Wtf!?!

[Bullypulpit]

Here we are, 4 years into the 21st century, and the Scopes Monkey Trial and Darwinian evolution are still being hashed out.

Kansas, whose school-board decided in 1999 to have all mention of evolution stricken from school science curricula until a sane school board was later elected, has once more decided to turn its back on science and embrace pseudo-science in an attempt to present a "balanced" view regardeing the teaching of evolution in the form of "intelligent design". This after the intellectually challenged once again gained a majority on the state school board. This 'theory' states that given the complexity of life, life could only have developed with the assistance of some unseen intelligence. While not overtly based in religious doctrine, and drawing from the terminology of molecular biology, DNA and relying on gaps in fossil records, it is hoped that it will be presented in classrooms on equal footing with Darwinian evolution.

There is no basis for this, and "intelligent design" is not science. There exists no serious debate of the scientific validity of Darwinian evolution. Studies in the Galapagos Islands, and other isolated ecosystems have validated the fact of evolution and Darwin's theory of natural selection which supports it. Even Pope John Paul IV in 1996 accepted the validity of evolution, and given the value many place on other of his opinions, except where they contradict their own, it should stand to reason that they give this opinion the same credence they give to the late Pope's "culture of life".

So here we are, 80 years after the Scope's Monkey Trial, and folks just can't accept the fact of the matter...Evolution is not just a 'theory', it is a fact. One can only wonder when these devolutionists are going to insist that women and minorities be denied the vote.

 

[Nienna]

Guess you didn't see the "Darwin on Trial" thread?

 

[dmp]

 

[Mr. P]

You guys, geeezzz, some people DON'T live here..

 

[Hobbit]

There's no more evidence for species jumping evolution than there is for intelligent design, and DNA is so complex that the idea of it being created randomly is infinitely *less* likely than a tornade hitting a junkyard is to create a 747. Even Darwin believed life couldn't have spontaneously begun, and that evolution was guided. I'd elaborate a bit more, but it's been covered and I'm lazy.

 

[no1tovote4]

:rotflmao:

I tried to rep this, but I have to spread it around some....

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

This thread, that thread, or another thread, Darwin's theory is just that, a theory.

Considering the fact that creation can't be taught in school without someone jumping up and screaming about a twisted view of separation of church and state, they shouldn't teach evolution.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

I like the guy from that fake 9/11 photo. He's out of place, but it seems to work.

 

[wolverine]

Kansas, whose school-board decided in 1999 to have all mention of evolution stricken from school science curricula until a sane school board was later elected, has once more decided to turn its back..... "

So you're saying the new sane board has gone insane?

 

[Annie]

Unintelligent Design
Science is on the side of evolution
Ronald Bailey

Who needs to make monkeys out of the Kansas Board of Education when its members are doing such a good job of it themselves?

Members of the Kansas board convened hearings this month to hear testimony from proponents of the theory of intelligent design that the theory of evolution is bunk. How deliciously wacky of the board to hold their kangaroo court on evolutionary theory on the 80th anniversary of the arrest of Tennessee high school teacher John T. Scopes for illegally teaching biology to his students. And like the Tennessee court back in 1925, the Kansas education officials in the 21st century have found evolutionary theory guilty again.

Intelligent design claims that life and the universe are too complex to have happened by accident. "Evolution has been proven false. ID (Intelligent Design) is science-based and strong in facts," declared board member Kathy Martin before the hearings began. And nothing Martin heard at the proceedings evidently changed her mind, saying at their conclusion that evolution is "an unproven, often disproven" theory.

Based on these hearings, the Kansas Board of Education will consider modifying the science curriculum in its public schools.

At the Scopes trial, when William Jennings Bryan was asked what the purpose of the trial was, Bryan magisterially replied, "The purpose is to cast ridicule on everybody who believes in the Bible, and I am perfectly willing that the world shall know that these gentleman have no other purpose than ridiculing every person who believes in the Bible." In those days that was enough to convict Scopes.

Today, opponents of evolutionary theory know that they can't teach religion in public schools. If they're going to smuggle religion in, they need to be sneakier. So they strip off any part of their "intelligent design" theory that might sound like it is religious and pose as simple scientists asking "hard" questions of narrow-minded evolutionists.

The anti-evolutionists affect not to know who or what the "intelligent designer" of their theory might be. He, she, it, or they could be little green men or purple space squid or a race of intelligent supercomputers—or maybe, just maybe, an omnipotent God. Who knows? We're all just innocently asking "scientific" questions here.

