Who Hates Academic Freedom?

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian cites scripture as truth:
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

Stipe reads this and concludes:

Barbarian hates scripture.

This is why Stipe has a reputation for dishonesty, here.

 

[Stripe]

Barbarian cites scripture as truth:Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. Stipe reads this and concludes: This is why Stipe has a reputation for dishonesty, here.

Meanwhile, you reject the plain teaching of the Bible, preferring your "billions of years" to scripture, which says: "Six days."

 

[lucaspa]

USA state of Alabama has introduced legislation allowing teachers and students more academic freedom.

The preamble of House Bill 592 says "This bill would require the State Board of Education, local boards of education, and staff of K-12 public schools to create an environment that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific subjects.

"This bill would also allow public school teachers to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of all existing scientific theories covered in a science course."

Well, I see they have stopped singling out evolution, cloning, origin of life, and climate change. This is their attempt to make it seem better.

So who is opposed to this academic freedom? Evolutionists, of course. The bill allows teachers to discuss strengths and weaknesses of evolution. Teachers are NOT allowed to teach religion or the Genesis creation account..... So what are they afraid of?

What this bill does is allow teachers to lie to their students. The "weaknesses" of evolution that we have seen from creationists since 1962 have been lies. Now creationists want a law that allows them to lie to kids in K-12. Those students don't have the expertise to sort through the scientific literature and the complex topics to discover that they are being lied to and exactly why the lie is a lie. They are going to trust their teacher.

Creationism is a falsified scientific theory. There is no way to teach the Genesis account as a valid scientific theory except by lying.

Now, evolutionists have never said that teachers can't teach religion or even the Genesis creation accounts (yes, there is more than one) in school. What has been said is they cannot be taught as valid science in science class. If a school wants to have a social studies class on religion and, as part of it, to look at the Genesis creation accounts , they can.

Now, I personally say that parents and school boards can legitimately monitor teachers to ensure that evolution is not being taught as atheism. Evolution is not atheism. Evolution by itself is agnostic, and ALL scientific theories need to be taught as agnostic. But that is because I want to preserve the integrity of evolution, and science.

 

[The Barbarian]

Dialogos moves the goal posts a bit:

A. Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy and is a notoriously horrible way to make decisions regarding truth.

"They're all out of step, but me" is worse, um? I'm just pointing out that your unorthodox beliefs aren't held by most Christians.

B. I'm not sure you are even right about what "most Christians" think.

Slightly more than half of all Christians are Roman Catholics. The biggest portion of the rest is Eastern Orthodox. Both acknowledge that evolution is consistent with God's creation.

Next up are Anglicans, which also acknowledge the fact. And only a minority of the world's Protestants deny the fact.

So you're pretty much off in a corner by yourself.

I believe what the bible says...

Except where it contradicts your new beliefs. You're a cafeteria Christian.

Barbarian asks:
So why are you setting yourself up as Pope, telling other Christians what to believe?

This is a totally irrelevant statement

You've told us you have the authority to declare your new interpretation as valid.

1. I don't accept the flawed notion of a "pope" to begins with.

So you think Jesus was wrong to tell Peter he had the authority to bind in Heaven and Earth whatever he chose? You seem to be just believing whatever you want to, and discarding the rest.

3. The bible doesn't talk about evolution, wanna know why?

Same reason it doesn't talk about photosynthetic bacteria.

Barbarian observes:
Of course it doesn't. It's a scientific theory, not a religion. Science can't discuss God. But scientists can. Think about it, and you'll figure it out.

Scientists, in their role as scientists, have been - by virtue of a radical philosophical commitment to absolute materialism - barred from any talk about a Creator God.

Kenneth Miller is a Catholic and a biologist. Francis Collins led the team that worked out the human genome. He's an evangelical Christian. You've been misled there. No wonder you have such odd ideas.

Many scientists accept the fact of evolution and are theists including Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others.

That's not my limitation

I see your denial, but as you now see, you're wrong.

No, you're just assuming that scientists are limited the way science is. We aren't. So, if I'm canoeing down the Trinity backwaters, and observing waterfowl, I can also get an epiphany about God and His wisdom and power, even if I know some of the details of the way He made those things I'm seeing.

