Say What?

From the dumb and stupid file we find that Tom Ritter, who taught physics and chemistry for over a decade, has filed a federal lawsuit against The Blue Mountain School District in the Middle District of Pennsylvania where he resides. This is same district that rendered the infamous Kitzmiller decision in 2005. 

Tom Ritter's argument:

Evolution is Unscientific "The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity." -- Richard Dawkins, famous Atheist

Biology studies organisms. It can also explain how organisms got that way, but studying organisms does not require explaining how they got that way, and the theory of evolution is bad science.

Evolutionists cannot demonstrate that three critical points are even possible, let alone that they actually happened:
(1) No one has demonstrated that life can be created from non-life.  (Reports of artificial DNA do not alter this fact. Life is still required.)
(2) No one has demonstrated that a new "sexual species" can be created. (Since the definition of species is contested, for these purposes it is defined as an organism that can breed with its own kind and produce fertile offspring, but cannot breed with its ancestors.)

(3) Evolutionists theorize the human brain evolved from lower forms. Over 50 years into the age of computers, machines can crunch numbers far better and faster than humans, recognize and use language and tools, and beat us in chess. Yet science has yet to build even a rudimentary computer that can contemplate its own existence, the hallmark of the human brain. (Contemplating your existence is best understood as imagining what will remain after your death.) And no animal, no matter how "intelligent," can do this either. Ask anyone who espouses evolution if these three points are not true. If evolution is unscientific, why teach it? Because no Creator means no God. In other words, evolution taught without a possible alternative is Atheism. Now Atheism rests on an article of faith (A strong belief that cannot be proven but is nonetheless believed). Therefore Atheism is a religion. And it is illegal to teach religion in the public schoolss.

(I am not defending creationism or intelligent design. But evolution has not proven its case, and until it does, saying it is the only explanation for present life is Atheism.)

I just don't know what to say.

Another Fine Post from: No 2 Religion - Just Say No!

Modesto, Ca. Science Teacher to Teach ID

Image via Wikipedia

According to the Modesto Bee, Roosevelt Junior High (Modesto City Schools) science teacher Mark Ferrante announced at back-to-school night that he would teach the theory of intelligent design alongside evolution. District officials said teaching ID will not happen however some trustees said that ID should be taught. Parents are equally diveded.

 

District trustee Nancy Cline said,

"The current curriculum states that the evolution of man, Darwinism, must be taught as a theory. I feel we do our students a disservice by not helping them become critical thinkers when we forbid the teaching of competing scientific theories, such as intelligent design."

However, Modesto City Schools spokeswoman Emily Lawrence said,

"He will not be teaching intelligent design. He has been instructed to teach the state standards and intelligent design is not in the state standards."

Another Fine Post from: No 2 Religion - Just Say No!

At Least Some States Get It Right

Image via Wikipedia

Unless you have been under a rock or lost in a jungle you have most likely heard about the Texas Textbook fiasco.  Well at least some state are getting right. According to Omaha World-Herald staff wrtter, Joe Dejk Nebraska and several other states are not introducing Intelligent Design into state science standards.

Although advocates of intelligent design enjoyed fleeting success the past decade in Kansas, they have not found Nebraska science classrooms so welcoming.

Three members of the Nebraska Board of Education say they're not aware of any effort by board members or the public to include intelligent design in Nebraska's new science standards.

Nebraska's 253 school districts would have to adopt the state standards, or more rigorous ones, or risk losing accreditation.
The standards take on added importance this year because education officials will use them to design for the first time a statewide science test. That test will be piloted at some schools next spring and implemented at all public schools in 2012.

Nebraska's proposed standards would continue to refer to evolution as theory. California's standards, among the nation's most detailed, do not qualify evolution as a theory. Oklahoma's standards, on the other hand, make no mention of either intelligent design or evolution, but children are taught “biological change over time.”

In Iowa, evolution also is included in state standards.
The Iowa Core, adopted by Iowa lawmakers in 2008, requires high school students to “understand and apply knowledge of biological evolution.”

Iowa high schools must adopt the Iowa Core by 2012; elementary schools by 2014.

