<p>Mr. B, when I saw that article about human and chimpanzee DNA, I asked my husband what people who didn’t “believe” in evolution said when they read an article like that. His answer: “oh, it’s just a theory…” </p>
<p>I found myself wondering, as I lay awake through a fit of insomnia the other night, what I would teach if I had to teach intelligent design and creationism in the science classroom. I could figure out what I was supposed to say when I taught evolution, but it was earth science that threw me. “Okay, kids, creationists say that God created the earth 6000 years ago. We know there are massive floating plates on the surface of the earth and that they cause earthquakes–like the massive earthquake that caused that tsunami in Indonesia that killed 300,000 people–and volcanoes–like the Nevada del Ruiz volcano that killed 25,000 people.” And then what would I say? “God was pretty stupid, wasn’t he?” or “You call that ‘intelligent design’?”</p>
<p>My D goes to a Jesuit HS- In class the teacher discussed ID, Evolution, and Creationism… He said here in Science we will study science, evolution. ID and Creationism will not be taught. They are faith.
And the “science” of ID has not yet been proven, if it could ever be…</p>
<p>It was a breath of fresh air and I am so happy for the intelligence of my Ds school</p>
<p>citysgirlmom: If only all schools across the entire country felt the way your D’s school does. There is no science in ID/creationism/whatever else u wanna call it. Period. It’s a fairy tail.</p>
<p>Cornell President speaks out against intelligent design being treated as a science…intelligent design advocates speak out…he shouldn’t say those things it might impede free speech…lol</p>
<p>notice the “science” behind his "urgings? "</p>
<p>Me Neither; but then, I didn’t expect to see it. Pity those who did.</p>
<p>“he shouldn’t say those things it might impede free speech”</p>
<p>Perhaps you meant to say there are those who are worried he would “implement” his beliefs in different initiatives and policies on Cornell’s Campus, as president of the university.</p>
<p>The message: Darwinian theory is orthodoxy and beyond expressions of doubt–unlike all other science–within science.</p>
<p>Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of theory was so broad it would also include astrology.*</p>
<p>this guy teaches a college biology course-:eek:</p>
<p>I thought it was ironic that West would imply that Cornell’s Hunter R. Rawlings III shouldn’t speak out against Intelligent design because it would surpress free speech.</p>
<p>Fountain, scientists consider Darwin’s theory a theory because it can and has been used to predict things that were later verified by evidence. Intelligent design is what churches need to say now that almost no one believes that the sun revolves around the earth and that the planet took more than a week to get to the mankind part.</p>
<p>That would have been fine, to speak out against Intelligent design but he did not speak out against Intelligent design in science; rather he said that ID should not be spoken of. Thus, the necessary concerns over free expression and a modicum of tolerance for minority views.</p>
<p>I don’t think this should be spoken of in a science class, I don’t think this half-step apology for denying evolution is a theory it is just another sell of a broken product. Science in science class, religion in cultural class discussions. </p>
<p>If I wake up morning and declare that the Native Americans came here on the back of a giant panda that they ate after they arrived and ground up every tooth and bone…do I have a right to insist that every history class in America teach my alternative “theory?”</p>
<p>If the vast majority of the people in a democracy–who paid you to teach their children in that history class–believed something to be the truth (which would not apply to your irrelevant example; no one woke up this morning believeing in ID, it has been a belief of the majority of the inhabitants of this earth for thousands of years) then, yes it might be worth passing mention.</p>
<p>Change “Panda” to “Turtle” and tell a Native American it should not be mentioned when discussing the history of Native Americans in North America and prepare for a feisty defense.</p>
<p>Fountain, no one is asserting that intelligent design, or any other cultural explanation for the wonders of the universe, should not be discussed in an appropriate setting. Claiming that it is “science”, however, is simply false. It is no more “science” than any other creation myth. It may be true (see my previous posts about the impossibility of disproving the possibility that everything in the universe was created recently by a higher power in such a manner as to make it look old) but it’s not science.</p>
<p>Fountain, yes, it would be mentioned as one of thier cultural beliefs not as an historic fact. It certainly isn’t to be taught as a scientific theory is it?</p>