Re: Intelligent Design in Minnesota (and ...?)

["joseph p. bottini" <jpbottini@adelphia.net>]

  Sir
  Your statement that neither creationsim nor ID are generally accepted
  among scientists . . . is incorect.
  Unfortunately, most evolutionists refuse to read anything contrary to
their
  view and thereby miss all the possible information out there indicating a
  possibility of something other than "mush to man" theory.
  Log onto AIG network at

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: <ABurke5054@aol.com>
  To: <arn-l@interversity.org>
  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,
  > shays@telis.org writes:
  > Here is part of the text adopted by the Minnesota House last Friday (I
was
  > forwarded this passage and it LOOKS legitimate ... I have not verified
it
  > 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
how
  > scientific theories are proposed, verified, and revised or rejected.
This
  > 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
design"
  > as plausible rival hypotheses to evolution.  Neither creationism nor ID
are
  > generally-accepted among scientists as "scientific" or technological"
  > innovations," nor as "evidence."  It makes just as much sense to argue
that the
  > standard closes the door as opens it.
  >
  > Art
  >