Aug. 29, 2005

New Challenge to Evolution

A group of Christian schools sued the University of California in federal court last week, charging that it engages in religious discrimination by refusing to certify certain high school courses at religious schools as meeting the system’s admissions requirements.

Looking for a job?

See all 201 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 3,703
Administrative: 2,312
Executive: 191
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

“All viewpoints are perfectly acceptable until they are Christian,” said Wendell R. Bird, an Atlanta lawyer who is representing the Association of Christian Schools International in the suit. The suit charges that the university system’s rules violate the First Amendment’s protections on free expression and freedom of religion.

University officials declined to comment on the specifics of the suit until they can study it. But professors at UC say that it is not only appropriate but essential for the university to stick to its guns on what counts as a high school science course.

At issue are the university’s requirements for high school courses for those seeking admission to one of the system’s campuses. Almost all students who are admitted to the university are evaluated based on test scores and grades in certain college preparatory classes. High schools submit course outlines for eligibility, which is based on standards adopted by the university.

According to Bird, Christian schools in the last year have started to have courses rejected, making it next to impossible for their students to earn admission to the university system.

The science courses that have been rejected, he said, teach either creationism or “intelligent design” as alternatives to evolution, but they also teach “the standard content of evolution,” even if the teachers do not believe that content.

Bird said that literature courses have also been rejected. “These courses do what, 100 years ago, the public schools regularly do. They select portions of books and short stories that would be uplifting, that would teach Christian virtues, and that would teach moral character,” he said.

The university system approves courses and offers its own courses “from Buddhist, Jewish, feminist and other viewpoints,” Bird said. “This is picking one viewpoint and banning it for being Christian.”

Asked if the university would be correct to deny certification to a geography course that taught that the world is flat, Bird said that that wasn’t a fair example, and that there was “no evidence” that graduates of schools where creationist or intelligent design theories are taught alongside evolution have any less capability in science.

Bird stressed that the students in the schools are taught that evolution “is what a majority of scientists believe,” and so have no difficulty understanding its concepts.

While Bird said he did not know what books are used in the schools whose courses are being rejected, the school that brought the issue to the Christian schools’ group’s attention is the Calvary Chapel Christian School, whose Web site says that it uses for its high school curriculum materials from such publishers as Abeka and Bob Jones University Press.

The former, according to its Web site, publishes science material that “presents the universe as the direct creation of God and refutes the man-made idea of evolution.” The latter publishes books such as The Flood and the Fossils, which says it explores “evidence from the fossil record, which supports the biblical view regarding the flood and disproves the evolutionary view.”

Professors at the University of California praise the university for requiring applicants to have been taught evolution.

“If you don’t understand evolution, you don’t understand biology. If you don’t understand biology, you don’t understand modern science,” said Albert F. Bennett, chair of ecology and evolutionary biology at the university’s Irvine campus. “A student ill-versed in science is poorly prepared for university-level work.”

Such students, Bennett said, “will be incapable of understanding or helping to achieve the many benefits of modern biology, such as crop improvement, cancer therapies, and avoidance of antibiotic resistance, that critically depend on evolutionary theory.” As a result, he added, “the university has an obligation to ensure that entering students are properly prepared for a university-level education.”

Many of the challenges to evolution have, since the Scopes trial, centered on the public schools. And recent statements by President Bush and others, suggesting that intelligent design and evolution be taught as competing theories, have also focused on elementary and secondary education. But colleges are increasingly being drawn into the debate as well.

In April, numerous academic scientists boycotted hearings planned by the Kansas Board of Education to debate the concepts of evolution and creationism.

Ohio State University called off a dissertation defense in June amid concerns that a graduate student was about to be awarded a doctorate, in part, for showing how to change student attitudes about evolution. Scientists at Ohio State said they worried that the student’s committee lacked experts to question the science being offered to criticize evolution.

At Iowa State University, more than 100 faculty members last week signed a letter saying that they “reject all attempts to represent Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavor.”

Likewise, an increasing number of scholars are telling general audiences that there is no scientific debate to be had about the general concepts of evolution. In Sunday’s New York Times, Daniel C. Dennett of Tufts University, writes that intelligent design is a “hoax,” and rebuts many of the arguments put forward by its supporters, saying that in the end, there is no science of substance behind the challengers to evolution.