That's the limitation of philosophical materialism

Only an IDer could call awe of God and His works, "materialism." It says a great deal about your lack of faith.

You said you pity those who are unable to see God's invisible attributes and Divine nature through what has been made.

Yep, given that your "space alien" theology requires some kind of magical override of nature. Nature isn't the enemy; it's what God created to serve His purposes. And it shows His mind and purposes, if you'll just set aside your pride and listen.

And Romans 1:20 is what you deny when you deny Intelligent Design.

ID is merely a lack of faith that God is capable of creating a world that works the way He intends.

Take for example the fact that you can quote from the "nefarious" Wedge Document:

Nefarious only in the sense that we weren't supposed to see it. It was accidentally sent out with other documents to be copied, and someone realized that it spilled the beans as to the IDer agenda.

Demonstration that ID is a religion:
"Governing Goals:

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies"
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

... arguing that this shouldn't be included in science curricula for students to consider.

As you should know, it's not science. You might as well require a rosary to be said everytime a plumber fixes pipes. Nothing wrong with a plumber saying a rosary, of course. It just isn't part of plumbing.

And then, quite hypocritically, pity those who subscribe to the very scientific materialism that rejects the theistic notion of a Creator.

As you see, there's a distinction between science, which cannot address anything about the supernatural, and scientists, who can. You're confused as to why this is so, because you aren't willing to accept His word about it.

Barbarian observes:
I pity people who are unable to do what St. Paul mentioned in Romans 1:20

Your approach to ID does just that.

Your quotation of the Wedge Document also shows that you know that ID doesn't teach any "space alien" nonsense

It's what they say in public, which is entirely different than they say in private. Being double minded, they contradict themselves.

In short, its a lie they keep telling because they think people will fall for the deception, but it besmirches their character and credibility in the process. It's why they lost the Dover trial. As IDer Michael Behe had to admit under oath, ID is science in the same sense that astrology is science. That was, in the words of Philip Johnson, a "train wreck" for ID, bemoaning the fact that so much was exposed in the trial.

Shame on them.

 

[Stripe]

Creationism is a falsified scientific theory.

:darwinsm:

 

[6days]

The "weaknesses" of evolution that we have seen from creationists since 1962 have been lies.

So you still believe that Neandertals were a different species than you and I, who died off being incapable of mating with humans?
[bAnd you are opposed to a science teacher discussing how science has revealed the humanity of Neandertals?[/b]

Do you still believe that our bodies are filled with 98% junk DNA?
Are you opposed to a science teacher discussing *how science is starting to discover purpose and function in our non coding DNA?

Is it ok for a student to ask if our useful appendix could be evidence of design?

Would it be ok for a teacher to discuss that most scientists in the past thought our *eyes were poorly designed, and used that to support common ancestry beliefs?
Etc etc....

 

[lucaspa]

That's exactly your problem, Barbarian.

Evolutionary theory doesn't claim that evolution is the means by which God created, you are superimposing theistic intent on a theory that has no room for theistic intent. In fact, the whole notion of creation is inherently foreign to the basic naturalistic premises of evolution to begin with!

Darwin never thought so! Evolution, like all scientific theories, is agnostic. So yes, if you want to impose a theistic, or atheistic, intent on a scientific theory, you have to do so from outside. "Impose" does imply action from outside.

The reason you think "creation is inherently foreign to the basic naturalistic premises of evolution to begin with" is because you are basically an atheist at heart! You are accepting the basic atheist statement of faith that "natural" = without God.

Where do you get that? Certainly not from the Bible, not from Christians, and not from Darwin!

To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species,pg. 449.

Look at that "secondary causes". It's not a scientific term. It's a religious term, specifically Christian. You should look it up.

Darwin is even more explicit in the quotes he chose for the Fontispiece of Origin of the Species.

""But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this -- we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws" Whewell: Bridgewater Treatise. "

Hint: that "establishment of general laws" is "secondary causes". Do you think that God has to push the planets around the sun? Or do they orbit due to the secondary cause of gravity?

""The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion."

This is the one that destroys your statement "theory that has no room for theistic intent". Butler is saying that ALL "natural" only happens because of "theistic intent".

