I agree with Bobby that Intelligent Design should be allowed in the classroom. Just to give you an idea of where I stand on the issue of Intelligent Design allow me to post an opinion article I wrote for my college newspaper a couple years ago entitled "The Darwinist Inquisition Against Intelligent Design: An Interview with Dr. Elliot Pines":
http://media.www.yucommentator.com/media/storage/paper652/news/2005/12/19/Opinion/The-Darwinist.Inquisition.Against.Intelligent.Design-1127671-page2.shtml
Tweet
Monday, June 16, 2008
Gov. Bobby Jindal On Intelligent Design In Schools
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
RSS Feed (xml)
"Intelligent Design should be allowed in the classroom."
ReplyDeleteYou're in favor of allowing the Magic Man in science classrooms. Should science teachers also talk about Santa Claus? Leprechauns? The Easter Bunny?
You don't even know what science is. For your information, science is not about magical creation. That's what your intelligent design is. A magical sky fairy makes things out of nothing. Intelligent design is the poof theory, but it's not really a scientific theory. Intelligent design magic is an idiotic childish fantasy preferred by people too lazy to study science, and too stupid to understand science.
Thanks for visiting the site and posting your response. I appreciate that.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion on evolution and ID in the classroom is simple and straightforward. I believe the evolutionary explanation for the origin of the universe and the origin of species should be taught in science class. But I also believe that evolution should not be presented as if every facet of that theory has been explained, as if there are no credible questions being posed. In other words, when I talk about ID being "allowed in the classroom" I do not necessarily mean that ID be explained in detail as a theory, but rather that the objections to evolution should be put forth for the kids to hear as well. I did not really elaborate on my position. I imagine that you would disagree with this as well. I do not believe there should be any reference to Jesus, or God, or Genesis, or the Bible or anything else along those lines in Science class. That is for theology, philosophy, or Bible class. But I do believe that in the interest of fairness and education the classroom should include questions about the evoltionary theory. There is no reason they should be excluded. Censoring out the objections to evolution in the class gives kids a one-sided view of the theory. If public schools are unwilling to be evenhanded and discuss the objections to evolution then evolution should not be taught at all until the college level.
Your insults that allude to my being stupid and lazy are not taken personally. But evolution requires the belief that complex information systems can arise from a random series of training environments. There are questions as to whether this is biologically probable or possible. There are Behe's objections about "irreducible complexity." There are questions about the so called "cambrian explosion" which changed the underlying assumption of Darwin's theory of slow moving gradual evolution. Question about the cambrian explosion also relate to the probability of evolution taking place in such a short geological timespan. There is the fact that vast majority of mutations on active DNA are known to be negative. Things that have been shown to be false such as Haeckal's embryos and more still appear in school textbooks and need to be removed. Students should hear these and more objections to the theory.
Forcing students to hear the other side of this heated scientific debate is not a threat. Not informing students of alternatives is not education, it is pure indoctrination.
You are probably an intelligent guy and I do not think you actually believe that questioning evolution is tantamount to our schools teaching kids about the truth of Santa or the Easter Bunny.