Evolution proponent was misleading

  • Follow Letters

Joseph A. Zuchowski's letter on why intelligent design (ID) is not science simply is misleading ("Don't be misled by intelligent design," May 28).

Mr. Zuchowski displayed why only in science is the ideas of ID not allowed to be taught. Science has not proven evolution, yet Mr. Zuchowski would have us believe that it has. He offers no scientific proof, yet he wants to expel ID from the classroom. And for what reason? He offers none, except that he believes ID to be religious in nature. However, his own views compel him to have faith in science.

Mr. Zuchowski is a prime example of someone who does not believe in free speech.

Roy Ingle, Martinez

Comments (23) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
bobxxxx
0
Points
bobxxxx 06/01/08 - 04:49 am
0
0
Everyone knows the designer

Everyone knows the designer of intelligent design is God. God is a religious idea, and God is NOT a scientific idea. Religion and science are separate subjects and they can't be mixed together. Since invoking ID is the same as invoking God, it's very wrong to call ID scientific. Even the most religious scientists know they can't use supernatural explanations to solve scientific problems. Scientists can't say "In this step a miracle occurred." That's what intelligent design is, a collection of miracles.

Science is all about disproving things, not proving things. However some scientific ideas have so much evidence they are called facts. Biological evolution has tons of evidence from many branches of science and the newer evidence from molecular biology is extremely powerful. Evolution is the one of the strongest facts of science and virtually 100% of biologists completely accept the idea that all life is related and all life shares common ancestors. The only people who have a problem with evolution are uneducated people who deny modern scientific discoveries for religious reasons. They need to understand that supernatural ideas like ID will never be allowed in science education.

christian134
1
Points
christian134 06/01/08 - 07:54 am
0
0
Let us make it really

Let us make it really simple...God is God...Okay we have ascertained that much...God is the creator of all things, all meaning anything and everything in this world and other worlds...He and only He gave man the knowledge that unlocks all science...How we choose to use the knowledge is strictly up to us...Therefore God, Jesus Christ and His infallible Word are to be worshiped not the science...

bone
23
Points
bone 06/01/08 - 08:18 am
0
0
good point, 134: keep ID out

good point, 134: keep ID out of the classroom as it implies worship of a creator (and, since ID didn't exactly spring from the mind of a muslim, hindu, jewish, or buddhist, we can guess which creator is presumed) and leave science - and its body of legitimate research - alone. hopefully, all thinking people will be able to make up their minds whether or not they choose to accept all of what is purported to be fact in science; ID offers no such option, since it basically a reaction to science and not a well-researched concept.

deekster
24
Points
deekster 06/01/08 - 09:44 am
0
0
Belief in Almighty GOD

Belief in Almighty GOD creator of all things, should be taught in the home and church. Today's school system should only provide respect for whatever a child brings to the classroom. Federal conrolled schools have no right to teach "faith" of any sort. No one preached JESUS in school sixty years ago. It was not needed, because the majority of students brought that faith with them to school. It came from their parents and pastors. Simple acknowledgement of the term "scientific THEORY" should be sufficient. I believe GOD created all things and the "study of such things", we call science," is a result of HIS creation.

deekster
24
Points
deekster 06/01/08 - 09:58 am
0
0
There is another THEORY for

There is another THEORY for what Darwin and other atheistic observes have proposed to see in nature. It is the THEORY of ISOLATION. When any species is "isolated" and forced to reproduce within a small community, differing offsprings occur. With humans, dominant genes through progressive generations produce ever similar appearance. Of course, with Darwin, when you have the answer at the beginning of your research, the research/conclusions have to support the outcome. In Genesis, after the Tower of Babel, when GOD confused the common language of man, the Bible states the, "GOD divided the lands". Some modern scientific minds call this the "movement of the plates". We as U.S. citizens are on our way to Hawaii. If science can only produce "immortality". Wait, that would be another THEORY or maybe a FAITH.

