"Intelligent Design" Materials Sneak Onto DISD Teachers' Curriculum Site. Maybe God Did It?

By Robert Wilonsky Thu., Sep. 22 2011 at 5:57 PM

Categories: Edumication News

Pin It

Turns out, Rick Perry was right after all.

What you see at right is a slide I received last night from a fellow Dallas Independent School District parent. It was, until this morning, available on the district's Curriculum Central website, accessible only to teachers and administration and a resource for instructors needing further materials to flesh out what's being taught in class.

This particular slide is part of a fairly standard-looking PowerPoint called "The Cell Theory," which is filled with benign references to the likes of Robert Hooke (the man who coined the word "cell"), Anton Van Leeuwenhoek (creator of the microscope) and the Germans who, in the 1800s, came up with cell theory. See? Educational. Except that last part you see here -- about how cells are "one of the strongest cases for intelligent design by our Creator God!"

That's what riled up this particular parent, who has a child in a district middle school. The PowerPoint, created by one Jim Sullivan of Cells Alive! and initially posted to something called The World of Teaching, was sent home for further review by a teacher. So the parent and child reviewed it. At which point the parent saw "intelligent design" in a science presentation and flipped out. So too did a lot of other parents at this particular junior high. Which is why it landed in my lap -- and why I asked district spokesman Jon Dahlander if he wouldn't mind looking into it.

[Update: Sullivan says he is not responsible for the materials. Via email he writes, "I had nothing to do with creating the PowerPoint and do not know who did, although I would certainly like to see the presentation. Often, people take materials from my website, CELLS alive!, for their own purposes but this use is a low blow."]

This morning, Dahlander called back and confirmed: The presentation was indeed on the Curriculum Central website, from which it was promptly deleted. Says Dahlander, 3700 Ross is trying to find out who made the docs available. And in the meantime, he says, a directive was sent out this afternoon in which "curriculum directors have been reminded to review their quality control system, as well as to review all links on the Curriculum Central. We were very disappointed to see it there, and it was removed immediately."

Like this Story?

Sign up for the Weekly Newsletter: Our weekly feature stories, movie reviews, calendar picks and more - minus the newsprint and sent directly to your inbox.

