Evolution discussion from Time magazine

[winoman]

Kansas does it again

I suppose they will be advising astronomy classes to question the Sun centered solar system theory next...as they have also rewritten the definition of Science - at least as it applies to undereducated Kansas...poor kids - well maybe Bob Jones U will let in kids from Kansas regardless of a 200 on their SATs in Science...(my bolds)

Anti-evolution movement wins big in Kansas, set back in Pennsylvania


By ASSOCIATED PRESS


TOPEKA, Kan. - Critics of evolution won a big victory with the approval of new public school science standards that cast doubt on Darwinism. The standards were approved Tuesday by the Kansas Board of Education on a 6-4 vote that was lauded by "intelligent design" advocates, who helped draft them. Intelligent design holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.

The vote came amid an increasingly rancorous national debate on teaching evolution. In Pennsylvania on Tuesday, voters punished Dover school board members who backed a statement on intelligent design being read in biology class, ousting eight Republicans and replacing them with Democrats who want the concept stripped from the science curriculum.

Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism -- a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation -- camouflaged in scientific language, and it does not belong in a science curriculum. They worry that the vote will encourage attacks on evolution in other states.

"This action is likely to be the playbook for creationism for the next several years," said Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, Calif. "We can predict this fight happening elsewhere."

The Pennsylvania election unfolded amid a landmark federal trial involving the Dover public schools and the question of whether intelligent design promotes the Bible's view of creation. Eight Dover families sued, saying it violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

In August, President Bush endorsed teaching intelligent design alongside evolution.

The Kansas board's vote is likely to heap fresh national criticism on the state. In 1999, the board deleted most references to evolution in the science standards. That decision was overturned in 2001.

But supporters of the new regulations say they will lead to open discussions.

"We are being very brave. We are brave enough to have all areas discussed," said board member Kathy Martin, a Clay Center Republican. "Students will be informed and not indoctrinated."

The board does not mandate what will be taught to public school students; that decision is left to local school boards. However, it does determine what students are expected to know for state assessment tests. The new standards will be in effect starting in 2008.

Some educators fear pressure will increase to teach less about evolution or more about creationism or intelligent design.

"What this does is open the door for teachers to bring creationist arguments into the classroom and point to the standards and say it's OK," said Jack Krebs, an Oskaloosa High School math teacher and vice president of Kansas Citizens for Science, which opposes the changes.

The new standards say high school students must understand major evolutionary concepts. But they also declare that basic Darwinian theory -- that all life had a common origin and that natural chemical processes created the building blocks of life -- has been challenged in recent years by fossil evidence and molecular biology.

In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.


© 2005 MSNBC.com

URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9978770/from/RL.1/

[winoman]

Praise jesus - not all priests are fools...

Theologian says intelligent design is religion
Catholic professor testifies on behalf of school policy’s foes

The Associated Press
Updated: 11:13 p.m. ET Sept. 30, 2005


HARRISBURG, Pa. - "Intelligent design" is vastly similar to creationism and should be taught as religion, not science, a Catholic theologian testified Friday, on the fifth day of a trial over whether the concept belongs in a public school science curriculum as an alternative to evolution.

Georgetown University theology professor John F. Haught said that while intelligent-design proponents do not explicitly identify God as the creator of life, the concept is "essentially a religious proposition."

"I understand it to be a reformulation of an old theological argument for the existence of God," he said.

Haught testified as an expert witness on behalf of eight families who are trying to have a reference to intelligent design removed from the Dover Area School District's biology curriculum. The families contend that it effectively promotes the Bible's view of creation, violating constitutional guarantees on freedom of religion.

Under the policy approved by Dover's school board in October 2004, students must hear a brief statement about intelligent design before classes on evolution. It says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact," has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to an intelligent-design textbook for more information.

Intelligent-design supporters argue that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force, and that natural selection cannot fully explain the development of complex life from simpler forms.

No conflict between science and religion?
Haught said there is no conflict between science and religion because they represent different levels of explanation for phenomena.

"When we have a failure to distinguish science from religion, then confusion will follow," Haught said. "Science and religion cannot logically stand in a competitive relationship with each other."

During cross-examination, Richard Thompson, a lawyer representing the school district, asked Haught to draw distinctions between intelligent design and creationism.


Haught conceded that not all intelligent-design supporters literally interpret the Bible, but said the two concepts only differ "in the same sense that an orange is different than a navel orange."

The plaintiffs are represented by a team put together by the American Civil Liberties Union, and the school district by the Thomas More Law Center, a public-interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Mich., that says its mission is to defend the religious freedom of Christians.

