Perhaps the most telling reason for the gains made by proponents of intelligent design being taught in the classroom is the fact that so many americans support this idea.
[According to a 1999 Gallup poll, "47% of Americans believe that God created human beings at one time within the last 10,000 years pretty much in their present form," in agreement with the theory of intelligent design. An additional 40% say that God guided the evolutionary process. Apparently, the mechanism of intelligent design, in various degrees, makes a lot of sense to a majority of Americans.]
Page Not Found | East Stroudsburg University
[Americans Support Teaching Creationism as Well as Evolution in Public Schools]
Page Not Found
Not to mention the numerous secular scientists who have been willing to admit openly the problems associated with the theory of evolution as it is taught today;
["An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going." Crick, Francis, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature p. 88]
["I believe we developed this practice (i.e., postulating prebiological natural selection) to avoid facing the conclusion that the probability of a self-replicating state is zero. When for practical purposes the concept of infinite time and matter has to be invoked, that concept of probability is annulled. By such logic we can prove anything, such as that, no matter how complex, everything will repeat itself, exactly and immeasurably." Mora, Peter T., "The Folly of Probability," in The Origins of Prebiological Systems p. 45]
["From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed.....Each found that the odds against the spark of life igniting accidentally on Earth were '10 to the power of 40,000.....They did calculations based on the size and age of the universe (15 billion years) and found that the odds against life beginning spontaneously anywhere in space were '10 to the power of 30.....At the moment, I can't find any rational argument to knock down the view which argues for conversion to God.....We used to have an open mind; now we realize that the only logical answer to life is creation--and not accidental random shuffling." Wickramasinghe, C., Interview in London Daily Express]
http://www.geocities.com/...f.htm#NON-CHRISTIAN%20SCIENTISTS
Now admittedly, I neither possess the aforementioned books, nor have I read or heard the aforementioned interview, so I am hardly properly equipped to view and understand just how far out of context the above quotes are, if at all.
The point is that the controversy continues and will continue, most likely, long after everyone in this forum has turned to dust. Personally, I find it abhorrent that the ACLU is so adamantly against even the teaching of the problems associated with the theory of evolution, something true scientists seem willing to grapple with in their search for truth.
[Evidently the ACLU threat spooked the board into submission. It soon began to restrict DeHart’s classroom material. In 1998 a new superintendent ordered Mr. DeHart to quit mentioning intelligent design. He could, however, still talk about problems with evolutionary theory. But that freedom didn’t last very long. Now, he’s been told to refrain from even questioning or criticizing the theory of evolution. In the process, he’s actually been commanded to suppress data and teach falsehoods. Unfortunately for Burlington students, the school’s required biology textbook contains factual errors.]
http://www.nas.com/ccc/news5-23-01.htm
Hearing of cases like this only serve to strengthen the creationist view that the theory of evolution has been debunked but the left wing athiests will stop at nothing to ensure its continued teaching despite its obvious failure to remain scientific in nature. The aclu should find better things to do with its money and let the purity of science defend itself. If science can not defend itself, which it surely can, then the odds are it is not true science but psuedo-science.
Sorry to go off on a tangent like that but I firmly believe that science, if it remains true and pure, is capable of answering nearly every question that man, or woman, can ask.
Cheers
This message has been edited by DarkStar, 06-05-2004 11:19 PM
BREATHE DEEP THE GATHERING GLOOM
™ Version 4.2
