(Hat Tip Pharyngula)
Some blogs I read have been in a dither since Dubba enlightened us with his view. But, its not a big surprise, is it? I mean after a term and a bit of being president I'm pretty sure that we should have realized that the guy supports religion more than science. I mean they basically went into Iraq on faith that they would find WMDs so I'm not shocked that he would allow faith-based pseudo-science in the classroom.
4 comments:
The problem is that the Evolution Theory is a true scientific theory (which is quite different than the daily usage of the word "theory" as a layman would understand it). It is supported by evidence and reproducible experiements and accepted by the scientific community.
Intelligent Design is not a scientfic theory. It has no credible evidence, there is no research being done one it or using it, and is accepted by the faith community. It is more put forward as a critism of Evolution (a poor one at that) than an alternative.
"They are both theories and only teaching one in the classroom is like stating that the imparticular theory is fact"
The evidence supporting evolution is fact. "Theory" does not mean the same in scientific circles as it does in everyday usuage.
Trying to poke holes in Evolution is not the same as providing evidence for Intelligent Design.
"There are other explainations. Yes, bones have been found that seem to validade evolution, but that isn't clear cut. "
It is very clear to the scientific community when combined with radio-carbon dating, geologic theory, and the preponderance of fossils that are not random mutations of modern humans (for example). And again, this is no support for ID whatsoever.
I'm all for teaching I.D. just don't try and teach it in science class where it doesn't belong. It belongs in religion class since as you say, "People who believe that mostly rely on faith."
Evolution, despite whatever flaws you preceive in it, is based on science and hard observable facts.
Post a Comment