News @ ID ACLU Sues over Intelligent Design in Pennsylvania

Discussion in 'News @ ID' started by Bleys, Dec 14, 2004.

  1. Bleys

    Bleys Phoenix Takes Flight Staff Member

    Recently several school districts have been putting disclaimers in science textbooks that identify evolution as a theory and not a scientific fact.

    Now a few of school districts have taken the next step and begun including alternative theories to evolution such as Intelligent Design or bible based creation theory.

    I have to ask what rocket scientist decided to include religion in a science class. You or I or the guy next door may subscribe to a religious belief regarding the beginnings of the universe - but those beliefs are based on faith and not supported by empirical evidence. Only accepted scientific law and theory should be presented in a science class.

    What do you think - should Intelligent Design become part of a science curriculum in schools?

    B.
     
  2. JcMinJapan

    JcMinJapan Premium Member

    EXACTLY!!!!!

    There is no need for that in a Science text. I understand stating evolution as only a theory, which it currently is. But, that theory is based on science. Any theory based on science should be added, but one based on religion should be kept to the religion class if it is offered. If a school wants to add it, then they should make a religion class and offer it in there for the students that participate in the class.

    [Edited on 15-12-2004 by JcMinJapan]
     
  3. pineappleupsidedown

    pineappleupsidedown Premium Member

    I think it should be brought up when teaching evolution. There are too many teachers who teach evolution as fact. Especially when i was younger (and my classmates were more impressionable) i noticed my teachers saying we were created from the big bang.

    When i confronted the teacher about it, she just said that there were many theroies that arent yet proven, but that they are still correct anyways. We had Statewide tests asking us to fill out multiple choice questions like "Before Whales lived in the ocean, where did they live"

    with the correct answer being they lived on land. This is not proven! Not to say it is wrong, but please dont kick out the other theories from being at least meantioned. If you make a teacher discuss the other theories, then it is harder to say that evolution is the only idea out there and that it is a fact.

    If it was confined to a religion class, the subject would not be brought up in any public school.

    ---pineapple
     
  4. SubVolitional

    SubVolitional Member


    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of going to a science class to understand the subject matter so as to "decomplexify"? I wouldn't even bother with school if the entire lesson revolved around a preposition that was decided for me as too complex and resolved without regard to potential evidence ...Intelligent Design sounds more like a desperation tactic then a serious scientific theory.

    BTW, my vote would be a no for including Intelligent Design.

    [Edited on 12-15-2004 by SubVolitional]
     
  5. mOjOm

    mOjOm New Member

    I also understand and agree with the idea of allowing other ideas into the mix as well as teaching Evolution as Theory rather than fact, since it is still a work in progress at this point in time.

    I also am against Religious Dogma being dished out in school, especially when it's done as a means of specific religious indoctrination. However, I can understand and do support the idea of including alternate theories and ideas as long as it's done in an unbiased and open format. Intelligent design and other forms of Religious & Philisophical theories of Life can and should be taught as well. Of course, since all of them are considered theoretical they should all be presented as options and not any one of them pronounced more true than the others.

    This is especially more important in today's world where advanced scientific theories now include such things as Superstring Theory, Quantum Mechanics, Wave Particle Duality, Many Worlds Theory, Holographic Universe Theory, Matrix Style 'Simulation Reality' Theory, etc. Within the above mentioned 'Scientific' theories comes the fact that, although they are based in Science, they all put forth ideas, concepts and possibilities that are ironicly extremely similar to what is taught in many Religious/Spiritual cultures. Most of which have been around since 100BC-1000BC or even earlier.

    The only problem then is trying to accurately find a solid line between Science and Philosophy without letting either overshadow the other. Being that most public school teachers could probably never teach such a complex class where there is a fusion of Science and Philosophy, I have my doubts that even if it was attempted with the right intentions that it would be done correctly as well.

    Perhaps it would just be better for Science to concentrate more on teaching the most solid principles of science and less on the unproven ones. Maybe they should just teach a very stable and simplified version of Evolution without the claims of it being the Origin of the Universe and all that too. Just leave that out or just tell the truth for once and admit that we just don't know although we've been trying to figure it out for as long as we can remember.

    That way they'll still be teaching good sound science without stepping too far out into the area of the Unknown or worse, accidentally teaching theories as facts. At the same time it would remove the hassle of having to also teach other possible theories since they'll just be concentrating on the most proven scientific facts only.
     
