“Ok, maybe I'm not keeping up, but I'm not a Nancy.

You were quoting they want full and equal time? Who does? IDers aren't asking for that. That's what I'm saying.”

“This is a response I got from another teacher from another thread on the same subject

"Pete commented that "evolution is a far more plausible explanation of how we all came to be, and I think that I share this opinion with many others in the general public... Public opinion does drive what our students are taught."
While I completely support stressing evolution in the classroom, I unfortunately don't think that the general public does. One would think that in our modern day, with such advanced knowledge, understanding, education, and technology, people would be supportive of sound scientific concepts and theories like evolution, but research and surveys taken show that evolution has very little support from the general public. I was shocked to read some of these results that were presented in an article from the Journal of Biological Education:
-The American public overwhelming endorses creationism and wants it to be taught in public schools, a 1999 survey found that 80% wanted creationism taught
-agencies such as the National Science Foundation often edit their public reports to not contain the word "evolution"
-in PA, 1/3 of science teachers do not think that evolution is central to biology
-in 1999, Tom DeLay (US House of Reps) claimed that teaching evolution is linked to school violence, birth control, and abortion !!!???
And since public opinion does often influence education, it is pretty scary to think what could happen."

This is my contention all along, if the general public really wants these other ideas taught then why aren't they? Looks to me from the state standards like the general public (those who, when concentrated can change things believe it or not) wants us to teach evolution and thats it.
Check the Pa state education standards. Nope nothing in here about ID and creationism.

I gotta tell ya until the standards are changed, and the Standardized tests that they are geared to are changed the most you will ever get out of teachers is a little blurb that other theories exist. If you all want this stuff taught in the public schools why aren't you out there doing something about it?

Pa state education standards
3.3.10.C
C.Describe how genetic information is inherited and expressed.
•Compare and contrast the function of mitosis and meiosis.
•Describe mutations’ effects on a trait’s expression.
•Distinguish different reproductive patterns in living things e.g., budding, spores, fission).
•Compare random and selective breeding practices and their results (e.g., antibiotic resistant bacteria).
•Explain the relationship among DNA, genes and chromosomes.
•Explain different types of inheritance (e.g., multiple allele, sex-influenced traits).
•Describe the role of DNA in protein synthesis as it relates to gene expression.

3.3.10.D
D.Explain the mechanisms of the theory of evolution.
•analyze data from fossil records, similarities in anatomy and physiology, embryological studies and DNA studies that are relevant to the theory of evolution.
•Explain the role of mutations and gene recombination in changing a population of organisms.
•Compare modern day descendants of extinct species and propose possible scientific accounts for their present appearance.
•describe the factors (e.g., isolation,
differential reproduction) affecting
gene frequency in a population over time and
their consequences.
•describe and differentiate between the roles of natural selection and genetic drift.
•Describe changes that illustrate major events in the earth’s development based on a time line.
•explain why natural selection can act only on inherited traits.
•Apply the concept of natural selection to illustrate and account for a species’ survival, extinction or change over time.”

“And above all, impress upon students that they are merely the result of random accidents, their existence has no meaning and they are not responsible to anyone or anything.

Intelligent design may possibly be verified at some point

and the possiblities of naturalistic origins of all apparent things may be shown as an incomplete explanation.”

“And above all, impress upon students that they are merely the result of random accidents, their existence has no meaning and they are not responsible to anyone or anything

woah. talk about over-simplification of the issue.

Intelligent design may possibly be verified at some point

possibly. but until then, people should not pretend it is science, and leave it in the realm of philosophy/metaphysics

and the possiblities of naturalistic origins of all apparent things may be shown as an incomplete explanation

of course its an incomplete explanation. no one is claiming it to be complete.

my belief is that our origins transcends the Creative/Naturalistic dichotomy and is something far beyond what our feeble minds can even begin to comprehend. its not random, its not intelligent, its not a combination, its something i dont even have the words for”

“possibly. but until then, people should not pretend it is science, and leave it in the realm of philosophy/metaphysics

So you don't mind if we hold Big Bang theory to the same standard? You do realize it hasn't been verified, right?”

“its a lot more scientific than goddIDit”

“in a science class, you teach what the majority of scientists believe. if the majority of scientists dont believe in the big bang, thats news to me. granted, the majority of their evidence is in mathematical proofs, but thats still better than "garsh shucks, Somebody Did It, but i'll be shucky-durned if i know how"”

“Actually, "God did it" is pretty specific.

Your theory about teaching what the majority of scientists believe is incorrect.”

