Sunday, November 08, 2009 Last Update:11:25 am ET

Education|Sat, May. 10 2008 04:34 PM EDT

'Academic Freedom' Legislation Advances in Four States

By Alexander J. Sheffrin|Christian Post Reporter

Opponents and those who challenge some or all of the tenets of Darwinism have been encouraged recently as the “Academic Freedom” legislation advanced for review in four states.

If passed, the bills would guarantee the freedom of both teachers and students throughout public schools to share views contradicting or challenging the tenets of Darwinism in the classroom without fears of reprisal.

Lawmakers in Louisiana, Missouri, Alabama, and Michigan said that the efforts to pass the bills were a response to the concerns of teachers and students who reportedly felt marginalized, discriminated, or ostracized if they shared personal views that ran counter to Darwinism.

Darrell White, co-director of the Louisiana Family Forum summed up the intentions of the recent legislation drives as an opportunity that would "free up teachers and students [to] fully explore various scientific weaknesses of Darwinism as well as other areas of science.”

“In educational institutions that receive taxpayer support, it is entirely appropriate for the government to ensure that teachers and students have the right to discuss freely the evidence and scientific arguments for and against evolutionary theory,” explained biologist Jonathan Wells of the Discovery Institute, a pro-intelligent design think-tank, according to LifeSiteNews.com

The Academic Freedom legislation, however, has been faced with some opposition.

Efforts in Florida to pass a bill that would have given students the opportunity to “think critically” and “constantly raise questions” regarding evolution fell flat last week when opponents criticized the bill as an attempt to infuse religion in schools.

But supporters argue that such legislation efforts are about freedom and civil discussion.

“Charles Darwin himself said that fair results could only be obtained by fully balancing and stating the facts and arguments on both sides of each question,” noted Casey Luskin, an attorney with the Discovery Institute, in a statement.

“What these bills seek to do is to restore Charles Darwin’s approach to teaching evolution — to teach it in a balanced, objective fashion,” he added.

Luskin credited Ben Stein's new film, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” with contributing to the proliferation of Academic Freedom legislation. The film, which released nationwide last month, features researchers, professors, and academics who claim to have been marginalized, silenced, or threatened with academic expulsion because of their challenges to some or all parts of Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3
  • Sun May 25, 2008 9:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Despite extensive searching of the Gospels I am unable to find any teaching of Christ's on Darwin's origin of species. Also I found nothing in the gospels where Christ seeks to prove the existence of God. It seems to me that not only is the pursuit of "scientific" evidence for God (ID) a enormous waste of time and inherently doomed to failure (since Science by definition deals with NATURAL phenomena and NATURAL causes and God by definition is supernatural) it is also fully inconsistent with the manner and teachings of Christ. One even wonders seriously if this vanity is what Christ spoke of when he discusses the blaspheming of the Holy Spirit. Is it not the Spirit of god living within us as C.S. Lewis so well describes in "Miracles" which informs us of the truth of Christss revelation. Is not chasing after other "proofs" of god and his covenant a repudiation of this new spirit which is to live within us.

  • Sat May 17, 2008 5:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith By The Rev. F.O. Morris, B.A."

    I do not believe that your posting constitutes a rational argument.

  • Fri May 16, 2008 6:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith By The Rev. F.O. Morris, B.A.

    I believe that the common saying that one "cannot draw blood out of a stone" is the reverse of truth, and that not only bones, sinews, and life can be produced from them, but also, mind, reason, and the voice of conscience, which though would-be philosophers and atheists brave out in daylight, they are so horribly afraid of in the dark. [End quote]

    “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen 1:1).

    “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge” (Ps 19:1, 2).

    “…When will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see?” (Ps 94:8, 9).

  • Vaho »
    Fri May 16, 2008 6:29 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    Wilderness1, you quoted a reverend who criticized evolution. I would be more impressed if you quoted a biologist, preferably a biologist who doesn't work for the Christian organization called the Discovery Institute.