In his piece, Dennett talks about how easy it would be for “a determined band of naysayers” to challenge other scientific theories that, like evolution, may be difficult for many people to fully comprehend. But, he writes, physicists have been fortunate not to have “a band of mischief makers” attacking the theory of relativity or quantum physics.

For scholars who are desperate not to get depressed over the attacks on evolution, the satirical Web site The Onion offers just the kind of attack Dennett says non-evolutionary scientists are avoiding. In this Web site’s world of parody, the theory of gravity is being attacked for failing to reflect the force of God behind things that fall to the ground. How can we explain why things fall? “Intelligent Falling.”

— Scott Jaschik

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

Hard Science

UC is right to deny credit for courses that contradict hard science — high school science courses should be focused on the current scientific theory; if Intelligent Design advocates ever find any evidence of their theory, they can present it at a latter time, and no doubt the students will find out.

On the other hand, Christian literature is not a hard science; good literature is largely a matter of opinion. If UC is going to standardize literature courses in high school, they can try, but this idea should be let go. Merely have a Christian theme does not make literature without value — there are many great works that have Christian themes.

Kevin, Undergraduate, at 11:57 am EDT on August 29, 2005

Whomever repudiates intelligent design as not being a valid scientific theory, has obviously not done any research on the theory of Intelligent Design. The fact is that the theory of intelligent design uses science to prove that we have an Intelligent Designer. It has been proven scientifically that information cannot arise from non-information; information cannot form solely by statistical processes; information cannot be formed without volition/will; Louis Pasteur proved that life comes from life in like 1945 and has not been disproved since. Why are there no fossils of intermediary life forms?

Nate, at 2:13 pm EDT on August 29, 2005

it is not an issue of whether Christians believe in science or not; we do. it is all an issue of how things came about at the beginning. neither side has any “scientific evidence” for their theory. the scientific method requires one to be at the event and observe the event in order to make predictions about what might have happened. neither side can go back to the beginning of the universe and observe what happened. each theory requires a large amount of faith about what might have happened at the start of everything. so stop making it an issue of whether Christians believe in science or not. evolutionists do not have any more “scientific evidence” than creationists do about the origin of the universe.

Ben Myers, It is still science at Liberty Christian Academy, at 2:14 pm EDT on August 29, 2005

What if these students understood biology and modern science and were quite well-versed and prepared for university work? Would I.D. then be discussed as an alternative theory, or is this merely a simplistic circular argument that assumes “modern science” and evolutionary theory are synonymous? What exactly do educational institutions have to fear by demanding rigorous scientific inquiry? If they follow the scientific method, shouldn’t it lead to truth (i.e. hard science) in either case? Shouldn’t colleges vigorously pursue knowledge and let the conclusions fall where the may?

Patrick, at 2:14 pm EDT on August 29, 2005

this debate misses the point

Perhaps people are missing the point. I don’t think that the validity of ID is the issue. Instead, it seems that the question is whether UC can ensure that people entering have the necessary background to continue in *its* courses ?

As I understand it, individuals are still free to take courses which teach a different paradigm of “science” but, for some reason, UC wants to make sure that everyone is has, at a minimum the same understanding of the concepts that they assume to be true in teaching basic science classes.

Now, of course, if UC were deciding that people who had ever taken religion courses or professes a belief in some deity can’t enroll we might have a different story.

But, until then, there is no first amendment problem in requiring that kids take standard biology courses and get a passing score on those tests.

Larry, at 3:45 pm EDT on August 29, 2005

Hard Science?

What we are seeing emerge these days is a Taliban-like Darwinian fundamentalism among proponents of the THEORY of evolution. They are increasingly and agressively seeking to suppress freedom of speech, restrict reasonable action and even control thought! As for “hard science", there is none to prove much of what evolutionists generally accept as fact.

David McCullough, at 3:50 pm EDT on August 29, 2005

Origin

I have to question the idea that information cannot arise from non-information — this is little more than a rehashing of the painting-without-a-painter idea.

There are entire fields in mathmatics dealing with random numbers being utilized to create usable data.

Spontaneous generation was rather conclusively disproved by Pasteur (et al; it just was not accepted as settled until his experiments). This does not mean that life has no origin — barring the concept of an infinitely cyclical repition of time, life had to start somewhere.