If you take Butler's statement as a hypothesis (which you can), science cannot show you it is wrong. Can't show you it is correct, either. Atheists believe it is wrong. Theists believe it is correct.

Neither "God did it" nor "God did not do it" are scientific statements.

Either science can't say anything about God and therefore can't detect the means by which God created, or science can and your objections to ID are unfounded.

Science can test hypotheses about how God created. Why? Because those hypotheses are "about" God. Such hypotheses test a material mechanism by which God is said to work.

YEC says God poofed everything into existence in their present form within a 144 hour period in the recent past. Leaving God out, we can test 144 hour period and recent past. Lots of test that the universe is very young. All of them falsify a young universe or young components.

ID says God poofed living organisms or parts of them into existence in their present form.

That too can be tested. Separate from God, we can test whether living organisms or parts of them were manufactured in their present form. And again, that is falsified.

Theistic evolution says God created the universe by the Big Bang, galaxies, stars, and planets by gravity, life by chemistry, and the diversity of life by evolution. Again, leaving God out, we can test Big Bang, gravity and formation of components of the universe, abiogenesis, and evolution. Hey, guess what? They all past the tests.

Questions about Intelligent Design
1. What is the theory of intelligent design?
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. For more information see Center Director Stephen Meyer’s article “Not By Chance” from the National Post of Canada or his appearance on PBS’s “Tavis Smiley Show (Windows Media).
(Q and A Page, Discovery Institute )
​

Now, how does an "intelligent cause" operate? Well, if you continue reading among IDers, and intelligence operates by manufacturing things.

What in that statement do you find unscientific or objectionable?

To start with, the "selection" part of natural selection is not "undirected" or "random". It is the opposite of undirected or random, being deterministic. So we have an unscientific characterization of natural selection.

Second, Meyer is vague about "intelligent cause". How does an intelligent cause produce "certain features of the universe and of living things "? Being that vague is unscientific.

n fact, in the Dover trial, one of the the ID opponent's chief objections was that ID it was "creationism."

Yes, and it is. ID is a from of creationism. It is YEC without the time limit. However, the reason why the plaintiffs pushed so hard on making the link was legal: creationism had already been shown to be legally unconstitutional. If ID is creationism, then it falls under the earlier ruling. Unfortunately for ID, the smoking gun was there to show that ID was creationism.

Which is why your posts are walking self-contradictions where you argue that science can't say anything about God and then proceed to argue that evolution is the way God created.

You are not making the distinctions the Barbarian is.

Science is agnostic. It cannot tell you whether God exists. Science cannot directly test for the existence of God or directly test God's superintendence of nature, or directly test whether the universe was created by God. Once, however, someone proposes a mechanism by which God creates, or acts in a regular basis, then the mechanism can be tested.

Once you have the statements "God exists" and "God created" from outside science, then science will indeed tell you the way God created. How? Remember now, we are working from a religious perspective. God created the physical universe. Thus, the physical universe will have clues on how God did that creating. What does science study? The physical universe. Thus, science will tell you how God created.

This logic is embedded in Christianity from the beginning of the religion.

"the great book ... of created things. Look above you; look below you; read it, note it." St. Augustine, Sermon 126 in Corpus Christianorum

"duplex cognito" John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed by John T. McNeil, 1.2.1, 1960.

"Man learns from two books: the universe for the human study of things created by God; and the Bible, for the study of God's superior will and truth. One belongs to reason, the other to faith. Between them there is no clash." Pope Pius Xii, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Science, Dec. 3, 1939.

And, the final quote in the Fontispiece of Origin of Species:

"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy [science]; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both." Bacon: Advancement of Learning

The problem is that creationists, Dialogos, disconnect God from Creation. They disconnect creation the activity from Creation the product. In effect, they deny God as Creator. IDers and other creationists can't defend God when they deny Him.

 

[lucaspa]

Meanwhile, you reject the plain teaching of the Bible, preferring your "billions of years" to scripture, which says: "Six days."

Scripture also says "within the day". Look at the Hebrew of Genesis 2:4. The word used is "beyom" (transliteration). Modifying "yom" with "be" restricts the time to a single 24 hour period. It is used in Genesis 2:1-3 to restrict the 7th day to a single day.

