Freethought & Rationalism Archive

pz · 11-07-2002, 07:16 AM

<a href="http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id.shtml" target="_blank">The AAAS has made a strong public statement about ID.</a>

An excerpt from the article above:

Quote:

The AAAS Board recently passed a resolution urging policymakers to oppose teaching "Intelligent Design Theory" within science classrooms, but rather, to keep it separate, in the same way that creationism and other religious teachings are currently handled.

Now that is nice, firm, and unambiguous.

Albion · 11-07-2002, 11:26 AM

Quote:

"The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry," the AAAS Board of Directors wrote in a resolution released today. "AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of `intelligent design theory' as a part of the science curriculum of the public schools."

Good for them.

Grumpy · 11-07-2002, 04:00 PM

Teaching it as religion is fine, I gather. "But," they'll say, "so-and-so is a scientist, and they believe that ID is scientific."

Well, no. It isn't.

Camaban · 11-07-2002, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Grumpy:
<strong>Teaching it as religion is fine, I gather. "But," they'll say, "so-and-so is a scientist, and they believe that ID is scientific."

Well, no. It isn't.</strong>

On the upside, it has the response of so-and-so x several hundred are scientists with relevant qualifications, and they think it isn't.

pity one scientist that agrees with them is worth thousands that don't

Hubble head · 11-07-2002, 06:44 PM

Nice move on their part.

ID could be called mushroom-induced hypothetical guess at best. I'd say I'm 99.999% Atheist because one small part of my head will hold out for the far-out ideas. Maybe a race from another planet was carrying out genetic experiments with animals a few hundred thousand years or more back and somehow we were one of the results.

I guess that is about as real as I can imagine anything close to a god.

But yeah- Its absolutely time ID was taught in history, not sciences.

[ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: science ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-07-2002, 04:00 PM	#3
Grumpy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Alaska, USA Posts: 1,535	Teaching it as religion is fine, I gather. "But," they'll say, "so-and-so is a scientist, and they believe that ID is scientific." Well, no. It isn't.

11-07-2002, 06:44 PM	#5
Hubble head Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Corn rows Posts: 4,570	Nice move on their part. ID could be called mushroom-induced hypothetical guess at best. I'd say I'm 99.999% Atheist because one small part of my head will hold out for the far-out ideas. Maybe a race from another planet was carrying out genetic experiments with animals a few hundred thousand years or more back and somehow we were one of the results. I guess that is about as real as I can imagine anything close to a god. But yeah- Its absolutely time ID was taught in history, not sciences. [ November 07, 2002: Message edited by: science ]</p>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.