But away from the glare of media attention, this pose of scientific objectivity cracks. "ID has theological implications. ID is not strictly Christian, but it is theistic," admitted board member Martin. The intelligent design proponents in Kansas ask: Why not let children in public schools hear arguments for intelligent design in biology classes? Schools could "teach the controversy."

Biologists retort by asking, "So it's OK then for high schools to teach astrology, phrenology, mesmerism, tarot card reading, crystal healing, astral projection and water witching, too?"

Intelligent design theorists aside, the people who want intelligent design taught in public schools hope the theory will undercut the corrosive effects of evolutionary biology on the religious beliefs of their children. They don't know and couldn't care less about the scientific details of the evolution of species or the origin of life—they just want Darwinism kept away from their kids.

What they don't understand, however, is that religious belief and evolution are compatible.

In 1996 no less a religious authority than Pope John Paul II declared, "New knowledge has led to the recognition in the theory of evolution of more than a hypothesis."

In response to Bryan's assertions about the purpose of the Scopes monkey trial, defense attorney Clarence Darrow retorted, "We have the purpose of preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States, and you know it, and that is all." As the hearings in Kansas showed, they are still trying.

Ronald Bailey is Reason's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Moral and Scientific Defense of the Biotech Rvolution will be published in June by Prometheus Books

 

[Gem]

If evolution is a "FACT," Bully...why is it still referred to as a theory by even those scientists who believe in it?

I am not saying that I believe our children should not be taught about evolution, I feel that they should. However, they should also be taught WHY it is still a theory. The holes in the argument, the problems with strict evolution...they should ALSO be taught the other THEORIES surrounding this topic...and should be taught the pros and cons of those arguments as well.

 

[onedomino]

If evolution is a "FACT," Bully...why is it still referred to as a theory by even those scientists who believe in it?

What's your point? Should we teach alternatives to Newton's Theory of Gravity for those who do not believe in gravity? Maybe we should teach alternatives to Number theory for those who do not believe that 2 + 2 = 4. How massive must be the huge mountain of evidence supporting Biochemical Evolution on Earth before extremists of a particular religion stop harassing the public schools? Let them teach ID in private schools where religion trumps science, no matter what the weight of evidence.

 

[archangel]

What's your point? Should we teach alternatives to Newton's Theory of Gravity for those who do not believe in gravity? Maybe we should teach alternatives to Number theory for those who do not believe that 2 + 2 = 4. How massive must be the huge mountain of evidence supporting Biochemical Evolution on Earth before extremists of a particular religion stop harassing the public schools? Let them teach ID in private schools where religion trumps science, no matter what the weight of evidence.

Whats wrong with teaching all in public schools...ID,Darwin and Creationism..
Give the students all the theories to ponder...after all "Theory without fact is hypothesis...fact without theory is chaos" If all theories are not taught together...well all we have is chaos! :shocked:

 

[Gem]

I agree, it isn't about teaching the Christian model of Creationism, although it would be useful and interesting for students to study the creation stories of many religions, to see their similarities and differences...its about showing students the large amount of information out there...and letting them ponder the information.

I'm not talking about not teaching evolution, onedomino, so there is no need for your hostility...I'm talking about giving students as much information about a topic as they can...so they don't end up blindly following one idea with no idea why they follow it.

You can believe that something is correct...but unless you can explain to me why you believe that and why alternatives to your opinion are wrong then you are nothing more then a trained parrot.

Perhaps you are comfortable with our students being trained parrots...just so long as they spout out a belief in evolution for their crackers...but I would rather have students learning, questioning, and having a greater understanding not just of evolution...but of the ongoing debate.

 

[onedomino]

I'm not talking about not teaching evolution, onedomino, so there is no need for your hostility...I'm talking about giving students as much information about a topic as they can...so they don't end up blindly following one idea with no idea why they follow it.

Hostility? Are you paranoid? You did not even respond to my post. With Creationism and ID, you are talking about giving students information that parrots one religion's particular faith, not scientific evidence. Have at it. But do it in private schools. There are hundreds of creation myths and explanations for the appearance of humans on Earth. Are we supposed to teach them all in Biology class? Not without scientific evidence. No religion in America has the right to impose its particular views in public schools. Fundamentalist Christians are free to teach their views, but not in public schools. America is not a theocracy.

