`` Alien Notion `` By Chip Rowe

Case law supporting the absence of the instruction of intelligent design theory from secular, public education cites several main grounds for exclusion, including the unconstitutionality of ?sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity? [397 U.S. 664].

In Creation Science is not Science, Michael Ruse argues that Creation science is not science and in Science at the Bar- Causes for Concern, Larry Laudan opposes this view by arguing that Creation Science is science, but that it is false. In this paper, I argue that Michael Ruse had the better argument and that Creation Science is not science. First, I explain Ruse’s argument for why creation science does not meet the criteria for science. Second, I consider and explain Larry Laudan’s opposing view that creation science is false science. I then argue why I believe Ruse has the better argument.

The two-hour special documentary, Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, features the Kitzmiller v. Dover School District case in 2004. It captures the turmoil that tore apart the community of Dover, Pennsylvania in one of the latest battles over teaching evolution in public schools. Some members of the community believed that not only Darwinism, but also a so called theory, Intelligent Design, should be taught in their public high school. It was a battle between the two theories. It forced neighbor against neighbor and friend against friend. The community itself was broken half and half on the controversial issue.

In the fast past world we live in it is evident that technology is ever changing and ever growing. The same can be said in regard to developments in science. Intelligent Design is defined by Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia, as the idea that, because of the complexity of certain features of nature, an "intelligent designer" must have played a role in the development of life. Evolution on the other hand, proposes that living things evolved over time. Edward O. Wilson (2012) states, “Many who accept the fact of evolution cannot, however, on religious grounds, accept the operation of blind chance and the absence of divine purpose implicit in natural selection. They support the alternative explanation of intelligent

Thesis: It is patently absurd to argue that creationism and / or intelligent design deserve a place in public school textbooks in the "science" chapter or in any way near to the chapter on evolution. The United States Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and freedom of expression, so all faiths and denominations have the absolute right to worship and believe as they

The film “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design On Trial” directed by Gary Johnstone pose the question about creationism and evolution and how it should be taught in the public schools. Multiple members of the community were outraged on how the school board took its approach to how creationism and evolution should be taught. Johnstone states, “The Dover school board demanded that high science teachers read a one-minute statement claiming that there are gaps in the theory of evolution exist and putting forward Intelligent Design as an alternative” (Johnstone 4:29). The statement also directed students to an Intelligent design textbook called “Of Panda and People” that would be made available” (Johnstone 4:42). Multiple members of the community and

The problem in scientific creationism, and what I see as a reason for its exclusion from the science classroom in public schools, is the fact that it looks as if, from the outside, the whole theory that it rest on is simply a contortion of the traditional version of creation described in Genesis, custom-made to fit in with Darwin’s theory of evolution. R. M. Hare would probably say that scientific creationism is simply a modification of the story of creation in Genesis, to fit into the ÒblikÓ of the religious fundamentalist. A blik, as Hare describes it, is a pre-set worldview held by all people, in which they draw from when forming certain opinions on any particular subject. In the case of religious fundamentalist, whose faith in the validity of the Book of Genesis is an essential part of their blik, it becomes necessary for them to contort their literal view of the Book of Genesis into a form that is scientifically acceptable. For this reason, creation science still does not have a place in the science classroom of public schools.

In the film Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, a small, rural town in Dover, Pennsylvania is being analyzed for its Kitzmiller vs. Dover court case. Dover is a school district in Pennsylvania whose school board argued that their students should be aware of Intelligent Design as an alternative to teaching Darwinism. There are several arguments being discussed throughout this documentary. The most expressed argument is whether not Intelligent Design should be taught in schools. Some other prevailing arguments are the belief that Intelligent Design and creationism are the same thing, the argument that evolution is neutral to religion, and the argument that evolution should not be questioned no matter what. Questions such as these captivate the mind and makes people wonder what the real truth is.

