Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Vitter redirects funds after creationism stir

"We would like to know what the school board intends to use the money for," House said. "There are many different ways to get at the same goal."

There's a sense that Mr Hofstadter is guilty, partially at least, maybe ironically, of the condition he is discussing.

BTW- I asked you somewhere whether the Dover plaintiff's legal costs were underwritten by the sort of shadowy figures you seemed outraged about in the recent case regarding Mr Gore's movie. Not being even-handed in such matters is a cause of suspicion that you might be a peripheral member of a plot. An anti-IDer picking and choosing his ground bodes ill for the triumph of anti-ID.

Eleven parents of students in Dover, Pennsylvania, near York, sued the Dover Area School District over a statement that the school board required be read aloud in ninth-grade science classes when evolution was taught. The plaintiffs were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) and Pepper Hamilton LLP. The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) acted as consultants for the plaintiffs.

ID has, at least, the potential for splendour and magnificence and that's maybe a fix as essential to the spirit as food is to the body. Anti-ID is muck-grubbing and tawdry.

Just look at Soviet art and the terrible literary style of its spokespersons.

One might need to feel what Reich called the "oceanic feeling" from time to time which never is glimpsed in Woody Allen's work.

1) deny there is warming
2) claim that its effects will be minimal, if noticed at all
3) convince that costs to turn things around will be greater than doing nothing
4) and each of these morphing claims have ridden upon the long-established marketing trick of suggestions that "the science is faulty/controversial" (tobacco corps did EXACTLY this, for example).

Nothing I've just said is false. All of it is available for anyone who cares to do some research. Hundreds of millions (that's no exaggeration) buys a lot of media **** particles and almost everything in the global warming thread which repeats/reflects 1-4 above is an instance of or consequence of this immense marketing campaign.

There is no comparable vested interest on the other side of this argument.

There is no comparable investment in PR agencies to manufacture a desired consensus. There is nothing on the GW side of this debate like the broad phalanx of covert front groups pretending not to be funded by corporate/energy corporations to forward narrow and often completely amoral economic interests.

It would be a serious misuse of language to suggest that there is any "shadowy figures" in this picture as that term suggests something covert and purposefully hidden from view.

Nor is there any discernible economic interest which might be relevant to this matter (on either side) such as we see in the GW issue.

Who am I to claim some limit or boundary on where people might perceive beauty and meaning? Why or how could I make the claim that an accountant from Delaware who is a 'believer' will or must experience more awe and purpose and splendor in existence than a 'non-believing' botanist? I'm afraid I just don't buy this axiom, spendi.

By why not underline the 'banned' rather than the 'religion'? Look at all the paintings of humans in our own european cultural history up until the classical world's art was re-introduced.

What's being measured?

Florida mandates students must learn evolution
(Orlando Sentinel, Oct. 20, 2007)

Florida has written new standards for teaching science that for the first time say public-school students need to learn about evolution.

The proposed science standards, released Friday, call evolution one of the "big ideas" that must be taught as part of in-depth, hands-on learning.

Florida's plan is part of a larger push to improve science education, but could set off a battle over beliefs.

Current standards do not use the word evolution - long a controversial word in education - but do require teaching evolutionary concepts in public schools.

The Thomas B. Fordham Institute in a 2005 report gave Florida an F for its current science standards, saying they were "sorely lacking in content," "thin" and "nebulous." In particular, the report criticized the "superficiality of the treatment of evolutionary biology."

A group of teachers, professors and others started rewriting the science standards in May, aiming to beef up learning in a state where fewer than half of its students are proficient in the state's science tests.

Florida students also lag behind on national tests, even as the United States lags behind other countries, particularly those in Asia.

"If we want to be competitive in the world, we have to do this," said Susan Brennan, a Seminole High chemistry teacher in Sanford, Fla., who helped write the new standards.

The revisions aim to give more-concise directions to teachers and more-engaging information to students.

"Lots of time kids have a feeling that it's just a collection of facts," Brennan said, but science is wondering, investigating and solving problems. "Scientists are very creative people."

The proposed standards are more specific and more limited and will help science education because they recognize "kids aren't going to be able to absorb 50 new topics a year," said Paul Cottle, a Florida State University physics professor who helped draft them.

The public has 60 days to comment on the changes. Then they go to the State Board of Education as early as January for approval.

State officials say the draft is a step toward improving science instruction. They fear that without changes Florida students will be ill-prepared for college and for a technology-based workplace.

"We've got to start developing more scientists," said Mary Jane Tappen, executive director of Florida's Office of Math and Science at the Florida Department of Education. "We've got to improve science education."

The draft standards are based on those used in other countries with top science-education programs, such as Finland and Singapore, and the recommendations of national education and science groups. They reduce the number of topics students are taught and push for a deeper understanding of key "big ideas," one of which is "evolution and diversity."

Evolution education has long been controversial, most recently in Kansas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The debate, made famous by the so-called Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925, once focused on whether schools should teach the Biblical version of creation - that all living things were created fully formed by God - or that they evolved, as described by Charles Darwin.

In recent years, some have pushed for teaching "intelligent design," which holds that aspects of living things are best explained by "an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection." Others have pushed for teaching that the theory of evolution does not fully explain the origins of life.

Fred Cutting, a retired engineer who served on the standards committee, wanted the new document to reflect that latter view and to let students know that scientists do not yet have all the answers.

"If you want students to understand the theory, they have to understand the pros and cons," he said, adding that the draft presented too "cut-and-dried" a view of evolution.

The proposed standards for seventh-graders, for example, would include a requirement that students should be able to "recognize and describe that fossil evidence is consistent with the idea that human beings evolved from earlier species."

Orange County-based television evangelist John Butler Book took a harder line, saying he would support that standard only if creationism also were taught.

"Evolution is an educated guess," Book said. "It cannot be demonstrated. That we came from an ape is absolutely ridiculous."

Joe Wolf, president of Florida Citizens for Science, called the draft standards a "wonderful" blueprint for science education. Wolf said the evolution debate holds little interest to most scientists, who accept it as fact. That's why the issue did not become controversial during the standards-writing meetings, he said.

"It's a P.R. issue," he said. "And it's a religious issue. In the scientific community, it's not an issue."

Students need to understand evolution to comprehend news about antibiotic-resistant staph infections or why pesticides don't always stop cinch bugs from destroying St. Augustine grass.

If the new standards are adopted, "I think the kids will have a better understanding of science, which is what it's all about," Wolf added.

Florida's previous science standards were adopted in 1996, as were standards for six other curriculum areas. Reading and math also have been overhauled in recent years.

The new standards are only a good first step, officials said, and must be accompanied by lots of teacher training and a by an effort to encourage science majors to pursue teaching careers. The standards will not make much difference if teachers do not know what to do with them, said Cottle, the FSU professor.

"The next generation of teachers," he said, "that's critical to all of us."

Yeah. On this stuff, you and I don't dance well, spendi.

Yeah. On this stuff, you and I don't dance well, spendi.

I am open to challege, and a willing listener, to any refutations of the points I made.

Viewers of the thread probably have expectations that you will respond in a less haughty manner than you have done.

I see that John Butler Book has apparent problems with things like "evidence" "predictive applications" and "the scientific method".
Hillbillies like him dont usually bother themselves with such minor detail.
HE also is rather unaware of past Supreme Court decisions. I wonder whether hes similarly unaware that the fugitive slave act of 1850 has been nullified?

I have no problems with "evidence" "predictive applications" and "the scientific method" so long as they are kept in proportion and applied scientifically.