As for the idea that life requires a designer, even if this were 1. correct and 2. somehow provable, that would merely back the timeframe up to the creation of your god. What designed him/her/them/it? “God is infinite” or some being exists “beyond the concept of reality” is unverifiable, and therefor of no use to scientific discussion.

As to the question of there being “no proof” of evolution, this hardly needs to be delt with. Please, either begin refuting the studies dealing with these issues or go back to saying that the Divine Being is testing us by putting contradictory evidence in front of us to see who will stop beliving in the bible.

As to fossil evidence, there are three points to be made as to a dearth of evidence in some periods of time.

1. Climactic and other factors related to the time period may make it harder for some fossils to form, making them less common

2. Evolution tends to occur more rapidly in periods of high envirnmental stress, thus major changes can occur in comparitively short periods of time by biological standards, and can occur at a slow rate when conditions are more stable.

3. A small area of the earth has been explored for fossils (we have only dug so deep and only in a few places). There is probably alot more fossil evidence to be found when we get the technology and research budgets to explore antartic land under the miles of ice and areas buried under the ocean floor, as well as finds in places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which are currently to unstable to support the large scientific teams that unearthed some of their fossils.

Kevin, Undergraduate, at 5:34 pm EDT on August 29, 2005

“God” is an Intelligent Design...

Of course information can arise from non-information—where do you suppose the idea of “God” came from? It was an imaginative response to the lack of knowledge or information about the natural world and its processes. Faced with a then unsolvable mystery, advanced monkeys concocted the notion that a magical being, extraordinarily like themselves, must have made the universe and left it just for their personal enjoyment or punishment (depending upon whether or not it was raining that day). After all, older and wiser parent-monkeys had been caring for and punishing them all their lives, so it only made sense that some Great Kong out there must still be watching over them. Thus the story was told and passed along, first by word-of-mouth and eventually in painting and writing, until it attained the status of “information,” or rather, “dogma” (information legitimated by political power). So, in the end, “God” should be allowed into science classes—it is one of the most extraordinary products of evolution...though maybe not the most intelligent...

huntly, at 8:00 pm EDT on August 29, 2005

O.K., let’s assume for a minute that everything in existence was created by a super-intelligent entity or spirit sometime in the distant past, because something so complex can only come from something very complex.

And let us dispense, for this minute, with questions such as Who, Why, How, and When.

Only one question must be examined in the next 60 seconds. Namely, regarding this something very complex, what superior intelligence created it?

Any other dialogue is superfluous to this question. Nothing else matters.

We’re down to 32 seconds.

Hmmmm.

11 seconds....

Larry L., at 10:18 pm EDT on August 29, 2005

ID IS JUST CREATONSIM WRIT PSEUDOSCIENTIFICALLY

The Christian mafia obviously got the word out to flood this article’s comments with their tired and untrue arguments.

Can anyone look at the variety of today’s dogs that have come from (i.e. EVOLVED!) from wolves and still spout ID (Intelligent Design)? Or the variety of pigeons, horses, sweet peas, seedless watermelons, and hundreds of crops and animals that have been bred or hybridized (i.e., EVOLVED!) from simpler forms and still spout ID? Or the fossil remains of Lucy and other humanoid precursors of ourselves and still spout ID?

And why do these Christians trust the scientific community to determine which of their foods and meds are safe, how to keep the airplanes they ride from falling, how to design the buildings they frequent from collapsing or being toxic, how to invent the telephone, radio, internet, radar systems for their weather, etc, etc, and yet, say that the scientific community is too stupid to understand their arguments against evolution?

These No-Nothings saw their arguments for Creationism shown to be no more than the myth of a sigularly quirky religion, so now they are trying to slip Creationism in the backdoor by calling it Intelligent Design.

Isn’t it interesting that none of the other religions of the world are supporting the ID proponents? That even the Christian world of Catholicism is embarrassed by them? Even Pope John Paul II said that “evolution is more than a theory” and stated that evolution and religion can exist together.

Remember that it was just few decades past that these same fundamentalists were insisting the world was no more than 4,000 years old and challenging anyone to prove them wrong. The sciences of geology and physical anthropology indeedd did provbe them wrong about the earth’s age and origin, just as the science of evolution has shown all but the dedicatedly ignorant that all life has evolved from simpler forms.

