Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Evolution bill nearing demise
(by Shannon Colavecchio-Van Sickler, St. Petersburg Times, May 1, 2008)

The Senate, at Brandon Republican Ronda Storms' request, just refused to accept the House version of an evolution teaching bill that Storms has been championing all session.

That means the bill (Sb 2692) has to bounced back to the House, where members will be asked to approve Storms' more broadly worded "Evolution Academic Freedom Act," which Storms says is aimed at protection teachers and students who question and critique the theory of evolution.

Majority Whip Rep. Ellyn Bogdanoff, R-Fort Lauderdale, has said there is little "appetite" in the House for Storms' proposal. And session ends tomorrow, meaning it's slim odds this legislation will pass this year.

The better theory is the one that explains more, that explains with greater precision, and that allows us to make better predictions."

Evolution bills die in Legislature as session ends
(Sarasota Herald Tribune, May 2, 2008)

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. Hotly debated evolution bills that critics said would inject religious doctrine into public schools in the guise of science died a quiet death Friday on the final day of the legislative session.

House and Senate supporters, mostly Republicans, were unable to resolve their dispute over two versions of the legislation before the close of the session.

The Senate favored a bill (SB 2692) that would have prohibited school officials from punishing teachers who used "scientific information" to challenge evolution.

A House bill (HB 1483) would have gone farther, not just allowing such challenges but requiring that schools teach "critical analysis" of evolution.

The Senate version was based on model legislation advocated by the Discovery Institute, a Seattle think tank that supports research on intelligent design. That theory holds that some features of the universe and living things can be explained by an "intelligent cause."

Some intelligent design advocates claim it's scientific in nature but a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled that it is a religious concept.

The Discovery Institute says no state has yet adopted its legislation but five have included critical analysis requirements in their school science standards.

Florida Citizens for Science opposed the legislation, saying it would lead to a costly court challenge.

"We are afraid of the stunting effect this legislation will have on science education, as students will be exposed to old, discredited arguments against evolution that have their roots in religious protestations against that science," the group said in a statement.

It is impossible, however, to delimit the actual frontier between religious and artistic expression languages and pure communication-languages..........For, on one hand, no one can speak without putting into his mode of speech some significant trait of emphasis that has nothing to do with the communication as such; and, on the other hand, we all know the drama in which the poet wants to "say" something that he could have said equally well or better in an exhortation, .....

So it has come about that modern civilization is in a very special degree a culture of the intellectual powers, in the narrower sense of the term, as contrasted with the emotional traits of human nature. Its achievements and chief merits are found in this field of learning, and its chief defects elsewhere. And it is on its achievements in this domain of detached and dispassionate knowledge that modern civilized mankind most ingenuously plumes itself and confidently rests its hopes. The more emotional and spiritual virtues that once held the first place have been overshadowed by the increasing consideration given to proficiency in matter-of-fact knowledge. As prime movers in the tide of civilized life, these sentimental movements of the human spirit belong in the past, -at least such is the self-complacent avowal of the modern spokesmen of culture. The modern technology, and the mechanistic conception of things that goes with that technology, are alien to the spirit of the "Old Order." The Church, the court, the camp, the drawing-room, where these elder and perhaps nobler virtues had their laboratory and playground, have grown weedy and gone to seed. Much of the apparatus of the old order, with the good old way, still stands over in a state of decent repair, and the sentimentally reminiscent endeavors of certain spiritual "hold-overs" still lend this apparatus of archaism something of a galvanic life. But that power of aspiration that once surged full and hot in the cults of faith, fashion, sentiment, exploit, and honor, now at its best comes to such a head as it may in the concerted adulation of matter-of-fact.

School District Director: Evolution, creationism are unproven theories
(KENNEBEC MORNING SENTINEL, May 6, 2008)

Neither creationism nor evolution belongs in a high-school science curriculum, a School Administrative District 59 director believes.

Matthew Linkletter of Athens says that both are merely theories that represent "personal beliefs and world views," rather than proven science.

Linkletter suggested during last week's SAD 59 board meeting that the board discuss evolution, the "Big Bang Theory" and other studies he believes should be deleted from the curriculum.

The school board tabled action on the science curriculum at the April 28 meeting, and will reconsider the issue when it meets at 7 p.m. May 19.

Linkletter, a Christian, said there is no way to prove either evolution or creationism.

"You can't show, observe or prove it," Linkletter said of the belief systems. "It's something you have to believe by faith. It doesn't meet the criteria of science.

"If it's not scientifically verifiable, then maybe we should leave it out of the science classes. When you make a statement that's not backed by facts and just represents a world view, then it has no place."

Linkletter said he wants the best science for SAD 59 students, who should "be armed with the truth." They should be able to explain the origins of life according to evolution if it is taught in the schools, he said.

"Nobody has the answer to the origins of life. It's a philosophical question."

High-school science teacher Jessica Ward disagrees.

"The empirical proof of evolution is in the study of genetics and how genes relate between organisms," said Ward, who teaches advanced-placement senior biology, senior anatomy/physiology and 10th-grade biology. She said evolution is proven, as an empirical matter of science, through studies of the human genome.

"My personal, as well as the National Science Teachers position, is that you can't teach genetics or ecology without evolution.

"The basis for it is the theory of evolution."

Ward noted that the Maine Learning Results mandates instruction in the theory of evolution. Schools would not be accredited without it, she said.

An effort to remove the theory of evolution from a high-school curriculum actually won temporary approval from the Kansas Board of Education, Ward noted.

In 2005, the Kansas Board of Education approved new public-school science standards that cast doubt on the theory of evolution. Two years later, however, the Kansas board repealed the ruling.

SAD 59 Board Chairman Norman Luce said that a high-school science curriculum might not be the correct forum for the study of evolution. A philosophy class might be a better fit, the Starks resident said.

"It's OK to have it somewhere, but it depends on how much time they're spending on it in the sciences curriculum," Luce said. "I don't care if everybody else in the country uses it. Science is about proving things. (Linkletter) has a good point."

Luce added that he is not necessarily opposed to the study of evolution, but is not sure how much time should be devoted to it.