« The Measure of Success | Main | The New Working Class »

Science Standards: A Tale of Two Places

| 64 Comments

The Kansas board of education recently approved state science standards that encourage criticism of the theory of evolution. The revised standards emphasize the controversial nature of evidence supporting evolutionary theory.

Meanwhile, voters in Dover, Pa., ousted all eight school board incumbents who supported the teaching of "intelligent design." Some claim the election results were a sort of referendum on the controversial issue — sending a clear message that voters think intelligent design is a masked creationist theory inappropriate for school standards and classrooms.

What are your thoughts on the Kansas board's decision? Should intelligent design be included in science standards?

64 Comments

I am so relieved that I am not a liberal; and I am as equally relieved that I am not too far to the right either. I perch myself on the fulcrum, and I try to extract the best qualities from both sides, so as to construct a pragmatic, common-sense approach to these issues that affect us all.

What I mean is, I was a former member of Pat Robertson's 700 Club [a phase], and yes I loathe Ted K., Hillary C., and Susan S., but I cannot ever say that I agree or disagree with any of them, all of the time.

Mr. Robertson's theory of divine retribution towards a town in Pennsylvania is as vapid as Harold C's. [of Family Radio] theory of the world ending in 1994. It is foolishness like this from the Christian communities that drive people farther away from any possible means of real salvation - I cannot blame them in a way.

However, the real issue at hand: Creationism, Darwinism, intelligent design, unintelligent design, or whatever one might wish to call them, may all have at least one legitimate characteristic.

Firstly, anyone who has half of a brain or better (and that includes everyone in the human race)can simply look around a see that someone bigger than we are made this whole thing here. What man or woman has ever invented an eyeball, or found a "cure" for homosexuality, or, raised his or her hand over a large ocean to prevent it from washing an entire city away? Answer: None!

I am sick of these "complacentists," who get into their little comfort zones, and will not change anything. I keep saying to, "educate the whole child" - that means spiritually as well as everything else.

Our Constitution is the "real" one, and not the liberal justice system's, which is backed by the ACLU. We have let down our guard; we are now, and will continue to pay the price.

May I suggest reading Lincoln Rockwell's "Fable of the Ducks and the Hens." It may shed some light on the condition of America's Social Institutions - especially Education.

I'm a student. I have two majors. The first is Science Education. The second is Philosophy. I'm well versed in the philosophy of science.

Intelligent Design studies effects but provides no hypothesis, nor is it testable. It is therefore not a science.

Evolution, the theory of natural selection is testable. We observe generations of micro organisims adapting to their environment. It provides a hypothesis for the mechanisms of change over time within a population leading to new species. There is ample fossil evidence to show the effects of speciation over time. Micro evolution and Macro evolution cannot be accepted without each other. It is one theory.

I'm a Christian. I believe that the Lord God created everything, including man. If you look at the world, you see that it follows natural laws (sans quantum theory, I'm not sold on that yet). To be created in the image of God is to be blessed with a mind that can comprehend and appreciate creation itself. If getting to that end means the guided evolution of man from amongst the different species, I can see GOD using a natural law he created to do that. Why wouldn't he? After all, if he created everything, that would include the paramaters in which natural selection occurs.

HOWEVER, this is a religious matter. The bottom line is that we are talking about what we teach in school. Apparently it has been far too long since anyone in a position to make such decisions on what should be taught sat in a classroom. What we teach in school is often unquestioned by students and taken as fact. In a science class, we should not teach something that fails to qualify as a science. Would you teach Pig Latin as an alternative to English? Pseudo Science. Pseudo Language.

Bottom line, PARENTS should talk to their children about what they learn in school. It is time that we started taking some personal responsibility in this country. Don't try to legislate everything, that's just lazy and keeps people from thinking for themselves.

Intelligent design should absolutely be taught in the discussion of origins. How one sided is it to present only one theory? True education should teach students to look at all evidence and come to their own conclusions. I am personally sick and tired of those who believe in the theory of evolution slamming the door to any type of discussion on the subject. One cannot say the same about the person who chooses to believe in intelligent design. We have been forced to conform to the theory of evolution for years. I say it is time for equality in education, and this is a step in the right direction.

As a biology teacher, I have taught evolution as a change in living things over time. That is the root of Charles Darwin's theory and it is understood that changes are directed from many factors. If the critics of this scientific theory would read and come to understand evolution they would recognize that the idea of humans evolving from apes is not and never was part of the concept. Our common ancestor was neither ape nor modern man. A biology teacher would be able to describe how the changes in both species led them on their own separate evolution that never converges. As a biology teacher it is not my place but rather the religion teacher to identify or suggest who or what directed this change over time.
Personally, I am offended that the people who are proposing intelligent design assume that as a scientist, I am not a person of faith. I would consider myself as being very devout. And I truly practice the tenants of my faith even in my classroom. My faith directs me to live the teachings, not to preach them in a place where they do not belong and are prohibited by law. But time and again my students will explain how their church tells them about me and “my kind”. But no one from their respective churches has asked me what I believe on faith or what I know from scientific evidence. I have always and always will start my lessons with the explanation that they do not have to believe what I am teaching but they better understand it.
It seems to me that an ideas based on observable evidence need to be presented in school. Other ideas need other settings. Just because public schools are a setting where many students can be found at the same time, does not mean that they should be subjected to rhetoric from outside sources.

I absolutely agree that the intelligent design/evolution theory should be discussed in school. However, intelligent design, which is a theory of divine creation, is not science in any form. Talk about it in social studies.

Please keep in mind that evolution is a "theory" in the same way that gravity is a "theory." The word "theory" in science does not mean the same thing that you mean in common language usage. A scientific theory is a widely tested,unifing principle with the force of many years of rational study and proof behind it.

It is valid to question aspects of the theory. It is not valid to replace it with religious belief in a true scientific context.

By forcing the teaching of a religious belief in god as an alternative to a scientific theory, in a science class in public schools, you are widening the crack between the separation of church and state in a way that may be irreversible. This should deeply concern both sides of the arguement. Science is a place to teach empirical fact. Social studies is the place to discuss the various cultural and religious beliefs that surround us.

For the sake of everyone's beliefs, this line should be closely guarded.