Write Comment

Email to Friend

Print Article

Related Content

Wow, its hard to know where to begin. First of all, the scientific theory IS more provable than the non-scientific one. The evidence supporting evolution is so well supported that evolution is considered a fact. Besides, any SCIENTIFIC theory has a stronger position to be taught in a SCIENCE class than a NON-scientific theory does. Its a SCIENCE class. Only scientific ideas belong in science classes. Its not that the scientific evidence for creation is weak, its that its not scientific at all. It doesn't meet the requirements of being considered scientific. It is not-science. Not-science has no place in teaching science. I find it really hard to believe you're having so much trouble with that.
Dave it is OK in a science class that the Theory of Evolution does not address the origin of live, because it does not. It is not appropriate to bring up the various creation ideas in a science class as they cannot be verified by the scientific method. Any scientist will gladly and willingly agree that the Creation cannot be proved or verified by the scientific method.
The other part of the problem touched on by Double O is that the word "theory" itself has more than one meaning. When used in the colloquial sense it is a synonym for "opinion", "guess", "hunch" or "hypothesis". When used by scientists, the word "theory" is defined as a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts, a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. Creationists and advocates for Intelligent Design seem to have the two definitions quite confused and labor under the assumption that scientists sit around guessing or forming opinions and hunches about issues and phenomena. This is perhaps the biggest piece of myopic muddling in history because opinions and hunches are not part of the scientific method.
Nope sorry, science is the use of the most complete toolbox available. A scientist might choose to claim that God is the owner of the toolbox, and that is perfectly fine and dandy, but the idea is that the toolbox is only limited by our ability to see and use the tools. Intelligent Design states that some things are simply too complex and intricate and can only be summed up as a "miracle", and therefore cannot be explained through science alone, and it also claims that biblical verse offers the only real explanation for some questions.Don't take my word for it, look it up for yourself.
This goes way beyond Lysenkoism and will ultimately create the same results.
When the scientific theory is no more provable than the non-scientific, specifically. Made up nonsense in math class? You mean like Google Complex being the largest interger. Can you prove that? Why can't you add 1 to Google Complex. Can you prove that a line of tangent gets infinitely closer to a fixed line without ever touching it? The theory says that the distance becomes closer because the fractional distance keeps getting smaller. If numbers have a cap, then it cannot get infinately closer, can it? What should we teach kids regarding the beginning of all life, in your opinion? Should we just ignore it and hope they don't ask?
"All theories should be mentioned. Give the scientific theory. Give the non-scientific theory(s)." Seriously? You do realize we're talking about a science class, right? Under what circumstances would it be proper to give non-scientific theories in a science class? We might as well be teaching made-up nonsense math in math class.
I totally agree, Paul. Great post. I think for the purposes of education you do children a disservice "picking up the story" in the middle and ignoring the beginning. As a biologist (not by trade, but by education) I know evolution to be scientific fact. I just don't see any harm whatsoever in mentioning that evolution - by it's very definition - does not, and cannot account for how matter came to exist. It is at this point that you introduce all theories and let the kids take it from there. Mention, not linger. As a christian and a man who believes in God I can tell you that those beliefs are not at odds with evolution so I fail to see any logic in an argument that would try and predict any possible negative ramifications of all theories being presented as it pertains to how matter came to be initially.
The Theory of Evolution has nothing to say about how life began. The Theory of Evolution posits how life adapts to changes in the environment and unoccupied niches in the environment. Nothing more, Nothing less. Intelligent Design is at best a hypothesis and will remain that way according to the scientific method as it cannnot be tested, nor is there evidence to support. There is at best a hoc, ergo sum argument. The Creation is and will remain a matter of faith and not of science. At least until someone invents the CreatorScope which can detect the presence of the Creator. As far as evolution is concerned a successful plant or animal is one that can pass its genetic material to offspring that survive to reproduce and pass on their genetic material. An unsuccessful plant or animal is one that does not survive to reproduce. Anything beyond that is considered gravy in the Theory of Evolution.
1. How did gay people enter the equation? 2. How does who's opinion it is change anything? It's an opinion, labeled as an opinion and offered as an opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. 3. SCIENCE cannot definitively account for where we came from. Until it can, theories are all we have. All theories should be mentioned. Give the scientific theory. Give the non-scientific theory(s). Let the kids do a little critical thinking.
