Main Entry: sci·ence
Pronunciation: ‘sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena

Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Please help me here, but what portion of “intelligent design theory” falls under “the scientific method”?  Isn’t it sort of like saying “The can of Iced tea on my desk sure has a lot of ingredients in it.  It seems very complex.  I guess god created it.” I can completely ignore any evidence I want with that simple conclusion.  Have the members of the Dover area school district actually passed any science classes beyond Jr. High themselves?

I was wondering, whether is it possible for students who have been taught intelligent design to sue the school board for providing bad education that impacted on his earning potential or prevented him from going to a school of his choice.

Though I was born, raised, and educated in Pennsylvania, I now live in the Bible Belt, and I have seen this sort of insidious intrusion for years. For me, the good news is that I’m a social studies teacher, so I can teach Darwin as an historical development in the History of Science. The bad news is that, each year, more students want to challenge even this approach to evolution. It’s like they want to make the theory go away.

I’m still amazed that local school boards get to vote on what is and is not science! Do they also vote on what math to teach? Shouldn’t there be some national level board of scientists that determine what should be taught in science class?

Illogical!

So, how exactly do they teach it?

Teaching evolution:
Here’s the theory, here’s the proof.

Teaching ‘intelligent’ design:
Here’s the theory…

Where’s the proof?

I wonder if the “Intelligent” Design folks feel that we have learned all there is to learn about the world around us. I mean, it wasn’t too long ago that much of the science that we take for granted every day was too complex to understand (when I say “we,” I include christians).

That’s an interesting thought Lordklegg…
There’s a distinct rift between math and the sciences and thing like art and humanities.  Personally, I feel that this rift is preventative of a well-rounded education.  Kids in my high school were actually proud of not being able to do math.  Perhaps this bull partly results from that rift and too many religious right liberal arts majors?

Amen, Spocko!

As for the lawsuit, you go!  I’m from Ohio, one of the other retarded states whose school board has voted to include unintelligent design.  I hope they kick butt in PA and then come over to help those Ohioans find their brains.

Sorry Les, original article as I read it appeared in the Warren Times-Observer. I am sure it would have also appeared in the Harrisburg Patriot-News.

I don’t get the creationist’s point of view. “Intelligent Design”? Honestly, for me, evolution proves that there is some sort of intelligent design, not their cracked up theories. I mean, what other proof do they need for evolution? We’ve got proof down to the *genetic level*!!

Reminds me of when I was in biochemistry with a Fundamentalist. (Yeah, I know...)

YankeeDyke, your post reminded me of this quote:
“Gravity cannot be held responsible for people falling in love.” - Albert Einstein

Metalhead, change the second “theory” to “hypothesis” and the word “proof” to “evidence” and you’re there.

Shana said, quoting Einstein: Gravity cannot be held responsible for people falling in love.

Oh, yeah?  If there were no gravity, would people fall in love?  I doubt there would be any people around to fall in love.  Therefore, gravity is responsible for people falling: down, and in love.

There was a nice cartoon last week in the New Yorker that showed a living room, with the family, dog, and furniture floating around, and the caption: “Did you pay the gravity bill?”

Zilch, I am sticking my tongue out at you, and I am making raspberries.  HA!

Mmmmm, raspberries.  My favorite- mmmm.

Yeah, sorry Ben. I was a little insulting towards real theories there..

Sorry Les, original article as I read it appeared in the Warren Times-Observer. I am sure it would have also appeared in the Harrisburg Patriot-News.

Not a problem. I just wanted to make sure I had a link to the AP article in some form available in the entry.

I sent yet ANOTHER letter to my newspaper (unpublished, of course - sigh) to wit:

We don’t teach flat earth “theory” in geology class, why should we teach intelligent design “theory” in science class?  Just because some people believe it?

SG

SG- That’s what’s so sneaky about this latest round with the creationists, now repackaged as IDer’s: they claim there’s a controversy, and merely want both sides represented- a much easier sell than trying to ban the teaching of evolution.  The “Wired” article Sunfell mentioned-
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/evolution.html
has a good discussion of this strategy, which has convinced some scientifically unsophisticated school boards that there is a controversy among scientists at all.  Very clever, these IDer’s- too bad they’ve gone over to the Dark Side of the Force.

I think they should agree to teach ID, with the overt conclusion that Satan created the universe.  See how they like those “theories” then.

GM- Yeah! Let’s bring back the Gnostics!

So far from believing that the material world was created by God as good, some Gnostics went so far as to state that Satan created it when God wasn’t looking…

You guys need to see this.

In fact, I drew a cartoon about creationists (I’d put it online but my scanner’s broken). Basically it shows two people, a scientist and a creationist. The latter is shown with is fingers in his ears yelling ‘LA LA LA I AM NOT LISTENING’. If you could see it you’d laugh. My point is that I meant that cartoon to be a joke, but that appears to be exactly what creationists are doing.

ID and evolution may be viewed as complimentary.  It is not anti-evolution, although some anti-evolutionists see it that way.

Regards,

consi said: ID and evolution may be viewed as complimentary.  It is not anti-evolution, although some anti-evolutionists see it that way.

I think you mean “complementary, because ID and evolution, or at least their spokespeople, are rarely complimentary about one another.

Be that as it may, that is not the issue here.  Buddhism and evolution might also be seen as complementary by Buddhists, but that doesn’t mean Buddhism should be taught in science classes.  ID is a religion and not a science.

It is a sad comment on humanity that we have not matured enough to get past mumbo jumbo and accept life the way it presents itself to us everyday…

We’re such mindless animals, to ourselves and to others.....But perpetuating ignorance should
be a sin

Merry * Christmas !
(*mass consumerism holiday)

Sorry for the double whammy here, but I don’t know when I’ll be able to get back (big Winter Solstice party here in the workshop).

consi said, about ID: It is not anti-evolution

Actually, ID is anti-evolution; it goes along with Darwinism only to a certain point (usually admitting natural selection within “types” at least) but then digs its feet in (for instance, Behe at the flagellum) and says “This is as far as evolution goes.  Anything beyond this is IC, which means ID”.

How this can be construed as science beats me.  It’s like a Stone Age person who observes: “Hmmm. Clouds sometimes bring rain.  Maybe water in clouds” (science) but wonders where lightning comes from: “Hmmm.  Don’t see where lightning come from.  Must be big guy in sky make thunderbolts” (ID).