So, Genesis 2:4 says that what took at least 4 days in Genesis 1 took only a single day.

All this should tell us that Genesis 1-3 was never meant to be taken literally. Instead, it was meant to convey important theological truths -- truths about God, the (non)existence of other gods, the relationship of God to humans, and some internal human truths.

It's tragic that you are so focused on making Genesis 1 be the way God created that you have no idea of those very important messages from Him. Messages that are just as true and relevant now as when they were written 2500 or so years ago.

 

[Stripe]

All this should tell us that Genesis 1-3 was never meant to be taken literally.

Or it could be a turn of phrase; something no sensible person could possibly be confused over given the knowledge of the story it refers to.

It's tragic that you are so focused on making Genesis 1 be the way God created that you have no idea of those very important messages from Him. Messages that are just as true and relevant now as when they were written 2500 or so years ago.

Evolutionists love false dichotomies.

 

[lucaspa]

Not much evidence or reason there, Stripe. Just because creationists refuse to accept creationism is falsified means nothing. YEC was falsified by 1800. Global Flood causing ANY geological feature by 1832 (the quote in my signature dates from that). And Special Creation in the period 1830-1900.

Even the Anglican Church -- to which Darwin belonged -- had accepted creationism as falsified by 1888:

"When my Father [Frederick Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury] announced and defended his acceptance of evolution in his Brough Lectures in 1884 it provoked no serious amount of criticism ... The particular battle over evolution was already won by 1884." F.A. Iremonger, William Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury, His Life and Letters, Oxford Univ. Press, 1948, pg. 491.

Even the reformed tradition -- Presbyterians -- had come around:
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.

 

[Stripe]

Not much evidence or reason there, Stripe. Just because creationists refuse to accept creationism is falsified means nothing. YEC was falsified by 1800. Global Flood causing ANY geological feature by 1832 (the quote in my signature dates from that). And Special Creation in the period 1830-1900. Even the Anglican Church -- to which Darwin belonged -- had accepted creationism as falsified by 1888:"When my Father [Frederick Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury] announced and defended his acceptance of evolution in his Brough Lectures in 1884 it provoked no serious amount of criticism ... The particular battle over evolution was already won by 1884." F.A. Iremonger, William Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury, His Life and Letters, Oxford Univ. Press, 1948, pg. 491.Even the reformed tradition -- Presbyterians -- had come around:
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.

The No. 1 argument of the evolutionist comes to the fore again.

What people accept does not count as evidence.

But thanks for trying to derail the conversation again. :up:

 

[lucaspa]

Or it could be a turn of phrase; something no sensible person could possibly be confused over given the knowledge of the story it refers to.

What story it is referring to? Genesis 2:4 is not referring to any other story; it is the beginning of a new story.

Wait, isn't the Bible supposed to be literal and inerrant? How can a person who thinks the Bible says exactly what it says offer such an insensible position?

What do you do with all the other contradictions between Genesis 2 and Genesis 1? The single day is just the first of the problems.
1. You also have the completely different term used for "God".
2. The sequence of creation is completely different.
3. The number of people created. Genesis 1 uses "men" and "women", both plural, and both created together. Genesis 2 has a single man and a single woman.
4. The method of creation. Genesis 1 has God speaking things into existence. In Genesis 2 He makes all the living beings out of dirt except Eve, where God starts with a rib from Adam.

And no, Genesis 2 cannot be day 6 of Genesis 1. That order of creation, remember?

Evolutionists love false dichotomies.

You have never, to my knowledge, stated any theological message from Genesis 1-3. You have always limited yourself only to Genesis 1-3 as history. If you don't tell us you see things differently, how are we to know?

So you are trying to say you also get the theological messages? Cool. Please demonstrate. What are they? What theological truths are present in Genesis 1-3?

 

[lucaspa]

The No. 1 argument of the evolutionist comes to the fore again.

What people accept does not count as evidence.

You have it backwards. People accept because of the evidence.

What I am doing is showing you what people concluded from the evidence.

If you want the actual evidence, search "evolution" at PubMed.

