Apparently the teachers and textbook printers. Additionally, if you pick up any of the Science magazines geared toward those interested in science but not necessarily professional scientists, like Popular Science, Science, Discover, etc. you will find that they do not refer to the "Theory of Evolution" they just speak about evolution as fact, and in fact in the editorial sections of several of these magazines, you have "scientists" speaking about evolution and again not bothering to refer to it as fact. Additionally, I have read at least two articles in the last 15 months where people who did not accept evolution were immediately identified as creationists and derided. So, maybe you just need to look around and ask questions. Talk to high school students they will enlighten you about the way they are being spoken to about evolution.

I don't know where I'm going with this, so please bear with me.

Since birds are now considered to be descendents of the dinosaurs (See Richard Bakke's work.), it would seem that we have, in fact, discovered dinosaurs alive and well in our own time.

I am a biometrist: I work with statistics on the effect of forests on global warming. We use the Arabic alphabet to represent what we believe is reality, or our estimate of it. We use the Greek alphabet to represent absolute reality. This is a handy reminder that no matter what you believe reality to be, you're not exactly right, and that your understanding of it could change at any time.

I note that "religious truth" changes with time. The fire-and-brimstone version of Jehovah still worshipped by some fundamentalists, was once the Egyptian god, Seth. The Trinity was once Amun, Seth and Ra. The Hebrew god Adonai ("Moses" addressed god at the burning bush as "Adonai."), was previously the Egyptian god, Aten. The Ten Commandments are an abreviated version of the 42 Principles of Maat handed down to "Moses" at the "Mountain of God," which turns out to have a Temple of Hathor on it. "Religious truth" has undergone a lot of evolution.

Religion avoids Truth by failing to propose models of reality that can be tested. Without a way to test a wild idea, it is just a wild idea. If you believe there was a world-wide flood, then you must provide physical evidence that it actually happened and a testable model of how it worked; otherwise, all you have is a fairy tale.

Science is a way of thinking, not a particular set of discoveries. It does not support an atheist viewpoint any more than it supports a theological one. In fact, science can't really say any more about god than theologists can say about the physical universe.

Every time religion has gone head-to-head with science, it has lost - except once. That once was the destruction of the library at Alexandria by a mob led by a man named Cyr. The Catholic Church made him a saint: Saint Cyr. On the other side we have Copernicus, Bruno, Fermat, Newton, Einstein and, yes, Darwin. Had that library not been destroyed, we would probably have invented the steam train about the time Jesus was born and our first scout ships would now be returning from the nearest stars. That was a real triumph for religion.

How do religious concepts of time square with the Theory of Relativity? What is the effect of time distortion on the seven-day Creation story? Before we argue about evolution, we need to square our religious ideas with physics, chemistry, geology, genetics, biology ....

And, yes, science sometimes takes off on unsupportable tangents. String Theory is one such. The physicists need to drum up some support for this idea, or abandon it. But, if evidence doesn't show up within a few years, this idea will be discarded.

So much for idle musings. I have a climate simulation to work on.

--DJS

Regardless of whether Evo is flawed (and it is taught as theory just like gravity), I.D. is still very very thinly disguised Christian propaganda, which has no place other than in parochial schools. Why can't you admit this? Next you will oppose gun control and abortion and want school prayer restored.Not on my watch, not in the u.s.a.

Sympa, I know that all life adapts and that changes are occuring in populations from generation to generation, I understand that. I also understand that thinking evolves. I have no problems with that. In fact, that is a big part of my job.

I'm not sure if you read the post that you quoted, but it does not mention I.D. anywhere, I am talking about the bad science that is being taught to our kids and being passed off to the general public.


Because, if all this attempt does is remind scientists that they are not working in a vacuum and that the general public does NOT have to accept whatever they say as law, then it is a worthy endeavor. If it keeps people talking about what science is and what it is not what can be proven and what cannot, I will continue to support it.





