Intelligent Design Threatens Public Education

    Right now, there are people that want to push their own personal agenda and manipulate the public while doing so, even if it means clearly violating the constitution.  The people in question are zealous religious conservatives.  Their special interest is the proposal to include the teaching of “intelligent design” in the science curricula of our public schools, and in order to tactically do so, they are manipulating the public by using the religious views of the majority of Americans for sympathy.  But it’s hard to understand the issue without understanding what intelligent design is.  Intelligent design states that the origin of all living things can be explained by some unfathomable, higher power being the cause, whether it was God or a giant invisible spider.  Proponents of intelligent design want it taught in public schools, in a scientific setting, because they can’t accept the teaching of natural selection through evolution, which logically contradicts intelligent design, and is scientifically sound and included in the science curricula of public schools all across America.  Intelligent design, however, is not scientific like evolution is, but is more or less a religious concept.  What most people don’t understand about this debate, even if they fully understand what intelligent design is, is that those who work to get it into the science curricula are doing so for their own religious agenda.  For this reason, intelligent design should not be taught in public schools, but also because it is unscientific to begin with, and it violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
    Intelligent design should not be included in the science curriculum of public schools because it is not science.  The vast majority of the scientific community sees Intelligent design as unscientific.  Additionally, the federal government reacted negatively to the first-ever mandated teaching of intelligent design in science curricula by a school board in the Dover, Pennsylvania area.  U.S. District Judge John. E. Jones stated clearly to the Dover School Board that it is not science, and that there is “overwhelming evidence” that intelligent design “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory” (Associated Press 1). Then, in January 2005, a federal judge ordered an Atlanta school district to remove stickers that were placed on biology textbooks that stated that evolution is a theory, not a fact (Associated Press 2). Even many religious organizations oppose the teaching of intelligent design in a scientific format.  The 167th Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Missouri established a resolution that opposes the teaching of intelligent design, stating in the resolution that the convention “strongly affirms our belief in the Creator God, but nevertheless also strongly recommends that if ‘intelligent design’ is taught in Missouri, it should be taught in a religious context and in a religious setting, and it should not be mandated as an official par of the public school science curriculum in the state of Missouri” (NCSE 1).
    The teaching of intelligent design would not only violate science, but it would violate the constitution.  Judge Jones asserted that the Dover School Board’s insertion of intelligent design into the science curriculum violated the constitutional separation of church and state (Associated Press 1).  As with the court’s reaction, the 167th Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Missouri further stated in their resolution that “The intent of this resolution is to resist the introduction of religion into the science curriculum of our public schools and to maintain the separation of church and state” (NCSE 1).  In contrast, Doug Linder, a law professor, stated that:

“I’d like to be able to say, “There’s no reason for any of us to worry about the Intelligent Design threat-the Supreme Court will step in and save the day if it has to.” I can’t tell you that.  The law is not clear.” (3)

Linder goes on to say that the important question under the First Amendment regarding this issue is that “Is the state (or board or teacher) acting out of religious convictions or simply out of their own misguided understanding of science?” (3).  If they are acting to promote fundamentalist religion, it would definitely be found unconstitutional; if they are simply acting out of ignorance, then it may be constitutional (4).  Regardless of the POSSIBLE motives of the science teachers, including intelligent design in the standard curricula of public schools would be unconstitutional, because so far its only been motivated (and mainly credited) by religion. However, the proponents of intelligent design seem to completely ignore this fact, and will continue to lie about it in order to make it look constitutional.
    Proponents only want intelligent design taught to students in a scientific setting to promote their own religious and political agenda.  Virtually all of the proponents of intelligent design are religious conservatives, and they have swayed the public effectively by flaunting their religious beliefs.  Several who are aware of the debate, including the federal judge in the Dover case (a Republican who regularly attends church) (Associated Press 1), pretty much agree that the majority, if not the entire directly pro-ID crowd are conservative Christians.  Judge Jones also stated,  “We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom” (Associated Press 1). Unfortunately, the common argument for mandating intelligent design has nothing to do with science, or education for that matter.  
    However, several biologists have spoken out in favor of intelligent design and to include it in the public science curricula.  While their own arguments may be questionable to the majority of the scientific community, they do not lack some level of credibility that could be used to further disguise the motives of teaching intelligent design.  In a special report in Natural History magazine, Michael J. Behe, a professor of biological sciences and proponent of intelligent design, presented his view of “irreducible complex systems” found in the natural world, which he describes by using a mouse trap as an example of one:

