Here we go again

[Vlad D Impeller]

US evolution court battle opens <br /> <br />The Dover School board backs the teaching of intelligent design <br />Eleven parents in the US have gone to court to protect the teaching of evolution at their local schools. <br />The Dover Area School Board in the state of Pennsylvania requires science teachers to tell pupils that evolution is merely one, unproven theory. <br /><br />Teachers have to state that Intelligent Design - whose adherents believe life on earth was created by an intelligent being - is a possible alternative. <br /><br />The parents say it is a religious belief that should not be taught. <br /><br />They argue that its inclusion violaties the constitutional separation of church and state. <br /><br />'Free inquiry' <br /><br />Speaking at the opening of the trial in Harrisburg, a lawyer for the families told the federal judge that intelligent design was inserted into the school district's curriculum with no concern for whether it had any scientific backing. <br /><br />"They did everything you would do if you wanted to incorporate a religious point of view in a science class and cared nothing about its scientific validity," Eric Rothschild said, the Associated Press news agency reported. <br /><br /> <br />Biology has accepted Darwin's idea of evolution for well over 100 years <br /><br />Defending the school district, Patrick Gillen said the case was about "free inquiry in education, not about a religious agenda". <br /><br />"Dover's modest curriculum change embodies the essence of liberal education," he said, the AP news agency reported. <br /><br />Intelligent design is being promoted in schools across 20 states in the US. <br /><br />The Dover school board instruct its teachers to say that Darwin's theory is "not a fact", and that there are "gaps in the theory". <br /><br />However, the head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science says that the alternative put forward by the board, intelligent design, "is not even a theory". <br /><br />The case of the Dover school board is seen as vital by scientific organisations in restricting its spread, says the BBC's science correspondent, Roland Pease.

 

[JB]

Re: Here we go again

There are a lot of DIFFERENT stories of creation, not just one. The "Intelligent design" theory is just one of many.<br /><br />Are we going to cover them all? I think if one is addressed, they must all be.<br /><br />Physical evidence supports evolution. What physical evidence, which I believe is the root of all science, supports any creation theory?

 

[Vlad D Impeller]

Re: Here we go again

"Physical evidence supports evolution. What physical evidence, which I believe is the root of all science, supports any creation theory?"<br /><br /><br />None yet that i'm aware of.

 

[QC]

Re: Here we go again

I'll give my standard line to anyone that is concerned about this:<br /><br />Evolution was created . . . next issue!<br /><br />It may seem simple, but why are they mutually exclusive? Evolution and creation? Unless you are a strict, literal, creationist, I don't see the problem.<br /><br />Here's an idea. Why not have the "evolutionists" try some intelectual honesty. How about: "We don't know where evolution came from, but it looks pretty clear to us that living beings do evolve over time".

 

[kenimpzoom]

Re: Here we go again

For the non-belivers, teaching these kids the most popular theories wont hurt a thing. It doesnt hurt me that the Darwin theory is taught, why should it hurt you that the "intellegent design" is taught.<br /><br />There are more important things to argue about.<br /><br />Just a bunch of blow hards stirring up nothing.<br /><br />Ken

 

[jtexas]

Re: Here we go again

It seems unfair to require the teacher to make a statement like "Intelligent Design - whose adherents believe life on earth was created by an intelligent being - is a possible alternative" unless you allow them to answer questions about it. What, do they add, "but I'm not allowed to discuss it, 'cause that would be religion--oops, I said the 'R' word."<br /><br />I also have a standard answer for this:<br /><br />If you want Intelligent Design taught in science class, treat it like science: form a hypothesis and test it. Get some scientists involved; maybe a university or two to do some research. Or whatever, I'm not a scientist but I understand that there is a "scientific method." Use it.

 

[JB]

Re: Here we go again

It seems to me that "Introduction to Theology" would be a permissable subject in public schools, provided it addressed all, or most, of the various theological theories about divine beings and their roles in creation.<br /><br />What must be avoided is the common, "My truth is the only truth." posture. If there is evidence to support a given theory, it should be presented in this course. If not, it must be acknowledged.<br /><br />Though writings putting forth a theory could be offered, they shouldn't be viewed as evidence but as historical narratives. As narratives, they are testimony, myths and stories, not hard evidence.

 

[CJY]

Re: Here we go again

Being a science teacher myself, the only problem that I have in teaching intelligent design or creationism in science, is that science does not support it. It's not science. Does intelligent design belong in school? Probably so. Does it belong in the science classroom, absolutely not.

 

[CJY]

Re: Here we go again

JB,<br /><br />I completly agree. Testimony, myths and stories cannot be tested and retested which is the premise for all of science.

