Evolution

[Mickey]

Given the attempt in Pa. of requiring the teaching of "Intelligent Design" which I see as creationism by another name, I thought this would be informative:

 

 

 

From Talk.Origins:

 

Claim CI001.1:

 

Intelligent Design (ID) is scientific, not religious.

 

 

Response:

 

The ID movement is motivated by and inseparable from a narrow religious viewpoint. In the words of its founders and leaders:

 

There's a difference of opinion about how important this debate [advocating intelligent design] is. What I always say is that it's not just scientific theory. The question is best understood as: Is God real or imaginary?" [Phillip Johnson, "The Search for Intelligent Design in the Universe", Silicon Valley Magazine, 9 Jan. 2000.]

 

"We are taking an intuition most people have [the belief in God] and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator. [Phillip Johnson, "Enlisting Science to Find the Fingerprints of a Creator", LA Times, 25 Mar. 2001.]

 

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." [Phillip Johnson, American Family Radio, 10 Jan. 2003]

 

"Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle." [Jonathan Wells, Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D., Unification Church, http://www.tparents.org/library/unificatio...ells/DARWIN.htm ]

 

"If we take seriously the word-flesh Christology of Chalcedon (i.e. the doctrine that Christ is fully human and fully divine) and view Christ as the telos toward which God is drawing the whole of creation, then any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient." [William Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 1999.]

"Intelligent design is the Logos of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." [William Dembski, Jul/Aug 1999, Touchstone, 84]

 

Johnson said he and most others in the intelligent design movement believe the designer is the God of the Bible. [steve Maynard, Tacoma News Tribune, May 7, 2001, http://www.discovery.org/news/life%27sIntelligentDesign.html ]

 

See Poindexter [2003] for more such quotes.

 

Intelligent design is explicitly religious as a motive for legislative change of educational standards. Legislation introduced in Michigan attempts to add "intelligent design of a Creator" to the science standards of middle and high school [Michigan HB 4946].

 

 

Several books on intelligent design are published by InterVarsity Press, which says of itself, WHO IS INTERVARSITY PRESS? We are a publisher of Christian books and Bible studies. As an extension of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA, InterVarsity Press serves those in the university, the church and the world by publishing resources that equip and encourage people to follow Jesus as Savior and Lord in all of life. [iVP n.d.]

 

The video "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" purportedly "tells the story of contemporary scientists who are advancing a powerful but controversial idea -- the theory of intelligent design." But it was produced by and promoted almost exclusively by fundamentalist Christian organizations [Evans 2003].

 

The ID movement attempts to hide its religious basis in order to give the appearance of secular objectivity [branch 2002]. Their attempt is dishonest propaganda. "The trend among many Christian groups these days is to camouflage their creationism as 'Intelligent Design' or 'Progressive Creationism.'" [Morris 1999] And despite their claims, the movement has no science.

 

 

ID is blatantly anti-religious if the religion is one they disagree with. For example Philip Johnson equates theistic evolution (which would include most of Christianity) with atheism because of its acceptance of evolution.

 

Links:

Poindexter, Brian, 2003. The horse's mouth. http://home.kc.rr.com/bnpndxtr/download/Ho...Mouth-BP007.pdf

 

References:

Branch, 2002. Evolving banners at the Discovery Institute. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 22(5): 12. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/...v_8_29_2002.asp

Evans, Skip, 2003. Who promotes Unlocking the Mystery of Life? http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/...e__7_3_2003.asp

IVP Online, n.d. About us. http://www.gospelcom.net/ivpress/info/aboutus/

Michigan House Bill 4946, July 2, 2003, House introduced bill. http://www.michiganlegislature.org/mileg.a...me=2003-HB-4946

Morris, John D., 1999. Open letter included with mailing of April 1999 Acts and Facts.

Poindexter, 2003. (see above)

[John Adams]

Good thing my office windows don't open.

 

This is so loco. Makes public schooling look less and less an option. My children will learn science in science class. That means studying theories that explain how things happen, and predict future events.

 

ID can't do that. It's not science. I really have no problem discussing the idea of ID. It's a viable theory- at least as viable as the entire universe is just grime under the fingernail of a giant. But ID doesn't help predict the future, or explain the subtle perutations of the past. Evolution is not perfect, but it has basis in observable reality, and is the best theory we have for the progression of species.