“You can’t catch a mouse with just a platform, then add a spring and catch a few more mice, then add a holding bar a catch a few more.  All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice.” (3)

More or less, Behe suggests that since something like the complex machinery of cells cannot work without all the right “parts”, then it could not have evolved.  And since it could not have evolved, it must have been designed (2).  Many people, including Professor Behe, believe that since living cells are so complex, they simply could not have been the result of random, natural events through natural selection.  Proponents of intelligent design present it as a scientific theory like evolution through natural selection.  Found additionally in the special report from Natural History magazine, John Wells, who received a Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology (and also one in religious studies) (Forrest 14), argues that Darwin’s theory of evolution does not fit the evidence provided for it (8), so therefore, intelligent design should be taught along with evolution in public schools (9).  Stephen Meyer, the director of the Discovery Institute in Seattle (a leading developer in the intelligent design “theory”), responded to pro-intelligent design remarks made by President Bush in August 2005:

“We interpret this as the president using his bully pulpit to support freedom of inquiry and free speech about the issue of biological origins.” (Bumiller 3)

Regardless of any attempts made by the very small percentage of the scientific community to justify the teaching of intelligent design, the majority would disagree.  The scientifically related arguments made by proponents of intelligent design only rely on the their own personal views and do not represent a clear scientific approach to the evolutionary theory.  Their argument for intelligent design is flawed, mainly because they ignore important aspects of the evolutionary theory.  Natural History magazine’s senior editors say that, “Most biologists have concluded that the proponents of intelligent design display either ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of evolutionary science” (2). Additionally, most of the advocates of teaching intelligent design are politically and religiously motivated, which clearly shined through in the case against the Dover, Pennsylvania school board, as well as other incidents.  Evolution has been included in the science curricula of public schools for a very long time, while intelligent design has never been considered by any sane person to be important in public education.
When the president of the United States says that intelligent design ought to be taught along with evolution, saying that “both sides” should be taught (Bumiller 1), it should raise some serious questions about what conservative Christians, who fully sustain the debate, know about science education.  Essentially, the general public doesn’t matter in the debate on intelligent design due to public ignorance on the issue and the “voting” of one’s personal beliefs.  Science education, after all, should be what this debate is about, not politically and religiously motivated crying in ignorance.  Including intelligent design in the science syllabus of public schools would not only, not make any sense, but it is clearly unconstitutional.  Imagine that instead, this was a debate on including pornographic magazines in the English curricula.  Of course, pornographic magazines do not pertain to English class, just as intelligent design does not pertain to science.  Intelligent design is a concept that only has meaning in a misguided scientific context.  Because of this, and the obvious creationist religious objective, intelligent design should not only NOT be taught in any context whatsoever in public schools, it shouldn’t be taught anywhere period.  It would be a waste of time and nobody would really understand what it is anyway.
“Missouri Episcopalians say no to Intelligent Design.”  National Center for Science Education.  
16 Nov. 2006.  National Center for Science Education.  1 Dec. 2006.  <http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/MO/756_missouri_episcoplians_say_no_to_intelligent_design.html>

Behe, Michael J. Ph.D., Dembski, William A. Ph.D., Forrest, Barbara Ph.D., Maestro, Vittorio,
Miller, Kenneth R. Ph.D., Milner, Richard, Pennock, Robert T. Ph.D., Scott, Eugenie C. Ph.D., and Wells, Jonathan Ph.D.  “Intelligent Design?”  Action Bio Science.  April 2002.  American Institute of Biological Sciences.  1 Dec. 2006 <http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html>

Bumiller, Elisabeth.  “Bush Remarks Roil Debate on Teaching of Evolution.”  The New York
Times.  3 Aug. 2005.  The New York Times.  22 Nov. 2006  <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/politics/03bush.html>

Linder, Doug.  “Notes on Policy and Legal Issues Concerning ‘Intelligent Design Theory’.”  
UMKC.  2001.  UMKC.  22 Nov. 2006 <http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/intelligentdesign.html>

The Associated Press and Boyle, Alan.  “Judge rules against ‘intelligent design’.”  MSNBC.  20
Dec. 2005.  MSNBC.  20 Nov. 2006  <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/>

I.D. / creationism is a dead issue in the public schools.  

John

Quoted: Intelligent Design Threatens Public Education

I think a book burning would be a good  idea.

