Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

There is no justification to, logic behind, or excuse for any agenda which seeks to governmentally impose any religious concept on society.

One's own sprirituality is one's own spirituality, a personal matter, and by no rationale binding on others.

Quite a lame attempt at being a propagandist on the part of Spendi here. A term such as "anti-IDers" is meaningless. Those who oppose the imposition of ID on school curricula can be educators, or scientiists, or ordinary citizens sufficiently well-informed not to want "creationism" imposed on the school system, or highly religious people who object to the particularism of the Protestant fundamentalists who promote ID.

There is nothing austere about a theory of evolution. In fact, there is a riotous, almost overwhelming body of data to support it, full of life and color, and far more convincing and entertaining than the cartoon characters who populate the biblical literalists' Genesis. Those who oppose the imposition of ID are not desparate to impose anything. They are defending the current curriculum, not attempting to impose any innovations on the educational system. It was only in the 1960's that the last of the laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution were lifted, and it was only near the end of that decade that the Supremes shot down teaching creation in schools.......

I now expect Spendi to take an entirely different tack, and begin making outrageous claims about a hide-bound curriculum being defended against an innovative program.

"...frightening evolution doctrine ..." just about says it all; religionists fear that evolution will/has turned the literal "genesis" on its head.

"...comfort in ridiculous fantasies..." describes you to a "t."

The American Association for the Advancement of Science is pushing for South Carolina's Board of Education to oppose changes to the state's biology standards that would call into question the theory of evolution. The board will consider the proposed language on March 8.

"We urge you to resist efforts to weaken science education in South Carolina. High quality education for all citizens is critical to the future security, economic vitality, and health and well-being of the United State," writes AAAS' Board Chair Gilbert Omenn in a February 28 letter to Joe Isaac, chair of the state's Board of Education. "As President Bush made clear in his recent State of the Union Address, the nation cannot afford to compromise the quality of its science education, especially at the K-12 level," Omenn warned

The alternative language, suggested by the South Carolina Education Oversight Committee, includes the phrase "critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." Omenn argues that this wording "misrepresents the nature of the scientific process" and unreasonably singles out evolution from other scientific theories like relativity, the germ theory of disease, and the atomic theory of matter. AAAS says it is especially concerned about the anti-evolution proposal because South Carolina has "established a record of excellence in science education." The Fordham Foundation has said the state's treatment of evolution in its 2000 Science Curriculum Standards is "exemplary," awarding it one of only seven "A" grades.

SOUTH CAROLINA UPDATE
(Press Release from American Association for the Advancement of Science)

Quote:

"As President Bush made clear in his recent State of the Union Address, the nation cannot afford to compromise the quality of its science education, especially at the K-12 level."

Remarks made by President Bush on August 1 that "intelligent design" should be taught along side evolution in the nation's public schools generated a ground swell of media coverage across the country. Many scientists and educators stepped forward to defend the teaching the evolution and the robust body of knowledge that supports it, including the president's science advisor, Dr. John Marburger, who is quoted in the New York Times saying, "evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology" and "intelligent design is not a scientific concept."

AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowships


The Fellowships help to establish and nurture critical links between federal decision-makers and scientific professionals to support public policy that benefits the wellbeing of the nation and the planet. The Fellowships are designed to:

educate scientists and engineers on the intricacies of federal policymaking;
provide scientific expertise and analysis to support decision-makers confronting increasingly complex scientific and technical issues;
foster positive exchange between scientists and policymakers;
empower scientists and engineers to conduct policy-relevant research that addresses challenges facing society; and
increase the involvement and visibility of scientists and engineers in the public policy realm.

wande-

I think questioning evolution is the best method of understanding it.

Scientists offer strong evidence that humans are still evolving
Their detection of genes reshaped by natural selection may help explain why people have a such a variety of appearances.
Nicholas Wade, New York Times



Providing the strongest evidence yet that human beings are still evolving, researchers have detected some 700 regions of the human genome where genes appear to have been reshaped by natural selection, a principal force of evolution, within the last 5,000 to 15,000 years.

The genes that show this evolutionary change include some responsible for the senses of taste and smell, digestion, bone structure, skin color and brain function.

Many of these instances of selection may reflect the pressures that came to bear as people abandoned hunting and gathering for settlements and agriculture, a transition well under way in Europe and East Asia some 5,000 years ago.