[Mickey]

Good thing my office windows don't open.

 

This is so loco. Makes public schooling look less and less an option. My children will learn science in science class. That means studying theories that explain how things happen, and predict future events.

 

ID can't do that. It's not science.  I really have no problem discussing the idea of ID. It's a viable theory- at least as viable as the entire universe is just grime under the fingernail of a giant. But ID doesn't help predict the future, or explain the subtle perutations of the past. Evolution is not perfect, but it has basis in observable reality, and is the best theory we have for the progression of species.

160175[/snapback]

I hope lots and lots of school districts teach this, just not my kids. That should thin out the competition when comes to college and grad school admissions.

 

Here is some info on what is going on in one schoold district in Pennsylvania:

Creationism mandated by school district

[Johnny Coli]

As someone that works in the scientific field, and as a person who taught genetics as a grad student, this is disheartening. It is astonishing that there are people in this country, in this day and age, that feel this should be a serious part of any science curriculum. Many graduating seniors today are already behind the curve in far too many disciplines. This nonsense only makes it harder for them at the university level.

[Mickey]

As someone that works in the scientific field, and as a person who taught genetics as a grad student, this is disheartening.  It is astonishing that there are people in this country, in this day and age, that feel this should be a serious part of any science curriculum.  Many graduating seniors today are already behind the curve in far too many disciplines.  This nonsense only makes it harder for them at the university level.

160246[/snapback]

You must be one of those Christ hating pagans I hear so much about who won't allow God in school. I'll pray for you.

 

Seriously, why do so many insist on seeing evolution as such a threat to their faith that they have to demand equal time in a science class? *sigh*

[UConn James]

I hope lots and lots of school districts teach this, just not my kids.  That should thin out the competition when comes to college and grad school admissions.

160202[/snapback]

 

The problem with that logic is the majority decides what is "right." If ID becomes the norm in elementary and high schools, it becomes what entire generations think and believe. Who's there to tell them they're wrong?

 

The creationism movement is comparable to the borg collective. And someday, when you least expect it, your kid walks in the door and says, 'Hey you know what? Maybe blah blah blah....'

 

We don't need Christian madrassas in this country. If people want their kids to learn it, that's what Sunday School is. Science class is about studying, hypothesizing and experimenting with observable fact.

[John Adams]

The problem with that logic is the majority decides what is "right." If ID becomes the norm in elementary and high schools, it becomes what entire generations think and believe. Who's there to tell them they're wrong?

 

160296[/snapback]

 

Smart people.

[Johnny Coli]

The problem with that logic is the majority decides what is "right." If ID becomes the norm in elementary and high schools, it becomes what entire generations think and believe. Who's there to tell them they're wrong?

 

The creationism movement is comparable to the borg collective. And someday, when you least expect it, your kid walks in the door and says, 'Hey you know what? Maybe blah blah blah....'

 

We don't need Christian madrassas in this country. If people want their kids to learn it, that's what Sunday School is. Science class is about studying, hypothesizing and experimenting with observable fact.

160296[/snapback]

The beauty of science is that good science will always obliterate bad science. Sound scientific ideas, based on testable hyptheses, will always prevail over this rhetoric-based garbage. It may become popular in a few areas of this country populated by people who would rather have us still rubbing two sticks together, but the field will continue to police its own.

[John Adams]

Back to the point of the story though. The problem with this effort by the evangelicals is that they are trying to make the very definition of science a bad one. In the end, there will be parents who cannot or do not want to unteach this kind of drivel, and kids will not have an interest in science. As it is, science is mocked by far too many people (all of whom talk on cell phones, got immunized last week, and are taking hairgrowth pills etc.).

 

The countrywide drive for science started failing when we realized that we didn't need to beat the USSR in the science race. Once we realized that we were the scientific superpower, and weren't motivated by the fear that the USSR breed into us, a lot of scientific drive went out the window. In its place, we have lots of poly sci majors.

[CookieG]

And in still other news, the Kansas Board of Education again reconsiders its science standards. Back to the 1999, "de-empahasis" of evolution stuff?

