Yet somehow i'm not surprised...

[Sheerin]

I'm sorry but "intelligent design" has no place in the schools...

'Intelligent Design' Wins In Kan.

TOPEKA, Kansas, Nov. 8, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fast Fact

The new standards will be used to develop student tests measuring how well schools teach science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


(AP) Revisiting a topic that exposed Kansas to nationwide ridicule six years ago, the state Board of Education approved science standards for public schools Tuesday that cast doubt on the theory of evolution.

The board's 6-4 vote, expected for months, was a victory for intelligent design advocates who helped draft the standards. Intelligent design holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.

Critics of the proposed language charged that it was an attempt to inject creationism into public schools in violation of the separation between church and state.

The board's vote is likely to heap fresh national criticism on Kansas and cause many scientists to see the state as backward. Current state standards treat evolution as well-established â ” a view also held by national science groups.

The new standards will be used to develop student tests measuring how well schools teach science. Decisions about what's taught in classrooms will remain with 300 local school boards, but some educators fear pressure will increase in some communities to teach less about evolution or more about creationism or intelligent design.

Advocates of intelligent design said they are trying to expose students to legitimate scientific questions about evolution.

"Under these standards students will learn more about evolution, not less," said Casey Luskin, a spokesman for the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which supports intelligent design.

Many scientists argued that the language was an effort to get around U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have held that the teaching of creationism violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

In 1999, the Kansas board adopted science standards that eliminated most references to evolution.

Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould said that was akin to teaching "American history without Lincoln." Bill Nye, the "Science Guy" of children's television, called it "harebrained" and "nutty." And a Washington Post columnist imagined God saying to the Kansas board members: "Man, I gave you a brain. Use it, OK?"

Two years later, after voters replaced three members, the board reverted to evolution-friendly standards. Elections in 2002 and 2004 changed the board's composition again, making it more conservative.

Other states have also dealt with conflicts over the teaching of evolution and intelligent design. In Pennsylvania, a federal judge is expected to rule soon in a lawsuit against a school district policy that requires students to be told about intelligent design.

 

[winchable]

First, I'm all about the evolution, don't buy creationism or intelligent design much, there is a bit of mystery to where we come from granted but evolution is the best idea.

But I have to ask if they're saying "There are theories other than evolution out there, here they are, draw what you wil." or are they putting the whole process out of context construing it to make it seem as though Intelligent design is the theory.

I have to say I think it's fair if teachers are allowed to include a look at intelligent design in their curriculum as long as they keep it in context compared with evolution. I mean if evolution is a theory (the most credible and realistic, scientifically speaking) perhaps other theories should be presented just to give kids a well spread base of knowledge.

 

[sm0ke]

I have a really really good Nova documentary on this subject - it's kinda large but if anyone wants it, PM me and I"ll make it available via FTP or Torrent

 

[S McKee]

Let's face it in the US the line between religion and secular society is often blurred. I don't understand why the religious community is so adamantly opposed to the theory of evolution as it neither proves or disproves the existence of God. Scientific theories will change and be refined over time; 500 years ago people believed that the earth was flat. "Intelligent design" is another way of proselytizing to a secular society that doesn't want it. Maybe rather than trying to "prove" the existence of "Intelligent design" (God), Christians should heed the words of St Paul in his letter to the Romans "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."

We are so impressed by scientific clank that we feel we ought not to say that the sunflower turns because it knows where the sun is. It is almost second nature to us to prefer explanations . . . with a large vocabulary. We are much more comfortable when we are assured that the sunflower turns because it is heliotropic. The trouble with that kind of talk is that it tempts us to think that we know what the sunflower is up to. But we don't. The sunflower is a mystery, just as every single thing in the universe is. --Robert Farrer Capon

 

[Sheerin]

See I'd have no problem with Intelligent Design if were in fact a theory, but it isn't.  A theory is something that can be tested and disproved, intelligent design fails this test becuase no matter how hard we try we cannot devise a test to determine if there is an 'intelligence' behind everything.  As such intelligent design should stay within the confines of religion.  You want your kid to learn about this send them to sunday school, you want your kid learn about theories regarding evolution have them take high school biology.

 

[Sheerin]

hmm, things seem to be getting worse....

