Tennessee town celebrates 80th anniversary of Scopes Trial as evolution debate rages.

Johnboy60 · Jul 11, 2005

DAYTON, Tenn. Jim Sullivan stood outside the Rhea County Courthouse and recalled the carnival-like atmosphere during the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925, when the teaching of evolution was put on trial.

"They had fights on all these corners and people all over the place," said Sullivan, 85, who remembers seeing Bible-toting preachers and monkeys on leashes.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20050709-0138-scopestrial-science.html

Voegelin · Jul 11, 2005

Like to see some proof from Eugenie Scott, the director of the National Center for Science Education, that it is becoming "increasingly" more difficult to teach evolution in America.

All I've seen are objections to evolution being taught as creationism and a call for Intelligent Design to be included in the curriculum of a small number of schools.

There have been no restrictions on teaching evolution of which I am aware.

This hyperbole, defensiveness and intolerance of alternative theories is exactly why some are demanding ID be included.

Besides, the idea of ID is fun. Expands horizons. Encourages students to think...what if....and perhaps look for design.
Much better than one rote doctrine which is boring and demands absolute allegiance.

Some scientists have maintained assuming design is a productive way of conducting research. Nothing new in that. Michael Faraday, probably the best experimental scientist ever, assumed design.

ForeRunner · Jul 11, 2005

Voegelin said:
Like to see some proof from Eugenie Scott, the director of the National Center for Science Education, that it is becoming "increasingly" more difficult to teach evolution in America.

If you need proof of the anti-intellectual and anti-science attitude in this country then you need look no further than the disgusting performance of our test scores in math and science.

All I've seen are objections to evolution being taught as creationism and a call for Intelligent Design to be included in the curriculum of a small number of schools.

ID is not science, therefore it should not be taught in science class.

There have been no restrictions on teaching evolution of which I am aware.

Are you the standard by which things exist? There are massive restrictions on teaching evolution, especially "unofficial" ones. Most notably in the south.

This hyperbole, defensiveness and intolerance of alternative theories is exactly why some are demanding ID be included.

No hyperbole, out country is dangerously ignorant of science. People are demanding ID be taught for religious reasons, they are using it as a wedge.

Besides, the idea of ID is fun. Expands horizons. Encourages students to think...what if....and perhaps look for design.

Encourages students to think??? Even a small amount of Critical thinking obliterates ID.

Much better than one rote doctrine which is boring and demands absolute allegiance.

Science is the opposite of allegiance. Nobel prizes, fame and fortune are won for showing everyone to be wrong. Do we know Einstein's name because he said "Yep, Newton had it all right." I didn't think so.

Some scientists have maintained assuming design is a productive way of conducting research.

Calling people that do ID "reseach" scientists is wrong and an insult to actual scientists.

Nothing new in that. Michael Faraday, probably the best experimental scientist ever, assumed design.

Totally irrelevant.

Douglaangu v2.0 · Jul 11, 2005

Some scientists have maintained assuming design is a productive way of conducting research. Nothing new in that. Michael Faraday, probably the best experimental scientist ever, assumed design.

And better scientists would let the evidence conclude design.
Which, untill ID avocates can come up with a way to tell the difference between something that has been 'ID' and something that hasn't, aint going to happen.

Voegelin · Jul 11, 2005

Can't provide any examples of what Eugenie Scott claims is the case can you?

Tell me one school district in which evolution has become more difficult to teach. There are none. No one has put any roadblocks in the way of teaching evolution. It has not been removed from or restricted in one single school anywhere.

Eugenie Scott made a purposeful mistatement of fact.

Think the ID debate is great. Encourages thought. Lots of scientists are involved in it. The theoretical evolutionists are the dogmatists. The ACLU even threated legal action when a science teacher suggested students interested in alternative theories check out a book on ID in the school library.

Similar to what occurred when the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe was proposed. Einstein, among others, scoffed at the idea. The common argument against it was "Well of course Lemaître believes in a moment of creation, he's a Catholic priest, what do you expect? He is letting his faith direct his science."

A few years later, when Hubbell saw what the Red Shift meant, Einstein apologized to Lemaître and called his theory the most beautiful he had ever seen.

Douglaangu v2.0 · Jul 11, 2005

Think the ID debate is great. Encourages thought.

I'm sure you do. But it doesn't encourge any thought beyond "Hey, this looks like it was designed, thats all we need to know."

Lots of scientists are involved in it.

And yet they havn't been doing a whole lot of science.
What predictions and discoveries has ID made?

The theoretical evolutionists are the dogmatists. The ACLU even threated legal action when a science teacher suggested students interested in alternative theories check out a book on ID in the school library.

Because he wasn't doing his job. He's there to teach science, and the currently accepted theories, not religious pseudo-science.

Similar to what occurred when the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe was proposed. Einstein, among others, scoffed at the idea. The common argument against it was "Well of course Lemaître believes in a moment of creation, he's a Catholic priest, what do you expect? He is letting his faith direct his science."

Because he didn't provide any evidence for it? What do you expect people do say?

A few years later, when Hubbell saw what the Red Shift meant, Einstein apologized to Lemaître and called his theory the most beautiful he had ever seen.

Ah, and there it is, the evidence.
See, ID proponents have not provided any evidence that stands up to investigation. They've made no predictions, they've made no discoveries. The ID movement has contributed nothing to our understanding of biology. Untill they do this, they will not be taken seriously by other scientists.

