Posted on 09/19/2005 3:32:34 PM PDT by dukeman
The Dover Area School district in Pennsylvania will soon defend its policy to require ninth grade students to hear a short statement about “intelligent design” before biology lessons on evolution.
Dover is believed to have been the first school system in the nation to require students to hear about the controversial concept. The school adopted the policy in October 2004, after which teachers were required to read a statement that says intelligent design is different than Darwin’s theory of evolution and refers students to a text book on intelligent design to get more information.
“All the Dover school board did was allow students to get a glimpse of a controversy that is really boiling over in the scientific community,” said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which is defending the school district, according to the Associated Press.
The civil trial is set to take place on Sept. 26 and will only be the latest chapter in a long-running legal debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools.
The controversy over intelligent design in public schools has received national attention with statements by President Bush expressing approval for the theory to be taught in class, along with the recent approval by the Kansas Board of Education to give preliminary approval to science standards that allow criticism of evolution.
Intelligent design theory states that some parts of the natural world are so complex that the most reasonable explanation is that they were made as products of an intelligent cause, rather than random mutation and natural selection.
In contrast to "creationism," which states specifically that God is the creator, intelligent design is more general, simply saying that life did not come about by chance. The "designer" could be anything or anyone, though many place God in the position of the designer.
Experts on the case include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, who is proponent of intelligent design. He holds that the concept of “irreducible complexity” shows that there is an intelligent creator. He cites the example of a bacterial flagellum, an appendage to a bacterium that allows it to move about.
"Whenever we see such complex, functional mechanical systems, we always infer that they were designed. ... It is a conclusion based on physical evidence," AP reported Behe as saying in testimony before the state legislative panel in June where he was asked to talk about intelligent design.
Critics of intelligent design have dismissed the theory as a backdoor to creationism, with some calling it pseudo science.
In a 1999 assessment of intelligent design, the National Academy of sciences said the theory was not science.
''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," the NAS stated.
The controversy over Intelligent Design has been so highly talked about that the debate was also featured last month as a cover story for Time Magazine. In the feature article, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) President Albert Mohler, Jr., tackled the controversy with three other scholars in a forum addressing the question “Can You Believe in God and Evolution?” Behe was also among those whose views were addressed in the article.
There is no "controversy" in the Scientific community. Intelligent design isn't science.
There is no "controversy" in the Scientific community.
***It looks like a scientific "controversy" to me and to 2/3 of the general public. Welcome to politics 101. The scientific controversy mixes with the political controversy and suddenly you're having discussions with boneheads like me over social policy. The key to social policy isn't whether or not some nitpicking scientific point is observed, it is on whether or not it is good for us as a society. Besides, what's the harm in exposing both sides to the controversy? If there is so little scientific basis for ID, it won't hold any water. But these are the same sort of guys who came up with the fact that the fine structure constant of light has changed, so the speed of light is not a constant.
Intelligent design isn't science.
***The haps side of evo/abio isn't science either, it is a philosophy bordering on a religion. The root word for science is "knowledge" -- we're supposed to be teaching what we know in the early science classes. We can teach what is projected to be known later on.
That is a weak, overused, and frankly untrue statement. Defend your stance instead of misrepresenting a theory. I don't hold to ID because it is not compelling enough, but evolutionists say that about every alternative to their theory.
That is a weak, overused, and frankly untrue statement. Defend your stance instead of misrepresenting a theory. I don't hold to ID because it is not compelling enough, but evolutionists say that about every alternative to their theory.
Go back and read what the article states:
''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," the NAS [National Academy of Sciences] stated.You need to show how CS/ID etc. are testable by science to be doing science. Otherwise, its your religion and belief against someone else's religion and belief, because you are not doing science.
|
Intelligent Design should be taught at home or in church. It doesn't belong in the Science classroom.
If you really want ID in the science classroom, what you will get is religion being subjected to the methods of science.
Everything is science is up for grabs. If you can't see it or devise a test for it, it goes.
Is this what you want for religious beliefs, testing by the standards of methodological materialism?
The List-O-Links. Introductory info about the evolution issues.
How to argue against a scientific theory.
The thing is, the idea that anti-evolutionary theory is claimed to be unfalsifiable and therefore not science, which is simply not true. Evolution opponents often believe the Bible is infallible, but they do not hold the scientific evidence they present to be unfalsifiable.
DOLTS! and/or CLODS!
"The thing is, the idea that anti-evolutionary theory is claimed to be unfalsifiable and therefore not science, which is simply not true."
Some of it is unfalsifiable, the rest has been falsified.
And that sentence is crying out for a verb.
The Thomas More Law Center is a not-for-profit public interest law firm dedicated to the defense and promotion of the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. Our purpose is to be the sword and shield for people of faith
So much for ID being separate from religion.
I'd be amazed if there isn't a motion to prevent these folks from representing a government school.
There are much more important things such legal organizations can be doing than attempting to destroy the integrity of science.
The "designer" could be anything or anyone
I'd really like to read/hear the cross examination of the 'expert witness' who must defend this statement.
That says it all right there. Not a theory designed to advance knowledge, not research, or any of the things scientists do. Just anti-evolutionary. This wouldn't be faith-based, would it?
Critics of intelligent design have dismissed the theory as a backdoor to creationism, with some calling it pseudo science.
LOL. Where 'some' = 99+% of scientists.
The thing is, the idea that anti-evolutionary theory is claimed to be unfalsifiable and therefore not science, which is simply not true. Evolution opponents often believe the Bible is infallible, but they do not hold the scientific evidence they present to be unfalsifiable.
Step 1: Behe claims the flagella is irreducibly complex; i.e. could not possibly have evolved.
Step 2: Evolutionary biologists explain how the flagella could have evolved.
Step 3: ID polemicists complain that the evolutionists haven't provided a detailed, step-by-step accounting for how the flagella actually evolved, calling the evolutionary explanation a "just-so story", a "promissory note for an explanation", etc.
If ID is falsifiable like you claim, then you should be able to tell us precisely what kind of evidence would convince you that ID is, in fact, false.
patent falsehood... no surprise.
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.