And forget this “evolution is only a theory” argument. It only makes even more clear the ignorance of the ID believers, since in science a “theory” simply means the best explanation of given facts.

ID is just the same fundamentalist creationism dressed up in pseudo-scientific garb and gobbledegook. It is bible-belt Christianity in all its ugly darkness and fanaticism. You can dress ID up, but you can’t take her anywhere but tent meetings.

Jack, Formerly taught at UC, CSU, and community colleges in California, at 4:36 am EDT on August 30, 2005

Where did matter come from?

Just a thought for all of the atheists out there. If life as we know it evolved from very basic forms of matter over a period of billions of years, where did this matter come from? Where did the energy for what scientists call the big bang come from? Answer these questions before you rule out the idea of a Creator or Intelligent Designer.

kyle, at 4:37 am EDT on August 30, 2005

Evolution, Intelligence Design, Description, Explanation,

Evolution and Intelligence Design resolved: Explanation versus Description

The whole argument is misguided. “Intelligence design” scientists, those scientists who study chaos and evolutionary biologists first describe their finding according to the accepted scientific method, whether ‘orderly Popperian’ in approach or ‘orderly hermeneutic’. Hopefully all apply some form of orderly quantitative analysis of their DESCRIBED observations. And all attempt to EXPLAIN their results. Here is where the difference lies, EXPLANATION not DESCRIPTION. One claims to explain it away using evolutionary selection or change, another uses principles of chaos and the other uses, ironically closer to evolutionary biology, intelligence design. Obviously evolutionary biology does not espouse to chaos, do they or don’t they? If they do, which statistical package are they using- a new Fisher test!!?

Evolutionary biologist who accept intelligence design do so because they see order in their data, perhaps common to all species. One can see that design of common codes, even in language, is an orderly process used by all species. Whether they speak “Chickadee dee dee” or barking up the wrong tree. The point is that communication is common to all beings. And evolution of communication too is common and orderly. Thus, evolution is an intelligent design- whether selective pressure happens in chaos or in order, function is at issue. And function is an explanation. And explanation has levels, lower and higher level. The higher level explains the lower level. May be the process of evolution itself was designed ahead of time for adaptation to occur either chaotically or orderly! Truly,Kiumars Lalezarzadeh, Ph.D.

Kiumars Lalezarzadeh, Ph.D., Bio-Psychologist at Q’s Ministry of AIWP, UAIWP, UIL,ADHC, BHITS/NIHARD, at 4:52 am EDT on August 30, 2005

things of nature cause nothing???

Overall, if the natural world and human history are the result of a plan and choices made by an intelligent agent, causality and contingencies are eliminated out of necessity. As a result, as stated by Olding, a science historian, causal forces in nature do not exist or are limited and “the things of the world cause nothing.” Students who accept and later promote in their careers this premise will hinder our progress in understanding the natural world and using our gained understanding to improve the human condition.

Gerald Skoog, Paul Whitfield Horn Professor Emeritus at Texas Tech University, at 6:45 am EDT on August 30, 2005

energy

Study the process by which an atom bomb works and you will understand where all the energy from the Big Bang came from.

Christine, at 8:02 am EDT on August 30, 2005

Look at the exerpt yourself — the textbook is worthless

If you go to the following link, you can use the ‘look inside this book’ feature at BJU press to evaluate the “biology” book for yourself. After looking at this piece of work, I am certain that you will sympathize with the University’s need to maintain standards in science education.

(just copy the link below into your browser)http://www.bjup.com/webapp/wcs/st...&langId=-1&productId=1514951

Benja, at 10:31 am EDT on August 30, 2005

More Evidence of Science Illiteracy

I never ceased to be amazed when I read statements, like in the comments here, such as assertions that evolution has no more evidence supporting it than creationism or that there are no fossils of intermediary lifeforms.

Well, the reality is there are many examples of intermediary lifeforms even though, given the rarity of fossilization, we have no real reason to expect to have them, and there is actually quite a bit of evidence for evolution not only from biology but geology, zoology, botany, astronomy and cosmology.

As for intelligent design, perhaps there is some valid science there, but the place to determine that is not a high school science classroom. Are we now expecting high school freshmen and sophomores to form the peer review panels? If the proponents of ID have evidence for the validity of ID or the failures of evolution, let them present this evidence to educated adults at the university level and not adolescent students.