BTW, I do oppose gun control, criminals will continue to get guns, the only people hampered by so-called gun-control laws are the law-abiding citizens (thank God I live in Texas) and I am opposed to abortion.

You might be interested to know that PRAYER HAPPENS IN SCHOOL EVERYDAY!!!!



Well, this is a democratic republic, so I guess it will depend on who has the majority of votes. You are always welcome to leave if you don't like what the majority votes. You can join Alec Baldwin and Barbra Streisand.... Oh, wait they're still here. Well, maybe you can encourage them to go with you.

wot.... like the universe is not a life creating machine...! fick is wot i say...that if anyone cant come to terms in stating that that is fact then there just plan silly arnt they...and thats got nothing to do with religion or cultral....they seem to miss the realistic point.....who are they anyway, just some stuck up righteous old plod giving emperic commands...i dont follow this id and to tell the truth i dont care but the schematics of the universe in its own self is a id...why isnt evolution plausible..tell me..i demand a religious nut to tell me...they cant!they'lljust beat me with they books until i die and tell me IM going to hell....i think somthing went horribly wrong and science no that a form of id in a very high contectual way was or is at play but not directlly AND how would u define a id its "everything as wot it does and very well is"...science is blind and religion is over imagentive and love a storie to the piont its real both are very well confused...i do believe however science is the new crucial step to understandment... and learning and developing our brains without it where would we be....yes..i love natrual science..astrophysics astrology ect i even self teach on new theorys ect,.....and iiiii love it..but when you get these benine people with there holy temptresses telling us where it should be taught...listen to that...its my arse!...is wot i say,,...hypercrits.....it was people like them that would of hung us for anything new and derivitive....like...the earth is not the centre of the universe..."Hang Him!"OOooohhh.....The EARTH goes AROUND the sun..."Pull His teeth out!


and i cant be bovered to check my spelling.....

well i thought i'd jus say that!

Thank u

i just took a deep breath and re read it on that quote ID is also confused....what is it that they find so hard to comprehend with.. of course life is complex everything is complex even woman......Even the universe is far uncomprehenderbly too complex why is that going to debunk evolution...oh my gooooooood....i dont understand there brains...do they do this on purpose...do they intently defy the realism of wot it is...natrually..a natrual movement and shift of a bio-organism that EVOLES on factors from a result of its habitatual environment and ecosystem..is this not plan simple...or is that why they do it...because its simple for us to say it like that because we can visulise...i dont see there point...that evolution is a small part of there id...is that not simple to understand....

IamSon, if you are talking about education, the you are preaching to the choir. You will find no greater ally for educational reform that you will in the scientific community. Unfortuantely, scientists do not control the funding, and have very little say over the content.

In regards to blaming scientists for talking about evolution as if it were a fact, there is a very simple reason for that. Scientists, being familiar with the scientific definition of a theory, know full well that a theory is not a fact, but merely the most highly likely conclusion with supported evidence that has yet to be falsified. That is why they do not need to keep reminding themselves that evolution is not a fact; they already know it, as part of the definition.

It seems to me that you are arguing to the wrong side. If the problem is that people do not understand what a theory is, the problem is not in the scientists who develop the theory. The problem is possibly in the teachers who don't have the funding, support, or training to teach properly. Personally, being that I tend to place the blame for consequences directly on those who get them, I would say that if a person takes science on faith, they have missed the entire point of it, and have absolutely no grounds to complain they have been lied to.

Gideon, as for ID being a “thinly disguised Christian propaganda”
I mentioned at the beginning of this thread that I felt ID was more of an affront to Christianity than evolution. Evolution does not point a finger at a creator or away from a creator and in this they can be reasoned to be somewhat compatible, ibid still lots of room for arguments. ID just opens a whole can O’ worms as to who this creator is, Alien beings, God, God’s, Goddesses a great big spaghetti monster. Enough of a big “if” to derail an area of research for several hundred years.

