Friday, January 13, 2006
However, in a recent lawsuit unfolding in California, it seems that the evolution lobby possess that alternative agenda that they always accuse intelligent design advocates of having. Frazier Mountain High School in Lebec, California was recently sued by the Americans United for Separation of Church and State for offering intelligent design in what type of class? A philosophy class, of course. Not only was it a philosophy class, but a philosophy elective. Naturally, that somehow equates mandating design to be taught in a science class.
So, what exactly is the evolution lobby's real reason for opposing design theory? It is unquestionably a philosophical and religious reason.
Here is the article:
Miller began by claiming during the flu shot shortage of last year, those who received a flu shot should have been asked to sign a form claiming their affirmation of evolutionary theory. His claim was that the flu evolves and if intelligent design were correct, then there would be no need to receive a flu shot every year. Unfortuantely, the flu is still the flu and not some higher level of being, showing his example fruitless.
The second point Miller made was that the greatest problem with intelligent design is that the theory was too simple. Basically, Miller said, if intelligent design were correct, then biology classes wouldn't have enough to teach. So, during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, Judge Jones declared science to be determined by one's purpose and now science is determined by how well it can fill class time.
Miller's final point came when Steven Colbert asked him if God (Colbert was assuming God to be the designer) could have designed the universe to make it appear evolved with it actually was not. Miller's response was that he did not believe in a deceptive God. He added that he did not reject such a notion on scientific terms but on theological terms. Yet, that is the argument evolutionists use so often against intelligent design, claiming that design theorists oppose evolution on theological grounds and not scientific grounds. Apparently, they do the same thing and admit it.
Miller's lighthearted interview on the Colbert Report shattered some of the top arguments against intelligent design advocates. I am sure, however, that Miller did not intelligently plan this and it was a mere accident of nature.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
And here is the letter:
Open Letter to Samuel Chen on
Dear Mr. Chen,
As you mentioned, the issue of intelligent design and evolution has continued to escalate in various settings across the
Basically, evolution is a fact.
Consider some eminent scientist-types who've weighed in on the controversy.
Dr. Kenneth Miller, Ph.D. of Brown University wrote in an open letter:
The scientific case for evolution is, indeed, overwhelming, and at the trial I gave several hours of detailed testimony documenting that fact. You are, of course, welcome to claim that there is “not a shred” of evidence for evolution. But had you been present in the courtroom, I suspect you would not make that statement.
Dr. Robert T. Pennock, Ph.D. of
Intelligent design proponents’ ultimate goal is to create a revolution in science, taking it back to the days when epilepsy was believed to have been caused by divine possession and gravity was thought to be the result of “spooky action at a distance.”
Others, including Dr. Barbra Forrest, Ph.D. of Southeast Louisiana University and Dr. Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education are offering their testimonies against the "intelligent design statement" of the Dover Area School District.
Consider also William Dembski, who has consistently claimed that intelligent design can accommodate all the results of evolutionary theory. Where's the beef?
The issue is whether non-science has any place in a science class in any official capacity--whether teachers can be forced to read a statement endorsing a textbook that is explicitly religious, whether there is any demarcation between science and non-science, whether, if Michael Behe is right, astrology is a science, and teachers ought to mention it in a disclaimer before starting the Planets Unit.
Overwhelmed by decades of research advances, science teachers across
After reading much on both sides of the debate, I have concluded, as an inquiring student, that evolution is not sufficient enough to explain certain aspects of our current universe. Intelligent design has emerged as the better explanation for the origin of the universe.
Well, sorry, young and vital Mr. Chen, that evolution is inadequate to explain the Big Bang. Not exactly within its purview. Keep inquiring, and someday you'll get it.
We agree on one thing: "However, personal opinions do not matter in this case, the truth does." Your misrepresentation of the facts of the case makes this claim exceedingly ironic. Merely mentioning intelligent design isn't being "banned from schools," just as individual prayer hasn't been "banned from schools." Rather, school-endorsed pseudoscientific religious tracts and school-led prayers are out. Students still have access to a robust science education, and can ask all the questions they want about Intelligent Design.
Monday, January 09, 2006