Christian philosophy debate goes to school board Monday (creationism)

[Ediacara]

Christian philosophy debate goes to school board Monday
By the Associated Press - 01/25/2004

DARBY (AP) — The Darby school board will decide Monday night whether to change the science curriculum to include discussion of creationism, but under a different name — intelligent design theory.

The Rev. Curtis Brickley is pressing for the change, which would stress teaching of ‘‘objective origins'' theories.

The policy statement would say that teachers ‘‘are encouraged to help students assess evidence for and against theories, to analyze scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing

scientific theories, including the theory of evolution, by giving examples of scientific innovation or discovery challenging commonly held perceptions.''

Brickley is scheduled to speak for the intelligent-design advocates at Monday's meeting, where the school board is expected to decide on the policy.

More at the Montana Standard (Butte)

[Room101]

1. Open the gates. lets teach them about UFO's and Dragons

nt

[Ediacara]

2. :-)

[ElsewheresDaughter]

3. amen...UFO 101

[ithacan]

4. GOP needs this: The dumbing down of America

they need for people to not know the difference between science and religion... Next thing you know they'll be burning people at the stake for heresy...

[Unforgiven]

5. And

all the books as well.

[SalParadise]

6. By the time my 5-year old gets to school...

I fully expect this to be standard teaching here in Mississippi - hell, it probably is already for all I know. I'm going to encourage my kids to do Biology class reports stating that we're an alien experiment gone awry.

Stole my thunder there BEFOREATHOUGHT - curse you!

[never cry wolf]

11. Welcome to DU, SalParadise!!!....n/t

:hi:

[Malva Zebrina]

7. Objective origins?

wow--this is more euphemism or desperation whichever way one wants to view it.

Objective origins. Wow. There is nothing objective about the Christian bible at all. Nada.

This is pure, used car salesman, pulling the wool over the eyes of the ignorant, and by now, I would catagorize those who would buy this, as the willing, uneducatd , ignorant who would have this incongruous postulate, perpetrated upon the rest of us in this country.

Objective orgins, eh? Sorry, this is amusing and it is laughable to me.

Sounds good though to those who can hardly read and who believe in spirits and the like.

Objective origins!!! Has anyone come up with an explanation of what that means, exactly?

[reprobate]

14. uneducatd , ignorant ----Not necessarily

I know a medical practitioner who is a staunch supporter of creationism. All that education means nothing in the face of religous fervor.

There is some kind of disconnect in the human animal that sneers at science when religon says the opposite.

[Malva Zebrina]

31. I then, feel sorry for those who would make an appointment with this

'educated, medical practioner. Honestly. If he or she believes the earth was created six thousand years ago or even if he or she subscribes to the old earth or the new earth or whatever they make up in order to make it "fit" their religious beliefs, I would not place my trust in their abitlities and judgement concerning my health care. Honest, I would not. I would be very uncomfortable under the care of this person who cannot parse the evidence.

You said health care practitioner, so I am assuming that this is not an MD but one of the fringe practitioners, which are many .

[kysrsoze]

34. Next comes Creationist Healthcare

Basically, if you get sick and die, God meant it to be. Soooo... no need for healthcare anymore. Problem solved.

[reprobate]

36. Not an MD. A veterinarian.

And paradoxicly a good diagnostition.

[Jazzgirl]

8. What the hell does creationism have to do with scientific

theory and how do you compare the two? I am so sick of this! Leave creationism in the church and out of the classroom!

[rocktivity]

9. Creationism is NOT a science!!!

and what's intelligent about intelligent design, anyway?

rocknation

[formernaderite]

24. Creationism: a belief held by alot of alternative ideologies like....

...theosophists, anthroposophists, and New Age Spiritualists, not just christian fundies. Science is a word that is thrown around in english as if it is infallable. In other languages one commonly refers to: literary-science, or theological-science, or historical-science...although we still at the University levels retain some of those distinctions, as in Political Science. So it is a bit ignorant to state that this is an argument between science and religion.
This is as much a cultural argument as anything else. As much as I may be an atheist, others within the anthro-sciences are arguing with the main stream Darwinists that alternative scenarios receive as much attention. So although I personally never agree with the fundies, I welcome the discourse this is bringing.

[pinto]

32. science is based on fallability. the scientific method requires an

hypothesis to be routinely tested, challenged, and proven, wrong or right. It is a rigorous format.

Faith, as rigorous, is something else.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

[Elidor]

10. Intelligent Design people ignore the biggest evidence of their theory

The realms uncovered by science are a much better argument for intelligent design than anything they've come up with themselves in their quest for scientific "theories" that conform to a literal interpretation of the bible.

I pity the deluded fools.

[Ediacara]

12. The only "proof" needed to demonstrate evolution is DNA

There are an infinate number of POSSIBLE DNA base configurations that would fit inside a DNA chain and would be electrically balanced, but the fact that all life uses just four of them tells us something :-)

[RC]

13. Any scientific proof that is offered

can be and is used by the creationist to push their religion. That is what makes fighting them so hard.