Is it possible for human to have all the answers and proof or must we rely a certain amount to hope and faith? Science is continually changing as new discoveries are made on a daily basis, the answers occasionally send us back to the drawing board and sometimes open an entirely new form science and reasoning. For instance quantum physics was for the longest time pure speculation and theory and now is receiving the credit and attention it deserves.
As truethat mentioned. We have a tendency to except scientific principles as dogma and in essence it has become a form of religion unto it self. With some adherents, so dogmatic that they reject anything to the contrary as being foolish and born of ignorance. Our personal view is blinded by our own arrogance and self worth to the point of actually stiffening our scientific progress as well as neutralizing our spirituality.
We place our faith in proof and speculation and give little credit toward old wisdom and ancient knowledge, New and Improved has become the god of the twentieth century.

In reality if a man was to know all there is to know about this planet we call home we would consider him to be a genius among men. Yet even if it were possible to have all that knowledge we must also consider that this planet of ours is but a grain of sand in the vastness of the universe and that knowledge is extremely limited and miniscule leaving us right back were we started with speculation and faith.

Although I admire science and appreciate the strides it has taken us I personally have more faith in the Creator than I do in the sciences. If it is not possible to know everything there is to know then I believe a foundation of faith is greater than a foundation of uncertainty to build my life upon.

Irish

Here in the Bible Belt this is the mainstream view--by far! In fact, recently, Creationists were able to get warning stickers placed on science text stating that evolution is just a theory! It was later overturned, but the outcry has now become even louder. Creationist are running for local school boards and winning handely. And this assault on the sciences is widespread. It's frightening.

Sean

How is reminding everyone that evolution is a theory an attack on science?

aquatus just stated that scientists know evolution is just a theory and in the scientific community it is just an accepted fact that it is a theory.

It seems to me that those opposed to reminding everyone that evolution is just a theory are the ones who are hampering science.

2. Isn't evolution just a theory that remains unproven?

In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct. The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago. Indeed, many scientific advances, in a range of scientific disciplines including physics, geology, chemistry, and molecular biology, have supported, refined, and expanded evolutionary theory far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined.

SOURCE
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html#Q02

It is an attack because the intent is deception. The purpose is to make people think that a scientific theory is the same as a layman's theory.

It is only an attack because right now no one is making the differentiation between a "Scientific" theory and a "Layman's" theory.

You can't have your cake and eat it too!

Either explain the difference to students, or let them know it's just a theory.

Then your objection is with the educators, not the scientists.

I find it hard to believe that where you live something as fundamental as what is a scientific theory is not taught in science class.

Indeed, evolution is "just a theory." So is Pythagoran's Theorem, yet you bet your life on it every time you go over a bridge or enter a building. What if the square of the hypotenuse does not equal the sum of the squares of the sides?

The only thing evolution lacks is the ability to prove that enough time has actually transpired to allow everything to happen. If there has, in fact, been sufficient time, evolution is proven. If not ....

ID assumes there has been enough time, thereby removing the only remaining obstacle to proving evolution true. If you claim that ID is true, you make an excellent case FOR evolution.

One other problem with ID: if a "supreme intelligence" directed the development of life, then what was that intelligence? Aliens from a galaxy far far away? The existence of complex life on earth, does not prove a god. It could just as easily prove little green men.

And of course, if life had a cause, then the cause had a cause. Who (or what) made god? God is too complex to have come about by him(her)self. Therefore, some intelligence must have made him/her.

--DJS

Cosmic Evolution embraces three aspects, which are intertwined everywhere in any planet of the infinity space.

These three aspects are: Evolution of the Consciousness, evolution of the mind and evolution of the physical matter.

The consciousness is the fundamental base of mental and physical evolution. Consciousness is intelligence, thus, to conceive a mental and physical evolution without intelligence, is to consider that a car can run in the city just by itself without a driver’s intelligence!

If intelligence is needed in order build an atomic bomb that eventually will disintegrate an atom-atoms; how more intelligence is necessary I order to build a single atom?