    I would also be more impressed if you didn't quote the Bible as if the Bible had any science in it.

  • Fri May 16, 2008 2:42 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 4

    Call it "Academic Freedom" all you want if it make you feel better about your deception. Still remains a back door why to teach the tenants of one particular faith in public schools. That's State sponsership of a religion, clearly a violation of the separation of church and State In HS we learned about some faiths. Some in a historical context others in mythology. In the event the schools teach the history of Christianity and Christians warts and all. it wouldn't be a pretty picture. Would be fantastic if Christians and the US dump their moral ambiguity and start correcting things they do that affect their fellow man adversely.

  • Thu May 15, 2008 11:30 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 3

    “Don't laugh, I beg you. It's all of a piece with my whole argument, for I have said all along that it is easy for natural selection to fit any animal for any changed habits whatever.”

    Oh don’t worry, I am others are laughing, but not with you, but at you. Firstly, Darwin made as best an educated guess as anyone of his time could have made regarding to how whales & dolphins which are fully mammals came to inhabit water. At the time the evidence for how mammals became modern whales wasn’t very collectively convincing, times they have changed though. Over time more evidence is gathered, tested and based on their results and further predictions it reveals the truer picture of what transpired.

    Today we know not only from genetic evidence but also from fossil evidence that the early whales like ambulocetus and rhodocetus demonstrated that cetations were actually descendants from a group of small/medium sized deer like mammals (see packicetus). Early on the paleontologists weren’t sure where to look for these fossils, but now we know where their type evolved, therefore the collection of intermediates is growing; Indohyus, Ambulocetus, Dalanistes, Rodhocetus, Tackracetus, Gaviocetus, Dorudon, and Basilosaurus, and others but you get the point.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodhocetus

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus

    Today with the evidence we can make testable predictions on what these intermediates should look like if evolution be true. Two such predictions are how the inner ear structure must have changed over time to allow for hearing under water and the migration of the nostrils from the front of the skull, towards the middle and lastly on top as modern cetations are. If evolution is true an these mammals were the ancestors of modern whales we should be able to find fossils with ears which aren’t fully whale like and not fully mammal like, additionally we should also find the location of the nostrils migrate with succession towards their current position. Do we find such evidence? Yes, indeed we do the newest intermediates back up such predictions and reaffirm that indeed these groups of mammals are the ancestors to modern whales.

    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/cetacean.html

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html

    And to follow up, Natural Selection does have some limitations for how drastic and quick such evolutionary changes can occur, if at all. IE, there are physically limitations on how large an animal can be, most of this relates to allometry, for instance, invertebrates in comparison to vertebrates can’t grow nearly as large due to the fact that they have endoskeletons, and therefore no insect could ever rival vertebrates in sheer size, this is directly why vertebrates came to dominate the land even though they weren’t the first to inhabit land.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allometry

  • Thu May 15, 2008 8:41 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith By The Rev. F.O. Morris, B.A.

    I believe in a bear "swimming for hours with a widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects on the water." "Very like a whale!" I think I hear you saying, but I can't help it if you do. "I see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered by natural selection more and more aquatic in their habits, with longer and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."

    Don't laugh, I beg you. It's all of a piece with my whole argument, for I have said all along that it is easy for natural selection to fit any animal for any changed habits whatever. “It is difficult to tell, and immaterial for us, whether habits generally change first and structure afterwards, or whether slight modifications of structure lead to changed habits." How can I tell you? All is fish that comes to my net. [End quote]

    The Darwin faith is a dead faith indeed, for “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). “…When will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see?” (Ps 94:8, 9)."

    I am curious. Do you have any argument against the validity of the theory of evolution that is not an appeal to the logical fallacy of ridicule, or an appeal to the logical fallacy of question begging?

  • Wed May 14, 2008 9:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith By The Rev. F.O. Morris, B.A.

    I believe in a bear "swimming for hours with a widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects on the water." "Very like a whale!" I think I hear you saying, but I can't help it if you do. "I see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered by natural selection more and more aquatic in their habits, with longer and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."