As far as the Pennsylvania School Board members being voted out of office, I don't think it is any sign that the "people" have spoken and said they don't want ID taught in school. It is undisputed that the vast majority of American citizens, whatever religion they follow, want the spirit of their children to be nurtured during the time they are forced by law to go to state-run schools (assuming they are not wealthy enough to give them a private education of some kind). Speaking on religion for a moment, most people even want voluntary prayer restored to the school and open and honest discussions between students and the adults in their lives about the things that matter most to them as human beings. We make believe that people can compartmentalize their lives away. They can learn this here and think that there, and the two need not meet. It is wrong. That's not how we work.

Now, let's talk about science. While there is a small minority of us that will be inspired by ionic bonds and half lives, and while a very few of us will work in fields where deeper knowledge of physics in mandated, what is most needed from science education by most of us is a sense of reverence and awe. It is this that will spur some on to fulfilling careers in scientific fields and everyone else on to curiosity, hopefulness and connectedness.

To the people who have reservations about teaching ID and say it is untestable and therefore not science and should be relegated to the poetry class, I have found, without exception, that everyone I've engaged in discussion on this topic has not read any of the materials that describe ID. I recommend to anyone that wants to be informed about the subject, and therefore qualified to even offer an opinion on whether it is or is not science, to read Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box. It is written for lay people. There are parts where one must keep awake and put a little effort in to get through it. I would hope that if we are going to debate as a country what is and is not science, we would take the time to do a little research on the topic and not simply recite what we've heard someone else say. I've had this discussion recently, because of the Dover case, with an entomology professor of mine at the university that is very involved in fighting the ID movement. He lectures his students on it, puts cartoons up that show people who believe it as fools or worse, and many other time-consuming endeavors on chat lines and lecture halls. However, he has NOT READ the book. Michael Behe coined the phrase that ID takes as its lifeblood, irreducable complexity. This professor knows that. He chooses not to read it because he, if truth be told, doesn't want to know.

I have read it, and this is what those that have not do not understand about ID. ID does not say that we did not evolve from lower to higher life forms. It does not say we do not adapt. What it postulates is a new (actually, a very old) hypothesis on HOW that occurs. Darwinism is very specific. It teaches not only that we have evolved, but that the mutations are random and are acted on only by a blind force called natural selection. No mind involved. No room for that is allowed. (And the teachers that I've had that have taught evolution have been very careful to make sure we can recite that back on the tests if we want full credit.) That is as important a part of Darwinistic evolution as is the part of life changing over time from lower to higher forms. And that, with all due respect to everyone, is not testable. That is as much philosophy as is creationsim. And by the way, in my endeavors to read up on the subject, I've found studies that were done, scientific studies by proper evolutions, that show the opposite is true. When one scientist removed one part of a long chain of chemical reactions that must take place for a particular function to be performed, yes, it did evolve to fix that hole, but he said that his observations were very controversial because of the specific nature of the mutation, that there was nothing random about it at all, the only thing that changed was exactly what was needed to fix that problem that had been created.

Anyway, random chance acted on by blind forces is not testable, and I'm waiting for someone to show me how it is. And if it isn't, perhaps we need a national movement to ban that part of evolution from the classroom because it's not "science."

I think the school board was voted out because people were mad at the legal costs run up, because someone did a better job campaigning than someone else, that the ACLU probably poured money into the local race so they could have something to put on their website. What we do know without doubt, because every poll consistently tells us so, is that the people of this democracy do not want the philosophy that is associated with blind evolution taught to their children without some balance.

Intelligent design is a theory that some espouse and is in conflict with evolutionary theory. It is untestable and therefore not a science. It has never claimed to be a science, however it is a strongly held belief that should be included in the discussion in the classroom. There may be some students in the classrooms that strongly believe in intelligent design and we should acknowledge that and discuss evolution on it's own merits. There are some "holes" in the theory of evolution and some "missing links", we should acknowledge that also. Our mission is to train students to be independent thinkers and to base decisions on data from all sources.

Science is not satified with the evidence provided by simply looking around, as George W. Murphy, Jr., Ed.M. suggests. Nor does it admit all evidence as Becky wishes. Science is the product of a rigorous methodology. Evolution is not a belief (nor the dictum of the ACLU). It is the only current contender for a scientific explanation of the origin of species.

As far as the Pennsylvania School Board members being voted out of office, I don't think it is any sign that the "people" have spoken and said they don't want ID taught in school. It is undisputed that the vast majority of American citizens, whatever religion they follow, want the spirit of their children to be nurtured during the time they are forced by law to go to state-run schools (assuming they are not wealthy enough to give them a private education of some kind). Speaking on religion for a moment, most people even want voluntary prayer restored to the school and open and honest discussions between students and the adults in their lives about the things that matter most to them as human beings. We make believe that people can compartmentalize their lives away. They can learn this here and think that there, and the two need not meet. It is wrong. That's not how we work.

Now, let's talk about science. While there is a small minority of us that will be inspired by ionic bonds and half lives, and while a very few of us will work in fields where deeper knowledge of physics in mandated, what is most needed from science education by most of us is a sense of reverence and awe. It is this that will spur some on to fulfilling careers in scientific fields and everyone else on to curiosity, hopefulness and connectedness.

To the people who have reservations about teaching ID and say it is untestable and therefore not science and should be relegated to the poetry class, I have found, without exception, that everyone I've engaged in discussion on this topic has not read any of the materials that describe ID. I recommend to anyone that wants to be informed about the subject, and therefore qualified to even offer an opinion on whether it is or is not science, to read Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box. It is written for lay people. There are parts where one must keep awake and put a little effort in to get through it. I would hope that if we are going to debate as a country what is and is not science, we would take the time to do a little research on the topic and not simply recite what we've heard someone else say. I've had this discussion recently, because of the Dover case, with an entomology professor of mine at the university that is very involved in fighting the ID movement. He lectures his students on it, puts cartoons up that show people who believe it as fools or worse, and many other time-consuming endeavors on chat lines and lecture halls. However, he has NOT READ the book. Michael Behe coined the phrase that ID takes as its lifeblood, irreducable complexity. This professor knows that. He chooses not to read it because he, if truth be told, doesn't want to know.

