Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

There is no proven correlation (between the teaching of Evolution and the misapplication of evolution in the form of eugenics), but even if there was, you consistently fail to prove that ID would do anything to remove the danger, seeing as both Evolution and ID say the same thing where natural selection occurs.

There is, however, one bigger threat that is more explicit and more obvious than the absence of ID and that is the teaching of ID. It is best not to support a lie that teaches bad science like ID does. Teaching kids that if you can't think up of how something is done then God did it (which is essentially what ID is), is not a good way to raise a bunch of people with clear thinking skills that will allow them to see through shams that religious priests, imams etc. and governments throw up in front of them.

Have a look at the cast of characters in the Eugenics Society. Such things attract a certain type. Lack of humility being a given. Control freakery being another. Knowing what's best. All Darwin fans.

Critics galvanize evolution bill
(Stephen D. Price, Florida Capital Bureau, April 15, 2008)

Calling a bill that would introduce theories other than evolution into the classroom "evilution" and a magnet for lawsuits if passed, a group of scientists and other opponents galvanized against the legislation on Monday.

"It not only invites religion … but it will make it hard to get out," said Vic Walczak, legal director for the ACLU of Pennsylvania, in a news conference outside the Capitol.

Dubbed the "Academic Freedom Act," the bill (HB1483) cleared the Schools and Learning Council Friday and will next to go to Policy and Budget. Its Senate version, (SB2692) is waiting for action by the full body.

The senate bill says in part it will provide, "public school teachers with a right to present scientific information relevant to the full range of views on biological and chemical evolution; prohibiting a teacher from being discriminated against for presenting such information."

The bill came as a response to the Florida Board of Education adopting revisions to the standards for teaching of science, said Ann Lumsden, a Florida State University biology professor and president of the National Association of Biology Teachers.

Proponents insist the bill is not a smokescreen that will allow creationism to be taught in classrooms.

"It does not have anything to do with religion," said Rep. D. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla, sponsor of the House bill, to the Schools and Learning Council last week.

But opponents, who call themselves Citizens for Science, disagree, and say language in the bill tries to cover up the fact that it allows creationism to be introduced into the classroom.

"Intelligent design is only a belief," said Harold Kroto, an FSU professor and Nobel Prize winner in chemistry. He said creationism is certainty without evidence and termed it "evilution."

Walczak said the bill will open school board districts, not the state legislature, to numerous lawsuits if it is passed.

FLORIDA UPDATE

Quote:

Critics galvanize evolution bill
(Stephen D. Price, Florida Capital Bureau, April 15, 2008)

The senate bill says in part it will provide, "public school teachers with a right to present scientific information relevant to the full range of views on biological and chemical evolution; prohibiting a teacher from being discriminated against for presenting such information."

wandeljw wrote:

FLORIDA UPDATE

Quote:

Critics galvanize evolution bill
(Stephen D. Price, Florida Capital Bureau, April 15, 2008)

The senate bill says in part it will provide, "public school teachers with a right to present scientific information relevant to the full range of views on biological and chemical evolution; prohibiting a teacher from being discriminated against for presenting such information."

Teachers already have that right. This bill is useless.

In addition the wording is flawed such that it loosens the restrictions on presentation of non-scientific views. And I'm sure it's not "flawed" that way by accident.

I disagree, and i think that it is no accident that the wording appears as it does.

. . . it loosens the restrictions on presentation of non-scientific views.

rosborne979 wrote:

. . . it loosens the restrictions on presentation of non-scientific views.

I disagree with this statement.

... public school teachers with a right to present scientific information relevant to the full range of views...

... public school teachers with a right to present scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views...

I wanna see another lawsuit where these clowns get their asses toasted and buttered real good. IF we worry about the wording to sound like something reasonable, do you think thats then gonna stop anyone from teaching ID "theory" especially if theyve got implied immunity from any sanctions?

Even if we insert the word "scientific" ros, the ID schmucks will be busy as beavers at School boards peddling their ID "REserach" and commanding that their view is scientific. Even though , at almost the same time, they claimed they were undergoing "Viewpoint discrimination" in another state.

If the bills are passed, an individual teacher can teach creationist views as scientific. The school administration would be required to prove that the views are not scientific before they can sanction the teacher.