Let's burn all the books that contain any mention of intelligent design.

Sounds like y'all aren't too confident of your little evolution theory if yer scared of the open exchange of ideas.

Us I.D.'ers just want a seat at the table - the opportunity to present our side of the story. But you REFUSE to allow it - yer gonna maintain your monopoly of thought. So you might as well do taht book burning.

"Threatens public education..."  methink thou doest protest too loudly.

I.D.ers get a seat at the table just as long as science and public education aren't involved.  

I.D. is a religious concept.  No problem with that, as long as public money isn't spent to promote it in public schools.  

The Supreme Court trumps all.  Game over, except in the court of internet forums.  

John

height=8

Quoted: height=8 Quoted: Intelligent Design Threatens Public Education     I think a book burning would be a good  idea. Let's burn all the books that contain any mention of intelligent design. heory Us I.D.'ers just want a seat at the table - the opportunity to present our side of the story. But you REFUSE to allow it - yer gonna maintain your monopoly of thought. So you might as well do taht book burning. "Threatens public education..."  methink thou doest protest too loudly.

Well, I learned something today -- until now, ALL the people I know that are proponents of I.D. (as opposed to pure evolution or pure creationism) have been fellow pagans.

Now that Garandman is including himself in the I.D. camp, I need to re-evaluate my misconceptions (of I.D. proponents -- not Garandman...he's still good people)

"Intelligent design" is just the creationism pig with some lipstick. It's pushed by those with a religious agenda, although they sometimes tend to be disingenuous about it. It does not meet the standards that science requires, and it does not belong in science classes.

If you want to teach religion, teach it as religion.

There are creation scientists.  There is probably just as much evidence for intelligent design as there is macro evolution, which is to say little or none for either of them.

Quoted: There are creation scientists.  There is probably just as much evidence for intelligent design as there is macro evolution, which is to say little or none for either of them.

You should study evolution before making such a wrong statement. I have on many occasions  posted the proof for macro-evolution in the creation thread and the evolution thread in GD. The only people in the world who think there is no macro evolution are religous people who feel threated by it.

Edit:
Ubiquitous genes,
Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence, human and chimpanzee cytochrome c proteins differ by ~10 amino acids from all other mammals,
Heredity correlates sequences, even in the absence of functional necessity,
Ubiquitous genes are uncorrelated with species-specific phenotypes

Just to name a few........

Quoted: There are creation scientists.

Who? "Scientists" like Kent Hovind? Name some and let's check out their credentials.

There is probably just as much evidence for intelligent design as there is macro evolution, which is to say little or none for either of them.

There is overwhelming evidence for the latter, for those who aren't too biased to be objective. It isn't possible to peddle the "no-macro-evolution" argument without displaying a complete ignorance of how science works.

Quoted: You should study evolution before making such a wrong statement. I have on many occasions  posted the proof for macro-evolution in the creation thread and the evolution thread in GD. The only people in the world who think there is no macro evolution are religous people who feel threated by it. Edit: Ubiquitous genes, Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence, human and chimpanzee cytochrome c proteins differ by ~10 amino acids from all other mammals, Heredity correlates sequences, even in the absence of functional necessity, Ubiquitous genes are uncorrelated with species-specific phenotypes Just to name a few........

For the record, I have studied evolution, although biology is not my thing.

1. Not true.  Macro evolution is not fact.  It remains theory as it is unproven.

2. If humans and chimps are so close, the "missing link" between them will certainly be found one day.  Thus far, it has not been found.

Quoted: Quoted: You should study evolution before making such a wrong statement. I have on many occasions  posted the proof for macro-evolution in the creation thread and the evolution thread in GD. The only people in the world who think there is no macro evolution are religous people who feel threated by it. Edit: Ubiquitous genes, Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence, human and chimpanzee cytochrome c proteins differ by ~10 amino acids from all other mammals, Heredity correlates sequences, even in the absence of functional necessity, Ubiquitous genes are uncorrelated with species-specific phenotypes Just to name a few........ For the record, I have studied evolution, although biology is not my thing. 1. Not true.  Macro evolution is not fact.  It remains theory as it is unproven. 2. If humans and chimps are so close, the "missing link" between them will certainly be found one day.  Thus far, it has not been found.

The path between humans and chimps IS WELL KNOWN!!!
Also, if you have studied evolution you would know that in no evolution class will you ever hear the term "missing link". It is a fake statment and has been proven wrong for like the last 30 years. Again, only religous people use it.