I have read it, and this is what those that have not do not understand about ID. ID does not say that we did not evolve from lower to higher life forms. It does not say we do not adapt. What it postulates is a new (actually, a very old) hypothesis on HOW that occurs. Darwinism is very specific. It teaches not only that we have evolved, but that the mutations are random and are acted on only by a blind force called natural selection. No mind involved. No room for that is allowed. (And the teachers that I've had that have taught evolution have been very careful to make sure we can recite that back on the tests if we want full credit.) That is as important a part of Darwinistic evolution as is the part of life changing over time from lower to higher forms. And that, with all due respect to everyone, is not testable. That is as much philosophy as is creationsim. And by the way, in my endeavors to read up on the subject, I've found studies that were done, scientific studies by proper evolutions, that show the opposite is true. When one scientist removed one part of a long chain of chemical reactions that must take place for a particular function to be performed, yes, it did evolve to fix that hole, but he said that his observations were very controversial because of the specific nature of the mutation, that there was nothing random about it at all, the only thing that changed was exactly what was needed to fix that problem that had been created.

Anyway, random chance acted on by blind forces is not testable, and I'm waiting for someone to show me how it is. And if it isn't, perhaps we need a national movement to ban that part of evolution from the classroom because it's not "science."

I think the school board was voted out because people were mad at the legal costs run up, because someone did a better job campaigning than someone else, that the ACLU probably poured money into the local race so they could have something to put on their website. What we do know without doubt, because every poll consistently tells us so, is that the people of this democracy do not want the philosophy that is associated with blind evolution taught to their children without some balance.

Leah, "Random chance acted on by blind forces is not testable." See Occam's Razor
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html eg
If I'm walking down the street and a bird shits on my head, I might think my enemies trained it to get me but I probably just happened to be in the wrong place; ie random.

John:
Thanks for the tip. I'll look up the site now and see what it has to say. I hope, for the sake of scientific discourse, it is a little more detailed and specific to the question at hand than then bird shit example you have here shared with us all.

And therein lies the rub. This is the level that this discourse quickly sinks to, with neither side doing the intelligent and responsible thing and investigating the matter. And that adds to my conviction more and more each day that the random/chance/blind part of evolutionary theory is nothing more than philosophy or secular religion, because its adherents are so zealous in its defense that they give themselves away.

John:

I've looked it up. I knew it sounded familiar. I don't know why I didn't recognize it at once.

Good advice given therein, but I fail to see how it is at all relevant to the discussion at hand. How does this help us understand whether randomness and blind force is testable?

If it does at all, I'd posit that with all the twists and turns that evolutionary theory must go through as it lumbers along trying to understand itself (ie: punctuated equillibrium, symbiosis, etc.), it appears to me that Occam's Razor cuts in favor of admitting the obvious, design.

Leah, Sorry for offending your delicate sensibilities. Occam's Razor goes right to the issue you raised. I thought my example elegant in its simplicity.

Your second paragraph? Huh?

Leah,
Design seems simpler only by not considering its implications. A prior design leading to the history of life on earth would have to be profoundly complex. Devine?

Religious zealots who defensively judge others are todays Pharisees. Equally defensive political defenders of a world without faith are on the other side. The majority of us who embrace facts about our world and celebrate their testimony to an intelligent creator need to realize that the best way to diffuse this entire argument and leave the door open for our children to explore freely is to get excited about true science! God runs evolution. Men and women of medicine and science have always used their explorations as a personal act of worship.
The more you understand how things actually work at the molecular level the more you can appreciate a loving Creator.

Which creation story will teachers be asked to teach. Native American? Muslim? or just Christian?

As a science geek I would have to say that I am agnostic. Maybe some unknown force did cause the first incidence of life by "creating" DNA. But the traditional life history as supported in christian dogma does not fit with scientific evidence so beyond somthing being in charge of the BIG BANG creationism seems to fail the test of scientific rigor of evidence and or proof. So at best should only be a footnote as an unsupported WAG (WILD ASS GUESS)

Oops! "Divine?" Never could spell

If this gets too far off topic, write me at
[email protected]

Problem with divine guidance/direrction of the whole show is that when random is shown to be sufficient, God becomes unnecessary. Except perhaps ultimately and then you're outside the realm of evidence and, therefore, science.

By all means include discussions about the key features of and supporting evidence for intelligent design as part of a social science or philosophy class, BUT NEVER as part of a theoretical or applied science class. And, ALWAYS insist that the evidence used to support the viability of I.D. as informative and useful be as strong, valid, and complete as for any other part of the curriculum. Period.

It is interesting that those who might consider themselves "liberal" or "pro-science" find themselves in the camp of book-burners, advocating the censoring of new theories. Science should require inquiry and an open-minded look at facts. Shame on any science teacher who refuses to present options to Darwinism.

One of the problems with this discussion is that it is assumed that a topic such as evolution or intellegent design should be covered in one discipline or another. The fact is that in life every discipline overlaps and so should education. It is ridiculous that a science teacher must decide what is and what isn't "science" so that everything that is not considered science is eliminated from the table. In the high school that I am developing, every subject will be taught in an inter-disciplinary manner. The topic of the origin of the world will be taught using language arts, science, social science, VAPA, and world language standards. Intelligent design must be part of that discussion.

My elementary physics students were all able to answer correctly the question I asked in class the other day "What is the best-known thing that took place in Kansas?" (Dorothy's trip to Oz, of course).

Why "intelligent design"? if one wants to give examples of scientific controversy to high school students? We don't have nearly enough time in a year to teach all the valuable topics that might be studied in a high school course on biology, or any of the other sciences. One response to this lack of time (and other resources) is to only present the prevailing view on a topic. To select evolution as the one exception, as the one topic on which a conflicting, view will be presented, can only be explained on religious and political grounds. After all, intelligent design has incredibly marginal support from people trained in any scientific field. Why not look at the controversy about evidence for global warming, until recently a matter of fairly substantive debate? Or any of dozens of historically significant former controversies that can now be examined with dispassionate objectivity?
One thing that concerns me most is the notion that it is politically oriented organizations (ACLU is often mentioned) that primarily oppose the forced challenges to evolution. Many professional scientists, including believers like myself, are strongly opposed to the departure from standard science curriculum design processes represented by the Kansas Board's intrusion. Do they next intend to deny the existence of the moons of Jupiter, because one interpretation of the Bible implied their observation by Galileo was heretical? Keep such non-science influences out of the curriculum!

I have a couple of questions:-

What is Intelligent about a *Designer* who builds in so many flaws into his/her design? Or, did he/she leave evolution to trouble-shoot the original faulty design?

Perhaps the designer was Bill Gates

I have taught both theories in a catholic school and have let the students put the two together individually. The one is by faith and the other by evidence that can only be dated back to a limited time. I personally have no trouble with meshing both together for myself nor have I had trouble in the classroom. Students will find his/her own resolution. Neither one needs to be mandated.