    Don't laugh, I beg you. It's all of a piece with my whole argument, for I have said all along that it is easy for natural selection to fit any animal for any changed habits whatever. “It is difficult to tell, and immaterial for us, whether habits generally change first and structure afterwards, or whether slight modifications of structure lead to changed habits." How can I tell you? All is fish that comes to my net. [End quote]

    The Darwin faith is a dead faith indeed, for “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). “…When will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see?” (Ps 94:8, 9).

  • Wed May 14, 2008 6:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "It's actually rather amazing the leaps of logic one can achieve when viewing the anecdotal evidence of random biological relationships while ignoring the billions of others where, glaringly, no such evidence exists."

    Please explain the "leaps of logic" to which you refer. Please identify the "anecdotal" evidence to which you refer, and identify the "billions" of biological relationships that have been ignored.


    "Perhaps one day, true academic freedom will allow the "religion" of spontaneous generation to go the way of alchemy.""

    Spontaneous generation is a rejected biological concept. It is not a religion. Moreover, I do not understand why you reference it, as it has no direct relevance to the current topic of discussion.

  • Wed May 14, 2008 4:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    It's actually rather amazing the leaps of logic one can achieve when viewing the anecdotal evidence of random biological relationships while ignoring the billions of others where, glaringly, no such evidence exists.

    Perhaps one day, true academic freedom will allow the "religion" of spontaneous generation to go the way of alchemy.

  • Wed May 14, 2008 2:15 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Dimensio, or as another recently put it.

    “Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”

  • Wed May 14, 2008 1:28 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    "Listen Einstein wanna be take your pseudo intellectual persona and redirect your attention to someone else Im done with you."

    If you are unwilling to justify your assertions with evidence, then why should your claims be considered credible?

  • Wed May 14, 2008 12:25 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    "Please explain the specific physical processes involved in such a "design" mechanism, and cite the direct observed instances of these processer or explain the observed events that from which the processes of the "design" mechanism have been directly derived."

    and this is also why ID isn't falsifiable or sciencetific. they can't describe the designer as doing so would make it unteachable in schools, and paradoxically but not defining the designer and the methods he/she uses to build things it makes it unscientific as its can't make falsifiable testable examples. i toyed with an ID person a month ago asking him to explain the processes by which the designer built such organisms, or how the designer would explain human chromosome 2 fusions or ERV's and making them falsifiable. Needless to say he couldn't come up with a falsifiable explanation for those examples and so the 'design inference' becomes nothing more than subjective inference of statistical patterns.

  • Wed May 14, 2008 12:19 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    “Common Design by the Creator can also explain the similarities between life forms, the existence vestigial organs, the validity of comparative biology, genetics.”

    This proposal of yours requires some explanation star, like why would the designer purposely leave such evidence like fossils around or genetic evidence like ERV’s and Human Chromosome 2, which collectively spanning across all those hundreds of millions and billions of years suggest not common design, but common shared ancestry. After all, why would the designer continually come back to keep designing and building organisms, which would be quite similar, both to extinct species and soon to be living species according to the fossil record?

    Moreover, if you’re arguing they are designed and intelligently at that, why are some 99% of all species, which have ever existed, extinct? To me, when 99% of your work is no longer around it doesn’t suggest the work was very intelligently built.

    “I agree here but Biblical creation should also be taught because…”

    Sorry, constitutional law forbids it, also the evidence for it is quite lacking star. We teach what the evidence supports and not what pleases people or fits their religion. If we did, we would have to teach about Xenu and scientology nonsense.

    ‘There is no evidence for Biblical creation but, by the same token, there is no evidence for macroevolution.”

    Yup, except for all those collections of fossils and genetics which collectively can only be explained by notions such as common descent or modification with descent.

