|
Author
|
Topic: ID in the UK - what's next?
|
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3728 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: 01-03-2004
|
|
Message 1 of 21 (454481)
02-07-2008 10:00 AM
|
|
|
I found this while casually googling
LISBURN City Council has ratified the controversial DUP recommendation by its Corporate Services Committee that it write to post primary schools in the area asking what plans they have to develop teaching material in relation to 'creation, intelligent design and other theories of origin'. The majority decision to send the letters came at the end of an impassioned debate on the subject at Tuesday evening's monthly meeting which began when SDLP Councillor and former school principal Peter O'Hagan said he did not feel the council should 'be taking upon itself' to 'interfere or get involved in the curriculum'.
Lisburn Today Article The letters were sent and ignited a bit of a local furore. Additionally, prior to this
Dozens of schools are using creationist teaching materials condemned by the government as "not appropriate to support the science curriculum", the Guardian has learned. The packs promote the creationist alternative to Darwinian evolution called intelligent design and the group behind them said 59 schools are using the information as "a useful classroom resource". A teacher at one of the schools said it intended to use the DVDs to present intelligent design as an alternative to Darwinism. Nick Cowan, head of chemistry at Bluecoat school, in Liverpool, said: "Just because it takes a negative look at Darwinism doesn't mean it is not science. I think to critique Darwinism is quite appropriate." But the government has made it clear that "neither intelligent design nor creationism are recognised scientific theories". The chairman of the parliamentary science and technology select committee, the Lib Dem MP Phil Willis, said he was horrified that the packs were being used in schools. "I am flabbergasted that any head of science would give credence to this creationist theory and be prepared to put it alongside Darwinism," he said. "Treating it as an alternative centralist theory alongside Darwinism in science lessons is deeply worrying." The teaching pack, which includes two DVDs and a manual, was sent to the head of science at all secondary schools in the country on September 18 by the group Truth in Science. The enclosed feedback postcard was returned by 89 schools. As well as 59 positive responses, 15 were negative or dismissive and 15 said the material was "not suitable". "We are not attacking the teaching of Darwinian theory," said Richard Buggs, a member of Truth in Science. "We are just saying that criticisms of Darwin's theory should also be taught." "Intelligent design looks at empirical evidence in the natural world and says, 'this is evidence for a designer'. If you go any further the argument does become religious and intelligent design does have religious implications," added Dr Buggs. But leading scientists argue that ID is not science because it invokes supernatural causes. "There is just no evidence for intelligent design, it is pure religion and has nothing to do with science. It should be banned from science classes," said Lewis Wolpert, a developmental biologist at the University of London and vice-president of the British Humanist Association. The DVDs were produced in America and feature figures linked to the Discovery Institute in Seattle, a thinktank that has made concerted efforts to promote ID and insert it into high school science lessons in the US. Last year a judge in Dover, Pennsylvania, ruled that ID could not be taught in science lessons. "Intelligent design is a religious view, a mere relabelling of creationism, and not a scientific theory," he wrote in his judgment. It is not clear exactly how many schools are using the Truth in Science material, or how it is being used. The government has made it clear the Truth in Science materials should not be used in science lessons. In a response to the Labour MP Graham Stringer on November 1, Jim Knight, a minister in the Department for Education and Skills, wrote: "Neither intelligent design nor creationism are recognised scientific theories and they are not included in the science curriculum." Andy McIntosh, a professor of thermodynamics at the University of Leeds who is on the board of Truth in Science, said: "We are just simply a group of people who have put together ... a different case." Revealed: rise of creationism in UK schools | Controversies | The Guardian Since this came to light the UK Govt has stated that ID should not be taught in school science classes and has issued guidance to schools. Given that there is no govt support in the UK, will those who advocate the teaching of ID in science classes manage to get a toe-hold in the UK? Will they keep trying and what is the best way to keep the out? As an aside, does anyone have any reason they can offer to explain why Lisburn City Council Corporate Services Committee, which has nothing to do with education, felt justified in even debating the matter, let alone sending the letters to schools? Edited by Trixie, : As per Admin instructions
|
Admin
Director Posts: 13023 From: EvC Forum Joined: 06-14-2002 Member Rating: 1.9
|
|
|
Message 2 of 21 (454488)
02-07-2008 10:48 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Trixie
02-07-2008 10:00 AM
|
|
Could you correct the typo in the title, replace the new term introduced by Pandas-and-People with "IDists" or something similar (I'm seeing this term so often now I wonder if it will start appearing in dictionaries), and make less passionate the concluding rhetorical question?