A pretty good read on problems with ID through the eyes of a believer:
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/design.html

As for teaching biology from faith in a Catholic school (I had 12 years), no constitutional problem; perhaps some pedagogical ones though. But not public schools. First Amendment non-establishment clause: problem, though admittedly one subject to debate in the courts.

What is wrong with having an open discussion of origins? Are we back to Galileo's day where only one view could be expressed.

"What is wrong with having an open discussion of origins?" Depends. What do you mean by "open?" Do you want to have this discussion in the context of biological explanations; explicit or implicit?

There is nothing wrong with discussing the merits and demerits of Evolution or Intelligent Design. The problem is that you can not discuss Evolution and ID as opposing views. It would be like comparng apples to oranges. The trouble seems to be that ID is not science as per the accepted definition of science, unless one modifies the definition of science.

The Bible is NOT the first Book revealed by God. I would like to know what The Torah has to say about the origins of man. It is also interesting to note that so much emphasis is placed on The Bible which happens to be the most heavily edited, by man, of all the Holy Books. I know for sure that the Muslims will totally disagree with me and vehemently defend The Koran, saying it is unaltered - I disagree.

A couple of organizations providing information on ID are:

Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA)with a "club" at Cornell
http://www.rso.cornell.edu/idea/
and other locations

and
Intelligent Design Network
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

These groups provide good background info though I remain unpersuaded. Their essential argument that purposeful design implies intelligence just doesn't do it in the case of living organisms. Though there are substantial issues that remain unresolved, the dynamics of living things over large amounts of time can provide a rich variety of outcomes.

RE: the Torah

Actually, the Torah simply refers to the Law as recorded in the Pentateuch, the first 5 books of the Bible, so there is no further back to go from that standpoint.

When I was in high school, the option of accepting a more theological view of life's origin was presented in my biology and biochemistry courses, but it was not taught or discussed in any detail, simply stated as an option to be considered if one found the theory of evolution lacking. I had no objection to this brief mention of the fact that one can benefit at times from keeping an open mind, which often seems to be a failing of parties in both sides of this debate.

I decided based on my own studies to accept this more creation oriented view over the gaps I found in evolutionary thinking, but I don't believe in the movement to mandate the teaching of so-called intelligent design, nor do I accept the dogmatic tenents of "creationism," which do not take into account the Bible's silence regarding many of the scientific facts of life around us. Perhaps for the simple reason that many of these things were unknown and would have been unexplainable to persons alive at the time of the Bible's writing, it would have served no benefit for more to have been revealed. Some would consider this a kindness on God's part.

The Bible is not a science textbook. It should not be analyzed nor touted as such, although many of the very few statements it does make about our universe are not as far out of harmony with proved science as some would infer. The Bible is a recounting of the activities and faith (or lack thereof) of persons and places related to God and his purposes, as outlined therein.

The place for such analysis is not in the science classroom, but it would not hurt some in the scientific community to stop short of discounting it entirely and examine it from a perspective more in harmony with its intent. And it would not hurt others in the religious community consider whether or not they should stop short of trying to legislate their own brand of righteousness, foisting off on all people a political agenda which favors no one, especially not the interests of God. "Faith is not a possession of all people," as the apostle noted. And while science can actually teach things that enhance faith, it is not its source.

The theory of evolution is just that, a theory based on scientific studies done by scientists. Are the religious zealots out there so insecure about their religious teachings at home, that they have to force their beliefs on others. School is a place for facts and theories based on facts, no beliefs that only some of us believe in the first place.

Howdy,
It is unfortunate the vitriol that quickly erupts in discussions of ID and evolution. We really need to try and respect other people's views. I am a former science teacher now in grad. school and so have some knowledge of evolution. Our lives are so short relative to geological and biological changes on Earth. We usually see no changes in our lifetime. The exception to this is the change of microorganisms that reproduce at fantastic rates. Vaccines and antibiotics that were effective 50 years ago are no longer so. Penicillin is useless. Drug companies are always fighting to stay a step ahead. Science would explain that the microorganisms mutated during reproduction and some happened to have the genes to survive. I wonder, for those of you that endorse ID or creationism, what is your explanation for this? Why do drugs that used to control malaria no longer work?

I try to give its proponents the benefit of the doubt re their claims that ID is not faith-based since they do not identify the designer as a deity. They claim their ideas about information and design allow inferring the existence of a designer from the kinds of information contained in and expressed by DNA. Since these ideas need not be applied only to biological processes, they can make a credible case, albeit one even supporters admit is subterfuge to avoid problems with the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment. Given enough time, some probabilistic continuum seems like a doable product of this effort; scattering of sand on a beach-> unlikely designer, Mt Rushmore->likely designer. The problem is that the uncertainties of biological processes are unlikely to put them anywhere near Mt Rushmore anytime soon. In the meantime, evolution makes sense as a paradigm for accounting for biological diversity and that’s why it should be taught. There are no current contenders.

ID’s “irreducible complexity” and "micro/macro-evolution" issues suffer a similar problem. It’s not their fault. We just don’t know enough about “life” processes to judge whether a given complexity is irreducible or not. We aren’t even sure what’s “alive”; viruses? prions? In the meantime, what should schools do? Many dodge the issue by simply not dealing with it; don’t ask, don’t tell. Chicken shit! Evolution provides an explanatory model. It’s not perfect but, it’s pretty darn good. Like “gravity,” it’s likely it’s details will ultimately be displaced by better understanding of sub-cellular processes. Is ID a likely candidate for a methodology for shedding light on this development? Did inspectors find WMD in Iraq?

The Kansas Science Standards for Life Sciences presents student requirements vis a vis evolution on page 87 of
http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/sciencestd.pdf
which is page 75 of the document body. The wording of this section reflects a tentative/doubtful view of the ability of evolution to account for diversity.

Page 97 of the PDF specifies the requirements for taxonomy yet makes no attempt to explain the structure of the taxonmy (because of the implicit evolutionary implications?)

The document is a good (though tedious) read. It can't be easy promulgating rules and guidelines intended to result in the desired outcome.

It is all well and good that you all have such wonderful thoughts and opinions. I'm glad, that for now, it is still in our constitution to have the right to free speech.

But, oh wait, yeah...I don't have that right anymore. I'm being TOLD what I'm supposed to teach my children. I'm not asked if I think its right or wrong, I'm told that 6-9 people who are NO LONGER working in a high school biology classroom (and most probably never did work in science area of education anyway), have the right to tell ME, a woman with a B. S. in Biology and a M. S in Education, that they know more than I do about what is science and isn't.

