I'm being interviewed by the newspaper tomorrow
I'm being interviewed by the newspaper tomorrow
about ID vs evolution in the science classroom.
I need to dig up those old threads from here and just give the guy a printout of it.
I need to dig up those old threads from here and just give the guy a printout of it.
-
Guest
-
Guest
-
Guest
-
Guest
-
+JuggerNaut+
- Posts: 22175
- Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:00 am
-
Massive Quasars
- Posts: 8696
- Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 8:00 am
pete is making progress.
[url=http://www.marxists.org/][img]http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/3050/avatarmy7.gif[/img][img]http://img506.imageshack.us/img506/1736/leninzbp5.gif[/img][img]http://img506.imageshack.us/img506/1076/modulestalinat6.jpg[/img][img]http://img506.imageshack.us/img506/9239/cheds1.jpg[/img][/url]
:icon26:Massive Quasars wrote:pete is making progress.
Nothing personal pete. It is a positive sign.
Yes good luck tnf. I am sure you'll do well. Be aware newspapers have a tendancy to distort the truth.pete wrote:I will watch it on CNN anyway.tnf wrote:no, that would give away too much of my real identity.
Congrat TNF. Cool. Wish you the best of luck, I am sure you'll do great.
-
Don Carlos
- Posts: 17514
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am
Well, I don't know how the final article will come out...but here is the statement I sent...it had to be as brief as possible, and I couldn't get bogged down into details about specifc lines of evidence and whatnot. To be honest, posting in these forums has actually been good at honing my abilities to summarize a complex issue...
Blah blah intro...."in the world of science, there really is no serious debate about evolution. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. And that evidence goes far, far beyond what most non-scientists think about when evolution is discussed. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is not supported by what can be considered ‘scientific’ evidence because it ultimately relies on a supernatural explanation for things that its supporters believe are too complex to have evolved."
...."the reason that many people think there is a real, ongoing debate within the scientific community about evolution and intelligent design lies in confusion over what the term ‘theory’ means in science. People who say that ‘evolution is just a theory’ exemplify this confusion. Evolution is indeed a theory, but then again so is gravity, the atomic theory of matter, and many other subjects that are so accepted the term ‘theory’ has been dropped from the front of them. As an article I recently read stated, a scientific theory represents the highest level of understanding, bringing together a wide variety of observations and experiments and standing up against attempts to prove it false. Evolution fits all of these criteria, very well actually. Unfortunately, many people think of theories as nothing but ideas; things that are just thought up by scientists with no real factual basis. Intelligent Design, by its nature, does not and cannot hold up to the same criteria that scientific theories must. It is really more accurately described by an everyday, non-scientific use of the term theory. Because of that, it would really not be appropriate to put it into a science curriculum as a viable ‘alternative’ to evolution."
Blah blah intro...."in the world of science, there really is no serious debate about evolution. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. And that evidence goes far, far beyond what most non-scientists think about when evolution is discussed. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is not supported by what can be considered ‘scientific’ evidence because it ultimately relies on a supernatural explanation for things that its supporters believe are too complex to have evolved."
...."the reason that many people think there is a real, ongoing debate within the scientific community about evolution and intelligent design lies in confusion over what the term ‘theory’ means in science. People who say that ‘evolution is just a theory’ exemplify this confusion. Evolution is indeed a theory, but then again so is gravity, the atomic theory of matter, and many other subjects that are so accepted the term ‘theory’ has been dropped from the front of them. As an article I recently read stated, a scientific theory represents the highest level of understanding, bringing together a wide variety of observations and experiments and standing up against attempts to prove it false. Evolution fits all of these criteria, very well actually. Unfortunately, many people think of theories as nothing but ideas; things that are just thought up by scientists with no real factual basis. Intelligent Design, by its nature, does not and cannot hold up to the same criteria that scientific theories must. It is really more accurately described by an everyday, non-scientific use of the term theory. Because of that, it would really not be appropriate to put it into a science curriculum as a viable ‘alternative’ to evolution."
-
Underpants?
- Posts: 4755
- Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2001 7:00 am
-
Massive Quasars
- Posts: 8696
- Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 8:00 am
-
Massive Quasars
- Posts: 8696
- Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 8:00 am