school mandates changes to evolution.

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Th3 b0ng 1337, Nov 12, 2004.

  1. #1 Th3 b0ng 1337, Nov 12, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016

    DOVER, Pa. - When talk at the high school here turns to evolution, biology teachers have to make time for Charles Darwin as well as his detractors.

    With a vote last month, the school board in rural south-central Pennsylvania community is believed to have become the first in the nation to mandate the teaching of “intelligent design,” which holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by an unspecified higher power.

    Critics call the change in the ninth-grade biology curriculum a veiled attempt to require public schoolchildren to learn creationism, a biblical-based view that credits the origin of species to God. Schools typically teach evolution, the theory that Earth is billions of years old and that life forms developed over millions of years.

    The state American Civil Liberties Union chapter is reviewing the Dover Area School District case. Its Georgia counterpart, meanwhile, is fighting a suburban Atlanta district’s decision to include a warning sticker in biology textbooks that says evolution is “a theory, not a fact.”

    “What Dover has done goes much further than what’s happened in Georgia,” said Witold Walczak, legal director of the Pennsylvania ACLU. “As far as we can tell, Dover is the first school district that has actually mandated intelligent design.”

    From farmland to suburbs
    The district enrolls about 2,800 students. It encompasses the small, rural community of Dover borough, about 20 miles south of Harrisburg, and a patchwork of farmland and newer suburban developments in several surrounding townships.

    The revision was spearheaded by school board member William Buckingham, who heads the board’s curriculum committee.

    “I think it’s a downright fraud to perpetrate on the students of this district, to portray one theory over and over,” said Buckingham. “What we wanted was a balanced presentation.”

    Buckingham wanted the board to adopt an intelligent-design textbook, “Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins,” as a supplement to the traditional biology book, but no vote was ever taken. A few weeks before the new science curriculum was approved, 50 copies were anonymously donated to the high school.

    Although Buckingham describes himself as a born-again Christian and believes in creationism, “This is not an attempt to impose my views on anyone else,” he said.

    Dissenters resign
    Two of the dissenting board members, Carol Brown and her husband, Jeff, were so upset that they resigned after the 6-3 vote on Oct. 18.

    “We have a vocal group within the community who feel very strongly in an evangelical Christian way that there is no separation of church and state,” Carol Brown said. “Our responsibility to is to represent the viewpoints of all members of the community.”

    Statewide science-curriculum standards approved by Pennsylvania’s state Education Board merely ask students to “analyze data ... that are relevant to the theory of evolution.”

    When the standards were revised three years ago, the board considered language that would have required students to consider evidence that did not support evolution, but the board dropped the idea after critics alleged it would have led to the widespread teaching of creationism in public schools.

    Creationism repackaged?
    Critics of intelligent design contend it is creationism repackaged in more secular-sounding language.

    “Creationism in a cheap tuxedo,” said Nicholas Matzke, project information specialist for the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, Calif., which advocates for the teaching of evolution.

    Even the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which supports scientists studying intelligent-design theory, opposes mandating it in schools because it is a relatively new concept, said John West, associate director of the institute’s Center for Science and Culture.

    “We’re completely against anyone who says you should downgrade or limit the teaching of evolution,” West said.

    Uncertainty in school
    Dover biology teacher Jennifer Miller said the curriculum changes have left her uncertain about how to approach her evolution lesson.

    “If you put the words ’intelligent design’ into my curriculum, then I have to teach it,” said Miller, a 12-year veteran. “I’m not sure what that means as to how in-depth we have to go. ... I’m looking for more direction from the school board.”
  2. ok, while i personaly believe that there is a god of some sort, that is my OPINION and nothing else. It should not be something thats tought to students, they should teach what science gives them evidence of, and nothing more, if a student wants to believe theres a god, then fine, but schools shouldnt be allowed to theorize either way, because it is something that no one could possibly know.

    also, yes, the universe does hint at intelligent design. BUT, everything is made up of something smaller, something more simple in design. So why must it be assumed that something super complex is what created everything? Obviously the fact that the universe exists in the first place means that there are things that cant be comprehended by humans, but does that require that it be a god?
  3. Intelligent Design is a repackaged "God did it" argument. It's simply argument from incredulity with absolutely no supporting evidence.

    Creationism has been falsified 1 000 000 over. At this point it's simply Biologists and Geologists attempting to convince dumbasses from the Southern United States what the rest of the world has known for centuries. It's not Science in any way shape or form and has no place in any science class.

    And, before the creationists on this site get all uppity and talk about Macro and micro Evolution and how there's no evidence for the former, they are the same thing and are supported by mountains of Evidence.
  4. This reaches new heights of foolishness!
    Have you ever actually looked at the odds?! To quote Dr William Lane Craig (a Creationist): "No-one disputes the POSSIBILITY that the universe came into being by chance. However, the PROBABILITY of this is something that no rational person would cling to. The odds being that the universe was created by chance are 1:1x10 to the power of 180,000."
    Whilst the possibility the universe being created by chance is mathematically possible are not in debate, the likelyhood is something far different. Any reasonable human being, Christian or not, accepts that those odds are beyond human comprehension. Yet I find some treat those odds as fact, as though they were 1:1. Universe created and existing by chance. Possible? Yes. Probable? No. This is not in dispute.
    To suggest that the universe is, at its core, not complex, being made up of an infinite number of smaller objects and systems is potentially the most far-fetched idea that I have ever heard. No single scientist, or indeed, intelligent human, would subscribe to such a ridiculous and foundation-less concept.
    Macro and micro evolution the same? Khari, you will now provide proof to back up this statement. The senior minister of my church is a scientist, has been since his uni days of over thirty years ago. He is no fool. On evolution he says: "I reject evolution as a Christian as it is ungodly. I reject evolution as a scientist as it is simply lacking evidence. Even those within the scientific community are not in agreement with the various scenarios and types of evolution. I am totally opposed to the teaching of evolutionary theory, when it is taught to children as empirical fact. It is not."
    Lest we of course forget the fact that the question must be posed of the big bang idea: "What caused it? What was there before-hand?" As any reasonable human will also aknowledge, nothing happens by accident, there are always causational reasons. The universe did not come about by accident. There was a catalyst. I believe that being that God set the universe into being (when was the last time YOU made something out of nothing?).
    Come now, the universe is made up of an incredible tapestry of smaller systems - that is plain to all. But to suggest that the inter-relating of these systems, or their existance at all is the cause of incomprehensible chance is not scientific, nor something that warrants faith in whatsoever.
  5. I thought you were athiest...
  6. If you are referring to me then no, very much a Christian. If you were not referring to me I apolgize.
  7. The mistake you're making is that the way the universe turned out was an intended destination. There are nearly unlimited different possibilities for what might have happened. Yes, I suppose if you take the current state of the world and work backwards, it seems quite unlikely. Too bad that's about the most illogical way to approach it.