And, that if I don't teach it, as it is a standard, then I'm not doing my job properly.

Shame on them.

I have plans to leave KS within the next two years. I can't wait. The only thing that keeps me here right now is necessity and the students I teach, because I adore them. I know I'm not the only biology science teacher that wants to relocate, but I will definitely be one of the first to go if the current board is not immediately dismissed after the next elections.

I will not PREACH to my children. It is my job to get them to think critically, objectively, and scientifically. Religion is about their spirits and souls. I do not want that responsibility. I do not want to be their guide to higher powers because my version of religion is probably very different from the next person (or their parents).

And quite honestly, have the zealots considered the fact that the first thing a scientist that does NOT WANT to teach religion is going to do is find a way to discredit faulty hypotheses and theories? Do they REALLY want us critically analyzing religion? How many MORE doubts could a true analytical thought pathway create in a child's mind if they analyze the credibility of every word in the Bible?

I'd start with a pair of ribs. And move on from there.

Just think about that.

If you want religion in the classroom, why not a theology or social studies class that covers all religions? Wouldn't THAT be more appropriate? Science teachers are not saying they don't think religion should be in school, but not in their science books...it is more a humanities subject.

In closing, the last thing I'd like to say is I'm so tired of people talking about me like I'm evil. My heart breaks everytime someone spouts off that what I do is wrong and unfair and unbalanced. I WOULD NEVER do anything to influence a child to disbelieve or disavow their faith. But, I would also never have the audacity to try and get them to BELIEVE anything at all. Science is about factual information, not beliefs.

I believe in faeries. Does that make them real?

Anyway, I'm so tired of this discussion. I want to be left alone to teach knowledge. Just leave us alone. Let us do our JOB!! Stop trying to tell us what our job is...we aren't idiots.

If you are so afraid that your child is going to be corrupted by the discussion of evolution, get off your butt and start homeschooling them in your own free time. Additionally...here's a thought...bloody talk to them!

Make sure they understand where your family stands on these matters and guide them in their beliefs yourself! Quit trying to get me to be the parent, too. Take some responsibility for your children. What a concept.

Ah well, I am sure that this email will do no good. Just like all the other emails I wrote to the State Board of Kansas. Why should I matter, I'm only the one that keeps getting bullied in both directions.

Lin, If you end up leaving KS, please consider Cleveland, OH. I can't promise the OH curriculum won't be as bad (or worse) by then, but if it's not, we could sure use you (sorry, I mean benefit from your contribution). This offer goes for any other like-minded/spirited teachers out there. I'll be working to change the State Bd member in this region who is soft on science standards; change his mind or change his job.

It's great to see that you can write too, unlike some of the other "educators" who have written.

Does it make a difference when ID proponents speak of irreducable complexity and use a mousetrap as an example - are we now comparing an inanimate object with an animate subject? Or is this an unrasonable question?

I don't think the animate/inanimate comparison is necessarily a problem since ID is supposed to provide a methodology whereby it is possible to infer whether or not an object came into being through the efforts of a designer or simply became compiled from the cumulative effects of random forces. HOWEVER, the analysis of inanimate objects provides an opportunity to look at one of the fundamental problems in the ID logic. Take away the spring from the mouse trap and it’s no longer a mouse trap. True but so what! What is it? A little board with a hinged wire attached to it? Art? Sure, useless things are found in nature, like those little atrophied legs that appear as spurs on the sides of snaked, but that only serves to illustrate the evolution case. Snakes evolved from animals that walked. Evolution (micro and macro) provides a context that makes sense out of nature. There don’t appear to be any organic systems or sub-systems that couldn’t have gotten to their current state via useful intermediary steps. All the ‘issues’ haven’t been resolved yet but its way too soon to throw in the scientific towel and declare “Designer.”

It deeply saddens me that there are certified teachers and school principals in this discussion about ID and evolution who are so misinformed and confused about the meaning of science, theory and freedom of debate. A scientific theory is based upon observed events. ID is based upon gaps in those observed events which are then filled by God or some other designer. Now it may be that God is responsible for the leaps over those gaps, but that is not science because it is not testable. As long as gaps remain, people are free to believe whatever they please to fill them. But remember, science is absolutely not dogma. It continually reinvents itself through an examination of evidence.

Most evolutionary biologists are not Darwinists anymore, so the whole attack on life evolving through single mutations is really a straw man. The theory of punctuated equilibrium postulates that major changes in climate or cosmology resulted in massive sudden changes to the genome, thus obviating the need for accumulation of single mutations. The hopeful monster theory, once discredited has now accumulated new evidence in its defense and the even more discredited Lamarckian theory has been reinvigorated of late.

Once upon a time, we suspected the role of DNA in genetics,but it took 60 years form Mendel to Watson and Crick to pin that down. In the interim, it could have been easily claimed that there was no genetic material, just god at work. Gaps are only gaps till they are filled. I am all for pointing out that there are gaps in evolutionary theory in a science class as this is the way to provoke the next generation of scientists to determine what fills those gaps. But to automatically fill those gaps with god insures there will be no further inquiry on the matter. Perhaps that is what the creationists really want.

Once upon a time, Galileo proved the earth revolved around the sun, however there remained many gaps in his understanding, many of which could not be finally settled until we went into space. Einstein's 100 year old theory of relativity just had substantial experimental work done this year that proved some of its assumptions. It is fine to believe God MAY fill the gaps, but to say unequivocally he must is not free debate. It is the most stifling position one can imagine, because it ends the inquiry altogether. For those who believe in ID, ask yourselves, would you change your minds if evidence suddenly filled the gaps you deem unfillable by anything but God? Of course not. Because your beliefs are religious and not objective, no amount of evidence will ever change your minds. Supposedly irreducible complexity seems to be the last card you are holding and beware, the house built on that card is just about to fall. Science and technology are progressing at an astounding rate and books on ID written even one year ago are already out of date. But I doubt many of you religionists keep up with the latest science. Thumping your bibles apparently consumes too much time to actually leave any for rational thinking.

for those who may still be on the fence, wondering what to think or believe, you should do a google search on the following topics:

epigenetics

developmental evolution

As these studies progress, they will begin to fill many of the godless gaps in current evo theory

For those who just want a comprehensive rebuke of most of the current positions espoused by believers in ID, see:

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html

Keep in mind that only a trained scientist can actually understand the intricacies of this argument and that really is the crux of the matter. Everyone believes planes can fly, but only an engineer really understands the nuances of the matter. If you do not hold an advanced degree in science, you are really completely unqualified to dispute the scientific consensus on anything. Quite a few, perhaps most scientists, believe in God, yet literally only a handful do not accept the facts of evolution. To suggest that all are pawns of the establishment or have been duped by their own ineptitude and incompetence would be hubris of unimaginable proportions if it just wasn't so pathetic. If you have not studied a matter in all its detail, how can you claim to dispute the science? You are merely professing your belief and quite incapable of understanding the actual complexity of the rebuttal. But you are clearly too stupid to even understand that. So if anyone has any positive experimental evidence for the truth of ID, please share. And understand,if you can wrap your little brains around it, pointing out a gap in evidence is not evidence. You need to be able to show with your own experimental evidence that evolution is incorrect.

