Jason Spaceman <I@eat.spammers.for.breakfast.com> wrote in message

[...]
There is an education issues message board at the Montana Forum web

http://www.montanaforum.com/indices/forum.php?nnn=5 where people can

replies to the Op-Ed pieces on the web site, in case anybody wants to

a reply. *hint* *wink* :-)

I need a proof reader...

........................

Dear Editor,

Curtis Brinkley proposes [Guest Opinion: Study of ID means fair debate
in schools] that the teaching of "Intelligent design theory" (ID)
needs to be introduced into the public schools in the spirit of
fairness to make everyone aware of the "serious scientific debate"
boiling around Darwin's theory of evolution. The only problem is that
this is completely dishonest as there is no serious scientific doubt
regarding Darwin's magnificent theory. The only doubters and
mud-slingers are those whose fundamentalist religious views conflict
with the theory that life on earth developed slowly over the millennia
by the simple biological mechanism proposed by Darwin, rather than by
the rapid divine creation described in Genesis.

Mr. Brinkley is one of a number of individuals whose religious
fundamentalism has propelled them into a propaganda exercise with the
apparent goal of subjugating science and science education to meet the
demands and desires of those with fundamentalist religious beliefs.

We have all been a witness to the ongoing conflicts in the world which
highlight the religious disagreements and religious antagonism which
exists. In history anything which dared to disagree with the
predominant religious viewpoint was labeled a heresy and attacked
vigorously by the established church. Darwin's 'heresy' has been under
attack by the fundamentalists for over one hundred years, yet it has
survived and grown strong and shown the scientific community its
extraordinary power, and indeed has become a cornerstone of science.

At the time Darwin proposed his theory in 1859 we had no idea how
stunningly important it was. We had no idea it would be validated by
geology, genetics, cosmology, radiology, tectonics, relativity, and
paleontology to mention a few, and most of these branches of science
were utterly unknown at the time of Darwin!

Like his fellow Creationists, those who wish to promote a literal
interpretation of Genesis, Mr. Brinkley claims that various flaws are
evident in the currently accepted theory of evolution, and in its
presentation. He mentions several of the standard fundamentalist
complaints, and you may hear these same complaints from other
creationists; that the fossil record is "incomplete", that the
Cambrian fossils are "unnatural", that certain textbook drawings were
inaccurate, that mathematical statistics can establish the truth.

Mr. Brinkley wishes to imply that there is an alternative scientific
theory, known as "ID," or "intelligent design" theory, which should be
debated. This is untrue. Such a theory does not actually exist except
as a collection of half-baked objections. In 1996 Michael Behe wrote a
book called "Darwin's Black Box" in which he tried to demonstrate ID,
proposing that many current biological structures could not have been
created by Evolution because they are "irreducible." The book was
laughed out of scientific circles because biology actually more often
demonstrates the opposite of what Behe was proposing; with one example
being the Panda's thumb, a perfect example of evolution.

The fossil record is indeed incomplete, and will always be incomplete,
but it clearly shows the truth of Darwin's theory. The Cambrian did
indeed produce some very interesting fossils, but then so did every
geological era before and after. The Haeckel textbook drawings were
indeed rescaled, but to demonstrate a general truth, not to promote a
falsehood. Finally mathematical statistics cannot be applied to a
problem when we as yet lack the needed factors to use in the
calculation.

Day after day the religious fundamentalists hammer away with their
mistruths and distortions. They are often preachers, excellent
speakers with great experience. They are funded by the enormous
tax-free wealth of the collection plate. They know only one thing;
like the knights of the Holy Crusades, they must destroy the heresy,
and the heresy is science and rational secular thought.

Jason Spaceman <I@eat.spammers.for.breakfast.com> wrote:
[...]
There is an education issues message board at the Montana Forum web site -->
http://www.montanaforum.com/indices/forum.php?nnn=5 where people can write
replies to the Op-Ed pieces on the web site, in case anybody wants to write
a reply. *hint* *wink* :-)


http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2003/12/30/build/education/id-op.php?nnn=5

Jason Spaceman <I@eat.spammers.for.breakfast.com> wrote in message news:<bsve2p$1ro3b$1@ID-219258.news.uni-berlin.de>...

[...]
There is an education issues message board at the Montana Forum web site -->
http://www.montanaforum.com/indices/forum.php?nnn=5 where people can write
replies to the Op-Ed pieces on the web site, in case anybody wants to write
a reply. *hint* *wink* :-)


http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2003/12/30/build/education/id-op.php?nnn=5

I need a proof reader...

........................