“Actually, "God did it" is pretty specific

really? since no one can agree on the nature of god, what he can or cannot do, or whether or not (s)he really exists, thats a pretty flimsy theory. so, lets say for the sake of argument, goddIDit. well, HOW did god doo it?

your theory about my theory about teaching what the majority of scientists believe being incorrect is incorrect.

fine. if 10 percent of scientists believe goddIDit, then we'll give 10 percent of time dedicated to our origins to goddIDit. and be snickering all the way”

“HOW did god doo it?

God said "Let there be light, and there was light, and it was good." etc..”

“That's more than the scientists have on the Big Bang event.”

“"Let there be light, and there was light, and it was good

very pretty. very poetic. and thats all it is. it explains squat.”

“You see crash, God has the ability to do anything. He can create anything He wants. He did. He created you. You should thank Him instead of being so ungrateful. He wants to have a loving relationship with you. He cares for you even though you don't acknowledge Him. He sent Son to die on the cross and suffer the worse kind of suffering to take your place in hell. All He asks in return is to acknowledge that. Go to Him crash. He's waiting for you.”

“stop trolling”

“I'm not trolling crash. That's truth, as you know.”

“The concept of intelligent design does not necassarily imply or ratify judeo-christianity.

Still, I find the Biblical creation account (if you get over the 'day' thing and the 'flood' thing) to be amazingly insightful if merely written by a parttime goat-herder, parttime Vice-Pharoah like Moses.

Not to mention the writings of David or whoever in Psalms 104.”

“The concept of intelligent design does not necassarily imply or ratify judeo-christianity.

so what, if its not the monotheistic one God, then what, a pantheon of gods? intelligent design by committee? everybody knows nothing intelligent was ever done by committee”

“Oh no Sirpete.. you went and told them how to change the standards.. that information could be hazardous to our minds in the hands of the general public. . . It is risky enough in the hands of the state agencies.
i like the PA standards. They stood up to the test of ID protests and creationist theories and separated "science" from "philosophy" . It was not easy and a lot of people were not happy. But they have about 10 years before the standards change... depending on the subject.”

““Ok, maybe I'm not keeping up, but I'm not a Nancy.

You were quoting they want full and equal time? Who does? IDers aren't asking for that. That's what I'm saying.”

N-ncy,

I was quoting someone from the program I watched on the fight to have creationjism taught side by side with evolution in a Georgia school district. They wanted equal time.

Read, follow or get outta the way.”

“Yes, there are exceptions. There are also scientists who don't believe in the Big Bang. Should we not say the scientific community believes there was a Big Bang? That's absurd to use the exception to the rule as the rule.”

“"That's absurd to use the exception to the rule as the rule.”

Exactly why creationism should kept out of the public school systems. :)”

“You do realize most people believe in a creator, so creationism isn't the exception.”

“Even if that is true, which you haven’t shown, it doesn’t mean it belongs in the public schools. In the church, yes, school, no. Let mom and dad teach it at home along with sex education. Unless they are too lazy or don’t want to be bothered with it.”

“from Washington Times

Most Americans believe it all starts in heaven: 64 percent of us agree that "human beings were created directly by God," according to a Harris poll released yesterday.
The belief was pronounced along partisan divides: 73 percent of Republican respondents and 75 percent of conservatives believe God is the ultimate Creator. The figure stood at 58 percent among Democrats and 48 percent among liberals.
The poll found that while college graduates, adults ages 18 to 54, Democrats, liberals and those living in the Northeast and West support "evolution in larger numbers ... among these groups, majorities believe in creationism."
Among college graduates, for example, the poll found that almost half believe in creationism, while 31 percent supported evolutionary theory.
Debates over the divide make for piquant politics in the public arena.
In recent years, school districts in Kansas, Pennsylvania, Alabama and other states have wrangled over science and religion in the classroom, the debate further compounded by the rise of a third theory -- "intelligent design," which maintains that humans are so complex that a powerful, sentient force is logically behind their creation.
Harris found that 10 percent of Americans believed in that particular idea.
Yet the nation still supports free choice in the classroom. A majority -- 55 percent -- felt that creationism, evolutionary and intelligent design all had a place in public schools. Just less than a quarter said creationism alone should be taught, while 12 percent favored evolution only and 4 percent intelligent design only.
Meanwhile, 54 percent of us do not think that humans developed from an earlier species, a figure which stood at 46 percent in 1994, according to Harris. Another 48 percent felt that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution was not proven by fossil evidence, while 47 percent said humans and apes do not share common ancestry.
Simian heritage was a more popular theory among Democrats, however. According to the poll, 61 percent of Democrats think man and ape evolved from the same family tree, an idea shared by 30 percent of the Republicans.
The poll found that 49 percent felt that plants and animals had evolved from some other species, however.
Such things fuel spirited discourse.”

