Contends that the very complexity of life is evidence that the world was organized by a guiding intelligence.

The growing movement behind the theory, which does not attribute the worlds creation to God, is supported by conservative Christian groups, whose drive to include the Bible-based "creation science" in public schools was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1987.

But many officials from science and education groups, most of whom teach evolution, call the language part of a wider campain to teach students to be able to speak and examine various scientific theories on the basis of all the information that is available to them.</p> This topic is gaining alot of attension and I was wondering what your opinions/experiences with it are. Is this a pseudo-scientific way to teach creationism or a theory that does not endorse any particular topic or philosophy?

Im not quite sure how to feel about this right now and would really value some input about it.
Thanks.

It’s psuedo-scientific rubbish,
It has already been comprehensively torn apart by the scientific community, and it is basically part of yet another attempt by certain conservative Christian groups to force their views upon others, it's not like any other people will even back it, apart from the relgious right.
It would be a dangerous step backwards to even consider it being taught in schools.

[ 05-29-2002, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: Dramnek_Ulk ]

A step backwards you say. .?

How do you feel about this statement then.---> If you are going to teach about the Darwinistic view that organisms may look like they are designed but weren't, then you have to allow for the possibility that they were designed also.

Federal law has long barred Washington from controling state and local school instructional content-a prohibition that has guarded by GOP lawmakers through the years. With little intension, however, that outright prohibition was weakened by congress in 1994 when it barred the federal government only from controlling "specific" state or local instructional matters.
The education bill enacted earlier this year also suggested that Washington could excersise some general control over state and local curricula but not require the teaching of specific subjects.

While Ohio is now the main battleground, in recent years legislatures or school boards in such states as Pennsylvania, Georgia, Hawaii, New Mexico, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Kansas have also been wrestling also with this issue.

Ulk, Sometimes I wonder why you are so strongly set in your mind that something greater could exist.? Intelligent-design theory apparently resonates with the public. A 2001 Zogby poll found that 71 % of those surveyed supported scientific evidence against evolution.

The entire scientific establishment today, accepts the theory of evolution as a truth, as far as we can say any scientific theory is the theory of evolution is true,
If we were to start saying that Darwinism might untrue, we would logically also have to start teaching that Water might not always boil when you heat it to 100 degrees.
Of course there are holes in it in certain places (but this does not preclude it being flawed), but as time marches on, hopefully we will eventfully fill them.

Polls can say anything they want to, I suspect you could produce a poll to say the complete opposite, besides if that poll was taken in U.S.A, America is notorious for the extent to which Christian conservatives & fundamentalists hold influence and power in certain places, and commission these kind of things.
The problem is that people don’t like that fact, they want it to be complete, they want to know that something is an absolute or definite. That’s why some people turn to intelligent design, since it offers an absolute I.E that some magic force intervened and magically made us all like this.

<font color = lightgreen>Water doesn't always boil at 100C. At higher elevations the boiling point is lower and if you add salt to the water the boiling point is higher.

I just thought I would throw in that useless trivia. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

***************

Seriously, though. I fail to see how "intelligent design" is any different than Creationism; any "intelligence" sophisticated enough to actually design an entire universe, or even just a generic planet and its biosphere, might as well be called God.

It sounds like some sort of psuedo-intellectual fad to me, just like the various forms of "revisionist" history.</font>

Why would a conservative Christian group back a luke-warm concept about creationism?
Sneaking into the back door on this momentum is what you think? Time will tell then.

Azred, I heard once that hot water freezes quicker than cold ;)
It would be very intelligent to create a balanced eco-system such as our planet yet the universe. I am in awe of nature and always have been. "How did this happen" fad it may well be..?</p> Thanks for your time Ulk and Azred. </p> Still open here- for related material.

<font color = lightgreen>Water doesn't always boil at 100C. At higher elevations the boiling point is lower and if you add salt to the water the boiling point is higher.

I just thought I would throw in that useless trivia. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

***************

Seriously, though. I fail to see how "intelligent design" is any different than Creationism; any "intelligence" sophisticated enough to actually design an entire universe, or even just a generic planet and its biosphere, might as well be called God.

It sounds like some sort of psuedo-intellectual fad to me, just like the various forms of "revisionist" history.</font></font>[/QUOTE]Heh! Can't forget pressure being the other part of the boiling point equation. If you add salt then it becomes a solution. You could heat water infinitely and still have it stay liquid as long as you had infinite pressure to keep it that way! Unfortunately, it's always going to be one or the other with Creationism and Darwinism. I believe they coexist myself. That evolution was the tool used for creation. Many refuse to beleive that the bible doesn't mean exactly what it says word for word literally. Metaphors don't exist in the bible apparently. The other side is sure that the universe exists simply because it does and that it's the sum of everything. Will they meet in the middle? Doubtful.

hmmm, very educational, keep feeding me guys !

I have to suport Darwin because I can prove evolution to my satisfaction. After looking at fossils and studieing anthropology I can say with 100% surety that people are diffrent today than they were 1000 years ago, that they have evolved. I am italian, I am also 6 feet tall and 230 pounds, average for a human today. Italians back in the time of jesus,the ceasars and the roman empire were usualy around 5 feet tall. I know this because scientist have dug up bodies from that time period and measured them. Also , the creation theory cant explain dionosaurs to my satisfaction at all. According to my understanding , and I could be wrong , there was Adam and eve and all people sprung from the union of them and thier children. According to science and the fact that inbreeding brings out resessive gene mutations , there is no way 2 people had enough biodiversity in thier genes to create humanity as its described in the bible. Lastly I think that it is a little egocentric and insulting to think that the bible has the answers to how the universe was created. Who is to say that the Muslims , the Jews, the Buddists, the American Indians, or the Pagans are wrong in thier own religeous views of how the world was created.

The Hunter of Jahanna , Thank you for your detailed response!
I certainly agree with you on always keeping an open mind. I get into these posts and threads to learn more myself and to learn of peoples beliefs and countrys views on hot now-a-day subjects, going on popular mediums.

Ok, then; "Lastly I think that it is a little egocentric and insulting to think that the bible has the answers to how the universe was created. Who is to say that the Muslims , the Jews, the Buddists, the American Indians, or the Pagans are wrong in thier own religeous views of how the world was created."</p> You have got that right! I have really grown to study artifacts and stories of them concerning devotions, worship, sacrifice,...great human faith.
Yet and still its not that I feel, its a condition of humble heart I see.

Cristian science is a universal unilateral faith mybe almost close to this movement of the topic ..? </p> (Great post Sir Ken!)