Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Science continues to advance, and in those places where access to education is efficient, kids learn science just as effectively as they ever did before, maybe even better.

Very few of the class are going to be scientists.Possibly,in most classes,none.

You grow knowledge upwards like the kids are growing. Evolution starts at the top and works backwards.

Or are you suggesting some completely different philosophy for education?

spendius wrote:
You grow knowledge upwards like the kids are growing. Evolution starts at the top and works backwards.


What do you mean by that?

All the arguments on here about education are mere blather until you put your money where your mouth is.Pay peanuts-you get monkeys.(Old saying).

I meant that evolutionary theory starts with it's pretty obvious conclusion and a class can only work backwards.With the toaster you can expand as far as time permits assuming you are a dedicated teacher.

So your whole point out of all that is that we should pay teachers more. Why didn't you just say that in the beginning. I think most people would agree that teachers are underpaid.

And your toaster lesson starts with a pretty obvious piece of toast and works it's way backwards, toward a lesson in economics, which could have been stated at the beginning also.

Breaking: House spikes evolution disclaimer bill
(By Matt Canham, Salt Lake Tribune, February 27, 2006)

The evolution bill is no more.
The Utah House of Representatives voted 46-28 to kill SB96, which cast doubt on the teaching of evolution.
"There are a number of influential legislators who believe you evolved from an ape. I didn't," said Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, who sponsored the bill.
He said it was "doubtful" that he would try a similar bill in the future.
The bill would have required a teacher to say the state does not endorse evolution and that the controversial theory is not a proven fact before teaching Charles Darwin's ideas.
SB96's deep religious roots fostered outspoken support among some, such as Rep. LaVar Christensen, and just as fervent opposition from others, like Rep. Stephen Urquhart.
Urquhart, a St. George Republican, first amended the bill, stripping any reference to 'origins of species." The gutted bill simply read: "The State Board of Education shall establish curriculum requirements relating to scientific instruction."
Urquhart opposed Buttars' bill because he doesn't feel that science conflicts with religion and said it was misleading to single out one theory as unproven.
The House voted down the gutted SB96 to stop the Senate from having the ability to revive the issue.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2058771,00.html

'Pizza pope' builds a Catholic heaven

Buttars' evolution bill dies in House
(TYLER PETERSON, Utah Daily Herald, February 28, 2006)

The House voted Monday to gut and then kill Sen. D. Chris Buttars's evolution bill as he watched from the sidelines, putting an end to its storied journey.

That means for now, teachers won't have to stress that a scientific theory, hypothesis or inference regarding the origins of the species is not an empirically proven fact.

After witnessing first-hand the passage of an intent-blasting amendment and the subsequent 28-46 vote on the bill, Buttars didn't veil his feelings.
"There was a number of influenced legislators who believe you evolved from an ape. I didn't," the West Jordan Republican said. "And it's being taught in school and that's wrong."

The amendment, put forth by Rep. Stephen Urquhart, R-St. George, deleted every line except for one saying the state Board of Education should make curriculum requirements relating to the instruction of science -- period. But even Urquhart voted against the amended bill, suggesting it was merely an attempt to kill the original measure.

Rep. James Ferrin, R-Orem, who teamed with Buttars on the bill, said nobody had been able to tell him that science could empirically prove whether men evolved from a common ancestor with apes. Yet he spoke of some who had said it was a fact.

"There is a zeal -- dare I say a religious zeal -- on the part of some to teach as fact that what cannot be proven as fact," Ferrin said.

But some representatives said creating a disclaimer targeting the theory of evolution among thousands of other scientific theories didn't make sense.

It could even create the perception that the state, "in a reverse way," endorsed all other scientific theories, said Rep. Scott Wyatt, R-Logan.

Buttars called the argument "foolish, but it probably had some weight."

The state Office of Education had reservations about the bill, and Brett Moulding, state director of curriculum and instruction, said his office was glad to see the bill die. "Our concern with the legislation was that it took away authority from the board to establish rules for curriculum, and additionally the bill isolated one theory of evolution for special treatment, which has been found particularly by the courts to not be constitutional."

He added, "It was entering things that were not science into the science curriculum."

Others, like Urquhart, said learning the theory of evolution has not challenged their faith, though faith was "obviously the reason why we single out this one theory."

"There's still so much to be learned regarding all sorts of things in science," Urquhart said.

Moulding said he hoped that in the future, legislators would spend their time on other education needs.

Very few of the class are going to be scientists.Possibly,in most classes,none.

That means for now, teachers won't have to stress that a scientific theory, hypothesis or inference regarding the origins of the species is not an empirically proven fact.

all wande's quotes are anti ID in tone.

"There was a number of influenced legislators who believe you evolved from an ape. I didn't, and it's being taught in school and that's wrong."

Why teach math? Very few of the kids are going to be mathematicians?
Why teach great literature? Very few of the kids are going to be great authors?
Why teach history? Very few of the kids are going to be historians?
Why teach philosophy? Very few of the kids are going to be philosophers?
Why teach foreign languages? None of the kids are going to become foreigners?


For that matter, why ever teach kids religion? None of them are ever going to be Gods.

Quote:
"There was a number of influenced legislators who believe you evolved from an ape. I didn't, and it's being taught in school and that's wrong."


The senator's view seems to be sympathetic with your own view.

It is a well know fact that materialistic,mechanistic mental states are statistically correlated with urban lifestyles and the mass media is an entirely urban phenomena.Thus the explanation of why all wande's quotes are anti ID in tone.ID,used loosely, being basically a major factor in rural,agricultural areas where feet are on the soil and birth,growth and death cycles are witnessed first hand rather than in sanitised glossy magazine articles and TV documentaries.

Advertising spiels,urban to the marrow, are more readily swallowed by insecure and frightened materialists than they are by spiritual intuitions.

The vested interest of the city has it's grubby little monkey paws all over anti ID propaganda and for it to travel under a scientific disguise must make every true scientist grind his teeth.

I wonder which successful farmer uses prayer to increase his yield or better his herd. I don't know of any. Any empirical evidence of one that has done so successfully?

parados-

I presume then that you are not aware of a difference between rural and urban settings in the matter of religious belief in the Western culture.

I'm well aware of the use of science in agriculture.I am also well aware that farmers are a small proportion of agricultural communities but even so a fair number of farmers will be religiously inclined.

Your argument suggests that you think a lady using a motor car knows how it works.There is a wide difference between understanding a process and following instructions on the packet.

I wonder which successful farmer uses prayer to increase his yield or better his herd. I don't know of any. Any empirical evidence of one that has done so successfully?

Quote:

That is a typical example of deliberate (I hope)misunderstanding of the issues here.The fertility religions of ancient times were accompanied by the best technological efforts to raise good crops.