Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Yes, but that was an assertion without proof. You made the assertion, then didn't prove it.

Once again, an assertion without proof. I am Evolutionist, yet I do not approve of it. The elderly do have a purpose in helping to rear young, as seen in many animal groups in nature and in human society itself.

Wolf wrote-

Quote:

Yes, but that was an assertion without proof. You made the assertion, then didn't prove it.

I'm sorry mate. I don't know what you are talking about.

Intelligent design supporters tout merits of concept

Chum wrote-

Quote:

Boyo, you have failed to substantiate the claim that teaching of evolution is "accidental, additional, avoidable, casual, causeless, chance, dispensable, excess, exorbitant, expendable, extraneous, extrinsic, fortuitous, futile, gratuitous, haphazard, inessential, irrelevant, lavish, needless, noncompulsory, nonessential, optional, prodigal, profuse, random, redundant, supererogatory, superfluous, surplus, uncalled-for, uncritical, undesirable, unessential, unneeded, unrequired, useless, wanton, worthless". unnecessary

1-It might be said to be accidental because it was a bit of an accident that Darwin read Malthus just at the point where his theory was stuck because up to that point he had been thinking of domesticated animals only.He had no mechanism for how nature selected until he got the struggle for existence idea out of Malthus.

It was also an accident,in a way,that FitzRoy's first choice for the job backed out and The Admiralty's first choice had a wife who looked so forlorn at the prospect that he also declined.

It is also something of an accident that the Beagle didn't suffer shipwreck or some other mishap and that Darwin didn't either.

Of course someone else may have hit upon the idea at a later date.The general notion had been floating about in Europe for some time but it was Darwin noticing changes in species as the ship journeyed south down the west coast of S America that focussed his mind.

Further,if I'm not boring you,court decisions played a part and in cases of this nature the decision is as likely to be based on political considerations as on the facts,or otherwise,of the narrow issue.

It might even be said to be an accident that this one field of science is easy to understand and,as such,attractive to the teaching profession.

It is obviously "additional" because it has been added to the curriculum since I went to school.

It is certainly "avoidable" and, according to a previous poster (wande I think) is indeed avoided by 35% of American science teachers.

From that is may be said to be "casual".

But it is not "causeless". Which rules out "chance" in the mundane use of that word.

"Dispensible","excess", "exhorbitant", "expendable", "extraneous", "extrinsic" and "fortuitous" are thus covered.

I think it futile for young people for many reasons most of which have been done already.

The rest of your list is covered by the above except maybe "irrelevant", "useless" and "worthless". For those, and indeed for all the rest in some degree, it depends on what sort of citizens and what sort of society is to be aimed at in teaching evolution in schools which BTW is not the same as "teaching evolution".

Which Thesaurus did you copy from?

But my opposition to teaching evolution theory is based on many other things which I have previously covered and which are more important than these minor matters.

The unnecessary and provocative teaching of evolution theory...........

State School Board candidates oppose new science standard
(Elaine Bessier, Johnson County Sun, May 04, 2006)

All three candidates for the 3rd District seat on the Kansas Board of Education say they would not have voted for Kansas' new science standards approved last November by the conservative majority on the board.

The standards redefine science, challenge the theory of evolution and open the door to teaching intelligent design.

Harry McDonald, Republican, David Oliphant, Republican, and Don Weiss, Democrat, all from Olathe, weighed in on several board issues during a candidate forum April 27 at Shawnee Mission West High School in Overland Park.

John Bacon, R-Olathe, who voted for the new science standards, did not respond to any of three different invitations to attend the forum, said Cynthia Gensheimer, Shawnee Mission Area Council of PTA legislative chairman. The council sponsored the forum.

Bacon has not yet filed for re-election to the seat on the board that he has held for two terms.

The filing deadline for the Aug. 1 primary is June 12. The general election is Nov. 7. The terms are for four years. The 3rd District includes Olathe and the southwest area of the Shawnee Mission School District.

