Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

I would love to see timber and farmerman hosting a visit from spendius and mathos. If it ever happens, please post photos!

DeVos: Intelligent design should be discussed in Michigan's science classes
(By KATHY BARKS HOFFMAN, ASSOCIATED PRESS, September 20, 2006)

Republican gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos says he thinks Michigan's science curriculum should include a discussion about intelligent design.

He says teaching intelligent design along with evolution would help students discern the facts among different theories. He'd like to see local school districts be able to teach intelligent design if they choose to, although he wouldn't require that it be taught in science classes.

"I would like to see the ideas of intelligent design that many scientists are now suggesting is a very viable alternative theory," DeVos told the Associated Press this week during an interview on education. "That theory and others that would be considered credible would expose our students to more ideas, not less."

Intelligent design's proponents hold that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher force rather than evolving from more primitive forms. Some want science teachers to teach that Darwin's theory of evolution is not a fact and has gaps.

However, a federal judge in December barred the school system in Dover, Pa., from teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in high school biology classes. The judge said intelligent design is religion masquerading as science and that teaching it alongside evolution violates the separation of church and state.

Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm has said that Michigan schools need to teach the established theory of evolution in science classes and not include intelligent design. She says school districts can explore intelligent design in current events or comparative religions classes.

The State Board of Education last week postponed adopting new science curriculum guidelines until state lawmakers get more time to weigh in on what the state's public schools science curriculum should be and how it should approach the teaching of evolution.

House Education Committee Chairman Brian Palmer, R-Romeo, told the board that language adopted in curriculum standards should be broader rather than narrower to allow for changes in theory.

He did not mention intelligent design, although critics such as the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan have said some Republican lawmakers are trying to "weaken" state standards to allow some instruction about intelligent design in science classes.

The issue already has generated some controversy in Michigan. The Ann Arbor based Thomas More Law Center last year threatened to sue Gull Lake Community Schools over its policy that intelligent design can't be taught as part of science classes. The law center represented the Dover school district whose policy was struck down.

Two middle school teachers in the Gull Lake district in southwest Michigan had wanted to include intelligent design as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution in their classes. The district banned them from doing so.

The Gull Lake policy now leaves the door open for intelligent design to be taught as part of an elective class on controversial issues, district attorney Lisa Swem has said.

Yer on yer own for bonnetted milkmaids, though.

Could you have a good blow out there without disturbing the neighbours. It isn't English to disturb the neighbours.

Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm has said that Michigan schools need to teach the established theory of evolution in science classes

Hell, you could blow up damn near anything you wanted without disturbing the neighbors. If you plan a real big explosion, it'd just be polite to let 'em know a bit in advance; some of 'em would feel slighted if not given the opportunity to be right there to enjoy the festivities.

Spendius, I don't want to be harsh, but I think you HAVE been harmed by an egregious lack of exposure to all kinds of knowledge.

Evolution theory was not taught to me and it didn't do me any harm. Eh?

real life wrote:

Simply put, evolutionists use the similarity of structures in different species (homology) as 'proof' of an evolutionary link between them.

Yes, but they never base that conclusion on only one structure.

real life wrote:

(It's a type of circular reasoning: Organism A and organism B have similar eyes, therefore they are linked in the evolutionary process , i.e. they share a common ancestor or one evolved from the other.

Well, for one thing, independently evolved eyes often have structures different from each other.

For example, the eyes of octopusses have a different structure than the eyes of fish: octopus eye nerves come out on the outside of the eyes, while fish eye nerves come out on the inside first, then leave the eye on one single spot. (That's a problem for the "intelligent design" hypothesis by the way: wouldn't an intelligent designer make decide which side is "right", and stick to his decision?)

Anyway, my point is that when genetically unrelated species evolve similar features independently, you can often see it in distinctive differences in those features.

real life wrote:

How do we prove that Organism A and organism B have an evolutionary link? Well, their eye structure is similar. )

This would be circular reasoning if taxonomist relied on one feature only -- but they never do. Even where evolutionary convergence has produced similar eyes, the animals will have differing features in other organs.

Thomas wrote:

Well, for one thing, independently evolved eyes often have structures different from each other.

Shouldn't they always?

Why would we assume that different organisms living in different environments and facing different challenges would all best be served by the same design of each organ, etc ?

It is interesting to see you invoke 'convergence' to try to explain why homology is selectively and arbitrarily applied as a criteria, but it's not very convincing.

spendius wrote:

Evolution theory was not taught to me and it didn't do me any harm. Eh?


Really ??? Never ??? I find that quite shocking (hence the emoticon) Why not? Were you taught maths and chemistry, etc?