 

Dorothy's lesson plan

[OGTEleven]

My children will learn science in science class. That means studying theories that explain how things happen, and predict future events.

 

 

160175[/snapback]

 

 

How does evolution meet this definition? I can give it the benefit of the doubt to some extent on "explaining how things happen" but it is still replete with missing links in its theories (pun intended). With that said what does it do to predict future events? Physics class teaches a lot there as does chemistry, but evolution? "Continued adaptation to one's environment" is a little vague, no?

 

Disclaimer: This post is not meant to contrast evolution with ID or creationism (I think there will always have to be faith to believe in God, and I think God made it that way on purpose.) The post is meant to measure evolution as meeting the definition of science.

[DC Tom]

How does evolution meet this definition?  I can give it the benefit of the doubt to some extent on "explaining how things happen" but it is still replete with missing links in its theories (pun intended).  With that said what does it do to predict future events?  Physics class teaches a lot there as does chemistry, but evolution?  "Continued adaptation to one's environment" is a little vague, no?

 

Disclaimer: This post is not meant to contrast evolution with ID or creationism (I think there will always have to be faith to believe in God, and I think God made it that way on purpose.)  The post is meant to measure evolution as meeting the definition of science.

160725[/snapback]

 

It's misleading to think of it as "this is" or "this isn't" science, because it's not an either/or proposition.

 

Consider, for example, theories of the solar system. The original theory was the earth-centered system: everything revolves around the earth. Perfectly legitimate, based on observation...but with serious holes and problems in it that made its predictive and descriptive powers very weak. The comes Copernicus and the heliocentric universe...much better in both descriptive and predictive qualities, but still relatively poor for lacking any sort of foundation of "why?". Enter Kepler's laws...now there's a set of basic underlying principles for orbital mechanics, but still no understanding of what causes an orbit.

 

And so on, to Newton...gives us gravity, gives us a theory that both explains and predicts with a good degree of accuracy. Then Herschell discovers Uranus...Uranus' orbit has oddities in it, which leads to Neptune and Pluto. Newton's theory, good as it is, is still seriously flawed in that it can't explain Mercury's orbit...enter Einstein and General Relativity.

 

That, in brief, is the evolution of a scientific theory. So, in light of that, is evolution "bad science" for having lots of holes? Well...no more so than the geocentric solar system, really. Yes, it's got holes...but it describes what we see fairly well, moreso than any other scientific theory. It's got a solid underpinning in genetics. It's predictive qualities suck, no doubt...but it's one case where virtually any theory is going to have virtually no predictive value (predicting the future form of life?)

 

The other thing it has going for it above any other theory is that it's scientific: it involves creating and investigating testable hypotheses in a repeatable fashion. And it's even empirically testable on a small scale (looking at isolated populations of animals that enjoy wider distributions elsewhere...pygmy elephants on Indonesian islands, and the lions in N'Gorogoro crater jump most immediately to mind). Even if it's scientific qualities aren't much to brag about (and they're better than most people think), it's at least formed via the scientific method.

 

Basically, if it doesn't explain, forsee, and pass peer review, it isn't science. Evolution does each of those to varying degrees. Creation, on the other hand...well, it both does and doesn't, since it whitewashes everything with the simple explaination of "God's will". If that's your theory, then everything and nothing is forseen and explained...and how do you subject God to peer review? So even if creation is a good theory (it isn't...good theories don't whitewash), it's still not scientific.

[sweet baboo]

The problem with that logic is the majority decides what is "right." If ID becomes the norm in elementary and high schools, it becomes what entire generations think and believe. Who's there to tell them they're wrong?

160296[/snapback]

 

just because they teach it in school doesn't mean kids will pick it up...most kids don't pay much attention in school anyway

and if my kids listen to the ID bullcrap, well, hopefully the recognize that their father is alot smarter than their teacher will ever be when i tell them what a bunch of horseshit it is

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

I pose a very interesting set of questions to the members of both sides:

 

If genetic engineering is used to eventually extend a person's lifespan to 200 years, removeing every possible defect that could hinder a person's chances at dying sooner, should it be undertaken?

 

If not, should genetic engineering be used at all to cure patients? Why, if it interferes with God's creation? Or, is it a simple fact that God allowed this technology to be discovered for such cures?