[bleedingheart]

15. Intelligent Design...hahahaha

If I were a parent there I would show up with the mythology books of ancient Greece, Rome, India..etc and ask if we could teach those as science as well....

Sorry but the bible is a story written by men...whether by divine intervention or not...its a story. I have seen very little evidence that proves most of those stories...

Juxtapose that against the Spirit and Opportunity crafts on Mars and it looks really kind of silly...or the work of Watson and Crick...for that matter...

[leesa]

16. Can't believe how uneducated and superstitious our population

is becoming. Soon we'll be running Santa Claus for Secretary of State

[earthman dave]

17. "Examples of discovery challenging commonly held perceptions"

So now you'll get to see schoolkids going around telling people that human and dinosaur footprints have been found together, and all the other BS that "proves" evolution is wrong. This is lower than low. Lying to children, and for what?

[starroute]

18. Life-forms are not all that well designed

I'd like to ask an intelligent design nut some time why human beings get backaches, hemorrhoids, and fallen arches. Evolution from four-legged ancestors can explain those things -- intelligent design can't. (At least not unless you assume a certain perversity on the part of the designer.)

For that matter, why does the anhinga, a bird that dives underwater to catch fish, lack waterproof feathers? If it doesn't dry out in the sun between dives, it drowns. What intelligent designer thought up that arrangement?

And then there's the question of certain tropical trees that are threatened with extinction because the animals they count on to spread their seeds by eating the fruit are no longer around (dodos, gomphotheres.) That's definitely some sort of major design failure.

*Nothing* in nature is really well-designed. It's all makeshift, ad hoc, and gives every sign of having settled for the first solution that would work, rather than holding out for the best possible solution. If there really are intelligent designers, it's obvious that they operate, like the rest of us, on the basis of who can get the product on the market earliest or mount the flashiest advertising campaign.

The creationists are right that there are problems with Darwinism -- but most of those problems arise from starting with the assumption that nature operates *as though* there were an intelligent designer, and then looking for mechanistic ways of achieving the same result. It just ain't that way, and the sooner we all recognize that, the better off we'll be.

[IowaBiker]

19. Teaching creationism endorses incest/child molestation

Cain and his mother. Lot and his daughters are two examples right out of the Bible.

In areas where creationism is taught there are higher incidences or incest. Certainly the endorsing of the book of Genesis has its effect.

We also see this relationship in the Catholic church and their treatment of altar boys.

Any school board member who endorses a creationsim vote must be held accountable for promoting incest and child molestation.

--Brian

[Seldona]

29. They have an answer to that.

It is that some lady named Eve ate an apple from gods special apple tree.

And 'god' saw fit to punish mankind for it for all time.

Intelligent design?

This is so disheartening and absurd.

I am glad I live in a fairly progressive community.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

20. Go ahead & let 'em teach creationism

but limit its time to the percentage of peer-reviewed scientists worldwide who adhere to it vs. the established theory of evolution.

In other words, if you devote 120 minutes total to teaching the origin and development of life, the theory of evolution will be taught for 119 minutes and 10 seconds, creationism would get 20 seconds, and everything else would be lumped into the remaining half minute.

[joefree1]

21. Fine with me as long as pagan theory is included too

You know, the world is flat and rest on the back of a giant turtle.

Just kidding, but heck, why should Borg-agains have all the fun.

[Solly Mack]

22. America is one sick nation

This is just one more symptom

[NickB79]

23. They can teach it as science, if they follow basic principles of science

In the basic scientific method, you observe something occurring around you, and you devise a hypothesis as to why this is occurring. You then subject your hypothesis to rigorous testing with the evidence at hand. If your hypothesis survives and can offer reasonable explanations for various observations on the subject being studied, it can be tested even further and eventually, if it passes all those challenges, may reach the level of a theory (the scientific equivalent of a fact).

However, if the hypothesis is unable to explain the evidence at hand, the researcher must then either modify his hypothesis in an attempt to explain this evidence, or s/he must throw out the hypothesis and devise a new one. This is the point at which creationism/intelligent design theory fails to be considered science. Creationists already have a theory in mind: that God created the world 6000 yrs ago and that all the evidence around us must match this. They then work backwards, trying to change evidence to fit their beliefs, trying to jam the square peg into the round hole. And if they find evidence they have no way of explaining through creationism? They ignore it, throw it out, or say it's a test of faith put there by God. They are incapable of even considering the idea that they may have to change or discard their original hypothesis of the literal interpretation of the Bible.

If a creationist could say with absolute honesty that they would obey the basic scientific methods followed for centuries by the scientific community, and be willing to modify and/or discard their hypothesis when presented with evidence that doesn't fit their hypothesis of world history, I would have no problem with them. But they can't!!! They are ideologically bound to the idea of creationism, no matter how much evidence is presented to say otherwise!

[0rganism]

25. Exactly! A clever teacher would use this standard against creationism

If the creationists want to flaunt their religion as if it were science, then it can be attacked on the same basis as any scientific theory. And THAT will be pure poison.