Alencon, at 12:39 pm EDT on August 30, 2005

Energy

The energy in an atomic bomb comes from splitting the bonds that hold protons and neutrons together in the nucleus. Where did these protons and neutrons come from? I don’t think anyone can make an argument that matter and energy as we know them evolved from complete nothingness. Therefore, even if you do believe evolutionists, there must have been a Creator to put matter and energy in the universe.

kyle, at 2:00 pm EDT on August 30, 2005

Origins Debate and Science Textbooks

I do not care to wade too deeply into the polemical exchanges between Creationists and Evolutionists. The fundamental issue in this debate is the difference in worldviews...the presuppositions one has that establish his/her biases by which choices are made. Since the origin of all things is beyond observation by scientists of either stripe, all we can do is model what we think the origin of various things may have been like.

Because of their presuppositions, naturalistic evolutionists choose to believe that the universe and life had a materialistic origin and reject any metaphysical aspect or cause. Because (Christian) creationists choose to believe the authority of the Judeo-Christian Bible, which contains claims to being completely and supernaturally inspired and without error in the original manuscripts, they choose to believe that the universe has a metaphysical origin.

Recognizing that these two diametrically opposite worldviews exist and make testable claims, one can then evaluate the scientific data, which is for the most part worldview neutral, and decide which model best accounts for the evidence. In any case, science is not the path to ultimate truth (e.g., origins), so that part of the controversy will forever remain in the realm of religion, whether of the evolutionary sort or the Biblical.

My real intent of this post is to point out that Benja’s value-laden opinion of the BJU Press Biology textbook is completely without merit. The first chapter of the textbook, which is displayed for public perusal at or near the link he provided, lays out the publisher’s view of science and faith. Evolutionists would find very little in the first chapter that they could agree with. The remainder of the textbook is replete with the latest scientific findings in biolgy, from taxonomy, to cell structure, to biochemistry, to heredity. The only parts any evolutionist would disagree with would be the attribution of the origin of the design and orderliness of living organisms and life itself. Oh yes, the textbook also teaches the concepts (and assumptions) of evolution so that students are aware of both sides of the controversy. It is too bad that most public school students don’t have the same privelege.

Terrance, at 3:51 pm EDT on August 30, 2005

Unintelligent designs

Science doesn’t offer an explanation for the original energy or matter that produced the Big Bang, any more than religion offers an explanation for the existence of God. Such things are beyond human knowledge or understanding, whether you see that knowledge as coming from your sacred texts or from scientific study. Any claim otherwise is pure hubris and rhetoric. What science does offer is a theory of how matter and life have developed and changed over time from the smallest, simplest forms into the complex systems that we see today. It’s explanations are not presented as ultimate “truth,” they’re presented as probabilities based on the best knowledge, observable facts, and objective analysis available at the time. It is open to change and revision based on further scientific study and new facts or technologies. So far, its explanations for the development of life have proven coherent, functional, and predictable over time—all that’s required for a “theory” to be accepted as “true” for the purposes of further scientific study. The lack of 100% certainty doesn’t invalidate the theory, since no scientifically formulated theory can ever claim 100% accuracy. It only needs to be more probable than any other scientifically derived explanation—a standard met by evolutionary theory. Religion offers theories of “meaning” and value—it’s purpose is to offer us a way of living and relating to one another, to give us stories to make sense of our experience, to provide ideals to which we aspire. It doesn’t have to offer “facts,” evidence, proof, or concrete results, since all of these things are irrelevant to its purposes. You don’t have to demonstrate “truth,” you only have to believe it. And you don’t have to “believe” scientific theories, you only have to demonstrate them. Both are valuable human endeavors and easily reconcilable with one another. “Intelligent Design,” on the other hand, fails to offer either “explanation” or “truth"—it only offers a grotesque amalgamation of scientific rhetoric and religious dogma. It tries to conflate “facts” with “meaning,” and confuses the values in our collective stories with the supposed “design” of the universe, as if the universe could have no other meaning or order than that revealed by our limited perception and understanding of “patterns.” It’s an insult to both scientific inquiry and religious faith, because it refuses to utilize either reason or faith in drawing its conclusions. If you believe in an intelligent designer, then trust in the full complexity and beauty of its evolutionary design.

