Intelligent Design Equals Creationism

Someone is out of the loop. Intelligent Design was promoted as an attempt to get around the Supreme Court’s ruling against teaching Creationism in the schools. The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reports on how the Repubican candidate for Attorney General slipped:

“The old creation science is the new intelligent design. And yes, I think it’s scientifically valid,” DeLay said.

No surprise here. Hat tip to Panda’s Thumb.

Previous comments on this below the fold.

Intelligent Design Equals Creationism (Equals Bunk)

Posted by Ron Chusid
October 14th, 2005 @ 9:20 am

We’ve never had any doubt that the use of the term “intelligent design” is just an attempt to pass off creationism with a new word. The Panda’s Thumb presents more evidence of this. They present court transcripts which show that the publishers of a major textbook promoting intelligent design just took out the word “creationism” from the text and substituted “intelligent design.” In the wrong hands, find and replace capabilies of word processors can be a dangerous thing.

Evolution Defended

Posted by Ron Chusid
August 11th, 2005 @ 5:12 pm

The New Republic is publishing an extensive article on The Case Against Intelligent Design. The article provides everything you ever wanted to know about evolution, including the scientific aspects and political background for all previous and current attacks. There’s far too much material to provide the highlights, but this quote might serve as a good introduction to the article:

Intelligent design, or ID, is the latest pseudoscientific incarnation of religious creationism, cleverly crafted by a new group of enthusiasts to circumvent recent legal restrictions. ID comes in two parts. The first is a simple critique of evolutionary theory, to the effect that Darwinism, as an explanation of the origin, the development, and the diversity of life, is fatally flawed. The second is the assertion that the major features of life are best understood as the result of creation by a supernatural intelligent designer. To understand ID, then, we must first understand modern evolutionary theory (often called “neo-Darwinism” to take into account post-Darwinian modifications).

It is important to realize at the outset that evolution is not “just a theory.” It is, again, a theory and a fact. Although non-scientists often equate “theory” with “hunch” or “wild guess,” the Oxford English Dictionary defines a scientific theory as “a scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts.” In science, a theory is a convincing explanation for a diversity of data from nature. Thus scientists speak of “atomic theory” and “gravitational theory” as explanations for the properties of matter and the mutual attraction of physical bodies. It makes as little sense to doubt the factuality of evolution as to doubt the factuality of gravity.

Evolution Continues in Human Brain

Posted by Ron Chusid
September 8th, 2005 @ 2:17 pm

From AP: “The human brain may still be evolving. So suggests new research that tracked changes in two genes thought to help regulate brain growth, changes that appeared well after the rise of modern humans 200,000 years ago.”

Of course believers in creationism or intelligent design can disregard this study. Such evolution falls outside of your belief system, and perhaps such evolution is not occurring in you.

Evolution Provides Predictive Powers Lacked By Intelligent Design

Posted by Ron Chusid
September 26th, 2005 @ 10:50 pm

The Washington Post reports on a suit by parents in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania to prevent the teaching of intelligent design as science. They argue (correctly) that intelligent design is not science, but a form of creationism, the teaching of which has been found by the Supreme Court to violate separation of church and state.

The Washington Post also has a lengthy discussion of the science of evolution, and the lack of a scientific basis for intelligent design. They review the ramifications of the recent study we mentioned here a few weeks ago on the mapping of chimpanzee DNA. While intelligent design cannot be studied by scientific experimentation, the mapping of chipmpanzee DNA allowed further tests which could either verify or refute the validity of evolution:

If Darwin was right, for example, then scientists should be able to perform a neat trick. Using a mathematical formula that emerges from evolutionary theory, they should be able to predict the number of harmful mutations in chimpanzee DNA by knowing the number of mutations in a different species’ DNA and the two animals’ population sizes.

“That’s a very specific prediction,” said Eric Lander, a geneticist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in Cambridge, Mass., and a leader in the chimp project.

Sure enough, when Lander and his colleagues tallied the harmful mutations in the chimp genome, the number fit perfectly into the range that evolutionary theory had predicted.

Their analysis was just the latest of many in such disparate fields as genetics, biochemistry, geology and paleontology that in recent years have added new credence to the central tenet of evolutionary theory: That a smidgeon of cells 3.5 billion years ago could — through mechanisms no more extraordinary than random mutation and natural selection — give rise to the astonishing tapestry of biological diversity that today thrives on Earth.

While this is just one of many examples of evolution being subject to experimentation to verify its predictions, intelligent design lacks any similar evidence of its validity.

