|
Dumbing Down Of America, 2
|
|
Topic Started: May 12 2006, 11:46 AM (5,637 Views)
|
|
cmoehle
|
Jun 10 2006, 06:00 AM
Post #466
|
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
- Posts:
- 36,959
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- June 6, 2004
|
Just joining the discussion, Teryt?
Challenge, a simple one, this time, still remains, if you all really support this ID stuff, it seems you would do more than attack science and evolution, it seems you'd show us what ID has to contribute.
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater
|
| |
|
teryt
|
Jun 10 2006, 11:24 AM
Post #467
|
|
Missing in Action Member
- Posts:
- 1,328
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #78
- Joined:
- July 27, 2004
|
Here it is Chris: President releases proof for ID
|
My Boast is Christ  Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist
|
| |
|
cmoehle
|
Jun 10 2006, 11:41 AM
Post #468
|
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
- Posts:
- 36,959
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- June 6, 2004
|
Ah, so it's all just a joke!
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater
|
| |
|
teryt
|
Jun 10 2006, 11:46 AM
Post #469
|
|
Missing in Action Member
- Posts:
- 1,328
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #78
- Joined:
- July 27, 2004
|
Here's something - they just have their conclusion a little mixed up. SETI says they're looking for "artificial" signals. The same could be said of ID:
SETI & ID
|
My Boast is Christ  Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist
|
| |
|
teryt
|
Jun 10 2006, 12:00 PM
Post #470
|
|
Missing in Action Member
- Posts:
- 1,328
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #78
- Joined:
- July 27, 2004
|
Interesting, by an athiest, found here: At the Intersection of "Metaphysical Naturalism" and "Intelligent Design"
- Quote:
-
When we consider the efforts of organizations established to promote the concept of "intelligent design," such as The Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture (CRSC), we should see that efforts of that sort are entirely misdirected. They cannot and do not support the theistic claims of their promoters, but at best only support the idea of some sort of extra-dimensional creature(s) who "created" our universe. While any creature of that sort would be a scientific wonder for us to study, it would not be a "God."
Almost by definition, science excludes the possibility of supernatural phenomena. Scientific method requires repeatability, and by definition, supernatural phenomena cannot be commanded to occur. If they could, they would be natural phenomena, and science would need to find some niche within the laws of nature for any such repeatable phenomena. So it is that, down through the centuries, the promoters of both sides have grudgingly realized that science cannot be used to prove any facts with respect to any alleged supernatural phenomena. In every known instance of a true scientific inquiry into claims of the supernatural, science came away with a totally natural explanation. But science cannot explain everything. "One of a kind" occurrences are generally not subject to a thorough scientific investigation. And when science is forced to answer "I don’t know," the theists are quick to supply a supernatural answer. In fact, the formal definition of a miracle in the Roman Catholic Church is the occurrence of some beneficial event that is unexplainable by science. At base, this is an argument in favor of the "God of the gaps."
So, it should not be any surprise at all for me to predict that if CSRC eventually obtains scientific acceptance for it’s theories of an "intelligent design" to our universe, science will attribute that "intelligent design" to natural causes. In essence, science cannot do otherwise, because science cannot study the supernatural!
I am not in any position to speak about the quality of scientific papers prepared by fellows of the CSRC. But I am prepared to assert that no such paper would ever be accepted within mainstream science if it argues in favor of supernatural phenomena occurring as part of nature. And as we have seen in this essay, "intelligent design" concepts that stay within the boundaries of science are no threat at all to the concept of "metaphysical naturalism" upon which all of science is based.
So by definition, science can never admit the supernatural. At least the modern metaphysical naturalism definition of science.
|
My Boast is Christ  Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist
|
| |
|
teryt
|
Jun 10 2006, 12:05 PM
Post #471
|
|
Missing in Action Member
- Posts:
- 1,328
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #78
- Joined:
- July 27, 2004
|
Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated
- Quote:
-
Editors's Note:: Critics of intelligent design often claim that design advocates don’t publish their work in appropriate scientific literature. For example, Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University, was quoted in USA Today (March 25, 2005) that design theorists “aren’t published because they don’t have scientific data.”
