Bush's Creationism in schools remarks (2 Viewers)

[MoonlightSonata]

Nelson brings intelligent design debate to Australia

Education Minister Brendan Nelson supports the teaching of a controversial new theory of creationism, but only if it is balanced by the instruction of established science.

President George Bush has started a debate in the United States over the teaching of evolution in school by suggesting a theory known as "intelligent design" should be taught in the classroom.

It proposes that life is too complex to have developed through evolution, and an unseen power must have had a hand.

Dr Nelson said he had met the proponents of intelligent design, in addition to watching a DVD on the subject.

"Do I think it should be a replacement for teaching the origins of mankind in a scientific sense? I most certainly don't think that it should be," he told the National Press Club in Canberra.

"In fact I would be quite concerned if it were to replace it.

"Do I think that parents in schools should have the opportunity if they wish to for students also to be exposed to this and be taught about it? Yes. I think that's fine."

Intelligent design differs from biblical creationism in that it is not tied to a literal interpretation of the biblical book of Genesis.

Nevertheless, intelligent design points to the role of a creator, and it has become increasingly influential in Christian circles.

- August 10, 2005 - 7:47PM (SMH)

Hmmm........

 

[braindrainedAsh]

OMFG.

Sorry for the swears, but what the fuck is this country coming to when our leaders advocate following in the fundamentalist footsteps of our USA bible belt friends?

*Shakes head in shame*

 

[Riewe]

I seriously cannot see a big deal with it. I were taught in Earth Science and physics ideas about the earth (the earth was flat, centre of the universe etc) so why is evolution so sacrosanct? What makes biology the only subject where its theories cannot be challenged?

And as for the separation of church and state thing Liza-LaBoheme, you say because it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." then all matters religious should not be touched upon by politicians or public servants.

It does not say this. It is only there to prevent a Henry VIII style thing happening, where the Church of USA could be founded and proclaimed the one true religion in the states, and persecute those who oppose it, much like Henry did. They saw the trouble in the UK, and with the 'founding fathers' not wanting something like this, they made sure that another Henry VIII cannot appear. Only those secularist nuts see it as a a clear line between religious beliefs and politics, when in reality, it is not.

 

[braindrainedAsh]

Creationism is not science. Evolution is taught in upper high school anyway.... I highly doubt kids of that age (especially if their parents beliefs lie ina particular faith) would not be aware of the alternative of creationism, especially since scripture is taught in most state schools. Scientific instruction is up to schools, religious instruction is up to parents (except of course in cases where parents choose to send their children to a religious school).

Public schools should be secular in order to best cater to a wide variety of students' needs.

 

[Captain pi]

Nelson brings intelligent design debate to Australia

Education Minister Brendan Nelson supports the teaching of a controversial new theory of creationism, but only if it is balanced by the instruction of established science.

President George Bush has started a debate in the United States over the teaching of evolution in school by suggesting a theory known as "intelligent design" should be taught in the classroom.

It proposes that life is too complex to have developed through evolution, and an unseen power must have had a hand.

Dr Nelson said he had met the proponents of intelligent design, in addition to watching a DVD on the subject.

"Do I think it should be a replacement for teaching the origins of mankind in a scientific sense? I most certainly don't think that it should be," he told the National Press Club in Canberra.

"In fact I would be quite concerned if it were to replace it.

"Do I think that parents in schools should have the opportunity if they wish to for students also to be exposed to this and be taught about it? Yes. I think that's fine."

Intelligent design differs from biblical creationism in that it is not tied to a literal interpretation of the biblical book of Genesis.

Nevertheless, intelligent design points to the role of a creator, and it has become increasingly influential in Christian circles.

- August 10, 2005 - 7:47PM (SMH)

Hmmm........

