|
Education Report: Creationism, intelligent design have no place in science courses
Sunday, January 27, 2008
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences in early January entered the debate about teaching intelligent design in science class. The academy’s report says unequivocally that creationism, based on the explanation offered in the Christian Bible, and the currently popular idea of “intelligent design” are not science and have no place in public school science classrooms. “Them’s fightin’ words” to evangelical Christians. They are the primary promoters of intelligent design, a blatant attempt to get their religion into (back into, they believe) our public schools. Lon Klingman, a missionary from Hawthorne, Fla. expressed his opinion at a state school board meeting recently where revisions in science standards were under consideration. Klingman was quoted by The Associated Press as saying: “I believe that God created the Earth and everyone that is on it,” adding that the teaching of evolution was not compatible with his religious beliefs. There are probably many things taught in school that are not compatible with someone’s beliefs, religious or otherwise. We teach about the Holocaust in history classes, even though there are those who believe it to be a total fabrication. We teach that man has been to the moon while some people believe the whole thing was staged on a film set in Hollywood. No, our schools cannot stop teaching things because someone has an opposing view or finds them “not compatible with his religious beliefs.” Klingman’s wife, Ruth, expressed the view that if evolution is taught in public schools, “I want it presented with its pros and cons.” She might have had an arguable point if she had stopped there. She went on, however, to say, “I’ve never seen an ape turn into a human. It’s not observable.” She just illustrated why intelligent design is not appropriate for the science curriculum. Her statement is the epitome of nonscientific thought. If the standard is what is observable, we’ll return to teaching that the sun revolves around Earth and that Earth is flat. Science is not about what you believe. Science is about forming hypotheses, designing a way to test the hypothesis, gathering data, interpreting the data and publishing the results for peer review, challenge and replication. Theories are allowed to stand until scientific evidence emerges that proves them wrong, or, at least, requires they be revised. We need a citizenry better trained in science, but our students are falling behind students from other countries. Teaching intelligent design only confuses students about what constitutes science and what doesn’t. Intelligent design does not lend itself to testing, challenge or even discussion. It is what it is — and it isn’t science. On the other hand, “biological evolution,” the Academy of Science says, “is one of the most important ideas of modern science. Evolution is supported by abundant evidence from many different fields of scientific investigation. It underlies the modern biological sciences, including the biomedical sciences, and has applications in many other scientific and engineering disciplines.” I am not aware that intelligent design has contributed to any advances in modern medical science, or any other science for that matter. It may sustain some students’ religious teachings, but I doubt that it will enhance their understanding of science; forcing it into the science classroom will certainly confuse students who want to learn the methods of true science. Parents teach their kids their values. They must also shoulder the burden of passing on their religious beliefs without imposing that responsibility on science teachers. Let’s agree that religious dogma be taught in church or other institutions designed to teach faith and let science teachers teach science. Charles Cummins, Ed.D., is a retired school administrator. Send questions to him at: cacummins818@gmail.com
comments
|
Advertisement
|
August 29, 2008
11:37 a.m. [ Suggest removal ]
It is interesting read what the Evolutionists have to say about Intelligent Design. They talk like they know something that we don’t. First the reason Macro evolution is called a theory is because there is no real evidence to support the cute little stories that Darwinists make up. You know the stories Darwinists make up about how it might have happened. At least ID is based on real informational and probability science. It might be helpful to read “The Edge Of Evolution” by Dr. Behe concerning mutations if you think ID is not science based. If you really don’t want to teach anything in science that is not proven to be true, How do you explain the teaching of Macro evolution. Macro evolution, changing from a fish to a dog or a pig to a whale, is no more true than the story about the tooth fairy. If you are going to speculate in front of children about how macro evolution might have happened I see no reason why we can’t speculate in front of children about how Intelligent Design might have happened. It seems to me that believing in ID is far more helpful to society at large then believing that we are nothing more than a fortuitous accident and no one cares if we live or die.... I wish all you Darwinists would stop trying to connect ID with creationism. Lets be honest, Darwinism is all about religious belief and the fear there might be a God. How else can you explain the massive campaign to prevent the teaching of ID in the classrooms by any means including manipulations, exaggerations and even lies about religious connections. All you Darwinist should calm down and live and let live. Most people don’t care if you believe in God or don’t believe in God. its your choice, Live with it.
tfagan
11:42 a.m. [ Suggest removal ]
THE NEW DISCIPLINE!
Things will never be the same in academia after this.
There is a new discipline on the scene: physical science, the old science of cause and effect.
Against the backdrop of a nation embroiled in debate and legal battles over whether creationism or evolution, or both, should be taught in the classroom, The Quest for Right proclaims a
DAY OF VICTORY!
The Quest for Right, a series of seven textbooks designed for the public schools, represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. As a result, the several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately replace the unprofitable Darwinian view.
