Maybe they should just design an elective that teaches ALL of the various creations myths as if they were theories.

I’m partial to the great three toed sloth theory myself.

Where’s the wedgie patrol when you need them.  Someone definitely needs a wedgie regarding this new curriculum....

“Not in the foreseeable future.  Many countries have more stringent religious underpinnings than the US.  India is our main supplier of technology labor and even though they will become the largest English speaking country in the world in 2010, they fundamentally lack the religious freedoms to pursue some of the medical studies that we have in the US.  It definitely isn’t going to do us any good though.”

Well, I was not actually referring to India. Although it could be said that the country is coming up an Indian company Biocon is 16th biotech company in the world ranked in terms of market cap and revenue.

Actually I was referring more to the East Asian nations. For example, South Korea, Japan, China, Singapore. Over there the society or more specifically their [main] religion does not really see anything wrong with the idea of evolution or stem cell research.

I did not realize how narrow and fear based evolutionists were.  The mention of God has really freaked some people out. 

It stands to reason that creationism and evolution would be taught as reasonable theories in biology.  They are after all the two predominant thoughts in our society if not the world.  All other theories are really offshoots of these two.  Present the two and let the students decide.

Please keep the judicial system out of it.  The ACLU, give me a break.  They are just another form of censorship with a different label.

I really need to learn not to read replies from Creationists when drinking hot coffee. Now I have to clean off my monitor.

I did not realize how narrow and fear based evolutionists were.  The mention of God has really freaked some people out.

Not sure what you’re basing either of those statements on.

It stands to reason that creationism and evolution would be taught as reasonable theories in biology.  They are after all the two predominant thoughts in our society if not the world.  All other theories are really offshoots of these two.  Present the two and let the students decide.

Except that Creationism isn’t a theory, let alone a reasonable one, and thusly has no place in a science classroom. I can’t think of a single offshoot of Creationism so any examples you can provide would be… illuminating. Creationism is religious ideology and belongs in the Church, not the classroom.

Using your logic we could argue that there are “theories” that the Holocaust never happened so we should teach both that it did and that it didn’t and let the students decide for themselves. That’s a pretty stupid idea, all things considered.

Please keep the judicial system out of it.  The ACLU, give me a break.  They are just another form of censorship with a different label.

Keep Creationism out of the schools and there won’t be any need for the judicial system to get involved. It’s pretty simple, really.

As for the ACLU being just another form of censorship, again it would be nice if you backed up your claim in some manner.

lachaim regurgitated:

It stands to reason that creationism and evolution would be taught as reasonable theories in biology.  They are after all the two predominant thoughts in our society if not the world.  All other theories are really offshoots of these two.  Present the two and let the students decide.

No, it’s not.  Where the hell did you get the ridiculous idea that creationism is a reasonable theory?  Do you even know what a theory consists of?  The only use creationism could possibly have in a scientific context is as an example of what a theory is NOT.

As to the predominant spewing:

The number of people who believe in a theory has nothing to do with the truth of the theory.  Evolution is the most codified theory in science not because a large number of people believe it, but because it is proven many, many, many times over through genetics.  The other is just superstitous wishful thinking.

For the love of pete, I wish the superstitious idiots would at least READ a basic science book.

as has been stated here, which is obvious to anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together, ID/Creationism etc. is NOT a “Theory” by any stretch of the imagination, hell its really not even a “Hypothesis” except by a very lose definition.

ID is nothing but an “Argument” against the very real and overwhelmingly proven “Theory of Evolution”

ID in and of itself holds ZERO scientific value, there is not ONE single Falsifiable thus verifiable shred of evidence to support it.
The entire reason behind ID is to fruitlessly try to prove Evolution wrong, which it fails at miserably.

Now depending on the Teacher this “could” actually be good, because what this does is open up the ignorance of Creationism to critical thinking and demanding Falsifiable evidence which of course is impossible.

A “good” Science teacher would eat this up in a class setting, divide the class in 2 groups of Evolution Vs ID and have each side draw up a Hypothesis, then using verifiable and Falsifiable evidence/data provide a workable theory to be critiqued by the other team.

