Get on the Bus

By Geoff

January 20, 2006 3:14 PM | Link to this

There is no one solid religous answer for the Evolution counterpart. I say “religous” because there are over 1500 reported religions in the U.S. alone, only a few of which believe in what ID is suggesting. If we give High School book space to the ID theory, should we not also give theory to muslims, buddhists and any other interested religion? What qualifies a religion to get acceptance into textbooks? Money, Power, School Board Membership?

By Richard Hoppe

January 19, 2006 3:52 PM | Link to this

Rick claimed that “I have stated for years that evolution is far too complex a subject to teach to high school students.”  How about calculus?  Newtonian physics?  The kinetic theory of temperature?  Should we eliminate all scientific subjects because they have deeply complex areas?  Or should we teach the fundamentals in high school so as students move on they have a good base for further education?  The second gets my vote every time.   We don’t teach the full complexity of any scientific theory in high school: we teach the basics of them. Rick went on “Yet the evolutionists want it taught because they believe it discredits religion.”  I know a lot of evolutionary scientists — biologists, paleontologists, geologists, biochemists — and their personal religious views range from evangelical Christian to atheist.  I have never once heard one of them say he or she wanted to teach evolution because it discredits religion.  Not once!  Rick is simply wrong here.  What the people opposing the Board’s action are against is using the government’s dime and teachers’ time to push a non-scientific religious view in public schools. Read Judge Jones’ actual decision.  It’s 139 pages, but is clear and understandable and devastating.  And Jones is a Republican appointee, a conservative, and a regular church-goer. Rick concluded “However, if a contrary viewpoint is expoused the evolutionists go ape, wanted to stamp out any contrary viewpoint. Hmm. methinks they protest too much.”  Rick hasn’t read much history of science or contemporary biology.  Contrary opinions are published every day in the scientific journals, hashed over, fought out, discussed, debated and critiqued.  But the people doing that base their arguments on actual empirical data, not free-floating opinions and subjective impressions detached from data.  Science is hard, and opinions are a dime a dozen.  But the test is in the data, and intelligent design people have not published one tiny bit of data supporting their “opinion”.  Not one bit.  I’ve read Behe and Dembski and Meyer and Minnich and the other ID proponents, and there are no systematically collected data reported in any of their books and papers.  Just free-floating opinion: “This thing looks really really complicated, so it must have been designed.”  That sentence is the total content of intelligent design “theory”.

By Rick

January 17, 2006 6:07 PM | Link to this

I have stated for years that evolution is far too complex a subject to teach to high school students. Yet the evolutionists want it taught because they believe it discredits religion. (I would note that I think evolution is true, but how should I know, I was a liberal arts major?) However, if a contrary viewpoint is expoused the evolutionists go ape, wanted to stamp out any contrary viewpoint. Hmm. methinks they protest too much.

By Matt

January 17, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this

Frankly, I can’t understand why religion needs to be taught in the science classroom. Keep it out. If you want to teach ID, teach it in Sunday school where it belongs. I’m really sick of hearing, “Well, I just don’t believe in evolution,” as a reason to not teach it. Well, what if I don’t believe in the “theory of gravity?” Maybe I believe that gravity comes from Tiny, the Giant Gravity-Inducing Guinea Pig? I should then force everyone to learn about Tiny, despite there being no legit science behind him (or her?). It’s the same thing as this ID crap. I’m sick of it.