The trial is scheduled to resume Wednesday and is expected to last as long as five weeks.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

© 2005 MSNBC.com

URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9543398/from/RL.3/

[winoman]

This is rich

Essentially teh move to "Intelligent Design" is an admission of failure. Its like they have failed to knock down Evolution/Natural Selection by any means - so now they just co-opt it - "Oh it was God's plan all along" - lol weak - and these knucklehead Dovewr school Board idiots are even weaker...note also that one accepted $850 to place that ID Panda book in the curriculum...etc

Intelligent-design decision dissected
School board member wanted students to know ‘other theories’

The Associated Press
Updated: 4:21 p.m. ET Nov. 2, 2005


HARRISBURG, Pa. - A school board member testified Wednesday that she voted to include "intelligent design" in a high-school biology curriculum despite not knowing much about the concept because she thought students should be aware of alternatives to evolutionary theory.

"I thought, this is another way to make them think," Dover Area School Board President Sheila Harkins said during a landmark federal trial over whether intelligent design can be introduced in public school science classes.

Harkins acknowledged that her familiarity with the concept was limited to some Internet research and a brief reading of "Of Pandas and People," an intelligent-design textbook that the district is using as a reference book in the high school's library.

Nevertheless, Harkins said she felt the curriculum should specify what kinds of theories should be mentioned besides evolution.

"If you're going to say 'other theories,' then you need to have an example of what 'other theories' is," Harkins said.

Origin of intelligent-design statement
The board is defending its October 2004 decision to require students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps," and it refers students to the textbook for more information.

Harkins testified that the board didn't envision having an intelligent-design statement, which was later developed by school administrators, and she thought the teachers could present the topic "however they saw fit."

"The statement would not be necessary if we were not sued," Harkins said.

Explaining a misstatement
Earlier Wednesday, a school board member who had discrepancies in his testimony on the purchase of "Of Pandas and People" said he was very nervous before a deposition.

Alan Bonsell was questioned Monday by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III about his January deposition and his trial testimony. He was given a chance to respond Wednesday.

"I was extremely nervous to say the least and honestly tried to do my best and answer as truthfully as a I could," Bonsell said of his deposition.

Bonsell testified Monday that he had received an $850 check from a fellow board member. The check was made out to Bonsell's father, who volunteered to donate copies of "Of Pandas and People" to the district.

Jones asked Bonsell why he never shared that information in the deposition when he was repeatedly asked under oath about who was involved in making the donation. Bonsell, who served as the board's president in 2004, said he misspoke then.

The board member who provided the check, William Buckingham, testified last week that he collected donations to help purchase the books during a Sunday service at his church.


Eight families are suing to have intelligent design removed from the biology curriculum because they believe the policy essentially promotes the Bible's view of creation, and therefore violates the constitutional ban on the state establishment of religion.

Intelligent-design supporters argue that natural selection, an element of evolutionary theory, cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of complex life forms. They say the evidence (?) points to the intervention of an intelligent designer.

The trial began Sept. 26 and is expected to conclude on Friday.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

© 2005 MSNBC.com

URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9899621/from/RL.5/

[Anonymouse]

Theologian says intelligent design is religion
Catholic professor testifies on behalf of school policy’s foes

The Associated Press
Updated: 11:13 p.m. ET Sept. 30, 2005


HARRISBURG, Pa. - "Intelligent design" is vastly similar to creationism and should be taught as religion, not science, a Catholic theologian testified Friday, on the fifth day of a trial over whether the concept belongs in a public school science curriculum as an alternative to evolution.

Georgetown University theology professor John F. Haught said that while intelligent-design proponents do not explicitly identify God as the creator of life, the concept is "essentially a religious proposition."

"I understand it to be a reformulation of an old theological argument for the existence of God," he said.

Haught testified as an expert witness on behalf of eight families who are trying to have a reference to intelligent design removed from the Dover Area School District's biology curriculum. The families contend that it effectively promotes the Bible's view of creation, violating constitutional guarantees on freedom of religion.

Under the policy approved by Dover's school board in October 2004, students must hear a brief statement about intelligent design before classes on evolution. It says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact," has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to an intelligent-design textbook for more information.

Intelligent-design supporters argue that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force, and that natural selection cannot fully explain the development of complex life from simpler forms.

No conflict between science and religion?
Haught said there is no conflict between science and religion because they represent different levels of explanation for phenomena.

"When we have a failure to distinguish science from religion, then confusion will follow," Haught said. "Science and religion cannot logically stand in a competitive relationship with each other."

During cross-examination, Richard Thompson, a lawyer representing the school district, asked Haught to draw distinctions between intelligent design and creationism.


Haught conceded that not all intelligent-design supporters literally interpret the Bible, but said the two concepts only differ "in the same sense that an orange is different than a navel orange."

The plaintiffs are represented by a team put together by the American Civil Liberties Union, and the school district by the Thomas More Law Center, a public-interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Mich., that says its mission is to defend the religious freedom of Christians.

The trial is scheduled to resume Wednesday and is expected to last as long as five weeks.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

© 2005 MSNBC.com

URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9543398/from/RL.3/

The fallacy of appeal to authority.

Haven't you taken a basic philosophy class?

[winoman]

Haven't you taken a basic philosophy class?

yeah - a bit - it was briefly my major...yeah before you were even born...and who is claiming the need to consult a higher power for explanations/justifications...really now...