| -- | Percy | | | EvC Forum Director |
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Trixie, posted 02-07-2008 10:00 AM | | Trixie has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 3 by Trixie, posted 02-07-2008 11:24 AM | | Admin has replied |
|
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3728 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: 01-03-2004
|
|
|
Message 3 of 21 (454500)
02-07-2008 11:24 AM
|
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
02-07-2008 10:48 AM
|
|
OK, all done!
I wanted to ask this here since it's relevant - the term ID doesn't convey the hidden creationist agenda and I do believe that ID can be separated from traditional Creationism, it just hasn't been. I'm not saying that if it gets separated it will be valid science, just that it's possible to separate it from religion e.g., aliens. No, I don't believe this either, but it does remain a possibility. I don't like the term ID/Creationism as it can convey an and/or meaning or a very open acknowledgement of the interchangeability of the terms. The term "cdesign proponentsists" conveys the flavour of what happened in Pandas and Dover and what is being attempted in the UK - to introduce Creationism into school science classes using subterfuge and disguise. Can we find a term which conveys the same meaning? Im struggling.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 2 by Admin, posted 02-07-2008 10:48 AM | | Admin has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 4 by Admin, posted 02-07-2008 12:22 PM | | Trixie has not replied |
|
Admin
Director Posts: 13023 From: EvC Forum Joined: 06-14-2002 Member Rating: 1.9
|
|
|
Message 4 of 21 (454511)
02-07-2008 12:22 PM
|
Reply to: Message 3 by Trixie
02-07-2008 11:24 AM
|
|
Re: OK, all done!
Trixie writes: The term "cdesign proponentsists" conveys the flavour of what happened in Pandas and Dover and what is being attempted in the UK - to introduce Creationism into school science classes using subterfuge and disguise. You're right, of course, I just hate for a thread to start off by tweaking someone's nose, plus it's such an easy shot to take. But just as you say, in addition to its obvious rhetorical value it succinctly conveys a very clear and specific meaning. Feel free to use the term, just not in OPs unless context renders it harmless.
| -- | Percy | | | EvC Forum Director |
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 3 by Trixie, posted 02-07-2008 11:24 AM | | Trixie has not replied |
|
Admin
Director Posts: 13023 From: EvC Forum Joined: 06-14-2002 Member Rating: 1.9
|
|
|
Message 5 of 21 (454513)
02-07-2008 12:23 PM
|
|
|
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
Granny Magda
Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: 11-12-2007 Member Rating: 3.8
|
|
|
Message 6 of 21 (454627)
02-07-2008 9:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Trixie
02-07-2008 10:00 AM
|
|
Hi Trixie, I share your concern about creationism being taught in UK schools, but I do think that the threat is far less over here than what the US has experienced. Fortunately the National Curriculum makes it hard for creationists to subvert lessons too much. I seriously doubt that any politician outside of the loopy DUP would dare to speak out in favour of ID. Openly flaunting ones religion is somewhat taboo in the UK (as Alistair Campbell said "We don't do God."). My only real concern is that faith schools, will simply ignore the guidelines and teach whatever superstitious nonsense they like. The government seems happy to increase the number of faith schools though; it is cheaper after all.
As an aside, does anyone have any reason they can offer to explain why Lisburn City Council Corporate Services Committee, which has nothing to do with education, felt justified in even debating the matter, let alone sending the letters to schools? Of course; They're doing God's work. What more justification do they need?