Unfortunately, scientists can only see physical matter; they cannot see the mind or the consciousness either.

Yes.

See I don't believe in ID. I think ID was created as I said before because fundamental Christians fear their children are being taught evolution as FACT.

You only need to skip around to a few other threads about evolution to see that it is regarded as a fact by a lot of people.


As an atheist I am angry that this is taught to school age children as a fact. It IS taught as a fact. You yourself said that teachers can not be expected to make disclaimers about everything they teach.

My issue with evolution is that it is regarded as a FACT and taught that way.

I don't see why it is so difficult to understand.

Just google any children's science webpage and look at how they talk about evolution.

It does come across to me that it is an attempt to brainwash kids to believe it is a FACT.

There is a hierarchy of "scientific fact," not much used these days when we have i-values and probability statements that can tell you numerically how strong a statement is. In it, a Law is provable deductively, or at least, is strong enough that most scientists would consider absolute proof unnecessary. A theory is almost that strong, but lacks some element needed in the deductive process. Such is the Theory of Evolution which rests on the unprovable Doctrine of Uniformity. Below Theory is Thesis and below that is Hypothesis.

A Hypothesis is, basically, an idea that is proposed for the sake of argument. It exists to be disproven. If, after numerous attempts to knock it down, it remains, it advances to Thesis. A Thesis is tentatively proven, but now the subject is being examined from a number of different viewpoints, in an attempt to clarify remaining issues.

In a Theory, the remaining issues have been clarified, but there remains some unreducible assumption. In a Law no such assumption is needed.

That's where evolution is: provable but for the problem of determining that enough time has elapsed to allow it to happen. "It's only a theory," exhibits a woeful lack of knowledge on the subject of what a theory is.

--DJS

You know I just thought of something VERY interesting.

You could teach Evolution in a science class as a way of showing students what a theory is and what a fact is.

Ex. The TOPIC of the class is Scientific Theory. And they show which parts of evolution are regarded as scientific fact and which are regarded as THEORY.

But I bet that if you suggested this to the science community they would reject it.

They want it taught as a fact.

ID/Creation is a religious based......concept is it not?

maybe a warning sticker on bridges Too?

THis Bridge Is built On a Theroy

Because in pretty much every post you have made, you all but rant against scientist, science, scientific method, and the idea that a person who spent twenty years studying a subject should be considered anything other than some one who makes a flat out guess. Actually, check that...you do rant.

If you want to complain about the ducators, then complain against the educators.

Truethat, you really need to work on this anger issue of yours.

Personally, I would love a class on nothing but scientific methodology. Unfortunately, the problem has nothing to with science or the science community. It all comes down to funding, which scientists do not have control of.




According to the Supreme Court it is.

truethat,

As long as you do not say "Yes, sir/ma'am," you will be ranting

I was hoping for a response from a certain other person.

It occured to me people have a problem with evolution being taught as fact. How should religion be taught in schools? with a warning sticker on the Bible stating Facts not included perhaps?

Nice attempt at deflection.

Nah. Not too long ago, we had one guy who was annoying the hell out of everyone by referring to them as "Sir."

When you are ranting, you will be basically casting a generalized antagonistic series of accusations at a particular field or group, you will be reciting a formulaic series of arguments, without supporting them, and you will be accusing that general group of several personal failures. The general impression is that you typed out the entire thing without drawing a breath.

Actually, it isn't all that much a deflection. After all, why would religions be excluded from the theory? If Intelligent Design is taught in schools, then in order to avoid being accused of not providing enough disclaimers, or of only teaching one version as fact, we will, out of necessity, have to teach the origin "theories" of all the religions, as well as the more secular ones.

After all, I.D. does really indicate who the designer is, so we have to include every single possibility.

