Equine feces. If schoolteachers really feel the need to fill the heads of children with anti-Darwinian nonsense, they can legally teach Lysenkoism.
don't understand why we can't have a day or two of discussion about the relative roles of science and religion."
Should churches start examining criticisms made of them made by scientists? I don't see what one has to do with the other, at least not as far as requiring them to be taught together.
Also I think that the religion is more important than science and that this is reflected by the US Constitution. Attempts to import the Soviet Separation of Church and State by the former pro-Communst fellow travelers even if successful, will not bring more good than it did in Soviet Union.
The irrational fear of hearing the words "Creation" of "Intelligent Design", and that pure Evolution is not watertight, is science's PC anomaly. They want everything but the theory of evolution to be sidelined and call those who think otherwise "irrational" and "agenda-driven". However, all the folks who question evolution want is to have the other theories allowable. It seems so very left-wing somehow.
First, it's interesting that this article seems to cede that ID posits a deity. Secondly, by no means did this judge, or any other judge, seek to remove a discussion of possible supernatural causes or intervention in natural history. What they are saying, based on testimony by scientists (who ARE competent to judge what's science and what isn't) is that such a discussion should not be presented as science, but as philosophy.
Your argument has a few holes in it, ones you could comfortably put a stadium into and still have room.
Basically, you teach SCIENCE in a SCIENCE class. What the kids DESIRE is irrelevant. And claiming ID is science requires one or two basic rules of science to be ignored or dropped.
Or, in simpler terms, calling a hand a foot does NOT mean that Nike makes a sneaker that fits properly. . .
ID does not belong in a "science" room because it is not based in "science". Wouldn't want someone introducing French into a Calculus class either. However, I have no problem with ID being discussed in philosophy class or some other more appropriate class for non-scientific topics of discussion.
Beliefs are not science.
Yeah. And they have lots of people who watch the "haunted houses" shows on the travel channel too.
When I read the title, I wasn't sure if it was Scientologists, Moonies, or Flat-Earth theorists who were complaining that their views weren't being taught in science classrooms. Once I started reading the article, I found out that it's much worse. :)
Whenever the subject of ID vs Darwinism comes up its always a laugher for me to see how sensitive and defensive Darwinists are over the precious theory. You would think it was religion to them......
And sometimes the Darwinists are down right mean...ouch...
You debate them at your own peril...the insults and sarcasm are thick enough to cut with a knife...still its fun anyway..:)
ID and Creationism is the depths of ignorance and if it becomes widespread enough, it will mark the begining of the end of America as this land slips into the 3rd world.
The problem with ID is that it posits something (super-natural intelligence that guides evolution) that is not scientifically testable. That very fact alone means that it is not a valid scientific theory. Therefore, it is not valid to teach ID in the science classrooms of public schools.
Simple logic is all that is required to reach this conclusion, but unfortunately "activist judges" are required to stop those who would turn science into public-opinion polls.
Does the Theory of Evolution have problems? Of course it does. So do our theories dealing with particle physics, for example, but you don't hear activists trying to push non-scientific alternatives. But the so-called "Science Establishment" can and does modify those theories as better explanations come about. ID is not one of those better explanations.
Reading the court transcripts is an excercise of perseverance, but I was struck by how comically Michael Behe (a leading proponent for ID) evaded stating the mechanism behind ID after having been caught to have said, "Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose."
(www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/trans/2005_1018_day11_pm.pdf page 63ff)
I'm a Christian, but I was heartily in favor of taking prayer and Bible study out of public school. Most kids made a mockery out of these things. Practice religion in your home, at your place of worship, and how you relate to other people.
A 2004 Gallup Poll found that just 13 percent of Americans believe in evolution unaided by God.Now there's a way to do science: poll the general public.
By that measure, we should be teaching flying saucers in modern history class.
bump
Moral Absolutes Ping.
Just a little evofundie/non-evofundie discussion to wake you up. The usual is starting to happen on the thread. I pay the evofundies no mind since their day is drawing to a close.
But it is awfully telling that not a hint of anything other than the party line is ever allowed to even sit at the table, to mix metaphors. It's as bad as the "gay" agenda - can't even hint that maybe, just maybe, there's a little flaw in the assumptions.
No Doubting Allowed! Or we'll be put on the rack!
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
YEC INTREP