http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/in....ap/index.html
This was an interesting trial. The prosecutor was very tough: he got the key pro-ID witness to state that ID is science in the same way astrology is science, and to admit that there had been no sciencitific articles supporting ID published for peer review. What was interesting was the scope (no pun intended!!) of the trial--the judge basically heard not just the strict legal arguments, but the whole ID argument.
:cheers:
as an athiest, this did stir a dry smileOriginally Posted by the judge
That's one for the good guys!
Congratulations on your "victory"!
If you want public schools completely humanistic, you have rebuffed a challenge from a threat.
The course of action the I.D. people took was incorrect. It is best to allow public schools to float along with the popular opinion, as they are, in fact, public. Private schools exist for other types of education.
If the I.D. people involved in this trial were disguising creationism as I.D., then shame on them. I.D. stands on it's own as a god-free concept, although I think a minority of I.D.ers are atheistic. Panspermia and super-intelligences can also be invoked, and will be, more and more.
The truth is, evolution's scientific support is crumbling, ever so slowly, as a creative mechanism. We will see more and more reference to aliens and other superbeings as having caused life on earth, instead. You heard it here, first.
I want public schools not to deal with religion and religious beliefs, except in a historical sense. This is not because I feel like the one Buddhist kid in town will feel sad and left out if there's a unit on Jesus and not one on Buddha, but because I want kids to be educated with things that are real, not subjective.
Science, by virtue of the way it's constructed--theories, proofs, empirical evidence and such--is set up in such a way that describes what we think we know up till now--fallibility, unlike the situation with religious beliefs, is already built in. For instance, when someone pieces together the Grand Unified Theory, it may well chuck out large parts of General Relativity, not because it was wrong, but because it explained, with an amazing amount of accuracy for a century and counting, virtually everything it was supposed to in terms we understood at the time. Religion's answers basically don't change.
Religion's role is to explain--or at least provide a window to--the spiritual, not the physical. For the same reason it seems like I'm beating my head against a wall when I try to logic out Christianity, it seems like religious nuts like this ID crew are beating their Bibles against the same wall, trying to Jesus up reality.
For you trolls (and you know who you are) who will use what I said above to make some inflammatory claim that I'm some sort of evil person who hates Jesus and Baby Jesus, I will clarify: I'm not against religion, spirituality, belief or anything of the kind. Until you show up on my front porch with it, that is. What I am against is the inappropriate insertion of same into situations where it doesn't belong.
This is getting away from the initial point of the thread, however, to which I say, "Yay!"
I also have to say that it's strange how when it's, say, a presidential election, the will of the voters is the most important thing ever and you can't gainsay the majority ever ever ever. But when the voters kick these ID knuckleheads off the school board, it's bad.
And it goes without saying that I'd love to see some of this so-called "crumbling support" of evolution. Funny how a lot of this stuff seems to get mentioned in and never attributed (see most of Chip's posts for examples).
Hey, look there! I just supported my allegation! It was easy and fun!
Do you really? It's out there, if you're interested.
Where? I've looked pretty hard. I have yet to see a paper on ID in a peer reviewed journal (the standard for scientific publishing). Additionally I have yet to see an papers that suggest significant failings of the theory of evolution in any peer reviewed journals. Sure portions of the theory as currently accepted are disputed (much as people are currently looking at time/gravity shifts during eclipses are poking holes in relativity) but non rise to the level of disproving evolution (and non of the authors I've seen suggest this to be the case). They only seek to alter our understanding of it.
DRK, send me some articles or links to articles.
Is there a lack of an echo in here?
Bring it on. I got a four-day weekend coming up, and we're not sacrificing the virgin until Sunday night.
All acrimony aside, I have no desire to see creationism taught at school (I'm fairly certain I'm doing a better job here at home).
I, for one, would be satisfied if the public school system- in the interest of scientific accuracy- would at least point out that evolution is a theory (and hence unproven, nor provable from a scientific point of view, since it is neither observed nor repeatable).
Basically, one could make a (probably ultimately losing) argument that the theory of evolution is based on faith as well (assuming the definition of faith is belief in something you can't really prove or see). It is a belief that- given enough time, enough chances, and just the right circumstances- life could form from non-animate material and then somehow develop into all sorts of complex diverse creatures.
As for teaching science, perhaps the school systems of the country might focus on doing a more adequate job of teaching science subjects that aren't so, well- useless (you know, osmosis, periodical tables, the circulatory system, planetary motion, nutrition, physics). From what I observe, the schools have a lot more important subjects to be spending time on than trying to ensure that children understand that life may have evolved from single cell organisms!
Seriously, I don't even really recall studying anything about evolution or creationism in school. Can someone explain to me why the subject is particularly important? Are we trying to understand evolution in order to control the process somehow for the betterment of humankind? Will an understanding of evolution improve our ability to provide medical care? I'm afraid I just miss the point of it all.
Don't teach creationism in school- not because its "religious," but because it isn't relevant from a public education standpoint! The same would seem to hold true for evolution.
So, my challenge would be- what benefit has an understanding of the theory of evolution reaped for any of the esteemed among us? What scientific advancement has resulted from the theory that all life evolved?
Pete Hanlin, ABOM
Vice President Professional Services
Essilor of America
http://linkedin.com/in/pete-hanlin-72a3a74
i think the school has a veryh balanced view - here is part of thier statement
Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, "Of Pandas and People," is available in the library along with other resources for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families.