    “Wrong, there is no direct observation of macro-evolution, it requires timescales that effectively prevent direct observation,”

    Cough* Fossils*cough. Fossils are more of a direction observation then we have of atoms and their properties star. Besides, macroevolution as I’ve stated endlessly has been observed with microorganisms, flies and others. These species reproduce faster so the results are more readily obvious in our short life timescales.

  • Wed May 14, 2008 11:46 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Common Design by the Creator can also explain the similarities between life forms, the existence vestigial organs, the validity of comparative biology, genetics."

    Please explain the specific physical processes involved in such a "design" mechanism, and cite the direct observed instances of these processer or explain the observed events that from which the processes of the "design" mechanism have been directly derived.

  • Wed May 14, 2008 11:43 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    "Doesn't evolution assume as truth that life began as a single cell organism? How do you know?"

    This is not an assumption. This is a conclusion derived from the complete lack of any evidence of any life other than single-celled life existing before a certain time in the planet's history. Bacterial fossil evidence extends to more than three biliion years in the past, however fossil evidence for multicellular life does not suggest the existence of any such life until approximately 1.2 billion years ago. As such, the premise that extant biodiversity emerged from single-celled organisms is a conclusion derived from evidence, not an "assumption" and any argument based upon the claim that such a premise is an "assumption" absent any evidence is fundamentally flawed.

  • Wed May 14, 2008 11:29 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    ‘The problem is they don't know.’

    True they don’t know, yet. But if you can sit and think you’ll recall not too long ago we didn’t know the earth was spherical, or that is revolves around the sun or how electricity works and that how closely tied magnetism is to electricity. We also didn’t’ understand gravity until only some few hundred years ago, nor did we understand atomic matter or quantum mechanics till recently. All of these things are the fruits of science, and like them science will show us how the universe truly is.

    “They just assume that it started out as a single cell organism for which they have no evidence to prove that.”

    As stated before star, evolution isn’t dependant on the ‘how life got here’. Life is here, we’re living so it’s evident regardless how it got started that we’re here. Regardless if god poofed it, aliens engineered and dropped it off, or if it arose naturally, in the end life still exists and thus can evolve over time. The ‘how’ doesn’t negate the after processes of evolution once the replicating molecules are around. Lets for arguments sake say god poofed a replicating cell here. It would then next begin to evolve over time. Or let’s say some aliens dropped off replicating molecules, again the same outcome, as it would change over time. And the same goes for the naturally arising hypothesis; in the end the replicating molecules exist and therefore can evolve.

    “Doesn't evolution assume as truth that life began as a single cell organism? How do you know? There is no proof because there is no evidence.”

    Stromatolites star, Stromatolites. Use Google for a change, you might actually learn something.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite

    “Micro-evolution will never produce macro-evolution. The laws of genetics will never allow it. It takes a leap of faith to believe that it can.”

    Here we have a person saying the laws of genetics wont allow X, when not too longer ago she had a trouble grasping ‘genetic drifting’ ‘natural selection’ and the very definition of macro evolution/speciation.

    Star, what evidence is there that such micro changes over short time spans won’t lead to macro changes over larger time spans? The fossils certainly don’t suggest that such macro changes are impossible, in fact they line up nicely with the genetic rates. How can such evidence like ERV’s and Human Chromosome 2 be explained but by inferring such macro evolutionary changes star? Has god revealed to you the answer on these yet?

  • Wed May 14, 2008 10:53 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Maybe they need to critically analyze what they were taught instead of accepting everything like mindless sheep."

    Please demonstrate that they have not already done this.

  • Wed May 14, 2008 2:04 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    dbrydges

    Re:Thousands of educated scientists disagree,

    Maybe they need to critically analyze what they were taught instead of accepting everything like mindless sheep.

    Re: but you are entitled to your opinion.


    You are entitled to your opinion as well.



    Re: I can lead the horse to water but I can't make him drink.

    I feel the same way about you.

  • Wed May 14, 2008 1:59 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    dbrydges

    So star2 advocates critical thinking but not when it comes to the Bible.

    No I don't. I challenge you to critically analyze the Word of God.

