[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: Intelligent Design in Minnesota (and ...?)
- To: <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: Intelligent Design in Minnesota (and ...?)
- From: "joseph p. bottini" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:57:28 -0500
- References: <email@example.com>
Sorry for the last post as it was incomplete.
If one would log onto firstname.lastname@example.org one would find
tons of material that shows scientists do question evolution.
The problem with evolution scientists is they refuse to expose themselves
to what is out there that might give them reason to pause and contemplate.
If you always think what you always thunk,
you will always feel as you always felt.
If you always think the way you always thought,
You will always catch what you always caught.
Fear is a factor in keeping yourself from exposure to the opposite
point of view. It is not however, an intelligent way to proceed, eh?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: [arn-l] Intelligent Design in Minnesota (and ...?)
> In a message dated 3/22/2004 6:13:12 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> email@example.com writes:
> Here is part of the text adopted by the Minnesota House last Friday (I
> forwarded this passage and it LOOKS legitimate ... I have not verified
> myself). ...
> 5.21 "The student will be able to explain how scientific and
> 5.22 technological innovations as well as new evidence can challenge
> 5.23 portions of or entire accepted theories and models including,
> 5.24 but not limited to, cell theory, theory of evolution and germ
> 5.25 theory of disease." ...
> A legitimate goal of science teaching is to give the students ideas of
> scientific theories are proposed, verified, and revised or rejected.
> standard is certainly clumsily written and a bit circular, but I do not
see it as
> necessarily opening the door to throwing up creationism or "intelligent
> as plausible rival hypotheses to evolution. Neither creationism nor ID
> generally-accepted among scientists as "scientific" or technological"
> innovations," nor as "evidence." It makes just as much sense to argue
> standard closes the door as opens it.