Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

So... Should schools teach Supernatural theories, or should the supernatural be left in our religious institutions?

Fresh airing of evolution draws crowd
(BY HANNAH SAMPSON, Miami Herald, January 9, 2008)

To hear some Floridians tell it Tuesday night, introducing the word ''evolution'' into state science-education standards would be a needed step into the 21st century.

Others at a meeting at Everglades High School in Miramar urged state education officials to give other theories of the origin of life equal space -- and let students decide what to believe.

''We don't teach science in Sunday school,'' said Ken Loukinen, president of the Atheists of Broward County. ``Please don't teach religion in science class.''

The public forum -- the fourth statewide and only one in South Florida -- was the last before the state Board of Education votes on new science standards Feb. 19. Approximately 80 people attended the meeting Tuesday night, with about 30 signing up to speak.

In the past few months, thousands have commented on the proposed standards on a state website, which is now closed to public remarks, and hundreds have turned out at meetings throughout Florida.

The proposed standards contain instructions on how evolution should be taught, beginning in kindergarten. The draft declares: ``Evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence.''

Current state standards, approved in 1996, refer to ''biological change over time'' -- a description of evolution -- but contain no mention of the word itself.

Debate in Florida echoes that in Texas, which is preparing a similar revision of its science-education standards. And it also reflects a nationwide split: A Gallup Poll in June showed that 53 percent of Americans questioned believe in evolution, while 44 percent do not.

The continued divide in popular opinion frustrates many scientists and educators.

''There should not be a debate,'' said Gerry Meisels, director of the Coalition for Science Literacy at the University of South Florida and member of the drafting committee for the new standards in the state. ``It's very counterproductive for our children, it's counterproductive for our country, it's counterproductive for our future. This is like the Middle Ages.''

At Tuesday's meeting, speakers begged Florida not to be like Tennessee, where the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial over evolution unfolded in 1925.

''Do we want Florida to be the laughingstock of the United States, like Tennessee was at one time, because we teach creationism alongside evolution?'' asked J. Alan Beech, 80, who teaches at Miami Dade College's north campus.

Some at Tuesday's meeting had traveled long distances to attend.

Oscar Howard Jr., superintendent of the 3,300-student Taylor County Public Schools near Tallahassee, drove nine hours to speak against the new standards. His district's five-member school board had unanimously voted to oppose them about a month ago.

''We do not believe that evolution is a fact,'' he said. ``It should be taught as a theory along with other theories.''

West Palm Beach parent Laura Lopez, who wore a shirt saying ''Don't Condone What God Condemns,'' called evolution a lie spread by Satan.

''People's own belief doesn't negate the reality that the earth was created by God,'' she said.

Such anti-evolution sentiment has been addressed in numerous reports.

Earlier this month, the National Academy of Sciences released one called ''Science, Evolution, and Creationism'' that argues that creationism does not belong in science class.

In 2005, Florida got a failing grade in its teaching of evolution from the Washington, D.C.-based Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a nonprofit organization that advocates educational reform.

''Life sciences and evolution are given shorter shrift than any of the others,'' the report said of Florida's standards. ``The E-word is sedulously avoided.''

``It's very counterproductive for our children, it's counterproductive for our country, it's counterproductive for our future. This is like the Middle Ages.''

You obviously haven't read the thread.

The issue is whether to teach those aspects of "natural" theories which impinge dramatically upon the social organization as evolution theory does. ET does imply that you are a failure if you don't spread your genetic material at every opportunity using any strategy that works.

Some of us think that the pushing of evolution theory in schools is irresponsible and designed merely to provide jobs for those who have made themselves "experts" in such an easy subject as an alternative to real science. And we are not arguing for religious indoctrination either.

Would you care to define "our religious institutions"?

Pure drivel. Meaningless and worthless foam from the mouth.

With opponents like that this should be a breeze.

How does ET impinge on your social organization? Where is the imaginary ET bible that you drew that "you are a failure if you don't spread your genetic material at every opportunity using any strategy that works", thats absolutely hilarious.

Creation institute's degree plan questioned
(By Ralph K.M. Haurwitz, AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN, January 10, 2008)

The state's commissioner of higher education isn't exactly saying he's opposed to a Bible-oriented group's proposal to offer a master's degree in science education, but some of his recent actions and words could suggest a certain amount of skepticism.

Higher Education Commissioner Raymund Paredes is expected to meet with representatives of the Institute for Creation Research today to discuss, among other things, his suggestion that the group offer a degree in creation studies instead.

In addition, Paredes has asked an informal panel of scientists and science educators to comment on the institute's curriculum, which is flavored with a Christian worldview.

The developments come after two other panels that advise the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and its commissioner recommended approval of the institute's proposal to offer the online degree. One panel stated that, despite its "embedded component" of creationist views, the degree plan "is nevertheless a plausible program."

That drew criticism from advocacy groups that say religion has no place in science classes. Institute officials declined to comment for this story.

Patricia Nason, the institute's department chairwoman for science education, said last month that most students wind up teaching at Christian schools but that they learn about evolution and are qualified to teach in public schools.

"We have to go back and make sure we have a very strong review of this proposed program from science educators as well as scientists themselves," Paredes said. "Right now, I'm focusing not on my personal views but making sure both ICR and the scientific and science education community have a full opportunity to express their views on this proposal."