Voegelin · Jul 11, 2005

Not an either/or question.

Evolution can easily be seen as supporting Intelligent Design. Evolution cannot rule out Intelligent Design.

That many theoretical evolutionists refuse to even consider this shows they are proposing more than a theory based on empirical data. To claim evolution rules out Intelligent Design is to make a metaphysical claim. The sequence of forms, as Kant showed, cannot be explained. Yet some evolutionists claim to have done it.

That is the problem many have with some evolutionists.

Douglaangu v2.0 · Jul 11, 2005

I'm having trouble here. Just what is a 'theoretical evolutionist'?

WinAce · Jul 11, 2005

One must be careful to distinguish ID as a metaphysical notion, which is unscientific, a religious belief, and rightly belongs in philosophy class, if at all, with "intelligent design" the organized pseudoscientific babble, which has nonsense like "irreducible complexity" and other central claims that we know are false, and which has a stated goal of defeating materialism and forcing "cultural renewal" (since when have scientific theories been concerned with promoting ideological shifts?).

ForeRunner · Jul 11, 2005

Voegelin said:
Can't provide any examples of what Eugenie Scott claims is the case can you?

Tell me one school district in which evolution has become more difficult to teach. There are none. No one has put any roadblocks in the way of teaching evolution. It has not been removed from or restricted in one single school anywhere.

You are an active participant of the NCE forum, you have read many of the same stories I have. The urge to call you a blatent and complete liar is tempting indeed.

Eugenie Scott made a purposeful mistatement of fact.

Evidence

More evidence

What do we have here?

Looks like it is more evidence!

This is getting tiresome

But I guess more can't hurt

Will you kindly retract your completely erroneous statement now?

Think the ID debate is great.

There is no debate, only a fight against ignorance.

Encourages thought. Lots of scientists are involved in it.

Define "a lot", is a tiny fraction "a lot"? How many of these many scientists are actively involved in life-science?

The theoretical evolutionists are the dogmatists.

Ad Hom

The ACLU even threated legal action when a science teacher suggested students interested in alternative theories check out a book on ID in the school library.

A science teacher ought to be teaching science, not supporting religious based nonsense.

Similar to what occurred when the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe was proposed. Einstein, among others, scoffed at the idea. The common argument against it was "Well of course Lemaître believes in a moment of creation, he's a Catholic priest, what do you expect? He is letting his faith direct his science."

A few years later, when Hubbell saw what the Red Shift meant, Einstein apologized to Lemaître and called his theory the most beautiful he had ever seen.

Ah, the rub. Science corrects itself based on evidence, what a wonderful proccess. Too bad religion can't do the same.

Voegelin · Jul 11, 2005

Douglaangu v2.0 said:
I'm having trouble here. Just what is a 'theoretical evolutionist'?

Those who go from empirical observation of the sequence of forms to a theory which explains why they exist.

This is done is a negative way usually. Everything but their theory is dismissed. We see this constantly as theoretical evolutionists (and those with a political axe to grind) are vehement in their opposition to ID.

Creationists are wrong too. They don't have a theory. They have a myth (not using myth in a derogatory sense, it is the only way to explain existence).

Both sides should be more aware of their limitions.

(Most are aware and stay in their own field. The hard core secularists and the hard core sola scriptura types don't and get all the attention. Currently there are more of the former than the latter however).

I like Intelligent Design not because it points to a creator. That is not needed. The value I see is it stands apart from theoretical evolutionists and creationists. It tells both there is more to Heaven and Earth than either could ever know.

notto · Jul 11, 2005

Voegelin said:
Besides, the idea of ID is fun. Expands horizons. Encourages students to think...what if....and perhaps look for design.
Much better than one rote doctrine which is boring and demands absolute allegiance.

So ID should be taught because it is fun? Should we teach alternatives to other scientific theories even when they can't provide an objective testable conclusion that students can actually use?

I guess we should teach alternatives in physics because it would be much better than one rote doctrine which is boring and demands absolute allegiance.

Perhaps alchemy or phlogiston theory. They certainly would be more fun. What would be more fun than trying to turn lead into gold!

notto · Jul 11, 2005

Voegelin said:
Evolution can easily be seen as supporting Intelligent Design. Evolution cannot rule out Intelligent Design.

So what could rule out Intelligent Design? How is it falsifiable? If it is not falsifiable, what value is there in studying it in science class? Unfalsifiable notions are not scientific, they belong in philosophy class.

the Colonel · Jul 11, 2005

Woah! No cigar!

Permissible Topics:

This is the News & Current Events forum. All threads and posts must be related to news and current events. Political articles and op/ed pieces will be posted in the General Politics Discussion forum only. Staff reserves the right to relocate threads to the appropriate forums.

There will be NO Homosexuality; Creation/Evolution; or Abortion topics or debate allowed.

Any topics concerning Homosexuality will be trashed. Abortion topics will be deleted or moved to Philosophy & Morality. Creation/Evolution topics will be deleted or moved to the Creation and Evolution forum if appropriate.

Naughty, naughty. You guys are terrible. Take it outside!

Thanks for the news story, Robert.

Tennessee town celebrates 80th anniversary of Scopes Trial as evolution debate rages.

Looking For Interesting News.

Reactionary

ForeRunner

Guest

Senior Member

Reactionary

Senior Member

Reactionary

Senior Member

Just an old legend...

ForeRunner

Guest

Reactionary

Legend

Legend

STARGATE SG-1!

Similar threads