Dear Editor,

Curtis Brinkley proposes [Guest Opinion: Study of ID means fair debate
in schools] that the teaching of "Intelligent design theory" (ID)
needs to be introduced into the public schools in the spirit of
fairness to make everyone aware of the "serious scientific debate"
boiling around Darwin's theory of evolution. The only problem is that
this is completely dishonest as there is no serious scientific doubt
regarding Darwin's magnificent theory. The only doubters and
mud-slingers are those whose fundamentalist religious views conflict
with the theory that life on earth developed slowly over the millennia
by the simple biological mechanism proposed by Darwin, rather than by
the rapid divine creation described in Genesis.

Mr. Brinkley is one of a number of individuals whose religious
fundamentalism has propelled them into a propaganda exercise with the
apparent goal of subjugating science and science education to meet the
demands and desires of those with fundamentalist religious beliefs.

We have all been a witness to the ongoing conflicts in the world which
highlight the religious disagreements and religious antagonism which
exists. In history anything which dared to disagree with the
predominant religious viewpoint was labeled a heresy and attacked
vigorously by the established church. Darwin's 'heresy' has been under
attack by the fundamentalists for over one hundred years, yet it has
survived and grown strong and shown the scientific community its
extraordinary power, and indeed has become a cornerstone of science.

At the time Darwin proposed his theory in 1859 we had no idea how
stunningly important it was. We had no idea it would be validated by
geology, genetics, cosmology, radiology, tectonics, relativity, and
paleontology to mention a few, and most of these branches of science
were utterly unknown at the time of Darwin!

Like his fellow Creationists, those who wish to promote a literal
interpretation of Genesis, Mr. Brinkley claims that various flaws are
evident in the currently accepted theory of evolution, and in its
presentation. He mentions several of the standard fundamentalist
complaints, and you may hear these same complaints from other
creationists; that the fossil record is "incomplete", that the
Cambrian fossils are "unnatural", that certain textbook drawings were
inaccurate, that mathematical statistics can establish the truth.

Mr. Brinkley wishes to imply that there is an alternative scientific
theory, known as "ID," or "intelligent design" theory, which should be
debated. This is untrue. Such a theory does not actually exist except
as a collection of half-baked objections. In 1996 Michael Behe wrote a
book called "Darwin's Black Box" in which he tried to demonstrate ID,
proposing that many current biological structures could not have been
created by Evolution because they are "irreducible." The book was
laughed out of scientific circles because biology actually more often
demonstrates the opposite of what Behe was proposing; with one example
being the Panda's thumb, a perfect example of evolution.

The fossil record is indeed incomplete, and will always be incomplete,
but it clearly shows the truth of Darwin's theory. The Cambrian did
indeed produce some very interesting fossils, but then so did every
geological era before and after. The Haeckel textbook drawings were
indeed rescaled, but to demonstrate a general truth, not to promote a
falsehood.

...Finally mathematical statistics cannot be applied to a
problem when we as yet lack the needed factors to use in the
calculation.

Day after day the religious fundamentalists hammer away with their
mistruths and distortions. They are often preachers, excellent
speakers with great experience. They are funded by the enormous
tax-free wealth of the collection plate. They know only one thing;
like the knights of the Holy Crusades, they must destroy the heresy,
and the heresy is science and rational secular thought.

"\"Rev Dr\" Lenny Flank" <lflank_nospam@ij.net> wrote in message news:<3ff7481b_4@corp.newsgroups.com>...

Frank J wrote:


<snip>

Not necessarily, although most audiences will infer that, and more,
i.e. not just God, but also an origins model that most religions
reject. But as you know, ID just as easily argues for the atheistic
Raelian model.

<snip>

True.

So you admit that ID has nothing to do with Christianity.

Noted.

Odd, isn't it, what strange bedfellows the Discovery Institute's
"big tent" strategy has led to . . . .

The difference is that they believe that ID provides evidence for
their religion. Whereas you don't believe it does, and are just
misrepresenting it on that point (for no apparent reason but to have
some fun).

You know, as I told you, that I don't believe any of this *****.

George Dance wrote:

"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:<OnyIb.226591$I53.9489119@twister.southeast.rr.com>...

Even if Darwin's theory were provably false (which I by no means grant
you),
ID should not be taought in a science class. The reason is simple. ID
is
not science! ID cannot be tested and makes no predictions. End of
story.

But determinism cannot be tested and makes no predictions, either;
it's as unfalsifiable as Intelligent Design. Yet determinism is
taught in science classes everywhere. What's the difference here?

Determinism is not taught in science

because science is non-deterministic
in the final analysis.