For as long as mankind has had the curiosity to gaze at the stars, we have been constantly questioning our origin and place in the universe. From simple, yet elegant solutions (like our world being on the back of a large tortoise) to the more complex pantheons of gods and heavens, humanity’s dedication to classifying and comprehending our universe has enabled us to weave rich and complex mythologies and beliefs. However, in America today there are two prominent paradigms that are shaping how we see the world—Christian creationism and scientific evolution. These two schools of thought, like many other conflicting models of the universe and its creation, have fueled passions and incited spirited rivalries among its most ardent followers and fanatics, but, again like many other opposing beliefs, at the same time it is easy to see how they can be reconciled both within and without oneself. However, many scientists and theologians believe that one of the two is blasphemous and the other is gospel (or textbook) truth. For example, in Scott D Sampson’s essay Evoliteracy, (2006) Sampson denounces Christianity and pushes for everyone to learn the theory of Evolution instead of creationism. While he is correct in wanting a more educated populace, Christianity is not an inherently wrong construct. Similarly, many of those pushing for intelligent design have similarly decried the evolutionary theory as

The theory of creationism versus the theory of evolution is a controversial topic worldwide. The topic delves further into whether creationism should or should not be taught in public schools. While evolution is a theory that says modern plants and animals evolved by a natural process over time, creationism is the belief that the universe and living organisms originated from specific acts of divine creation. Because evolution and creationism are both theories, creationism should be taught with as much validity as the teaching of evolution in public school. Since the early 1990’s creationism has become more and more a plausible theory. The historical events of creationism dates back all the way to the creation of mankind and the universe. Various evidence, such as the universe, point towards an intelligent designer and should therefore be taught in public schools.

The theory is made in assumption that pure creationism, for obvious reasons, can never pass as unaffiliated with religion, and thus can never be taught in government-funded public schools. As of now, its proponents’ claims for the earth’s age vary between 6000 and 4.5 billion years ago, as long as God did it (Branch). Rather than relying on scientific evidence, intelligent design thrives on the most miniscule of holes in evolutionary fossil records and the unfathomability of a living cell being created from inorganic matter. These holes are then complemented with ignorance of viable proof of evolution; proponents of the field have managed to turn these two elements in a supposed science. However, the yet infantile theory has still made its way to public schools in five states, with as many as twenty states currently debating the validity of evolution education.

In the history of science vs. religion there have been no issues more intensely debated than evolution vs. creationism. The issue is passionately debated since the majority of evidence is in favor of evolution, but the creation point of view can never be proved wrong because of religious belief. Human creation breaks down into three simple beliefs; creation theory, naturalistic evolution theory, and theistic evolution theory. The complexities of all three sides create a dilemma for what theory to support among all people, religious and non-religious.

Teaching Creationism or Intelligent Design to our youth can be done in a way that is neither opinion based nor completely fact based, but may hold some risk of personal interpretation. The first thing needed to be considered is how can children of the middle school age range grasp such a deep subject and have the capacity to reach their own conclusion. Information found regarding the development of children in this developmental range was found in the book titled "Characteristics of Middle Grade Students,” Caught in the Middle by the Sacramento Department of Education. It was found that students of this age hold a variety of learning attributes that support the belief that children can handle both sides of this controversial issue. Some

Public schools are a place to learn proven facts and some very well—known and accepted theories. These schools have been led this way for a long time and show no signs of changing. Many states around the country have rejected the teaching of creationism in public schools, since the subject is so controversial among teachers and parents. In Ohio, a bill to develop new science content standards was not successfully passed. Many creationists were upset when they discovered that the first drafts of the standards were filled with evolutionary content, without any allowance for alternative explanations of life’s origins. In the uproar, the state board held a special meeting to investigate the process that the writing team and advisory committee used to draft the science standards (Matthews, Answering Genesis). This is why learning the facts about evolution should be taught at school. By doing this, there would be much less confrontation between teachers, students, and parents. If one has the desire to learn about creationism or any other beliefs of how the world came to be, one should learn it at a place outside of school, such as church or at home.

In 1859, Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, introducing the theory of evolution. One hundred and fifty-six years later, scientists still accept this senseless philosophy. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay states, “Our school systems teach the children that they are nothing but glorified apes who are evolutionized out of some primordial soup” (Snyder). Schools worldwide have presented exactly this to the young, impressionable minds of your future doctors, engineers, scientists, and presidents. They assure us that if we give a small amount of mud enough time it can, by itself, bring about the art of da Vinci, the plays of Shakespeare, the music of Mozart, and the brilliant mind of Einstein.