bone
23
Points
bone 06/01/08 - 10:14 am
0
0
i got into this scientific

i got into this scientific method debate with folks a while back, deekster. very few seem to understand that if you start with a premise and research based on your belief that the premise is true, then you'll wind up finding support for your premise. this works for both religion and science, by the way; faith is ultimately going to be a requirement regarding any understanding of our existence.

pofwe
5
Points
pofwe 06/01/08 - 10:50 am
0
0
SIMPLE CONCLUSION: The Bible

SIMPLE CONCLUSION: The Bible is the infallible "WORD of GOD." not a theory. The evidence is in the BOOK! "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15 You can't touch this.

bone
23
Points
bone 06/01/08 - 11:28 am
0
0
something about opiate of the

something about opiate of the masses comes to mind...

abb3w
0
Points
abb3w 06/01/08 - 11:31 am
0
0
The reason to keep ID out of

The reason to keep ID out of science class is it is unsupported by current evidence. In science, proof (from Latin "probare", to test) is based on competitive testing of hypotheses against each other. It is based on the philosophical assumptions ("faith") of Propositional Logic, ZF Axiomatic Arithmetic, and that Reality is related to Evidence. Expressing the last more formally via the Strong Church-Turing Universe Thesis, it may be shown that of the comprehensive descriptions of the data, the "simplest" is most probably correct. (For the mathematical expression and proof, see the paper "Minimum Description Length Induction, Bayesianism and Kolmogorov Complexity" by Vitanyi and Li.) The Intelligent Design hypothesis is grossly inferior to Evolution under that criterion. Until it has substantial supporting evidence, it has no business near a K-12 science class.

Waving the banner of "Free speech" is misleading. Those who wish to produce a better hypothesis, further evidence, or show a formal error under these assumptions may do so; they have not. If they wish to challenge these assumptions, they may also do so; however, that is Philosophy, not Science, and should be labeled that way.

abb3w
0
Points
abb3w 06/01/08 - 11:37 am
0
0
deekster: it would be nice if

deekster: it would be nice if both sides acknowledged the SAME meaning of "Scientific Theory". Those interested might check the recently adopted Florida Science Standards at the FLDOESTEM.org website. In particular, benchmark SC.6.N.3.1 ("Recognize and explain that a scientific theory is a well-supported and widely accepted explanation of nature and is not simply a claim posed by an individual. Thus, the use of the term theory in science is very different than how it is used in everyday life.") and
SC.912.N.3.1 ("Explain that a scientific theory is the culmination of many scientific investigations drawing together all the current evidence concerning a substantial range of phenomena; thus, a scientific theory represents the most powerful explanation scientists have to offer.") are relevant.

imdstuf
10
Points
imdstuf 06/01/08 - 12:39 pm
0
0
Ummm, yes science has proved

Ummm, yes science has proved evolution. Get over it. Is this the 1700s? Do you think the earth is flat? I cannot believe the letter writer owns a computer. It is people that understand logic and science that design computers. The writer probably thinks God just magically put the idea for computers in someone's head though. People like this just embarrass the south. Go play your banjo on your trailer's front porch and stop writing stupid letters to the editor.

jack
10
Points
jack 06/01/08 - 03:21 pm
0
0
Deekster, 60 years ago we

Deekster, 60 years ago we opened class with Bible reading which taught Jesus/God. Unfortunately, a very liberal SCOTUS threw out such religious activities thanks to Madelein Murray and her atheists (may they burn in hell) and we see what our Guv'munt schools are today-a shambles.