 

If so, how would the problems of overpopulation and a lack of eventual jobs be undertaken?

 

And the most important question:

 

If you are against cloning for religious reasons, are you against the use of genetic engineering to cure cancer, heart disease, and AIDS if it is found?

[Mickey]

I pose a very interesting set of questions to the members of both sides:

 

If genetic engineering is used to eventually extend a person's lifespan to 200 years, removeing every possible defect that could hinder a person's chances at dying sooner, should it be undertaken?

 

If not, should genetic engineering be used at all to cure patients? Why, if it interferes with God's creation? Or, is it a simple fact that God allowed this technology to be discovered for such cures?

 

If so, how would the problems of overpopulation and a lack of eventual jobs be undertaken?

 

And the most important question:

 

If you are against cloning for religious reasons, are you against the use of genetic engineering to cure cancer, heart disease, and AIDS if it is found?

160868[/snapback]

I haven't given this tons of thought but I'll take a stab anyway.

 

Extending our life spans that much would really constitute a fundamental reodering of our life cycles that would require that just about everything else change as well. We would have to make such changes for that much of an extension of our lives to be viable. The number of changes would be too numerous and complex to even attempt to go through them here. Providing we do make the changes necessary, I have no problem with such an extension of our life spans wether it be achieved through genetic egineering or cleaner living.

 

As for overpopulation and lack of jobs, I'm thinking that people living to be 200 would entail a much longer period of youthfulness and many other changes that would create additional jobs. We would have to have kids much later in life. These are all solvable problems.

[Britbillsfan]

Having an additional amount of lifespan (why just 200 years?) will have fundamental differences in just about everything other than just the obvious overcrowding. If lifespans are significantly increase (and by significantly I am talking about increasing lifespans by 100s of years) then the issue of if you have kids or not becomes an issue for society (and, dare I say it, government) and not just the individuals concerned.

 

To extend lifespans beyond 150 years or so (when the brain will have deteriorated too badly to function effectively) would involve halting the aging process so ages far beyond the hypothetical 200 years will be commonplace, with even the possibility of reversing it if you were already old when the process became available to you.

 

As for GE being an interference with God's creation - well that will be for the individul to decide (is not most medicine 'interfering' to some degree?). Some will be against, some will be pragmatic ('If it was truly against God's will it would not be possible/we would not have been clver enough to work out how') and others will go 'So?' and it will be a total non-issue (like all the atheists out there). Once the scientific progress has been made it will become available somewhere as aging & dying is not high on most peoples' WANT to do lists, and once it starts to become more common place the number of people wanting such extended lifespans wil increase.

 

All rather hypothetical at the moment as the treatments will take another 70-100 years (most likely) to become available and we will all be worm food by then.

[_BiB_]

Whether it should be taught or not, what is inherently wrong with the theory? I'll answer that. It calls for the power and the intervening hand of something more powerful than us. Many, for some reason find that frightening. This is pretty close to my personal beleifs. I had them long before I ever heard of ID. Has anyone stopped to think about how complex life is, let alone the rest of it? I don't believe in FLASH, Here you go Adam-and that the world was created 10,000 years ago-but I have not seen anything to prove that life is due to a lightning bolt hitting the right random combinations of amino acids at the same time. If one miniscule of DNA screws up, and one simple releaser enzyme doesn't engage at the proper moment-there is no life for that individual. Should one want to believe this is all random chance, I guess one can.

 

I'm not implying this is the right answer, but I do think that by totally discounting an overarching power to all of it might be the worst form of egotistical prodding the bear.

 

Looking at science as science, this place was apparantly a barren wasteland for quite a few billion years. Then suddenly, there was a virtual explosion of life. Maybe it wasn't a force we can call God, but I've yet to see a definitive explanation otherwise. The excuse is "it's a theory, how can it be definitive-we weren't there to see it".

 

Modern "Us" wants a definitive proof of a higher power, beyond the shadow of any doubt, but is willing to accept as science, the theories of man. Maybe we should stick to what we know we have discovered, and can prove, as science-including the process, and not close the door on what we don't know we can prove until it is done.