Australians Too Intelligent for ID

Posted by Ron Chusid
October 22nd, 2005 @ 3:11 pm

Australian scientists have spoken out against the teaching of intellligent design in the classroom:

A COALITION of more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science educators has condemned the teaching in science classes of “intelligent design” – a creationist-like theory of the origin of life.

In an open letter published today in major newspapers, including The Australian, the group says it is “gravely concerned” that intelligent design is being taught in schools as an alternative to evolution.

“It’s important scientists take a stand on this because intelligent design is nothing more than creationism dressed up in a tuxedo,” says Mike Archer, dean of science at the University of NSW and the driving force behind the letter. “It’s the same mishmash of theology and science.”

Alabama Committee Backs Creationism over Science

Posted by Ron Chusid
October 30th, 2005 @ 10:09 pm

Alabama’s state textbook committee “rejected three elementary-level books for containing material on evolution which was deemed “controversial” for that age group.” AP describes this “controversial” material:

The book “Geologic Time” (Perfection Learning Company) was rejected for an illustrated diagram that shows humans evolving from apes. Similarly, “Reptiles” (Heinemann-Raintree Classroom), incorporates two pages on reptiles evolving from amphibians. “Orangutan” (Heinemann-Raintree Classroom) discusses natural selection — a key part of the evolutionary theory

The committee’s actions weren’t limited to elementary aged children:

The committee made its recommendations with the stipulation that high school biology textbooks would continue to carry a disclaimer which describes evolution as “a controversial theory” in the first paragraph and says in the second paragraph that any statement about the origin of life is “not fact.”

The purpose of the disclaimer is to give room to teachers who want to discuss alternative theories, namely creationism.

Study Shows Darwin’s Natural Selection Still at Work

Posted by Ron Chusid
November 3rd, 2005 @ 4:28 pm

Live Science responds to right wing attacks on evolution by citing a study published last week in Nature which shows that Darwin’s natural selection is still at work in humans:

The evolutionary process that Charles Darwin discovered almost 150 years ago, responsible for transforming dinosaurs into birds and allowing the walking ancestors of whales to take to the seas, is still quietly at work in humans today.

Darwin’s natural selection is the process by which nature rewards those individuals better adapted to their environments with survival and reproductive success. It works at the level of genes, sections of DNA that encode for proteins serve as the software of life.

In one of the most detailed human DNA studies ever conducted, researchers analyzed nearly 12,000 genes from 39 people and a chimpanzee, our closest living relative.

The findings suggest that about 9 percent of the human genes examined are undergoing rapid evolution.

After further discussion of the study’s findings, they tie this into the current attacks on science:

The validity of Darwin’s natural selection has been attacked lately by a small but vocal group who argue that it cannot explain all the complexity seen in nature. They advocate a concept called “intelligent design,” in which a higher being is responsible for the variety of life. Scientists dismiss intelligent design as cloaked creationism and say that there are no significant problems with the widely accepted theory of evolution.

While mainstream scientists do not need further evidence that natural selection occurs, Bustamante’s work provides examples of its pace and extent and offers the promise of medical advances down the road.

Natural History Magazine Looks at Darwin and Evolution

Posted by Ron Chusid
November 3rd, 2005 @ 11:53 pm

Scientists are fighting back against the flat-earth mentality seen from right wing extremists who desire to suppress science in favor of creationism (now passed off under the new name of intelligent design). In addition to the study from Nature mentioned earlier, Natural History Magazine has devoted a section of the November issue to Darwin and Evolution. One particularly interesting article (which unfortunately only has a portion on line) is on Evolution in Action. While evolution typically takes place slowly enough to make it easy for opponents of science to pretend it is not occurring, this article provides several examples to the contrary.

Pat Robertson Goes To Dark Side

Posted by Ron Chusid
November 10th, 2005 @ 5:14 pm


Rumor has it that God has does not go along with what Pat Roberson has to say on the 700 Club today about Dover voting out the members of the school board who supported teaching intelligent design/creationism rather than science in science classes:

“I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover. If there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for His help because he might not be there.”

University of Kansas Takes on Intelligent Design

Posted by Ron Chusid
November 22nd, 2005 @ 12:58 pm

There are still some intelligent people in Kansas:

LAWRENCE, Kan. (AP) – Creationism and intelligent design are going to be studied at the University of Kansas, but not in the way advocated by opponents of the theory of evolution.

A course being offered next semester by the university religious studies department is titled “Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies.’’