  • Wed May 14, 2008 1:53 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Thousands of educated scientists disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion. I can lead the horse to water but I can't make him drink.

  • Wed May 14, 2008 1:41 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    dbrydges

    Re:The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the origins of life, the book is titled "The Origin of Species" Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, this is a straw man argument that attempts to refute a claim that is never made by evolution.

    I know that it is abiogenesisists that concern themselves with how life got started. The problem is they don't know. They just assume that it started out as a single cell organism for which they have no evidence to prove that. The evolutionist accepts this and then tries to describe how it changed over time to produce all the different forms of life we see today.

    Until the abiogenesisists can prove that it started as a single cell organism then any theory that describes how it changed over time is worthless. My argument is not a straw man argument. Doesn't evolution assume as truth that life began as a single cell organism? How do you know? There is no proof because there is no evidence. What you assume is truth could very well be wrong. If it is wrong then any theory you come up with based on this fallacious fact will be wrong. I would think that you would want to start out with a factual truth before you would want to try to develop a theory from it.

    Micro-evolution will never produce macro-evolution. The laws of genetics will never allow it. It takes a leap of faith to believe that it can.

    Life starting out as a single cell organism is a scientifically untestable.

    The theory of evolution that postulates on how all the different life forms we see today came to be is scientifically untestable.

    Micro-evolution, genetic variation within a species, is scientifically testable.

    Evolution should never be taught as science.

  • Wed May 14, 2008 12:34 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    So star2 advocates critical thinking but not when it comes to the Bible. Pitiful. Thankfully rational Christians like viking give me hope that they're not all mindless sheep.

  • Wed May 14, 2008 12:19 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    viking

    Jesus and the writers of the NT (for example, Peter, Jude, the writer of Hebrews) all accepted as literal fact the accounts given in the book of Genesis, along with the other OT historical accounts such as Jonah and the whale. We should do no less.

  • Wed May 14, 2008 12:18 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    viking


    Re:Augustine goes on in his writings to elaborate that the holy writings were to be understood as allegorical spiritual truth. This is consistent with all informed understandings of the Christian scriptures.

    Augustine (354-430) was a student of Plato and Aristole before becoming a Christian and was steeped in Greek thought and philosophy. When he became a Christian he did not allow God to renew his thinking to conform to God's thinking (Romans 12:2) and as a result he viewed scripture through a Greek philosophical worldview. This resulted in him interpreting the book of Genesis as allegorical. This method of interpreting the Word of God became the norm in the RCC and has resulted in heretical teaching.

  • Tue May 13, 2008 10:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    It is unfortunate that the conflict in this issue has been promoted as faith (specifically Christian faith) vs. Science. In fact this is a created conflict inconsistent with historical or informed Christian teachings. This issue was addressed by St. Augustine 1600 years ago.
    "It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.
    – The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408]
    Augustine goes on in his writings to elaborate that the holy writings were to be understood as allegorical spiritual truth. This is consistent with all informed understandings of the Christian scriptures. For example in the new testament Christ constantly uses metaphor to explain his teachings to his disciples.
    This is well articulated 1600 years later at this website http://www.bcbsr.com/survey/genint.html
    Perhaps persons of sincerity can move beyond conflict to respect and tolerance.

  • Tue May 13, 2008 9:16 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    I studied biology in the 1990's and we were taught about Lemark's theory of evolution, Darwins theory and creationism. We even performed critical analysis and comparison of both evolutionary theories. Creationism was explained as simply the theory that everything was created, analysis of creationism in the scientific context is of course impossible, so it was only briefly touched.

    "Common Design by the Creator can also explain the similarities between life forms, the existence vestigial organs, the validity of comparative biology, genetics."

    As would common design by a consortium of supernatural beings, or a committee of them. Maybe God created the designers and the designers designed the universe. God is all powerful after all so it is equally as plausible. The problem with the designer theory is that it is completely untestable, it therefore has no place in the study of science.

    "Scientists of your persuation have no explanation for how life got started."

