A step in the right direction..

Judge rules against 'intelligent design' in class

Pennsylvania science teachers will not be forced to advocate
"intelligent design" after a judge ruled that that the theory is
really religion in disguise.

In his decision, Judge John Jones systematically dismantled the
arguments of the proponents of intelligent design.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8493

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I fail to see how teaching kids that censorship as a result of fear of the unknown is a step in the right direction. Especially as it relates to science. Science is supposed to be an objective pursuit of truth. Biased censorship therefore undermines science.

The reason that intelligent design is not called creationism, and does not reference the word "God" is because it was not theorized by theologians or by christians, but by scientists, many of whom are atheist or agnostic.

The facts are that intelligent design and evolution are not mutually exclusive theories, but are erroneously presented as such by fanatical fundies on both sides of a ridiculous and biased debate. There is no "dualism" except in the minds of those who seek to "be right", instead of seeking the truth. If you took the fear and ego out of this ridiculous debate, you would actually have a presentation of scientific discovery. I mean, if unbiased scientific discovery and reporting shows the work of an intelligent design, then that's what it shows.

And call it what you will, as if it's about the stupid label you place on it. Label it what you will, the facts speak for themselves. I'm sure that some would say that alien life forms created us, or are the designers.

Or how about this? Let's present the facts, and let the people make up their own minds as to what or to whom to attribute them to or what they want to call it?

Fact is that evolution is a theory in regards to creation...Darwin's theory is just that...a theory...it's not proven any more so than intelligent design. It is therefore being "singled out", not by proponents of intelligent design, but by it's own proponents.

Supernatural = unknown. Which I could have sworn that the discovery of the unknown was what science was supposed to be all about. Science proves that there is no such thing as a supernatural...only what we have yet to discover and/or understand.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How do we know what the right direction is? I for one, being a product of the public school system, feel deceived by the system today in hindsight. I was brought up in high school to believe that the origin of life on Earth resulted from evolution. I bought into it for years, until I questioned it, and found crucial missing evidences and questions that still need to be answered. A conclusion that evolution is responsible for all life on the planet is immature. We need more conclusive evidence. I for one, had I had the choice given what I know now, would have been better off in life if I had not been taught evolution resulting in life is fact.

Here is a recent example of a child in high school facing this issue. Like me, they were taught that evolution is responsible for life as fact, but they rightly question that conclusion. I wish I would have at the young age, they bring up a good question. If energy is eternal, how could life have an origin?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=50971

How do we know that this is the right direction? What is the right direction? Things we teach kids in high school ought to be fact. Teach evolution...okay, that is observably fact, but not as the device of the origin of life. So, Darwin's theory of the origin of species is unproved and should not be taught without also teaching other theories of the origin of species. Darwin's theory and creationism do not belong in school.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just filling in the blanks with "Because God said so" is no answer, either. ID was religious instruction disguised as science. It should not be taught in a science class. It belongs more appropriately in a critical thinking class or such. It should be elective, not mandatory.

But please, why has the theory of evolution had such a negative impact on your life?

 

But there is the thing.. ID is not science, and thus that's why I state it as a step in the right direction for not having it taught in science class. In honesty Lori, you have to understand that not teaching ID in science class is about as biased as not teaching evolution in church.

Would you care to explain the difference?

 

What I'm saying is that teaching Darwinism is just as biased as teaching ID. They are both theories, and if you're going to justify teaching one, then the same justification can be used to teach them all.

My position actually, is to not teach biased theories at all, and to forget the labels altogether. To present scientific facts, and let the students decide for themselves what they would like to attribute them to if anything. The youth of today are not as dumb as their parents are trying to make them out to be. The youth of today are not as dumb as their parents. And while their parents are busy arguing about Darwinism and creationism and evolution and ID and Christmas trees and holiday trees, the youth of today are going to rise up and change the world. Thank God for these idiots who have set an example of what we don't want to be when we grow up. Now it's time for a revolution.

 

No, no, no, oh, no, no, no, no, no. ID is not a theory. It cannot be tested, and is thus not even a hypothesis. It is religious bull-fucking-shit.
Evolution, however, can be tested, and is a thoery. It is 'only a theory' because there is nothing higher than 'theory' in science, because everything is subject to change.

 

The next hurricaine or natural disaster that hits the US will be because American citizens have deserted God...

 

Lori,
The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

ID has 1 and 2, but not 3 or 4, therefore it is not science. Case closed, go back to church.

 

Lori: You say that I.D. should be taught because science is after truth, and that like evolution is is just a theory. This is where you are wrong. Evolution can be observed by using scientific methods. It doesn't matter how much you try to observe intelligent design, you can't find a crumb of evidence.

It is not science, and the simple reason for that is people have came up with the idea of God and said "OK, How can we make this scientific?".

Let me give you an example: String theory is almost completely theory, and hasn't got any scientific evidence at all, yet at least it can be predicted by physics and mathematics, so it is worth teaching in hope of finding that scientific evidence. What good is teaching I.D. if you can teach it for eternity and never have any hope of finding that proof?

 

I would not have a real problem with ID being taught in science class. It would only take one sentence. "Hey kids, state law requires me to suggest that maybe God did it...(pause for laughter)...anyway, on to the finches of Galapagos...".

