George one is based on researched fact the other is based on pure speculation ~ primarily from the bible... _____________ "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes." Bush: Intelligent Design Should Be Taught President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life. During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both theories, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported. "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes." The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation. Christian conservatives — a substantial part of Bush's voting base — have been pushing for the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. Scientists have rejected the theory as an attempt to force religion into science education. link
Mr. President, I also have an idea! Let's teach prayer instead of physics because prayer is more reliable than physics. Prayer power empowers the universe, not physics. Thank You, John "We are already far enough behind other engineers" Doe. ps - Declare war on Venezuela, I hear they are a bunch of commies with oil.
When we stop teaching science in Science classes then and that is supported and suggested by our president, then we need to question his leadership. I would not be at all opposed to talking about strengths and weaknesses in various models of evolution, but to teach intelligent design which isn't even a scientific theory would be harmful to students educations. There is no excuse for a president to propose harming student's education like this.
Some more background into the intelligent design vs. evolution 'debate'... ____________ "Biological life contains elements so complex - the mammalian blood-clotting mechanism, the bacterial flagellum - that they cannot be explained by natural selection." ..... "By no definition of any modern scientist is intelligent design science," The Crusade Against Evolution
A few of the many intelligent design scientists who disagree- William S. Harris, PhD is a native of Kansas City with an undergraduate degree from Hanover College in Chemistry and a PhD in Nutritional Biochemistry from the University of Minnesota. He has been conducting scientific research for the last 20 years and has been awarded about $3.5 million in research grants. He has published over 70 scientific papers. Dr. Harris currently holds an endowed Chair in Metabolism and Vascular Biology and is a Professor of Medicine at the University of Missouri at Kansas City and is the Director of a Kansas City lipoprotein research laboratory. With regards to origins issues, he believes that the central dogma of Darwinism - that highly complex systems developed by random chance and environmental pressure from simple, ancestral life-forms - remains highly speculative and statistically problematic. His view is that a design (non-chance)-based theory of origins is more consistent with the evidence. Mr. Harris is co-author (with John H. Calvert, JD) of Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution (National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Autumn 2003) Michael J. Behe, Senior Fellow - CSC Michael J. Behe is Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. He received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania in 1978. Behe's current research involves delineation of design and natural selection in protein structures. In addition to publishing over 35 articles in refereed biochemical journals, he has also written editorial features in Boston Review, American Spectator, and The New York Times. His book, Darwin's Black Box discusses the implications for neo-Darwinism of what he calls "irreducibly complex" biochemical systems. The book was internationally reviewed in over one hundred publications and recently named by National Review and World magazine as one of the 100 most important books of the 20th century. Behe has presented and debated his work at major universities throughout North America and England William A. Dembski, Senior Fellow - CSC A mathematician and a philosopher, William A. Dembski is associate research professor in the conceptual foundations of science at Baylor University and a senior fellow with Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture in Seattle. He is also the executive director of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (www.iscid.org). Dr. Dembski previously taught at Northwestern University, the University of Notre Dame, and the University of Dallas. He has done postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton University. A graduate of the University of Illinois at Chicago where he earned a B.A. in psychology, an M.S. in statistics, and a Ph.D. in philosophy, he also received a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Chicago in 1988 and a master of divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1996. He has held National Science Foundation graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. Dr. Dembski has published articles in mathematics, philosophy, and theology journals and is the author/editor of seven books. In The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities (Cambridge University Press, 1998), he examines the design argument in a post-Darwinian context and analyzes the connections linking chance, probability, and intelligent causation. The sequel to The Design Inference appeared with Rowman & Littlefield in 2002 and critiques Darwinian and other naturalistic accounts of evolution. It is titled No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. Dr. Dembski's most recent book is a coedited collection with Michael Ruse for Cambridge University Press titled Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA. MORE- • Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist • Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics • Dr James Allan, Geneticist • Dr Steve Austin, Geologist • Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist • Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist • Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert • Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics • Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist • Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology • Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology • Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist • Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology • Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry • Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer • Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics • Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony) • Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics • Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics • Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering • Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering • Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist • Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education • Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering • Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist • Dr Bob Compton, DVM • Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist • Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist • Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics • Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering • Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist • Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging • Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist • Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany • Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics • Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry • Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education • Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience • Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div • Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist • Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research • Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research • Dr André Eggen, Geneticist • Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics • Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy • Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology • Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry • Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology • Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science • Dr Paul Giem, Medical Research • Dr Maciej Giertych, Geneticist • Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist • Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist • Dr D.B. Gower, Biochemistry • Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist • Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist • Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist • Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher • Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics • Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist • Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist • Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist • Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer • Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy • Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist • Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy • Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service • Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist • Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science • Dr Bob Hosken, Biochemistry • Dr George F. Howe, Botany • Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist • Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist • Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology • George T. Javor, Biochemistry • Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist • Dr Arthur Jones, Biology • Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon • Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist • Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology • Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics • Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist • Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology • Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry • Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry • Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry • Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science • Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry • Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering • Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science • Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering • Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist • Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology • Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology • Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry • Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics • Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology • Prof. John Lennox, Mathematics • Dr John Leslie, Biochemist • Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics • Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist • Dr Alan Love, Chemist • Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist: • Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist • Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher • Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist • Dr John McEwan, Chemist • Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics • Dr David Menton, Anatomist • Dr Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist • Dr John Meyer, Physiologist • Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator • Dr John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist • Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist • Dr John D. Morris, Geologist • Dr Len Morris, Physiologist • Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist • Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering • Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher • Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher • Prof. John Oller, Linguistics • Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology • Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner • Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist • Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology) • Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon • Prof. Richard Porter • Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist • Dr A.S. Reece, M.D. • Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics • Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology • Dr David Rosevear, Chemist • Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology • Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist • Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist: • Dr Ian Scott, Educator • Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist • Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry • Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science • Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics • Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist • Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer • Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist • Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist • Dr Andrew Snelling, Geologist • Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science • Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology • Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education • Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer • Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry • Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics • Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics • Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics • Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry • Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist: • Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science • Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist • Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist • Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist • Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer • Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist • Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology) • Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics • Dr John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist • Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor • Dr Lara Wieland, Medical doctor • Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist • Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist • Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist • Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics • Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering • Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics • Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology • Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist • Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography • Dr Henry Zuill, Biology
I tend to believe in some form of intelligent design. I think anyone who believes in God and that humans are distinct believes in some form of the idea (except for Creationists). The problem with it as a scientific theory is that it's not really one. For starters, all those scientists you list probably have widely varying ideas of what exactly ID is. The consensus is that evolution alone doesn't explain things, so "there has to be more". How do you teach a theory where there's no consensus on the theory except for the general one-sentence idea that there was guiding force behind the design? Second, how do you teach it from a science perspective? It can be taught as an idea, but there's no scientific way to show the "Hand of God". To me, if you're going to teach it, it should be done in one of two ways: 1. In science class, not as a theory in and of itself, but with the idea that evolution is a theory, and there are some counter thoughts such as ID or creationism or whatever. In this scenario, it's taught as a 5-minute footnote to evolution. 2. In a social science / philosophy type class, not a science class.
ID is a religious theory, not a scientific one. There is a time and place to learn about ID and there is a time an a place to learn about evolution. I would never expect to see a pastor expounding on evolution, and neither should a science teacher be forced to discuss ID.
