Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
Here's a sunrise over the Grand Canyon for you
(Sunrise by Ralph Unkert from http://www.discovergrandcanyon.com).
Posted on 11/08/2005 4:17:17 AM PST by PatrickHenry
For the past six weeks, the debate over evolution and intelligent design has played out in a Pennsylvania courtroom.
Today, Kansas gets the national spotlight back — and with it, the possibility of a federal lawsuit here.
“What’s going on in Kansas,” said Kenneth Miller, a Brown University biologist, “is much more radical and much more dangerous to science education” than the contested decision in Dover, Pa., to mandate the teaching of “intelligent design” in public school science classes.
Intelligent design speculates that the world is too complex to have evolved without the help of an unknown designer — an alien, perhaps, or God. Such teachings in public schools, the ACLU says, violate constitutional restrictions on the separation of church and state.
“Absolutely, absolutely,” said T. Jeremy Gunn, director of the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, when asked if the new science standards Kansas is expected to adopt today could be vulnerable to litigation.
An official with the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, which helped defend the Dover school board, said Kansas should be able to avoid legal scrutiny. Casey Luskin said the standards here critique evolution, but they don’t promote intelligent design.
“It’s definitely a different issue in Kansas” than in Pennsylvania, Luskin said.
‘More radical’
It’s a different battle, perhaps, but definitely the same war. Many of the participants in the Pennsylvania trial are veterans of the Kansas evolution debates, and are keeping a close eye on today’s meeting of the Kansas Board of Education.
Miller, for example, testified in the Pennsylvania trial against intelligent design. He came to Kansas in 2000 to campaign against conservative school board members the last time the evolution debate flared up here.
The new Kansas standards literally change the definition of science, he said, so that natural explanations aren’t necessary to explain natural phenomena. That opens the door, he said, for astrology to be taught in public school classrooms.
“Is this what proponents on the Kansas Board of Education have in mind?” Miller asked.
Michael Behe, a Lehigh University scientist, wrote “Darwin’s Black Box” — a touchstone text of the intelligent design movement. He testified in Pennsylvania, and before the Kansas Board of Education when it held hearings on the science standards.
“I think having students hear criticisms of any theory is a great idea,” Behe said. “I think in one respect, it’ll mean it’s permissible to question evolution. For odd historical reasons, questioning evolution has been put off-limits. If Kansas can do it, it can be done elsewhere.”
More evolution?
Luskin agreed.
“In contrast to what everybody has said, Kansas students will hear more about evolution and not less about evolution,” he said. “This is a victory for people who want students to learn critical thinking skills in science.”
But Gunn noted that the vast majority of scientists believed in evolution as a proven explanation for the origins of life. The “handful” who don’t, he said, have resorted to making their case through politics instead of through traditional scientific methods.
“Do we teach both sides of the controversy on astrology in science class? Do we teach both sides of phrenology?” Gunn said. “This is not a scientific controversy, it’s a political controversy.”
Testimony in the Pennsylvania trial wrapped up on Friday. A ruling in that case is expected in January.
Nonsense. I didn't say that evolution was valid because it was old, I said it was valid because during the past couple centuries it has been tested and the evidence backs it up. Evolution makes predictions, and those predictions have been borne out by subsequent evidence.
Nice try, but that's lousy spin. Even for these threads.
Well, it's certainly a contender. But that section of the List is getting pretty full. I can't include any ol' nonsense post any more. Maybe he'll outdo himself. Let's keep an open mind.
Battle.
In all fairness, connectthedots says that he did condemn the guy when his lies were first uncovered.
But there's an exception to everything.
Here's a sunrise over the Grand Canyon for you
(Sunrise by Ralph Unkert from http://www.discovergrandcanyon.com).
He may have thought he needed to lie, but it wasn't necessary in order for the school board to prevail.
The question is whether or not there are some reasonable questions about the factual basis of the 'theory' of evolution.
No, the question is why the school board wanted to include ID in the curriculum.
The Lemon test introduces motive. If the motive is to sneak religion into the classroom, it violates the Establishment Clause.