The Darwin exhibition frightening off corporate sponsors
By Nicholas Wapshott in New York
(Filed: 20/11/2005)

An exhibition celebrating the life of Charles Darwin has failed to find a corporate sponsor because American companies are anxious not to take sides in the heated debate between scientists and fundamentalist Christians over the theory of evolution.

The entire $3 million ( £1.7 million) cost of Darwin, which opened at the American Museum of Natural History in New York yesterday, is instead being borne by wealthy individuals and private charitable donations.
a live Galapagos tortoise
The Darwin exhibit features a live Galapagos tortoise

The failure of American companies to back what until recently would have been considered a mainstream educational exhibition reflects the growing influence of fundamentalist Christians, who are among President George W Bush's most vocal supporters, over all walks of life in the United States.

While the Darwin exhibition has been unable to find a business backer - unlike previous exhibitions at the museum - the Creationist Museum near Cincinatti, Ohio, which takes literally the Bible's account of creation, has recently raised $7 million in donations.

The outbreak of corporate cold feet has shocked New York's intellectuals. "It is a disgrace that large companies should shy away from such an important scientific exhibition," said a trustee of another prominent museum in the city, who was told of the exhibition's funding problem by a trustee of the AMNH.

"They tried to find corporate sponsors, but everyone backed off."

Creationism is increasingly widely backed in America. A CBS News poll last month found that 51 per cent of Americans reject the theory of evolution, believing instead that God created humans in their present form. Another poll in August found that 38 per cent of Americans think that creationism should be taught in schools, instead of evolution.

In Dover, Pennsylvania, last week, a jury began considering a case brought by parents against a school board that insisted that "intelligent design," which argues that a supernatural force populated the earth, be taught alongside evolution in science classes.

The AMNH is coy about its failure to find corporate money to mount the exhibition, which will tour the US before moving to London's Natural History Museum in 2009 to mark the bicentenary of Darwin's birth.

Asked which companies had refused to give money, Gary Zarr, the museum's marketing director, said he would have to ask those concerned before he could identify them.

Steve Reichl, a press officer for the AMNH, said a list of forthcoming exhibitions was sent to potential sponsors and none wanted to back the Darwin exhibition. He declined to reveal which companies, or how many, had been approached.

The Bank of America previously sponsored a similar exhibition on Leonardo da Vinci and the financial services provider TIAA-CREF funded an Albert Einstein show.

A prominent Metropolitan Museum donor said: "You can understand why the Museum of Natural History might not want to admit such a thing.

"They are concerned about finding corporate funding for exhibitions in the future."

The museum will have to depend more heavily upon the profits of its Darwin-related merchandise to finance the cost of staging the exhibition, including a 12-inch Darwin doll, Darwin finger puppets and, for a $950, a replica of the vessel Beagle, made in China and assembled in Vietnam.

Niles Eldredge, the exhibition's curator, confirmed that the exhibition was intended to redress the balance in the battle between scientists and creationist Christians being fought across the country.

"This is for the schoolchildren of America," he said. "This is the evidence of evolution." 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/20/wdarwin20.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/11/20/ixportal.html

 

[Michael Dorosh]

See I'd have no problem with Intelligent Design if were in fact a theory, but it isn't.   A theory is something that can be tested and disproved, intelligent design fails this test becuase no matter how hard we try we cannot devise a test to determine if there is an 'intelligence' behind everything.  

Of course there is a test.

Die.

Personally, I believe that God created Evolution, and I'm not even trying to be funny.  See all ya believers on the other side.

 

[Old Sweat]

And the nice thing about the death test for the non-believers is that they only will find out if they are wrong.

 

[Sheerin]

So if majority says that Isaac Newton was wrong and that the reason things fall is because there are little green lepperchaun's in the air pulling things down, that should be taught?

As for the test, well thats not a scientific test, now is it? 

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Well thats democracy at work really. If the majority of Americans believe in creationism and want it taught in schools (they don't have the numbers yet, but wait and see) then thats up to them. Majority rules.  

A smart majority would teach both and let people decide for themselves.  Sort of another tenet of democracy you are conveniently forgetting about - the right to choose.