Not really simply pointing out that the same focus on definition can be applied to religious doctrine, If we are to follow the idea that text books should state that evolution is theory religious texts should have an indication of equal measure

I think that the fact evolution is thought of as fact by the wide majority and that no real evidence of credible stature is given to counter it speaks volumes to the layman wouldnt you say

He was talking about how religion should be taught, not about ID, he was simply trying to deflect from the point made previously that nobody who cares about teaching science should have a problem with some sort of reminder that it is not Evolution, but the Theory of Evolution. Religion, when it is taught in schools is already taught as part of mythology, so why would you require another label.

Because when we are talking about teaching I.D., we are talking about I.D. being taught as an equal to evolution. If we are to regard it as an equal based merely on it's properties, then we must, in the name of fairness (because science has apparently been accussed of "rigging the game", so to speak), we must include all the other "theories" which meet those exact same qualities. Ergo, If I.D. claims to explain how life on Earth came about (although it doesn't), we must also include the Hindu version of how life came about, the Buddhist version, the Judeo-Christian version, of course, and any other version that meets the simplistics standards that I.D. sets. After all, they aren't being taught as religions, but rather as theories of the origins of life every bit as valid and credible as those of evolution. Why relegate them to mythology, when I.D. is mooching of the authority of science?

aquatus, I know you are on a rampage to destroy I.D., but if you take a little time from your rant to read what was said by Big Cheese you will note that it had to do with teaching religion, not ID, religion.

Let me help you, here is his post:



See, no I.D. monster in that statement at all.

As a scientist: I think Truethat has a point. Evolution would make a very good example as part of a discussion of scientific method.

Is Evolution true? Is Pythagoran's Theorem true?

There are four types of conclusions:
1. That which is true and can be proven true.
2. That which is false and can be proven false.
3. That which is true, but can be proven false (Type II error).
4. That which is false, but can be proven true (Type I error).

There is also what cannot be proven, but is nevertheless, true. This seems to be, by far, the largest category.

There is also paradox:
Is this true or false: I am lying. Try resolving that one!

The mathematical equivalent of "I am lying" is Goedel's Theorem. It proves that the system of logic is incomplete and that there is truth that cannot be accessed by logic. Paradox seems to be a fundamental part of the logic system. And that is why science will never determine whether there is a god. At the same time, it demonstrates that evolution could be true without actually providing proof.

Evolution's strongest support is simply that it explains a huge amount of what we observe in nature. It never disproved Creationism - it simply drowned it under a tidal wave of data.

Science is not absolute and scientists know this. In the end, we know practically nothing with absolute certainty. Religion only deludes itself in pretending that it does.

--DJS

As long as you are claiming that evolution is not science and that I.D. is, I really couldn't care less about I.D. The only time it falls into my area of interest is when it attempts to leech of the authority of science without earning it.



You aren't listening. If I.D. is taught, it is the same as religion being taught. Yes, Big Cheese was talking about religion, but, as I said, it really isn't all that much a deflection from the actual topic, that of I.D. There is, frankly, no way to distinguish between the standards of I.D., and those of religion, and therefore, even though Big Cheese was asking how religion should be taught, I was pointing out how the two are indistuigishable.

Thats interesting BC because the charter i'm involved with for my son actually teaches religon and history this way, it says his story is a story generally one sided, its not to be taken as literal fact and they teach of al the relgions the same way, how it came to be, why, how it speaks of a time and alot of how the storys were passed down, especially relgion people didn't read or write, i am all for gathering all the availbale data for the child, all of it, all sides give it to them tell them this is to the best of your ability what you know or have heard or found then let them decide what it means to them, do they agree or disagree and its very interesting the things that kids say, and in my case my son is growing in understanding and tolerance of all people......i see no value in keeping data form a child or telling them this is the only way, exclude all other ways (righteousness) this will not lead to tolerance or compassion ...Truth is in all places value is in all things, life is a whole all the parts contributing to the whole, it is in great error that humans in their ignorance think one concept explains it all, one book covers it all,that breeds ignorance and stunts grwth as we see in a humanity, ignorance is a epidemic these days.........

I agree with Doug's statement and Sheri's.

