The Real 'Expelled'

[e lansing]

And public universities tend to care deeply about what their professors teach regarding science (biology falls into that category). It seems pretty inconsistent to say that Christian colleges can do whatever they want to professors who don't teach YEC in science classes because they have "strict standards" about theology whilst moaning and groaning about public colleges who enforce their own "strict standards" about biology.

Do public colleges restrict the teaching of ID theory in science classrooms?

yes! in my experinces i have help people who have been ridicled and some have even fail the class for writting papers that have any refferences to christianity/God/design. some teachers even if they disagreed with a persons veiw chose not to make a big deal out of it. it a lot of cases its up to the teacher. if the teacher is greatly offended then problems will arise.

The question that begs

[e lansing]

Why on earth would any respectable college allow the teaching of something that over 99% of professionals in the relevant fields disagree with?

What our Darwinist friend fails to tell you is that 95% of National Academy of Sciences (NAS) biologists are atheists or agnostics. They are opposed to ID on religious grounds alone. The truth remains

[Sir Gareth]

if someone were to open a college that was called 'darwinist' and did not allow teachings of anything but darwinism, fine, do that. But an academy of higher learning supposedly dedicated to brining real science to the world should be open to both sides, not just one.

Why on earth would any respectable college allow the teaching of something that over 99% of professionals in the relevant fields disagree with? If proponents of ID want their ideas taught in science classes they need to present a testable hypothesis and then test it. If they can start making accurate predictions that can then be verified they will start being able to get their work published in mainstream scientific journals. Does this mean ID will face scrutiny? Yes. Will this scrutiny always be fair and balanced? Probably not but that's kind of just how the cookie crumbles, all scientific theories have to survive scrutiny and, to date, ID has not been able to meet this challenge.

Seriously guys, you've got less than 1% of professional biologists, are you willing to include ALL other biological theories with similar levels of support? What about other fields? The ancient astronaut folks probably have less than 1% of professional archeologists in their corner, should we include their ideas into archeology courses? When you say "Teach the Controversy" remember that you are opening the door to all controversies, not just yours.

Lurker

Then let them teach all the controversies, let people examine the evidence for themselves and look at all sides and see where they think they should believe in, not just show your evidence, say everyone else is wrong and put a communist style lock out on all other ideas because you don't agree with it.

[MorningGlory]

Then let them teach all the controversies, let people examine the evidence for themselves and look at all sides and see where they think they should believe in, not just show your evidence, say everyone else is wrong and put a communist style lock out on all other ideas because you don't agree with it.

And that is exactly what the followers of the Darwin TOE are doing. I'm not sure why they want theirs to be the only game in town but I have my OWN theory.

[e lansing]

if someone were to open a college that was called 'darwinist' and did not allow teachings of anything but darwinism, fine, do that. But an academy of higher learning supposedly dedicated to brining real science to the world should be open to both sides, not just one.

Why on earth would any respectable college allow the teaching of something that over 99% of professionals in the relevant fields disagree with? If proponents of ID want their ideas taught in science classes they need to present a testable hypothesis and then test it. If they can start making accurate predictions that can then be verified they will start being able to get their work published in mainstream scientific journals. Does this mean ID will face scrutiny? Yes. Will this scrutiny always be fair and balanced? Probably not but that's kind of just how the cookie crumbles, all scientific theories have to survive scrutiny and, to date, ID has not been able to meet this challenge.

Seriously guys, you've got less than 1% of professional biologists, are you willing to include ALL other biological theories with similar levels of support? What about other fields? The ancient astronaut folks probably have less than 1% of professional archeologists in their corner, should we include their ideas into archeology courses? When you say "Teach the Controversy" remember that you are opening the door to all controversies, not just yours.

I WONDER IF AL GORE SHOULD GIVE BACK HIS NOBLE PEACE PRIZE BECAUSE HIS COOKIE OF A HYPOTHESIS SEEMS TO BE CRUMBLING, BUT BECAUSE HE IS AL GORE HE GETS A PASS. TRUTH IS NOT THE POINT FOR PEOPLE LIKE AL, THEY HAVE AN AGENDA THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO LEGITIMIZE, NOT WITH TRUTH BUT LIES.

Lurker

[Babbler]

I have seen this argument so often. Here in Nevada a bill was proposed that the controversy be taught, so many people argued about all the science, the people's qualifications and the numerous facts supporting Darwin. In their arguments not one person provided one fact. As Einsten said (that fool) "I cannot believe that God would choose to play dice with the world..." Or Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize for his co-discovery of DNA said, "The probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to make it absurd." Rest assured these scientists viewpoints on evolution won't be mentioned in any school curriculum. Darwin is the religion of the athiests. You have to have a lot of faith in those things unseen.

[MorningGlory]

What's funny is that back in the early 20th century, it was the Darwinists that were crying fowl over only "one side" being taught (Creation) in schools, and were demanding that both sides be taught. Now that they have the majority in our educational system, they are forcing (through lawsuits) the teaching of evolution alone. It is nothing but censorship via court decree.

Proponents of ID would do well to learn from how proponents of evolution managed to get their tiny, unpopular theory raised to such a position of prominence in an overwhelmingly Christian nation which was initially completely turned against them. The strength of evolution's ability to explain what we do see and predict what we will see was simply too powerful for critics to withstand. If ID wants to contend with evolution it needs to present equally compelling explanations and predictions. . .which is something ID proponents have utterly failed to do. At some point you're going to have to start arguing FOR how awesome your own theory is instead of just complaining about everyone else's.

Lurker

You are so wrong...at a point in the near future all of the lies about evolution will have to be argued before the Lord. Lotsa luck with that one.

[JusSumguy]

Why on earth would any respectable college allow the teaching of something that over 99% of professionals in the relevant fields disagree with?

Can you provide references for the 99% number? If it were true, we all know it's because nobody else can speak up without committing professional suicide.

How tidy... Create the conditions for the shutting of mouths and then say... lookie here... we all agree.

-

Edited December 27, 2009 by JusSumguy

[e lansing]

What's funny is that back in the early 20th century, it was the Darwinists that were crying fowl over only "one side" being taught (Creation) in schools, and were demanding that both sides be taught. Now that they have the majority in our educational system, they are forcing (through lawsuits) the teaching of evolution alone. It is nothing but censorship via court decree.

Proponents of ID would do well to learn from how proponents of evolution managed to get their tiny, unpopular theory raised to such a position of prominence in an overwhelmingly Christian nation which was initially completely turned against them. The strength of evolution's ability to explain what we do see and predict what we will see was simply too powerful for critics to withstand. If ID wants to contend with evolution it needs to present equally compelling explanations and predictions. . .which is something ID proponents have utterly failed to do. At some point you're going to have to start arguing FOR how awesome your own theory is instead of just complaining about everyone else's.

Lurker

luker, i agree that evolution has done a great job at spreding there theroy. however, i can not stop thinking of AL Gore. He is the poster boy for all evolutionist. because he is al gore he gets a free pass. no need for him to prove his awesome theroy.

[JusSumguy]

Proponents of ID are perfectly free to do the work needed to form a testable hypothesis and then actually test it, and they are free to present that work to professional journals for publication.

BwaaaHaHaaaaaa... Did you have your white powdered wig on when you said that?

-

Edited December 28, 2009 by JusSumguy