Mutate and Survive
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Trixie, posted 02-07-2008 10:00 AM | | Trixie has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 7 by Trixie, posted 02-10-2008 10:34 AM | | Granny Magda has not replied |
|
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3728 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: 01-03-2004
|
Scotland
Unfortunately, the National Curriculum isn't relevant to Scotland as this is one of the areas devolved to the Scottish Government. Any pronouncements from the UK Government don't apply. It's for this reason that there is some evidence that Scotland and Northern Ireland are being targetted. I've read through some of the stuff from Scottish politicians with regard to ID and what I found there has set me off on a mission which is why I haven't posted to this thread for a while. I'll need to get back to the various statements as they pertain to Scotland (and NI) and provide some examples here. As a side note, there was an argument in the letters page of one of the Scottish newspapers and an IDist made a statement that has puzzled me. He claims that the suckling mechanism of whales shows design because the mothers nipple has a sort of suction cup so that the baby whale can feed without getting water in through it's snout. My questions are these; How do seals manage without this evidence of design? Since when did baby whales' blowholes reside on their snout? Do blowholes start on their snout and migrate to the tops of their heads (so to speak) when they stop suckling? Am I missing something?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by Granny Magda, posted 02-07-2008 9:56 PM | | Granny Magda has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 11 by Jaderis, posted 02-10-2008 5:29 PM | | Trixie has replied |
|
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3728 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: 01-03-2004
|
|
|
Message 8 of 21 (455105)
02-10-2008 1:04 PM
|
|
|
Truth in Science
I've been having a read at the website of this lot and the parallels with Dover couldn't be more apparent Fot anyone with an interest, check it out http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/ I particulaly blew a gasket when I looked at their proposed lesson plans. One bit in particular stood out, where they tell teachers to ask less able pupils to produce a news report on "Ernst Haekel's scientific fraud". At this point, can I explicity state that I do not want Randman to come into this thread and start Haekeling. That is not what the thread is about and has been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere. I'd appreciate some input from you lot as to the nature of their proposed lesson plans that they so kindly supply on their website. It's also interesting to check out the differences between the lesson plan for irreducible complexity and the one for the fossil record.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 9 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2008 2:06 PM | | Trixie has not replied | | | Message 10 by Modulous, posted 02-10-2008 2:54 PM | | Trixie has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 9 of 21 (455110)
02-10-2008 2:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 8 by Trixie
02-10-2008 1:04 PM
|
|
misrepresentations ...
I got a chuckle out of "Misrepresentation of Alternatives":
quote:
... teach that people who do not believe in molecules-to-man evolution ...
The irony.
quote:
Some textbooks only present the theory evolution to school children, and do not tell them about any current alternative views which scientists hold. Material focusing exclusively on religious objections to Darwinism obscures the fact that there is a genuine controversy over the scientific evidence for evolution.
Missing in the long list of quotes and examples is any reference to what these alternative views of scientists actually are. They also classify evolution as a belief, rather than the scientific basis of it, thus again misrepresenting what evolution is.
quote:
The ways in which some textbooks present evolution and its alternatives are neither fair nor scientific. Rather than teaching pupils to think critically, these textbooks are indoctrinating them using poor arguments. School children should be given the opportunity to properly understand different views on our origins, so that they can come to well informed conclusions about this important issue.
Origins is not part of evolution, and "different views" delves into philosophy and religion, not science. Another standard misrepresentation of the science of biological evolution. Now fast forward to the "game plans" (not lessons):
Darwin's Finches:
quote:
Conclusion The Galapagos finches were not as important to Darwin as is often claimed, but they are a good example of micro-evolution. They show us that finches can vary in their morphology, and that natural selection has a role in this. This study does not give evidence for macro-evolution, and does not prove that natural selection and random mutation could produce the living world as we know it from simple single-celled ancestors.
Microevolution is evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. Nor was the study intended to demonstrate "macroevolution" nor is there "proof" in science. Misrepresentations ...  The "cartoons" are pathetic strawman arguments. Enjoy ...
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by Trixie, posted 02-10-2008 1:04 PM | | Trixie has not replied |
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
|
|
Message 10 of 21 (455114)
02-10-2008 2:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 8 by Trixie
02-10-2008 1:04 PM
|
|
the lesson plan
I'd appreciate some input from you lot as to the nature of their proposed lesson plans that they so kindly supply on their website. It's also interesting to check out the differences between the lesson plan for irreducible complexity and the one for the fossil record.
