ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
*****************************************************************************

  After reading further what Intelligent Design now stands for I have to  
modify my previous statement, saying that I have no problem with  
Intelligent Design as a theory.
I still stand by:  It is completely plausible that there is  
intelligence behind our physical universe.  There are no facts to  
disprove it.  There are also no facts to prove it, either, but it is  
possible.  But with no facts it is not science.  Whether or not there  
is an Intelligent being behind it doesn't change science.  My take was  
that intelligent design just meant there is a God behind it all.  The  
Intelligent Design goes way beyond that, to the point of ignoring  
facts.  I agree with Amanda, it is not science.

Ben, this is not spiritual warfare.   Science does not deny a God.   
Yes, there has always been a dialogue between science and religion.   
Yet science is separate from religion.  Science must be based on facts.  
  Bringing religion into it brings personal beliefs into it with the  
real potential of making it no longer science.

No one person can do all science.  We count on each other to take proof  
to the highest level- to the best of our knowledge.   When facts become  
available we must take them into account, altering our present leading  
science theories to make them work.  We debate, we struggle with ideas,  
we test our theories.  WE MAKE THE THEORIES FIT THE FACTS, NOT THE  
OTHER WAY AROUND.  It is only science when it is true.  Science must be  
based on reliable knowledge in order to BE reliable knowledge.

Now what has happened with creationism and Intelligent design is they  
have taken a religious idea and tried everything to make the facts fit  
it.   The Bible is a great book but science does not support the theory  
that the world is only 6000 years old.

There are those of us whose religious beliefs are so strong that they  
try to bend science to their religion.  When that happens by definition  
it stops being Science.
Most of us live with religion AND science in our lives.   I ask from  
all my religious colleagues is to believe in your religion without  
trying to bend the facts of science.
Go ahead and celebrate what God has created.  To the best of our  
knowledge evolution is part of the package.  That is Religion AND  
Science.   Creationism, falling short of science standards, is just  
Religion.

I understand that what I am asking is that you bend your religion to  
science.   Your beliefs are yours to hold on to, I will not tell anyone  
to give up what they believe in, except that believing their beliefs  
are always science.  If that isn't clear how about my putting it this  
way: Believing your beliefs are science doesn't make them science.    
Fitting the facts as best as possible makes them science.

Even adults have a hard time digesting that science may be different  
from what our religion tells us.
  When the 8 year old asks us the question like Kristy's, what do we do?  
   None of us want to say "don't believe your parents".   An honest   
answer to each other and to our children is Science is separate from  
Religion.  Sometimes they disagree.

Sincerely,
Clifford Wagner

On Mar 25, 2005, at 2:52 PM, Amanda Chesworth wrote:

> ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology  
> Centers
> Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related  
> institutions.
> *********************************************************************** 
> ******
>
> "Anything that is deemed "scientific" by nature must be held as  
> falsifiable
> (http://www.answers.com/topic/falsifiability or
>  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html).  This isn't  
> to  say
> that it is false, but that it is not beyond correction if a
> correction were to be discovered."
>
> ...and also, perhaps more importantly, that an empirical "situation,"  
> the
> result of experiment, or other scientific discovery can be defined that
> would indeed falsify the theory in question (regardless if the
> situation/experiment/discovery exists at this time.) And that this new
> information which would render the existing theory false would account  
> for
> all aspects in which the theory relates (interdisciplinary connections
> included.) This falsifying scenario can be envisioned and defined for  
> the
> theory of evolution by natural selection and if science should come  
> upon
> "it", the theory of evolution would indeed be discarded. Such a  
> scenario,
> however, cannot be definied empirically for the allegedly scientific  
> claim
> that an intelligent designer is responsible for all life, all  
> complexity and
> order, as we have known it in the past, as we understand it in the  
> present,
> and so on.
>
> Intelligent Design, more so than creationism, is claiming to be based  
> on
> science (not referring to God, the bible, or any aspect of religion,  
> in its
> official documents) and for that reason, the matter of religion should  
> not
> be a concern to those deciding whether it should effect how biology is
> exhibited and taught. The only question should be "is it science?" and  
> if
> not, it should be discarded. It has been shown, as it currently  
> stands, that
> it is NOT science. The same goes for evolution - we know the answer is  
> YES
> to the question of whether or not evolution is a science and  
> therefore, it
> should be included in our science. Nothing else should matter and those
> institutions and individuals who refuse to teach evolution or work to  
> censor
> it, should, in my opinion, be stripped of their status as a science
> educational institute, a science educator, or a scientist.
>
> Best,
> Amanda
>
> ***********************************************************************
> More information about the Informal Science Education Network and the
> Association of Science-Technology Centers may be found at  
> http://www.astc.org.
> To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
> message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
> [log in to unmask]
>
>

***********************************************************************
More information about the Informal Science Education Network and the
Association of Science-Technology Centers may be found at http://www.astc.org.
To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]