Badin vs. Versailles
Law Enforcement Memorial Day
-3.JPG)
American Idol 2012 finale
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2005 > August > 30 > Entry
The evolution debate
There was a devastating critique of Intelligent Design as a scientific theory on the Op-Ed page of the New York Times Sunday. The author, Tufts University philosophy professor Daniel C. Dennett, argues that ID is not a scientific theory, that its proponents are not even advancing it as such. Dennett also takes on the recent argument from the ID side that science class should at least “teach the controversy.”
Its a little dry, but the column gives a nice step-by-step explanation of evolution, discusses why it is viewed as a bedrock in science and challenges some of the strongest “common sense” arguments from ID proponents.
If you’re interested in the evolution debate, and Ohio is a major front in the battle over evolution, it’s worth reading.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Categories: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
Comments
By Elaine
August 30, 2005 3:23 PM | Link to this
Creationists are ridiculous with this new “scientific approach” and our president betrays a frightening ignorance when he suggests ID belongs in science class. Look, since I believe in God, I suppose I, therefore, believe the theory behind ID — that there is an intelligent force who created the universe. But that is a PHILOSOPHICAL theory, not science. Evolution is a testable theory, which has been tested and so far is unshaken. Supposed I had a theory that man-sized ants once ruled the earth. No one can prove me wrong, even though I have no evidence this is true. ID is the same sort of arguement. It’s foolish to argue ID is science and belongs in our science classes and on our state science tests. Kids can learn religion at home or in their churches.