OK, so I did some research, and here is the actual language that this whole lawsuit is about:
"Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind."
I just want to make sure we all star on the same level. This is the language that the teacher would say before going into the evolution chapter of the ninth grade science class in Dover County Schools.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
But that argument is flawed, all science is theories, because the only way anything is finalized is if its prooven wrong. According to the science community it would be a law, but we don't make those any more.
I also would like to know what these 'gaps' are. As my recent education has shown me that there are no gaps. Perhaps we may find some later, but as of now, there are none. If there are, I would like to see the research about them, I would be very interested in these.
Finally, will they provide availible books or book segments on all religiouse views of creation? There are after all thousands of views, so if we are going to start sharing possible theological views in the classroom, we need to share them all.
Bah, I am ranting again. I guess as a huge proponant not mixing church and state and being a scientist this issue touches home. Please post more as you fine more.
See I was aware of those 'gaps' in the theory, but they are not gaps and are perfectly explainable. Most especially #2, as most people just don't understand that one.
They all bring up the air plane in a junk yard being produced by a hurricane argument, which has been shown to be wrong so many times. Evolution works by having small random changes over time and then selecting for the benificial ones. Your eye wasn't just assembled all at once (as its such an easy example), it took steps, time and most important selection to make it what it is today.
I had thought that perhaps they have found a new argument, or 'hole' with this sudden resurgence in intelligent design. Apparently not, its the same crap they have been saying the whole time.
About the law thing though, I had had it explained to me that we no longer made any laws any more because we made a few and them prooved some wrong. This makes scientists look silly, prooving what we called a law to be false and so now all we have are theories.
Post a Comment