Intelligent Design Results in Two American States

Yesterday, in elections, American citizens came to contrasting conclusions about teaching Intelligent Design in public schools.

In Pennsylvania, all eight Republican members of the Dover School Board who wanted to include Intelligent Design in the science curriculum in public schools were defeated, being replaced by pro-science Democrats.

In Kansas, a statement which casts doubt on the value of the theory of evolution will now be included in science class, a victory for the proponents of intelligent design.

As someone involved in higher education, I believe one result of the Kansas election will be that Kansan students applying to prestigious colleges will have more trouble getting their applications approved. If I were the administrator of a university, I'd consider requiring students from Kansas to take remedial science classes, since clearly, they will have received a substandard education in natural sciences.

I can understand the desire for extremist Christians to have their point of view taught in school, but by corrupting the value of their state's science curriculum, they do harm to their own children. Why must the creationist view be presented as science? Is it because science represents a devastating challenge to thier magical thinking?

Intelligent design should not be taught in science classes. There is no proof for it, therefore it is not science. If they want to teach it in some elective course such as theology, fine, but it should not be taught in science.

The whole idea is to render science as a dubious subject occurs most major Religious groups in the US have their own Universities but their science department is not one that any student trying to become a Biology major needs to be.

Like you said is a pity that students could end up with lack of knowledgeable to be accepted to any accredited colleges around unless is one run by a Religious organization.

I guess is always private tutoring.

Originally posted by vuoto
In Pennsylvania, all eight Republican members of the Dover School Board who wanted to include Intelligent Design in the science curriculum in public schools were defeated, being replaced by pro-science Democrats.

I'm sure most who have read my posts know I'm strongly against teaching religious concepts in public schools, but what strikes me as perhaps the most telling point in this story is the above paragraph. More and more religion is beconing a political issue. :shk:

I agree that this is going to do the children a disservice in the future.

Originally posted by vuoto
I can understand the desire for extremist Christians to have their point of view taught in school...

I cannot. That should be taught in the home or church. Not a publicly funded school.

If I had a child in the Kansas school they'd get real sick of me...

Obviously, those of you living in the USA could laugh at several countries in the world.

But let me assure you, that on that subject (Intelligent design vs evolution) the US is the laughing stock of the whole world.

For most people, it does not compute, how could a big country like the USA, that went to the moon, could be so backward ?

How could they waste precious time on such a fraud (Intelligent Design).

Believe to what you want (at home or in your church, that is), but the school should be off limit for that awkward thinking. School should be for seeking the truth (thru the scientific method) not go back into darkness (beside that debate took place in 1925).

ID isnt compatible with christianity. unless your counting the popes version in which evolution is perfectly compatible anyway.

Objections / problems with darwinism should obviously be part of the ciriculum of teaching the theory of evolution.

problem solved. remove the strawman.

Originally posted by NuTroll
Objections / problems with darwinism should obviously be part of the ciriculum of teaching the theory of evolution.

problem solved. remove the strawman.

I agree but not in grade schools it should be a subject in universities. ID may not be compatible with Christianity but what you fail to understand that the whole idea was to take away from evolution by any means.

Religious advocates are welcoming the ID because in the pursue of showing that is an intelligent been that can be related to what science can not explain God is the perfect example.

This is not about extraterrestrials or other myth of creations but only one creator God.

That is what is all about and how is going to be use by religious pushers.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Intelligent design should not be taught in science classes. There is no proof for it, therefore it is not science. If they want to teach it in some elective course such as theology, fine, but it should not be taught in science.

Yet, an hypothesis, called a theory, is taught as a fact. Those that teach this hypothsis in schools do so in the face of new science that does not support their assertions. It should not be taugfht in science class either, except as an example as how deep-rooted desires can drive scientific "research" way out of the realm of science.

Try being a little unbiased with all of this, folks.

Yeah and the Theory of Gravity is "just" a theory as well.

Also

hypothesis - # a proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations
# a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"

theory - # a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"



See a difference? Most if not ALL evolutionary biologists see the Theory of Evolution as a Scientific Theory not a Hypothesis. They are much more qualified to decide wether a theory is valid or junk science, Republicans voted up by the Evangelicals are not qualified or unbiased.

[edit on 9-11-2005 by sardion2000]

[edit on 9-11-2005 by sardion2000]

[edit on 9-11-2005 by sardion2000]

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
It should not be taugfht in science class either, except as an example as how deep-rooted desires can drive scientific "research" way out of the realm of science.

Try being a little unbiased with all of this, folks.

Well I kind of agree with you a littler bit on this one, but lets not forget that evolution is the bases of biological science and occurs is part of science.

While intelligent Design is about ideologies and it can no be study as a science with research, testing and observation.

That is why it should be a great subject in a more mature curriculum as in colleges.

But for school children that not even understand the concept of evolution but what is told to them in Sunday school as the infamous Darwin missing link and the monkey, children already are bias when it comes to the subject.

I consider that also a very bad misinformative way to treat a subject that haves so many good facts.

In the end, the question that matters most is this:

If an experiment could be designed that proved there was not the involvement of an Intelligent Designer in the creation of life on Earth, would the believers in Creationism give up their belief? We all know that the answer is NO, because their belief is a matter of faith, not of science.

If it is impossible to design such an experiment, then Intelligent Design DEFINITELY does not belong in the realm of science.

To go a step further, if research into Intelligent Design turned up evidence that a designer was indeed involved in life on earth, but that designer turned out to be from an alien race, what would that do to the faith of Creationists.

The Intelligent Design ploy by Creationists to have God become part of scientific inquiry could backfire badly on them. There have been many theories advanced about the "designed" origin of life on Earth that have absolutely nothing to do with God.

Sorry to keep coming back to this, but I just wanted to say one more thing.

I believe that inquiry into the origin of life on Earth should continue. If you think about it, the Theory of Evolution doesn't really address the issue of beginings of life. It IS scientific to look into the question of where the "seeds" of life actually came from, and it's just as much part of science to try to learn about the beginnings of the Universe.

But Science requires that we follow the data no matter where it takes us regarding the existence of a "God".

Originally posted by vuoto

If an experiment could be designed that proved there was not the involvement of an Intelligent Designer in the creation of life on Earth, would the believers in Creationism give up their belief? We all know that the answer is NO, because their belief is a matter of faith, not of science.

Exactly the purpose is not to prove anything because if that was the reason they would have found a way to do it already, but it seems that God has been too busy to get involve and has not been very coperative since the bible times.

So is easier to attack science as a whole than providing facts. Faith can never be prove because is a personal choice.

And you can have it or leave depending your spiritual needs.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Those that teach this hypothsis in schools do so in the face of new science that does not support their assertions.

Such as?

I like your ninja posting style - this isn't the first time you've posted a drive-by unsubstantiated claim in this forum and then abandoned the thread.

Zip

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Yet, an hypothesis, called a theory, is taught as a fact.

I'll agree that evolutionary theory should not be taught as fact, but the occurance of evolution, as change in alleles in a population over generational time, is a fact. I haven't seen any schools that teach the theory of natural selection as a fact tho.

Often there is confusion on the issue, and I'll agree that lots of textbooks are pretty poor when it comes to some of the fine details on these sorts of things. Then again, these are textbooks, they're notoriously poor at actually teaching anything. Consider how radically history textbooks have been altered over the years.

Those that teach this hypothsis in schools do so in the face of new science that does not support their assertions.

Such as what? You are talking about natural selection or ID as "this hypothesis" here? Natural Selection is a theory, and as such it could potentially be refuted by observation and experiment. But it hasn't been.