Other critics have made the more specific claim that design advocates do not publish their works in peer-reviewed scientific journals—as if such journals represented the only avenue of legitimate scientific publication. In fact, scientists routinely publish their work in peer-reviewed scientific journals, in peer-reviewed scientific books, in scientific anthologies and conference proceedings (edited by their scientific peers), and in trade presses. Some of the most important and groundbreaking work in the history of science was first published not in scientific journal articles but in scientific books—including Copernicus’ De Revolutionibus, Newton’s Principia, and Darwin’s Origin of Species (the latter of which was published in a prominent British trade press and was not peer-reviewed in the modern sense of the term). In any case, the scientists who advocate the theory of intelligent design have published their work in a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-reviewed scientific books (some in mainstream university presses), trade presses, peer-edited scientific anthologies, peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-reviewed philosophy of science journals and books. We provide below an annotated bibliography of technical publications of various kinds that support, develop or apply the theory of intelligent design.
|
My Boast is Christ  Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist
|
| |
|
teryt
|
Jun 10 2006, 12:08 PM
Post #472
|
|
Missing in Action Member
- Posts:
- 1,328
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #78
- Joined:
- July 27, 2004
|
Here's a peer reviewed one specifically on the infameous flagellum:
- Quote:
-
Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).
This article underwent conference peer review in order to be included in this peer-edited proceedings. Minnich and Meyer do three important things in this paper. First, they refute a popular objection to Michael Behe’s argument for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum. Second, they suggest that the Type III Secretory System present in some bacteria, rather than being an evolutionary intermediate to the bacterial flagellum, is probably represents a degenerate form of the bacterial flagellum. Finally, they argue explicitly that intelligent design is a better than the Neo-Darwinian mechanism for explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum.
|
My Boast is Christ  Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist
|
| |
|
teryt
|
Jun 10 2006, 12:09 PM
Post #473
|
|
Missing in Action Member
- Posts:
- 1,328
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #78
- Joined:
- July 27, 2004
|
Pretty "funny" stuff! 
My dad can beat up your dad!
|
My Boast is Christ  Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist
|
| |
|
cmoehle
|
Jun 10 2006, 12:47 PM
Post #474
|
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
- Posts:
- 36,959
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- June 6, 2004
|
Teryt "SETI & ID"
SETI is looking for natural evidence. What is ID looking for? Improbable compelxities. Could you tell us what that is?
"So by definition, science can never admit the supernatural. At least the modern metaphysical naturalism definition of science."
Yes, that is true. We have been over and over and over that. It is true. Why do you repeat it?
ID does not fit the definition.
Change the definition and science is no longer science. Change it the way you want, it becomes religion.
Let me ask you, Teryt, before you posted that list of supposed peer-reviwed papers did you do any research on rebuttals and refutations of that? A scientific approach would.
Response
- Quote:
-
1. Even by the most generous criteria, the peer-reviewed scientific output from the intelligent design (ID) movement is very low, especially considering the long history and generous funding of the movement. The list of papers and books above is not exhaustive, but there is not a lot else. One week's worth of peer-reviewed papers on evolutionary biology exceeds the entire history of ID peer-review.
Virtually none of the papers show any original research. The only paper for which original data was gathered is Axe (2000), and see below regarding it.
The point which discredits ID is not that it has few peer-reviewed papers, but why there are so few. ID proponents appear to have no interest in conducting original research that would be appropriate for peer-reviewed journals, and other researchers see nothing in ID worth paying attention to. Despite empty claims that ID is a serious challenge to evolution, nobody takes ID seriously as a science, so nobody writes about it in the professional literature.
2. The papers and books cited by the Discovery Institute do not make a good case for peer-reviewed intelligent design for one or more reasons.
