step up on soap box
From an article at ABC News regarding the most recent “Intelligent Design” trials in Dover, TN (which you all should be paying attention to…since the U.S. Constitution itself is being undermined and trivialized…), the following was quoted. “Miller” refers to Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown University; “the statement” refers to a reading that the faculty at Dover’s public schools have to read prior to discussions on evolution in science classes, also offering an “alternative” textbook that was referred to by me in a previous posting…:
The statement read to Dover students states in part, “Because Darwin’s theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered.” Miller said the words are “tremendously damaging,” falsely undermining the scientific status of evolution.
“What that tells students is that science can’t be relied upon and certainly is not the kind of profession you want to go into,” he said. “There is no controversy within science over the core proposition of evolutionary theory,” he added. On the other hand, Miller said, “intelligent design is not a testable theory in any sense and as such it is not accepted by the scientific community.”
During his cross-examination of Miller, Robert Muise, another attorney for the law center, repeatedly asked whether he questioned the completeness of Darwin’s theory.
“Would you agree that Darwin’s theory is not the absolute truth?” Muise said.
“We don’t regard any scientific theory as the absolute truth,” Miller responded.
Well played, Miller…well played… Indeed, the beauty of science is that things can be proven and disproven, including Newton’s Laws (and in some instances, they’ve been proven wrong…quantum physics, for example…). Intelligent design advocates, however, are unwilling to allow for proof/disproof (because what they advocate cannot be proven or disproven). Therefore, by definition, what they advocate is not science at all and has no place within the science classroom (except for mention that theories alternative to evolution exist…I have no problem with that…it’s just treating theories other than evolution as “just as plausible”…’cause there aren’t any…).
…I just love how the Constitution is being tossed around like it’s nothing by folks…it was written for a reason, protecting civil liberties and separating church and state. It was done for a reason. That’s the way it should stay, or we may as well rename our country as “Saddam’s Iraq: where you have to believe what I tell you or I kill you.”
step down from soap box
What’s wrong with teaching kids what we think might be wrong? I mean, that is a big part of science. Teach kids that this stuff isn’t to be leaned on, but to be tested and re-tested. Saying that it undermines it is to say that you don’t really think it is a theory, thereby damaging science more than the ID guy over there.
Yeah, that’s understandable… I mean, you’re right about the testing and re-testing aspect… It’s the “here is a viable SCIENTIFIC alternative to evolution in this book here that you can read about if you want to avoid learning about SCIENTIFIC theories.” My argument lies entirely (as far as I know…) in the realm of what is science and what isn’t. It’s perfectly fine to mention that alternatives exist, maybe even to spend a day talking about a few of them, but treating those alternatives as if they are a). supported by the scientific community at large and b). on the same level scientifically as evolution.
I’m not saying that evolution doesn’t have faults. I’m not saying that intelligent design is wrong. I’m just saying that this is yet another ploy by the extreme right to undermine the Constitution and the rights of every American, Christian or not. One could say that “intelligent design” is general enough to pass for many of the world’s religions…but if we’re going to be so general, why print it at all? How is that any more “correct” than evolution?
I can agree with that.
What would Flying Spaghetti Monster do?
Hehehehe…well played again, my man 😉