Intelligent Design: Coming To A State...

Intelligent Design: Coming To A State Legislature Near You

There are 52857 comments on the story from May 7, 2008, titled Intelligent Design: Coming To A State Legislature Near You. In it, reports that:

Religiously motivated strategies to oppose evolution in schools started out with efforts to ban the teaching of evolution. When that approach was struck down by the Supreme Court, Creationists took to arguing that 'Creation Science' was as scientifically legitimate as evolutionary biology, and therefore the two subjects should get equal space in the school curriculum.

Join the discussion below, or


Tallahassee, FL

#42 May 8, 2008
You people act like our legal system isn't based on stare decisis.

Well it is. The Constitution has to be interpreted in the context of the current times to have any relevance or worth. Strict Constructionism is a failed legal philosophy.

Example: you won't find the word "privacy" in the Constitution either. Would anyone argue that we have no right of privacy? Did Katz v. United States establish such a right, or just illustrate the one already there, lurking in the "penumbra of rights" guaranteed by the Constitution?

The religious right's literalist interpretation of the Constitution illogical and hypocrtical: do they apply the same standards to other issues as well? How about the Second Amendment? How about the Free Exercise clause?

Hypocrticial dullards...

Redding, CA

#43 May 8, 2008
Louis wrote:
Intelligent design does not advocate the necessity of religion, most, if notall religions are "man made" to create tyrants who use God as the excuse for their trepidational purposes. All it does is to verify certain facts, that there are "laws" that are beyond the power of human beings to contradict, and every one of these "laws" fits logically into other "laws". There is a regularity to the structure of an atom, there is regularity to the force of gravity, and that all of the universe has certain "laws" that could not have a damn thing to do with "evolution". Hence, the theory of "intelligent design"..a theory that goes beyond conjecture. The worst thing brought to the human species is "organized religion", a concept that creates anxiety and wars, all brought about by the ignorance of the masses and their futile beliefs that adhering to a particular religion will bring them to "paradise". God exists, or at least trhere is beyond any logical doubt that there is a purpose to the universe, and that purpose dictates a form of intelligence that has the power to create such an entity. Call it what you will, God, etc. but there it is, like it or not. I seriouysly doubt that any supreme being such as God would advocate the self destruction of mankind. If we are destroyed it'll be because we brought it on by following some goofy religious concept.
This is a great point! Intellegent design isn't an argument for any particular religious belief. It is another way to view the scientific information.

Glen Burnie, MD

#44 May 8, 2008
Watch the movie "Expelled".

Since: Jul 07

United States

#45 May 8, 2008
How about we don't teach either then. Grade school, middle school, high school. Make science an elective you can take before you go to college. If you don't take it - you won't have the required courses for college. If you don't go to college you won't further your education. If you can't further your education or get a degree, then by natural selection you won't be able to get a job affecting public policy. Problem takes care of itself. You creationists won't have to worry about your children becomes vets, ranchers, doctors, nurses, any of the health and science occupations, ministers also - saves a bit of time there - anyone can teach from the pulpit who is uneducated as a lay minister - just no real ministers who are educated in the sciences. Damn what an idea eliminate science from basic curricula. Next we move on to geology and geography - or does it matter if the world looks flat? Have a great day

Warren, MI

#46 May 8, 2008
Cash wrote:
I confess the confusion is lost on me and the controversy is pointless but teaching all alternatives because biology cannot explain everything today is just plain bad science.
I thought science was originated out of the quest to understand things?!?! If science has become a subject to learn just for the sake of learning it the way the dogma MUST be sent down from on high, I think science has become the religion that they were originally trying to become "enlightened" from!

Science doesn't have all the answers... nor does Intelligent Design, or any other perceived ways of trying to understand things. Perhaps the TOTAL answer(s) is found in a conglomeration... not just a dogma that MUST be strictly adhered to and be forced down everyone's throat via government fiat!

But then again, that's just my little rational mind working. I'd hate for the scientific community to feel so threatened by something they feel is not true, but if it REALLY is not true then it will fall flat on it's face. Oh, wait! Maybe not, after all the scientific community has managed to keep the truth in a LOT of areas from the masses via the "public education system" for decades!!!!!

Tallahassee, FL

#47 May 8, 2008
Gary wrote:
Watch the movie "Expelled".
Why? It is nothing more than Creationist propaganda.

It's a big ole' pile of horse----

Tomball, TX

#48 May 8, 2008
Obviously, no one here has ever read the bible. The evidence is there, HELLO!





Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Warren, MI

#49 May 8, 2008
If Behe has been debunked, it hasn't been in the area of the truth. Maybe a concept here or there, but not the overall truth of what he's been saying. When EITHER side gets to totally formulate the questions, frame the argument, state the rules by which the arguments can be made against them, etc. it's kinda easy to see why science has been "debunking" all the Behe arguments (and those with like-minded interests). I'm NOT a supporter of Behe, but I am a critic of public education system mandated version of science... which has really become a religion and NOT science!!! A LOT of stuff MUST be believed in order for modern "science" to work, and when anyone questions it - especially someone of faith - the scientific community uses ANY MEANS POSSIBLE to try and discredit their work. This isn't about science... this is about trying to keep one's beliefs perpetuating through via government fiat (the public education system, etc.). If science is so sure of itself, it REALLY wouldn't mind the criticism it is now facing. Either what science says is true... or it is not true (aka: a lie). Truth will ALWAYS come through eventually; it can be pushed down for a time, but it will ALWAYS come to the surface eventually!!!!

As for any number of clergy acknowledging evolution as the truth... I don't care if you get the entirety of the globe (save me) to agree with the ideas evolution puts out as the truth (which it doesn't put out as the truth, they put it out as fact - which is something completely different). I don't care about 11,000 clergy that may or may not acknowledge anything science has to say about anything. The truth stands alone - withOUT popular or majority rule! The truth is what it is... and most don't like the truth... that's why people lie everyday with "white lies". Enron had facts, too; that's why I rely on the truth - not fact(s)!!!! Again, I am NOT a Behe fan, but I am a severe critic of modern day "science"!

Since: Apr 07


#50 May 8, 2008
Bohemian wrote:
Hardly surprising that this is again an issue in America. It merely vindicates the opinion the rest of the word has of many Americans.
And that opinion is?

Tallahassee, FL

#51 May 8, 2008
FLOWER wrote:
Obviously, no one here has ever read the bible. The evidence is there, HELLO!
Read the whole thing, and you are wrong.

Montague, Canada

#52 May 8, 2008
Disgusted wrote:
... the scientific community has managed to keep the truth in a LOT of areas from the masses via the "public education system" for decades!!!!!
How about engaging your "little rational mind" and providing some examples of this?

United States

#53 May 8, 2008
Kirlak wrote:
US Constitution still guarantees separation of Church and State.
US Constitution does not contain the phrase "separation of Church and State." The Establishment clause was put in to keep the Federal Govt from requiring everyone to be a certian religion. States could require it, but the Feds couldn't. The Establishment clause was not meant to kick God out of the public square. The phrase is from a letter from Thomas Jefferson. Thems the facts ...

United States

#54 May 8, 2008
evolution is a funny thing. See infront of evolution is supposed be the word "theory". The theory of evolution. Same with creationism. The theory of creationism. While there is evidence to support mirco-evolution there is no evidence to support macro-evolution. The difference between micro and macro is huge. An example of micro-evolution would be types of island horses who get seperated by a mountain range that is very hard to cross. Over thousands of years the highland horses will develop thicker hair and somewhat shorter legs. Where as the low land horses leg length stays the same. However both would still be able to mate. This has been proven by science that species adapt to their environment albiet slowly. Macro evolution however has not been proven. If all species had the same origin there would be "key" links in the fossil record. Every now and again a skeleton is claimed to be "the missing link". The problem is rarely is it a whole skeleton. Usually it consists of one small bone. Most of these get proven to be regular animal bones (such as a swine jaw) or human skeletons with explainations such as a skeleton of a human with pigmisim(spelling?) So really both evolution and creationism are theories. While most people accept micro-evolution as fact, macro-evolution isn't set in stone. I once went to an evolution debate where the creationist insisted that the odds of the proper components and ingrediants needed to form life combining accientally combining were astronomically low. Not being a math buff however(heck i'm not an intellectual buff at anything really) i quickly got lost in the proof.