The way our children are educated should be looked at very closely.

It boggles my mind that instead of wanting to teach the concept and discipline of science, educators and scientists are all het up over pushing evolution.

Aquatus I notice when you don't have a real point to make you stoop to mocking me. That's pretty lame.

My point is a valid point. Just because you think its stupid doesn't make it stupid.

What mocking? I said that you were ranting, and you were.



I agree, our educational system needs quite a through makeover. If this had been your point from the start, there would have been little issue.

That wasn't your point, though. What I consider invalid is the claim that scientists are responsible for people not understanding science. What I consider invalid, just one example here, is your claim that a person who researches something for twenty years is just making a flat out guess. I can't even think of how you can justify such a claim, and since you have refused to expand on it with anything beyond "This I believe", then I have no choice but to consider invalid due to lack of support.



What is this desire you have to be insulted? No, I do not consider you to be as well-versed in science as I am. You insist that this means that I consider you stupid. You keep insisting that I have a certain opinion of you, and that science in general has a certain opinion on others, simply based on not seeing eye to eye.

Get over yourself. The scientific community doesn't think people who do not understand science are stupid. They simply think they are ignorant (let me guess...you consider that word to be an insult?). As for me personally, I simply do not care enough about your thought processes to label you as stupid. Ignorant of science, certainly, but no one expects you to know something that you haven't been taught. I do wonder, for someone who continously complains that he was lied to about science, why you never bothered to look into it yourself and figure out what it was that you were lied about.

Get over myself? Right more mocking oh wait....you don't do that.

This isn't about YOU aquatus. We are discussing ID and evolution. Deal with it and stop injecting personal insults and commentary when they have nothing to do with this topic.

ID is a direct result of the science community pushing evolution as FACT. And not only doing that but not allowing any criticism of this theory if it comes from someone who suggests that the earth might have been designed.

truethat,

you do seem to be ranting. The board is fortunate to have Aquatus take the time to explain evolution to people who are interested. I have never seen him post any kind of mockery or other personal attack.

Now as for ID. It seems to me ID came about as a way for creationists to weasle their way into the science class since they could not get their story in otherwise. As I said earlier, and this may be different since I don't live in the US, I have yet to see the scientific community "pushing evolution as fact". I have seen very specific pieces of research present facts, but not the blanket statements that have been claimed in this thread.

If somebody wants to submit an article proclaiming the earth was designed, they are free to do so. They must accept the results of a peer review of it though, so like all papers it better be able to stand the test.

This is a full article and not an "out of context" quote. Read. Enjoy!!

The Key Deception
by John H. Calvert, J.D., BA (geology)
October 19, 2006
I became interested in the science of origins in the mid 1980’s due to three findings. First
the finding of extraordinary evidence of design in living systems, second the finding that
mainstream science uses a rule called scientific materialism or methodological naturalism
to suppress that evidence, and third, the finding that the use of the rule is also hidden from
the public view. The effect of this systematic deception is to cause the public to believe that
modern evolutionary theory, which argues against design, is true, while its explanatory
power is actually very much dependent on a hidden counterintuitive doctrine that
effectively protects it from challenge.
My specialty in private practice was stock fraud. Most stock frauds are perpetrated by
undisclosed accounting practices that have the effect of overstating the financial condition
and results of operations of the issuer. Enron and World Com are well-known examples. I
came to understand that evolution today is promoted today in much the same way. Its
advocates use rhetoric and deception rather than candid scientific analysis to make their
case for an origins story that has an enormous impact on Religion, ethics, morals and
government.
The key to the deception is the lack of awareness among the public of the use and effect of
the Rule. Because of the non-disclosed use of the Rule the public is led to believe that the
scientific alternative to evolutionary theory fails because of a lack of evidence, when the
failure is actually due to the use of an unsubstantiated Rule. Since “mainstream science” is
not regulated by an SEC, a major focus of my work has been to expose the use and effect of
the Rule.
To that end I submitted to the Kansas City Star the op-ed shown below for publication in
early August 2006. It was submitted in response to a series of editorials that had been
published that used rhetoric and omission to oppose very objective Kansas Science
Standards adopted in November 2005. The editorial was designed to explain to the public
the key issues in origins science and how mainstream science uses rhetoric and the Rule to
skew the explanation “rather” than claimed “clear thinking.” In connection with the
submission I asked that it not be edited because of its complexity. However, without my
consent the key paragraph that exposes the non-disclosed use of the Rule was removed.
The edit had the effect of once again misinforming the public of evolution’s hidden offbalance
sheet liability. It is a classic example of deception used to promote a so-called
“theory” that has a major impact on both theistic and non-theistic religion.
The article published on August 19, 2006 is shown below. The key paragraphs that explain
the use of the Rule to the public that were deleted are shown in bold face italics.
The Kansas City Star (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/opinion/15309190.htm)
Posted on Sat, Aug. 19, 2006