Nothing shatters creationism quite like having its sources and methodology critiqued. Comparisons of testable hypotheses and predictive accuracy will do it every time.

[Malva Zebrina]

33. Creationists are not inthe business of valildating their claims

they send no archaeological teams out to discover evidence of Adam and Eve, the flood and other claims of historicity in the bible, and they have no interest in even pursuing that scientific track. None.

All they do is repudiate what real science offers. That is their sole claim to "truth"

They have no peer review to their theories and produce no evidence at all except for some vague notion such as "intelligent design" in order to present a pseudo intellectual sound to their creationism . It is a con game on most of the people who will fork over their entire SS check to the con men.

Intelligent design really makes me laugh. It is, of course the Christian god that is the "designer" For all anyone knows and for all the logic behind the intelleigent design theory, it could be a green faced, reptillian, scaly skinned god or gargoyle that is the intelligent designer. :eyes:

[BattyDem]

26. I did a little research ...

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Creationism: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis.

MSN Encarta
Creationism: belief that God created universe; the belief that the Bible’s account of the Creation is literally true.

Wordsmyth Dictionary
Creationism: the doctrine that the world, life, and matter were created out of nothing by an omnipotent god, rather than that they evolved from other forms.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language
Creationism: Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition
Creationism: belief in the biblical account of the creation of the world as described in Genesis.

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition
Intelligent Design: theory that some complex biological structures and other aspects of nature show evidence of having been designed by an intelligence. Such biological structures are said to have intricate components that are so highly interdependent and so essential to a particular function or process that the structures could not have developed through Darwinian evolution , and therefore must have been created or somehow guided in their development. Although intelligent design is distinguished from creationism by not relying on the biblical account of creation, it is compatible with a belief in God and is often explicitly linked with such a belief. Also, unlike creationists, its proponents do not challenge the idea that the earth is billions of years old and that life on earth has evolved to some degree. The theory does, however, necessarily reject standard science's reliance on explaining the natural world only through undirected natural causes, believing that any theory that relies on such causes alone is incapable of explaining how all biological structures and processes arose. Thus, despite claims by members of the intelligent-design movement that it is a scientific research program, the work of its adherents has been criticized as unscientific and speculative for inferring a pre-existing intelligence to explain the development of biological structures instead of attempting to develop adequate falsifiable mechanistic explanations. (All emphasis is mine.)


It seems pretty clear to me that it's nothing but bullshit "science" designed to prove a theory and support a particular ideology, without providing any factual basis for the conclusions. What a wonderful addition to the curriculum. :eyes:

[rman]

27. evidence for intelligent design theory: zero

number of examples of scientific innovation or discovery based on intelligent design theory: zero

so they can be very brief on that issue, and spend the remaining time on science.

[jsw_81]

28. Creationism is crap

The U.S. Supreme Court has already spoken on this topic: Creationism is not allowed in the public school science curriculum under ANY circumstances. If we opened the doors to Christian creationism, what's to stop schools from teaching other creation myths? What's to stop an astronomy teacher from teaching astrology? Or a chemistry teacher from teaching alchemy?

And this "intelligent design" nonsense is nothing more than thinly-veiled creationism and it will not be permitted in schools. If these Montana school board yokels decide otherwise, they'll end up losing yet another lawsuit and will also end up paying the ACLU's legal fees. So bring it on, fundies.

[0rganism]

30. Ever wonder why this is a "Christian philosophy" debate?

Seems to me, if anyone should be pushing this, it would be the Jews. The Old Testament is primarily a history of the Hebrews and the promise of YHWH. The Christians should have been "liberated" from Old Testament constraints by the Christ -- their God surely knows they're quite selective about which sections of Leviticus apply to 'em. And while Muslims ascribe to the same underlying mythos, they don't seem to push it nearly as hard.

Perhaps its just that the number of young-earth creationist Jews and Muslims in the USA is extremely small. If we had more Jews and Muslims, the proportions would add up and they'd be more vocal in demanding creationist theology in science classes.

[CO Liberal]

35. It's Such a Paradox

"Intelligent Design" being advocated by morons.

:crazy:

[LibLabUK]

37. Hehehe

You've managed to sum it all up in one sentence :)

(For a second I there, I thought you'd written "Mormons", and I was a little confused as to what part they played in this whole discussion)

[northzax]

38. as this is worded

I have no problem. Teachers SHOULD point out, at age appropriate levels, of course, evidence that may be contrary to theories they teach. Evolution is not dogma, it can stand rigorous scrutiny. They should point out that many scientists have been wrong, and that new theories often overtake established science.

Of course, this only works when you have already taught science as a method of determining fact. This is the difference between science and faith: one that shold be taught. Theories are flexible, they change to account for newly discovered facts. Faith is inflexible and static, rather than change with newly discovered fact, it makes excuses for why it does not match the facts.

Both are valuable. in different ways. Science gives you the ability to predict facts. faith gives you truth. Science can answer the question "how?" Faith can tell you "why?"