Naturally the Evolution side has volumes of Falsifiable data to draw from.
The ID side of the class has absolutely ZERO, a good teacher would explain very carefully what a Hypothesis is then what Scientific Theory means then each time the ID side tries to present their “Argument” he/she would simply point out that is not a Theory keep trying.
At the end of the day or 2-3 days however long you wanted to stretch it would declare the Evolution side the winner because they are the only ones that could even present a Scientific Theory.
Then the rest of the year concentrate on factual reality.

Now what I wonder is exactly how is a teacher going to teach ID? rather obvious that no science teacher has ever been taught such manure as a viable theory for anything pertaining to any of the natural sciences. So, what is a science teacher going to do? put in some ridiculous video tape made by the so called “Discovery Institute”? How exactly does the school board expect a teacher to teacher something they themselves have never been taught.

Then comes the BAD situation, when you have some born again nutjob pretending to be a science teacher just salivating at the prospect of being able to proselytize his/her class.
Myself Id love to be either a student OR a teacher in that situation, as a student Id leave the so called teacher in the fetal position after every class because id eat him alive, as a teacher id have so much fun showing how utterly absurd ID is I would begin each class with a shit eating grin.
So this “could” hypothetically be a good thing as I refuse to believe that more than a small fraction of science teachers could possibly even remotely believe in Creationism/ID, thus the vast majority would show it for what it is in their class, which is nothing but a argument against evolution based entirely on christian dogma. Then proceed to disprove it in a class setting.

Nunya, you have been missed

I must say I have missed this forum and all of you guys also.

Here is decent talk show I like to listen to once in awhile that covers this subject.

http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?prgCode=TOTN&showDate=06-Feb-2004&segNum=3&mediaPref=WM

http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?prgCode=TOTN&showDate=19-Nov-2004&segNum=1&mediaPref=WM

It appears that im the first person to comment on this sight that is actually from Dover, The Dover Press release about the subject states that all they want to do is teach flaws or gaps in Darwins THEORY. Now im no biology major but I know that every aspect of science is prone to some type of error, so now because our school is trying to teach those errors we have several law suits being filed against us? I’m not saying i believe in Darwinism nor intelligent design, but i am saying that Darwins theory has its problems, perhaps why its called a THEORY

Yes, thanks I have read a couple of science books and I do have somewhat of a handle on what a theory is.  I don’t pretend to be an expert but appreciate the ability to express my thoughts on this forum.

Let’s define: 

the·o·ry (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with “laws of nature,” suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, “It’s only a theory.” For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because “Gravity is only a theory.” Wilson, E. Bright. An Introduction to Scientific Research (McGraw-Hill, 1952).

“The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.” Intelligent Design Network, Inc.

Evolution has not been proven scientifically.  I am not aware of any experimental tests that have proven evolution.  Adaptation has been proven.  Missing links have not been found.  No new species have evolved from something else.  Yet evolution is taught throughout science books as a viable explanation (fact) for everything and is not identified as a theory but as a fact.  It is a biased attempt to push one theory above another.  The theory of creationism (oops, sorry Intelligent Design) was around well before the theory of evolution, meaning it’s not correct to say that ID is just a counter attack to the thoughts on evolution. 

To label someone as superstitious because of their belief in ID is narrow, shallow and an attempt to intimidate.

Les in response to your critique of my logic...the Holocaust is not a theory but a proven documented historical fact.  It is not an appropriate analogy in this context.  I agree it is a stupid idea to present the Holocaust in this manner.  My logic did not suggest that.

I am not suggesting that a priest, rabbi, monk theologian teach a science class.  Just present the “theories” that are out there as “theories”.  Stop pushing evolution as fact until it is proven.

“The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.�

FALSE. First off ID is NOT a “Scientific Theory”
It is merely a “Religious Argument” to try and disprove Evolution which it fails miserably to do.
ID can NEVER attain the pinnacle of theory as there is not a single shred of Falsifiable thus verifiable evidence to support it.