“The KU faculty has had enough,’’ said Paul Mirecki, department chairman.

“Creationism is mythology,’’ Mirecki said. “Intelligent design is mythology. It’s not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not.’’

AMA Calls for Doctors to Defend Evolution Against Attacks

Posted by Ron Chusid
December 5th, 2005 @ 9:30 am

The American Medical Association has posted an editorial on the need for doctors to take a side in support of evolution, noting that “we live in loopy times.” They note the importance of dangers of allowing philosophy to replace science:

Science politicization threatens not just our public health and the environment but the very integrity of American democracy, which relies heavily on scientific and technical expertise to function. At a time when more political choices than ever before hinge upon the scientific and technical competence of our elected leaders, the disregard for consensus and expertise—and the substitution of ideological allegiance for careful assessment—can have disastrous consequences. . .

It’s anti-knowledge that is beginning to scare the scientific community. Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, calls 2005 “a fairly busy year” when he considers the 82 evolution versus creationism “flare-ups” that have occurred at the state, local, and individual classroom levels so far. According to a spring 2005 survey of science teachers, the heat in the classroom was not coming from Bunsen burners or exothermic reactions but rather from a pressure on teachers to censor. The National Science Teachers Association’s informal survey of its members found that 31 percent of them feel pressured to include creationism, intelligent design, or other nonscientific alternatives to evolution in their science classroom. Classrooms aren’t the only places feeling the heat. Science museums have also become conflict zones. In her New York Times article, Challenged by Creationists, Museums Answer Back, Dean detailed special docent training sessions that will enable the guides to be better armed “to deal with visitors who reject settled precepts of science on religious grounds.”

They call for physicians to get involved in the defense of science from these attacks:

It is time for the medical community, through the initiative of individual physicians, to address not only how one can heal thy patient, but also how one can heal thy nation. There are many ways to get involved; from the most rudimentary—attending school board meetings, sending letters to the editor, and volunteering at the local science museum—to the more demanding—running for office, encouraging a spouse or partner to do so, or supporting candidates (especially financially) who are willing to speak out for science. As Tip O’Neill, the larger-than-life Speaker of the House of Representatives, famously declared, “All politics is local.” Speak out for science. Isn’t that a message that should be advanced in every physician’s office?

Judges Rules Against Teaching Intelligent Design in Biology Classes

Posted by Ron Chusid
December 20th, 2005 @ 9:01 am

From AP reports:

A federal judge has ruled “intelligent design” cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district.

The Dover Area School Board violated the Constitution when it ordered that its biology curriculum must include “intelligent design,” the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled Tuesday.

The school board policy, adopted in October 2004, was believed to have been the first of its kind in the nation.

“The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy,” Jones wrote. “It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.”

The board’s attorneys said members sought to improve science education by exposing students to alternatives to Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection causing gradual changes over time; intelligent-design proponents argue that it cannot fully explain the existence of complex life forms.

The plaintiffs argued that intelligent design amount to a secular repackaging of creationism, which the courts have already ruled cannot be taught in public schools.

Darwin Proven Right Again

Posted by Ron Chusid
February 9th, 2006 @ 7:59 am

Advocates of creationism and intelligent design typically spread false claims of lack of scientific evidence of Darwin’s theories. One typical claim is that there has never been evidence of a new species being developed. If they bothered to read the scientific journals, rather than inventing pseudoscientific claims based upon their religious views, they would see that there have been many examples of new species being developed when one group has become isolated from another. USA Today reports that Nature has published evidence that Darwin was also right that new species could develop without such separation:

Critics of evolution cite scientific debates to undercut Darwin’s credibility. That strategy fails when research clears up some of the issues. Results from two separate research projects announced this week make that point.

They deal with Darwin’s controversial suggestion that new species can arise within an ancestral population even when there is no way to separate the diverging groups geographically.

There’s plenty of evidence that new species arise when segments of a single population become geographically separated, as Darwin also theorized. His other suggestion has lacked such evidence. It has remained what Axel Meyer and his colleagues at the University of Konstanz in Germany call “one of the most controversial concepts in evolutionary biology.”

They present in the journal Nature what they consider “a convincing case” that Darwin was right.

They found their proof in Nicaragua’s isolated volcanic crater Lake Apoyo. There, two species of cichlid fish — Midas cichlid and Arrow cichlid — live together. Detailed genetic, morphological, and ecological study confirms their relationship as separate species that evolved from a common ancestor. They live separate lives in the same geographical space. Misas feeds along the bottom. Arrow exploits the open water. The two do not interbreed.