 

The brain "tends to search for and hold onto the most rewarding view of events, much as it does of objects," -www.edge.org. It is much more rewarding to attribute death to God's will, and to see in disasters hints of the hand of God.

"We humans are naturally gullible — disbelieving requires an extraordinary expenditure of energy. It is a limited resource. I suggest ranking the skepticism by its consequences on our lives. True, the dangers of organized religion used to be there — but they have been gradually replaced with considerably ruthless and unintrospective social-science ideology." - http://www.edge.org/

 

It has had a negative impact because I believed it to be absolute, verifiable truth as responsible for the origins of life. I was in awe that there was controversy to something I had believed to be fact. It's quite like finding out the Earth is round when you've been told by your teachers (whom you respect and revere) that the Earth is flat.

Furthermore, this logic and reason has had a negative effect on my belief in God. It has impeded my Christian walk, and therefore not given me a fair shake to believe what I would like to believe. It drew me away and made it impossible to believe in God. Ignorance is bliss, I would rather have been told of Darwin's theory later in life. Teach evolution, but keep the theories of the origins of life for college or extracurricular material, and allow everyone the freedom to believe what they wish. I thank God that God saved me and came to me because through it all, I had hope.

 

It has had a negative impact because I believed it to be absolute, verifiable truth as responsible for the origins of life. I was in awe that there was controversy to something I had believed to be fact. It's quite like finding out the Earth is round when you've been told by your teachers (whom you respect and revere) that the Earth is flat.

Furthermore, this logic and reason has had a negative effect on my belief in God. It has impeded my Christian walk, and therefore not given me a fair shake to believe what I would like to believe. It drew me away and made it impossible to believe in God. Ignorance is bliss, I would rather have been told of Darwin's theory later in life. Teach evolution, but keep the theories of the origins of life for college or extracurricular material, and allow everyone the freedom to believe what they wish. I thank God that God saved me and came to me because through it all, I had hope. I gave him a shot and he came through for me so many times that I cannot deny him anymore.

 

when it comes to schoolbooks and id/evolution they should state the truth.
and "the truth" is science can not prove life arose naturally period.
and "the truth" also is some people (some of them scientists) claim that the human condition can not be explained by evolution.

in my opinion natural processes got us here. if there was/is a force other than naturally occuring ones what the hell is it? whats its nature? the soul/spirit doesn't get it. it has to be something that science can get their hands around.

and for you people that say "in truth there is no truth" you are confusing the issue.

 

jayleew,

That is one of the largest misconceptions of evolution. I don't know what school you went to, but don't blame evolution. Evolution is NOT the origin of life, it is the origin of SPECIES. Nowhere have I seen evolution state how life came to be on this Earth.

There are said to be two parts of evolution: micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution IS a proven fact, believe it or not. Macro-evolution is what you guys may say "theory." Something is wrong with your school is all.

Can be said about the kid who was raised Christian and then shown evolution. Anyhow, evolution is usually not taught in elementary school (if you were, then you had a funked up school, maybe you should have sued them), evolution is taught in high school biology classes, and perhaps even in middle school. By that time, you had the ability to think fully for yourself and take things to what seem right to you, and not as a naive child who takes whatever is told (such as Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy).

Again, I'd like to emphasize BAD SCHOOL and evolution is NOT the origin of LIFE.

Good for you. Stay out of jail and have a Merry Christmas.

In conclusion, evolution is not the theory for origin of life, it is the origin of species. And your school should have taught evolution late in middle school or in high school, if you felt it to have been forced upon you, then it seems you are just easily manipulated at that age (no offense). However, if you were taught it in elementary school, then it is not evolution's fault, it is the school's.


[Renrue]

P.S. I have NOT stated anything about proving a faith wrong, I am simply and merely stating the facts.

 

Evolution within a species is observable and is fact. But you can not conduct an experiment that would prove or support Darwin's theory, or essentially, that man evolved from some primordial slime. You observe evolution, you assume orgin of species.

And as far as ID goes...You observe a building, you assume an architect. You observe a bridge, you assume an engineer. You observe art, you assume an artist. It's very reasonable, based upon what we know from observation and from science.

 

Can I just make a request right now - Nobody get into a debate with another middle aged female Christian about evidence of macro-evolution. I don't think we can take another Jan Ardena type debate

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I did not say that id should be taught. As a matter of fact, I said the opposite really. And I suggested that if darwinism is allowed to be taught, then other reputable competing theories should be as well. Wait, I didn't say that right because they're actually not competing theories...they're not mutually exclusive. The real problem is that people view them as such, because the issue lies not in the observable facts, but in the assumptions and agendas surrounding them. So I say, present the fact, and leave the assumptions and agendas up to the individuals.

Oh, and just so you know...strings are good, and circles are bad.

I have proof...I know God. Can't bring Him to school for show and tell though, and He's too big to put into a test tube. We've been teaching Darwinism in schools for decades now, and that hasn't ever been proven, soooo. I'm simply suggesting some consistency.

 

So you know of an experiment that has proven Darwin's theory? Are you the only one? Well, by all means, share...Mr. Bigot.