    And what the hell is with all the references to the creation of the universe? Do you not realize you are no longer even talking about the same theory. The big bang theory (which does not exclude a god in any way) is completely different from Evolution, which deals solely with explaining the diversity of life as we see it now. Even Abiogenesis (That life formed from non living chemicals) is completely different from evolution. But I guess it does make your argument appear stronger to those who haven't a #$%#ing clue when you lump together other theories in with Evolution.

    And yes, Scientists are in disagreement over a few details (gradualism vs. Punctuated Equilibrium is what you're referring to). Does this somehow make Evolution less credible?

    Micro evolution spread over large periods of time amounts to macro evolution. Can you point to a different mechanism acting between the two? They are the exact same process. There's no magic barrier between species (other than an ability to breed), despite how much having one might make you feel special.

    That being said, what the hell does that have to do with whether or not ID should be taught in school. It makes absolutely no testable predictions, has no evidence in its favor, and isn't even Science.
    You are right, this does reach new heights of foolishness.
  8. you moron, any way you look at it, something came from nothing. lets say that there is a god, who did create the universe, where did he come from? and if you leave room for the possibility that logic we cant comprehend explains this gods presence, then why can you not also leave open the possibility that logic we cannot comprehend is behind what created our universe? you small minded fool. step outside the box, this is a discussion about things that exist outside of our universe that obviously cant be explained, and here you are quoting numbers like some kind of idiot. please, dont even post in this thread anymore.

    edit: all of you creationist are in the same box, you seem to think that the only other alternative view to your god creating the universe is something totaly scientific, but its seemingly obvious that something we cannot explain is why we are here in the first place, and just because something cannot be explained doesnt automaticaly mean that the God of the bible did it, you #$%#ing idiot.
  9. Oh, and anyone who would reject a scientific theory because it is "ungodly" is not a scientist, regardless of what their degree suggests.
  10. seriously, my911turbo, your kind of small minded thinking, which sadly, is pretty widespread, is preventing the human race from advancing. Somehow completely retarded small minded views of the world like yours still flurish, and even seem to be making progress in stunting the mass population from understanding how things work. you should be #$%#ing ashamed of your beliefs views of how things are.
  11. i'm not being sarcastic or anything, but howcome they still call it the 'theory of evolution' and not the 'fact of evolution'? Like what is the actual definition of 'theory'?
  12. It doesn't get any better than a theory. It's still a theory that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way around. The theory of evolution is the model created to describe what we observe. It must make testable predictions and be backed by sufficient data before it can be considered a legit theory (Some exceptions are made, such as string theory, where most predictions made are outside our ability to test).
  13. because there is no direct proof of it, it cant be called fact. there is tons of evidence that strongly supports it and little that does not. but still it cannot be proven beyond a doubt, so it is a theory, and not fact.
  14. Same reason why gravity is still a theory. It's really not something that you can directly prove. It's just something that makes a whole shitload of sense.
  15. Proof is for math and alcohol. There is no proof in science.
  16. I like seeing honest questions. It makes for a good break from the "No you're an idiot!!!" quality posts that are so common in this forum.
  17. Theories are something like the theory of gravity. Its tested and tested with tons of similar results and 99% of the time everything happens the way it should. But there are occurances that still aren't explained. At least, thats how I was taught. Anyway, theory is constantly used incorrectly, I don't know if evolution is a theory.
  18. yet somehow math got mixed into a discussion about things outside of our universe, hahaha, man some people are pretty goddamn stupid.
  19. Not only is science seriously related to math, but it also relies heavily on proof not related to math.
  20. Yeah, it's a theory. Even if we could explain everything we've ever observed through evolution, it would never be "more" than a theory.
  21. Yes, but you can never truly prove a scientific theory, you can only amass more and more evidence, which is what I was getting at. You can however prove a mathematical theorum.
  22. My understanding of the difference between a law and a theory is that laws are proven mathematically, and theories are true most of the time, but either haven’t been tested completely enough to become a law, or there is no way to prove it absolutely.
  23. I've been thinking about it all week, and I really can find no merit on which ID can be successfully argued. Any thoughts to the contrary, because I'm sure Americans have more experience dealing with the arguments presented by IDers (I didn't really know ID or creation was taken seriously until I came to this site).
  24. The second part of your definition is far more accurate than the first. No amount of testing has ever or will ever result in a theory becoming law, as the two are fundamentally different.
  25. How then, do you explain why its called the "Laws of Gravity"?

Share This Page