1. Many of the papers do not talk about design. Some do not even attempt to. For example:
* Axe (2000) finds that changing 20 percent of the external amino acids in a couple proteins causes them to lose their original function, even though individual amino acid changes did not. There was no investigation of change of function. Axe's paper is not even a challenge to Darwinian evolution, much less support for intelligent design. Axe himself has said that he has not attempted to make an argument for design in any of his publications (Forrest and Gross 2004, 42).
* Behe and Snoke (2004) argues against one common genetic mechanism of evolution. It says nothing at all in support of design. Its assumptions and conclusion have been rebutted (M. Lynch 2005).
* Lönnig and Saedler (2002) cite Behe and Dembski only in a couple long lists of references indicating a variety of different options. Neither author is singled out; nor is the word "design" used.
* Denton and Marshall (2001) and Denton et al. (2002) deal with non-Darwinian evolutionary processes, but they do not support intelligent design. In fact, Denton et al. (2002) explicitly refers to natural law.
* Chiu and Lui (2002) mention complex specified information in passing, but go on to develop another method of pattern analysis.
2. The peer-review that the works were subject to was often weak or absent. The sort of review which books receive is quite different from the stringent peer review of journal articles. There are no formal review standards for trade and university presses, and often no standards at all for popular presses. Dembski has commented that he prefers writing books in part because he gets faster turnaround than by submitting to journals (McMurtrie 2001). Anthologies and conference proceedings do not have well-defined peer review standards, either. Here are some other examples of weak peer review:
* Dembski (1998) was reviewed by philosophers, not biologists.
* Meyer (2004) apparently subverted the peer-review process for the sole purpose of getting an "intelligent design" article in a respectable journal that would never have accepted it otherwise. Even notwithstanding its poor quality (Gishlick et al. 2004, Elsberry 2004a), the article is clearly not appropriate for the almost purely taxonomic content of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, and the Biological Society of Washington repudiated it (BSW n.d., NCSE 2004). For more information, see Elsberry (2004b).
* Wells (2005) was published in Rivista di Biologia, a journal which caters to papers which are speculative and controversial to the point of crackpottery (J. M. Lynch 2005). Its editor, Giuseppe Sermonti, is a Darwin denier sympathetic to the Discovery Institute.
3. With some of the claims for peer review, notably Campbell and Meyer (2003) and the e-journal PCID, the reviewers are themselves ardent supporters of intelligent design. The purpose of peer review is to expose errors, weaknesses, and significant omissions in fact and argument. That purpose is not served if the reviewers are uncritical.
This same criticism applies to any reviewers who are "true believers" of any aspect of biology. However, mainstream scientists recognize that science grows stronger through criticism, not through mere agreement, because criticism helps weed out the bad science. Most any evolutionary biologist can attest that supporting evolution is not enough to get a paper accepted; the paper has to describe sound science, too.
3. Publishing is not an end in itself. Scientific ideas mean nothing unless they can withstand criticism and be built upon. None of the "intelligent design" publications have led to any productive work. Most have had their main ideas rebutted (e.g. Behe 1996, Dembski 1998, Dembski 2002, Gonzalez and Richards 2004).
That took me 3 seconds to find.
Your last citation of a peer-reviewed paper on flagellum has a reference: an ID site. IT was reviewed by IDers for an ID conference. Talk about preaching to the choir.
What is meant by peer-reveiwed is peer-reviewed by scientiists, biologists, not biased propoponents of ID.
Challenge, a simple one, this time, still remains, if you all really support this ID stuff, it seems you would do more than attack science and evolution, it seems you'd show us what ID has to contribute.
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater
|
| |
|
teryt
|
Jun 10 2006, 12:47 PM
Post #475
|
|
Missing in Action Member
- Posts:
- 1,328
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #78
- Joined:
- July 27, 2004
|
I found this very enlightening to our conversation:
CSC: Questions about Intelligent Design
(Note my bold)
- Quote:
-
Questions about Intelligent Design
1. What is the theory of intelligent design?
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. For more information see Center Director Stephen Meyer's article "Not By Chance" from the National Post of Canada or his appearance on PBS's "Tavis Smiley Show (Windows Media).
2. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?