There’s No Controversy to Teach Regarding Evolution

Posted by Ron Chusid
February 24th, 2006 @ 6:41 am

The Flat Earth Party (also known as Republicans) try to justify teaching of creationism (also known as intelligent design) by claiming they are being fair by teaching both sides of the controversy. Evolution is estabilshed science, and there is no controversy. The National Center for Science Education has posted more evidence of the lack of any controversy over evolution in the scientific community:

The “teach the controversy” party’s over

“A mendacious bit of hucksterism” is Robert Camp’s description of the “teach the controversy” slogan frequently used to promote the teaching of “intelligent design” in the public schools. And it’s not just idle rhetoric. Rather, it’s based firmly on the results of a survey that he conducted of the heads of biology departments in colleges and universities around the country. As Camp explains, “If there are authoritative voices on the purported existence of a controversy among biologists regarding mechanisms of evolution, they belong to those individuals who are well aware of the most current scholarship in their field and are in touch with daily discussion of that scholarship.”

In his new article “Turn out the lights, the ‘teach the controversy’ party’s over,” posted on the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal’s Creationism and Intelligent Design Watch website, Camp reports on his survey, in which he asked the heads of biology departments whether, with respect to “intelligent design,” there is “a difference of professional opinion within your department that you feel could be accurately described as a scientific controversy.” Over 97% of his respondents answered in the negative. “As an attempt to put empirical weight behind that which has been well understood all along,” Camp concludes, “the numbers here are unambiguous.”

And the remaining 3%, representing two of the 73 respondents? Camp explains, “One, a ‘No, but …,’ observed that there was virtually no professional controversy within their department but acknowledged that one colleague had spoken favorably of the concept publicly …. And the only assent to controversy came from an institution [which Camp elsewhere describes as “a theological medical university”] dedicated to an ideological view of the world, including the world of biology,” adding, “This may serve as evidence of a ‘controversy’ in that particular university. But in the larger context, its effect is only to put the overwhelming consensus into sharper focus.”

Intelligent Design Loses in Utah

Posted by Ron Chusid
February 28th, 2006 @ 11:58 am

Another defeat for creationism/intelligent design, this time in Utah:

In a defeat for critics of Darwin, the Utah House of Representatives on Monday voted down a bill intended to challenge the theory of evolution in high school science classes.

The bill had been viewed nationally, by people on each side of the science education debate, as an important proposal because Utah is such a conservative state, with a Legislature dominated by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

But the bill died on a 46-to-28 vote in the Republican-controlled House after being amended by the majority whip, Stephen H. Urquhart, a Mormon who said he thought God did not have an argument with science. The amendment stripped out most of the bill’s language, leaving only that the state board of education “shall establish curriculum requirements relating to scientific instruction.”

It looks like support for intelligent design is becoming limited to a handful of right wingers who cannot even influence the Republican Party any more:

A spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Joe Conn, said Utah’s vote would resonate.

“If the creationists can’t win in a state as conservative as Utah, they’ve got an uphill battle,” Mr. Conn said.

Humans Still Evolving

Posted by Ron Chusid
March 7th, 2006 @ 12:12 pm

The New York Times reports that we are “Still Evolving, Human Genes Tell New Story.”

Providing the strongest evidence yet that humans are still evolving, researchers have detected some 700 regions of the human genome where genes appear to have been reshaped by natural selection, a principal force of evolution, within the last 5,000 to 15,000 years.

The genes that show this evolutionary change include some responsible for the senses of taste and smell, digestion, bone structure, skin color and brain function.

Being science, evolution is able to make predictions which can be verified, and evidence of the validity of the science is found out in the real world. Now that we have yet more evidence that evolution is still occurring, next time someone wants to promote intelligent design or creationism, ask them to demonstrate an example of where their deity has created a new species recently.

The Cost Of Being A Sucker for Intelligent Design

Posted by Ron Chusid
March 14th, 2006 @ 8:54 am

DarkSyde shows the down side of dealing with proponents of creationism/intelligent design:

Like the rainmakers and healers that came before them, the creationists arrive in town wrapped in the Bible and put on a dazzling show. They dutifully hit all the churches and revivals–often times with the pastor and elders acting as unwitting accomplices, nodding and smiling by their side. They sell their books and tapes and fill everyone with false hope. And, if things are going really well, maybe the creationists will slither up to a sympathetic school board prospect or mayor and whisper in their ear: “Take on the courts! You’ll be famous! You’ll be elected to Congress after you win this one!”