Understand your problem, but if you will google any of these you will find interestingly that there is a ID theory just as much as there is a E theory. First, most of the ID scientists are not necessarily religious or buy into the guiding force, nor do they say there has to be more. It is a theory that satisfies their personal research and study. Evolution Theory has no idea if there was a big bang, an alien soup, or anything at all because evolution has no theory as to where the something came from that appeared out of nothing. The big bang theory teaches us in high school that the universe was the size of a period in this thread and then it exploded. Whatever... Anyway Evolutionists have to satisfy the same personal research and study that ID scientists do. All we have is the universe today. Research that frames an absolute view of the universe 1 billion years ago should be absolutely kept in the philosophy class not the science class. That is what bugs me about Darwinism. It requires just as much faith as Creationism. I believe in creation based upon religious reasons not scientific reasons. But that doesn't mean there isn't a legitimate science in ID. ID and Evolution are in conflict, scientists are in conflict with each other, so just pick a side and join the fray. But I think there are enough scientists working on ID to give it just as much scientific muster as evolution. Read up on some of these guys- like Dr. James Alan, a great geneticist.
Rhestor, That appears to be a list of people who disagree with aspects of Evolution. I said before that evolution should be questioned and examined, and tested. Finding problems with evolution is entirely scientific and part of the process. I agree with that part. While some of those people may have their own personal theory about things, that is fine as well, but it isn't scientific theory. Scientific theory is something specific that can be tested. ID can not be tested or proven by any means that I have seen so far. Teaching ID as science is wrong, and confuses the issues. I think people are entitled to believe in ID, and I think that I believe in some form of it myself. That is a seperate issue than science.
National Review and World magazine two completely unbiased publications with absolutely no agenda in promoting Darwin's Black Box. _________ A Review of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, by Michael J. Behe ... One hundred thirty-six years later, this argument makes a reappearance in Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box. Adorned this time around with the language of molecular biology, spiced up with charges of a conspiracy of scientists, masquerading as an appeal for truth and not for theology, it is nonetheless the same old thing: There cannot be design without a designer. Although I do not doubt the sincerity of the author, nor scoff at his unease with a world apparently lacking purpose, the case for intelligent design put forth in Darwin's Black Box is built on some deep misunderstandings about evolution, molecular organization and, ultimately, about the nature of scientific inquiry. Because of these misperceptions, not a blow is landed on the central, radical claim of Darwinian thinking: Biological order and design emerge from the workings of the evolutionary process and not from the hand of a designer. Behe's argument for intelligent design ultimately fails because it is a belief and not a potential explanation. The hand of God may well be all around us, but it is not, nor can it be, the task of science to dust for fingerprints. American Scientist
If ID should be taught, it should be taught under a cirriculum of philosophy. Science stays science...skeptical thought remains... In an era where football/men's sports gets more education funding than the arts, that proposal sounds like a brush-off to the concept... Don't blame the science. Blame the culture.
I absolutlely agree 100%, intellegent design should be taught..... In Sunday school, at home, in comaparative religion classes, and in religious based schools. But you absolutely have to leave it out of secular schools where attendence is mandatory. Either that or you have to include Hindu lore, Islamic theories, literal interpretations of the bible, Gaia theory, paegan mythology, etc etc etc till you confuse the little beggars enough that they go looking for the best scientific theory available and get evolution on their own. It's freaking religion people! I know you believe it and you want the world conform to your vision of truth. But please understand you have a bias, your religion is not science! Thank You.
intelligent design postulates that because of inherent complexities in nature, there must have been a creator. it does not say who that creator is. could be God. could be gods. could be aliens. could be crawfish.
LiveScience The Top 10 Intelligent Designs (or Creation Myths) When the founding fathers established the Constitution of the United States, they chose to include the separation of church and state. This was to ensure that the state-sanctioned religious persecutions that plagued much of Europe during the 16th century would not despoil the young, yet grand experiment in democracy that was to become this Republic. To help out with this dilemma, LiveScience presents a list of those Creation Myths that helped define civilizations both past and present... top ten link
Are you saying this guy may be our creator? <img src=http://www.turtletrack.org/Issues00/Co02262000/Art/crawfish.jpg>
