A statement at the current ID debate by The Very Reverend Dr George Coyne, Jesuit priest, doctorates in theology and astrophysics, and the Vatican appointed head of the Vatican astronomical observatory.
“So, which is right, Genesis or science?
Only a fool debates that.
Evolution is a fact. And that is true about the evolution of the universe as well as the evolution of man on this planet.
So, did God play a part in that? Was God necessary for that?
No, it happened because of the laws of science, the laws of the universe, not because of Divine intervention.
And more importantly, to claim that ID is valid belittles God.
It makes Him into no more than a designer or a mechanic.
God is so much more that that.
God is all those things beyond the mere mechanics of the universe, God is love. Above all else, God is love, and to say anything else about him belittles God as much as it belittles those who say it.”
Ok George, you’ve almost converted me to catholicism.
Kansas school board redefines science New standards question accuracy of evolutionary theory
TOPEKA, Kansas (AP) – At the risk of re-igniting the same heated nationwide debate it sparked six years ago, the Kansas Board of Education approved new public school science standards Tuesday that cast doubt on the theory of evolution.
The 6-4 vote was a victory for “intelligent design” advocates who helped draft the standards. Intelligent design holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.
Critics of the language charged that it was an attempt to inject God and creationism into public schools in violation of the separation of church and state.
All six of those who voted for the standards were Republicans. Two Republicans and two Democrats voted against them.
“This is a sad day. We’re becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that,” said board member Janet Waugh, a Kansas City Democrat.
Supporters of the standards said they will promote academic freedom. “It gets rid of a lot of dogma that’s being taught in the classroom today,” said board member John Bacon, an Olathe Republican.
The standards state that high school students must understand major evolutionary concepts. But they also declare that some concepts have been challenged in recent years by fossil evidence and molecular biology.
The challenged concepts cited include the basic Darwinian theory that all life had a common origin and the theory that natural chemical processes created the building blocks of life.
In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.
The standards will be used to develop student tests measuring how well schools teach science. Decisions about what is taught in classrooms will remain with 300 local school boards, but some educators fear pressure will increase in some communities to teach less about evolution or more about intelligent design. (Read how Kansas came to this point)
The vote marked the third time in six years that the Kansas board has rewritten standards with evolution as the central issue.
In 1999, the board eliminated most references to evolution, a move Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould said was akin to teaching "American history without Lincoln."
Two years later, after voters replaced three members, the board reverted to evolution-friendly standards. Elections in 2002 and 2004 changed the board’s composition again, making it more conservative.
Many scientists and other critics contend creationists repackaged old ideas in scientific-sounding language to get around a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1987 that banned teaching the biblical story of creation in public schools.
The Kansas board’s action is part of a national debate. In Pennsylvania, a judge is expected to rule soon in a lawsuit against the Dover school board’s policy of requiring high school students to learn about intelligent design in biology class. (Read about the Dover debate)
In August, President Bush endorsed teaching intelligent design alongside evolution.
This is such an easy thing… Evolution exists and is real… We see it, we can reproduce it… Dogs are freakish and ugly because of it… What is not clear is what started the chain reaction to bring the universe into being and that has nothing to do with biology. The question is not the process, but who/what started it. Evolution is a process, not a signle event. Perhaps ID versus the big bang belongs in a physics class, but certainly not in biology. I really think this comes down to folks bickering over something they hardly comprehend themselves… typical in emotional issues. (See embyronic stem cell research… the embyos are already there (not new) and can take two paths… flushed as medical waste, or used for something.)
It makes Him into no more than a designer or a mechanic.
God is so much more that that.
God is all those things beyond the mere mechanics of the universe, God is love. Above all else, God is love, and to say anything else about Him belittles God as much as it belittles those who say it."
Beautifully put. And a sentiment that I have long shared.
Evolution should be in a philosophy class, so they can discuss whether man is finished evolving or not. The next generation of humans might not like us very much.
I listened to one of the leading “scientists” involved in ID and he referred to ID as a hypothesis, not a theory - an important distinction that is getting lost in the press.
There is no science with ID. It’s unprovable because it brings a supernatural force into the equation. If you are going to teach it in schools - then you could teach how it is NOT science.
The 6 members of the school board in KS who voted for the change are all right-wing Republicans - surprise, surprise. If people in KS want there kids to learn ID in school, that’s their business, but my kid’s are not going to such a school, that’s for #### sure!
It’s unprovable because it brings a supernatural force into the equation.
I think the probelm is many people do not know what science is or isn’t. Firstly, science is nothing but therories. Laws exist in math. So to say something is “only” a therory puts a vulgar spin on the definition of theory and not the true academic definition. Nothing is “provable” in science, just overwhelmingly pointed to. Secondly, due to the fact that science is base don therories and nothing is considered to be 100% provable, to use that argument to discredit a theory is fallacious. To become a theory, something must be based on volumes of evidence. Throwing in something else to discredit it that is not testable is not science. I could wake up tomorrow and say gravity doesn’t exist and small elves with magic sticky buns control this force we call gravity. I have no measuarable evidence of the claim, therefore it is not valid in unseating the current theory of gravity. To find holes in a theory does not make your argument based on even less evidence any more valid.
small elves with magic sticky buns control this force we call gravity.
I KNEW IT!
Listen guys… DON’T piss off the elves OK? From what I understand, they don’t get involved with politics. They’re too busy making sticky buns… and I, for one, do not want to float off into space.
