Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Ill have to attend and see if I can make it through without getting asked to leave.

Quote:

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

wandeljw wrote:

Quote:

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

I always thought that the existing plausible theory was plausible.

Damn! For some reason I cant get onto the Conservapedia site. It is really slow loading, youd think God would want all the free bytes she could get.

A question of faith, not science
(Editorial, Bristol Herald Courier, Mar 01, 2007)

An East Tennessee lawmaker seeks to put the state's education commissioner on the hot seat.

But Sen. Raymond Finney isn't concerned about the state's troublesome high school dropout rate or even its stagnant math or reading scores. Finney wants to know the official state position on the origin of the universe.

Finney is playing coy, but his true intent is obvious. He wants students in the state's public science classrooms taught Biblical creationism or its kissing cousin, intelligent design, along with evolution. This is the so-called "teach the controversy" approach that creationists have adopted in an effort to make an end run around court rulings that prevent overt instruction in creationism in public schools.

His fellow senators should reject this attempt to weaken the state's science curriculum. They should vote no.

This isn't a new debate. Tennessee, after all, was the site of the famous Scopes trial some 80 years ago.

More recently, elected officials in Delaware, Georgia and Kansas have made attempts to interject religious dogma into science class by adding intelligent design to the curriculum or by placing anti-evolution stickers on textbooks. The courts frowned on these efforts. And in the case of the Kansas Board of Education, the voters turned the intelligent design proponents out of office.

The law of the land is clear. Neither creationism nor intelligent design can be taught in a science classroom. In a comparative religion class? Maybe. Biology? No.

This isn't an attack on faith. Tennesseans are free to practice any religion or none at all. Parents can instruct their children in any faith tradition that they chose. Ministers are free to preach about the glories of God's creation every Sunday.

But religion and science operate in different realms. How can Tennessee high school students be prepared to tackle college science courses without comprehension of at least the fundamentals of evolutionary theory?

Finney, 65, of Maryville, is a retired pathologist with a medical degree from the University of Tennessee. Certainly, he must have studied evolution as part of his undergraduate or medical education. But it didn't harm his faith.

On his Web site, Finney describes himself as a "born-again Christian" and says that no other experience had such a profound impact on his life. He teaches "end time" prophecy at his church and participates in a jail ministry program. He previously held leadership roles in a local Right-to-Life organization and an abstinence-based sex education program. His work with inmates and on behalf of his faith community is commendable, but Finney shouldn't use his position in the General Assembly to legislatively endorse his religious beliefs.

Finney posed his question to the commissioner in the form of a Senate resolution. As such, it only has to pass the Senate to make its way to the Department of Education. The House - with its Democratic majority - doesn't get a vote. That's a shame because the House would probably stick this measure in a committee and allow it to die.

The outcome in the Senate, where Republicans are in control, is much more of a question. Some will be tempted to go along with the measure to appease their constituents on the religious right. But this isn't a wise choice. It isn't the sort of reform that the state's underperforming schools need.

Finney's resolution asks: "Is the Universe and all that is within it, including human beings, created through purposeful, intelligent design by a Supreme Being, that is a Creator?" If the commissioner answers in the affirmative or even ambivalently, Finney poses an additional question: "Why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation or theory"?

The state education commissioner isn't in the business of answering theological questions. Senators should reject the resolution and maintain the separation between church and state. Vote no.

TENNESSEE UPDATE

Quote:

A question of faith, not science
(Editorial, Bristol Herald Courier, Mar 01, 2007)

"Why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation or theory"?

Intellegent Design isn't science because it calls on a "supernatural" force that drives life and evolution, but all that is doing is explaining a scientific question without science.

"It's too complex for us to figure out, so there must be some more intellegent being out there that made it all and we just don't understand it."