I think the SMH were being misleading. Nelson clearly states that "I would be quite concerned if ['intelligent design'] were to replace [evolutionary biology]". He merely said that students could be "exposed" to 'intelligent design' and "be taught about it" [my emphasis] – being taught about something is not the same as being taught as if it were true. As to being "exposed" to 'intelligent design', what is the alternative? Are we going to censor the internet? Creationist websites give school children everywhere a good laugh.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I still think it is inappropriate to include it in a science ciriculum. Intelligent design theory is not science. And it is actually a very flawed theory. Should we expose students to every silly philosophical theory out there? Let them take such an unfounded notion up in their own private studies of philosophy or religion.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Intelligent design theory.... lmfao. Ash, if this is what our "bible-belt fundamentalist" friends are left with advocating... I wouldn't be too worried.
It's pathetic, I declare the war of atheism vs religion won.

 

[Riewe]

I still think it is inappropriate to include it in a science ciriculum. Intelligent design theory is not science. And it is actually a very flawed theory. Should we expose students to every silly philosophical theory out there? Let them take such an unfounded notion up in their own private studies of philosophy or religion.

But what about the flat earth theory in Earth science or earth is the centre of the universe in physics. There was a great deal of text in my physics text which deals with ideas about the universe throughout the ages (from a domed sky through to current theory). Most of these were based on religious arguments "we were created on this world, which means it is special which means it is the centre of the universe", not scientific ones. But they are still taught.

If you are so against intelligent design, then why aren't you advocating the removal of these theories which have been proved to be wrong but still taught?

 

[chookyn]

I'm just wondering where all the forum's religious nutters have gone too....

Well this 'nutter' has, for the most part, been busy studying.

BTW since when has evolution been a fact? Last i knew it was a theory, just like creationism is a theory. Therefore they both deserve equal coverage. To deny this would be bias towards secularism (ever considered that?). Also, Christianity isn't the only religion that believes in Creationism - in fact many religions acknowledge the theory of intelligent design.

It's not very open-minded to favour one argument simply because you don't happen to like the implications of the alternative.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

But what about the flat earth theory in Earth science or earth is the centre of the universe in physics. There was a great deal of text in my physics text which deals with ideas about the universe throughout the ages (from a domed sky through to current theory). Most of these were based on religious arguments "we were created on this world, which means it is special which means it is the centre of the universe", not scientific ones. But they are still taught.

If you are so against intelligent design, then why aren't you advocating the removal of these theories which have been proved to be wrong but still taught?

Fair question. But I see those old theories as part of the history of science. Intelligent design would be taught as a current theory (ie. not one that we thought was true but science proved otherwise, but one that people still advocate as true).

 

[Generator]

Well this 'nutter' has, for the most part, been busy studying.

BTW since when has evolution been a fact? Last i knew it was a theory, just like creationism is a theory. Therefore they both deserve equal coverage. To deny this would be bias towards secularism (ever considered that?). Also, Christianity isn't the only religion that believes in Creationism - in fact many religions acknowledge the theory of intelligent design.

It's not very open-minded to favour one argument simply because you don't happen to like the implications of the alternative.

It's a scientific theory, not just a theory, and to suggest that the latter may be equated with the former in such a manner is just laughable. Come back when intelligent design/creationism is considered as being of value as an accepted scientific theory (or at least one that is contested in a meaningful sense), and then there may well be a case for that religious doctrine to be taught as an 'alternative' to evolution within a science class.

 

[Raginsheep]

Well this 'nutter' has, for the most part, been busy studying.

BTW since when has evolution been a fact? Last i knew it was a theory, just like creationism is a theory. Therefore they both deserve equal coverage. To deny this would be bias towards secularism (ever considered that?). Also, Christianity isn't the only religion that believes in Creationism - in fact many religions acknowledge the theory of intelligent design.

It's not very open-minded to favour one argument simply because you don't happen to like the implications of the alternative.

Theres a massive difference between what is generally termed as scientific theory and theory.

A scientific theory must have a firm scientific basis in which experimental observations are tested and found to agree with and also is accepted by the general scientific community. Evolution is a theory because it has been proven to work in many examples and experiment and theory agree with each other. No one is saying that evolution is 100% fact however, as an explanation for the rise of the many species we know today, it's miles ahead of everything else.