It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges. For a more thorough treatment see the article "Meanings of Evolution" by Center Fellows Stephen C. Meyer & Michael Newton Keas.
3. Is intelligent design based on the Bible?
No. The intellectual roots of intelligent design theory are varied. Plato and Aristotle both articulated early versions of design theory, as did virtually all of the founders of modern science. Indeed, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. During the past decade, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity in the natural world.
4. Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?
No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case. For more information read Center Director Stephen Meyer's piece "Intelligent Design is not Creationism" that appeared in The Daily Telegraph (London) or Center Associate Director's piece " Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same"in Research News & Opportunities.
5. Are there established scholars in the scientific community who support intelligent design theory?
Yes. Intelligent design theory is supported by doctoral scientists, researchers and theorists at a number of universities, colleges, and research institutes around the world. These scholars include biochemist Michael Behe at Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco, emeritus biologist Dean Kenyon at San Francisco State University, mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University, and quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia.
6. Is research about intelligent design published in peer-reviewed journals and monographs?
Yes. Although open hostility from those who hold to neo-Darwinism sometimes makes it difficult for design scholars to gain a fair hearing for their ideas, research and articles supporting intelligent design are being published in peer-reviewed publications. Examples of peer-reviewed books supporting design include The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press) by William Dembski, Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press) by Michael Behe, Darwinism, Design and Public Education by Stephen C. Meyer & John Angus Campbell (Michigan State University Press) and Debating Design (Cambridge University Press) by Center Fellow William A. Dembski and ID critic Michael Ruse. In the area of journals, Michael Behe has defended his concept of "irreducible complexity" in the peer-reviewed journal Philosophy of Science published by the University of Chicago. There is also now a peer-reviewed journal that focuses on design theory, Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design, which has an editorial advisory board of more than 50 scholars from relevant scientific disciplines, most of whom have university affiliations. Finally, the works of design theorists are starting to be cited by other scholars in peer-reviewed journals such as the Annual Review of Genetics. For more information go to our annotated list of "Peer-Reviewed and Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting ID"
7. What about the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and its resolution against intelligent design?
In 2002 the board of the AAAS issued a resolution attacking intelligent design theory as unscientific. Unfortunately, the process by which this resolution was adopted was itself anything but scientific. In fact, the resolution was more a product of prejudice than impartial investigation. After the resolution was issued, members of the AAAS Board were surveyed about what books and articles by scientists favoring intelligent design they had actually read before adopting their resolution. Alan Leshner, the Chief Executive Officer of the AAAS, declined to specify any and replied instead that the issue had been analyzed by his group's policy staff. Two other AAAS board members similarly declined to identify anything they had read by design proponents, while yet another board member volunteered that she had perused unspecified sources on the Internet. In other words, AAAS board members apparently voted to brand intelligent design as unscientific without studying for themselves the academic books and articles by scientists proposing the theory. It should be noted that a number of the scientists supportive of intelligent design theory are members of the AAAS, so the AAAS board clearly does not speak for all members of that organization.
So the AAAS has some housekeeping to do perhaps!
|
My Boast is Christ  Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist
|
| |
|
cmoehle
|
Jun 10 2006, 12:52 PM
Post #476
|
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
- Posts:
- 36,959
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- June 6, 2004
|
WOW!
To the challenge, a simple one, this time, still remains, if you all really support this ID stuff, it seems you would do more than attack science and evolution, it seems you'd show us what ID has to contribute.
You post something that says "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
Peggy Lee: Is that all there is, is that all there is If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing Let's break out the booze and have a ball If that's all there is....
And "not an undirected process such as natural selection" is a misstatement of evolutionary theory. So we're left with, ID's contribution is: "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause"--RELIGION.
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater
|
| |
|
teryt
|
Jun 10 2006, 12:59 PM
Post #477
|
|
Missing in Action Member
- Posts:
- 1,328
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #78
- Joined:
- July 27, 2004
|
Teryt "SETI & ID"
SETI is looking for natural evidence. What is ID looking for? Improbable compelxities. Could you tell us what that is?