Read about the newish science of evo-devo and more at
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

BTW, being a big fan of science fiction and fantasy literature, I would be perfectly comfortable with evidence of superior intelligence somewhere in the universe that had intervened in our development. but the key is evidence. What kind of god would want us to believe in ideas w/o evidence. I can certainly think of dozens of reasons that powerful men would want us to believe in things without evidence. because then they can rule over us without resistance. What evidence would I accept. How about the appearance of a deity who demonstrated his power to create. Perhaps Jesus could return and create second earth to prove this hypothesis once and for all. Believers in the anthropomorphic version of the god the engineer have been duped in believing something that allows others to control their minds. It certainly is a good way to rile up followers to slaughter the infidel, whoever they are defined as by whomever is in power in any given place and era.

For those of you capable of following an actual scientific line of thought, consider this refutation of Michael Behe's position on irreducible complexity with regard to the eye. As the author points out, Behe bases his whole case on decades old population genetics, not modern molecular genetics.

from http://www.tsujiru.net/?p=238

"Behe considered the eye too complex to have evolved–this complexity increases, in fact, since the eye evolved independently over forty different times in the animal kingdom. The potential dilemma, as Scott F. Gilbert, Professor of Biology at Swathmore College, points out:

How could such a complicated structure have emerged by a collection of chance mutations? If a mutation caused a change in the lens, how could it be compensated for by changes in the retina? Mutations would serve only to destroy complex organs, not create them.

Before any wandering biologist responds that Gilbert is stacking the deck in Behe’s favor and defining “random mutation” the way the public might but many scientists would not, let’s take examine Gilbert’s response to Behe’s dilemma:

[O]nce one adds development to the evolutionary synthesis, one can see how the eye can develop through induction, and that the concepts of modularity and correlated progression can readily explain such a phenomenon (Waddington 1940; Gehring 1998). Moreover, when one sees that the formation of eyes in all known phyla is based on the same signal transduction pathway, using the Pax6 gene, it is not difficult to see descent with modification forming the various types of eyes.

Let me translate into more colloquial English. We and squids might–and in fact, do–have very different eyes. But we share a similar genetic tool-kit for developing those eyes, this tool-kit itself an inheritance from our distant common ancestor. Precisely what we should expect from evolution (or at least, evolution properly defined):

the genealogical connection among all earthly organisms, based on their descent from a common ancestor, and the history of any lineage as a process of descent with modification. (Stephen Jay Gould, “Introduction,” page x. Published in Carl Zimmer, Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, Harper Collins: 2001.)

Indeed, although humans share more DNA with chimpanzees than any other species on this planet, we are in truth one branch on of the tree of life. The eyes reveal this, ours and others. Forty or more independent occurences. Operating on nine different priniciples. As the environmental context demanded. [ref] But with the “formation of eyes in all known phyla” based on the “same signal transduction pathway, using the Pax6 gene.”

Behe beheld an eye of design in darkness–a refutation of evolution. But as Gilbert observed,

Although he [Behe] attempts to disprove the theory of evolution by using the eye as an example, he never once mentions the studies on Pax6. Rather, Behe mentions theories from the 1980s (based solely on population genetics) and puts them forth as contemporary science."

Intelligent Design is not intelligent, it simply states that everything is so complex that some "guiding force" must have caused it. I have read Behe's "black box" and did not find it convincing in the least, but I understand science. Since saying "everything is so complex an outside intelligent force must have caused it" is non-testable as a conspiracy theory, it is pointless and definately not science. Anyone who believes that ID is science has to beleive that the following is equally scientific: http://www.venganza.org/ If you think that than the sad state of scientific education in Kansas will make the rest of the world laugh even more.

Irreducible complexity - as coined by Behe - and as described in his book - essentially can be boiled down to 'it's too hard for me to understand.'

Behe's book is interesting, and has some really good science in it. But, unfortunately, he resorts to the same banal habits that most lay people do when trying to comprehend the complexity of life on this planet. He gives up, and applies Occam's Razor - that the simpler solution must be the correct one.

As Galileo stated, 'I do not believe that the God who endowed us with reason and intellect intended us to forgo their use.' Science and Religion are seeking the same end - from what did we come, and how did we get here? One branch accepts a 3,500 year-old text as the source of all knowledge. The other accepts that God would not be that simple....

The Kansas School Board is simply kowtowing to the political environment that they exist in - that people want certain, comfortable answers to their deepest questions. Shame on them for not resisting - but who can blame them?

If evolution can show us how things change today, great (micro-evolution). If it can't show us how information can be added to a system, great (macro-evolution).

Where does evolution show how DNA has been able to change and add information so that a life-form can become more complex? Changes in germs and diseases come about as the DNA loses information and undergoes a net loss of information. So how does DNA add information and become a higher order life form?

ID posits that GOD (there I said it) created the universe and life. That does not count out a loss of information and biological changes in a species. Biblically, it just means that species are stand alone and do not change into other species. (Where are the missing links?)

Since neither evolution or biology can be proven to be the point at which life started, why teach either one. I know there are dogmatic people on both sides of the issue who believe their way has to be taught and believed by everyone, but if it can't be proven, why spend time in the classroom teaching theories. Let's spend our limited time in the classrooms teaching what we can prove and show our students to be true.

Philosophy and religion belong in their own spheres. Let science teach what it can prove. Otherwise we are teaching philosophy in the science class. Since we changed science to be about proving things in a naturalistic way, and whote GOD out of the equation, we have messes up science. Science should be about proving things, no matter the findings, whether naturalistic or theistic.

As religion is based on faith, and both ID and evolution take faith to believe when we are looking at origins and macro-evolution, take it out of the science class.