Bacon has not yet filed for re-election to the seat on the board that he has held for two terms.

The filing deadline for the Aug. 1 primary is June 12. The general election is Nov. 7. The terms are for four years. The 3rd District includes Olathe and the southwest area of the Shawnee Mission School District.

Nick Haines, KCPT host of "Kansas City Week in Review," moderated for the forum, attended by about 75 people.

Weiss, 53, said he would have voted "a resounding no" on the science standards the board approved.

"Fordham University rated the standards an F-minus," he said. "For our children to compete in the global economy, I would have voted for the National Teachers of Science standards proposed by the committee majority.

"With students currently applying to go to universities, the perception is that Kansas does not have a quality science program and they may not get into the university they want. I have no doubt, I will vote to change the science standards if I am elected," said Weiss, dean for Keller Graduate School.

Oliphant, 47, an architect, said, "I have three children in elementary, junior high and high school. I decided I could sit around and complain or get involved. I want to see Kansas education get back to where it is respected."

McDonald, 58, the Blue Valley School District coordinating teacher for science and a science teacher at Blue Valley High School from 1974 to 2004, said he has been a strong advocate for the science standards proposed by the science writing committee. The board's conservative majority approved a minority committee recommendation.

On the subject of intelligent design, McDonald said he served as president of Kansas Citizens for Science when the group called for a boycott of hearings on which "the board spent tens of thousands of dollars" to bring experts to Topeka to endorse the theory of intelligent design, which is based on the belief that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent creator rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.

"All three of us take the same position on intelligent design, but I have been lobbying the state board for good science education," McDonald said. "This won't be a new fight for me."

Religion could be taught in a number of social studies classes, McDonald said.

"You do not have to choose between good science and religious faith. I don't feel the two are in conflict and that you have to choose one or the other. Science has absolutely no opinion on God."

Weiss said he believes in a God-created world. "Science is a way of discussing how God's world works. There is no inherent conflict between evolution and God. Evolution is supported by many faiths.

"Once the scientific research has been done, then perhaps intelligent design deserves a place to be taught," Weiss said. "Now, it belongs in philosophy or religion class."

Oliphant said he is a cancer survivor and faith is a byproduct of that ... a way of explaining a higher power.

But Oliphant believes that evolution should be taught analytically, as a straight science, leaving faith out. Tax dollars should not be used to promote any religion, he said.

Further Spendi, your claim that teaching evolution will "result is the eradication of religion" is absurd in the extreme. Why?

a) Because there are many religious people who embrace evolution including our mutual friend RexRed.

I'll now be tearing a poor living lamb's limbs asunder with great relish for my nocturnal feasting, then I'll be hunting down young virginal beauties for carnal pleasure.

I'll now be tearing a poor living lamb's limbs asunder with great relish for my nocturnal feasting, then I'll be hunting down young virginal beauties for carnal pleasure.

a) Because there are many religious people who embrace evolution including our mutual friend RexRed.

I take great offence at this sentence because I have nothing better to do.

To the extent that there is real substance to the claim that academic freedom is endangered, it comes from the efforts of those like advocates of intelligent design (ID), who want to foist their "theory" on unsuspecting undergraduates who haven't learned enough about science to see through its pretensions of being real science rather than merely being disguised theology. If some Princeton students believe that it is important to have ID represented in the classroom to achieve "balance," then listen to what the American Association of University Professors has to say about this in a new statement: "Balance refers to the obligation of instructors to convey to students the state of knowledge ... There is no obligation to present ideas about intelligent design in a biology course, for example, because those ideas have no standing in the professional community of biologists."

There is a whiff of this spurious notion of balance in the Princeton "Student Bill of Rights," especially in the references to "the exclusion of other opinions and viewpoints" and "intellectual pluralism" in points two and four. Would Princetonians favor giving equal time to ID proponents and Holocaust-deniers, or perhaps even astrologers, among invited speakers and in the classroom?