Motive is *essential* to this case. The school board was caught lying about theirs, because their motives fail the Lemon test.
Afrocentrists already have a lot of clout within the educational community, and would take the opportunity of a creationist win to push their ideas further. Native American and other PC cultures' mythology would wind up pushed as being another means of viewing the world.
Intelligent Design, meet Multicultural 'Science'....Multicultural 'Science', meet Intelligent Design. I think you may both do well and prosper in Kansas.
IMO, "deprogramming" kids from a belief in creation is the least of the colleges worries when so many of these kids can't even read, write, or do calulations without a calculator.
This is precisely why they shouldn't be taught pseudoscience. They are already a fertile field for ignorance.
Don't worry. An IDer IS a posturing creationist in a lab coat.
And once again, we see that when creationists want to diminish or insult the Theory of Evolution, they call it a "religion."
That never ceases to amuse me. Don't they ever read their own posts?
I think their logic is this....First label it as religion. And then condemn it as heresy.
I think that the whole issue of lying is very important...I have seen those who support Creationism or ID, and denigrate evolution, lie and spread what they have to know are lies....the biggest example is when the IDers constantly state, as a fact, that evolution states that men descended from monkeys...in spite of the fact that they have been told time and time again, that evolution says no such thing and have been given numerous links to show them how wrong they are, they continue to spread the same lie over and over again...
I wonder, do they really think that no one actually notices this?...lying is wrong, except I guess for those who want to lie, and then want to claim they are lying for God or some such nonsense...do they really think that their God is so impotent, that he actually needs some puny, little, mere mortal lying to protect God?...That is really an insult to God...and worse...
As the Bible says....Proverbs 6:16-19 says, "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren."
When folks start lying, and then somehow have to justify it, by including themselves in the lying for God crowd, I know, that they are less concerned about God, ,and more concerned about pushing their own personal Biblical beliefs and interpretations onto others...
Behe ain't dumb. I think his statement translates to: "It's great to question prevailing theory, especially if it involves spending some amount of school district money on my book, or otherwise keeping my name in the media so that aforementioned book stays prominently displayed at Barnes and Noble."
And when he says his prayers to the Intelligent Designer before going to bed he can sleep well thinking he's done the Intelligent Designer's work on earth.
Lemon was a 5-4 decision, if I recall correctly, and has been loudly denounced by many legal experts. I would suggeswt that the Lemon test may become history the next time the USSC has the opportunity to do so.
I didn't intend to "dismiss" the fossil record--how could I "dismiss" it? In fact I mention it mostly to say that it can't tell us whether or not biochemical systems evolved by a Darwinian mechanism. My book concentrates entirely on Darwin's mechanism, and simply takes for granted common descent.
Then, in all fairness, I commend connectthedots on his judgment.
No, it said what the sun did. It stood still in the heavens and the moon remained in place for an entire day. The only explanation is that the writers of Joshua believed the sun revolved around the earth. Something that has been disproven, but you never know. We may be faced with 'intelligent astronomy' one of these days.
It is true that evolutionists don't think humans descended directly from any modern species of ape or monkey. They DO think that if you trace the human lineage backward in time (say, with a time machine), you come to something very chimp-like which would unquestionably be called an ape. If you go back farther, the apes get more primitive looking until they really aren't apes anymore, but monkeys. Not any particular modern monkey species, but something which would have to be classified as a monkey.
And it gets "worse," of course. Eventually, our line disappears into primitive-looking mammals, then mammal-like reptiles, then basal reptiles, then amphibians, then fish, then primitive chordates, then primitive bilateran multicellulars, then colonials, then simple eukaryote unicellulars, etc. Each of these things in its day was as "advanced" as anything got.
On the contrary, evolution is based on science while intelligent design expects us to have faith in an 'intelligent designer'. What scientific evidence does ID provide to identify who that designer was?
like most religions of the world other than Christianity, any ideas which question it must not be made available in the marketplace or, even better, make them illegal by perverting the establishment clause of the first amendment.
On the contrary, evolution theory is open to question all the time. But by people who provide evidence to support their alternate answers. But not from the ID folks.
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.