Evolution has not been proven scientifically.  I am not aware of any experimental tests that have proven evolution.  Adaptation has been proven.  Missing links have not been found.  No new species have evolved from something else.  Yet evolution is taught throughout science books as a viable explanation (fact) for everything and is not identified as a theory but as a fact.  It is a biased attempt to push one theory above another.  The theory of creationism (oops, sorry Intelligent Design) was around well before the theory of evolution, meaning it’s not correct to say that ID is just a counter attack to the thoughts on evolution

FALSE, in actuality Evolution has never once in 150 years been “Disproven” at all, Scientist are not trying to prove the theory of evolution, they are always trying to DISprove it, to date that has never happened, not even close, every prediction, and all data has added up and come true, 1000s of missing links have been found.
There are hundreds of transitional fossils that pretty clearly show species evolving.

For instance all Dogs have evolved from Wolves.
there is strong evidence that Birds have evolved from certain species of Dinosaurs. Whales are certainly known to have evolved from Mesonychids a 4 LEGGED mammal from over 65 million years ago.

Edumakate thineself.
http://edwardtbabinski.us/whales/

To label someone as superstitious because of their belief in ID is narrow, shallow and an attempt to intimidate

Well to believe something with zero verifiable evidence of it that is all based on religious dogma pretty much translates to “Superstition”
and correct it is just a belief.
An Atheist or a fellow Christian whom knows Evolution is Fact is merely trying to educate you.

Evolution IS Fact the Theory of evolution is just the explanations of those FACTS.

There’s a creationist site somewhere that sports a do-not-use list of arguments. It’s tempting to cross-check the rant above against it.

“For instance all Dogs have evolved from Wolves.”

Cultures bred wolves to get dogs with characteristics/traits that were more desirable.  This breeding has taken thousands of years to get the dogs we know now.  The wolf and the dog are still the same just different in appearance.  This is not proof for evolution.

“FALSE, in actuality Evolution has never once in 150 years been “Disprovenâ€? at all, Scientist are not trying to prove the theory of evolution, they are always trying to DISprove it, to date that has never happened...”

They are trying to disprove a theory not a scientific law.  It is still in the process of being proven.  Creationism is still trying to be disproven.  It would seem that the theory of evolution is the falsifiable that gives validation to the theory of creationism as a legitimate theory.

My argument is not that either one (evolution vs. creationsim) is fact or fiction it is that both should be presented and allowed.  Just look at the discussions that have appeared in this dialogue.  If the students of Dover can carry on this dialogue then the system of education has done its job.  Again do not rob the students of the joy of searching through countless hours of research and arguments to come to their own conclusions.

Ahh so that’s how Dogs came to be eh?
Man took a wolf and bred it with what? and how many years ago did we do this?
http://www.nhm.org/exhibitions/dogs/evolution/evolution.html

They are trying to disprove a theory not a scientific law.  It is still in the process of being proven.  Creationism is still trying to be disproven.  It would seem that the theory of evolution is the falsifiable that gives validation to the theory of creationism as a legitimate theory.

LOL, K lets try this one more time.
Creationism/ID is NOT a Theory, there is nothing there to disprove, nor is it disprovable.
Basically the same as this:
I know for an absolute 100% fact as gospel truth that purple flying unicorns live on the dark side of the moon, they are quite shy and have the ability make themselves invisible if disturbed.

K now disprove it.

That is creationism, a complete fairytale without a shred of evidence to support it.
It is not a Theory.

Religion in any form has no business in a science class.
Creationism/ID is nothing but religious dogma.

Just out of curiosity, do you think the Earth is 4.55 Billion years old? or less than 10,000?

To quote Alec from evolutionpages (from a post made on a Catholic forum):

I’ve been engaged in the evolution/creation debate long enough to realise that evidence, logic and reason manage to persuade few creationists. So my ambition in that regard is limited. I am, however interested by the psychology behind creationist ‘arguments’

Just to repeat what is obvious to anybody but creationists: Creationism, ID, or however they try to disguise it is not a scientific theory, because it isn’t falsifiable. Reading up on Karl Popper helps…

Interestingly enough, one can argue that scientific theories themselves evolve. ID, of course, is a stillbirth.