 

[Gem]

onedomino,

There are numerous ways to teach Intelligent Design from the standpoint of a creator (small c) outside the understanding of humans without stressing any religious standpoint at all. It is done in public schools throughout the US, including mine, a blue-ribbon public high school in Pennsylvania. I suggest you do some reseach on it, it is fascinating and actually engages the students in taking some agency in their own learning. Students actually interested in learning?! Shocking. Students actually wanting to know more?!? Impossible... Yet it happens when they are given a variety of information, presented truthfully and responsibly, and asked to look it over and come to a conclusion...

Education should be about teaching students what is out there. Evolution has numerous gaps, many questions...things that scientists are still grappling with...not sharing that information with students for fear that one of them might get the idea that there is something out their bigger than themselves is wrong, and dangerous. We do not have to teach them religion, in fact doing so in any means other then a comparative religion course would be wrong and unconstitutional...however, only giving them one idea, without letting them hear the arguments to the contrary is nonsense.

 

[Bullypulpit]

So you're saying the new sane board has gone insane?

It was temporary sanity...A new board was elected with more religious zealots in place than the board which reversed the dicision barring the teaching of evolution.

 

[Bullypulpit]

If evolution is a "FACT," Bully...why is it still referred to as a theory by even those scientists who believe in it?

<blockquote><b>the·o·ry</b>
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary</blockquote>

Evolution is a fact...It is supported by Darwin's theory of natural selection which in turn is supported by a large body of observational and fossil evidence.

We have no trouble at all accepting that a fully formed and functioning human being is formed in a few short months from a mass of undifferentiated cells. Why then the problem accepting that such could have occurred over <i><b>billions</b></i> of years?

And why is this coming up after all this time?

 

[mrsx]

onedomino,

There are numerous ways to teach Intelligent Design from the standpoint of a creator (small c) outside the understanding of humans without stressing any religious standpoint at all. It is done in public schools throughout the US, including mine, a blue-ribbon public high school in Pennsylvania. I suggest you do some reseach on it, it is fascinating and actually engages the students in taking some agency in their own learning. Students actually interested in learning?! Shocking. Students actually wanting to know more?!? Impossible... Yet it happens when they are given a variety of information, presented truthfully and responsibly, and asked to look it over and come to a conclusion...

Education should be about teaching students what is out there. Evolution has numerous gaps, many questions...things that scientists are still grappling with...not sharing that information with students for fear that one of them might get the idea that there is something out their bigger than themselves is wrong, and dangerous. We do not have to teach them religion, in fact doing so in any means other then a comparative religion course would be wrong and unconstitutional...however, only giving them one idea, without letting them hear the arguments to the contrary is nonsense.

ID "theory" rests on the writings of two eccentric gentlemen sponsored by a branch of the Flat Earth Society called The Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, a sheltered workshop for the mentally challenged in Seattle. Their biologist, Michael J. Bethe touted his idea of "irreducible complexity" until it was shot down by Dr. Shawana Johnson, a teacher of home economics at Bakersfield High School in California. Bethe now concedes: "I quite agree that my argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof."

The other three-digit IQ quy in the creationist universe is William A. Dembski, a shaman at the Center for Science and Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. His "No Free Lunch" theory was greeted with ooohs and aaahs by those farting in the pews because they couldn't understand a word of it. Alas, when David Wolpert, the Las Vegas bookie who collaborated with him on the NFL theory, denounced Dembski's argument as "fatally informal and imprecise," Dr. D., as he is known to his worshippers, was compelled to admit that "I certainly never argued that the N.F.L. theorems provide a direct refutation of Darwinism."

The saddest part of this tempest in a test tube is that from the days of Darwin's first publication a century and a half ago, the majority of evolutionists have been either believing Christians or respectful agnostics. It is the ever-shrinking minority of fanatics who believe the Bible should be taken literally - as if it were a laundry list - that start these arguments in a desperate attempt to prop up their wobbly faith. They are terrified of modern science but comically eager to dress up in its clothes.

 

[onedomino]

I suggest you do some reseach on it, it is fascinating

I'll get right on it, Gem. It is on my research to-do list after astrology, alchemy, magic, and water witching. The pseudoscience of ID has no business in public school science classrooms. ID is not an empirical or scientific theory because it cannot be verified or disproved by observation or experiment. No theory of biochemical systems can be proved or disproved by observation or experiment to be either intelligently or unintelligently designed. Belief in ID requires faith, which is the subject of metaphysics or religion.