Related Information to Teaching Against Darwin

Teaching Against Darwin - Page 5

I have changed my opinion on this issue because of the way in which it is coming up in Kansas. The intelligent design theorists are not pushing to teach that something could have created the earth. While it is their spoken credo, they are backed by many religious groups. To be sure, only the creationist version of a creating God will be taught. That belongs in the church. As long as ID is backed by people like Pat Robertson, it can never hold water as a true scientific study of possible ID theories. If they would be willing to allow the talk of an alien race seeding us, or perhaps the theories in others religious movements, then it could be perceived as a non-biased, scientific biased study of our origins. We all know, with preacher and churches backing this movement, that the christian view of creation is the only thing that will ultimately be pushed. Religion belongs in the church not the school! Thomas Jefferson coined the idea of a wall of separation between the church and state to prevent the government from interfering with the church, and to prevent the church from interfering with the government. Kansas just took a giant step backwards by allowing intelligent design, as the church believes it, to be taught. There is not to be an open debate on ID, especially different types of intelligent design, and thats a true shame. The ones who will lose out is our children who get what science has to offer, 1 theory of evolution, and only one of the hundreds of ID 'theories' that many different sects have to offer. The thing that bothers me is how ID, with no scientific processes to follow, is going to be taught as theory without using scientific method as all other sciences use. To teach ID, you have to disregard this fact. Not to say it hasn't crossed my mind that we could have been created. Not to say there isn't open spots in evolution that leave ID an opening. But evolution has millions of years of fossils as evidence and animals like the fruit fly in Madagascar labs that have evolved right in front of us. ID would not even exist if not for religion. ID is still based on the premise of a creating God. You can argue that its not, but its backed by churches and famous evangelists, it most certainly meets their criteria for intelligent design or they wouldn't support it. If you still doubt, do you think they would support the same movement if they were wanting to teach that alien beings seeded us, or that we are a marooned life form, or that we came from a cosmic force that feeds into all life? I know Pat Robertson wouldn't. When school board members were voted out of office for allowing ID to be taught in Pennsylvania schools, he was so upset, that he said that God had turned his back on them because of it. https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/ap_on_...rtson_evolution
Yes ID is supposed to be taught outside of the realm of religion. It is not being taught that way, it is sunday school in science class. Its a travesty of our government allowing the merging of government and church at the expense of our kids!

Darwin Teaching

While I agree that Intelligent Design as an alternative to the Theory of Evolution should be taught in public schools, I disagree with religion being "pushed" as a school subject. I would hope that if ID is accepted into a school's curriculum, it should be taught scientifically along with the other Theories of seeding, marooning, etc.

Who backs the proposed legislation isn't who will control how it is taught in the schools, they are merely presenting ID as an alternative to a flawed, unsubstantiated Theory -- which has been taught as FACT in many schools for generations.

Offtopic but, Quite frankly, with all the recent bizarre comments from Pat Robertson, I believe the man has lost his mind. His followers need to make a decision to get him out of the public eye, in my opinion.

Teaching Against Darwin UFO & Writing Art Education Sciences

I can't understand this whole Intelligent design debate. There is no scientific basis whatsoever to ID. It is a strange theory being pushed by religious groups to discredit Darwin's theory of evolution. In fact I'm not sure if there is any other country in the world apart from the US that is considering teaching ID at all.

Evolution has scientific basis because it can be hypothesised and is widely accepted by the scientific community. ID doesn't have these two pre-requisites, therfore is not science. I have no problems with intelligent design being taught in philosophy or theology class.

There is nothing wrong with presenting different ideas about how we evolved, but you can't label something a science when it isn't. I heard an interview with one of the few "scientists" who created ID. He said the theory requires a creator, which he believes would be god. God is a concept. We can never prove or disprove god's existence. Therefore ID has no scietific basis. It can not be tested and relies on blind belief.

Page 5 Darwin Teaching

BELIEFS ON DARWIN'S EVOLUTION VARY FROM RELIGION TO RELIGION

As the Legislature begins its wrangling over how evolution should be taught in Utah's public schools, the people who will affect the debate include not only lobbyists and legislators but, more subtly, Adam and Eve, Sunday school teachers, rabbis and the pope.
Ref. deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C3949%2C%2C00.html

Darwin Teaching

Actually, the theory of evolution and the theory of creationism both hold about the same amount of scientific knowledge: next to none. A lot of it is based on faith. I had a professor who showed a video that explained how neither one of them had a whole heck of a lot back them up.

When we see pictures of men drawn in the image of a monkey based on a bone they found, most of it is completely artistic. There have been plenty of old bones found, and they would find a finger, and from there they would drawn this elaborate picture of a monkey man. Where did that come from? All from a finger? The same with a jaw bone that was found. When they added the rest of the body, the artist turned it into a monkey man.

Personally, I hold the belief that if they are going to teach one, teach all. Obviously for time constraints a teacher cannot teach every single wide spread belief of how human beings got here and where we came from. If they are going to focus on how beings came to inhabit the planet and how the planet was created, then they need to take the top main beliefs and teach them all as THEORIES.

If they are not willing to cover every angle, then they don't need it in the schools period. It's a biased system, and it has no place in a school system. Parents should be responsible when it comes to teaching a child about the different ways of how we came to be here. I don't see where any school system has the right to poke their nose in it. There are plenty of things a science teacher can teach about the human body and about the planet that is not controversial. Why not stick to them?

Teaching Against Darwin

EVOLUTION OPPONENTS SUFFER SETBACK

Conservative Republicans who pushed anti-evolution standards back into Kansas schools last year have lost control of the state Board of Education once again.
Ref. https://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/02/kan...n.ap/index.html