The irreducible complexity cartoon is obviously one sided.
quote:
Irreducibly complex
systems like this
rotary motor have
been intelligently
designed vs I’m not sure how, but it
must have evolved:
Intelligent Design is not
science
It's obviously set up to make the latter view look dogmatic and unsure of itself. The first problem is that we are discussing fine points of microbiology...at GCSE level. My GCSE exam had a picture of an albatross and a picture of a swift and it said: Identify which one is adapted to fast manouevering and which one is adapted to soaring. Why on earth should we start asking pupils at this level of education to discuss amongst themselves these issues? They can't, and they will form only intuitive ideas. Seriously, can we honestly and fairly present this case? Yes, can it be done in a GCSE classroom? No. First off, here is the ' I don't know how but it must have evolved argument':
quote:
The detailed evolutionary model described above is summarized in Figure 7. The role that various evolutionary processes played in the model can now be roughly quantified. Only one major shift of function occurred at the system level, the transition from a pilus to a protoflagellum. All of the other changes in system function can be seen as minor modifications of a basic function; if these are enumerated (export --> secretion --> adhesion --> pilus, and dispersal --> taxis), then four minor shifts of function occurred. In all cases a “shift” in function is actually more accurately described as an addition of function at the system level, as previous functions are maintained. At the level of subsystems (consisting of two or more proteins), the cooption events can be tabulated: subsystem cooption was invoked for the origin of the core export apparatus, outer membrane secretin (proto-FlgI) and lipoprotein chaperone (proto-FlgH), the adhesin ancestral to the axial protein family, the motor complex, and the chemotaxis/switch complex, for a total of five subsystem cooption events. In each of these cases, cooption occurred by the mutation of one protein to link two preexisting systems (Figure 7), followed by the duplication and integration of the new subsystem proteins into the major system. Except for the major transition between pilus and motility, subsystem cooption was associated with improvements of system function rather than major changes in system function. At the gene level, duplication events within the core system were invoked 11 times for origin of 12 axial proteins from one, and an additional time for the divergence of FliN and FliM. None of these events requires postulating functional shift at the subsystem or system levels. Addition of a new domain with novel functionality was identified twice (FliN+CheC --> FliM, rod cap+muramidase --> FlgJ), although it probably occurred in additional instances where homologies are currently more vague. It appears that loss of a component is only a possibility for the outer membrane secretin of the primitive type III secretion system, although if this became FlgI then no component loss events are necessary. This is the case even though some components that are ancient on the model (e.g., FliH) are apparently not absolutely required in modern flagella (Minamino et al., 2003). All other changes at all levels were matters of gradual improvement of function, i.e. optimization and co-adaptation of components. Even at this early stage of development, the model gives decent estimate of the relative importance of various evolutionary processes involved in the origin of complex biochemical systems.
And so on and so forth. Not really GCSE material is it? Here is the 'Irreducibly complex systems like this rotary motor have been intelligently designed' position:
quote:
Irreducibly complex systems like this rotary motor have been intelligently designed
Not really a controversy, it only works if you misrepresent or necessarily skip the actual science and present it to students who don't have the necessary background knowledge to really understand the issues. The fossil record one makes me laugh. Do any genuine phyletic gradualists exist? The problems with each position are hopeless, as we'd expect. Punctuated equilibrium, for example, does not require macro mutations. It seems to be conflating it with the 'Hopeful monster' idea. Finally the Creationism Intelligent Design Phyletic Discontinuity 'theory' has its own set of problems which seem hopelessly weighed. One of the problems apparently is that it isn't supported, and is contradicted by the evidence (though it doesn't quite state it so obviously) and then explains that some scientists "explain this by separate creation events, others by deaths at different times during catastrophic events." Catastrophism was accepted over 150 years ago by some scientists, but to grant that there is really any significant number of scientists that still accept this 18th/19th Century creationist hypothesis is at best silly at worst terribly misleading. The other criticism is actually a criticism of the incomplete geologic column!? It also ends with 'Some people claim that your theory is unscientific because it requires a Creator.'