  6. rawiea

    rawiea New Member

    Maybe I am missing something. School is where you learn facts. You also learn something about theories. Most importantly, you learn to think, or else I wasted a couple years in Algebra and Geometry.
    To think and reach a rational conclusion, you need to at least be familiar with opposing theories. I'm not saying that any theory should be taught as fact, only that the most commonly accepted ones be explained briefly. Failure to understand what has been studied before dooms mankind to a never-ending cycle of the same research.
    Show strengths and weaknesses of each theory. Emphasize the most scientifically accepted.
    If only the most commonly accepted Theories were ever taught, the earth would still be flat and the universe would revolve around it.
     
  7. junior_smith

    junior_smith Premium Member

    listen a radical relgious person has just won the office of the most powerful country in the world, and he rules on religion and he won on religion, so i think there are bigger fish to fry than a silly text book thing, basically people will have sensitivities to things all over the board, there is a christian bias in the states but that is expected, if we do not have the people challenging our beliefs than what do we have that makes us prove our beliefs further?

    its the ying and the yang, with science and religion, without science religion can only write a story, without religion science has no battle to conquer.
     
  8. pineappleupsidedown

    pineappleupsidedown Premium Member

    If you mean radical as "extremist", then i would have to disagree with your statement J_S.

    You are asking us to look at the bigger picture. I think we need to start with the small things, because big things cannot change overnight. Do you think that they should be brought up in science class? It would seem so, with your ying-yang comparision.

    ---pineapple
     
  9. helenheaven

    helenheaven Premium Member

    Evolutionary theory is a science, 'intelligent design" is not.

    The discussion of intelligent design, should be confined to religious classes as it has no bearing on science.

    It makes me wonder why, if there is a designer out there, why he introduced dinosaurs then wiped them out and invented humans...were the dinosaurs just an experiment ? What if he decides we are not worthy ? A meteroite comes our way too ?

    Lets just keep religious belief and scientific theory as far apart as we can...
     
  10. Bleys

    Bleys Phoenix Takes Flight Staff Member

    Good question Helen.

    I was curious to find out more out Intelligent Design and found this skeptic's view to be really interesting.

    Can anyone say pseudoscience?

    http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html

    B.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. helenheaven

    helenheaven Premium Member

    That was a very interesting perspective...that a God designed natural selection....

    I have not heard that view point before, probably derserves a thread of its' own for discussion

    Thanks Bleys for putting it up
     
  12. SubVolitional

    SubVolitional Member


    Pah-so-dough-sky-entre-vu-thing- a-mah-bobber........
    thanks for the link:)
     
  13. JcMinJapan

    JcMinJapan Premium Member

    Just read this today:

    Is the judge right or wrong? Evolution is a theory. Were the stickers put on for religous reasons or just to state it is a theory? To me, it is a theory. Intelligent design is a theory as well. Aliens starting colonies here is a theory as well. hmmm......... I think science books should cover everything, but then a semenster could be spent on each theory alone.
     
  14. Bleys

    Bleys Phoenix Takes Flight Staff Member

    :saint2:

    I don't know JC - I am more a subscriber to Darwin's evolution than Intelligent Design solely for the reason that evolution can be shown to have merit through empirical evidence whereas ID cannot. To base an entire so called scientific method on an invisible man who lives in the sky seems dubious at best. Could there be a god? Of course - so it would seem logical that creationists should spend time proving his existence and less time worrying about whether the earth is four thousand years old or 10 million years old.

    The more I think about this disclaimer the more I am bothered by it. Is Einstein's theory of relativity required to have that same disclaimer? No, because during the course of study we are told that relativity cannot yet be proved, but this is how we are going about putting it to the test. Evolution is presented the same way - we are missing huge gaps/links in the chain, but the more we uncover the easier it is to put the pieces of the puzzle together - test to prove or disprove our theory. If god is the begining and the end - then ID must attempt to find and prove god - not through faith but through the scientific method. Personally, I could get on board with that.

    I see ID as a way for those of faith to acknowledge science without losing faith. God must change in order to remain relevant and important - a deity reformation if you will.

    B.
     