Creationism is at this stage, speculation. At best, Creationism can be applied with evolution in the form of "God created the universe with the big bang a set the fundamental rules of the universe governing things like evolution or something like that". I would generally be most happy with this theory.

At the other end however, creationism is like the arguments you had as a kid with your brother or sister. “I said it’s true so it must be! So there! ” Creationism can not be tested, does not predict anything or explain anything other than “God did it.”

While I have no objection over Creationism being taught in schools as part of religious education, I have strong objections to it being presented as a valid alternative scientific theory and it being taught in science although I have a strong disregard for the current social-historical emphasises being taught in our current science syllabus.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Immaculately said!

 

[Serius]

haha i like your post Raginsheep.

pelase beware christian nutters that we arent attacking Christianity. Just because a particular theory is advocated by your church or is seen as an alternative by other christians doesnt mean you cant think for yourself. judge it, does it seem logical? because evolution explains how all the creatures came to exist, it is a perfectly good theory... i cant think of anything it doesnt cover... so why make up a new theory and support it asif evolution is wrong?

it seems to me that the inteligent design "theory" is basically evolution, except that god had a hand in it. why make up this theory? because of your beleifs you allready know god had a hand in everything. You dont need to make up a theory, just say to yourself "god had a hand in evolution just like he does in everything and he wanted evolution to happen- thats why it did"... or somesuch relgious babbel. This theory isnt needed, you allready beleive god had a way in it that we cant prove using any evidence because god doesnt want us to be certain he exists [ hence faith]. so by your own beleifs evolution works perfectly well, as does everything in the universe without the need of a god, if it wasnt like this then we could use it as proof of god and there would be no more faith.

the only thing in doubt is the big bang, what created it. i doubt we will ever know that one so its the only real "proof" of god in that the big bang created the universe but no1 has the slightest idea who/what created it.

The inteligent design theory seems like a desperate attempt of religious nuts to try and once again influence science. Science needs to keep operating under its own laws to remain efficent.. throughout time religion has hampered science and caused developments to move much slower, which could have benefited society...
things such as life saving drugs all because religion slowed science. now religion is mostly staying out of science. and things are going well, the religious have their beleifs and the bennifits that science provides...

if you want to keep living in a society with all the comforts of modern technoledgy then dont try and influence science with your beleifs, science is betetr off simply sticking to what can be proven that wacky ideas, and for the purpose of new technoledy that will bennifit you, its better that way

 

[walrusbear]

haha i like your post Raginsheep.

pelase beware christian nutters that we arent attacking Christianity. Just because a particular theory is advocated by your church or is seen as an alternative by other christians doesnt mean you cant think for yourself. judge it, does it seem logical? because evolution explains how all the creatures came to exist, it is a perfectly good theory... i cant think of anything it doesnt cover... so why make up a new theory and support it asif evolution is wrong?

it seems to me that the inteligent design "theory" is basically evolution, except that god had a hand in it. why make up this theory? because of your beleifs you allready know god had a hand in everything. You dont need to make up a theory, just say to yourself "god had a hand in evolution just like he does in everything and he wanted evolution to happen- thats why it did"... or somesuch relgious babbel. This theory isnt needed, you allready beleive god had a way in it that we cant prove using any evidence because god doesnt want us to be certain he exists [ hence faith]. so by your own beleifs evolution works perfectly well, as does everything in the universe without the need of a god, if it wasnt like this then we could use it as proof of god and there would be no more faith.

the only thing in doubt is the big bang, what created it. i doubt we will ever know that one so its the only real "proof" of god in that the big bang created the universe but no1 has the slightest idea who/what created it.

The inteligent design theory seems like a desperate attempt of religious nuts to try and once again influence science. Science needs to keep operating under its own laws to remain efficent.. throughout time religion has hampered science and caused developments to move much slower, which could have benefited society...
things such as life saving drugs all because religion slowed science. now religion is mostly staying out of science. and things are going well, the religious have their beleifs and the bennifits that science provides...

if you want to keep living in a society with all the comforts of modern technoledgy then dont try and influence science with your beleifs, science is betetr off simply sticking to what can be proven that wacky ideas, and for the purpose of new technoledy that will bennifit you, its better that way

fundamentalists are incapable of this sort of thing
that's why they are fundamentalists, they can't approach religion from anywhere but the literal

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I think we can make our point just as well without referring to Christians as 'nutters'

 

[Riewe]

Actually what confuses me is how they want to implement the intelligent design theory.