“My point is; the majority of Americans believe in G-d. Does that mean He should be taught in public schools? Do you want the public school system teaching your kids religion? I don’t.”

“I don't want them teaching religion FrankeNigal.

I do want them to not teach "theory" as "fact", and put out various viewpoints, especially ones that are this prevelant.”

“so s-rge, exactly how much ID do you think should be taught versus evolution/big bang?

50-50? 80-20? 20-80?”

“Graavity, of course, is a theory. It's still hugely important to a lot of physics (including rocket science).”

“What should be taught in the class room should not be based on opinion polls. The purpose of education is to educate, to reduce ignorance, not to spread it or maintain it.

From a New York Times Article:

"Dr. Miller's data reveal some yawning gaps in basic knowledge. American adults in general do not understand what molecules are (other than that they are really small). Fewer than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century."

If only 2/3 of the people can't identify DNA as a key to heridity, then that's 2/3s of the people who are no-where near competent to assess the validity of evolutionary theory.

The whole article is at available, but you'll have to register to read it:


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html?ex=1129608000&en=6307d706e5726261&ei=5070&pagewanted=1&ei=5070&en=631977063d726261&ex=1125547200
last edited: 10/16/05 7:22:15 PM”

“crash - All I ask is that the mention it. I think that would be about .0000000000000000001-99.9999999999999999999”

“The whole article is at available, but you'll have to register to read it:

i dont think i can trust anything from those lezbean sites you frequent, lezxing :=P”

“I'm curious here.
How do Biblical literalists deal with the issue of the earth revolving around the sun?”

“.0000000000000000001-99.9999999999999999999

fair enough :-D”

“pedxing - What's the problem? If you're specific I would like to try to answer your question.”

“There are quite a few Biblical passages that suggest that the Earth is in fixed place. These are among the passages used against Copernicus and Galileo.

My question is about how Biblical literalists cope with that. Was this metaphor? Was it wrong? Or have the passages been misinterpreted?

Aside from being interested in the Bible and its interpretation, part of what is behind this curiousity is: At one point, Galileo's work was seen as a huge threat to faith and to belief in Biblical teachings. Yet, in the end Galileo and belief in the Bible got along quite well. I do wonder if something along these lines canwork well for evolution.

(I've seen an interesting debate over the Flat earth things and end up with two sides that give very different interpretations of the ancient Hebrew terms and come to very different conclusions and it is beyond my competence to reconcile them.)”

“No Biblical passage suggests the Earth is in a fixed place. Language is used at times that is exactly like we use today, like "The sun sets in the west", or "the sun rose at 6:14am".

For more information, read this: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2178

I think you overemphasize (along with others) the extent to which Galileo's work was seen as a a threat to Biblical teachings. What I would suggest you is instead of reading what is written in history (just look at how the news is skewed from day to day now), read the passages in full context for yourself and determine if Galileo's teachings undermine God's message.

Most Christian's I know (I come from a very conservative church and circle of Christian believers) embrace science and see little or no conflict. Are there exceptions to the rule? Of course, and they are the ones that make it on Katie Couric's little production. What Christian's believe is written in the Bible ... nowhere else. Not in the paper, not on the internet, not in the history books.”

“While I Beleive in creation I dont believe in mixing religeon with science. Public schools sponsered by the goverment should not be teaching any religeon - including atheism. Simply put they should stick to provable fact and no more. Big bang and monkey to man have not been proven and should not be taught as anything but possible theories. Evolution as a process does occur and there is plenty of evidence to support it on a small scale as an every day process BUT it should not be taught as the source of our existance since there is no real proof that we came from any lower lifeform. Not even Darwin intended his theorey to be over-extended this way.

Churches alone should teach religeon and public schools should stick to science. Put anouther way religeon teaches us why we are here and science teaches how we are here. "God did It" is not a scientificly acceptable answer for any theorum.

Incidentally ID allows for the seeding of earth by aliens as well. but since the existance of a god or alien cannot be proven the theory is invalid....

.02$”

“"God did It" is not a scientificly acceptable answer for any theorum.- Lumberjack

Isn't science the search for the truth?

If God did do it, then the truth would be just that.

To say it's not an acceptable answer for any theorom is being very closed minded and unscientific.

