Skip to comments.Evolution vs. Intelligent Design : Chesterfield School Board takes up debate on theories of life.
Posted on 06/08/2007 10:45:45 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
click here to read article
See here :
"The purpose of Explore Evolution, is to examine the scientific controversy about Darwin's theory, and in particular, the contemporary version of the theory known as neo-Darwinism. Whether you are a teacher, a student, or a parent, this book will help you understand what Darwin's theory of evolution is, why many scientists find it persuasive, and why other scientists question the theory or some key aspects of it.
Sometimes, scientists find that the same evidence can be explained in more than one way. When there are competing theories, reasonable people can (and do) disagree about which theory best explains the evidence. Furthermore, in the historical sciences, neither side can directly verify its claims about past events. Fortunately, even though we can't directly verify these claims, we can test them. How? First, we gather as much evidence as possible and look at it carefully. Then, we compare the competing theories in light of how well they explain the evidence.
Looking at the evidence and comparing the competing explanations will provide the most reliable path to discovering which theory, if any, gives the best account of the evidence at hand. In science, it is ultimately the evidence-and all of the evidence-that should tell us which theory offers the best explanation. This book will help you explore that evidence, and we hope it will stimulate your interest in these questions as you weigh the competing arguments"
If it’s a heavy topic that’s generated debate for years, then why the big fuss?
Conservative: We call that "And God said, "Let there be light and there was light".........
But in the area of Evolution, someone who says:
"Let the evidence speak for itself and let [the students] draw their own conclusions."
Is a reactionary who dares to indicate that there are people who question Evolution and its role in the origin of species. Letting students "draw their own conclusions" is (in this case) crippling them for life with a flawed ability to do science.
Uh huh. No urge to indoctrinate here. No sir.
I never saw Evolution v. Creationism as a Liberal v. Conservative issue.
Do you have any evidence to support your theory or do you have data that show that most all scientists in the fields of geology, biology, chemistry and astronomy are liberals?
My theory?....I don’t have a theory......
Well that may be obvious.
Why do you think Evolution and Creation are liberal and conservative issues?
So true. We seem to live in backwards land where the proven is taught as speculative, and the speculative is taught as proven.
That would be in academia.
I would like to see poll on political philosophy of scientists in the private sector.
"I believe God is the author of life, and I don't want anything taught in schools that denigrates that,"
BTW, the site is a sham. It is ostensibly a balanced look at the Theory of Evolution, but it is run by the Discovery Institute, a religious organization with the stated goal of replacing science with Christian theology.
So the school board included creationism, they get sued, they lose (as they should), they appeal, they cost the property owner/taxpayers millions of dollars. All because they won’t accept science.
The language used by the participants guarantees that they will be perceived as having a religious motive. This is the same kind of language that sank ID in the Dover trial. A couple of school board members were cited (but not charged) for perjury.
If any action results from this debate, it will cost the school board big bucks in legal fees and court costs.
Aren’t you up to speed? Scientists in the private sector are by default in the pocket of big business and biased toward whoever hires them. School boards will only trust university faculty.
They make an extremely compelling case, and I have some science background, as I think one should in being able to discuss theology...particularly say, with Christopher Hitchens.
NO, this just can't be! I mean the evos keep telling us that there aren't any "real" scientists out there who don't believe in evolution. I bet this puts a frown on their smiley faces.
Strawman Alert No such assertion was made.
Geology and chemistry are science, while evolution is religion. Biology has been polluted with the illogical philosophy of the evolution/death culture. The death culture is distinctly leftist.
"I would like to see poll on political philosophy of scientists in the private sector."
Scientists are not the problem, it's the evolutionist/humanist philosophers and propagandists.