Both could be considered "artificial" by definition. Please see the definition I posted from the CSC (my immediately prior post).
"So by definition, science can never admit the supernatural. At least the modern metaphysical naturalism definition of science."
Yes, that is true. We have been over and over and over that. It is true. Why do you repeat it? ID does not fit the definition.
Change the definition and science is no longer science. Change it the way you want, it becomes religion. Because this definition of science is "metaphysical naturalism" which, in my view, winds up sticking its head in the sand to ignore or even attack whatever doesn't fit the mold.
Let me ask you, Teryt, before you posted that list of supposed peer-reviwed papers did you do any research on rebuttals and refutations of that? A scientific approach would. I'm not a scientist (are you?), I just present others mostly. Like I said, "My dad can beat up your dad!"
BTW - I think the CSC website perhaps contains the best things, clarifications, definitions, etc, for this (further) discussion.
|
My Boast is Christ  Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist
|
| |
|
teryt
|
Jun 10 2006, 01:04 PM
Post #478
|
|
Missing in Action Member
- Posts:
- 1,328
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #78
- Joined:
- July 27, 2004
|
- cmoehle
- Jun 10 2006, 06:52 PM
And "not an undirected process such as natural selection" is a misstatement of evolutionary theory. So we're left with, ID's contribution is: "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause"--RELIGION.
Your opinion; your words; your thinking; based upon the thinking that you have surounded yourself with. (But this, of course, can be said of any of us.) Nothing will likely convince you of ID's validity, based upon scientific results (which, by modern definition seems to exclude anything but metaphysical naturalism).
|
My Boast is Christ  Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist
|
| |
|
teryt
|
Jun 10 2006, 01:10 PM
Post #479
|
|
Missing in Action Member
- Posts:
- 1,328
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #78
- Joined:
- July 27, 2004
|
I know this is just attacking Neo-Darwinism, and not directly supporting ID (from CSC site):
- Quote:
-
3. What is the "Dissent from Darwin" list?
Since Discovery Institute first published its Statement of Dissent from Darwin in 2001, more than 500 scientists have courageously stepped forward and signed onto a growing list of scientists of all disciplines voicing their skepticism over the central tenets of Darwin's theory of evolution. The full statement reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Prominent scientists who have signed the list include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Dr. Stanley Salthe, quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia, and Giuseppe Sermonti the Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum. The list also includes scientists from Princeton, Cornell, UC Berkeley, UCLA, Ohio State University, Purdue and University of Washington among others. To view the list along with other information about it go to: www.dissentfromdarwin.org
|
My Boast is Christ  Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist
|
| |
|
teryt
|
Jun 10 2006, 01:12 PM
Post #480
|
|
Missing in Action Member
- Posts:
- 1,328
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #78
- Joined:
- July 27, 2004
|
From CSC site - Pertains to our discussion well, & generally supports my position:
- Quote:
-
Questions about Science Education Policy
1. Does Discovery Institute favor including the Bible or creationism in science classes or textbooks?
No. Discovery Institute is not a creationist organization, and it does not favor including either creationism or the Bible in biology textbooks or science classes.
2. Is Discovery Institute trying to eliminate, reduce or censor the coverage of evolution in textbooks?
No. Far from reducing the coverage of evolution, Discovery Institute seeks to increase the coverage of evolution in textbooks. It believes that evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, and they should learn more about evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues. The true censors are those who want to stop any discussion of the scientific weaknesses of evolutionary theory.
3. Should public schools require the teaching of intelligent design?
No. Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute recommends that states and school districts focus on teaching students more about evolutionary theory, including telling them about some of the theory's problems that have been discussed in peer-reviewed science journals. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned. We believe this is a common-sense approach that will benefit students, teachers, and parents.
4. Is teaching about intelligent design unconstitutional?
Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it does believe there is nothing unconstitutional about discussing the scientific theory of design in the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes efforts to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss the scientific debate over design in a pedagogically appropriate manner.
|
My Boast is Christ  Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist
|
| |