Evolution vs "Design"

Remove all ads!

I heard a very interesting debate on radio four the other day (finest speaking radio in Britain for non Europeans) about a group of lawyers in America who are taking the education department of their state to court, proposing that they ban the teaching of Evolutionary Theory in schools - in favour of "Creation by Design".

The arguement was frankly poor, and rightly ripped apart ("introducing a new ignorance" - Prof. Steve Jones).

Does this get any airtime in America? Do any of the US contributors agree/disagree with this theory, or the reaction to it?


[This message has been edited by Christopher_Lee (edited February 28, 2002).]

 

i think they've banned teaching neo-Darwinism in california. any americans out there that can confirm/refute this?

 

I can't speak for California, but political correctness takes all forms here in Canada - and the US I assume as well, from what I hear.

On one side are the people that don't want any discussion of creationsim in schools (god forbid we might teach children about societal beliefs through history, let alone letting them think and believe for themselves). The 'rationale' for this is that it might 'offend' some people, along with the recent trend of removing any topics regarding religion from schools. These people (a fair-sized chunk) seem to be ready to appease anyone who expresses a dislike for something (religion, sex, peanut-butter, etc, etc).

Then there seems to be another set of people (these have appeared more recently) that, in order to avoid offending anyone, would like to have the whole discussion removed entirely: evolution, creationism, etc. This group doesn't seem to be very prominent, but I've heard the topic raised a handful of times. These people seem to want to 'hide' or cover-up any discussion or topic that someone, somewhere, at sometime, may find even slightly offending.

 

This debate has been going on for more than a decade. The Design Vs. Evolution is hardly a new toppic. But from time to time the debates reach the public. I think this debate will sway a little from side to side with no real changes.

Actually Charles E. Parker's so famous book preachering the "new" design is so full of flaws I can hardly believe he calls himself teacher of biology and professor. Nevertheless the debate is always interesting and the arguments for design are indeed pretty solid sometimes.

basicly It all comes down to faith in higher beeings or not. And that debate, my friend, is ancient.

 

This is quite big in the US. Though it get very little air time because we have a little something called "Govt. can not do anything that has to do with god."

Any way's. Starting at 7th grade we learn the Dwarnwin Theroy. You pretty much have to if you want to pass. But in high school it gets really weird. In Bioligy thats really what the whole first semester is about. But it's in world history that I was really surprised. Our book is like the bible. A girl had to drop out due to religin related things talked about in thier. The said thing is that you have to take that class to pass high school.

 

DragonRider: geez man, watch that spelling!

On topic: That is interesting about religion and government (although (IIRC) the dollar bill says In god we trust). But is this the situation in the whole of the US or does every state have its own rules and laws?

 

Yes, every state has it's own rules and laws on everything! Try living in a Commenwealth

[This message has been edited by sorvo (edited March 01, 2002).]

 

Incidentally, it's said that as a percentage more physicists than theologians believe in God. Because if you look at the Universe as science says it was created, with the long, certain progress from an infinite singularity to the current multitude of diversity, it is actually a more impressive witness to God's capacity than imagining Him with a cosmic plasticine set.

 

Maldir- i used the same arguement on a 'why do we exist' topic some time ago. if anything, being a scientist cements (rather than goes against) a belief in God. *deep breath*

everything around us is so complicated, so well 'designed', that it seems highly unlikely that our universe(s) and its contents arose randomly. this doesn't mean that mechanisms such as evolution by natural selection don't operate (being an evolutionary biologist, it would be silly if i didn't think so), it's more a question of why they are there in the first place.

 

uhm, basicly you are telling me is that God is a Scientist. heh

Your Deduction


more science----> more knowledge of universe ---> more complicated ---> more God

I agree except the last one. Not yet anyway But faith cannot be argued. Period.

 

I was also interested in this in a philosophical way. If you accept that you try to teach someone science, then you have a responsibility for teaching them according to scientific method - that is to test the most recent, and the most falsifyable data.

It is perfectly feasible for any hypothesis to be shot down in a second (what happens to thory of gravity when you drop your pen and it hovers? this only has to happen once...)

In not teaching data according to good scientific principles (ie "Design" which frankly has not one scrap of evidence in favour of it - THAT is why it is a bad theory) then you are not teaching SCIENCE, but something made up. This is unethical, and wrong.

 

Maldir and the god. A subnote on your lovely home-hyphotesis. If very complicated sccience means a God has to be present, which you state, then what if the world was simple? Then there would be less reason for a god? Simple means everything could happen with no profound proof which again means chaos.

So chaos and no laws means no God. This is what pure logic gets from following your line of thought to the end. Simply rubbish.

You can be proud of one thing though. When I discuss with my fellows down at the institute and we discuss fuzzy logic, I'll pull your theory forth. cool, aye