    The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the origins of life, the book is titled "The Origin of Species" Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, this is a straw man argument that attempts to refute a claim that is never made by evolution.

    "Biblical creation should also be taught because it is also a plausible explanation."

    Sorry have to disagree here. Biblical creation or any creationism relies on a scientifically untestable premise, this is the antithesis of the scientific method.

    "There is no evidence for Biblical creation but, by the same token, there is no evidence for macroevolution."

    Wrong, there is no direct observation of macro-evolution, it requires timescales that effectively prevent direct observation, there is however plenty of evidence that supports it as a valid theory. Just because you reject the evidence as conclusive does not mean there is no supporting evidence.

    "It takes more faith to believe in macroevoultion then it takes to believe that "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:1

    So it takes more faith to believe that many genetic mutations, as observed in micro-evolution, over millions of years can result in speciation than it does to believe that some magical being, let alone your particular magical being, willed life into existence? Are you for real? It is simply not rational.

  • Tue May 13, 2008 8:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    dbrydges

    Re:RE: I have to disagree. I think the teaching of evolutionary theory is very important in the study of biology.

    For many years high school biology was taught without ever a mention of evolution. I went to High School in the 60's. Before the 64-65 school year, high school biology did not include evolutionary concepts. The '64-'65 school year was the first year that it was taught. That is when I had to take biology. We study abiogenesis and evolution. Many of the students, me included, just laughed at the teacher for teaching, what we preceived, as idiotic ideas.

    I also took Introduction to Botany in a Junior College in 1976 and never once was evolution ever discussed. It wasn't needed to learn about botany.

    I disagree with you that it is important to teaching biology.


    Re: It is a reasonable scientific theory that provides plausible explanations for the similarities between life forms, the existence vestigial organs, the validity of comparative biology, genetics.

    Common Design by the Creator can also explain the similarities between life forms, the existence vestigial organs, the validity of comparative biology, genetics.

    Scientists of your persuation have no explanation for how life got started. There is no evidence that life began as a single cell organism. If you can't prove that life began as a single cell organism then it is a total waste of time to discuss how it changed over time. Your ideas are merely hypothetical and is nothing more than imagination, the kind that makes up science fiction novels and short stories.



    Re: I think that a teacher should explain that not everyone accepts the theory (evolution), but the theory should definitely be taught in a biology class.

    I agree here but Biblical creation should also be taught because it is also a plausible explanation (common design) to similarities between life forms, the existence vestigial organs, the validity of comparative biology, genetics.

    There is no evidence for Biblical creation but, by the same token, there is no evidence for macroevolution.


    Re: ID on the other hand is not a scientific theory, it pretends to be but it is really a theological or philosophical theory, and would be more appropriately taught in a theology or philosophy course, where evolutionary theory should not be taught.

    Evolution is not a scientific theory either. There is no evidence for macroevolution. It takes more faith to believe in macroevoultion then it takes to believe that "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:1

    Evolution is a religious/philsophical theory and should be taught in a Religion and Philosophy Class.

  • Tue May 13, 2008 7:17 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    Star2, I have to disagree. I think the teaching of evolutionary theory is very important in the study of biology. It is a reasonable scientific theory that provides plausible explanations for the similarities between life forms, the existence vestigial organs, the validity of comparative biology, genetics. I think that a teacher should explain that not everyone accepts the theory, but the theory should definitely be taught in a biology class. ID on the other hand is not a scientific theory, it pretends to be but it is really a theological or philosophical theory, and would be more appropriately taught in a theology or philosophy course, where evolutionary theory should not be taught.

  • Tue May 13, 2008 6:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    dbrydges

    The origins of life and its development are not needed to study biology. Towards the end of the school year maybe the last six week marking period, I am all for teaching all the major theories regarding the origins of life and its development. The theories would include abiogenesis/evolution, Biblical Creationism with the flood(YEC), and theistic/ID evolution. I think that the teacher should help the student think critically about these theories to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each. If the teacher doesn't have this ability to teach a student how to think critically, then the teacher should teach each of these theories pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of each of these theories for the students.

