Teaching Both Sides Of Evolution In Ohio

According to a poll by Zogby International, residents of Ohio favor teaching the weaknesses and strengths of evolution.

(Evolution News) "Ohioans want Darwin's theory of evolution fully and completely presented, including the theory's strengths and weaknesses," said Robert Crowther, director of communications for Discovery Institute, which commissioned the Zogby poll. [...]

Sixty-eight percent of respondents said they agreed with the following statement: Biology teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it. Less than 20 percent supported the alternative statement: Biology teachers should teach only Darwin's theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.

This is encouraging as it would allow students to understand the debate around our origins more clearly and perhaps validate why some have left Darwins faith in the first place. It also seems that the populace are willing to go a step further, one where the politicians do not--teaching Intelligent design in the classroom.

(Evolution News) "Surprisingly, Ohioans want to go further than their leaders with 75% favoring teaching intelligent design alongside of Darwinian evolution," added Crowther. "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."

Although Intelligent Design has yet to prove itself as scientific it may open the doors to other theories bashed by some in the scientific community (such as Creationism). Just as one discusses politics before choosing a party so one must discuss the theories of origins before choosing a system.

Only by analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the evolution theory (of which the latter there are many) can we enable people to decide for themselves and thus hopefully end the debate.

Intelligent Design, Fact Or Fiction?

(Via Answers In Genesis, Published on Blogger News)

Update: Removed photo.

While the debate over God (and what he consists of) rages throughout America and in a few locations throughout Europe, a "new philosophy" seems to be attracting the attention of clergy and scientists alike.

Intelligent Design, (also known as ID) is championed as an alternative towards evolution and a legitimate theory of the origins of our species.

But despite the press about this theory from the right and the left, this belief system lacks a critical element key for any scientific faith which can be boiled down in one word--clarity.

Evolution and Creationism are classified as theories because both have a clearly laid out thesis stating the origins of the human race. This allows outsiders, believers and the curious to test out both of these theories to see if any of them hold up under serious examination.

Despite what proponents might say, Intelligent Design lacks a clear thesis stating humanities origins, which leaves the origins of man open ended. This formulates "a big tent" philosophy club where theists and atheists can come together respectively, despite the contrast of ideals.

One can examine whether or not Noah's flood happened as well as if there is any evidence to support the fossil record (despite its many gaps). Even the Raelian Society (viewed by many as "a fringe group") has a testable thesis, something the ID movement lacks.

Although fought in courts and class rooms throughout America, Intelligent Design seems to be lacking in the substance arena. Unless this is provided, ID will be nothing more than a philosophy that satisfies the phlegmatic agnostic rather than stimulating us all towards scientific enlightenment and discovery.

Vatican Opposes Intelligent Design?

(Published on Blogger News)

Although not from the Pope's lips, a newspaper from the Vatican has published an article claiming that Intelligent Design is not science.

(OrlandoSentinel.com) "This isn't how science is done," [Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna] wrote. "If the model proposed by Darwin is deemed insufficient, one should look for another, but it's not correct from a methodological point of view to take oneself away from the scientific field pretending to do science."

Intelligent design "doesn't belong to science and the pretext that it be taught as a scientific theory alongside Darwin's explanation is unjustified," he wrote.

Although seen as a way to promote theology, intelligent design (also known as ID) may not have a scientific basis to stand upon. Despite being a perfect way to bring theists together politically, ID is a dangerous philosophy to endorse since it is harder to prove than say, the theory of Creation.

The theory of ID, although interesting lacks observable evidence, and may come across as nothing more than a philosophical point of view. Even the Raelians, (which may appear strange to many individuals) have a belief system that is at least testable.

Evolution does have its own scientific blunders as the gaps in the fossil record has yet to be resolved. But evolution is testable, as is creationism, as both have "specifics" to evaluate against the theories, making them at least observable to historians and scientists alike.

Update: Added extra paragraph.