jack
10
Points
jack 06/01/08 - 03:30 pm
0
0
Like I have stated before on

Like I have stated before on this same issue, I guess I am one of those educated Christians who believes that evolution was started with a big bang that created our universe and the earth we know today (which is billions of years old). God's plan from start to today and into what ever future hHe has in store for mankind.. Much about the age of our earth has been proven with scientific study of the earth's history, including its inhabitants remains (fauna) and plants (flora). ID is religion and nothing more and has been legally forced from the classroom

jack
10
Points
jack 06/01/08 - 03:38 pm
0
0
POfwe, the Bible was written

POfwe, the Bible was written by undeducated men but inspired by God. They wrote in terms (very simple in the Old Testament) tht they understood. This is as true about God's creating the various land masses as it does with creation in six days. i believe God COULD have made the entire universe, including earth, in six days, but chose not to. Yes, the continents float on [plates and have created mountain rangs when they crunch todther or earthquakes when under stress. I agree that California should float off into the Pacific, as it would improve our nation considerably IMO, but that may or may not happen. We haven't heard from the San Andreas fault in a long while. It is over due and at least that din of iniquity San Franciso may disappear just as did Sodom and Gamorah.

bone
23
Points
bone 06/01/08 - 03:57 pm
0
0
you should start your own

you should start your own religion, jack.

crackertroy
540
Points
crackertroy 06/01/08 - 05:04 pm
0
0
Didn't Marx say it was opiate
Unpublished

Didn't Marx say it was opiate of the masses? or was it Weber?

bone
23
Points
bone 06/01/08 - 05:06 pm
0
0
marx.

marx.

nightraider
0
Points
nightraider 06/01/08 - 06:13 pm
0
0
Jack you are right and bone

Jack you are right and bone you are wrong. School began with the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE to the flag and a prayer, have you forgotten? Better yet, where did you attend grade school?

bone
23
Points
bone 06/01/08 - 07:07 pm
0
0
what am i wrong about,

what am i wrong about, nightraider? the students still have an opportunity to pray and say the pledge of allegiance each day where i teach. no one is forced to do either but no one has ever been ridiculed for kneeling and praying if they feel so inclined. anyway, i went to school in south georgia. each football game was begun by a pregame prayer led by a local minister with just the team and band members and then in the stadium. organized religion has been a positive part in the lives of young people for quite a while now and i wouldn't discourage the inclusion of metaphysical teaching before or afterschool if it could be done. ID, however, doesn't need to purport itself as anything but a pseudo-science constructed primarily to confuse students who study science as a branch of inquiry. ID doesn't offer much by way of logical study, unfortunately, so it should be removed from the curriculum and properly placed in the church where it belongs.

nightraider
0
Points
nightraider 06/01/08 - 08:03 pm
0
0
I thought you were saying

I thought you were saying jack was wrong, ie, school didn't start that way back then. I still believe the pledge and a silent prayer (to what ever you wish to pray to) should be mandatory to start each school day! As for id, I don't care wether it is taught or not.

Phairplay
0
Points
Phairplay 06/01/08 - 08:09 pm
0
0
arwin himself acknowledged

arwin himself acknowledged the need for critical thinking in Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. He wrote, "a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question..."

Darwin then devoted three of the book's 15 chapters to criticizing his own theory!

How can the science textbooks justify withholding all the facts from students?

Phairplay
0
Points
Phairplay 06/01/08 - 08:10 pm
0
0
That would be "Darwin" not

That would be "Darwin" not "arwin"!

bone
23
Points
bone 06/01/08 - 09:23 pm
0
0
you got a lot out of me,

you got a lot out of me, nightraider. mutual misunderstandings can sometimes lead to over-explication (blahblahblah in my case)

joebiker
0
Points
joebiker 06/01/08 - 11:34 pm
0
0
If anyone has any question

If anyone has any question they would like answered concerning the creation/evolution debate, they should go to www.answersingenesis.org for answers. Whether it be the age of the earth, rock strata, natural selection, mutations, or ect. they have it all. They have PhD's in astromony, cellular biology, just to mention two of the disciplines attained by many staff members at Answers in Genesis. Even they don't condone the teaching of ID in the public schools because of the qualifications of the educators.

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs