Creationism in Michigan race

Quote:
Creationism in Michigan gubernatorial race

Creationism emerged as a burning issue in Michigan's gubernatorial race, after Republican candidate Dick DeVos told a questioner at a September 8, 2006, campaign stop that he supported teaching "intelligent design" alongside evolution in the public schools. The questioner, Eric B. Fauman, recounted the exchange in a letter to the editor of the Ann Arbor News (September 14, 2006), commenting, "At a time when our students' science literacy is already significantly below average ... teaching our children sectarian religious beliefs as science can only harm our state's ability to compete internationally." DeVos subsequently told the Associated Press (September 20, 2006), "I would like to see the ideas of intelligent design that many scientists are now suggesting is a very viable alternative theory ... That theory and others that would be considered credible would expose our students to more ideas, not less." The Detroit Free Press (September 20, 2006) also quoted him as saying, "Local school boards should have the opportunity to offer evolution and intelligent design in their curriculums." His Democratic opponent, incumbent Jennifer Granholm, opposes teaching "intelligent design" as science.

The reaction to DeVos's comments from the scientific and educational communities in Michigan was unsurprisingly negative. The president of the Michigan Science Teachers Association, Paul Drummond, told the Free Press that "intelligent design" is "not science," and the president of the Michigan state board of education, Kathleen Straus, described it as "religious theory." Speaking to the Livingston Daily Press & Argus (September 21, 2006), Michigan State University professor Robert T. Pennock, the president of Michigan Citizens for Science, posed the question, "How could Michigan students compete in the life sciences, so important to our economy, if DeVos has them learn pseudoscience?" And the state's newspapers were critical of DeVos as well, with the Lansing State Journal (September 22, 2006) editorially commenting, "'intelligent design' is not science. It is an attempt to forge the trappings of scientific inquiry around a fundamental structure of beliefs. It has no business in any science classroom," and a columnist for the Midland Morning Sun (September 22, 2006) opining that DeVos's position, though unsurprising, casts doubt on his "ability to properly engage science."


http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/MI/553_creationism_in_michigan_gubern_9_22_2006.asp


Anybody that endorses ID in the classroom has no business running for public office.
_________________
Carl Sagan:
"I don't want to beLIEve. I want to know."

Quote:
We need more open-minded persons in government so I support this guy.


Okay then. I see you support lying to kids with that silly creation story.

Quote:
We need more open-minded persons in government so I support this guy.


Okay then. I see you support lying to kids with that silly creation story.


Teaching that evolution is fact instead of a theory and ruling out ANY other possible explanation for the birth of life is lying.

Telling your students that there may be other explanations that science can't yet explain is part of what science is all about.

Quote:
BTW, do you have any reading comprehension problems? I've posted the definition of theory as used by science at least three times and it would seem you're still confusing theory with hypothesis.


Your hilarious at your selection memory. I posted just the other day about how evolutionists have tried to redefine what fact is in scientific circles. I suppose that's one post you refuse to remember.

http://greensboring.com/viewtopic.php?t=1446

Its not a matter of semantics either. You can call evolution fact all day long but at the end of the day all it will still be is theory.

Quote:
Arlin Stoltzfus
Assistant Professor
Ph.D. - University of Iowa, 1991
Center for Advanced Research in Biotechnology
9600 Gudelsky Drive
Rockville, MD 20850
Telephone: (301)-738-6208
E-mail: [email protected]
Research Interests: Computational evolutionary biology



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our research is directed toward improving our understanding of the origin and evolution of macromolecular sequence and structure. This research utilizes computational and analytical modelling of evolutionary processes, as well as quantitative analyses of sequence and structure data from genes, proteins, and genomes. Ongoing and planned projects include testing hypotheses regarding the evolutionary history of introns and intron-containing genes; developing bioinformatics tools to aid in molecular evolution research; developing a general theoretical framework for understanding the role of mutation biases in evolution; and developing models that address the evolution of novelty at the molecular level. Recent work includes computer simulations of a neutral model for the stabilization and persistence of duplicate gene loci; and computer simulations and analytical modelling of a rough-fitness-landscape model that reveals how mutation biases are expected to influence the course of evolution under selection. For more information, please visit our web site at http://www.molevol.org/camel.

I have read that and he's merely expressing his opinion. He is a highly educated man. Knows evolution to be a fact too.

Quote:
Personally I think creation is 100% accurate.



Why?? What is it about creation that strikes you as more beLIEvable than evolution?