 

[QC]

Re: Here we go again

I need to appologize. I wasn't on topic as I was simply refering to the issue of creation vs. evolution.<br /><br />I don't believe that you can teach creation or intelligent design in school as science, but we should make it clear that no one knows of our ultimate origin either. Somehow, evolution has come to almost mean that science does know. It is simply a reading of all of the evidence that we have at our fingertips. In no way does that explain how that stuff all got there. I believe we basically know how the fossil record was laid down and what it represents, but not how the process began, or if you want, how it was created . . .

 

[jtexas]

Re: Here we go again

I don't see the concepts of evolution and creationism as mutually exclusive, either; there is a group of creationists who do, and they are entitled to their opinion.<br /><br />Evolution can be observed in real time, today. Humans have been manipulating it for generations - as evidence, I offer the dachsund.<br /><br />But want evidence of creationism?<br /><br />How about statistical evidence? Calculate the odds, given all possible permutations of genetic code, of the random development of a flying mammal that hunts at night using sonar to navigate and locate small flying insects. Maybe I could get a government grant...nah....<br /><br />Hey, it's just a thought.<br /><br /><br />p.s. Believe it or not, using the Hubble Telescope, we have actually photographed the Big Bang (well, very nearly).

 

[kenimpzoom]

Re: Here we go again

I have said this so many times I am sick of saying it.<br /><br />You cannot divide science and theology. There are many instances where the two cross over.<br /><br />Ken

 

[Boomyal]

Re: Here we go again

Originally posted by JB:<br /> Physical evidence supports evolution.

JB, you surprise me. Such a sage and erudite individual such as yourself making a statement like this. I defy you to show one iota of evidence that supports the theory of evolution. And I don't mean fish, at ocean depths, who loose their skin pigment and and eyesight.<br /><br />Further more, there are not "a lot of different stories of creation" at least in so much as must be discredited at all costs. If there was no Creation, then there is not a God of the Bible. If there is no God of the Bible then we can take the reference out of our court rooms, off of our money, out of our Pledge and out of every other public display. That I say is the goal of denigrating Creation today.

 

[Kenneth Brown]

Re: Here we go again

Originally posted by JB:<br /> <br />Physical evidence supports evolution. What physical evidence, which I believe is the root of all science, supports any creation theory?

Lets say evolution is correct Professer. That is the basis for all things. Humans evolved from monkeys right? How come we still have monkeys?

 

[JB]

Re: Here we go again

Nobody except people trying to discredit evolution says that humans evolved from monkeys.<br /><br />DNA indicates that humans and the other tailless apes evolved from a common ancestor species. 97% of our DNA is shared with Chimpanzees and about the same with Gorillas. Monkeys are a different branch only very distantly related to apes. Hard evidence (Lucy, for example) of several species that are among the ancestors of modern humans can be SEEN. That is hard evidence, Boomer.<br /><br />"Further more, there are not "a lot of different stories of creation" at least in so much as must be discredited at all costs. If there was no Creation, then there is not a God of the Bible. If there is no God of the Bible then we can take the reference out of our court rooms, off of our money, out of our Pledge and out of every other public display. That I say is the goal of denigrating Creation today."<br /><br />Kinda hysterical, don't you think?<br /><br />You are obviously completely in the dark about other theories of creation and therefore not qualified to comment on them.<br /><br />Now, JT. There is nothing random about evolution.<br />Given 40 or 50 million years the odds that bats will evolve in an environment hospitable to bats are almost a certainty.

 

[jtexas]

Re: Here we go again

Here's an example of evolution that has occured during our lifetimes.<br /><br />

Evolution on Fast Forward: Finches Adapt to Climates

National Geopraphic <br /><br /><br />This evolution is even faster:<br /><br />

<br />Dept of Microbiology and Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA.<br /><br />The evolution and spread of bacteria resistant to beta-lactam antibiotics has progressed at an alarming rate. Bacteria may acquire resistance to a given drug by mutation of pre-existing genes or by the acquisition of new genes from other bacteria. One ongoing example of these mechanisms is the evolution of new variants of the TEM and SHV beta-lactamases with altered substrate specificity.

Trends Microbiol. 1998 Aug;6(8):323-7.

 

[jtexas]

Re: Here we go again

Originally posted by JB:<br /> Now, JT. There is nothing random about evolution.<br />Given 40 or 50 million years the odds that bats will evolve in an environment hospitable to bats are almost a certainty.

Okay we have a theory and a hypothesis, that alone might be enough to call it science.<br /><br />Okay now let's approach evolution using the same kind of "science and logic" as the creationists:<br /><br />What is the purpose of reproduction?<br />Well then, why is it so much fun?<br /><br />I mean, you don't have to be religious to see how much trouble it gets us into...if the Designer were Intelligent, surely something could have been designed to do a better job of reproducing the intelligent designs?<br /><br />And the fun part could have been associated with something without the potential troublemaking. Still with me? How can you dispute any of that?<br /><br />I submit that sexual reproduction, with the mixing together of genes in new and exciting ways was intelligently designed to accomplish evolution.<br /><br />That's my hypothesis. I think it needs a lot of testing...