For its latest collection of position statements defending evolution education, the National Center of Scientific Education (NCSE) will include one from an area of study it had previously suggested as an alternative forum for Intelligent Design.
The lobby group’s third edition of Voices for Evolution will include a statement from the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) to explain its latest position on teaching Intelligent Design in the classroom.
“Social studies may, at first glance, seem to be a better fit for this approach to teaching intelligent design, but the same constitutional issues arise whether religious beliefs are taught in science or in the social studies curriculum,” read the NCSS statement, which was issued in May 2007.
The NCSS stated that “while the social studies classroom is the proper forum for the discussion of controversial issue,” it maintained that the “teaching religious beliefs as the equivalent of scientific theory is not consistent with the social studies.”
A contributor for “Evolution News & View,” a blog from a subgroup of the Discovery Institute, a think tank associated with the Intelligent Design movement, points out that the NCSE will go at great lengths to banish any line of thought inconsistent to the teaching of evolution — even if it means going back on its previous arguments.
“[A]fter endorsing censoring science classes and relegating intelligent design to discussion in social studies, the NCSE is now flip-flopping and praising censorship of social studies classes as well,” wrote Robert Crowther Friday on the blog for the Center for Science and Culture.
Crowther cited several examples from previous articles in which the NCSE and other supporters of evolution education proposed social studies as an appropriate forum for discussing non-Darwinian thoughts such as Creationism and Intelligent Design.
Furthermore, Crowther suggested that critics of Intelligent Design have strategically misrepresented the scientific claim as synonymous to Creationism to exclude it from being taught in science classes.
Opponents of Intelligent Design have criticized the claim, alleging that it is only a vehicle to inject religious teaching, mainly Creationism, into public schools and scientific debate. Intelligent Design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Jay Richards, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, told The Christian Post in an interview earlier this year that while the religious labeling of Intelligent Design is misguided, it serves the critic’s purpose.
“By attaching the label of religion to it, the person is essentially trying to privatize it, so it doesn’t have to be considered public evidence,” said Richards. “But the point of intelligent design’s argument is that it’s based on public evidence, the evidence from nature and the natural world.”
The Discovery Institute makes it clear on its website that Intelligent Design “theory” is neither based from nor upholds the Bible and is not the same as Creationism.
“The intellectual roots of intelligent design theory are varied,” explains the Discovery Institute on its website.
“Plato and Aristotle both articulated early versions of design theory, as did virtually all of the founders of modern science.”
“Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the ‘apparent design’ in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations,” the group adds.
In contrast, “Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago.
“Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design,” the Discovery Institute clarifies.
Other explanations surrounding Intelligent Design theory posted on the group’s website also clarify that Intelligent Design does not reject evolutionary theory, if “evolution” is defined by "change over time," or “that living things are related by common ancestry.”
However, Discovery Institute does challenge a dominant form of evolutionary theory known as neo-Darwinism, which “contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that ‘as no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species.’
“It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges,” the group states.
Regarding NCSE’s initial suggestion that Intelligent Design be taught in the social studies curriculum, Discovery Institute’s Richards said even if it were allowed, the theory would be irrelevant in that discipline. Since the design argument draws from science disciplines such as biology, chemistry, astronomy, or physics, it would be most appropriate in a science class.
Comments
A common misconception about evolution is that people equate it to the explanation of the origon of life... when in actuality, evolution has nothing to do with that... People think evoltuion says we randomly came about, nonliving matter became living matter, thats actually a study of abiogenesis, something Darwin never even touched on. Two different things entirely. Evolution is NOT random, the only RANDOM thing about evolution is mutation... Evolution HAS and STILL IS being proven in the lab and in nature. It IS observable, and it IS explainable... what is questionable is abiogenesis, and thats ok, the point of science is to figure it all out.. abiogenesis is one of the theories, and its actually not too bad for a theory.. But evolution is something that has been proven.
This spiritual struggle is already won. remember it will get worse. I personally don't want my child with her childlike mind to only hear the evolution theory at school. I try to teach her that what she is seeing when issues come up about this remember we battle not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual wickidness from high places. I tell her to put her whole armour of god on. (isiah)
GreatNW: That's a strawman argument. Science and reason are better than faith. That does not make them "inerrant and infallible." But thanks for playing!