John Martin, at 10:15 pm EDT on August 30, 2005

Religion does show proof of God’s existence, they’re called miracles, even though it does not need to offer proof of God’s existence because religion is based on faith. Science, however needs to explain the original source of matter and energy in the universe because science is based on fact, not theory or faith.

Alex, at 4:35 am EDT on August 31, 2005

Compartmentalizing Knowledge

Those who would like to resolve the creation/evolution (or even the science/religion) controversy by demonstrating that each addresses separate and incompatible aspects of human condition and knowledge (what Stephen Jay Gould called “nonoverlapping magisteria") are ignoring the fact that the Christian Bible makes factual statements that are in direct contradiction to naturalism and uniformitarianism. (Christian) religion doesn’t just offer ‘theories of “meaning” and value’. It also makes historical statements that confutes the premises of evolutionary science.

So, one is forced to make a choice, based on his/her presuppositions, as to what theory one is to believe. These presuppositions are not “hard-wired.” They are aquired over one’s lifetime and are extremely difficult to change without a purposeful exercise of one’s own will. If students are taught from preschool that they are the end-product of a random process of evolution, it is going to be very difficult to convince these people as adults that perhaps their worldview might be flawed.

A personal testimony: I was thoroughly indoctrinated in evolutionary thinking as an undergraduate zoology student at a well-known northeastern university in the US. I was completely confident that biological diversity could be accounted for by Darwinian evolution. I also acquired a geology minor, so geologic evolutionary theories reinforced my basic understanding of nature. However, after being introduced to well-articulated arguments by qualified scientists who also happened to be Christians, I changed my mind. Science is about making workable models that account for what is observed in nature. While creationary origins must be accepted by faith, just like the evolutionary account of origins, the biologic and geologic evidence is overwhelmingly more consistent with special creation and created kinds, and a global flood.

Christian educators are not asking that nonbelievers teach Biblical creation in the public school classroom. For one thing, they would not be able to convincingly present the material. What we want is to be allowed to critically examine the problems of evolutionary science and consider legitimate alternative theories that account for the evidence without prejudice in the classroom and against those seeking degrees through higher education. To declare that an applicant for a biology degree is unqualified to work in that major because he/she believes in special creation is purposefully ignoring the fact that most biologists never have to deal directly with the question of origins. It is an illegitimate attempt to suppress one particular worldview because it calls into question the generally accepted one, which in a unfettered university setting should be considered anathema.

Terrance, at 11:23 am EDT on August 31, 2005

Science is not a religion

I am a Christian and I believe in the Theory of Evolution. I have never felt that the two had to be in conflict. Christianity is a religion and the key word for that is ‘belief.’ Science deals in facts not beliefs. For my religion, I can believe what I want. As a practicing scientist, I have to deal with facts and logic.

Cathy, at 2:14 pm EDT on August 31, 2005

Proof

“Miracles” are, like UFOs, aspects of the natural existance we have not yet provided a satisfactory (or conclusive) explanation for yet. This does not mean that they came out of nowhere, or out of the will of a Superbeing, or that they are not bound by the same laws of physics that bind everything else; our understanding of physics is incomplete.

Likewise, the concept of the creation of matter, rather than a spontaneous or cyclical origin, is not only no better supported, but runs into the same trap of failing to look for a yet-unproven means for this occurance.

Although I disagree with many ideas proposed by Ayn Rand, her comment that man tries to fill in gaps in science with philosophy, and gaps in philosophy with God is still relevant today. Many people of religious faith (though by no means all) are looking for any excuse for something that could be a gap in science, and then rushing to fill it in with the Divine.

Science will fill its own gaps, so far as our intelligence and technology allow.

Kevin, Undergraduate, at 5:09 pm EDT on August 31, 2005

Not all Christians take the Bible to be literally true. In fact, biblical literalism is a fairly new trend in Christianity. Why would you suppose God is so one-dimension? Why would He not speak to us through song, myth, allegory and metaphor? The best human authors use these tools. Why wouldn’t God? Don’t put God in straight jacket.

For example, do you think the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” was a physical plant, or symbol for that mysterious inner sense of right and wrong that differentiates us from the animals? Which understanding is really the more powerful?

Mike, To Terrance, at 4:36 am EDT on September 1, 2005

The biggest myth of all about Evolution.