$.05
last edited: 10/17/05 8:20:40 AM”

“IMHO for science, "God did it" would notbe acceptable. It would require careful definitions of terms, "Who/what is God?" "What exactly was it that God did?" - the of course some account of the means and process by which God did it. There would need to be objectively observable and measurable evidence to support each of these specifications.”

“Sarge: I think you see it in a way that I agree with. Galileo threatened some peoples interpretations of the Bible. People who do believe the Bible have a hard time separating what the Bible says, from what they say it is.

If you believe the Bible is literally true and the facts contradict what you know to be true, the first step would be to re-think your interpretation. One religious man I heard of said, "I do not own the truth, I strive to serve the truth."

Some time, I'll have to go through the Copernican debate in more detail and the flat earth stuff to confirm my gut impression that the Bible can be legitimately read either way - but a clear look at the world and the evidece suggests that for Bible Believers it has to be that the Bible is consistent with the idea that the earth is round and revolves around the sun and that God spread out the Heavens all in every direction... not as a dome).”

“IMHO for science, "God did it" would notbe acceptable. It would require careful definitions of terms, "Who/what is God?" "What exactly was it that God did?" - the of course some account of the means and process by which God did it. There would need to be objectively observable and measurable evidence to support each of these specifications. - pedxing

So you have a different standard for the Big Bang event than you do for God?

SOME People who do believe the Bible have a hard time

Some time, I'll have to go through the Copernican debate in more ... - pedxing

Don't make the mistake other make of making a mountain out of a molehill. It's standard human communication. If you read in a book that "The night fell and the wolves came out." are you going to put in a literary inquiry into the Library of Congress to see if night succumbs to gravity and wolves are gay? It's sometimes amusing to listen to non-Christians try to make something from nothing, whereas they don't even believe in Jesus in the first place, so why go through all the trouble? When Christian's do it it's just sad. People sin. People want to believe certain truths that support their preconceptions. Take a chill (everyone). Grab a soda. Put your feet up and read the Bible. It's not rocket science. It's written for the uneducated and educated alike. It's as complex as you want it to be. But when it's all said and done, it only reveals one truth. Jesus Christ is our Lord. He wants you to talk to Him. Yell at Him with fists in the air like I did before I was saved, if that helps. Just make an honest attempt to talk to Him. He'll be listening and you'll know it. The question is, will you turn your life over to Him? He'll take care of your every need.”

“What standard do I have for the big bang. Except for the "who" and the idea of agency, I'd have the same issues regarding the Big Bang.

For me, the Big Bang is just the leading theory in terms of scientific evidence. It accounts pretty well for most of what is known about the universe, but it has not held up long and it leaves much unexplained - whatever forces, energies, bubstance, natural laws, etc. that existed before the big bang would still need to be accounted for.

Evolution (including speciation) by natural selection - on the other hand has done an excellent job of standing the test of time. We've learned volumes and volumes about natural history, genetics, ontogenesis, the influence of genes on embryonic development, etc... since Darwin and the theory has proved extremely useful and the evidence has rovided tremendous and consistent support for evoltuion.

I assume Big Bang theory will, at the very least, undergo significant modification in thefuture and may end up being discarded or almost unrecognizable.

It could well be that some intelligence started or even supervised much of the creation and development of the universe or even life on earth. I suppose ID could one day develop into a scientific way to look into that possibility, and begin asking and adressing scientific questions about it. It hasn't happened yet.

"Creation science" with its "just so" stories about Kangaroos hopping across Pangea from the ark to Australia without leaving any evidence along the way would bea pretty poor example for anyone who sincerely wants to develop an ID science to follow.”

“The theory of microevolution has been useful in terms of understanding natural history ... blah blah ...

I don't (personally) know any Christians who don't believe in microevolution.

Macroevolution on the other hand is a totally different story.

Regardless, I haven't heard you yet speak out against teaching Big Bang theory in schools. You seem to be fixated on one side of the educational dillema.

PS - evolution is another discussion from ID. Why do "scientists" confuse the Big Bang event with evolution?”

“Big Bang theory is a scientific theory. I'd teach it as speculation that could well turn out to be true, that has been informed and refined in the light of evidence. I'd suggest it may or may not hold up to further scrutiny.

ID - as I've said before could be mentioned as an alternative orientation. I don't think it should be taught as a theory with much empirical support.

Sarge, where do you draw the line between micro and macro evolution?”

“BTW: I don't see any scientists confusing evolution with bing bang.

I've heard ID people talk about ID and species, as well as ID and the structure of the unvierse.”

