The Ohio Standards that caused a lot of controversy last year were written by a creationist as were the Kansas Standards. The Ohio standards had references to Wells’ “Icons of Evolution” and to Denton’s “Evolution a Theory in Crisis.” Both are creationist books which largely lift their arguments and ideas from earlier creationist books. The Ohio standards’ research suggestions included links to creationist websites and suggested search terms which yield mostly creationist websites.

Utter pish. You may actually want to become acquainted with what ID books teach before making assumptions from ignorance. It’s horribly intellectually dishonest of you. Your nasty bias is showing and it’s not pretty. First of all, Wells’s book details the core tenets of Darwinism which have been replete in Biology textbooks throughout the years and then proceeds to show how they are grossly inaccurate, based on false pressupositions, and just plain wrong. And he does this without appealing to any religious texts. He appeals to science. Now Denton… who is agnostic on a good day (so God only knows how you assume he is a Creationist – again, your bias is showing), in his ground-breaking book appeals to primarily molecular scientific evidence to demonstrate the gaping chasms in Darwinian mythology. MsCogan… read and learn.

Both are creationist books which largely lift their arguments and ideas from earlier creationist books.

You have 1 day to gather specific data to support this claim citing references from their books and earlier “Creationist” books and to produce a convincing definition of what a “Creationist Argument” is, or you will be permanently unselected from this blog due to a lethal accumulation of deleterious Straw Man and Red Herring tactics. We don’t have time for such balderdash.

All most all the “criticisms” of evolution are from creationists and are illegal to teach. Nine Supreme Court decisions have said so. It’s possible to find a few quotes from the early 20th century when variation/natural selection were out of favor but that’s about it. There’s no controversy to teach. Genuine “critical analysis” would leave ID and all of creationism in the dust. That’s why they skimped on pro-evolution material. [shrug] ID is an argument for the existence of God, nothing more. That makes it ok as theology, but illegal to teach as science.

LOL! This reads like “The Beginner’s Guide to Gross Ignorance about IDâ„¢”. Nine supreme court decisions have most certainly not said this and you are skewing the data… again, dishonest. And do you believe that judges should be deciding issues of science? Let me share with you some bullet points of arguments that caused me to reject your primitive Civil-War era Creation myth (Darwinism) and embrace ID and you tell me exactly how they are religious arguments:

*DNA – The 4 nucleotide alphabet at the core of life which is an advanced computing program. As Doug puts it nicely:

But let’s look beyond that for the moment and think about what it would take – in terms of random processes – for DNA to form itself and code itself by random mutations to produce proteins that transcribe specific overlapping segments that are themselves hidden or revealed depending on how still other proteins fold the long DNA strand. Codes within codes, weaved together in a lattice of folded DNA that operate like machines programmed to reconfigure themselves depending on context. Want a liver cell – fold here. Muscle, fold there. Like comic book Transformers, but infinitely more complex. Cell types set contextual limits that are determined by a mutating but self-correcting proceedure of replication and type determination. Start with a single sperm cell and egg cell and watch them unite – only to then split into the myriad cell types making up complex organisms in exactly the right time and place to enable the growth of an entire being. The determination of each cell type is controlled by this hidden code whose interpretation is dependent upon how the DNA strand is folded. And what deterimines the folding of the DNA? Why, the other code, of course.

*Cellular Machinery – Complex multi-component machinery inside the cell which requires all of it’s specified components simultaneously to function. Gil puts this one in perspective here: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....hives/1276
*The Cambrian Explosion – The abrupt appearance of most novel body plans requiring a massive influx of specified information. You can begin your learning about this from this peer-reviewed paper: http://www.discovery.org/scrip.....38;id=2177
*A fossil record which completely lacks the abundance of transitional fossils which Darwin’s theory demands. But rather demonstrates the abrupt appearance of distinct body plans, sans precursors. This demonstrates quantum level programming unfolding biological novelty at given intervals. As opposed to blind, assumed non-teleological mechanisms.

These are just a few of the many reasons why I rejected the Darwinian faith. Now, your reasons why these tenets are religious in nature as opposed to simple observations of the evidence, had better be darned convincing. Have at it.

Some questions for you:

You call ID creationism. Why?

You say there “is no controversy”. Does this mean that regardless of what biological process I could possibly name, modern science has already discovered a definitive (nonspeculative) solution to its origin?

You say, “ID is an argument for the existence of God, nothing more”. Here is Bill Dembski’s definition of ID: “Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence.” Where is God in that? How can you defend your claim without resorting to a red herring?

1. The people promoting the Teach the Controversy initiative do not in any way endorse or require the Of Pandas and People book.

So, this isn’t “Teach the Controversy”:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and
eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not
a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of
Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what
Intelligent Design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of
the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction
focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.

Bob

The Ohio Standards that caused a lot of controversy last year were written by a creationist as were the Kansas Standards. The Ohio standards had references to Wells’ “Icons of Evolution” and to Denton’s “Evolution a Theory in Crisis.” Both are creationist books which largely lift their arguments and ideas from earlier creationist books. The Ohio standards’ research suggestions included links to creationist websites and suggested search terms which yield mostly creationist websites.

http://science2.marion.ohio-st.....lysis.html

the references to check in favor of evolution were generally decades old and in obscure journals making them inaccessible to 10th graders. Up-to-date and easily available information about evolution was ignored.

http://science2.marion.ohio-st.....lysis.html

All most all the “criticisms” of evolution are from creationists and are illegal to teach. Nine Supreme Court decisions have said so. It’s possible to find a few quotes from the early 20th century when variation/natural selection were out of favor but that’s about it. There’s no controversy to teach. Genuine “critical analysis” would leave ID and all of creationism in the dust. That’s why they skimped on pro-evolution material. [shrug] ID is an argument for the existence of God, nothing more. That makes it ok as theology, but illegal to teach as science.

