Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Senator calls for answer on creation of universe
(By TOM HUMPHREY, Knoxville News Sentinel, February 27, 2007)

NASHVILLE - Sen. Raymond Finney proposes to use the legislative process to get an answer to the question of whether the universe was created by a "Supreme Being."

Under Senate Resolution 17, introduced by the Maryville Republican, the answer would come from state Education Commissioner Lana Seivers "in report form" no later than Jan. 15, 2008.

Finney, a retired physician, said Monday that his objective is to formally prod the Department of Education into a dialogue about the teaching of evolution in school science classes without also teaching the alternative of "creationism," or "intelligent design."

The move would thus renew a debate that has raged off and on in the Tennessee Legislature since at least 1925, when the 64th General Assembly enacted a law forbidding the teaching of evolution - setting the stage for the famous John Scopes "monkey trial" in Dayton, Tenn., later that year.

Finney said there is no doubt in his own mind that everything in the universe, including human beings, was created by a Supreme Being.

"There has never been any proof offered that Darwin's theory of evolution is correct," he said.

"I'm not demanding that she (Seivers) to do anything," he said, "just asking, 'Are you sure we're doing the right thing?' "

He said the resolution is "giving her the opportunity to say, 'You're wrong. There is no creationism.' "

As the resolution is written, if Seivers does answer no to the first question - stating that the universe was not created by a Supreme Being - she would be offered "the General Assembly's admiration for being able to decide conclusively a question that has long perplexed and occupied the attention of scientists, philosophers, theologians, educators and others."

But if she answers yes, or states that the answer to the creation of the universe is uncertain, then there is a follow-up question that must also be answered: Why is creationism not being taught in Tennessee schools?

Finney said he suspects that Seivers would answer that the means of creation of the universe is uncertain. Seivers was not available for comment.

But Bruce Opie, legislative liaison for the Department of Education, said state policy has been "over the last several years" that it is appropriate to teach students about creationism in religion or sociology classes, but not in biology classes.

"As far as his (Finney's) question embedded in this resolution, I am a little bit confused," said Opie. "It's awfully interesting that he wants an answer from the person sitting as commissioner."

The State Board of Education actually decides curriculum for public school courses, he said, and Seivers is basically bound by those board decisions.

As a Senate resolution, the measure needs approval only by the Senate - where Finney and fellow Republicans have a majority of members - to become effective as a formal request to Seivers. The Democrat-dominated House need not take any action.

Opie said department officials would welcome discussion with Finney about his questioning proposal, which has not yet been scheduled for a vote in any committee. Finney said he was not certain when he would bring the resolution up for a vote.

Department officials are analyzing the Finney proposal and have not taken a formal position on it, Opie said, but, "I could possibly see us flagging it." Legislation opposed by the administration is said to carry a "flag" or to be "flagged."

When Mr Finney asks-"'Are you sure we're doing the right thing?' " I think he must be concerned about social consequences which is what I have been telling you for ages this debate is actually all about.

He said the resolution is "giving her the opportunity to say, 'You're wrong. There is no creationism.'

I don't think the Scopes trial has any relevance in this debate.

AIDsers conveniently forget that there is such a thing as synergy. They forget other things as well.

wandel, Always the gentleman. This is about the "harshest" criticism coming from this poster.

Its obvious that youre flippin around on the hook.

Conservapedia: Don't Mess With Noah's Flood
(Carl Zimmer, ScienceBlogs.com, February 27, 2007)

I suspect poking around Conservapedia will become one of my new tools for procrastination. You're guaranteed a jaw drop within a couple minutes of searching on this Wikipedia for conservatives. It occurred to me that I had not yet bothered to look up "creationism." The entry is a whiplash of a read, with critics and backers of creationism having it out, sometimes within a single paragraph. What really struck me was the section on "Attempts to Criticize Creationism." The history page shows that it is authored by "Aschlafly"--presumably Andrew Schlafly, founder of the entire site. It is marked "Don't delete these changes."

And what has been set in stone? After some discussion of St. Augustine, we get to some good stuff:

(2) Young-earth creationism, which holds that the earth is about 7000 years old, is consistent with many observations, such as the existence and nature of the freshwater Great Lakes, the young moon and the Grand Canyon. Opponents repeatedly attempt to censor the sale of publications by the U.S. Parks Service near the Grand Canyon containing differing views of its development.

(3) Creationism is accepted by most Americans and by the most significant scientists in history. Intolerance by opponents of creationism has led to a silencing of contemporary scientists on this issue, but many risk their careers by speaking out against theories that earth is somehow billions of years old.

Conservapedia describes itself as "one of the largest user-controlled free encyclopedias on the internet." Just keep your hands off Noah's flood.
Oh, by the way--perhaps you're wondering about the young moon?

"There is no plausible non-creation theory of origin for the Moon at this time."