Comments Posted By Todd Norquist
Displaying 1 To 1 Of 1 Comments
ENJOYING THE ACADEMIC FREEDOM TO BE AN IDIOT
Thanks for your thoughful post.
Regarding the growing scientific controversy regarding intelligent design vs. philosophic materialism...
You write:"There ... is an eerie parallel with arguments made by proponents of Intelligent Design who wish to teach ID alongside evolution; that students somehow benefit when “other viewpoints†are revealed to them about an issue. This statement from University Provost Patrick Farrell could have been lifted from the ID vs. Evolution debate:
"We cannot allow political pressure from critics of unpopular ideas to inhibit the free exchange of ideas,....â€
Perhaps you are studying the news media; you appear to believe I D proponents "wish to teach ID alongside evolution."
(1) I do not know of one major I D theorist or advocate who has ever favored any public school curriculum mandate in any state or district. Additionally, I D'ers have not advocated removing any of the misleading pro-Darwin "evidences" from texts.
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
http://www.standupforscience.org/petition.php
http://www.discovery.org/csc/scienceEducation/(2) Leaders in the I D do favor students learning MORE about evolutionary theory--not less; students should be exposed to scientific critiques of Darwinism along with the best evidences for Darwism.
"Teaching the controversy" regarding Darwin's theory of evolution is more accurate, updated science. It is NOT religion. It is superior pedagocically, awakening students and honing critical thinking skills. It honors free speech.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2786
What in the tax-funded biology texts presently? See:
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf
BTW. a scientific evidence against an aspect of standard Darwinian evolutionary theory is NOT the same as I D theory, which examines positive evidences of design.
I D advocates generally oppose prohibiting voluntary discussion(e.g., a book report)of newer theoretical alternatives to Darwinism--as long as such theories are based on scientific data, as is I D.(3) I D is based primarily on scientific evidence leading to the inference that some things in nature are best explained as being from an intelligent cause--rather than from exclusively unintelligent, purposeless causes. I D is not primarily an appeal for idea proliferation, behind the shield of the first amendment.
Here's a pretty good synopsis of the I D movement, by a Cambridge PhD scientist:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3059
Science writer George Gilder--the living author Ronald Reagan quoted more than any other--muses on the modern shift of evidence for design--and the scientific and moral bankrupcy of Darwinism, in this week's NATIONAL REVIEW:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3631&program=CSC%20-%20Views%20and%20News(4)I D'ers do not bid others to accept I D so as to emulate great Jewish or Christian theologians, or Americas Founding Fathers, or Ronald Reagan, or all the major progenitors of the the scientific revolution--such as Newton, Keplar, and Boyle.
The intelligent design movement asks you to take a hard, careful look at the evidence--and to follow the evidence where it leads--even if it leads to doubting the materialist superstition.
Some I D links:
http://www.discovery.org/csc/
http://www.iscid.org/
http://www.privilegedplanet.com/
http://www.designinference.com/
http://www.darwinanddesign.com/
http://arn.org/Best,
Todd Norquist
Comment Posted By Todd Norquist On 14.07.2006 @ 03:15
