Eighty years after the first famed "Monkey Trial," a second one of sorts opened Thursday, but this time with evolution in the dock.
A State Board of Education subcommittee began four days of trial-like hearings that give evolution's critics, many of them advocates of intelligent design, a public forum to attack the theory attributed to 19th Century British scientist Charles Darwin.
HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:
what's worse is it happens other times and almost nobody notices
I agree....they don't notice it now; they didn't notice it then, and they will continue not to notice until the twin problems of news media convergence and government whoring are solved. Ha ha, as if.
Billy Bellend wrote:why is it so important for you to convert all the kids to your personal opinions?
seems overly-personal for a public servant.
So, by your logic, a teacher who explains to his students that the Earth orbits the Sun is simply 'converting' them to his or her own personal opinions.
I guess we should all stop 'converting' these poor kids to any sort of worldview that includes an understanding of the universe around them...
"Evolution is a great theory, but it is flawed," said Martin, 59, a retired science and elementary school teacher who is presiding over the hearings. "There are alternatives. Children need to hear them…. We can't ignore that our nation is based on Christianity — not science."
The hearings in Topeka, scheduled to last several days, are focusing on two proposals. The first recommends that students continue to be taught the theory of evolution because it is key to understanding biology. The other proposes that Kansas alter the definition of science, not limiting it to theories based on natural explanations.
"We're just getting to evolution now, and I have one student who puts his head down on his desk to show he's not paying attention," said Brad Williamson, a biology teacher at Olathe East High School in Olathe, Kan., about 20 miles southwest of downtown Kansas City, Mo. "Others say they're not comfortable. It's very difficult, because you spend months and months gaining their trust to even broach the subject, and now they're shutting down."
tnf wrote:ID theory fails at being "science" and ... amounts to nothing more than intellectual surrender. Or something to that effect.
"Intelligent Design" is entirely a marketing slogan for the same old campaign, explicitly designed to infiltrate places protected from the influence of faith, like public schools. The motives of ID's principals aren't nearly as secular as they'd like everyone to believe.
In other words, don't give it more time than it deserves.
Hannibal wrote:Kansas may alter the definition of science. :lol:
Jesus Fucking Christ (pun intended).
Yea, they want to alter it so that it doesn't just cover things explained by natural phenomena. That can't backfire on them. Seriously, why would a science teacher not then be able to teach witchcraft and how to make potions?
But of course, they don't mention that Intelligent Design supporters aren't just talking about any old diety...there is a very specific God that they are referring to. I have yet to run across a non-Christian ID theorist. Check out the design institute's website, though. They are really trying to paint themselves as some real scientific think tank.
I've been a believer of evolution for quite some time. All the scientific evidence I've seen so far supports it. Ok, I didn't read this whole thread, but how can you say that creationism is valid when you have evidence of Lucy, Neanderthals, Dinosaurs, and all the critters in between. Did we start out as Adam and Eve and somewhere along the line regress into cave dwelling, completely religeon ignorant submodern humans with sloped heads and rudimentary tool use?
Where does all the religeous history factor into this? According to the bible there was a steady upward progression to the time of Christ from Adam. Where evolution paints a much more believable picture of steady growth towards modern man.
Anyway, I know the main point of this thread is about whethere it should be taught in school. I think it should, as one theory. But if one religeon is involved, I think a lot more of them should be as alterntative theories.
I am in no way as educated as some of you on this subject, but that is my opinion anyway.
According to Miller, the Brown University biologist, academia is opposed to explanations that rely on God as a causal agent because they go against the very definition of science: seeking a natural explanation for natural events and phenomenon.
The intelligent-design movement, Miller said, seeks to allow a non-natural explanation into science. "By altering the definition of science, they seek a playing field where the supernatural can have scientific meaning."
Numbers, the science historian, said doing so would be disastrous for science education. "The heart of scientific enterprise is to try to solve these problems naturally, not just say, OK, this is intelligently designed, so we're giving up."
Kaziganthe wrote:2 out of 15 people in my Speech class believe in evolution. Hurray America!
Am I weird to believe in both evolution AND God?
What in the world will the fundamentalist religious nuts do when/if we find alien life on Europa or we're visited by a species of superior intelligence?
Religion will live on, but Christianity will surely crumble.