... a 2005 federal court ruling that found a Dover, Pa., school board violated the U.S. Constitution when it approved teaching intelligent design alongside evolution.
Although Kansas' standards no longer refer to intelligent design, an introduction to the standards includes a reminder to teachers not to “ridicule, belittle or embarrass a student for expressing an alternative view or belief.”

The National Science Teachers Association opposes mandating the teaching of intelligent design. The association endorses teaching evolution, viewing it “as a major unifying concept.”

Read the entire article here: Standards keep focus on evolution

Related articles by Zemanta

• Evolution's New Foe: Timid School Administrators (wired.com)
• Texas SBoE and the Flinstones (no2religion)

Pastor Gets Partial Credit on Teaching ID in Schools But Fails on Evolution

Image by Colin Purrington via Flickr

I am giving Western Oklahoma Presbyterian Examiner Thomas Spence partial credit for his reason why creationism should not be taught in public schools but a fail on how evolution should be taught. Spence says that intelligent design or any version of creation should not be taught in public schools, which is the way it should be. However, his reasoning is that, "Any version of creation that could be agreed upon by a state department or local board of education will certainly be a sanitized, politically correct version..." Spence then says, "The real issue must be that evolution should be taught only as a theory".

I agree with Spence that we should be teaching our students logic and reasoning but I disagree with his statement that the theory of evolution is based on a broad application of a proportionately small number of facts. Although, I am not an evolutionary scientist even I know that there is a preponderance of facts to support evolution. In Spence's last paragraph though, he tries to sound reasonable with his thoughts on teaching thinking and reasoning skills but that is after he says evolution is based on assumption or premise. Funny, I thought belief was based on assumption and premise, the assumption there is a god and the premise that god is good and loving.

Should intelligent design be taught in public schools? As a Christian and as an American I say without hesitation, absolutely not! Any version of creation that could be agreed upon by a state department or local board of education will certainly be a sanitized, politically correct version of what should be taught by individuals, families, and churches in accordance with the faith and insight of each.

The real issue must be that evolution should be taught only as a theory. It is not a fact. It is an intelligent guess based upon the broadest application of inductive reasoning applied to a proportionately small number of facts. We need to teach our students logic and reasoning before introducing them to theories. The most elemental component of logic is that if the premise is false, then everything that follows can be proven to be true.

Evolution is based upon an assumption or premise. Belief in a divine creation is based on faith. We should address this issue at the core by the direct teaching of thinking and reasoning skills in our schools. When our students can effectively discern what is based in faith, assumption, fact, emotion, theory, or guesswork; then we have better prepared them to use their education regardless of the curriculum.

Intelligent design to take over all studies

Image by Colin Purrington via Flickr

In an opinion piece by Brian Reinhart on Sept. 4th of the online version of The Rice Thresher, Brian says that,

"...the consensus among reasonable people is that modern science indicates the theory of evolution was, at best, a misguided effort. Most contemporary theorists agree that evolution does not explain the fact that the universe is so perfectly adapted to our needs. And if even a single step in the alleged "evolutionary" process had gone wrong, we would be completely different creatures. We probably would not even be able to think.

Brian then goes on to say,

"...there is increasing acceptance among the scientific community of intelligent design theory, or the theory that life is best explained as the product of some kind of prior plan, sketched out by an all-encompassing being far cleverer than we are."

Brian also notes that,

"Several hundred scientists around the United States recently signed an open letter expressing their doubt about evolution. The list included Rice professors Patricia Reiff, James Tour and Pablo Yepes, plus professor emeritus Dale Spence." 

Brian also goes on to debunk the theory of gravity, plate tectonics, astronomy and enlightenment. Read his entire opinion piece to fully understand his thinking.

ID is Religious Creationism in Disguise

Image via Wikipedia

In an August 26, article by Methodist Examiner James-Michael Smith titled, "Intelligent Design 101 - Is ID religious Creationism in disguise?" he agrees with the judge in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District that ID should not be taught in schools, yet. However, Smith says the Judge was flawed in his reasoning. This is just his opening to his review of William Dembski's new book "The Design Revolution" which Smith says, "...seeks to expose this fallacy in the opening chapters of what is perhaps the best philosophical defense of the validity of the ID approach in print."

