Unintelligent Design  

redmustang91 58M  
8995 posts
9/27/2005 10:18 am

Last Read:
3/5/2006 9:27 pm

Unintelligent Design

The religious nuts are at it again, trying to destroy science by injecting religion into Science class. I have no problem discussing non-scientific theories of human origins as a philosophy or history of religion course. Such theories do not belong in Science class as non-scientific and untestable.

See the latest trial over the non-science of evolution bashing:

Trial Over 'Intelligent Design' Resumes
September 27, 2005 10:41 AM EDT
HARRISBURG, Pa. - The opening day of a landmark trial over whether a school district should require students to hear about "intelligent design" felt a lot like a science lecture.

Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller, the first witness called Monday by lawyers suing the Dover Area School District for exposing its students to the controversial theory, sprinkled his testimony with references to DNA, red blood cells and viruses, and he occasionally referred to complex charts on a projection screen.

Even U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III was a little overwhelmed.

"I guess I should say, 'Class dismissed,'" Jones mused before recessing for lunch.

Dover is believed to be the nation's first school system to mandate students be exposed to the intelligent design concept. Its policy requires school administrators to read a brief statement before classes on evolution that says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps." It refers students to an intelligent-design textbook for more information.

Intelligent design holds that Darwin's theory of natural selection cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms. It implies that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force.

Eight families sued, saying that the district policy in effect promotes the Bible's view of creation, violating the constitutional separation of church and state.

Miller, whose cross-examination was to resume Tuesday morning, said the policy undermines scientific education by raising false doubts about evolutionary theory.

"It's the first movement to try to drive a wedge between students and the scientific process," he said.

But the rural school district of about 3,500 students argues it is not endorsing any religious view and is merely giving ninth-grade biology classes a glimpse of differences in evolutionary theory.

"This case is about free inquiry in education, not about a religious agenda," said Patrick Gillen of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., in his opening statement. The center, which lobbies for what it sees as the religious freedom of Christians, is defending the school district.

The non-jury trial is expected to take five weeks.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs began their case by arguing that intelligent design is a religious theory inserted in the school district's curriculum by the school board with no concern for whether it has scientific underpinnings.

"They did everything you would do if you wanted to incorporate a religious point of view in science class and cared nothing about its scientific validity," attorney Eric Rothschild said.

Miller, who was the only witness Monday, sharply criticized intelligent design and questioned the work that went into it by one of its leading proponents, Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, who will be a key witness for the district.

The statement read to Dover students states in part, "Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered." Miller said the words are "tremendously damaging," falsely undermining the scientific status of evolution.

"What that tells students is that science can't be relied upon and certainly is not the kind of profession you want to go into," he said.

"There is no controversy within science over the core proposition of evolutionary theory," he added.

On the other hand, Miller said, "intelligent design is not a testable theory in any sense and as such it is not accepted by the scientific community."

During his cross-examination of Miller, Robert Muise, another attorney for the law center, repeatedly asked whether he questioned the completeness of Darwin's theory.

"Would you agree that Darwin's theory is not the absolute truth?" Muise said.

"We don't regard any scientific theory as the absolute truth," Miller responded.

The Dover lawsuit is the newest chapter in a history of evolution litigation dating back to the Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee nearly 80 years ago. More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that states may not require public schools to balance evolution lessons by teaching creationism.

MissAnnThrope 58F
11488 posts
9/27/2005 1:31 pm

I love these families that are fighting. ID is nothing but a way to insert creationism into the classroom. It's been debunked by most of the scientific community, but because there are a few scientists who were willing to endorse it, they're claiming it's fact.

It's not fact. It's pseudo-science, meant to undermine science. In at least one text book, they put forth an urban legend as fact. It's a legend about a missing day in time. The most popular version has it taking place at NASA. A christian among them comes forward and tells them a bible story about time standing still for a day. The scientists are thrilled, as this explains the missing day. It's pure bunk. Never happened and the legend has been around in one form or another since the 1930s and it was meant even then to undermine science.

Over the summer, New Scientist did a number of articles on the subject. While they're archived on the website, you do need a subscription to look at them.

But the real kicker... Go over to Free Republic and look at the number of right wingers who are against Intelligent Design. The only people for ID are the bible beaters who want to stick their fingers in their ears and scream, "I can't hear you!" when it comes to science. Unless of course, science is providing them with fertility treatments because, while they can't conceive, they know God wants them to give birth, or unless it has to do with drugs to make them feel better, or the latest technology.

The language and double speak gets to me too. Theory means it hasn't been proven or disproven. Most math is theory. It doesn't mean the kids don't have to learn it because imaginary numbers are purely theory. There are few hypothesises in math or science.

Is there a theory for de-evolution? Humanity seems to be getting stupider by the day. Or is it just intelligent people have been having fewer babies since the 60s and the mouthbreathers have been barebacking it without the pill? Whatever is going on, this country is going insane with stupidity. And the word intellectual is starting to be looked down upon, especially by NeoCons. Perhaps it is time for the Avian flu to start jumping from person to person to clear out the dross.

redmustang91 58M  
8946 posts
9/27/2005 2:56 pm

Ann you are getting worked up and pissed, aren't you? In the long run we are all dead and its our progeny's problem. As Ronald Reagan said, what have our progeny done for us lately anyway!

Become a member to create a blog