1. The people promoting the Teach the Controversy initiative do not in any way endorse or require the Of Pandas and People book.

2. Additionally, you’ve just violated my stipulation for “MsCogan” above: waving off scientific observations as ‘Creationist Arguments’. The FACT is that the Cambrian is indeed an explosion of biological novelty which the gradualistic Darwinian model cannot account for. Tiktaalik, archeopteryx – most Darwinists agree that these do not constitute transitions. Chimeras, not transitionals. And you had better do a heck of a lot better than that since Darwin’s theory demands a rediculous abundance of transitionals. So, we have simple observations, as opposed to ‘Creationist Arguments’. But you’d prefer dishonest Ad Hominem references to Creationists.

You can begin your learning about the Cambrian Explosion here: http://www.discovery.org/scrip.....38;id=2177 (a peer-reviewed paper)
Tell me, where are the religious apologetics, smart guy/gal?

Tell me aslo, where is the evidence that NS+RM can/has produced novel cell, tissue, or body plans? I won’t hold my breath on that one. Forgive me if i’m skeptical about Victorian creation myths rooted in Steamboat-era thinking which try to account for what we actually observe in the evidence.

Your reply had better be riddled with data and not more ad hominem Creationist dodges, or your going to be booted from here so fast your head will spin.

Provide one example of a Creationist argument being used in association with the Teach The Controversy initiative. And cite your source.

Well, how about Teach the Controversy using our scientific textbook, Of Pandas and People. From pages 99-100 of that book:

“Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. Some scientists have arrived at this view since fossil forms first appear in the rock record with their distinctive features intact, rather than gradually developing.”

This is straight out of the creationist handbook of Cambrian Explosion arguments. The fossil record does indeed show transitional forms: see tiktaalik, archeopteryx, etc. Of course, this will be unconvincing to you, Scott:

legitimate scientific criticisms of Darwinian Evolution which are waved off as \’Creationist arguments\’ will not be accepted.

because you will wave off every criticism as really having scientific relevance. Are there any arguments you would say are based solely on religious apologetics? Or, are you of the opinion that sticking ID in front of a theory automatically makes it scientific?

I await the rejection of this post and its withering in the dark, never seeing the light of day. I will eagerly wait to see if ANY answer to Scott’s question makes the cut. I have the feeling that it might stand as the last comment on this subject, thereby making it look as if his point goes unchallenged, when in reality it does not.

Oh, and legitimate scientific criticisms of Darwinian Evolution which are waved off as \’Creationist arguments\’ will not be accepted. So employ some critical thinking before you respond.

If, however, we define religion as something that defines where man came from, why man is the way he is, and possible solutions on how to solve man’s problems (such as war, famine, etc), then even then ID only falls into the first two categories as it does not really offer a solution. In this case though it could possibly be defined as a “religion.”

The second category pertains to ID only partially. Purpose can be recognized in degrees. I can go outside, pick up a stick, draw numerous concentric circles in the dirt, and walk away. Someone can later notice the pattern and infer that it is likely intelligently produced without realizing its deeper meaning–that it marks the spot of buried treasure. Likewise, it seems that we can infer that man has some meaning (Natural phenomena can be observed to exhibit derivative intentionality.) but are unable to infer what, if any, deeper significance he has–at least as of right now. In short, it’s possible to infer meaning without knowing what that meaning is.

However, so would Darwinian evolution [be defined as a religion] as it also explains where man came from and the problem of man (and such Darwinists, as Richard Dawkins, explain that the abolition of religion will solve many of our problems). Thus, what is currently in the status quo would also be defined as a religion

I don’t think Darwinian evolution by itself is a religion, but I do think that what Dawkins and his ilk do with it is. (Many Darwinists concur with this as I’m sure you are aware.) Let’s not confuse, however, the science of evolution with the materialistic ideology of Darwinism–the a priori presumption that Darwinian evolution must be true and the insulation of it from fair critical analysis.

Creationism teaches that the Judeo/Christian God created the world in seven days for His glory. ID teaches that the world evolved over time but also had some intelligent designer either beginning the process or guiding the process. THe two actually contradict each other as ID requires progression of time whereas Creationism requires instant creation.

?!

Wait a minute. I thought the fundamental ID claim was that a natural phenomenon may be best explained as being the product of intelligent agency. It’s neutral on issues of Creationism such as how long the creation process took (presuming it took place at all). Consider ID proponents who are young-earth creationists such as Paul Nelson and Sal Cordova.

I’m also disappointed to see you say that the critical analysis of evolution is “really ID in disguise”. Sure, some things in nature look designed; even Dawkins concedes this. Darwinian evolution proposes a naturalistic mechanism which supposedly explains this away as merely an appearance, and ID proposes that such mechanisms may never be explanatorily adequate because some things in nature may actually be designed. I don’t see why it’s necessary to invoke the latter in order to explore the explanatory power of the former. How is it possible that David Berlinski can reject ID and still be so intensely critical of evolution? And what about atheist David Stove and his Darwinian Fairytales? He died before ID took off, but I seriously doubt he would have endorsed it. Evidence against evolution does not automatically count as evidence in favor of ID. I, for one, would like to see evolution critically analyzed without ID being snuck in. I believe it can be done and would love to see the critical-analysis-as-a-front-for-ID slippery slope perpetrators get their noses rubbed in it. This, of course, is beside the fact that I want to avoid dishonesty. Patience is a virtue; deception is not.

As for why ID science is not taught in science classrooms? Where is the lesson plan? Has anyone drawn one up? If so, maybe linking to it could start the ball rolling. If it were available and everyone saw the legitimate science lessons, the legal problems would go away.