Then, if the case goes south–and they all have so far–and a huge legal bill comes due, translating to hundreds or thousands of dollars per homeowner per year in a small district, the instigators slip away with all the class of a bum walking a check at the town diner. And the law can’t protect your town from any of this, because it’s not illegal for a creationist to make their case, and it’s not against the law for anyone listening to be a sucker.

The taxpayers of Dover were hit with $1 million in legal fees–and this was cut in half after the school board members who backed teaching intelligent design were voted out of office. So much for fame and election to Congress.

Conservatives Against Intelligent Design Revisited

Posted by Ron Chusid
June 2nd, 2006 @ 12:16 pm

Back in December I had a post entitled Conservatives Against Intelligent Design noting that not all conservatives buy this crap. Apparently this was found on a google search and a comment was added just today noting the development of a web site by this name. This is from their home page:

Conservatives Against Intelligent Design (CAID) was founded to give a voice to Republicans, Independent Conservatives, and Libertarians across the country who stand opposed to the teaching of ‘intelligent design’ and other forms of creationism in the classroom. In recent years Republican legislators at all levels of government have authored, sponsored, and voted for various anti-evolution bills with perceived immunity, confident that those who vote for them are creationists like themselves. CAID is intended as a wake-up call to these legislators, to remind them that the teaching of evolution is not a partisan issue, but rather one of the separation between theology and science.

CAID holds that there is no conflict between evolution and religion because each speaks to a different level of understanding and to a different level of explanation: Namely empirical versus metaphysical. Neither threatens nor invalidates the other. However, by their very nature alternative theories like ‘intelligent design’ rely on the supposition of a metaphysical creator and therefore stand outside the domain of rational empiricism. Science–being based upon the latter–has no room within it for theological supposition; therefore such theories must remain outside the science classroom, being more suitable for discussion in philosophy courses.

Darwinian evolution has continued to gain empirical and theoretical support in the nearly 150 years since the original publication of Origin of Species. Although scientists continue to debate the specifics of evolutionary pattern and process, these represent attempts to refine and clarify extant theory rather than supplant or disprove either evolution or natural selection as the dominant mechanism of change.

Because ecological, biochemical, genetic, and paleontological finds have failed to provide support for any competing theory; and because current alternative theories are fundamentally not scientific, it would be irresponsible and disingenuous to teach any theory other than Darwinian evolution in science courses in our nation’s public schools.


  1. 1
    S Quieuie says:

    I believe that in the classroom everyone should be given the oppertunity to choose what they believe when it comes to the creation story. No teaching ID is saying that there is no possible way that it could be true, but we can not disclaim it. We have no proff that goes against it. Now I do also believe and agree that creationism shouldn’t be taught in the classroombecasue then every religion’s views should be taught. By saying inteligent design and higher being that helped guide evolution isn’t being religious specific and is still giving everyone a chance to choose what they believe the creation story is.

  2. 2
    S Queuie says:

    Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom. What about when kids ask questions? How do you answer who the higher being is? How it all began? You can’t teach faith, especially not in something that has almost no evidenciary support! ID cannot be taught successfully or reasonably in the science classroom, atleast not yet.

  3. 3
    S Queuie says:

    In public schools, all theories should be taught. Every theory should be treated equally and given an equal chance in the classroom. Students should be EDUCATED on every aspect of an issue in school. ID is not religious and does not support an specific religion therefore it should be taught in public schools. Students should be taught all of the theories and it is up to them to decide which one they believe.

  4. 4
    Ron Chusid says:

    These comments seem contradictory. I’ll go along with the second one–Intelligent Design has no place in the classroom. It is thinly veiled creationism in an attempt to get around the Supreme Court’s ruling that teaching creationism is Unconstitutional.

    There is no obligation to teach all sides of an issue when one side is bunk. Just coming up with a BS theory is not enough to expect that someone’s views will be taught in the schools. The one exception might be in a religious studies course which looks at various religion’s views on the creation of life. This would still leave intelligent design as a religious viewpoint and not science.

  5. 5
    S Queuie3 says:

    The reason these comments seem contradictory is because they are written by 3 different bloggers. We were all given the same name to use. Sorry for any confusion.