The backbone of Darwinism is not biological evolution per se, but electronic interpretation, the tenet that all physical, chemical, and biological processes result from a change in the electron structure of the atom which, in turn, may be deciphered through the orderly application of mathematics, as outlined in quantum mechanics. A few of the supporting theories are: degrading stars, neutron stars, black holes, extraterrestrial water, antimatter, the absolute dating systems, and the big bang, the explosion of a singularity infinitely smaller than the dot of an “i” from which space, time, and the massive stellar bodies supposedly sprang into being.
The philosophy rejects any divine intervention. Therefore, let the philosophy of Darwinism be judged on these specifics: electron interpretation and quantum mechanics. Conversely, the view that God is both responsible for and rules all the phenomena of the universe will stand or fall when the facts are applied. The view will not hinge on faith alone, but will be tested by the weightier principle of verifiable truths – the new discipline.
The Quest for Right is not only better at explaining natural phenomena, but also may be verified through testing. As a result, the material in the several volumes will not violate the so-called constitutional separation of church and state. Physical science, the old science of cause and effect, will have a long-term sustainability, replacing irresponsible doctrines based on whim. Teachers and students will rejoice in the simplicity of earthly phenomena when entertained by the new discipline. You will not want to miss the adventure of a lifetime that awaits you in Volume 1 of The Quest for Right, by C. David Parsons.
Visit the official website for additional information: http://questforright.com/
“A book that will change the world.” – Wayne Lin, Editor, Tate Publishing LLC
9:08 p.m. [ Suggest removal ]
C. David Parsons has bombed your website with the same bloated commercial he sends to many other websites about his book series, "The Quest for Right," that he has written and is paying a "vanity press" to publish for him. "The Quest for Right" is not peer-reviewed science, but obviously pseudoscience, with no redeeming value in the real world. The website has positive reviews from one preacher and one editor at the publishers. That's it. It is obvious from looking at the website that it is crafted for readers who are ignorant of actual science but impressed by big words, devout Christians, right-wing conservatives and such.
12:13 p.m. [ Suggest removal ]
Paul Burnett gave himself away:
" " It is obvious from looking at the website that it is crafted for readers who are ignorant of actual science but impressed by big words, devout Christians, right-wing conservatives and such. " "
I do not want to appear as if I am supporting the ID movement, (because I don't), but I do want to point out that Paul is more interested in fighting an ideologically motivated culture war, than he is in promoting honest science. This is a clear example of the equal but antifanatical agenda that "neodarwinian bullies" harbor.
People like Paul are no more honest than creationists are, so science and education have absolutely nothing to do with the motivations that are behind their insults.
2:21 a.m. [ Suggest removal ]
island, I would say that an anti-fanatical agenda is a good thing, wouldn't you? And how is it bullying to point out the truth about a pseudo-scientific website? This guy does go from site to site, just like another gentleman whose name I won't mention, promoting his nonsensical writings.
Have you been to Parson's site? Look at a sentence from the volume 1 contents page:
"While evolution has not yet been proven to be a scientific fact, it is looked upon as a "verified" theory."
Right there Parsons demonstrates he's either fundamentally ignorant of the scientific method or a liar. And even if he is ignorant, it's by choice, because information about how science works is all over the web, so that makes him a liar anyway.
Parsons is preying on the ignorant. Another good Christian; Jesus would be so proud.
5:08 a.m. [ Suggest removal ]
No, I agree about Parson, but Burnett is a different sort of crackpot, because it's not a good thing when the counterbalancing entity acts reactionarily to any and all science that a creationist might be waving around, and trust me, that is killing science in both relevant fields of biology and cosmology.
Cosmology:
Brandon Carter noted in very formal company that scientists are reactionarily predisposed toward counter-reactionism against old historical beliefs about geocentrism and religion that causes them to automatically dismiss any relevance to features of the universe that also permit our existence, and this leads to equally absurd Copernican-(like) cosmological extensions, which do not agree with observation.
Carter's example was as follows:
"Unfortunately, there has been a strong and not always subconscious tendency to extend this to a most questionable dogma to the effect that our situation cannot be privileged in any sense. This dogma (which in its most extreme form led to the "perfect cosmological principle" on which the steady state theory was based) is clearly untenable, as was pointed out by Dicke (Nature 192, 440, 1961)."
-Brandon Carter
Biology
Lynn Margulis, as the honored guest speaker at the last evolution conference, speaking to her "peers":
"The problem with neo-Darwinism is that Random changes in DNA alone do not lead to speciation. It was like confessing a murder when I discovered I was not a neo-Darwinist. I am definitely a Darwinist though. I think we are missing important information about the origins of variation. I differ from the neo-Darwinian bullies on this point."
-Lynn Margulis
It isn't healthy when it predisposes scientists toward willful ignorane and outright conscious denial of plausible science, and it caused ole Paul to wrongly and reactionarily identify me, (an atheist), as a creationist, elsewhere.
http://www.topix.net/forum/source/orland...