    If the student is in college, then I am all for having a course dealing with origins of life and its development but these theories should not be included in the different biology courses for they are not needed. I think, however, that a course dealing with the origins of life and its development, should be taught examining and anaylizing all the major theories.

    Let the student, whether he/she is a high school student or a college student, decide for him/herself which theory resonates the best with his/her worldview.

  • Tue May 13, 2008 6:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Or if you find FSM offensive because it has such a small following, how about Scientology. Should Dyanetics be required reading in biology too? The Church Of Scientology has after all alternate theory too. If we are going to simply present the evidence and let students decide the truth for themselves then we should present them will all theories, giving equal weight to each, not favoring evolution, ID or any other theories.

  • Tue May 13, 2008 5:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Flying Spaghetti Monster - Intelligent Design

  • Tue May 13, 2008 5:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    dbrydges

    What is FMS ID theory?

  • Tue May 13, 2008 5:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "A hallmark of intellectual cowardice is refusing to even remotely consider alternatives to any given theory. "

    OK, this is funny. Is then also cowardice to refuse to remotely consider other theological theories? Do you consider Hinduism, Islam, Taosim etc... as true religions? Is it cowardice to reject a theory because it's premise is unprovable? Have you considered the FSM ID theory? Should it be taught in school with the same regard and respect with which you expect Christian ID to be taught?

    Give me a break... hypocritical much.

  • Tue May 13, 2008 3:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Jerry2

    You are nothing but a broken record. It is the same ole stuff from you all the time.

    When are you going to come up with some original ideas?

  • sww »
    Tue May 13, 2008 1:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    A hallmark of intellectual cowardice is refusing to even remotely consider alternatives to any given theory. Not to mention two ad hom laden posts. Someone's knickers are showing.....

  • Tue May 13, 2008 1:10 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    "scientific weaknesses of Darwinism"

    Biological evolution does not have any weaknesses. The only people who think evolution has problems are the uneducated hicks who would rather believe in magic instead of scientific facts.

    The creationist hicks are brainwashed cowards who are afraid to grow up and face facts. They are so terrified of science, they refuse to study it. They will spend the rest of their pathetic lives living in their childish fantasy world, forever ignorant about how the real world works.

  • Tue May 13, 2008 12:59 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Alexander J. Sheffrin, it's called biological evolution, not "Darwinism".

    Casey Luskin is a professional liar for Jesus. He's an attorney who knows nothing about biology. Luskin supports the religious belief called intelligent design creationism, which is a childish belief in magic. Luskin has a lot of nerve to quote Darwin to support his attacks against science education.

    These academic freedom bills give incompetent biology teachers the right to lie to their students about biology. These science teachers who prefer magic instead of science deserve to be ridiculed, fired, and never allowed to teach biology again.

    Since only religious extremists, who know nothing about science, support these academic freedom bills, it's obvious these bills are just attacks against science education.

    I suggest to the flat-earthers reading this - keep your breathtaking stupidity in your churches and out of our schools. Science education is for science only. No competent science teacher would ever agree to teach your childish idiotic intelligent design magic.

    What the Christian nuts would really like to do is completely suppress the teaching of any science that conflicts with their Bible. They will never be allowed to get away with it. Every anti-science bill that gets passed will be fought in court, and so far the religious nuts have lost every court case.

    I bet money this comment will be flagged. Christians love censorship.

  • Tue May 13, 2008 10:58 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    If you feel insulted when people ask you to support your outlandish claims, then you definitely have anger issues. Sorry, I call it like I see it.

  • Tue May 13, 2008 9:01 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    No anger issues.... just don't like to be insulted by pompist personality types. I call em like I see em

  • Tue May 13, 2008 8:07 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    jar: You certainly seem to have a lot of anger issues. Perhaps you should work on those . . . and I am saying this as someone who has had anger issues in the past and has worked on them.