  6. 6
    autumnsirony says:

    I think evolution, as a scientific theory, can be proven only to an extent. I feel that it is just as easy to prove that all life on earth spawned from the big bang when dust particles collided as it is to disprove that there isn’t a higher being who had some hand at planning things. I believe that things are too necessary and indispensable for all of life to be a completely random happening. I think that intelligetn design should be taught in schools as an alternate theory for all the students who naturally question the oprigins of these “duct particles” that started it all. I think they have a right to know of these other ideas, especially since intelligent design is not endorsing religion. We as humans have intellect, and I believe it is in the best interest of society to allow our future generations to be exposed to all aspects of this controversial topic, which, I must say, has only become so controversial because of the generations of over-sensitized adults who were taught nothing but evolution in school and were force-fed creationism in their faith-based homes. No wonder it’s causing such a hooplah now. But it’s time we let kids see it all and choose for themselves…they’re intellectuals after all, so why shouldn’t we let them use their intellect?

  7. 7
    kj says:

    S Quieuie No 1. Says: “I believe that in the classroom everyone should be given the oppertunity to choose what they believe when it comes to the creation story.”
    ~~ The creation story isn’t a subject that is usually taught in classrooms until a student attends college. Creation stories, and there are thousands of them, are generally covered in comparative religion classes and/or the study of myth. Unless the student is enrolled in a private school, as I was, in which case the story was covered in religion class. So, the opportunity believe what a student believes about the creation story is something that falls outside the classroom.

    S Quieuie No 2. Says: “Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom.”
    ~~ Exactly correct. Intelligent design is not science.

    S Quieuie No 3. Says: “In public schools, all theories should be taught.”
    ~~ But in what class? Certainly not in science class, and religion isn’t taught in public schools, so it would have to be a class on comparative religions and myth. And personally, I think the study of comparative religions and myth would be a fine addition to the public school curriculum.

  8. 8
    kj says:

    Ps. Thanks for letting us know there were three different S Quieuies!

  9. 9
    kj says:

    autumnsirony Says: “I think evolution, as a scientific theory, can be proven only to an extent. I feel that it is just as easy to prove that all life on earth spawned from the big bang when dust particles collided as it is to disprove that there isn’t a higher being who had some hand at planning things.”
    ~~ How do you DISPROVE there isn’t a higher being?
    That is one of the reasons that religions, and higher beings, do not fall into the realm of science, because “higher beings” can not be proved or disproved.

  10. 10
    Ron Chusid says:

    S Queuie3 ,

    I don’t understand what you mean by “we were all given the same name to use.” As I see the blog from a different perspective than people visiting and commenting, I’m wondering if you are talking about some aspect of the blog giving you a name.

  11. 11
    Ron Chusid says:


    “I think evolution, as a scientific theory, can be proven only to an extent.”

    Evolution is established science. It has been proven. Evolution does an excellent job of explaining the development of complex life forms. As is necessary for a science, it has made predictions which have subsequently been verified.

    “I think that intelligetn design should be taught in schools as an alternate theory for all the students who naturally question the oprigins of these “duct particles” that started it all. I think they have a right to know of these other ideas, especially since intelligent design is not endorsing religion.”

    No, intelligent design should not be taught in the schools as an alternate theory. Intelligent design has been easily refuted. The central belief of ID is that development of complex life forms is too complex to happen without a designer. As we have a scientific explanation, this assertion is disputed.

    Advocates of intelligent design make use of false claims about evolution to advance their cause. As their claims about evolution are not scientifically valid, they should not be taught in the schools. If a group argued that gravity didn’t exist by distorting Newton’s principles, the schools would not be obligated to teach this as an opposing viewpoint. The schools do not teach the views of those who believe the world is flat.

    ID is a political effort to get around the Supreme Court’s prohibition on teaching creationism. They are just playing games pretending they are not the same people advocating creationism.

    Schools should teach about controversy when there are legitimate ideas involved, but do not need to teach any idea any group should happen to come up with regardless of validity.

  12. 12
    Dave from Princeton says:

    Actually we should teach in all science classes that Mr Potato Head(MPH) created the universe and all life.

    Prove he didn’t!

    Ha, there you go, I’ve proved my theory. Damn this science crap is easy. Sure glad I didn’t waste my time getting a doctorate, like most of those fools do. Yeah JBK, I’m talk’n bout you. Ha, suck it loser!

    MPH is also a much better creationist theory than ID, which is so scientifically flimsy and weak it doesn’t even answer which of the hundreds of Gods created life. The only Intelligent Designer it could scientifically be is good old Mr Potato Head.

    Case closed! Glad that’s settled. Any other science questions?

    Oh one last thing. We must also teach in science that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. If we are going to teach science, we must always include all alternate theories as equally valid.

Leave a comment