I will not be reviewing Dembski's book or refuting it's claims here as I have no desire to read it and there are much better bloggers out there that can rip Dembski a new one, and usually do.

Smith goes on to say that,

"Any fair reading of actual ID theory should recognize the difference between ID and Creationism.  Those who refuse to recognize this clear distinction are either ignorant of what ID actually claims or intellectually dishonest in attempting to lump it together with Creationism.  Hopefully it is the former. "

While I may not know everything about ID and creationism there is to know, I have read enough to know that I have not seen any clear differences.

"Of course, intellectual dishonesty has been found on both sides of the debate and any proponent of ID must recognize that many seeking to promote ID have themselves (including Dembski on occasion!) joined it with their religious or political agendas.  This is unfortunate of course, but it should not obscure the fact that at the level of actual claims, ID and Creationism are quite different animals."

 Well actually it does obscure things because it religion is what ID is about.

Casey Luskin says Study Evolution, Think for Yourself

Image by elfsternberg via Flickr

Casey Luskin suggests students learn everything about evolution they can but to be critical in their thinking. I couldn't agree more however methinks he is expecting them to come to his conclusion. Somehow, I think if students do think critically they will find that the Theory of Evolution is sound.

Students Challenged to Study Evolution, Think for Themselves

By Nathan Black Christian Post

As students step foot on campus for another school year, an intelligent design proponent has offered a few tips for the millions who will face the teaching of evolution in their science classrooms.

Tip number one, "never opt out of learning evolution," says Casey Luskin, co-founder of the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center, according to the Discovery Institute.

"In fact, learn about evolution every chance you get."

Having attended public schools from kindergarten through his master’s degree at the University of California, San Diego, Luskin was taught a "biased and one-sided origins" curriculum – basically, the neo-Darwinian theory.

There was virtually no debate or dialogue on the theory when he was learning it and "neo-Darwinian evolution was always taken as a given."

But Luskin does not regret having studied evolution as much as he did. He says the more evolutionary biology he took, the more he became convinced that the theory "was based upon unproven assumptions, contradictory methodologies, and supported weakly by the data."

So he encourages students not to be afraid to study evolution.

His advice comes as a new report reveals that the treatment of biological evolution in state science standards improved dramatically over the last decade. According to the National Center for Science Education, which defends the teaching of evolution in public schools, 40 U.S. states – including the District of Columbia – received satisfactory grades for the treatment of evolution in their state science standards. Only 31 states had received such grades in Lawrence S. Lerner's 2000 study Good Science, Bad Science, conducted for the Fordham Foundation.

Meanwhile, five states – Alabama, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia – received an "F" and another six states received the grade of "D."

Texas was recently in the national spotlight when the state board of education revised science standards in March to encourage students to "critique" and examine "all sides" of scientific theories.

Denouncing the inclusion of "creationist jargon" – language to justify the use of teaching material that casts doubt on the theory of evolution – in science standards, the NCSE report's authors, Louise S. Mead and Anton Mates, believe creationists have strategized to insert more "innocuous language" such as "critical analysis" and "strengths and weaknesses" into the standards.

Mead and Mates contend in their report, "It is simply not true that there are credible scientific alternatives to evolution, nor that evolutionary theory has 'weaknesses' that make it unlikely to be true, nor that scientific work has been done that casts doubt upon it. Students should be left in no doubt on this score."

Luskin thinks otherwise.

He challenges students to be critical in their thinking when approaching evolution and be proactive in learning about other credible scientific viewpoints that are likely censored by teachers.

"[Y]ou must be careful to always think for yourself," he cautions. "Everyone wants to be 'scientifically literate,' but the Darwin lobby pressures people by redefining 'scientific literacy' to mean 'acceptance of evolution' rather than 'an independent mind who understands science and forms its own informed opinions.'"

For Luskin, critical thinking and his own independent study led him to conclude that neo-Darwinian evolution was a set of questionable assumptions, and not facts.

He also discovered that there were "credible scientific views that dissent from neo-Darwinism" that were never disclosed to him.

"Yes, take courses advocating evolution. But also read material from credible Darwin skeptics to learn about other viewpoints. Only then can you truly make up your mind in an informed fashion."