Yes, it is a "theory". Actually, it's a capital-T Theory, as in the Theory of Gravity. Big-T Theories are backed up by some rigor:
There are theories and Theories.source
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
Unless I have a really vivid imagination, I think that there's some proof sitting in your chair. We're here -- the only difference that we have on the subject is between believing (or not) in Genesis' version of how this whole thing got started.Basically, one could make a (probably ultimately losing) argument that the theory of evolution is based on faith as well (assuming the definition of faith is belief in something you can't really prove or see). It is a belief that- given enough time, enough chances, and just the right circumstances- life could form from non-animate material and then somehow develop into all sorts of complex diverse creatures.
Funny thing is, not all that long ago, planetary motion--something you yourself are taking for granted as a non-assailable fact of science--was a subject of hot debate between scientists and the Church. Hell, every single one of your examples are post-Enlightenment discoveries.As for teaching science, perhaps the school systems of the country might focus on doing a more adequate job of teaching science subjects that aren't so, well- useless (you know, osmosis, periodical tables, the circulatory system, planetary motion, nutrition, physics). From what I observe, the schools have a lot more important subjects to be spending time on than trying to ensure that children understand that life may have evolved from single cell organisms!
Indeed. Why study all that boring stuff about plants and fungus, too? No one ever uses any of it. Hey, I don't have much call professionally or personally for my P.E. classes these days. Maybe I can sue to get my hour a day retroactively back.Seriously, I don't even really recall studying anything about evolution or creationism in school. Can someone explain to me why the subject is particularly important? Are we trying to understand evolution in order to control the process somehow for the betterment of humankind? Will an understanding of evolution improve our ability to provide medical care? I'm afraid I just miss the point of it all.
Don't teach creationism in school- not because its "religious," but because it isn't relevant from a public education standpoint! The same would seem to hold true for evolution.
Understanding the world--how we got here, what we're doing and where we're going--is tremendously important in producing well-rounded people. If you prefer to be ignorant, do it on your own time. I'd like to know and understand as much as I possibly can.
Sorry, can't talk. Lost is on.So, my challenge would be- what benefit has an understanding of the theory of evolution reaped for any of the esteemed among us? What scientific advancement has resulted from the theory that all life evolved?
Don't mean to spam the thread, but I just came upon this, and thought it might have some small bit of relevance to the topic under discussion.
BREAKTHROUGH OF THE YEAR:
Evolution in Action
...
Today evolution is the foundation of all biology, so basic and all-pervasive that scientists sometimes take its importance for granted. At some level every discovery in biology and medicine rests on it, in much the same way that all terrestrial vertebrates can trace their ancestry back to the first bold fishes to explore land. Each year, researchers worldwide discover enough extraordinary findings tied to evolutionary thinking to fill a book many times as thick as all of Darwin's works put together. This year's volume might start with a proposed rearrangement of the microbes at the base of the tree of life and end with the discovery of 190-million-year-old dinosaur embryos.
...
All in the family
One of the most dramatic results came in September, when an international team published the genome of our closest relative, the chimpanzee. With the human genome already in hand, researchers could begin to line up chimp and human DNA and examine, one by one, the 40 million evolutionary events that separate them from us.
The genome data confirm our close kinship with chimps: We differ by only about 1% in the nucleotide bases that can be aligned between our two species, and the average protein differs by less than two amino acids. But a surprisingly large chunk of noncoding material is either inserted or deleted in the chimp as compared to the human, bringing the total difference in DNA between our two species to about 4%.
...
Probing how species split
2005 was also a standout year for researchers studying the emergence of new species, or speciation. A new species can form when populations of an existing species begin to adapt in different ways and eventually stop interbreeding. It's easy to see how that can happen when populations wind up on opposite sides of oceans or mountain ranges, for example. But sometimes a single, contiguous population splits into two. Evolutionary theory predicts that this splitting begins when some individuals in a population stop mating with others, but empirical evidence has been scanty. This year field biologists recorded compelling examples of that process, some of which featured surprisingly rapid evolution in organisms' shape and behavior.
For example, birds called European blackcaps sharing breeding grounds in southern Germany and Austria are going their own ways--literally and figuratively. Sightings over the decades have shown that ever more of these warblers migrate to northerly grounds in the winter rather than heading south. Isotopic data revealed that northerly migrants reach the common breeding ground earlier and mate with one another before southerly migrants arrive. This difference in timing may one day drive the two populations to become two species.
...
To your health
Such evolutionary breakthroughs are not just ivory-tower exercises; they hold huge promise for improving human well-being. Take the chimpanzee genome. Humans are highly susceptible to AIDS, coronary heart disease, chronic viral hepatitis, and malignant malarial infections; chimps aren't. Studying the differences between our species will help pin down the genetic aspects of many such diseases. As for the HapMap, its aims are explicitly biomedical: to speed the search for genes involved in complex diseases such as diabetes. Researchers have already used it to home in on a gene for age-related macular degeneration. {Emphasis added}
I would be pleased for Evoloution to be taught in Biology class, and ID in Religious education
in that caveat, Religious Education class ought to teach the fundaments of the major religions, athiesm and other belief systems, and ought to also teach New Creationisim (the belief that all animals on earth are repersented by the population of Noah's Ark)
If children were also taught basic philosophy, and a little ancient philosophy too, they will get a pretty good understanding of different gods, religions, and how to think
By teaching children "how to think" they can then make up thier own mind about the creation / ID/ Darwin debate, along with the many other moral debates
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks