One

#1

“This demonstrates that ID is clearly a religious movement.”

This is a hasty generalization. Where I placed this statement in my paper I had not yet provided sufficient evidence to argue that it is clearly a religious movement. I would change this to:

These statements suggest that the motives of the ID movement have a religious basis.

#2

“When the Court held that evolution could be taught, conservative Christian groups entertained a new strategy, which was to push for the teaching of  ‘creation science’ alongside evolution.”

This statement may be an example of false cause. There appears to be a link in time between the two events which could be interpreted as cause and effect, but might not necessarily be so.

It is interesting to note that when the Court held that evolution could be taught, conservative Christian groups entertained a new strategy, which was to push for the teaching of  ‘creation science’ alongside evolution.

Two

My poster will contain various categories. The title is “Intelligent Design’s Changing Faces.” Sections include: what ID is, religious movement, creationism, history of movement, attacking evolution, becoming a science, not being a science, the wedge document, the popularity of the movement, the future and the truth. There will be a timeline of the picturing the ID movement’s progression of terminology.

Putting together my presentation on Creationism, ID, and evolutionism most helped me clarify what my specific research question should be. There is quite a bit of information pertaining to this issue in terms of scholarly resources in the field. I was able to identify that I was not fully clear in my question and it was not focused enough. My focused question is: Should Intelligent Design be taught as an additional theory to evolution in the public school science classroom?

The questions after my presentation helped me realize that I need to find resources on the side of the Design proponents to have a more balanced argument. These sources may come from websites, books, or other publications. However, there are no peer-reviewed resources on the topic of ID, so I will need to use websites of these Design proponents and books they have written.

Wright, Robert. “Darwinian struggle: is there a place in evolutionary theory for the hand of God? Maybe in Ohio [Intelligent design theory].” Time. 11 Mar. 2002: 48-52. Print.

Bailey, H. David. “Creationism and Intelligent Design: Scientific and Theological Difficulties.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. Fall 2010: 62-87. Print.

Interview with Forest, Barbra. “Intelligent Design: Creationism’s Trojan Horse.” Church and State. Feb 2005: 9-11. Print.

Shipman, Pat. “Being Stalked by Intelligent Design.” American Scientist. Nov 2005: 500-502. Print.

Bauman, Emily. “Outfacing Darwin: Intelligent Design and the case of Mount Rushmore.” Critical Quarterly. April. 2009: 61-81. Print.

I believe my most promising source is “Creationism and Intelligent Design: Scientific and Theological Difficulties.” This will provide me with a solid understanding of the new Intelligent Design movement; its differences with creationism and its fundamental principals. I will be able to gather a wide view of the two ideas differences from a science view to  religious standpoint. I will look to this source first.

Stallybrass tells us that we must rely on what has come before us to base our thoughts and realizations on. He believes that there is so much great information around you that you must draw from. He actually takes this point even further then this. Stallybrass means to say from, “you are not, nor should you be, the origin of your own thoughts,” that are own thoughts and voices are completely shaped by what others have said and say around us. Our own “selves” and the accompanying thoughts are shaped by what is around us. He tells us we must learn to follow the easiest method of thinking by not thinking and working to find what other people think and then drawing conclusions from that.

This relates to any research project very simply. When researching, we are not digging in our brains to find information, facts, or opinions. We must look outside in the world, specifically, the field of research that is of pertinence to gather information on the subject. We should write about the information we have gathered. This is the way a research project must be addressed.

I am interested in researching the ideological basis behind the Creationist belief of human origins.

…Because I want to find out how Creationists can call their idea on human origins a theory without facts or evidence supporting it.

…And this is important because the debate over whether Creationism is regarded as a valid ‘theory’ on the origins of human life is still debated and because Creationists continue to denounce evolutions ever happened.

Questions

1. There are many different branches of creationism, what type would you look at?

2. Would you explore the classroom/teaching controversy through this subject?

3. What area or grouping of the worlds view would you examine?

In our honors 110 class we discussed “in situ” vs “in context” museum exhibits. “In situ” refers to exhibits that are just visual and have little written explanations to accompany them. On the other hand, “in context” exhibits have more written information. In the article from the Japanese Times, Dik Daso tells us that the aircraft in the Air and Space Museum are merely displayed, “There’s no descriptive information out on any of these of what they were capable of doing. . . .” He tells us that the Air and Space museum is “place is primarily a technology museum.” We must then question the appropriateness of providing the conflicting views of the historical background accompanied with the Enola Gay aircraft in the museum.

However, we also explored “official stories, “unofficial stories,” and “hidden stories.” In the case of the proposed Enola Gay Exhibit the Committee for a National Discussion of Nuclear History and Current Policy says that displaying the Enola Gay merely as a technological advancement is “devoid not only of historical context and discussion of the ongoing controversy surrounding the bombings, but even of basic information regarding the number of casualties.” We can see that while the above issues may disagree with each other, and there was much more conflict on the nature and background of the exhibit, it is important to look at the purpose and goal of the exhibit when deciding what it should contain.

http://www.virtualvender.coca-cola.com/ft/index.jsp

The Coca-Cola website tells us that Coca-Cola “is the most popular and biggest–selling soft drink in history.” Coca-Cola tells us that Mr. John Pemberton first created “Coke” as mixable fountain beverage syrup. Coke began selling in 1886; was sold in every state in the US by 1895; and Coca-Cola products are sold today in more than 200 countries. Coca-Cola shares this history with us but they fail to share some other important about the history of their product with us.

Coca-Cola is so named because the original formula contained coca leaves (a source of cocaine) and kola nuts (a source of caffeine). Mr. Pemberton was an herbalist and had experimented for years with coca and kola. It was originally produced it as a patent medicine (a name often referring to a drug that is not registered in order not to expose the various ingredients). What Coke doesn’t tell us on their website is that it contained approximately 9 milligrams of cocaine per glass, until 1903, when cocaine was removed because of the Pure Food and Drugs Act. Still today, Coca-Cola aggressively denies that cocaine was ever found in Coke.

References:

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-1854

http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/cocaine.asp

http://inventors.about.com/od/cstartinventions/a/coca_cola.htm

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mfd&fileName=19/19013/19013page.db&recNum=0&itemLink=/ammem/doughtml/dougFolder4.html&linkText=7

The article appears to be an editorial newspaper clipping from the “Buffalo Express” on February 23^rd, 1895. The article is titled “Douglass And His Race.”

This article was published three days after Fredrick Douglass’s death. The meaning of “His Race” clearly represents all the black people that Fredrick Douglass represented though his strong abolitionist writing, speaking and action during his later life.  We learn that Douglass had “thought of spending his remaining days in England, [where he had previously lived for 2 years] because everywhere in the United States he was constantly reminded of the prejudices against his race.”

We can see from this article that even though the Civil War was won by the North and blacks were technically “free,” Douglass still saw prejudice everywhere to the point of wanting to escape it. It seems uncharacteristic of such a strongly driven proactive thinker and initiator to want to escape from the very center of his life focus. Yet, oh the other hand, we can see that Douglass has given exorbitant amounts of himself fighting slavery and as the clipping explains a great deal of prejudice still existed even in the north.

The article does shed light on slight movement throughout the country towards giving blacks “political rights.” Perhaps Douglass death provoked the country into thinking what the state of black’s “social standing” was.

From this article, we might ask how Douglass handled hope v.s. pain regarding the situation of blacks in his day? Also, while we hear a lot a bout changes in the south, how did changes in the north come about?