In Harrisburg, Pa. they've locked horns on Intelligent Design. Several families are suing the school district for sharing the theory with students and stating that Darwinism is "only" a theory not proven truth. Any of you that have been to TMG's site know where we stand on this argument. Maybe this time people will make the right choice! But our government is based on Darwinism. This belief permeates our society. No wonder we have so much crime and problems! If a person can say that he came from a monkey he can also say that he cannot be morally accountable."Attorneys for the plaintiffs began their case by arguing that intelligent design is a religious theory inserted in the school district's curriculum by the school board with no concern for whether it has scientific underpinnings. "They did everything you would do if you wanted to incorporate a religious point of view in science class and cared nothing about its scientific validity," attorney Eric Rothschild said. Miller, who was the only witness Monday, sharply criticized intelligent design and questioned the work that went into it by one of its leading proponents, Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, who will be a key witness for the district. The statement read to Dover students states in part, "Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered." Miller said the words are "tremendously damaging," falsely undermining the scientific status of evolution. "What that tells students is that science can't be relied upon and certainly is not the kind of profession you want to go into," he said. "There is no controversy within science over the core proposition of evolutionary theory," he added. On the other hand, Miller said, "intelligent design is not a testable theory in any sense and as such it is not accepted by the scientific community." During his cross-examination of Miller, Robert Muise, another attorney for the law center, repeatedly asked whether he questioned the completeness of Darwin's theory. "Would you agree that Darwin's theory is not the absolute truth?" Muise said. "We don't regard any scientific theory as the absolute truth," Miller responded.
I guess that's the key isn't it? Science isn't really interested in truth. That is according to the Scientific Method. Are you willing to throw your support behind a group of people that are not interested in truth?
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
They're Making a Monkey Out of You!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The recent Nobel Prize for medicine went to a couple of guys who apparently were successful at bucking "Established Truth". http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100300195_pf.html
Regards,
= Mark R. =
Mark,
Thanks for the comment! I am indeed glad that these two men were finally recognized. I'm just wondering... why did it take nearly twenty five years to recognize these efforts??? This appears to be a symptom of exactly what I was talking about.
It is increasingly difficult for schools to figure out what to teach students about the origin of life without insulting or angering someone. We are in an age where people are increasingly willing to stand up for their beliefs. I have to admit that I am not familiar with this whole intelligent design aspect, but it seems to be an attempt at a middle of the road solution.
If something is still a theory then you may argue that it isn't cold hard truth and therefore does not have a place in our schools. I believe that we should not limit what we teach to our children based on whether it is proven or not. I believe we should teach all possibilities and let the children decide for themselves.
That, of course, opens another can of worms... what are all the possibilities? Heck, we would then have to mention the possibility that we were put on earth as an experiment from an alien race. I guess the important thig is to monitor closely what is being taught in the classroom and augment that with our own dialog at home.
-Patrick W.
Cold hard "truth" is hard to come by. Truth is very subjective. You would have to rewrite history books, rewrite science books, removing anything but the basics of growing plants (everything else is actually subjective, down to the atom).
Reminds me of the old black and white reels of "information" that was shown to children between the 40s and 50s...about communist, sex, puberty, relationships. They are watchable on archive.org. There is even one on How HEMP is suppose to save america and how every farmer should be growing and HEMP for america's saftey! (of course thats before the subjective war on drugs...)
The reality is you have to go with what is tested and understood. I dont think the government has any place in religion. period. The state should have no rights to "marry" anyone, and school should be a place to learn facts about the world and the history of society and develop skills of learning and skills for developing a career choice. Any morality or religion should be taught by me (their parents). A teacher's job is not to teach my child about religion, religious choices or morality. School should not have a hand in "molding" my child's moral choices or religious views. i do NOT trust my government nor their hired hands (teachers) to educate my child about those things. I Do not understand people who want to give that kind of power to the schools and state.
Science is always pursuing truth. The statement that you quote shows not a disinterest in truth but rather the scientific view that you should never consider any "truth" to be permanently settled. While scientists are open to questions regarding evolution, the questions -- and any competing theories -- should be based on scientific evidence. There is simply no better scientific explanation for the existing facts than evolution. There is simply no scientific basis for belief in a "designer." You also have to ignore the fossil record entirely to conclude that the same species have existed over the history of life on this planet.
You may, of course, decide that science does not hold all truths, and you would probably be unable to find a scientist who would disagree with this point. To reject science in favor of you beliefs, however, is a matter of faith and has no place in a science classroom. It is reasonable to bring up some SCIENTIFIC facts and theories that current evolutionary theory does not fully explain, but it has to be science-based. ID does not fit the bill.
Post a Comment