I have never heard of an ID proponent arguing with micro-evolution, of course change takes place, but I am still looking for the mammal which becomes a bird or vice-a-versa.

Why is the teaching of origins so important that it becomes the main topic of discussion about education. I am more worried about drug use, broken families and the stupid NCLB!!!

Here's a very simple test of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. If you unload groceries from your car and take them into your house, how many millions of times will that take before you grow an extra arm to carry those groceries? That may sound childish, but answer that?? Now, tell me, which takes more faith, to believe you can grow an extra arm, or believe that God created you to be an absolutely unique individual with a specific purpose. I've seen the evidence. I will continue to believe the latter.

Hello all you religious fanatics. Sorry, but Evolotion is factual. Carbon dating of hominids shows clear progression of the species and refutes the quint earth dating found in the bible. The bible, on the other hand is a work of fiction and has nothing to do with a god. If there is a god, does he really subjugate women, advocate killing of one's children or any of the rest of the fire and brimstone found in the passages. The bible was writen by primative men trying to keep the status qou of the times and is the antithesis of knowledge. Why would anyone give creedence to the writings of lunitics who had no understanding of the world around them. Think for yourselves and purge the brainwashing of your religious upbringing and with a clear mind you will see the folly of the bible and any religion that claims to know everything. Religion is superstition, plain and simple. Science continues to document the errors of the bible as it should. Virgin birth? come on! Resurrection, Yeah! How about some proof of that. Fantastic claims require extraordinary proof, not wishful faith. Most religious assertions are aptly dismissed with "Claims not substantiated by evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Be spiritual if you wish, but be skeptical when dealing with the fantastic.

I am not a person who normally gets in on chats because I am usually too busy. However, I could not resist this one.

I am a university professor whose research area is primarily evolutionary biology. In reading the responses already posted on this site, I am getting a real sense of the damage and frustration that the misguided individuals pushing the idea of intelligent design are causing to nonscientists who are doing their best to understand science and, in many cases, teach it in public schools.

There is a very good reason why this whole controversy is being fought over in courts and in politics: there is absolutely no observable evidence for "intelligent design" of the universe or anything in it (living organisms, human beings) by a divine agency. Therefore, the debate between science and "intelligent design" cannot be resolved by scientists. Scientific theories rest on tested and confirmed scientific hypotheses (proposals to explain EVIDENCE), the more the better. There is no evidence for ID and no possibility (at least at present) of testing ID as a hypothesis. Bottom line: ID is not science.

Why is ID not "science?" To build a scientific theory, one must start with observations/measurements of specific things or events. ID does not. All it has is the general observation that nature is complex (itself a human judgement; do we really know what the limits of complexity are?). That is not the acceptable starting point for a theory of ID. If intelligent design is real, then there must be some measurable sign that an observable creator did some specific thing (not something in general like creating the world, but something specific like creating one of the molecules that makes up our bodies). This is a tall order, indeed. Essentially, one would have to find evidence of the Creator's signature on something specific. If something like that specific signature existed, then it would be the starting point for an actual hypothesis.

It seems to me that the ID proponents are proposing "complexity" as that signature. If so, their choice is extremely poor and naive. First, evolutionary biologists are busy as we speak explaining how complex organic structures (in terms of human judgement) have evolved. Complexity seems to be a challenge to science, not a signature of the Creator. Second, what about "simple" objects and creatures? Are these evidence against a Creator? The ID explanation falls to pieces on logical grounds before it even starts.

To end up, why is ID so bad? Scientists are sick of it because it is an idea that was thrown out 150 years ago, has no evidentiary support, and is a waste of time to investigate (no evidence to consider). Real scientists (in contrast to the pseudoscientists of ID and creationism) are extremely busy people who have no time for childish discussions. Science is our job, and we take it seriously. In addition, ID promotes ignorance of science and thrusts a narrow interpretation of Christian thought into an inappropriate arena. It is not surprising to me that the school board in Kansas has chosen the creative solution of redefining science. This would be absolutely necessary to justify ID in the classroom. And absolutely damaging to the young minds there. If some Christians are threatened by science, their challenge is to reconcile the real world with their beliefs, not dictate the suspension of reality.

Michael Pearson, your test is simple but it doesn't test Darwinian evolution; see Lamark. Advantage doesn't drive adaptation, it validates it. If for some reason you grew a third arm and the ability to better carry groceries outweighed the disadvantages and you could pass on the advantage to your progeny, you could illustrate Darwinian success. HOWEVER, given the unlikelyhood of growing a third arm, given the structure we start out with and its likelyhood to "catch on", your third arm is more likely to end up in the trash bin.

John C., thank you. You're not me. You said it better.

A good *designer* would never think of putting a recreational area next to a sewage plant!!

Zahid, I've already been warned by Leah (above, copied following). I'm not sure how course illustrations translate into evidence of the failings of evolution. I guess you gotta have faith.

Leah wrote:
"This is the level that this discourse quickly sinks to, with neither side doing the intelligent and responsible thing and investigating the matter. And that adds to my conviction more and more each day that the random/chance/blind part of evolutionary theory is nothing more than philosophy or secular religion, because its adherents are so zealous in its defense that they give themselves away."

John Chipko: I wonder what the zealous adherents of evolutionary theory or the secular zealots (me in particular) are giving themselves away to? The wrath of an *intelligent designer* and the practitioner of such poor design techniques into his/her/its work? Something to be really afraid of eh? Perhaps the fires of this particular designer are flawed too!! Perhaps the hell designed by this particular designer is really frozen over!

As a Brit. I fail to see what all this fuss is about in the USA. The rest of us seem have no problems separating the two - one as science and the other not. (I have actually been sitting here laughing at some of these posts).

Oh! And for all you American folks I hope you had a great Happy Thanks Giving fete and ate a lot of the *designer* turkey

For John C.
You do a good job speaking against ID.

Where is the evidence for your stand? Saying you are a scientist and thus you have to he believed without evidence of life coming from non-life seems pretty presuptive. Kind of like the religious non-scientists using faith to back up their side of the argument.

Evolutionary evidence should be obvious if for the past billions of years we have been having evolutionary change.

How come many life forms have such similarities? Because they evolved from each other? Then why didn;t all or at least most of the less evolved species evolve? Could similarities have been from a "designer" who liked the basic design and kept up that design?

I am still looking for the transitional forms spoken of so often. How come changes between species seem to be complete and not tries at better functions?