 

I can understand that people might want to live 2,3,400 years-as they have already discounted the idea of anything beyond this existence here. They feel that this is all there is. To hope or believe otherwise, they fear, makes them look uneducated, unintelligent and childishly foolish. So be it. I'll take my chances that perhaps it's not that way. I believe that there is a higher power, whom I choose to call God, that there IS another place and I'm more than willing to go there as soon as it is determined that it's my time.

 

So, I guess, call me a naive, unscientific fool. But, hey, I'm regularly called a lot worse. Don't bother me none. I still look forward to it, and I have no fear of it. As far as I'm personally concerned, I'm living what I think is some type of larval stage. I won't truly live until I pass through it.

 

As far as teaching it? No, probably not. What I think works best is for schools to teach scholastics. Where a particular religion is germane to the subject, as it so often is in history, place it into the curriculum. It would not bother me one iota to see some form of theology taught at the highschool level, the intent being to give the basics, for understanding reasons, the core beliefs and history of the worlds major religions-as they DO figure prominantly into the everyday lives of billions. How can and why should this be ignored? As an example, we wouldn't be having this problem with the middle east if everyone had a basic uderstanding of Islam and the role it plays in the everyday life of the Muslims. Muslim Children taught the ideas of Christianity would have a clearer understanding of why much of the West think the way they do. This wouldn't be meant to foster agreement, just to foster understanding. We have botched foreign policy for over 200 years. Why? Because we want to Americanize and Christianize everything everyone else does. Americans see things only through their eyes, not the eyes of the Hindu, or the Muslim, or in many cases even through the eyes of the Jew or other Christians. Because of this, everything will eventually break down and fail-or conversely, we are going to have dominate the world by force.

 

Not very good choices.

[VABills]

BIB, very well stated. I wish that I could state it was well as you, but you really touched on it. Noone knows for sure and therefore all theories should be included for discussion.

[John Adams]

BIB, very well stated.  I wish that I could state it was well as you, but you really touched on it.  Noone knows for sure and therefore all theories should be included for discussion.

160930[/snapback]

 

I hope my theory that we are all grime under the fingernail of a giant gets a lot of play.

 

BiB- you comments on ID are not off base. I agree that at a philosophical/religious level, ID is worthy of discussion. In fact, the idea of ID originated a long time ago, and dates back to at least Aristotle (and probably before that).

 

But ID is not science. If a teacher wants to mention ID in a science class, he could say, "We can't explain everything in science because science is a series of theories. Some people think that the ultimate theory is called Intelligent Design, which is a theory that everything can be explained by some higher power. That theory is viable, but at least at the moment, it doesn't help us make and test hypotheses, which is the study of science. So now we turn to science, and leave ID behind."

 

As to your other doom and gloom stuff, well, we disagree. That's your spin on things. And not mine.

[Mickey]

Whether it should be taught or not, what is inherently wrong with the theory? I'll answer that. It calls for the power and the intervening hand of something more powerful than us. Many, for some reason find that frightening. This is pretty close to my personal beleifs. I had them long before I ever heard of ID. Has anyone stopped to think about how complex life is, let alone the rest of it? I don't believe in FLASH, Here you go Adam-and that the world was created 10,000 years ago-but I have not seen anything to prove that life is due to a lightning bolt hitting the right random combinations of amino acids at the same time. If one miniscule of DNA screws up, and one simple releaser enzyme doesn't engage at the proper moment-there is no life for that individual. Should one want to believe this is all random chance, I guess one can.

 

I'm not implying this is the right answer, but I do think that by totally discounting an overarching power to all of it might be the worst form of egotistical prodding the bear.

 

Looking at science as science, this place was apparantly a barren wasteland for quite a few billion years. Then suddenly, there was a virtual explosion of life. Maybe it wasn't a force we can call God, but I've yet to see a definitive explanation otherwise. The excuse is "it's a theory, how can it be definitive-we weren't there to see it".

 

Modern "Us" wants a definitive proof of a higher power, beyond the shadow of any doubt, but is willing to accept as science, the theories of man. Maybe we should stick to what we know we have discovered, and can prove, as science-including the process, and not close the door on what we don't know we can prove until it is done.