 

[Conquistador]

[FSM Preaching]
I believe that this whole ID/Evolution debate is total waste. The world knows that The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the trees, the mountains, and the midgit. Only by being touched by His Noodly Appendage will one be truly enlightened.

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster at http://www.venganza.org/

RAMEN
[/FSM Preaching]

On a more serious note, I beleive that ID is nothing more than a mask for creationism, and belongs in the bibles and churches where it belongs. Also, here's another article of interest, Kansas University is also teaching ID..... as mythology. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10153657/

 

[Sheerin]

I'm not saying that ID should be outlawed,, what I am saying is that it isn't science and therefore it has absolutely no place in the science classroom.  This is the type of thing that should be taught in a church or something similiar, or in a religion class etc, just not in the science classroom.

 

[meg]

Just a thought as I sit here procrastinating.  Let's say ID is taught in schools across North America as part of the regular curriculum.  (I'm not saying it should or shouldn't, just pretend for a moment.)  The theory is being pushed by right-wing Christian groups, and I assume it fits in with Jewish and Islamic belief systems, too.  Those parents presumably are happy that their kids are being taught science that also fits with their religion.

What about Hindus?  Or Buddhists?  Or just about any other belief system out there?  I don't know how many school-age children are confirmed atheists, but would they really want to have to study a 'science' theory that states there is some higher power that created life as we know it?  Heck, I couldn't even memorize the first ten elements in chem class; I'd've hated having to learn about how Cronos and Gaia were involved in creating the universe in earth science.

 

[Britney Spears]

Stop calling ID "science".

 

[TCBF]

"See I'd have no problem with Intelligent Design if were in fact a theory, but it isn't.  A theory is something that can be tested and disproved,"

-Well, yes, but not necessarily tested and disproved TODAY, or tomorrow, or next week, for that matter.  Technology generally lags theory.

"Personally, I believe that God created Evolution, and I'm not even trying to be funny.  See all ya believers on the other side." - Micheal Dorosh

I'm with Mr. Dorosh on this one. 

Tom

 

[Sheerin]

So you're saying that one day in the future we'll be able to test for the existence of 'god'???

 

[48Highlander]

Proving wether or not god exists isn't some technological problem that's escaped our grasp so far.  The problem with it is that it's a logical impossibility.  IF god exists, then one day we may be ableto prove that he exists.  But if he does not, we will never be able to prove that he doesn't.  Why?  Because no matter how far advanced our science becomes, there will always be those who claim that God does exist, we just haven't discovered him yet.  One day when we can prove without a shadow of a doubt that the universes was created by the big bang, and when we can even analyze the exact state of the matter and energy just miliseconds after that occurence, there will still be those who claim that god created the universe by starting the big bang.  Intelligent Design, and the existance of God, can never be scientificaly disproven, therefore they are not science.  As has been suggested earlier, they should be taught in reigious classes, not science class.

Personaly I really enjoyed taking "world religions" in highschool even though I'm an atheist. It was a fun course and I learned a lot about other peoples beleif systems.  But I wouldn't expect the world religios teacher to suddenly switch tracks md-class and start teaching particle physics, just as I would never expect a science teacher to attempt to teach Intelligent Design.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

?  Because no matter how far advanced our science becomes, there will always be those who claim that God does exist, we just haven't discovered him yet.

You should really only speak for yourself.  Millions of people have "discovered" Him. 

 

[48Highlander]

Ya know, if I told you I had an invisible friend who sometimes talks to me in my sleep, you'd call me insane.  But for some reason, it's ok as long as his name is God....


I'm not looking to trash your beleifs man, but your "discovery" isn't eidence, nor is it relevant to the discussion at hand.  And it certainly isn't a very good argument for teaching ID in school.

 

[48Highlander]

you're not getting it.  ID isn't science.  It cannot be prove or disproven by scientific means, therefore it doesn't belong in a science class.  You want to teach ID?  Sure, do it in the world religions class.  Teaching it in science class though would be wrong, it has no place there.  You may as well try teaching it autoshop or a computer programming class.

Or we could even bring it into the military eh?  Let's teach ID interspersed with C7 lectures.  While we're at it we can do a verse by verse study of the Koran during individual fieldcraft lectures, and for an encore we'll study the Torah during the SHARP lectures.