Originally posted by Umbrax
Good for Australia .
I think this quote says it best.
"Not being able to imagine or explain how something happened other than by making a leap of faith to supernatural intervention is no basis for any science -- that is a theological or philosophical notion."
Unfortuantly, again.. the 'planned' politics that happens in America has inevitably spread like a virus over here. I actually tried to get the 'open letter' for a keepsake.. the Herald Sun had it online.. but I looked through the ENTIRE normal version and it wasn't there. I wrote them an email asking where it was.. of course I had no response. This does not surprise me as NewsCorp owns the Herald Sun, Murdoch own NewsCorp and is a huge supporter of Bush [as is John Howard] and Bush is directly responsible for creationism being taught in US schools.
The night before the letter was [meant] to be published in major newspapers.. 'Catalyst' aired the story:
www.abc.net.au..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Transcript
A mention of irreducible complexity.. an argument that has frequently been used in this forum by those who have fallen victim to propoganda:
Prof. Mike Archer: I've looked at the evidence that Michael Behe has put forward for his irreducible complexity. It's a very interesting concept. The failure of that kind of thinking is that there is no such thing really as irreducible complexity.
Narration: So what about that bacterial flagellum?
Prof. Mike Archer: What we know for example is that it doesn't require as he claims 40 unique proteins to make this whole thing work there are many other kinds of bacteria out there that have flagella and they have far fewer than that. So it's already reducible.
And they finnished off with a damning mention of the 'wedge document':
In the late 1990's the Discovery Institute produced a revealing document.
Paul Willis, reporter: This is known as the Wedge Document. It outlines a strategy to over throw science. Why is it called the wedge?
(Reads) "Our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points."
Paul Willis, reporter: And what do they intend to use as a wedge?
(Reads) "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
Narration: Having created a debate, the Discovery Institute want that controversy taught in schools.
They call it "teaching the choice".
Brendan Nelson: It's about choice, reasonable choice.
Narration: It looks like the strategy is working.
Now Australian scientists are fighting back.
They're producing an open letter that unequivocally states Intelligent Design is not science and must not be taught in science classrooms.
Prof. Mike Archer: If you open up the door to that then why not open up the science class door to creation science, to fork bending, to flat earth. Why just teach astronomy? Let's teach astrology. All of these things would have equal right to claim time in the science classroom. What would bother me is even if you just give each of these sort of slightly cute and you know fun but a bit nutsy zones there's simply going to be no time left for teaching real science. That's the worry I have.
Narration: The open letter, signed by a host of Australian scientists and science educators, will appear in national newspapers tomorrow.
Hopefully Australia will be able to contend with this obscene onslaught of ignorance and not be dragged into a time where things like space travel might consist of building a really long ladder.
[edit on 25-10-2005 by riley]