. Sure, and almost the entirety of science considers it unscientific because it requires an entity for which no evidence exists. Not only that but evidence doesn't have to exist, making it impervious to falsification. All in all, their 'teach the controversy' line equally criticises creationism as it does evolution and yet there is not an equal amount of criticism available. There are some fundamental problems with the Intelligent Design 'model', that render it unscientific but this is dismissed as just being the opinion of 'some scientists' as opposed to being the opinion of almost every single scientist, and philosopher of science, that has come to examine the proposed model. It simplifies complex issues to make them appear as simple as ID would like to make them out to be, whereas the truth lies in the details, and the details are simply too difficult for the average GCSE class. Thus, even just by omission, their lesson plan is dishonest.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by Trixie, posted 02-10-2008 1:04 PM | | Trixie has not replied |
|
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3447 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: 06-16-2006
|
|
|
Message 11 of 21 (455125)
02-10-2008 5:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 7 by Trixie
02-10-2008 10:34 AM
|
|
Re: Scotland
As a side note, there was an argument in the letters page of one of the Scottish newspapers and an IDist made a statement that has puzzled me. He claims that the suckling mechanism of whales shows design because the mothers nipple has a sort of suction cup so that the baby whale can feed without getting water in through it's snout. My questions are these; How do seals manage without this evidence of design? Since when did baby whales' blowholes reside on their snout? Do blowholes start on their snout and migrate to the tops of their heads (so to speak) when they stop suckling? Am I missing something? Here is the Panda's Thumb page on this question. It mentions a Scottish newspaper article which may be the same one you saw. This is what a responding whale biologist had to say:
Dr. Colin MacLeod writes: Baby whales use “fringes” around the edge of their tongue to help channel milk from the nipple to their thoats. This does not to prevent the entrance of sea water into the baby whale’s mouth, nor is it intended to, but only serves to reduce the mixing of sea water and milk. This leaves plenty of possibilities for functional transitional forms where the tongue is only slightly more fringed and, therefore, only slightly better at keeping the milk and sea water separate, making the milk less dilute and, therefore, beneficial to the calf as it gets more concentrated milk faster. Secondly, there is no need for baby whales to prevent sea water entering their mouths as it will not kill them. Presumably, Mr Pieri thinks that the reason the baby whale would die if sea water entered the mouth is because it might get into the airway causing the animal to drown. However, unlike humans, the windpipe of a whale sticks right through its oesophagous, completely separating the airway and the digestive tract (a requirement for all whales, whether adult or baby, as they need to be able to open their mouths underwater to feed) so there is no risk of drowning while nursing in baby whales. A similar, but not as complete, separation of the digestive tract and the airway is found in all young terrestrial mammals, including humans, to allow them to breath while nursing, and while adaptation is lost in older humans through a descent of the larynx, this basic mammalian separation has been enhanced by natural selection in whales because it is beneficial to their life in the sea. As for baby seals, one could assume that they are included in the "all young terrestrial mammals." I believe that they nurse on land ( This article on elephant seals suggests that at least this particular species does) so a mechanism to avoid seawater from entering the airway would not be an issue even if they didn't have the same non-descended larynx as other infant mammals. Now, it might be more of a problem for say, sea otters or manatees. I don't have access to journal articles on the nursing habits of these animals, but I did find pages which state that both nurse their pups on the surface of the water (the sea otter mother on her back; I didn't find anything more definitive on the manatee or its cousins). That's all off-topic anyway. The important part of the response, IMO is that the ingestion of seawater by baby whales will not kill them or even hurt them since whales ingest seawater regularly when feeding. And that all baby mammals have an undescended larynx which helps prevent choking while nursing, while the whales (and maybe other marine mammals to a possibly lesser extent) is more developed. Just because people like the ones who put out the "truth in science" packets don't have the answers (or often even the right questions) doesn't mean they aren't there. Lying to schoolchildren or telling them half-truths by relying on their lack of specialized knowledge to further a religious agenda is despicable. Sure, the questions sound good...I'm sure almost everyone here has gone "hmmm" more than once, especially the laymen (and even those that are presented with questions totally out of their respective fields), but to pretend that the answers haven't been found and especially that they can't be explained is just a dirty tactic. But they know some kids (and adults) will buy it and not really look for the answers. They are depending on that.
