Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

AAAS Statement on Changes to Kansas Science Education Standards
AAAS is deeply concerned about the changes that have been made in the Kansas Science Education Standards in order to discredit the theory of evolution. The most troubling aspect of these changes is the redefinition of science. The "Nature of Science" section in the most recently proposed version of the standards says that science is a process that produces "explanations of natural phenomena." This implies that science is just one of many explanations of natural phenomena, including supernatural causes, and removes a defining principle of science which was present in the previous version of the standards-that science is restricted to natural explanations of the natural world. This restriction, which has been one of the cornerstones of scientific practice for more than three centuries, is one of the primary reasons that science has been fruitful in producing useful knowledge.
The latest version of the proposed standards also contains examples of facts that supposedly provide evidence against evolutionary theory, and statements that encourage students to distrust science. Some of these are inaccurate, and others are simply irrelevant or misleading. For example, the fact that the fossil record shows new species appearing at a highly variable rate does not discredit the theory of evolution, because evolution does not require a constant rate of change. Although scientists continue to make new discoveries about the processes of evolution, there is no doubt that evolution does occur.
The cumulative effect of proposed standards is to confuse students about the nature of science. In order to prepare our children to make informed decisions as adults on topics ranging from their own health to national security, we must equip them with a sound understanding of the science that will underlie these decisions. The latest version of the Kansas Science Education Standards does not serve our children well.

It appeals to ignorance, which is why there is a lot of it in American politics at the moment.

wande-

What's your take on the quote you just gave.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top scientists have measured the distance between the brain and its experiences. Take it away Prof.'s -

"Using a multi-meter and the well-known technological medical device that tests for the presence of disorders of thought, we have found that experience is properly maintained when it is at a distance of 7 Angstrom units (7 ten-billionth's of a meter) from the active brain-cell. Any more than that and the patient starts to suffer from dis-conjugative angstrom separation anxiety."

Intelligent Designers Down on Dover
(CHRISTINA KAUFFMAN, The York Dispatch, September 19, 2005)

The Dover Area School District and its board will likely walk into a First Amendment court battle next week without the backing of the nation's largest supporter of intelligent design.
The Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based nonprofit that describes itself as a "nonpartisan policy and research organization," recently issued a policy position against Dover in its upcoming court case.
John West, associate director of Discovery's Center for Science & Culture, calls the Dover policy "misguided" and "likely to be politically divisive and hinder a fair and open discussion of the merits of intelligent design."
*********************************************************
The school board's attorney, Richard Thompson, said he isn't surprised the Discovery Institute has distanced itself from the school board's stance.
"I think it's a tactical decision they make on their own," said Thompson, top attorney with Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center, a law firm that specializes in cases related to the religious freedom of Christians.
Though the Discovery Institute promotes the teaching of intelligent design, it has been critical of school boards that have implemented intelligent design policies, Thompson said.
Discovery Institute's Web site offers school board members a link to a video titled "How to Teach the Controversy Legally," referring to the organization's opinion that there is a controversy over the validity of the theory of evolution.
*********************************************************
Thompson said the Discovery Institute's noninvolvement in the trial won't hinder Dover's case because "the judge is going to look at the policy ... not who is in favor of it on the outside."
But the institute has been a hindrance to the school district's attempts to find "scientific" witnesses to testify about intelligent design, Thompson said.
Though Discovery representatives said they have never been in support of Dover's policy, Thompson said the organization's unwillingness to get involved in the trial became evident after it insisted that some of its fellows -- who were lined up to testify -- have their own legal representation, instead of the Thomas More Center, which bills itself as "The Sword and Shield for People of Faith."
Some of the Discovery Institute's intelligent design supporters backed out of testifying, even after Thompson told them they could have their own legal representation if they wanted, Thompson said.
"It was very disappointing" that the institute would prevent its members from testifying, Thompson said.
But he still found some willing Discovery fellows to testify that intelligent design is not a religious movement: Michael Behe from Lehigh University and Scott Minnich from the University of Idaho.

We are awake.