story is quite similar there are key differences (God never "rested")...but what about all the aethists, hindus, muslims, etc. etc. that must be subjected to the same message? That is just turning into a preaching class then!

 

CKent

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
9,020
0
0
The group -- headed by Delaware County resident Alex P. Oren -- has a stated mission to stop "the influence of atheism and immorality" in public schools. While his faith motivates his effort, Oren insists he isn't seeking equal time for God, just the arguments against evolution.

"This is not science versus religion," he said. "This is science versus science."
...

Oren freely acknowledges that his challenge to Hamilton Southeastern is motivated by his belief in the biblical account of creation. And for him, the stakes in the fight for public schools couldn't be higher.

"For many kids, this is where it begins," he said. "The choice between God or no God often comes right here."

Truly frightening.
 

cquark

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2004
1,741
0
0
Daniel Dennet has an excellent op-ed on the lack of science in ID in the NYT today.
From http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html?pagewanted=print
To date, the proponents of intelligent design have not produced anything like that. No experiments with results that challenge any mainstream biological understanding. No observations from the fossil record or genomics or biogeography or comparative anatomy that undermine standard evolutionary thinking.

Instead, the proponents of intelligent design use a ploy that works something like this. First you misuse or misdescribe some scientist's work. Then you get an angry rebuttal. Then, instead of dealing forthrightly with the charges leveled, you cite the rebuttal as evidence that there is a "controversy" to teach.

Note that the trick is content-free. You can use it on any topic. "Smith's work in geology supports my argument that the earth is flat," you say, misrepresenting Smith's work. When Smith responds with a denunciation of your misuse of her work, you respond, saying something like: "See what a controversy we have here? Professor Smith and I are locked in a titanic scientific debate. We should teach the controversy in the classrooms." And here is the delicious part: you can often exploit the very technicality of the issues to your own advantage, counting on most of us to miss the point in all the difficult details.

His summary is particularly effective:
In short, no science. Indeed, no intelligent design hypothesis has even been ventured as a rival explanation of any biological phenomenon. This might seem surprising to people who think that intelligent design competes directly with the hypothesis of non-intelligent design by natural selection. But saying, as intelligent design proponents do, "You haven't explained everything yet," is not a competing hypothesis. Evolutionary biology certainly hasn't explained everything that perplexes biologists. But intelligent design hasn't yet tried to explain anything.