Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Another Creationism trial update

Oh, my...
HARRISBURG, Pa. - Introducing "intelligent design" to high school students could help the idea gain wider acceptance among mainstream scientists, a sociology professor testified Monday in a landmark federal trial over whether the concept can be mentioned in public school biology classes.
Lawyers for the Dover Area School Board called Steve Fuller, a sociology professor at the University of Warwick, England, as an expert witness Monday morning. He tried to bolster the school board's contention that intelligent design, which holds that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force, is a scientific concept.
Fuller said minority views can sometimes have a difficult time getting a toehold in the scientific community, but students might be inspired to develop intelligent design as future scientists if they hear about the concept in school.
"You have to provide openings where you have new recruits to the theory," Fuller said. "Unless you put it into the school system, it's not going to happen spontaneously."
So, let me get this straight. The expert witness explains that we have to use the schools to recruit people to believe this theory. Mainstream scientists aren't buying it now, so maybe someday these students will become scientists who come up with some science to back it up?

The trial may wrap up next week.


DBK said...

This is very interesting.

jmelli said...

Rush Holt:

Holt also spoke about the ongoing evolution debate.

"People say it is not a fact, but neither is the theory of gravitation," Holt said. "Yet no one in this room is levitating."

He dismissed the new theory of intelligent design, which states that a higher power may be responsible for the creation of the universe, as a euphemism for creationism and said it does not belong in the science classroom.

Holt, a physicist by training, said, "It is not science."

The One True Tami said...

You know, the whole thing about scientists and intelligent design (I refuse to capitalize that) is that if you ask a scientist, he or she will say that no, you cannot empirically state that the universe was *not* created by a superior being. But they will say that you can empirically state that it's not science. If high scholl students aren't familiar with the concept, that's because they haven't had any religious training, or contact with people who have. Doubtful.

Sluggo said...

I absolutely agree intelligent design does not belong in the curriculum, at least in science classes. And I agree it makes more sense without the initial caps.

On the other hand, it's the position I hold, as do most people, including a good number of scientists.

The issue, as Holt points out, is whether it is the camel's nose under the tent and whether the hindquarters represents Creationism, a very different proposition.

I think it's hard to deny that's the case and thus it should be resisted. To me, the educational issue is much more important than the constitutional issue.

The One True Tami said...

Just want to point out - I am *not* trying to say that intelligent design is impossible. I'm only trying to say that it's a religious issue, and not a scientific one. If, one day, someone discovered proof that the universe had been designed, like, perhaps they found the notes, or the formulas or something, then I'd say, sure, OK, that's science, and it's provable. Until that day, though, believing that some one or some thing created the universe is faith. That's my position on this.