Kansas OKs Teaching 'Intelligent Design'

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

buffalo

Guest
Kansas OKs Teaching 'Intelligent Design’

The Kansas Board of Education voted 6-4 Tuesday to include greater criticism of evolution in its school science standards, but it decided to send the standards to an outside academic for review before taking a final vote.

The Kansas school system was ridiculed around the country in 1999 when the board deleted most references to evolution. The system later reversed course, but the language favored by the board Tuesday comes from advocates of intelligent design.

The intelligent design concept holds that some features of the natural world are best explained by an unspecified intelligent cause. Evolution is a fundamental scientific theory that species evolved over millions of years through natural selection.

more…
 
The question is, which adjective best describes this? Stupid, scary, asinine, weird, sad…
 
all of the above

sometimes a fear for the country:crying:
 
40.png
JimG:
After all, Kansas also has its own pope.
Click to expand...
and that would be??
 
Since I live in Wichita, the morning’s paper has an editorial or a letter to editor almost every day about ID, evolution, and the whole battle.

Editorially I’d say they’re pretty left on this but they do give a pretty fair chance for conservative letters. THey have printed several of mine.

Here’s today’s (12AUG) ration of Hatfields v. McCoys idiots on both sides of the evolution/creation issue. We get a lot of rehash of the same points, but there are a lot of motivations I think go unreported, in some church v state type issues. Fundies agree with us on abortion but are rabid on evolution, making the whole party look silly in some cases when there really is no reason to. Some articles make a lot of sense, others don’t.

Alan
 
I don’t understand why it’s scary, stupid, sad etc. to hear that the Kansas Board of Education is using language that makes evolution LESS credible and implies that there is proof in nature of some things being explained by an unspecified intelligent cause?

This is one for our side guys! Creation more credible and evolution less so…

KellyEr~
 
I think it is a good thing, myself. It gets away from ‘evolution only’ thinking, but is not strictly ‘literal 7 days’. And I am from Kansas 😛
 
The intelligent design concept holds that some features of the natural world are best explained by an unspecified intelligent cause
Click to expand...
This is actually the Catholic teaching on the subject (except that we actually specifiy WHO the designer actually is)

The key difference between Evolution and Intellegent Design is that Evolotution hold that specieazation occured in a random, unplanned fashion. The final product of evolution could never be determined prior.

Intellegent Design holds that the process was not random, but towards a pre-defined end goal.

If the end result was known, the process, by definition, cannot be random, however much it appears so.
 
40.png
KellyEr:
I don’t understand why it’s scary, stupid, sad etc. to hear that the Kansas Board of Education is using language that makes evolution LESS credible and implies that there is proof in nature of some things being explained by an unspecified intelligent cause?

This is one for our side guys! Creation more credible and evolution less so…

KellyEr~
Click to expand...
I’m with you on this. I don’t get why it’s bad either. Isn’t the general premise of evolution is that just evolved over time. That there was not Creator, it just kind of happened.

Intelligent design I thought was basically inline with Catholic teaching - please correct me if I am wrong.
 
40.png
rayne89:
Intelligent design I thought was basically inline with Catholic teaching - please correct me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...
It is in line with Catholic theology, but the Church does not teach science. ID is not science. That is why that decision is bad.

Peace

Tim
 
Could you explain your problem with that a little, please? I’m not sure I follow your line of reasoning.

The Church, true, does not teach science. But the schools that enacted this decision do. This decision by the school systems appears to be a step towards the way things happen in science–Intellegent Design! All they have to do now is to accept WHO the designer is!
 
~Mary~:
Could you explain your problem with that a little, please? I’m not sure I follow your line of reasoning.

The Church, true, does not teach science. But the schools that enacted this decision do. This decision by the school systems appears to be a step towards the way things happen in science–Intellegent Design! All they have to do now is to accept WHO the designer is!
Click to expand...
Science is the study of the natural. Any “designer” would be, by definition, a supernatural being. Science doesn’t deal with the supernatural. Therefore, ID isn’t science and should not be taught in science class.

Peace

Tim
 
40.png
Orogeny:
Science is the study of the natural. Any “designer” would be, by definition, a supernatural being. Science doesn’t deal with the supernatural. Therefore, ID isn’t science and should not be taught in science class.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
Add a mandated metaphysics class then.
 
40.png
buffalo:
Add a mandated metaphysics class then.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with a metaphysics or philosophy class discussing ID. Just don’t do it in science class because it isn’t science.

Peace

Tim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top