[Anonymouse]

yeah - a bit - it was briefly my major...yeah before you were even born...

Apparently not. And now you trumpet yet another fallacious notion about your age.

I can see why it was briefly your major.

[TomServo]

His sense of humor is definitely in the "born 40 years ago" range.

[Lamb Boy]

Intelligent design is an omission from the creationists that evolution is the real deal. Now that they have also accepted its validity as a LAW they have moved on, regrouped as it were, and have come up with a leech like theory that merely tries to incorporate itself into the preexisting LAW of evolution. Intelligent design wouldn't actually be a contrasting theory to evolution as evolution is a LAW it would be an oppositional theory for the mechanics of evolution (theory) like natural selection which is a theory.

This move towards the new founded idea of intelligent design is just like the religious zealots too. Totally in character. It's exactly the same when you attempt to pose a contrasting view on any subject to bible beaters get all excited about. Once they realize you’re either right or not really wrong they immediately incorporate their ideology into your own argument. That's why it's impossible having an intelligent discussion with people of blind faith in regards to religion. It's like being a kid and having an imaginary friend. Kids can always defend the validity of their imaginary friend with a barrage of nonsense arguments. That's where I group this intelligent design shizz ...

I mean if you believe in anything after this world then it only makes sense to give your deity credit for the creation of everything around us including the Law of Evolution.

It's ironic that "Intelligent Design" has been thought up by anything BUT an intelligent creature. Way to piggyback their "theory" on to the Law of Evolution.

There originally like "I ain't from no ape!"

Then they must have been "I was reading about that evolution thing man and whooo doggie is it compllimacated"

Now they're like "I can't understand this evolution stuff man uh uh uh IT'S JUST TOO DARN COMPLIMACATED MAHN!! ... I KNOW! It must have been the system created by God!! That's it!"

I forget who stated that it is our responsibility to find the truth out from all the media sources and information available. It is our duty just like it will be the duty of these kids who are going to be taught "intelligent design" to come to the truth in their own way no matter what their subjective outlooks may be like after the dust settles.

[Anonymouse]

Intelligent design is an omission from the creationists that evolution is the real deal. Now that they have also accepted its validity as a LAW they have moved on, regrouped as it were, and have come up with a leech like theory that merely tries to incorporate itself into the preexisting LAW of evolution. Intelligent design wouldn't actually be a contrasting theory to evolution as evolution is a LAW it would be an oppositional theory for the mechanics of evolution (theory) like natural selection which is a theory.

Evolution is not a law, despite typing it in capslock. It is premature conjecture, based on limited, and scanty human knowledge due no doubt to imperfect rationality. Anyone who claims to pass it off as such is suffering from the most gross of arrogance, which would certainly define your typical evolutionist.

This move towards the new founded idea of intelligent design is just like the religious zealots too. Totally in character. It's exactly the same when you attempt to pose a contrasting view on any subject to bible beaters get all excited about. Once they realize you’re either right or not really wrong they immediately incorporate their ideology into your own argument. That's why it's impossible having an intelligent discussion with people of blind faith in regards to religion. It's like being a kid and having an imaginary friend. Kids can always defend the validity of their imaginary friend with a barrage of nonsense arguments. That's where I group this intelligent design shizz ...

Your statements only prove that you suffer from the same inadequacy of rationality and coherence that you accuse the "religious zealots". To equate disagreement with evolution, ( or at least imply ) due to religious zealotry is indicative of the sad state of affairs the defenders of the dogma of evolution have resorted to. The same assertions could be made of the evolutionists, namely that, "it's impossible having an intelligent discussion with people of blind faith" in regards to evolution. And as much as you would like to believe otherwise, evolution is a like class of faith. Any theory, or idea that posits a claim about origins and development is ipso facto based on faith.

I mean if you believe in anything after this world then it only makes sense to give your deity credit for the creation of everything around us including the Law of Evolution.

In fact, it's so amusing watching evolutionists themselves rationalize how their theory is infallible and the best thing since man discovered toilet seats. An example of this would be how you and others try to somehow pass evolution off as a law, in your case by typing it in capslock as if that somehow gives anymore validity to a theory based on conjecture and faith, or as the wino-creature would say "essentially fact".

It's ironic that "Intelligent Design" has been thought up by anything BUT an intelligent creature. Way to piggyback their "theory" on to the Law of Evolution.

I guess, if like the religious zealots, it comforts you that you make yourself believe evolution is a law, I'm all for it.

[winoman]

"it's impossible having an intelligent discussion with people of blind faith" in regards to evolution. And as much as you would like to believe otherwise, evolution is a like class of faith. Any theory, or idea that posits a claim about origins and development is ipso facto based on faith.

This erroneous claim of yours is quite amusing. We are happy to discuss scientific evidence as it pertains to biology any time - what we don't condone is the insertion of religious explanations into scientific arguments - much as you would not try to disprove physics or chemistry or astronomy etc by claiming that the Bible expalins it differently - etc Get a life.