1. Texas HAS actually been burning to the ground, but probably not related to this PPT slide. It's probably because of the gays or something like that. 2. This slide wasn't his opinion - it was the opinion of someone else who added the slide without permission or approval. 3. And finally, creationism, intelligent design, whatever you want to call it, isn't science. If this slide was in a religion class, perfect. But it wasn't.
What? This made it into the curriculum and Texas hasn't burned to the ground? The entire state hasn't been looted? The most ridiculous thing about these ardent anti-religious nuts (and that's saying something) is being so offended by someone offering an opinion. Does his opinion, clearly labeled as same and in the last friggin paragraph on the last friggin page - really have to discredit the entirety of the presentation? So what's the downside? That your child may come home and ask you "Mom/Dad what is God? I saw this slide show today..............." or ask a teacher the same thing to which they could reply "you should ask your parents tonight about that, Timmy" and start a real conversation that may lead a child to seek and learn? Is that not the point of education? But no, that's not good enough. The very mention of anything other than what you happen to believe and champion is completely unacceptable. The irony of that, of course, is that (you) are the ones who happen to fancy yourselves as the intellectually enlightened and advanced. A large part of real intelligence is being able to listen to, and allow, another point of view and discuss in an adult manner void of sophmoric insults, partisan rhetoric and outright demagougery. Why would you insist the school teach only teach one theory which cannot be proven in lieu of, or in conjuction with, another theory that cannot be proven? Let the kids know that there exist more than one theory about how we all came to be and let them take it from there.
and then....."which came FIRST, the Chicken or the Egg.....and did the Chicken DESIGN her OWN egg, or did the EGG decide to grow wings and eat worms when it hatched? Oh, the humanity!!!!
Global Warming clearly ONLY explainable by Intelligent Design.....without the guidance of a higher power, man would not be able to screw up the environment so well....the other animals don't do so much, unless you count methane farting! Gotta be a God....no MAN is going to take the heat for polution.....
"Bingo!," Leigh. You immediately got the "very quick lesson!"
Ah yes -- "science." You are. I am. The earth and the universe is. Something, we may all be certain, did not come from nothing. I do not walk down an empty beach, discover a perfect pocket watch half-buried in the sand, pick it up, wind it only to have it immediately work perfectly -- and then say "wow -- I wonder how long it took this instrument to evolve from nothing with no designer and maker." If I did say that -- I would be a fool -- which is probably why the prophets of old said, "The fool hath said in his heart there is no God..." Evidently, today, there's "science" -- which, apparently, is sort of a universal moral and intellectual evasion -- and then there's actual science or knowledge, based on what may be observed.
Responsibility for validating a claim lies with the claimant. I don't have to prove that there is no god, it should be the default assumption until sufficient evidence of such existence is provided.
Melody, I have a Ph.D. in cell and molecular biology, and nothing you said made me feel you had a loose grip on science as Gweber7456 has indicated. As a chemist, if he truly is one, I am surprised he does not understand what a scientific theory entails.
You are acting as if both “theories” are on equal ground. In science, theory is the ultimate goal. It means it has been tested exhaustively and cannot be proved incorrect, such as germ theory (bacteria and virus cause disease) and heliocentric theory (the earth revolves around the sun). Intelligent design is not a theory in the scientific sense. Evolution has mountains of irrefutable data to support it, can make accurate predictions, and is used to advance the biomedical sciences. Intelligent design has no such qualities. It is faith based with no supporting evidence. They are not the same and only evolution should presented as science in a science class room.
No. Science does prove negatives. If the religious people want to be taken serious then they have to prove the existence o god, asking the scientist to prove that god doesn't exist is not scientific. Most religious nuts don't understand simple logic and would fail a first year logic course. Arguing with religious people is like playing chess with a pigeon: they knock over the pieces, shit on the board and fly away!
"Wouldn't want anybody rationally considering actual intelligence behind the vast and minute complexity of everything that surrounds us day by day" For the 9,318th time, there's nothing wrong with considering that. Just don't get it confused with science.
....which is really just to ask, is it OK, according to the "really smart" albeit crass and graceless, latter-day American materialists to talk about "an almighty creator" as the source of the legitimacy of everything the USA is supposed to be founded on? Or was Mr. Jefferson just blowing smoke when he said, "God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time?"
So -- uh -- let's see: The "unalienable rights" the revolutionary founders of the USA said that "all men" have are just sort of a religionist fantasy? They really didn't have the right to rebel against political authority and the wealth of the most powerful nation, at the time, on earth? So -- really -- we oughta just consider the US to be a province of mother England? Or something like that? Or is it "the guy with the most money and the biggest gun is the rightful boss?"