The biggest myth about Evolution is that it ia about the origin of life. It is not. It is about the origin of species. Abiogenesis is about the origin of life.

Even Darwin had said the there was nothing about his book that would conflict with anyone’s religious convictions.

Science is not a matter of public opinion either, it is about be able to test and find if something is real or not. ID is not falsifiable (Testable to see if it is true or false)to any degree.

It is hypocritical of those who say that ID is an alternative to evolution while saying that flat earthism isn’t an alternative theory to geology, or astrology an alternative to astronomy, even even alchemy alongside chemistry. What are THEY afraid of? all ID is is creationism dressed up like a cheap whore trying to look responsible. They are calling it ID now so that they wouldn’t have to teach any of the other 150+ creation myths alongside their own as well.

To quote the late Carl Sagan.

“We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.”

If nonsense like ID are allowed to be taught as real science this will only get far worse.

sjc1963, at 8:40 pm EDT on September 3, 2005

First, I want to apologize if someone already brought up this very obvious point, as I was too lazy to read every post. Someone earlier suggested that the debate is “missing the point” and their point was against the Christian schools...obviously they, and many others who have posted, have truly missed the point. Did no one read the part that says that they still teach evolution as a theory? They still teach everything found in other like classes, they just put their own relgion in as the correct answer, and who cares if they do. So what’s the problem? The classes should count, this is silly.

Lindsey, Missing the point?, at 4:45 am EDT on September 9, 2005

Theories

Presenting the dominent scientific theory as an opinion that has no more validity than any other opinion is not acceptable. If a class teaches, say, creationism, intelligent design, and evolution, and gives equal credence to each, they ignore the fundamental fact that only evolution at this time has sufficient empirical evidence to qualify as an established theory. Indeed, while the evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelming, presenting empirical evidence as the equal of philosophical rational (and irrational) thoughts — the painting analogy — and as the equal of pure faith — like creationism is not only detrimental to science but to fundamental understandings of the theory of science.

Something “making sense” (ie sounding good) is not the same as being proven. If empiricism is to be regarded as the equal of philosophy (Intelligent design) and blind faith (creationism) then we have essentially destroyed science. This, no doubt, has occured to those who wish to do exactly that.

Kevin, Undergraduate, at 3:05 pm EDT on September 11, 2005

Dumb

Intelligent design and creationism are fairy tales. All their followers lie and say they have scientific proof of that garbage. Not true. Those people need to push that crap and pretend that it holds up like Evolution does. Why don’t we teach in schools that Lord Zula came from Venus with the whole venution army to populate the planet since we are going to argue fairy tales Vs Real scientific studies.

Oxyton, at 5:43 pm EDT on September 21, 2005

Jobs Related to New Challenge to Evolution

or search for jobs directly.

Veterinary Technology Instructor
Hillsborough Community College

Hillsborough Community College is a public, comprehensive multi-campus, state-supported community college located in the ... see job

Full Time Vice President of Instruction — #3A0007
San Mateo Community College District

SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT JOB OPPORTUNITY Position Information Posting Number: 0600314 Position Title: Vice ... see job

Registered Veterinary Tech Spc
University of Georgia

Job Summary Facilitate the pre-medication, induction and monitoring of emergency/after hours surgical cases, ... see job

Dir/Mktg, Pr & Comm/Enrollment
Central Michigan University

Requires experienced professional who will be responsible for leading the strategic marketing, public relations and ... see job

Assistant/Associate Professor
Princeton University

Position Summary: The Department of East Asian Studies invites applications for a position in Chinese ... see job

Assistant Professor of Psychology
Reed College

The Reed College Department of Psychology seeks applicants at the assistant professor level for a tenure track position in ... see job

Teaching Specialist/Lecturer Blanket Posting for Kinesiology FY09
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

Assistant Professor — History
Western Carolina University

Assistant Professor of History/History Education and Social Science Education Coordinator. This tenure track position is ... see job

Technical Project Specialist II/Hospital
University of Kentucky

The University of Kentucky is one great place to work. UK’s agenda—simple—to accelerate the movement toward academic ... see job

Research Technician I/Qatar
Weill Medical College of Cornell University

Founded in 1898, and affiliated with what is now New York-Presbyterian Hospital since 1927, Weill Cornell Medical College ... see job