“Your requirements for what is science is limited by what you can presently test for. That is an unheard of precedent in science. What is gravity? Scienctists do not know. They can only speculate, but really they have no idea. In ID, the theory is that a designer created us using a physics which we know nothing about. That's the theory. By definition we cannot test it. The same way we cannot test the theory that there are 11 Dimensions to our universe, a popular "theory" among physisists. Just because you do not have the hardware to test a theory does not mean it is untestable. You will one day meet God. That is as much imperical evidence as you can get. I seriously doubt one day you will witness the Big Bang with your own eyes. THAT is unproveable.

Macroevolution takes place outside a single species.

You brought evolution into this discussion. For this discussion I will refer to you as the "scientist". Why did you bring evolution into it? This is about creation, not what happens after we are created/designed.”

““"God did It" is not a scientificly acceptable answer for any theorum.- Lumberjack

Isn't science the search for the truth?

If God did do it, then the truth would be just that.

To say it's not an acceptable answer for any theorom is being very closed minded and unscientific.

$.05
last edited: 10/17/05 9:20:40 AM”
SARGEantSlaughter

Unfortunatly God cannot be proven by any scientific method and is strictly a matter of faith so yes God is not an acceptable answer to any legitimate science inquery. The point of all these theorums is to determine the process used to create the universe we live in. Saying "God did it" or even aliens still does not answer the original question of how our world came to exist. If I asked why the sky is blue would you accept "God made it that way" as an accurate answer? ( assuming your older then 2)Or wouldnt you consider prismatic refraction to be a much more accurate answer.

The whole point of science is to discover the factually provable. Science cannot and never will bring meaning or purpose to our lives. If God chose to take a monkey and mutate it into man does it really change the meaning of our existance? The bible is not and never was intended to be a science text but rather a guide to life. Arguing science based on material written over 2 thousand years ago is a foolish waste of time... Get a grip...

and I raise you a .10$”

“Unfortunatly God cannot be proven by any scientific method and is strictly a matter of faith so yes God is not an acceptable answer to any legitimate science inquery.

Premise - Wrong.

You don't know God is any less proveable via scientific method than the Big Bang. If they could prove it, they would have, right? But they didn't. Why not? Because they aren't able to. Will they be able to in the future? Maybe, just like they may be able to prove a creator designed us in the future.

Saying "God did it" or even aliens still does not answer the original question of how our world came to exist.

Premise - wrong.

This presumes that the only point of origin theory is to determine the precise method by which things were created (by the way, nobody has a clue how Big Bang might have created us other than an event, much like a God saying "Let it be.".)

The whole point of science is to discover the factually provable.

Premise - wrong.

The whole point of science is to discover the facts. By proving facts is the method by which that is done.

The bible is not and never was intended to be a science text but rather a guide to life.

Conclusion - wrong.

The Bible is a text which explains the meaning of life. It also explains the science behind certain events. Just because YOU have the inablity to prove it does not make it false or not-science.

Arguing science based on material written over 2 thousand years ago is a foolish waste of time... Get a grip...

I'll keep that in mind next time I watch scientists debate the pyramids.

and I raise you a .10$

Thanks, I like getting raises. I just wish they were in the scientifically approved method for United States currency.”

“Science is one avenue for searching for one kind of truth. It is not a search for all truth or all turths. It is a particular kind of discipline for generating and testing hypotheses, building theories and establishing facts. If does not tell us which fact is more meaningful, or what is right or moral. Sometimes people act is if they can get those kinds of truths out of science, but they can't.

David Hume said it brilliantly, "you can't get from Is to Ought" (i.e. from objective fact to principle) - at least not from science and reason. Revelation can bridge the gap, but not objective evidence,”

“Science is one avenue for searching for one kind of truth. It is not a search for all truth or all turths.

Science is for searching for as many truths as you want. Where does it say that you can only use science to find certain truths?

It is a particular kind of discipline for generating and testing hypotheses, building theories and establishing facts.

No, it is for discovering truth. The methods used are generating and testing hypotheses, building theories and establishing facts.

If does not tell us which fact is more meaningful, or what is right or moral. Sometimes people act is if they can get those kinds of truths out of science, but they can't.

That's your assumption. If, on the other hand, God created us and God determines morality by definition then you are wrong.

David Hume said it brilliantly, "you can't get from Is to Ought" (i.e. from objective fact to principle) - at least not from science and reason. Revelation can bridge the gap, but not objective evidence,

Why are you now talking about principles and right and wrong? We were discussing if there is an intelligent desinger. Just before this I believe it was you who brought up evolution. Why do you not want to discuss the topic at hand? I am not personally familiar with ANY Christian who wants the public school to teach morality. Why did you bring that into the discussion?”