Yeah, baby. Wouldn't want anybody rationally considering actual intelligence behind the vast and minute complexity of everything that surrounds us day by day. Somebody might wanna hold us accountable for the things we do! Meanwhile, who is this "creator" that allegedly endowed "all us men who were created equal" with "certain unalienable rights?" And if He didn't give us those rights, who did? After all, aren't the Bush family members and their "business and political spinoffs" the real "gods" of this culture? Why else would we be sending our kids to kill and be killed for them?
Welcome to 500 AD.
I think I saw that on the History Channel, right after Ancient Aliens.
If only religions had any class.
The insecure and needy are the charlatans that claim to speak for the spaghetti monster on Sunday.
amen, awoman, adog , and aeverything else to that.
You need to create a disqus account, log in, and use it.
Actually, no. I have spent most of my life working and living outdoors. The daily weather and the changes from day to day and season to season affect my life and how I plan my days. Certain times of the year are for certain activities. The days when the weather are most pleasant are the days that I reflect on creation. Just as certain times in our lives we experience joy and happiness and on other days we experience sadness and despair. I believe that it is part of the human condition knowing that there are beautiful times is what gets us through the less desirable times of our lives. hth y Vaya con Dios
I'm not exactly sure what you ascertained because I believe that some intelligence beyond what man possesses had an input into our being here. But I believe in science as we understand it, that man evolved over a million years, and for that reason both sides of the argument have merit.However, in my mind Sunday school is the place to put faith into a creator, and not public schools.I don't mind that a mention of Creationism being briefly discussed, but not promoted. Is this what you thought I meant?
Agreed. Although it purports to explain everything (thereby explaining nothing) with the shibboleth "God did it", ID has, as far as I can tell, no explanatory power. These two elements, broad explanatory capacity and the ability to generate predictions which lead to incisive experiments along with the quality of falsifiabillity are the hallmarks of a theory. ID fails on two of these and probably on the third as well.
False equivalency gives your actual side away.
Perhaps you mean that the theory "Origin of the Species" by Darwin isn't a science because you think it's wrong. That is the creationists' point of belief. I have no problem with that because scientists are at an impasse to prove their point of view. Creationists, on the other hand, face the same dilemma of unresolved proof. I have no problem with some textbook mention that there are those who believe that Creationism is how we got here. But public schools are not a Sunday school class, and as such should not solely promote concepts that should be relegated to such, as supported by the power of Separation of Church and State. The study of science, by its empirical nature, allows only acceptance of provable data or evidence, which is what higher education allows. It does NOT state that God, or some intelligent entity was totally uninvolved, but simply that such has not been proven. In Sunday school, they don't ask for proof, but simply faith.
it ain't science, Einstein.
Overcrowded classes. Where in blue blazes is it written that we must pass every disruptive dawg that is enrolled into public school? Remove those who show no interest in learning and concentrate on those who do with a tougher curriculum. In other words, raise the standards. Make a HS diploma actually mean something. Put those who drop out or flunk out on a close-watch list. Similar to being on probation. Trouble makers would be one step away from being in jail. If positive contributions to society cannot be measured in an individual by the time he or she is 21, deport them to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan or wherever or whatever locale we choose to make them earn the privilege of reentering the U.S.A. This disrespect that we tolerate from those who seem to expect that this country owes them something needs to stop immediately. I'm sick and tired of school districts that allow this crap to continue.
Holy shit, there shouldn't need to be any discussion on this subject: The science community cannot prove that a higher power did NOT have influence, and the religious community cannot prove the opposite. NOBODY knows. I dislike them both for being close-minded.
ID is not a scientific theory. It doesnt make any scientific predictions. The Young Earth idea that the planet is only 6,000 years old can be considered a scientific theory, since it predicts that the elements that make up the earth should be no older than 6,000 years old. But that's been thoroughly disproved.
I love living in Texas... but this type of s**t just gets on my nerves. Teach our kids facts in schools and religion in church.
Must be nice to see ID as an actual scientific option. I think FSM http://www.venganza.org has just as much proof behind it.
As an educator I think you need to put some numbers on the y axis. Fed spending in Ohio schools is a pretty small part of our budget. Most of our funding is local and state (there is some fed money in the state funding but it's not broken out for us). Also not the biggest part of that growth is in the Every Child Left Behind era (thanks Paula!) And you are using freedom works as a source? Strawman lovers unite!