JOHN CALVERT ON ORIGINS


Teaching Origins demands Clear Thinking, not Rhetoric
A recent editorial seeks “clear thinking” about origins, but its inflammatory rhetoric undermines that goal.
“Where did life come from?” isn’t easy to answer. I believe clear thinking starts with four conclusions
that most can accept, although we may argue about the details:
First, accounts of origins are generally built on one of two causal concepts: Life derives from (a) only
material causes or ( from both material and intelligent causes.
Stories about materialistic origins argue that because we cannot observe an intervening intelligent cause,
nature is a self-existing product of interactions of matter, energy and the forces. Chemical evolution
explains how life might have arisen from a chance combination of chemicals. After replicating life starts,
biological evolution writes the rest of the chapters using imagined random mutations and natural selection.
Articles about teleological origins argue that many natural systems, such as the genetic code, are
observed to have all the characteristics of systems designed by human intelligence, such as the Morse
Code. Since material causes alone are challenged to explain these information-rich systems, it is logical
to infer their origin from intelligence. Although we cannot observe the past intelligence at work, it can be
inferred from what has been left behind.
Second, all explanations about ancient origins are scientifically controversial. They rely on a constantly
changing mix of circumstantial evidence and lots of imagination to construct subjective historical
narratives about unobservable remote events not amenable to experimental confirmation.
Third, any origins story unavoidably affects religion, ethics, morality and even government. Materialistic
theories support religious views such as atheism, humanism, scientism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc., while
teleological theories support traditional theistic religions like Christianity, Islam and Judaism.
Materialists use “human reason” and science to provide direction to life, and traditional theists rely on
prayer and wisdom reflected in religious texts.
Fourth, in our country, government is constitutionally required to be neutral as to religion. Public
schools may not take sides in any debate “respecting” “religion.”
Any clear thinking requires schools to avoid any bias that favors one origins story over another. This
scientifically controversial subject that unavoidably affects religion cries out for scrupulous scientific objectivity.
The current origins story favored by “mainstream science” is not scientifically objective because it
uses a subtle and generally unstated materialistic bias that is absolute. We must assume life derives
only from material causes. Although students are led to believe the story is an empirically tested
scientific conclusion, it actually is an interpretation of facts that fit a preconceived materialistic
assumption that is not religiously neutral. This model skews public education to favor the non-theist
over the traditional theist. (this paragraph was deleted by the Editor)
Science standards adopted last year in Kansas reject preconceptions in favor of critical scientific analysis
of the prevailing materialistic origins story. It is not entirely objective, because it does not encourage
discussion of the alternative. However, it is a move toward better origins science that is religiously
neutral.
To advance clear thinking about origins, we need reporting that will exchange rhetoric for critical
analysis of the current standards. (this paragraph was deleted by the Editor)
John Calvert is managing director of Intelligent Design Network Inc., a nonprofit organization seeking
institutional objectivity in origins science. He lives in Lake Quivira.