"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." - The Iron Heel by Jack London "Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 7 by Trixie, posted 02-10-2008 10:34 AM | | Trixie has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 12 by Trixie, posted 02-10-2008 5:37 PM | | Jaderis has not replied |
|
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3728 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: 01-03-2004
|
|
|
Message 12 of 21 (455126)
02-10-2008 5:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 11 by Jaderis
02-10-2008 5:29 PM
|
|
Re: Scotland
Thank you for that information. That's really interesting and I'm going to have a good look at whale biology because it looks fascinating. When you spend your life looking at bacteria and nucleic acids, whales tend to get overlooked, and I plan on remedying that.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 11 by Jaderis, posted 02-10-2008 5:29 PM | | Jaderis has not replied |
|
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5873 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: 02-16-2006
|
|
|
Message 13 of 21 (460683)
03-18-2008 12:23 AM
|
|
|
I am not clear as to how ID replaces or has the footing to criticize darwins theory. The question of ID in no way excludes evolution as the intelligent process. The only ID people who are a problem are those who are biblical literalists. I was raised catholic. Evolution was taught in our science classes. Never had and issue. God was not taught in our science classes. I am also unclear as to why ID is considered to automatically invoke supernatural causes. Why, if it were the case, would evidence for intelligent design have to mean supernatural? To me supernatural does not exist. However I can easily fathom that the natural world has infinite possibilities we can not hope to comprehend. Doesn't stop one from trying. Exciting to think the exploration and learning may never end barring extinction or other physical barriers. I would not advocate ID in science classes. It is not well thought out yet. It may never achieve that status due to the ambiguous nature of the concept. I am thinking the question of intelligence and design in nature needs much exploration. We did not invent design. Nature did it long before it's current self involved manifestation "us" ever gave it a name. We must question what limits intelligence has if any, in the natural world. What can be intelligent? What is the yardstick if we can even conceive one. One must address this before design can be addressed if it can. One can easily argue that from a scientific standpoint we can not be said to design as we are just a process of natural forces and therefore natural designing occurs. The same can be said of our intelligence. It's simply a matter of perspective. Very subjective stuff.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 14 by Taz, posted 03-18-2008 1:05 AM | | 2ice_baked_taters has replied |
|
Taz
Member (Idle past 3313 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: 07-18-2006
|
2ice_baked_taters writes: I was raised catholic. Evolution was taught in our science classes.
That's because the catholic church settled this question way back in the 20s when pope pius (I think) announced that evolutionary theory in no way conflicted with church doctrine.
I am also unclear as to why ID is considered to automatically invoke
supernatural causes.
Actually, it's not the evolution crowd that insist ID invokes supernatural causes. It's the ID crowd that insist that. If you don't believe me, just ask Buzsaw, ICANT, Lyston, and the various other creationists here. Heck, that's the only reason why creationists have flocked to support ID in the first place. By removing any supernatural element from ID, they would effectively stop making it a christian based doctrine.
Why, if it were the case, would evidence for intelligent design have to mean supernatural?
Because ID supporters (cdesign proponentists) insist that the designer absolutely has to be the christian god instead of aliens or the spaghetti monster. Again, if you don't believe me you can ask the various cdesign proponentists here. PS - the term "cdesign proponentist" was invented by IDists. I shit you not. They literally used the term in one of the earlier versions of panda's thumb.
|
ICANT
Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: 03-12-2007 Member Rating: 1.6
|
|
|
Message 15 of 21 (460688)
03-18-2008 1:11 AM
|
Reply to: Message 14 by Taz
03-18-2008 1:05 AM
|
|
Re-ID
Hi True Believer, I have never supported ID or YEC, or any of those idiots that think it ought to be taught in the public classroom. I say they have private Church Schools teach whatever they want there. That is what they started the schools for in the first place. God Bless,
"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 14 by Taz, posted 03-18-2008 1:05 AM | | Taz has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 16 by Taz, posted 03-18-2008 1:25 AM | | ICANT has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2