Why can the teacher not teach an alternative approach to an unproved theory of Evolution. Creation (ID) is an alternative theory and should be taught since it is the second most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the world. Both theories are taught in most Christian schools, why can both theories not be taught in the schools my tax dollars are paying to support (and ran poorly for that matter).
Strawman much?
god just poop'd in my pants.
Just consider the prophecies from the bible. Israel has returned. Keep an eye out for the Holy Temple to be rebuilt. The Ark of Covenant will return. A great war will come to Israel and G-d will cause a great Earthquake that the Whole world will know about and save Israel. Also all the foreshadowing of Jesus in the old testament and references from the new testament. There is a lot of truth in the bible and a lot of prophecies that I haven't mentioned that are still to come.
yep, tell that to asians who are lactose intolerant, or whites you have wisdom teeth crowding or black with rare blood phenotypes and extra muscle structures the rest of us don't have
which god? there are thousands of religions all claiming to have the TrueGod(TM)
you only appreciate the day because if it were any other way and you lived in the wild, you would have to worry about it
Religon belongs in a religion class, not in a science class
I think that anonymous quote belongs to the late, great Mitch Hedberg. http://www.amazon.com/You-Believe-Gosh-Mitch-Hedberg/dp/B001CVCBTY
I get what you're saying, and I totally agree. White people are clearly inferior to everyone else.
Good lord, you're ignorant. There is one race, the human race, which is quite remarkably UN-diverse genetically. Your appeal to the theory of evolution in support of bigotry is 180 degrees wrong. But here, let the American Anthropological Association set you right on the issue: www.understandingrace.org
Junk history is no improvement over junk science and junk theology.
“We have already compared the benefits of theology and science. When the theologian governed the world, it was covered with huts and hovels for the many, palaces and cathedrals for the few. To nearly all the children of men, reading and writing were unknown arts. The poor were clad in rags and skins — they devoured crusts, and gnawed bones. The day of Science dawned, and the luxuries of a century ago are the necessities of to-day. Men in the middle ranks of life have more of the conveniences and elegancies than the princes and kings of the theological times. But above and over all this, is the development of mind. There is more of value in the brain of an average man of to-day — of a master-mechanic, of a chemist, of a naturalist, of an inventor, than there was in the brain of the world four hundred years ago.“These blessings did not fall from the skies. These benefits did not drop from the outstretched hands of priests. They were not found in cathedrals or behind altars — neither were they searched for with holy candles. They were not discovered by the closed eyes of prayer, nor did they come in answer to superstitious supplication. They are the children of freedom, the gifts of reason, observation and experience—and for them all, man is indebted to man.” - Robert G. Ingersoll “The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church.” - Magellan “I think I'll believe in Gosh instead of God. If you don't believe in Gosh too, you'll be darned to heck.” -Anonymous
Thanks for the attempt, but nope...I just get a like button and a reply button.
May God save us from another arid arid and tedious debate on evolution vs. creationism. Acceptance of evolution is NOT tantamount to atheism, nor has science somehow managed to disprove the existence of God. If those clinging to one or the other of these false assertions would just shut up, there'd be nothing left to discuss, and we could go back to talking about the Trinity River toll road or something useful.
It is if you are teaching it in a science class. Bringing up ID in science class is about as appropriate and relevant as teaching Harry Potter's magic in a chemistry or physics classroom.
amy, your comment made me think of this NSFW video. Makes me smile. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhKKoZOcAqA Catbird, the 40th Chapter of Job is one of the finest pieces of religious literature I know. Really moving. Glad you two exchanged peace. well done.
Likewise Catbird. Go in peace.
Paul thought the same thing and by passed the institutional "church" of his day for a direct relationship with Jesus Christ, you can read about it in the first chapter of Corinthians if you're interested. I whish you well Amy S.
Very quick lesson for you all: Equality and evolution are absolutely irreconcilable and incompatible belief systems. I believe in evolution. I believe it's an ongoing process. I believe it has rendered us all, individually and among groups, with a "diverse" set of skills and traits. To believe in equality and evolution simultaneously, you'd have to believe in a process that took millions of years but somehow, against all mathematical odds and every shred of reason, rendered all ethnic groups cognitively and physically equal from here to eternity. What's truly religious is your blind, naive, unquestioning belief in innate human equality and the "blank slate," because all the available evidence contradicts it. That's why you seek to demonize anyone who dares challenge what is to you a deeply held folk-religious belief. Let the name-calling commence. I realize it's all you have.
ID is *not* a theory.