Citizen,
So, science and reason are inerrant and infallible? I did not think such blind faith in science and reason had survived in to our post modern age. Most see it as an ideology of the 20th century that did not survive in a world that lives under the threat of annihilation brought on by science and reason. And most find little purpose in a theory where our greatest hope is as atoms and molecules that merge with the all matter for all eterninty.( You must have been a big fan of the Borg) Sort of the ultimate view of a mechanistic worldview. In the industrial age of the19th century, we were dehumanized as "cogs" in the greater machine. You, apparently, see us as molecules in the greater cosmic soup. Not much of an improvement
Citizen,
I may have posted the original response in another article... but knowing that Animals adapt is not believing in evolution. There are two types, Macro, and Micro... Micro is adaptation... which shows the power, foresight, and creativity in our Creator (Yahweh, Christ ;).
Macro evolution... nothing more then faith in something that cannot be seen (ironic isn't it?).
SweetBeloved,
The Lord guides me through His Word, but I know what you are saying. Now if this guy goes off into the Dinosaurs walking with man 5,000 years ago, it will get turned off pretty quick. In the past 6-years I have researched the Flood, Creation, Christology, Demonology, Angelology, and pretty much everything else in Systematic Theology.
I have come to the conclusion that the Great Flood was local to the Middle East, that the Creation days are most likely epoch's of time compared to a literal 12-24 hour day interpretation, that the 2nd coming will only occur once, the church will go through the tribulation, that the rapture will most likely happen when Christ appears with His Heavenly Army, that Jesus is actually Yahweh and The Angel of The Lord in the Old Testament, etc.
God is Good!
GreatNW: No faith necessary when it comes to science and reason. Their track record at understanding the universe speaks for itself. Faith's track record in understanding the universe also speaks for itself, and it has not covered itself in glory, to put it charitably.
Citizen,You put your faith in science and reason? An epistemological sink hole. Been there, tried that....
SweetBeloved: I'm quite happy as a Secular Humanist. I can learn about the world through science and reason, and that gives me more confidence that what I am learning is true and will work than faith ever did. I can face death knowing that when it comes, it will be just like before I was born, and that was neither traumatic or painful. If I live to get the most out of this life, then I can leave it without regret. I can understand that death is the price we pay for the ability to live an examined life, and pay it joyfully. I can wonder that every molecule that is me was present at the beginning of the universe. I have always existed: maybe not all at the same time, and not in this configuration, but my molecules have, and they will go on existing in one form or another until the end of time. That's pretty cool. I can learn about my true heritage through biology, and understand that through genetics, we are all the same. "Race" is a pseudo-concept. I can learn so many things, without having to channel my understanding through 2000 year old middle eastern mythology.
I've already tried Christianity, and it was great. I have no regrets about converting. But I also have no regrets about deconverting. It was time to move on once new information concerning the archaeology of the bible, as well as a new perspective on jesus that involved modern day gurus came to my attention.
I guess the bottom line is that I can't be angry at something I don't believe in. What I'm angry about is that mythology still takes up so much of our time, energy, and money. Such a waste. It takes lives and twists them with hate for people who are different. Such a waste, such needless pain and suffering. It has held us back from learning all we can about ourselves and our world. It has hijacked our morality as well as our natural sense of awe at the universe to sustain itself. And most of all, there is no reason to believe that it is true.
By the way, its not true that I would lose nothing by believing. I'd lose my intellectual integrity and rationality, and for what? I have comfort enough for all the reasons I listed above. I have no need to imagine a deity to love me. I have enough love from my fellow humans, and from myself.
So do you, for that matter. All these things I've been saying, they are true about you, too. Everything you have thought was "god" was either yourself, or your fellow humans all the time. You could give up your faith right now and lose none of it.
Zenodaddy,
I would encourage you to watch "Creation in the 21st Century" with Carl Baugh and see for yourself! Pray and let the LORD guide you.
Citizen,
There is nothing mythological about GOD, my dear, except what you have not been able to conceive of by the restrictions you've decided to place upon yourself. Human reasoning ie the mind, does not have the capacity to accept what it cannot see with its own physical eyes or feel with the sense of touch. You've put GOD in a box and literally and perhaps even resentfully (considering some of your comments on other posts) shut HIM out and refused to open up to HIM perhaps because of some unfairness in your life or others' lives...so what you really have done is decide that GOD must not exist because in reality, you have chosen to shut yourself off from HIM. GOD is the CREATOR of all things...HE is more real than anything you can see around you in the natural level... and HE truly exists whether you choose to believe in or turn your back on HIM or not.
