> -----Original Message----- > From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 11:41 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: McCain's VP want's Creationism taught in Science Class > > Not really, ID doesn't challenge evolution it looks to answers the > questions evolution can't, the beginning. She didn't say it should be > taught in science class, she did say if a question was asked about it > discussion should be allowed.
Then I'm sorry, but you simply don't understand ID any more than most ID proponents understand evolution. Evolutionary Theory actually doesn't concern itself with the first inception of life (although many aspects of it can be used in that exploration). It concerns itself with how life (existing life) changes over time in response to pressure. If ID can be said to have an overseeing body it has to be the Discovery Institute. And their own literature on ID focuses on challenges to evolution concerning specific biological features, not the inception of life. The bacterial flagellum, the eye, the immune system - discussions of the these are what fills "Of Pandas and People" (the "official" text book supported and distributed by the Discovery Institute). ID "theorists" have failed to produce any experimental evidence, any testable hypothesis or any real research concerning their ideas. Instead they create false challenges to evolution (false because they refuse to modify their ideas based on new, or for that matter preexisting, learning). Even assuming that ID "researchers" were producing to scientific standards it's unlikely that such a new theory would gain a place in middle or high school curricula - cutting-edge work rarely (if ever) does. Evolution has proven itself over more than a 100 years of challenges. It would be incredibly unusual for a hypothesis as recent as ID (even if it weren't, scientifically, crap) to make it to basic science courses For example String Theory and Epigenics are both very promising ideas. They've received a lot of attention and have a tremendous amount of good science backing them... yet neither are generally taught in middle- or high-school as both are relatively new, controversial science. They, unlike evolution, haven't "paid their dues yet" and gained a general consensus. Since ID proponents have failed to produce any real science it's clear that ID holds no place in science class rooms. Instead ID proponents focus on challenging evolution rather than raising a viable alternative. Speaking from actions it's clear that organized ID proponents are aiming to create social and political controversy rather than do any real science. Since no scientific controversy exists it's clear that ID holds no place in science class rooms. I'd love to hear any reasonable arguments for including it, but as I see it there's nothing to speak for it being included - at the very least at the middle- or high-school levels. Oh - and I agree that a student shouldn't be "punished" for bringing it up in class. But that teacher should be able to reply that the hypothesis is unscientific and not fit for scientific discussion and expect that student to understand and be tested on the science presented. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;203748912;27390454;j Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:267378 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