Paredes said he would make a recommendation Jan. 23, when a committee of the coordinating board is scheduled to consider the matter.

The nine-member board, which has final authority as part of its oversight of certain aspects of private and public postsecondary education, is to take up the matter the next day.

Steven Schafersman, president of the Midland-based group Texas Citizens for Science, which has criticized the institute's proposal, said the commissioner's suggestion to recast the degree is "a fine idea."

"It would be churlish to deny ICR the ability to grant a graduate degree when we allow theology schools and Bible colleges to grant graduate degrees," Schafersman said. "What we object to is letting them grant a degree in science education. That is a prevarication."

The proposal by the nonprofit Institute for Creation Research, which is based in Dallas, comes at a time of intense debate about the teaching of evolution in public schools and about whether creationism and intelligent design should be part of the science curriculum.

Chris Comer, who had been head of science curriculum for the Texas Education Agency, has said she was forced to resign in November after forwarding an e-mail message that her superiors felt was biased against intelligent design, a belief that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause. Creationism ascribes the origin of matter and species to God.

Most scientists and science educators say the curriculum should stick to evolution, the theory that plants and animals developed from earlier forms by the transmission of slight variations through successive generations.

Documents from the Institute for Creation Research on file at the coordinating board show that creationism permeates its curriculum. For example, the documents say students graduating from the program would be able to "design science lesson plans from the creationist worldview" and "refute evolution."

In addition, the institute's bylaws, tenets and other records show that students and faculty members are required to believe that humans did not evolve from animals but were created in fully human form from the start, that God created all physical and living things in the universe in six days, and that anyone who rejects Jesus Christ will be consigned to "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

In addition to limiting admission to Christian students, the institute prohibits adultery, fornication and homosexual behavior by students on pain of dismissal.

"We're going to take a look at those issues," Paredes said. "We're inviting representatives of ICR to respond to those kinds of questions."

The informal panel of scientists and science educators met earlier this week with coordinating board officials. Members of the panel have been asked not to comment to the media for the time being, said James Kinsey, a chemistry professor at Rice University who participated.

"Once the commissioner has made his recommendation and the process plays out a little more, I'd be happy to talk to you," Kinsey said.

some of his recent actions and words could suggest a certain amount of skepticism.

If they stop the ICR offering degrees might they not be liable to be sued for restraint of trade or somesuch?

S.C. Education Board Approves Science Textbook, Despite Questions About Evolution
(By The Associated Press, January 10, 2008)

The South Carolina Education Board approved a biology textbook Wednesday for public schools, despite questions from critics worried about how the book teaches evolution.

The board voted 9-7 to approve the textbook's latest edition, which can be used in ninth- and tenth-grade biology classrooms. Science teachers from across the state erupted in applause after the vote.

Board member Charles McKinney argued the origin of life is an incomplete mystery and thinks the book presents evolution as fact rather than theory.

He asked the board to "carefully weigh the impact that distorted science opinion presented as scientific truth in adopted text will have upon youth." He said evolution was used by Nazi Germany and other totalitarian states as an excuse to kill millions of people.

"I need to assure that neo-Darwinism is not allowed to project lies that could once again allow the emergence of social Darwinism," McKinney said.

The former teacher said teaching evolution doesn't bother him, as long as students are taught it's an incomplete science. He said he realizes creationism can't be taught, because the courts have ruled against it.

The book's co-author, Ken Miller, disputed the criticisms and said the updated book's section on evolution is unchanged from the textbook already used in South Carolina and all 49 other states.

Miller challenged the board to find a single reference to evolution as law or fact rather than theory. No one could.

Miller called it absurd and insulting to blame the theory of evolution for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin were driven by racism, anti-Semitism and socialist utopianism, not scientific theory on the origin of the species, he said.

"It's almost shameful to me that we're spending so much time questioning whether evolution should be taught in school in 2008," said board member Trip DuBard of Florence. "I thought we were beyond that. If you can't support teaching science to kids, something else is going on."

Several board members called it embarrassing that so many science specialists had to come to the meeting to defend a textbook. They also argued that rejecting the book would send a message to teachers that their expertise isn't wanted. The textbook was given top ratings last year by a panel of 11 South Carolina teachers.

In South Carolina, the state pays for textbooks and the state Education Board approves which can be used in classrooms after a panel review.

McKinney said he based his objections on critiques by retired Clemson University botanist Horace Skipper and Pickens County school board member Oscar Thorsland. The board approved other biology textbooks in December, but postponed discussion on Miller's because McKinney wanted to review the complaints.

The objections included that volcanic eruptions have proved geologic formations can happen in days or months, not millions of years, and dating methods are unreliable, so the textbook should not refer to something as billions of years old.

Miller said dating is reliable, and just because some geologic formations were created quickly doesn't mean everything formed that way.

"The state of South Carolina has never disappointed me this much," said sophomore David Camak, of Ware Shoals, who identified himself as a biology major and a Christian. He declined to give his college. "It seems to me that this reviewer does not want students to think at all."

Clemson professor Jerry Waldvogel said he and his colleagues were disturbed the complaints came from someone identified as a Clemson professor. He submitted a letter signed by 130 other Clemson faculty saying they don't support Skipper's objections.