Schraf writes:
As those of you following the Dover ID fight may already know, the
DebunkCreation email list at Yahoogroups.com recently donated 23
science books to the Dover High School Library to counter the school
board's decision to teach ID in its school.
OK...so the books were written by...
York Daily Record writes:
Some of the books are written by noted scientists, including Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins. All support scientific methods and theories that include Darwin’s theories of evolution.
And while I do respect these particular authors for their science knowledge, I have no respect for their atheist philosophies. One would think that men who were so intelligent could see the obviousness of God in action.
NIV writes:
1 Cor 1:20-21 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
While I may agree that science and the ToE is a more concise grouping of theories and certain facts, I must point out that the objection that many have to the inclusion of such authors is their atheist backgrounds. They do not understand the truly important things in life if they do not consider the possibility of a living and loving Creator. We want our kids exposed to all sides, but we will not be bullied into keeping our spiritual philosophies kept out of the classroom and allowing atheists in. Its gotta be both!
Nevertheless, I would never advocate banning science books any more than I would advocate dismissing religious philosophy.
Prophex writes:
People protest ID in schools, that's funny. Why eliminate it because of disagreement? I don't see a reason why it would harm the student body.. rather, open new ways of thinking. As long as it isn't one-sided.
Exactly! Just as evolutionists protest I.D. "pet" theories based on the suggestable inclusion of a supernatural Creator, so too do creationists and/or theists protest scientific thought NOT because of the soundness of the science so much as the atheist undertones that such literature may suggest.
Carl Sagan writes:
Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people. And...Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.
This is why many of the "ignorant" Creationists say that scientists who are atheists see science as their religion.
York Daily Record writes:
Intelligent design maintains that life is too complex to have developed on its own and was created by an intelligent designer. Some say it is religious in nature and has no place in a science classroom; others say it is a legitimate, scientific alternative to the state standard of teaching Darwin's theories on evolution.
If Sagan can say that "Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality"...then Creationists will always insist that their "source" of spirituality be given equal time.
I am not suggesting that I.D. is anywhere nearly as "intellectual" or "provable" as straight up science. What I will insist upon is that MY source of wisdom---God--be allowed to be entered into ANY discussion on the origin of life. No school will ever keep my kids from keeping this in mind as they explore the various theories and facts regarding the beginning of all that we know.
Schraf writes:
What the ID folks have done is the equivalent of the Dover school board requiring their history teachers to teach the notion that the Holocaust never happend as a valid alternate view of the historical evidence.
All that I am saying is that God is a valid alternative to atheistic science. The facts are not conclusive that there never was a Creator.
commike writes:
The existence of an intelligent being is much more debatable than whether or not the Holocaust happened. A much more appropiate analogy is whether or not slavery was the cause of the Civil War. There are many theories as to what caused the Civil War. And there are many theories over the origins of life: evolution, intelligent design, and some others like the Gaian theory.
Exactly. The inclusion of a Creator as a valid alternative MUST be considered. We can prove that the earth is not flat. We cannot prove that there is no God.
PaulK writes:
Why would "teaching all sides of an issue" preclude accepting books on mainstream science, regardless of the motive for donating them ?
Why would there need to be a review before accepting these particular books for a school library when it is not a normal procedure for such donations ?
Good point, Paul. I agree.
crashfrog writes:
But maybe until ID constitutes a little more than some misleading statistics and a few self-published books, it doesn't quite merit inclusion in science instruction, where we teach that which represents the mainstream and not the fringe?
The issue as I see it is to prevent the idea of a Creator from being labled "fringe".
In my opinion, Richard Dawkins is as dangerous as any religious ideology. The supreme arrogance of being able to dismiss the idea of a Creator as akin to magic is not something that I want my kids to be able to read if religion is to be kept out of their education.
Dawkins preaches that human wisdom is our salvation and our ultimate quest. I am all for education as long as ALL sides are presented.
Schraff is right in pointing out that the books were to go to the library and not in the curriculum.
Let the books be placed in the library.
holmes writes:
However you need to keep in mind that brilliance does not make one less susceptible nor impervious to propaganda. Propaganda attacks emotions or other reactionary elements and allows us to skip by logic and evidence.
And my view is that Dawkins has a propaganda all his own. He is no mere scientist. He claims that
Dawkins writes:
It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).
I would say that the same holds for his smug atheistic beliefs.
And I would consider him to be a bit wicked...
I want to be a pro science advocate as long as scince continues to keep God as an unproven theory worthy of discussion and not a fringe belief of an ignorant minority.
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 03-25-2005 11:59 PM
™ Version 4.2