United States

#55 May 8, 2008
"... merely a theory ..." <sigh> Here we go again. For some obscure reason, there is a wide-spread misunderstandong about the definition of the word "theory." Yes, evolution is a theory. It is not, however, "merely" a theory and therefore not a fact. In my dictionary, the first definition of "theory" is "Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances; especially, a system of assumptions, principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena." In other words, a collection of knowledge, based on tested facts, used to create a pattern of information that allows us to predict future actions. That's all that science is: a method of determining patterns in the world around us. Only in the *third* definition is "theory" defined as "hypothesis or supposition." So: evolution is, in fact, a theory. For that matter, so is gravity. Gravity is "only" a theory. Oh, yes; there is a *law* of gravity -- but the Law of Gravity is a mathematical formula, and all that it will tell you is how hard you'll hit if you fall off a cliff of x height. What nobody -- and I do mean nobody; ask any physicist -- knows is why you'll fall. There is *no* one who knows just why gravity works. Not a clue. It's a mystery. Does that mean that we should start taking the balcony instead of the stairs, because gravity is "only" a theory? Think I'll stick with the stairs, thank you! It's true that there's an vast amount about how evolution works that we don't know. I couldn't begin to tell you just why my car runs, either, but that doesn't keep me from using it -- and that lack of understanding on my part doesn't bother me a bit. I do not grasp why people are so terrified of the twinned concepts of evolution and geologic time, nor why they feel such an overwhelming need to place limits on their notion of deity. If God is indeed omnipotent, then why is vast time and space impossible? Or is this argument, at its base, not in fact an argument about fact and faith (which are *not*, in my view, mutually exclusive), but actually about the power to dictate how others think? It seems to me (and I'm sure that this will grievously offend a large number of people) that holders of fundamentalist views -- all sorts, not just fundamentalist Christians -- are primarily interested in telling other people what they are allowed to believe.

Montague, Canada

#56 May 8, 2008
Disgusted wrote:
If Behe has been debunked, it hasn't been in the area of the truth. Maybe a concept here or there, but not the overall truth of what he's been saying.
You are misinformed. Every example of Behe's most important contribution, "irreducible complexity" (which along with Dembski's "specified complexity" forms the core of intelligent design), has been thoroughly debunked.

Read the transcript of the Dover trial, starting at Day 10.

Lisle, IL

#57 May 8, 2008
Let's talk facts not emotion:
1) Teaching "Intelligent Design" is not teaching religion. Separate the concept of God from the equation for the time being and look at it objectively. Something or someone had to set the ball in motion. Evolution does not start from nothing or there is nothing to EVOLVE FROM. The "big bang" is still only a theory and it proves nothing about life, only planets and stars.
2) Even many Creationists believe that some "intelligent design" started everything; many think our planet was "seeded" by a species from another planet or galaxy. However, they get stymied for an expanation about who created those who seeded us. The concept of cells and genetics are way too complicated and sophisticated for an easy explanation - such as "evolution".
3) Those who ask Crandall to prove Intelligent Design or provide an experiment should beware of the same question being posed to them. We in science can not "prove" the concept of evolution "creating" the start of anything nor can they provide an experiment to duplicate it.
4) This issue has nothing to do with Church and State. It is not a religious question; it is a scientific question. And science demands that all alternatives be considered unless and until one is "proved" correct or one is "proved" incorrect. To exclude the concept of "intelligent design" (again put aside the issue of God in this equation)is to limit science to only a portion of the alternative answers. Only an insecure or small minded person would do that.
5) It is difficult to explain this in more detail in this limited space, but I might suggest that everyone attempt to see the current movie "Expelled" by Ben Stein which attempts to "intelligently" and objectively explore both sides of this question interviewing the brightest minds in science. To not take the time to do this further limits your knowledge and encourages statements based on emotion rather than facts.

Larry (a biomechanical and genetic scientist)

Montague, Canada

#58 May 8, 2008
JudeB wrote:
And that opinion is?
That you've allowed your government to be taken over by anti-intellectual religious fundamentalists who are systematically dismantling the rule of law (habeas corpus anyone?), reversing America's proud tradition as defender civil rights and generally attempting to lead the populace back into the Dark Ages.

Even among your closest allies--including those who were sympathetic to the need to act in Iraq--it has become impossible to reconcile things like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo with the America we respected and once defended.
A scientist who loves God

Buffalo, NY

#59 May 8, 2008
I am a scientist--trained as a pharmacist. All of my university training involved scientific hypothesis and proof. I see nothing that contradicts these values with my belief in God. I am neither dumb, nor received an inferior education because of my education with God as my source. People who don't want to believe in God have that right, but not the right to impose that belief (or lack of belief) on others as they suggest "religious" people of doing. God created science in the first place--He is the supreme physicist. When we think that our minds are the origin of existence, we are self-absorbed. Being narrow minded is not the person who desires to know the seen and unseen information of our universe--but the person who resists acknowledging that there is more to life than our 5 senses. Where has our humbleness disappeared to? My scientific experiences have enhanced my relationship with God and vice-versa. We don't have to prove that He exists. Try proving that He doesn't exist. He loves you any way you are--this is not a religion, but a personal relationship with our Creator who will still be around after our bodies/minds die. All we have to do is ask from our heart for Him to reveal Himself, not out of curiousity but out of love from the heart.....He will show Himself to you.

Boston, MA

#60 May 8, 2008
Tacky wrote:
"So let's see the evidence that supports your hypothesis, Crandall. Or how about an experiment to test it? No?"
This is the exact problem with either intelligent design or with evolution. The evidence is very questionable and there is no experiment to put the theory to the test. If evolution is as well documented as some believe, why are these supporters so opposed to any criticism of the theory? It is indeed a theory, not established fact. one who believes in science is afraid to put their science to the test, however ID proponents simply have done no scientific testing and resist peer review (a key tenant of scientific study).

Science for science class, theology for theology simple.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#61 May 8, 2008
Gary wrote:
Watch the movie "Expelled".
I did, here is my first cut at a review:

I finally saw it, at the invitation of a Creationist friend of mine and She was heartily disappointed in the movie. I am still writing up what I felt was wrong with it, but her words were surprising, so I put them here for anyone who is interested.

First of all she was disappointed because at no time the movie defined what was Intelligent Design and the supposed science behind it. She firmly believed that if they had the no one could deny the movie a viable cry in the wilderness of fighting against the scientific community. So she was disappointed there.

Even she had serious issues with the connection between eugenics and evolution. In her words "That's the stupidest thing I have ever seen ... I don't agree with evolution, but that's just plain wrong!... What were they thinking?"

The scene of Ben Stein running all over Seattle in his cheap suit and ugly sneakers was ridiculous. And portraying the Discover Institute as a hole in the wall office was just marketing to build up the appearance of being some sort of Underdogs. Apparently my friend has been to the DI in Seattle and their facilities are remarkably modern, large, and plush!

She was also very disappointed in the scene of him lecturing what was supposed to be a group of students. She learned just after the movie -- not from me, but an article in a paper -- that the students were extras as opposed to real students she was pretty disgusted.

Her final words to me were an apology for putting me through that. I don't blame her, I blame Ben Stein. As you might guess I was looking to be pretty well bored, but I have to say I did laugh a lot, much to the displeasure of others in the audience. Anyone who swallows Ben Stein's 'mockumentary' really needs their heads examined.

I agreed with her on all points, plus a couple of my own: What the hell is "Big Science"? I think Ben Stein swiped the "Big" moniker from the "Big Business" of the 80's political debates and "Big Oil" of the 90's. There is no Big Science" and his approach at explaining it was ham fisted and utterly hilarious. The Scientific Community would certainly have trouble pointing to themselves, or any subset of themselves as some super shadow organization keeping scientific ideas hidden from view.

The examples of the supposed people persecuted have all be addressed here and in others places. In my opinion Ben Stein lied! He didn't get the Sternberg, Gonzales, Crocker, or Marks story straight and just presented them in the way he wished they had happened. My God since when did "Academic Freedom" mean that you could do anything you like in the classroom and not be held accountable. The movie was certainly slanted in the extreme and anyone who says Sternberg, Gonzales, or Crocker as victims better get their facts together.

Even though the movie did it's best to present Dawkins and Meyers is the worst possible way, I think they still came across more believable than the others -- but everything including the lighting and the way they were edited left much to be desired.

I have many more issues, but I am still writing them up. I have to look up a Darwin quote they used, I think they blew it big time, but I might need to see it again, I don't take shorthand and didn't get the whole quote -- as they said it. All in all I think my friend, while she isn't moving toward any support for the theory of evolution, she is certainly heading away from Intelligent Design! She plans on informing her Church Group about the screening and asked for my finished notes of my comments when I get done. An afternoon well spent!

[email protected]

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Genetics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Lord Robert Winston to stop in Dorset for talk ... Sat Stephany McDowell 1
News 'Everyone is African': Geneticist, professor ta... Sat Inquisitor 15
News Researchers find gene that might limit desire t... Fri Stephany McDowell 1
News New Genetic Cause of Autism Found Dec 2 Stephany McDowell 1
News Recessive gene mutations could cause debilitati... Nov 30 Stephany McDowell 3
1 attached, 1 unattached earlobe (Dec '07) Nov 29 Fred Astaire 45
News Largest study of its kind finds rare genetic va... Nov 26 Stephany McDowell 1
More from around the web