  • Mon May 12, 2008 11:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Listen Einstein wanna be take your pseudo intellectual persona and redirect your attention to someone else Im done with you.

  • Mon May 12, 2008 8:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "You are right.. I incorrectly stated that iller was an atheist.. however he is a philosophical antagonist and I stand by that."

    Please explain and justify your assertion that Dr. Ken Miller is a "philosophical antagonist".

  • Mon May 12, 2008 8:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "About Eugneics.. I am not shifting the burden.. I do not need to re-examine what is already part of the historical record on Nazism. "

    You asserted, specifically, that the theory of evolution "is the factual foundation for the creation fo Nazism and the Final Solution". You have not demonstrated that claim to be true. You also claimed that "if you believe in Darwinsim than you should also support the removal of any deviancy in the species which would threaten the survival of the species.. for instance.. homosexuality", however you have offered no justification of this claim. Introducing the concept of eugenics, which is not a part of the theory of evolution, and then claiming that your assertions are a "part of history" does not demonstrate that your claims are correct.

  • Mon May 12, 2008 8:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    FOR AGENTO: Wrong.. agai you speak without critically assessing your words. The Creation Institute does favor ID and would prefer it over evolution.. no doubt.. but not to the exclusion or censorship of it as a subject worthy of academic exploration. Censorship always hapens at the hands of fascists and quite frankly, if you even look at the leading headlines on this site every effort of disruption and censorship is always reported at the hands of leftist, fascists, liberals and those of the religion of political correctness... And before you attack this post I challange you to review the last 2 dozen articles and see if I am wrong...And I will wager you can barely find one even under a google search in which Christians storm a speaker or interfere with an event.. Even pro lifers who campaign against abortion centers do so in a dignified and law abiding way... (And forget the few violent driven lone actors)

  • Mon May 12, 2008 5:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    I think Ken Hovind might have to do that by conference call...

  • Mon May 12, 2008 5:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    “YOu won't find a Christian afraid of engaging evolution in the classroom,”

    Well, I guess I could put the who’s who from the Discovery Institute, Institute of Creation Research, Answers in Genesis and other creationist groups who don’t want evolution taught in public schools, but I guess to you that wouldn’t suffice. Bill Dembski, Ben Stein, Jonathan Wells, Stephen Meyers, Ken Han, Kent Hovind, want me to keep going?

  • Mon May 12, 2008 5:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    You are right.. I incorrectly stated that iller was an atheist.. however he is a philosophical antagonist and I stand by that.

    About Eugneics.. I am not shifting the burden.. I do not need to re-examine what is already part of the historical record on Nazism. It is clear and well documneted. its like trying to demand that I prove the HOlocaust happened when the historical recordis clear....

  • Mon May 12, 2008 5:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Immm..MIller is... are you dense? The post I provided from Miller came from his atheist blog.... "

    I think you're dense jarjar binks. it's not logical to link miller as an atheist simply b/c there is a point of inquiry podcast of behe's arguements for IC getting owned. Miller doesn't have a blog, and even if he did he can't be held liable for all things discussed on it, as it wouldn't be directly of his own opinon but that of others.

  • Mon May 12, 2008 5:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    "FOR DIMENSIO: Here is the link: A-Deistic: Ken Miller on Collapse of Intelligent Design
    Cell biologist, Kenneth Miller Ph. D. of Brown University gives a talk on The ... of Behe's claims for irreducible complexity of ID-selected systems. ...
    a-deism.blogspot.com/2002/02/collapse-of-intelligent-design.html - 36k -

    There is also a link:

    endly Atheist » Michael Behe on Point of Inquiry
    Nov 13, 2007 ... Ken Miller had already told many of those little stories in his talk at Case Western and managed to thoroughly trounce all of Behe’s typical ...
    friendlyatheist.com/2007/11/13/michael-behe-on-point-of-inquiry/ - 45k -"

    Neither of the blogs that you have referenced are owned or maintained by Ken Miller, nor do either of them support your assertion that Dr. Miller is an atheist.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links