Another bit of interesting reading. Again, no "out of context" quotes. Just an excerpt from an interestign article with the link to the full article.



LINK

For you, Iams,



full article

I think all the points are valid on this thread, i think that is what often is of value about UM that we all share data, opinons, ideas, thoughts on various topics, to get as many points of view, as many persepctives as possilbe then decide what it means to each of us that is called critical thinking, that is the new face of education which is now taking root i know very little about the topic a bit here and there i enjoy the thread , I appreciate all POV and i want to look at them all , Aquatis, true, doug, iamson, Hypers then i want to do my own critical thinking and decide what it means to me , if i agree or disagree, when we as a unity start telling each other that one is right and one is wrong we lose sight of the purpose of Um, we all learn from each other and I learn from True for me her style is direct and easy to comprehend, i do not find her a rant, i appreciate she has an opinon she puts it out there, I beleive she is just asking to be respected there is no right or wrong we are just discussing...thanks to all that have taken the time to share, i have plenty of data to decide what i will choose to think about ID....happy thinking to all

I.D is included in the term religion its not a science and is based on faith rather than actual science therfor falls into the same catagory hense my point! and no deflection

You obviously have no idea of how much evolution plays in the national curriculum ,here in the uk evolution is part of 1 lesson of about an hour it isn't explained further than explaining the relationship between geographic occurrences and the distribution of diversity( I take it that plate tectonics are accepted as real and that there is a geographical connection with diversity)

so it would seem your concerns are unfounded and misplaced, based in ignorance and most defiantly bias

More time is spent of the reproduction of a tomato than evolution !




Well come up with some real science to validate I.D,s claimes

you see all of science is open to constructive criticism that furthers understanding or disproves theory via example but it is not open to kneejerk objections brought about by the fear that science is contradicting personal belief its a case of put up or shut up i think



This is s a very good point worth mentioning again and i notice that there was no comment on it
Do you doubt this theory should the same concerns of its validity be placed upon its principle because of a word in its title or do we accept that it works

Evolution is both fact (something that is highly probable) and theory (ties "facts" together). A good example is the Theory of Universal Gravity. It is both fact and theory. This is easily demonstrated--just jump up. Did you come back down? Yes. To go one step further here ... I can say that, in theory, the earth orbits the sun. Does it? Of course. We know this is fact. Evolution is no different. It has been shown correct thousands of times over--particularly on the molecular level. As Biologist Dr. Douglas Theobald stated to me in an email:

But I am a research scientist, and I require that "working" inferences and explanations be tangibly productive (or at the very least not misleading), regardless of my political and philosophical preferences. My research (cancer research at the molecular level) and scientific success depends on it. Contrary to common public perception and to the unsubstantiated claims of many non-scientist Creationists, evolutionary theory is fundamental to progress in the biological sciences, and it is only becoming more so as we become engulfed in the information tsunami coming from large-scale genomic sequencing projects. I cannot afford to use concepts that lead to the wrong inferences or that just lead to nowhere. The real-life stakes are much too high, and in the end reality has no sympathy for quaint philosophical biases.

Cheers,Douglas

^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`
Douglas L. Theobald, Ph.D.
American Cancer Society Postdoctoral Fellow
http://www.cancer.org/
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry University of Colorado at Boulder

In other words ... If ET wasn't FACT, he couldn't do what he does, medications et al could not be developed, and people would die.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.--Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

SOURCE
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Evolution as Fact and Theory by Stephen Jay Gould
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gou...and-theory.html

Kindly,

Sean

You gotta love that article, Hyper, especially how it points out how i.d. is just Xian propaganda. I would suggest teaching older "mythologies" first. Have Norse, Greek, Chinese, Japanese, Egyptian, Indonesian, native American and African legends told right along with i.d. Show how they are all alternatives to Evolution. Have a Rabbi and a Wiccan High Priest show up in every science classroom. Maybe a Shaman and an Imam. Then, and only then, should i.d. be taught in science classes!