Again the dog/wolf is a lovely example of adaption.  The wolf grew smaller in regions of less food.  It lost its shaggy fur in warmer climates.  People breed and still breed dogs for various characteristics...hunting, laps, color, size etc.  ID is a theory and evolution is an attempt to disprove it.

It seems that it all comes down to the cosmic questions ?whay am I here and ?What am I here for.  This questions do belong in school.  Science is only an offshoot to answering these questions so is the study of religion, history, anthropology, math, art etc.

Ponder this concerning the “fossil records”.  Today 35 million people world wide are addicted to Meth.  It is a scientific fact that 11.3% of the brain that controls moods, cravings, rewards etc. has been destroyed and that the white part of the brain is enlarged.  I believe this info is found in Discover Mag.  Two thousands years from now scientist find a fossil record and conclude that man evolved into this form.  This is what is happening with fossil records found today.  This assumption would “logically” be made because there are no records documenting the epidemic.

Again the dog/wolf is a lovely example of adaption.  The wolf grew smaller in regions of less food.  It lost its shaggy fur in warmer climates.  People breed and still breed dogs for various characteristics...hunting, laps, color, size etc.  ID is a theory and evolution is an attempt to disprove it.

So then you agree with “Natural Selection” good

Although for some odd reason you Christians are simply incapable of understanding what theory means, Im beginning to think the Xians must be a distinct subspecies that has evolved the ability to completely ignore factual reality.

Evolution has zero to do with ID, nor is trying to disprove some religious argument.

Evolution has zero to do with ID, nor is trying to disprove some religious argument.

But it succeeds nevertheless. That’s the problem, right there.

This thread reminds me of…

Hey, lachaim, you’re forgetting what evolution means, in reality:

change over time

Whether it’s human-induced or a response to the environment, it’s still evolution.  Darwin outlined his theory for a mechanism of evolution, namely, Natural Selection.

One example in historical times (so you don’t have to rely on that pesky fossil record) of natural selection is the peppered moth.

scroll down to the evidence section

How can you say that change does not occur when it truly does and when you’ve described it yourself?  How do these changes conflict with religion?

The part where Creationists really get bugged is “How did evolution/the earth begin”?  and also in particular, they hate the evolution of humans. Evolution itself, as a mechanism, does not contradict religion.  But scientists’ related theories about the origins of the earth and humans could. So stop taking issue with evolution as a mechanism being taught in schools.  Would you really tell a child that all the animals in the world are just the same today as they were 4000 years ago?

Now as for the origins of the earth and humans, let’s talk about geology and physical anth here. In fact, that link I posted for the peppered moths gives a good account of the geology.  It is true that scientists are not entirely sure when/how the universe was created.  They have a good idea of how the earth formed by watching other solar systems.  There is scientific evidence in the form of really old rocks that the earth is really old.  The bible doesn’t make any comment on the specific age of the earth (that one was conjured up by some guy*), so it really doesn’t conflict.  Who is to say that the rocks and stuff coming together to make the earth wasn’t done by god’s hand?

about the guy

That leaves us with the evolution of humans, and that’s the toughie to reconcile.  Physical anthropologists have lots of skulls and remains from humans along every part of the evolutuionary path.  But the thought of humans evolving from some common ancestor with the chimps and bonobos just doesn’t fit with their idyllic vision of The Creation.  And this is where our debate between scientific theories vs. creationist belief comes in.  Just to put it in perspective.  I think that if creationists actually learned about evolution and thought about it instead of simply rejecting it out of hand, they might find a lot of things they agree with in there...as for human descent, I still think science class should teach science, and even the debate between creationists and scientists, but ID has no business being presented as a valid science when it’s clearly not.

As for the theory bit:
If you truly understood the scientific method and theories, you would know that part of the scientific method is explicitly NOT trying to prove.  Theories should be falsifiable, meaning that you can provide tests whose results could disprove it.  Many such tests have been made of evolution and they have all failed to disprove it.