It may seem to others that by the way you've used this forum to express your anger against GOD and even those who believe in HIM, that it could really your way of shouting to GOD something to the effect of, 'I feel like You abandoned me and like You don't love me so prove You're for real and that You love me or I'm gonna tell everybody that You're a big phony!' I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but there does seem to be a message in your posts that has clearly expressed great resentment toward GOD rather than simple unbelief.
GOD does loves you and wants you to open up and reach out to HIM and experience HIS love and amazing presence and show you great things you never realized before! You would only be hindering yourself by continuing to shut yourself off from the LORD Who is the ONLY TRUTH! I encourage you to just take the chance to call out to HIM and tell HIM you want to know the TRUTH the whole TRUTH and nothing but the TRUTH! I reiterate, you have nothing to lose and everything good to gain including eternal life with HIM! Glory to GOD!!!
zenodaddy: that's good that you've never seen that. I haven't either. That's not what the theory of evolution says. If you accept what you call "micro-evolution" then you've accepted the theory of evolution. Animals adapt to their circumstances via descent with modification. If circumstances change for part of the population of that particular animal, that part adapts over time and through the generations, possibly until it is a separate species that cannot reproduce with the part of the population that stayed stable. This takes a long time. Nobody is suggesting that it happens in a single generation, which is what your "cow gives birth to deer example suggests.
That's the theory of evolution in a nutshell, and you've managed to agree with it without becoming an evil secular humanist like myself lol. Congratulations!
Science is an important tool in the world of apologetics, but I would caution anything from TBN. I have never heard of Carl Baugh, but Hugh Ross used to have a show on TBN, so I will not say anything until I learn more about him.
I think what they are confusing (Discovery) is that Intelligent Design (ID) is a form of Creationism, albeit 'Old-Earth' Creationism... it is Creationism none-the-less.
Micro-Evolution does indeed occur, but it is more adaptation then anything else. Has anyone ever seen a beneficial mutation? Animals were created to adapt to its environment...
As for Macro-Evolution... I have never seen a cow ever give birth to a deer or vice versa.
SweetBeloved: You've mistaken mythology for science
The only true "science" comes from our beloved Creator! If anyone wants to be reaffirmed in faithfilling gratitude and amazed at HIS wonderous works in creating this beautiful home, Earth, that HE so lovingly designed for us, along with the glorious phenomenons HE is ever designing and orchestrating in all the Universe with such precision and care, please start watching "Creation In The 21st Century" with Dr. Carl Baugh on TBN! It puts a tear in my eye every time just to think about the intricate care our blessed LORD put into everything HE planned for us! Shoosh! If that slone doesn't make you want to jump and shout with grateful joy to our one and only True Love and get excited about getting close to HIM and learning and getting involved in doing HIS will...woohoo!! As we put ourselves in covenant with HIM by faith abiding in HIM, seeking and loving HIM, we have HIS faithful cloak of protection, grace and mercy in abundance!! HE'll never leave us nor forsake us!! HE is more than worthy of all praise and glory and honor and thanksgiving forever!!! Blessed be the Name of the LORD JESUS CHRIST!!! Hallelujah!!!
Also if you haven't already, check out http://www.thehubbelsite.com
We have an awesome GOD! The LORD is NOT passive! If you want to get close to HIM and feel HIS amazing presence and love for you, which is so greater than you ever hoped, reach out to HIM! HE wants you to know and have a relationship with you as HIS child! There is nothing to lose and everything to gain! You can't go wrong with GOD!!!
"The Discovery Institute makes it clear on its website that Intelligent Design “theory” is neither based from nor upholds the Bible and IS NOT THE SAME [emphasis mine] as Creationism."
The Discovery Institute's ID textbook, "Of Panda's and People," was originally titled "Creation Biology." There was no mention of the now popular term "intelligent design" in the book until 1987 after the Supreme Court ruled that teaching creationism in public schools violated the Establishment Clause. As a result, the editors of the textbook replaced every reference to "creationism," and "Creator" with "intelligent design" and "intelligent designer," hoping this would be enough to bypass the court's decision. They are still claiming that intelligent design isn't the same as creationism.
This is a passage from the 1987 manuscript just before the Supreme Court's ruling:
"Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."
And the same passage immediately following:
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."
Despite the fact that the moniker "intelligent design" was coined specifically to REPLACE "creationism," it's obvious enough to any reasonable person that intelligent design isn't the SAME as creationism... right?