I don’t know what to make of all this ID/Creation/Evolution arguing. Is evolution real? Sure. ID? I dunno about that one. I have a hard time looking at this blue ball with all the fantastic processes going on that enable our equally fantastically complex life forms to survive and think it’s all just a great cosmic accident though. That’s just me I suppose…
Somebody already did it in Kansas. (Nailed something to a door…sort of.)
<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.
If you don’t like how the game is going change the rules.
Think about it: Isn’t to resort to using Intelligent Design – an unknown intelligent force did it – as an effort to get around laws that separate church and state a form of denying Christ? Don’t these proponents have enough faith in Our Lord to stand up and say Our God Did This And It Is Good! Must they stoop to burying what IS God into double-speak and into something that doesn’t make any effort to say He didn’t do it?
Can’t they proudly say God Did This, and at the moment we think it happened this way.
My view, if it’s not to hard to tell, is that the two go hand in hand. evolution is science and it exists and has for a long time. God exists and evolution how some of His work happens in the physical world we live in.
I see a lot of ignorance and very little faith at work.
Bubba - you are sort of on the right path but there are also laws & hypotheses in science. However, a theory is pretty high up there in terms of supporting it’s validity. A law being the highest, theory next & hypothesis at the bottom.
The ID “scientist” I heard referred to ID as a hypothesis which is significant because he’s acknowledging that ID is not yet a theory.
It’s all spin because ID is not science. It cannot be, by definition of what science is. If people want to believe in it then they should go back to faith.
I have a hard time looking at this blue ball with all the fantastic processes going on that enable our equally fantastically complex life forms to survive and think it’s all just a great cosmic accident though.
Right, but that is “where did all this come from?”… not how does the process in biology that creates diversity and change in species work. Evolution speaks nothing at all about an intrinsic order in the universe, the creation/origin of the universe/being,etc. Evoltion tells us that there are random mutiations in genes that are either beneficial or not. Get enough mutations piled up and you get new breeds… and eventually new species over LOOOOOOONG periods of time. PLus a zillion other little pieces (general over production of off spring, physical separations of populations… blah blah blah…)
People get hung up on this “we came from monkeys” idea adn all I have to say to them is… ya ever been to the zoo or looked at a 10 year old on a play ground?
People get hung up on this "we came from monkeys" idea adn all I have to say to them is.... ya ever been to the zoo or looked at a 10 year old on a play ground?
Yep. What's the difference?
The thing is (in my opinion) these boneheads doing all the arguing are not doing anything constructive for either viewpoint. It's almost like they are arguing just for the sake of arguing. What difference does it make if ID is "taught" in biology, philosophy or basket weaving class? Does it REALLY matter if it is percieved as science, theory or voo-doo? The concept IS out there. Knowing about it can do no harm. Many of you guys use the "knowledge is power" saying on here. I agree. Now, why can't these jerk weeds in Kansas or where ever get that? Wait... don't answer that. I know... politics... AGAIN.
TG, it is more than that. IT is the slippery slope. ID is not science. It doesn’t hold up to what science has been defined to be. Far out I know, but where does it stop? Do we teach porn studies in health class? ID is not sciece and does not belong in a science class. Perhaps current affairs, perhaps philosophy, perhaps religion… but not science. An idea that is out there… yes. An idea that is based on science as defined by science? No.
I understand Bubba. That’s why “taught” was in quotes in my post. Perhaps I should have made it clear. ID perhaps should not be “taught” in the strictest sense of the word but discussed as an elective discussion group or something. I understand that the big proponents want to push it in order to legitimize it. That won’t work and is the wrong approach IMO. If an idea can’t stand on its own, how do you legitimize it?
but where does it stop? Do we teach porn studies in health class?
I study it most every night… me and my …uh… right hand…ummm … hold on…
Phoo has it on the money. Evolution does not negate ID. I personally believe that the reason there is evolution is because of ID. Don’t the concepts of the big bang, evolution and molecular biology seem so complex that they could have only been created by an intellegent designer? So why must it be that if God does something, it must only be on terms that humans can easily understand? It seems to me that God is many things including the designer of science. And to water down God’s creation with simplistic concepts (The world began 5000 years ago or God made Adam and Eve just as man looks today) is doing a tremendous injustice to God’s work.
If you don’t understand science then learn, don’t just make it up.
By the way, an argument like mine should be discussed … in religion class, certainly not science since these are beliefs, not science.
I understand Bubba. That’s why “taught” was in quotes in my post. Perhaps I should have made it clear. ID perhaps should not be “taught” in the strictest sense of the word but discussed as an elective discussion group or something. I understand that the big proponents want to push it in order to legitimize it. That won’t work and is the wrong approach IMO. If an idea can’t stand on its own, how do you legitimize it?
<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
based on science as defined by science
What?
TG
I hear you… just as Ptolomy is discussed, though modern knowledge wins out. It still isn’t science… comparative studies or history perhaps depending on the presentation… but it ain’t science. Elective study groups… that’s crazy talk. That might just make everyone happy in the end… Of course, some might say you have all the elective study groups you want at local churches on Wednesday nights that aren’t paid for with tax dollars. WHich brings up another question, what shoul dbe the goal of education? Job suitability? Well roundedness as a human in all the fuzzy warm stuff that makes us tick? SOmething else?
As for science as defined by science… It’s like baseball. The instituion of baseball sets the rules. You can’t go running around making downs, hail Marys, and touch backs and call it baseball. YOu could, but it still isn’t baseball… You could call it an involuntary breat exam… but it is still groping.
WHich brings up another question, what shoul dbe the goal of education? Job suitability? Well roundedness as a human in all the fuzzy warm stuff that makes us tick? SOmething else?