No nunyabiz I do not agree with natural selection in the strict evolutionist sense.  I am agreeing to adaptation used in a physiological sense, i.e. acclimatization.

Your right Shana I do believe in change and did not totally throw out Darwin’s theory.  As I stated earlier I’m not saying Darwin’s theory should not be taught. 

The part where Creationists really get bugged is “How did evolution/the earth beginâ€??  and also in particular, they hate the evolution of humans. Evolution itself, as a mechanism, does not contradict religion.  But scientists’ related theories about the origins of the earth and humans could. So stop taking issue with evolution as a mechanism being taught in schools.  Would you really tell a child that all the animals in the world are just the same today as they were 4000 years ago?

I agree with this thought.

“That leaves us with the evolution of humans, and that’s the toughie to reconcile.  Physical anthropologists have lots of skulls and remains from humans along every part of the evolutuionary path.  But the thought of humans evolving from some common ancestor with the chimps and bonobos just doesn’t fit with their idyllic vision of The Creation.  And this is where our debate between scientific theories vs. creationist belief comes in.  Just to put it in perspective.  I think that if creationists actually learned about evolution and thought about it instead of simply rejecting it out of hand, they might find a lot of things they agree with in there...as for human descent, I still think science class should teach science, and even the debate between creationists and scientists...”

I agree with this as well.  I am not arguing that ID should be taught as a science per se.  Just that the argument should not be excluded from the classroom...to restate what Shana said.

I understand that theory is a set of hypotheses that one sets out to disprove through various experiments and tests.  Truly time is the greatest tests of both theories.  Just because a test has not been created to disprove creationism does not mean it is not a viable explanation.  Why is gravity still a theory?  What is the evolutionary logic behind the exsistance of weaker species living well past what should be expected? 

I have not resorted to circular logic or “Bible thumping”....yet.  I’ll reserve that for Spocko.  An aside to Spocko...Jonah was swallowed by a fish. 

Nunyabiz, if I were in school again I would definitely enjoy your class.  I enjoyed the discussion with Theo

It really feels like role reversal...I mean creationist are now the darwinist and vice versa.  Irony at its best.

It stands to reason that creationism and evolution would be taught as reasonable theories in biology.  They are after all the two predominant thoughts in our society if not the world.  All other theories are really offshoots of these two.  Present the two and let the students decide.

I agree with this as well.  I am not arguing that ID should be taught as a science per se.  Just that the argument should not be excluded from the classroom...to restate what Shana said.

How can you say that when it’s obvious from previous statements and from statements within the same post that you do think of ID as science? 

I am not saying ID should be presented with any credibility, mind you.  But I enjoyed watching the Scopes monkey trial movie.  Real scientists need to know why ID is not a science and how to defend the integrity of education.  I learned about ID in it’s proper place: as a crap attempt to debunk science because it’s not full of the garden of eden.
You’ve completely twisted my words and misread them, Lachaim. 

I understand that theory is a set of hypotheses that one sets out to disprove through various experiments and tests.  Truly time is the greatest tests of both theories.  Just because a test has not been created to disprove creationism does not mean it is not a viable explanation.  Why is gravity still a theory?  What is the evolutionary logic behind the exsistance of weaker species living well past what should be expected? 

That is wrong.  A hypothesis is an educated guess, pre-testing.  A theory is a tested hypothesis that has not been disproven.  Why don’t you suggest some tests for ID then?
Gravity itself is not a theory.  There is a theory for how it works.  You are mixing ideas here.  Give me some examples of your weaker species.

I am confused by your reference to role reversal…

Role reversal...creationist were refusing to let Darwin’s theory be taught in school.  Darwinist are now refusing to let the theory of ID be taught in school.

Fine just truly be scientific and teach the flaws of evolution and the holes in the concept.  Explain bats...weak species...did bats evolve from rodents?  How did they figure out how to use those wacking wings and radar?  Wow, miraculous.