The difference: there is no need to *believe* in evolution. It is a theory which explains all the observable facts to date and makes usable, testable (and verified!) predictions. ID does none of this. Ergo, ID is *not* a theory. I would argue it isn't even an hypothesis. It's just Jim-Bob's WAG at how to shove Biblical creationism into the mainstream. As a scientist, and a man of faith, I don't need my religion trying to tell me how the natural world works, just as I don't need anyone trying to "prove how the Red Sea could have parted".
Although the uber-conservative Jewish and Muslim sects are beginning to espouse ID.
Do you also call the police to report a murder every time you hear a football team "killed" their opponent?
There is no such thing as "Intelligent Design". This fact is *clearly* demonstrated by the people that advocate the very idea.
Good for Job, neither did I. I happen to think that God doesn't care about what we say, or don't say, it's about what we do. And I'm very willing to incorporate the possibility that I'm wrong about God, which is why I include the caveat, if God exists. I guess neither you, nor I will ever be absolutely certain if she is up there giggling or getting pissed off at me. Unless maybe, you've had some sort of direct answer? Because I haven't, lately. But I find your view to encompass the very intolerance that drives me away from church.
Scientific theory is derived after study based on criteria that is available and can be tested. Creationism is not scientific theory. It is human derived myth that cannot be tested. The media has allowed this quackery to be called scientific theory when it's not because nobody bothers to make the distinction.
The ideas behind "intelligent design" date back to Enlightenment Deism. Teach them in history class. And also teach that they were originally used to refute the idea of "revealed relgions" (i.e. religions that relied on a revelation to a prophet or prophets, such as Moses, Jesus or Mohammad).
On your own posts, there is an "Edit" button next to the "Reply" button instead of a "Like" button. hth
And the ACP tests (assessment of course performance) given at the end of the course often do not line up with the CPGs (curriculum planning guides) for that course.
I agree Amy S, many times I will walk outside and say to myself, "On a beautiful day such as today, how can anyone deny the existence of the Creator." The "bad days" have something to do with free will.
To arlocrescent: If you listen carefully you will hear in the voices of scientists complete wonder, amazement, adoration, and worship of the intricacy and vastness of the natural world--this is a lot deeper than semantics.
Job never gave up on the Lord, why did you?
Thanks, nicely said Double O. I get your point.
Been there, done that. Catbird. You calling me Godless? You don't even know me.
Bill, part of the confusion arises from a mistaken belief that evolutionary theory addresses the origins of life. It doesn't. There are many hypotheses is the scientific community regarding origins (panspermia, autocatalysis, etc.), but none of them are addressed by the discussion of evolutionary theory. This is why many scientists refuse to debate at all with proponents of ID: there is no way to come to a consensus on two completely unrelated topics. A theist will say with absolute certainty, "God did it." An atheist will say with absolute certainty, "There is no god." A scientist involved in honest inquiry will say, "I don't know how it happened, but I'm trying to learn, and someday I hope to know a little more than I do now." Whatever anyone chooses to believe, the scientific viewpoint is the only one that can be applied to every situation, and so is the most valuable of the three.
The deficiency in the argument as presented above for intelligent design is that the conclusion is based upon induction, not deduction. The induced conclusion is but one of many that can be made from the same line of reasoning. For example, there are the breakfast cereal advertisements that end with a picture of the table setting with a glass of orange juice, some toast and bacon slices along with the obligatory bowl of cereal with the tag line: "Part of this nutritious breakfast". Well, I can stick a piece of scrap pig iron in the bowl instead of the cereal and the tag line is still just as true. Did God create the world? You betcha, but this is a matter of faith, not scientific inquiry. Personally, I think that God came up with the idea of evolution for the development of life. BTW, the most significant part of evolution is bilateral symmetry.
Intelligent design is the last thing public schools have to worry about. Look at the graphic on this page. Ouch. http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jborowski/abolishing-the-department-of-education-is-the-righ
After all these years Amy, don't you think you ought to pick it up and give it a try? That's where you'll find the answer.
To clarify my point, I might be wrong, but I think (if there is a God) she would appreciate recognition like "It's a beautiful day" as surely as "God made today beautiful".
" ...the scriptures tell us that the primary fnction of mankind is to worship and glorify God in all things..." Yes, Amy, God is apparently much more insecure and needy than you'd think an omnipotent being would be.
Maybe I am wrong, but wasn't the bible written by man?
Dear Amy: From Genesis through Revelation, the scriptures tell us that the primary fnction of mankind is to worship and glorify God in all things and in this case, it would be the scientific study of His created universe - some people call it "Intelligent Design". But don't trust me, you can read it for yourself in any Holy Bible, I use the Harper Collins Study Bible myself, New Revised Standard Version. It's a really good read and I think you'd like it.
hopefully parents will be as diligent in rooting the Climate Change religion materials
