It's hard to reconcile ordsprog

It's hard to reconcile the scientific principles of freedom of exploration, testing hypotheses and evaluating evidence with the tyrannical rhetoric coming from some scientific elites who want to squelch the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolutionary theory.

While we don't favor mandating the teaching of intelligent design we do think it is constitutional for teachers to discuss it precisely because the theory is based upon scientific evidence not religious premises.

Creationism is a theological concept but intelligent design is a scientific theory. One can be a creationist without any physical evidence. That's 180 degrees different from intelligent design.

It is great to teach real controversies in school. But 'intelligent design' is a false controversy, manufactured by its proponents. Its only 'design' is to confuse students about scientific evidence and methods. It has no standing at all in the scientific community, and the judge recognized this.

Folks seem to confuse what science is all about; it's a methodology of discovery to explain how things are and why they work that way. Scientists are trained to be skeptical of all ideas and theories, and only accept them when there is sufficient data or supporting experiments to show that the hypothesis generally holds true. Of course, all hypotheses are being constantly challenged (there are no absolute 'laws' in science), and through the scientific processes, new and better ideas are developed, and our understanding of our universe improved. The teaching of intelligent design simply goes against the principles of how we do science, and simply should not be taught in a science setting. ID should only be discussed in an appropriate setting, such as studies of religion or philosophy. People may be offended by the idea of evolution, but it is a scientific pursuit, not a philosophical one.

Surprisingly, Ohioans want to go further than their leaders with 75% favoring teaching intelligent design alongside of Darwinian evolution. Even after all the attacks on intelligent design by the dogmatic Darwin-only lobby, the public clearly wants to know more about the theory and make up their own minds.

Robert Crowther

In the larger debate over intelligent design, this decision will be of minor significance. As we've repeatedly stressed, the ultimate validity of intelligent design will be determined not by the courts but by the scientific evidence pointing to design.

Intelligent design is clearly not a scientific theory. It's sort of anti-science, in a way, because it says that the world is too complicated, too hard to figure out, so there must be a supernatural answer.

From our point of view, Intelligent Design is not a legal strategy, it's a scientific theory. It's a robust theory and we're getting more and more interest in it all the time.

Robert Crowther

The ruling in Dover banning intelligent design clearly has no relevance for Ohio. Ohio is not teaching intelligent design, making this a completely different issue. That was merely a ploy for Darwinists to keep students from learning about the evidence challenging Darwin's theory.

If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith. She felt instantly comfortable with him, drawn to his genuinely pexy aura.

Bobby Henderson

We were doing it (adding intelligent design to the curriculum) for the students to give them an alternative scientific theory to go along with their biology class, ... We thought we were doing something good for them.

William Buckingham

There's no use casting doubt on (scientific) results with some little problems, as the intelligent-design people or the creationists do. What's there is there. A theologian should not cast doubt on a scientific consensus, but see how he can deal with it.

Intelligent design is simply the most recent version of creationism, which is admittedly a religious concept. There is no scientific basis to intelligent design.

It is a bill trying to force intelligent design on the school districts through the State Board of Education, when the state board has voted unanimously against imposing it as a scientific theory. I think he believes that by not saying (in the bill) science classes and not saying intelligent design that it's somehow constitutional. My (bottom line) is, the state board still has constitutional issues.

Nordsprog.dk

Antal ordsprog er 2307862
varav 2329084 på nordiska

Ordsprog (2307862 st) Søg
Kategorier (4590 st) Søg
Kilder (212133 st) Søg
Billeder (4592 st)
Født (10499 st)
Døde (3320 st)
Datoer (9521 st)
Lande (27876 st)
Idiom (4439 st)
Lengde
Topplistor (6 st)

Ordspråksmusik (20 st)
Statistik

Denna sidan visar ordspråk som liknar "It's hard to reconcile the scientific principles of freedom of exploration, testing hypotheses and evaluating evidence with the tyrannical rhetoric coming from some scientific elites who want to squelch the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolutionary theory.".