 

[lucaspa]

So you still believe that Neandertals were a different species than you and I, who died off being incapable of mating with humans?
And you are opposed to a science teacher discussing how science has revealed the humanity of Neandertals?

First, how is showing how close neandertals were to H. sapiens a weakness of evolution? Since neandertals and sapiens were sibling species, evolution predicts they would be similar, even to limited interbreeding.

Or are you saying that neandertals and h. sapiens are the same species? If so, no scientist is claiming that that.

And yes, neandertals were a separate species. Speciation does not mean no interbreeding at all. If you think that, then you are lying about evolution.

Do you still believe that our bodies are filled with 98% junk DNA?
Are you opposed to a science teacher discussing *how science is starting to discover purpose and function in our non coding DNA?

And again, how is this a weakness of evolution? Mostly it shows lying to our kids.

The term "junk DNA" simply meant that the DNA did not code for proteins. It was never legitimately used to say it was "useless". So finding that the rest of the DNA has functionality and has been subject to natural selection actually strengthens evolution. If you are going to teach this as a "weakness" of evolution, then you are lying to our kids.

Or are you using "purpose and function" to mean that the non-coding DNA did not evolve, but is evidence for ID? If that, then you are lying to our kids.

Is it ok for a student to ask if our useful appendix could be evidence of design?

"Vestigial" never meant "useless". It is another lie to say it did. The appendix is still "vestigial" in that the function it performs is minor and there is no ill effect from removing it. Or do you think there is a noticeable ill effect?

By "design" you mean directly manufactured by an intelligent being?

There's a problem with the word "design". It comes with the unspoken phrase "by an intelligent being".

What Darwin discovered was an unintelligent process that produces design.

So, no, a student can ask if the appendix was designed. And the teacher can show how 1) it was originally designed by natural selection and 2) how changes in our environment have now made its function redundant.

The teacher should teach that living organisms are designed: designed by natural selection. The teacher should show how natural selection is an algorithm for getting design.

Would it be ok for a teacher to discuss that most scientists in the past thought our *eyes were poorly designed, and used that to support common ancestry beliefs?
Etc etc....

Are you saying that the structure of the vertebrate eye does not support common ancestry? If so, another lie. What scientists have pointed out is that our eyes are not optimally designed. There are species -- such as octopi -- that have better designed eyes than ours.

In a religious context, the vertebrate eye is an example of why ID is so harmful to Christianity and so anti-God.

 

[Stripe]

What story it is referring to?

:darwinsm:

Wait, isn't the Bible supposed to be literal and inerrant?

No. It is supposed to be accurate. That you cannot read is not its problem.

What do you do with all the other contradictions between Genesis 2 and Genesis 1? The single day is just the first of the problems.
1. You also have the completely different term used for "God".
2. The sequence of creation is completely different.
3. The number of people created. Genesis 1 uses "men" and "women", both plural, and both created together. Genesis 2 has a single man and a single woman.
4. The method of creation. Genesis 1 has God speaking things into existence. In Genesis 2 He makes all the living beings out of dirt except Eve, where God starts with a rib from Adam.

I'm sure you can find a myriad of answers to all those problems you Googled by Googling again. :thumb:

You have never, to my knowledge, stated any theological message from Genesis 1-3.

There is no point talking theology to a man who rejects plain English.

You have always limited yourself only to Genesis 1-3 as history. If you don't tell us you see things differently, how are we to know?

By listening to what I say. :up:

So you are trying to say you also get the theological messages? Cool. Please demonstrate. What are they? What theological truths are present in Genesis 1-3?

There is no point talking theology to a man who is willing to reject the plain meaning of words.

People accept because of the evidence.

Then show us the evidence first instead of presenting the popularity of your ideas. :up:

What I am doing is showing you what people concluded from the evidence.

I know. It's the No. 1 evolutionist argument. Look! Lots of dead people agree with me. I must be right!

If you want the actual evidence, search "evolution" at PubMed.

:yawn:

When the evolutionist's prime weapon fails, he always has his backup: Begging the question.

 

[Kdall]

Meanwhile, you reject the plain teaching of the Bible, preferring your "billions of years" to scripture, which says: "Six days."