I might be wrong, but if there is a God, then he doesn't want or need credit for his work. But that 's just my opinion.
Our discussions on religion just are so tiresome. Other than Harvey Lacey, I seldom seem to have an exchange that is not really disheartening about religion. Harvey's too busy changing the world in Haiti to comment much on this. He'd certainly disagree with me, but the goodness of his heart and the creativity he displays are more convincing signs of a creator than any of these pseudo science powerpoint slides. I might be wrong. (would that all of us started these discussions with that sentence). The certainty that theists and atheists tend to use, always leaves me cold. Did it all begin randomly, with no thought, design or creator? That seems really unlikely to me. Something from nothing ? a combination of gasses? The seven day creation story seems to be contrary to all scientific theory. So, I don't know, I wasn't there. Although there are days, I feel like it. Religion does not belong in the classroom, other than as a part of the discussion of comparative religion or literature.
It couldn't have been God. He's no good with computers. How else do you explain the spectacular amount of porn on the Internet? So I hear, anyway... (I also have a theory that the Internet is actually a man-made realization of the concept of God, but I'll go into that later.)
Darwinism can barely survive in its own vacuum sealed jar. Absolute censorship is mandatory. Penalties must be increased on heretical thots. They are sending butterflies against the faithful, the metamorphosis, two beings in one. "Evolve this!" Etc.
You're chiding people about not understanding science, while calling for teaching a non-scientific idea in science class as an equal to a scientific theory as well established as gravity. Testable predictions, as any chemist knows, are the foundation of any scientific theory. What exactly are the testable predictions creationism makes about our world? Teach creationism all you like, but not as a scientific theory, and not in science class.
Evolution: The Creation Myth of Our Culture http://www.trueorigin.org/evomyth01.asp
It's rather like saying "The White House announced" or "Mother Nature was angry". They are not literally true statements, but personifications that are linguistic short-cuts to concepts.
Let's see, you see nothing wrong with teaching "creation science," then turn around and call someone else ignorant about science. Truly mind boggling.
It is natural, but unfortunate that scientists sometimes speak in metaphors. "Nature created" is merely a metaphor, it is not a scientific conclusion.
My nasty reply, Gweber? I couldn't possibly top your labeling of me as ignorant and then grabbing your toys and running home. I, too, grew up here in Dallas -- DeSoto, actually -- in the late 70s and I can say with a straight face that I drank my public-school science straight, without a creationism chaser. No mention of God, Ganesha, Buddha, Krishna, Quexacoatl, Tyr, or Vishnu. I, along with my classmates, made it out OK. As have and do children in all of the nations leading the world in religion-free science education. "Intelligent Design" is Christian faux-science. Not Jewish. Not Islamic. When a slide mentions "intelligent design," it's dog-whistling Jesus, not Muhammed or Elijah. Having said that, what would Jesus say about the tone of that last post of yours, G? Tsk, tsk.
All theories are not created equal. Giving every theory equal weight is a bad idea. Yes, I think evolution is the most viable theory and should be given the most consideration. Intelligent Design theory is a christian fabrication currently used to make an end run around the 1st Amendment as it applies to public schools. Teaching about religion is fine. Teaching religion is not. Presumably the intelligent designer in Intellegent Design dogma is God. How much weight should lesser theories be given and who should make the decision? That is the question. Hopefully it will not be the fundamentalist crackpots on the Texas Board of Education. If they had their way history would begin 2000 years ago when the earth was created in 7 days.
Melody, I'm a chemist. I'm also a proponent of evolution. When I was growing up (here in Dallas in the 70s and 80s) creationism was taught alongside with an extremely nebulous version of Darwinian evolution. I, along with my classmates, made it out OK. Having said that, your comment speaks volumes about your understanding of science and its purpose. Furthermore, your reasoning concerning the myriad of creation stories/myths being taught vis-a-vis the Christian "Creator God" (by the way, it's the same God for Judaism and Islam) is a bit over the top. It shows your ignorance of both science and religion. Good night. I won't be reading your soon to be posted nasty reply.
It matters because Intelligent Design is religion dressed up as a theory Let in intelligent design and the Christian "Creator God" and you open the door to every other religion's creation myth. I, for one, want my daughter to be taught science in the way that the rest of the non-Luddite world's children are being taught science around the world. I guarantee you the children of India, Russia, Finland and Germany are not being subjected to the quackery that is intelligent design.
What does it matter as long as its taught as a theory? Personally, I believe evolution is the best explanation we have, to date. But there are absolutes in science; mathematics, yes; science, no. If you believe there are, then you don't understand either the scientific method or what exactly science is in the first place. Let the theories/ideas "battle it out." May the best theory (presented in a disinterested manner) win. I'll place my bet on evolution.