How could the complexity of DNA and tRNA et al have come about by random chance? Buildings don't appear without a builder and designer and clay is pleantiful. Shouldn't there be some houses which just appear? And houses are basic and easy compared to the complexity of genetics.
As for the non-professionals being 'childish', does that mean that only politicians or lawyers can have opinions and intelligent discussions about their areas of perview. Or only the blessed in any field to have questions and search for truth?

After all, in the field of economics, the politicians and specialists all agree on how the system works and what we should do. And economics is easy compared to figuring out what happened at the beginning of time.

Looking for answers and evidence, not empty words I am to take on faith by either side. That is the definition of science isn't it, searching for truth and admitting what we do not know?

Zahid-
As far as design. What is wrong with putting waste water next to clean water, we do it all the time. It makes things easier.

Why would a 'designer' need to put them in different places. They work fine where they are.

Shouldn't evolution have come up with multiple different ways if it is a deficiency? Most of the animals I have seen and studied have the same 'mistake' according to you. Either it is a mistake and evolution can't fix it, or it was designed that way and works well.

So either the designer got the workings right, or evolution from the beginning had major problems (according to you) and over billions of years hasn't been able to fix the problem.

I have never had any problem with the proximity of waste and pleasure zones. Sorry if you do.

Zahid-
As far as design. What is wrong with putting waste water next to clean water, we do it all the time. It makes things easier.

Why would a 'designer' need to put them in different places. They work fine where they are.

Shouldn't evolution have come up with multiple different ways if it is a deficiency? Most of the animals I have seen and studied have the same 'mistake' according to you. Either it is a mistake and evolution can't fix it, or it was designed that way and works well.

So either the designer got the workings right, or evolution from the beginning had major problems (according to you) and over billions of years hasn't been able to fix the problem.

I have never had any problem with the proximity of waste and pleasure zones. Sorry if you do.

Scott, I'd like to take a shot at responding to some of the issues you've raised

"...why didn't all or at least most of the less evolved species evolve?"
Evolving isn't a requirement and the evolved version isn't better. Successful (Darwinian) evolution simply bestows reproductive advantage upon the evolved version. For example, if some single-cell organism mutated in a way that allowed it to live in a less saline environment, its progeny could move into waters further from the sea where there'd be less competition for food thereby improving their prospects for survival and procreation. Alternatively, the "designer" could have wished to have these guys in a wider range of saline content but there's no test for that except asking Him and that's not science.

"How could the complexity of DNA and tRNA et al have come about by random chance? Buildings don't appear without a builder and designer and clay is pleantiful. Shouldn't there be some houses which just appear?"
No. There's no selective pressure for clay to organize itself into houses. Organic molecules have the ability to reproduce. Clay just lays there unless acted upon by an outside force and even though it seems otherwise sometimes, a house that's built does not reproduce. Some crystals grow but they don't have the potential to differentiate into various forms. I suppose they could express in slight variations but they can't successfully get too creative; unlike life which is pretty rare after all.

"As for the non-professionals being 'childish', does that mean that only politicians or lawyers can have opinions and intelligent discussions about their areas of perview. Or only the blessed in any field to have questions and search for truth?"
Keep looking for the 'truth', man. It's sure to be wrong but it's not about the destination, it's about the trip

Scott: I have read and re-read what I said and I don't see anywhere where I mention that evolution got it right (or wrong) nor did I say that it was a problem.

As a retired design engineer I was commenting on the poor design from an *intelligent* designer.

And if you are experiencing waste water in your clean water supply I am sorry to inform you that your system is not only poorly designed but the workmanship is flawed too!!

By the way as John Chipko very eloquently put it - "Evolving isn't a requirement and the evolved version isn't better."

Zahid and everyone, Thank you for the lively exchange of ideas. It has motivated to become better informed about ID. One new development has involved Prof Paul Merecki, Chair of the Religious Studies at the U of Kansas who was intending to offer a course titled "Creationism, Intelligent Design and Other Myths." After agreeing to drop the "and Other Myths" he finally elected to drop the offering. Too bad. One KS legislator accused him of being and enemy of Christianity or some such.

Pretty good piece on ID
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2005/11/the_other_id.php

PHEW! Thank *Intelligent Designer* for a sensible court outcome in Dover. Now we can ALL get back to enjoying the Chrismas season.

Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year to all the followers of these posts.

Hello,

It would be interesting to have two scientific classes - one for those who are atheists and one for those who are favoring ID. This would satisfied everybody. Nor religious thinking nor atheism would be suppressed and the freedom of choice would be respected. Ultimately in democratic country everybody should have equal rights otherwise if not you can be accused of brainwashing. Scientists want to brainwash the religious people and the religious people the scientists.

But maybe one day the reunion of religion and science will solve all the problems. Let see.

At the end because I am in favor of creationism here are few of my favorite links that can give food for thought to anybody.

- Intelligent Design or Evolution? Why the Origin of Life Implies Design
http://www.theory-of-evolution.net/chap16/cambrian-explosion.php

- The Hare Krishna Views On Science
http://www.freewebtown.com/bhaktivedanta108

- Science Against Evolution
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/

Hello,

It would be interesting to have two scientific classes - one for those who are atheists and one for those who are favoring ID. This would satisfied everybody. Nor religious thinking nor atheism would be suppressed and the freedom of choice would be respected. Ultimately in democratic country everybody should have equal rights otherwise if not you can be accused of brainwashing. Scientists want to brainwash the religious people and the religious people the scientists.

But maybe one day the reunion of religion and science will solve all the problems. Let see.

At the end because I am in favor of creationism here are few of my favorite links that can give food for thought to anybody.

- Intelligent Design or Evolution? Why the Origin of Life Implies Design
http://www.theory-of-evolution.net/chap16/cambrian-explosion.php

- The Hare Krishna Views On Science
http://www.freewebtown.com/bhaktivedanta108

- Science Against Evolution
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/

With best regards
Nitai

Comments are now closed for this post.

Advertisement

Recent Comments

  • Avadhuta Raya d.: Hello, It would be interesting to have two scientific classes read more
  • Avadhuta Raya d: Hello, It would be interesting to have two scientific classes read more
  • Zahid: PHEW! Thank *Intelligent Designer* for a sensible court outcome in read more
  • John Chipko: Pretty good piece on ID http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2005/11/the_other_id.php read more
  • John Chipko: Zahid and everyone, Thank you for the lively exchange of read more

Archives

Categories

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

Pages