I do not have a problem with it being mentioned (along with any other alternative views) as other theories which do not agree with evolution. Because it is a theory, and as such is bound to have opposition which we would need to hear about.

But if they want to make intelligent design a major aspect of teaching alongside evolution, like two separate modules in the syllabus, i just cannot agree with this method. For pretty much two reasons. One is that there is not too much to teach and explain. "Why did this happen? "Because [supreme being] said so", "Why are they like this? "Because [supreme being] said so" etc. And along with this is that it does not allow too much scientific analysis in this topic. It just cannot be scientifically looked into, and as such, would pretty much prevent it playing a major role in any science class

 

[Raginsheep]

Thats why it shouldn't be part of the science course. Religious education fine, but keep it out of science.

 

[Rafy]

Related article in today's smh

Life's origin: Darwinism fights it out with dogma
By Gareth Cook in Boston
August 17, 2005

Harvard University is launching an initiative to discover how life began, joining an ambitious scientific assault on age-old questions central to the debate over the theory of evolution.

Known as the Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative, the project is likely to start with about $US1 million ($1.3 million) annually from the university, and will bring together scientists from fields as disparate as astronomy and biology, to understand how life emerged on Earth, and how this might have happened on distant planets.

The initiative begins amid increasing controversy over the teaching of evolution, prompted by proponents of "intelligent design", who argue that even the most modest cell is too complex to have come about without unseen intelligence.

The US President, George Bush, recently said intelligent design should be discussed in schools, along with evolution. Like intelligent design, the Harvard project begins with awe at the nature of life, and with an admission that, almost 150 years after Charles Darwin outlined his theory of evolution in On the Origin of Species, scientists cannot explain how the process began.

Now, encouraged by a confluence of scientific advances, such as the discovery of water on Mars and an increased understanding of the chemistry of early Earth, the Harvard scientists hope to help change that.

"We start with a mutual acknowledgment of the profound complexity of living systems," said David Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard. "My expectation is we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention."

But opponents of evolution theory say the project seems to indicate science has yet to fully prove Darwin's theory.

"This is … a stunning admission the current theories do not explain it, and it has not refuted the idea that things are the product of intelligent cause," said John West, a senior fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, a think tank that backs intelligent design theory.

The Discovery Institute advocates schools teach scientific criticisms of Darwin's theories.

The Harvard project, still in its early stages, will receive some initial funding from the university and also raise money from other organisations. The initiative is part of a dramatic rethinking of how to conduct scientific research at the university.

Many of science's most interesting questions are emerging in the boundaries between traditional disciplines such as physics, chemistry and biology, yet universities are largely organised by those disciplines.

Harvard's president, Lawrence Summers, is a proponent of the view that universities must develop new structures to encourage interdisciplinary science.

One of the central goals of the Harvard initiative is to understand the different ways that life might form, according to Dimitar Sasselov, a Harvard astronomer who is organising the university's origins-of-life project.

"There is no reason to think that biology would be the same from planet to planet, but physics and chemistry should be the same," he said. Professor Sasselov specialises in finding planets around other stars.

Within the next decade, NASA plans to launch the first of two terrestrial planet finders, space telescopes that pick out the flickering light of planets near the bright blaze of distant stars.

The Boston Globe



A DIVINE DEBATE

Creationism

Theory: All organisms were created by the fiat of an omnipotent Creator, and did not gradually develop. Recently known as "intelligent design".

Compulsory reading: The Holy Bible's Book of Genesis.

Evolution

Theory: A process of continuous genetic adaptation that results in inheritable changes in a population of organisms spread over many generations.

Compulsory reading: Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species.

 

[malkin86]

Wow, that's a good way to waste $1 million US... It's an attitude of belief, really. I don't think either side could 'win', as such.