  15. OpenMind

    OpenMind New Member

    Anyone who 'believes' in evolution is either a follower or does not bother ot understand the scientific facts. Has anyone heard of the Cambrian explosion? This is the evidence that thoroughly discredited evolution by random chance. On account of this fact punctuated equalibrium was created to disquise the fact that evolution is a bankrupt theory. How can you have massive species creation in a brief period of time and then nothing for millions of years? The fact that we have been witnessing extinction for millions of years, and no new species creations, shows evolution does not cut it.

    That is just the tip of the iceberg of the facts which show evolution does not make sense.

    How did DNA get created? No evolutionary scientist can explain that. It is an article of faith. Where are all the intermediary life forms? What happened to the human desent tree. It changes every month. Currently mankind has no plausible primate ancestors.


    This is typical of times when old paradyms die. People believe regardless of the facts.

    Anyone want to try to explain what happened before the big bang. I know it's not exactly on topic, but it is a scientific fact that the universe was created 13.7 billion years ago. Check out the NASA web site under WMAP if you want to be informed. Most evolutionists have an unlimited ability to ignore the truth and stick to obsolete rationalizations.
     
  16. Bleys

    Bleys Phoenix Takes Flight Staff Member

    Openmind - let me remind you that this is not ATS and insults are not welcome. If you have something to add to the discussion by all means present it. If you do not then move on.

    I have read a great deal about the Cambrian explosion and it has not changed my opinion on evolution, I am interested in hearing why you believe this actually disproves it.

    I would also be interested in hearing your theories on how we came to be.

    B.

    An excellent article on the Cambrian explosion can be found here - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html
     
  17. JcMinJapan

    JcMinJapan Premium Member

    Right now, I do not really subscribe to any particular idea. One place that I do agree with OpenMind is the fact that there are the gaps.... The Cambrian explosion is very curious to most people. Something ignited the sudden growth. Now, I am not talking about Intelligent Design. Could it have been an asteroid that set things in motion? volcanic eruption or earthquake that released something into the environment. This is difficult to answer and I do not that one member asked Dr. Knoll a question about the gaps. But, none of you asked about the Cambrian explosion...... hmmmmm

    He would have been the expert to talk about this question.....
     
  18. OpenMind

    OpenMind New Member

    I read the artilce you posted and the evidence in my view clearly disproves evolution.

    The words of the author say it best. For 3.4 billion years there was no evolution. Bacteria existed but never evolved. Then the Cambrian explosion occured and all life since (600 millions years) has been just 'tinkering!' Evidence for a massive creation event but no random evolution.

    The article is faced with major problems for evolution and can only come up with rationalizations instead of facts. It argues that the fossil record is incomplete and therefore the evolution exists but we just don't have the evidence to prove it. There is speculation about the cause of the Cambrian explosion but no facts. If the cause was ecological or genetic what was the mechanism and why has this never occured since? No facts just rationalizations.

    The reference to Steven Jay Gould is interesting. His theory that you can't 'rerun the tape' of evolution has been proven false. There have been examples of evolution occuring repeatedly over time. I believe he was the one that coined the expression punctuated equalibrium. That sums up the facts well and also proves that evolution does not occur. How can evolution be said to be a force of nature and do nothing for millions or billions of years?

    Evolution has been applied to human society with equal problems. The sophisticated cave paintings in France showed the predictive power of evolution. Another equally revealing discovery was the Ice Age ivory flute in Nature.com. I see statis not evolution.

    I think life came about as a series of big bang events. First the creation of the universe, then the initial life on the earth at the earliest possible time, the Cambrian explosion, and the last creation event was us about 60,000 years ago. The force behind the creation events were the same each time.
     
  19. Ikebana

    Ikebana Member

    Seems like SCIENCE should teach only SCIENTIFIC theories or facts (whatever the case) and Religious Affiliations and/or parents should be teaching Intelligent Design. However, I would like to comment that we watched a documentary (can't remember the title) where it was stated that a well-know scientiest who was previously an atheist, has suddenly announced that there might be Intelligent Design...so now after half a century I am still waiting for all these great minds to make up their minds. :cheers:
     
  20. JcMinJapan

    JcMinJapan Premium Member

    I am sooooo happy about this one!!!!!
    The Vatican said my thoughts exactly

    [Edited on 21-11-2005 by JcMinJapan]
     
    • Like Like x 1