 

I can understand that people might want to live 2,3,400 years-as they have already discounted the idea of anything beyond this existence here. They feel that this is all there is. To hope or believe otherwise, they fear, makes them look uneducated, unintelligent and childishly foolish. So be it. I'll take my chances that perhaps it's not that way. I believe that there is a higher power, whom I choose to call God, that there IS another place and I'm more than willing to go there as soon as it is determined that it's my time.

 

So, I guess, call me a naive, unscientific fool. But, hey, I'm regularly called a lot worse. Don't bother me none. I still look forward to it, and I have no fear of it. As far as I'm personally concerned, I'm living what I think is some type of larval stage. I won't truly live until I pass through it.

 

As far as teaching it? No, probably not. What I think works best is for schools to teach scholastics. Where a particular religion is germane to the subject, as it so often is in history, place it into the curriculum. It would not bother me one iota to see some form of theology taught at the highschool level, the intent being to give the basics, for understanding reasons, the core beliefs and history of the worlds major religions-as they DO figure prominantly into the everyday lives of billions. How can and why should this be ignored? As an example, we wouldn't be having this problem with the middle east if everyone had a basic uderstanding of Islam and the role it plays in the everyday life of the Muslims. Muslim Children taught the ideas of Christianity would have a clearer understanding of why much of the West think the way they do. This wouldn't be meant to foster agreement, just to foster understanding. We have botched foreign policy for over 200 years. Why? Because we want to Americanize and Christianize everything everyone else does. Americans see things only through their eyes, not the eyes of the Hindu, or the Muslim, or in many cases even through the eyes of the Jew or other Christians. Because of this, everything will eventually break down and fail-or conversely, we are going to have dominate the world by force.

 

Not very good choices.

160899[/snapback]

I respect your viewpoint but within the whole of what you have stated are some fundamental misunderstandings regarding evolution. For example, the idea that evolution holds that suddenly, for unknown reasons, there was an explosion of life is not what the theory of evolution holds at all. Not unless you view "suddenly" as something that took millions of years. Referring to evolution dictating that life began only by chance, by random event is also not quite accurate. It was the combination of chance and the laws of physics which, fortunately for us, existed well before we developed as a species and "discovered" them. Further, the probablity of a If you are interested, here is a site with a wealth of information regarding this debate. There are more scholarly articles at this site then you could imagine. Rather than me repeat what is there, I'll give you the link because I know you have so much spare time to devote to this.

Talk.Origins and its subsite: Talk.design They are one sided but have links to creationist snake oil type sites. I mean "snake oil" in the nicest way.

 

There is a pretty healthy block of people who subscribe to a theistic form of evolution where the fundamentals of evolution are not denied but are embraced. At the same time, the existence of a God, even a judeo-christian one, is also embraced. No real conflict exists there unless one interprets the bible literally. Intelligent Design, which is not a theory by any stretch, is simply religious faith dressed up as scientific theory inorder to shoe-horn it into classrooms. Even if you accept it as some sort of half baked "theory" you should know that it does NOT allow for even a theistic form of evolution. What you have stated looks to me more like a form of theistic evolution. If so, ID would in fact not suffer that belief. In fact, one of the founders and leading proponents of "Intelligent Design" )Phillip Johnson) equates theistic evolution with atheism because of its acceptance of evolution. If you accept evolution, intelligent design proponents and their "theory" would conclude that you are the worst form of atheist: an atheist who thinks he is a believer.

 

I have no problem with people discussing their faith in a variety of forums outside of science classes. One of the great debates of our age is between science and religion starting at least as far back as Galileo. This is the Age of Science. Scientific advancement has been so great and so extensive that it can't avoid bumping into faith. Rethinking our faith in light of our science is unavoidable. I don't think however that it is a debate we need to burden 10 year olds with who have a hard enough time figuring out the periodic chart of the elements.

 

Maybe when we are no longer gettin hammered in math and the sciences by kids in Asian and some European countries we can afford the luxury of devoting class time to theological debates. If we spent half the concern, cash and political posturing on actual learning in schools as we do on God back in school, maybe our kids would be able to compete with kids from southeast Asia in an increasingly technological economy. Never fear, the kids can pray all they want hoisting boxes of hi-tech goods from Singapore at the loading dock making minimum wage because they learned intelligent design while the Hong Kong kids were doing calculus in their heads.