For what must be at least the 40th time in the past two weeks, you have posted this exact thing. And it's just as useless now as it was the first time

 

[Kdall]

What people accept does not count as evidence.

Good point. Now explain to me what actual evidence there is for the Bible's inerrancy and/or literal Genesis? All of your belief is based on accepting the Bible as 100% accurate

 

[6days]

So you still believe that Neandertals were a different species than you and I, who died off being incapable of mating with humans?
And you are opposed to a science teacher discussing how science has revealed the humanity of Neandertals?

First, how is showing how close neandertals were to H. sapiens a weakness of evolution?

What I asked was "are you opposed to a science teacher discussing how science has revealed the humanity of Neandertals?"

Since neandertals and sapiens were sibling species evolution predicts they would be similar, even to limited interbreeding.

"Sibling species" is not science just as the "different species" is not science when it comes to Neandertals. I don't hear evolutionists calling bulldogs and collies "sibling species". It seems as if its simply a term trying to deny the humanity of a people group. (Pygmies are not a sub species or a sibling species either).

Or are you saying that neandertals and h. sapiens are the same species? If so, no scientist is claiming that that.*

You are wrong... there are scientists who have been saying that for many years. Science seem to be proving them wrong. Should we allow students to hear that science is revealing the humanity of Neandertals?

And yes, neandertals were a separate species.

Not according to science.

Do you still believe that our bodies are filled with 98% junk DNA?
Are you opposed to a science teacher discussing how science is starting to discover purpose and function in our non coding DNA?

And again, how is this a weakness of evolution? Mostly it shows lying to our kids.

No...its about truth and ĺogic. Teachers in the past taught our DNA was like flotsam...an evolutionary leftover...biological remnants.

Should teachers have the academic freedom to say that there werea small group of scientists who opposed that evolutionary view of "junk DNA"? Should teachers have the freedom to show how science may prove that small group of scientists correct?

Or are you using "purpose and function" to mean that the non-coding DNA did not evolve....

Teachers should teach science and not promote beliefs. Of course kids should be taught how DNA changes and the different processes of sexual and natural selection, mutations, adaptation etc. However it seems you want to equivocate on terms wanting to teach your beliefs about common ancestor?

Is it ok for a student to ask if our useful appendix could be evidence of design?

"Vestigial" never meant "useless".

I didn't say vestigial.

In the past some teachers...some medical dictionaries, called our appendix "useless" and used as evidence of common ancestry.

The question I asked you was "Is it ok for a student to ask if our useful appendix could be evidence of design?"

Should a teacher be allowed to say " yes...there are some scientists who in the past that our appendix may have been designed and that we just don't understand the functions yet"?

What Darwin discovered was an unintelligent process that produces design.

Thats a bit off topic but Darwin popularized an idea by a creationist Edward Blyth. Blyth rather thought that natural selection was a fairly intelligent process allowing variation and survival.

The teacher should teach that living organisms are designed: designed by natural selection. The teacher should show how natural selection is an algorithm for getting design.

I'm really getting the impression you think students need to be indoctrinated. ..and, they need to be taught WHAT to think rather than HOW to think.

Would it be ok for a teacher to discuss that most scientists in the past thought our eyes were poorly designed, and used that to support common ancestry beliefs?

Are you saying that the structure of the vertebrate eye does not support common ancestry?

No...you avoided the question.

What scientists have pointed out is that our eyes are not*optimally*designed. There are species -- such as octopi -- that have better designed eyes than ours.*

I disagree about octopus (our inverted retina and its corresponding system of 'optic fibers' is far superior) but that's a totally different argument.

If bad design is used as evidence of common ancestry (and that argument IS used)...then is it ok to present the opposite argument from qualified scientists?

 

[6days]

What story it is referring to? Genesis 2:4 is not referring to any other story; it is the beginning of a new story.

Nope...its details on chapter 1

 

[NathanM]

and academic freedom allows you to misrepresent what entropy is

the truth is entropy is the system's ability to get work out of the energy it has
and
while the energy it has remains constant
entropy continues to increase indicating that the ability to get work out of the system is decreasing
thus proving creation

LOL!

Wonderful - your God created the universe just so it will eventually fail. What tremendous foresight and LOVE!
:sheep: