The principle idea that the people promoting ID are after is paradigm shift. The trouble is that they are proposing to re-institute the paradigm of 'the world was created by our all powerful Lord...' ('...' can also be rewritten as 'so don't even try to explain it'). A paradigm overthrows its predecessor by using facts, or things that have been proven to be true, which were established within the previous paradigm. None of our current theories are 100% foolproof or without another possible advancement in our understanding of them. But that's not why they are there. The object of science is to solidify our understanding of the way the world around us works. In order to do this we must have a solid, unbiased set of assumptions. These are the facets of paradigm. Once we are able to put together something that is so revolutionary and brilliant to replace our existing paradigm, then we get rid of it but not before and not without acknowledging its importance.
So, if you support the idea of ID, please do some testing, show me and the rest of the world why Charles Darwin and Lamarck were wrong. If you can do so without using the words "because God..." (feel free to insert previous '...' definition at will), then not only will we listen, we might just write it into our textbooks.
The biggest problem with the board's decision is that by opening students up to "new explanations" and saying "He did it" we are in fact taking away from any curiosity they might have about the topic since it is then presented as a closed book. (whether that book is the Bible or a biology textbook is up for interpretation). Of course I think most of the people promoting this theory already know that if students look at it critically, and consider Darwin's theory in observation of nature and the immense amount of time which (and there is significant proof of this) has passed, will see that there is simply no place for ID. It's taking a supercomputer and trying to replace it with an abacus... sure it works, but only on a limited basis and only if you're into thinking simple.
That this is going to be one hell of a boring spectator sport. I mean, have you ever tried to watch the poker championship on ESPN? That's bad enough. But having to watch a bunch of programs compete against each other, that has potential to be severely, severely boring. Looks like a perfect candidate for ESPN 8 daytime, I guess.
Slashdot Mirror
The principle idea that the people promoting ID are after is paradigm shift. The trouble is that they are proposing to re-institute the paradigm of 'the world was created by our all powerful Lord...' ('...' can also be rewritten as 'so don't even try to explain it'). A paradigm overthrows its predecessor by using facts, or things that have been proven to be true, which were established within the previous paradigm. None of our current theories are 100% foolproof or without another possible advancement in our understanding of them. But that's not why they are there. The object of science is to solidify our understanding of the way the world around us works. In order to do this we must have a solid, unbiased set of assumptions. These are the facets of paradigm. Once we are able to put together something that is so revolutionary and brilliant to replace our existing paradigm, then we get rid of it but not before and not without acknowledging its importance. So, if you support the idea of ID, please do some testing, show me and the rest of the world why Charles Darwin and Lamarck were wrong. If you can do so without using the words "because God..." (feel free to insert previous '...' definition at will), then not only will we listen, we might just write it into our textbooks. The biggest problem with the board's decision is that by opening students up to "new explanations" and saying "He did it" we are in fact taking away from any curiosity they might have about the topic since it is then presented as a closed book. (whether that book is the Bible or a biology textbook is up for interpretation). Of course I think most of the people promoting this theory already know that if students look at it critically, and consider Darwin's theory in observation of nature and the immense amount of time which (and there is significant proof of this) has passed, will see that there is simply no place for ID. It's taking a supercomputer and trying to replace it with an abacus... sure it works, but only on a limited basis and only if you're into thinking simple.
That this is going to be one hell of a boring spectator sport. I mean, have you ever tried to watch the poker championship on ESPN? That's bad enough. But having to watch a bunch of programs compete against each other, that has potential to be severely, severely boring. Looks like a perfect candidate for ESPN 8 daytime, I guess.