Oh okay.

Then I'm a libertarian bible thumper on this one.  Continue.

Quoted: 1. Not true.  Macro evolution is not fact.  It remains theory as it is unproven. 2. If humans and chimps are so close, the "missing link" between them will certainly be found one day.  Thus far, it has not been found.

those 2 phrases show you haven't studied evolution.

1) you need to learn what a theory in science means.   No theory is ever proven.  The theory of gravity isn't proven.  Theories are our best explanation for an observable phenomena.  By definition, it can never be proven 100%.

2) humans and chimps don't have a "missing link".  They have a common ancestor.   The search for a missing link will never end.    If you find a missing link between species A and G (lets call it D)  you now have a missing link between A and D and another between D and G.  The goal isn't discovering a missing link, the goal is discovering a chain linking a long line of species together.  

Quoted: I.D.ers get a seat at the table just as long as science and public education aren't involved.   I.D. is a religious concept.  No problem with that, as long as public money isn't spent to promote it in public schools.   The Supreme Court trumps all.  Game over, except in the court of internet forums.   John

Interesting.

ONE side of the argument gets publicly funded, but the other doesn't.

And I thought you guys were into the open discussion of ideas. I thought that is what science was all about.

Guess not. Guess its more about silencing the opposition, stifling discovery, and gagging Christians.

Quoted: Interesting. ONE side of the argument gets publicly funded, but the other doesn't. And I thought you guys were into the open discussion of ideas. I thought that is what science was all about...

It is when they have merit.

Quoted: 1) you need to learn what a theory in science means.   No theory is ever proven.  The theory of gravity isn't proven.  Theories are our best explanation for an observable phenomena.  By definition, it can never be proven 100%. 2) humans and chimps don't have a "missing link".  They have a common ancestor.   The search for a missing link will never end.    If you find a missing link between species A and G (lets call it D)  you now have a missing link between A and D and another between D and G.  The goal isn't discovering a missing link, the goal is discovering a chain linking a long line of species together.

Gravity is not theory, it is scientific LAW.  LAW is proven, theory is not.

Remove humans from the equations and prove that fish grew legs and walked out of the water onto land...

Oh, I forgot.  No proof of that, either.

Quoted: Quoted: There are creation scientists. Who? "Scientists" like Kent Hovind? Name some and let's check out their credentials.

Here is a few for you

Quoted: Quoted: I.D.ers get a seat at the table just as long as science and public education aren't involved.   I.D. is a religious concept.  No problem with that, as long as public money isn't spent to promote it in public schools.   The Supreme Court trumps all.  Game over, except in the court of internet forums.   John Interesting. ONE side of the argument gets publicly funded, but the other doesn't. And I thought you guys were into the open discussion of ideas. I thought that is what science was all about. Guess not. Guess its more about silencing the opposition, stifling discovery, and gagging Christians.

There isn't an argument- a scientific one anyways. Science is always open to discussion of ideas, but ID is not a scientific idea. It's a purely religious idea and science doesn't, and shouldn't, involve it's self in the supernatural. You can scream oppression all you want, but I expect a science class to continue teaching science unhindered by religious dogma just as I expect an P.E. class to do the same.

I guess thats the source of consternation. I.D. proponents can't understand why no one is taking them seriously because they really believe that I.D. is on some sort of equal playing field with evolutionary theory. Why, I have no idea.

Evolutionary biologists really don't have some secret agenda of gagging 'Christians' or silencing the opposition. It's not like anyone is getting rich by digging up fossils or studying chimps.
If someone wants to challenge accepted theory, they can and should as long as they adhere to the same standards of methodology. That is to say present a theory that better explains the avalible evidence then current theory. If I.D. really can do that then the new theory will speak for it's self, and there wouldn't be any sort of political shuffling to slip this into the school curriculum. There isn't any ruling council of scientists deciding what should and shouldn't be taught. Science is a very democratic and decentralized system. If your theory is better, then your peers will recognize that.

Present a theory and let it stand on it's own merits. I will warn that if it needs scripture as evidence, it probably won't do well.

-Local

Quoted: Gravity is not theory, it is scientific LAW.  LAW is proven, theory is not.

List me the tenants of this Law of Gravitation, and I will present you with a situation where those conditions can not be met.

Seriously. Gravity is not all figured out. We understand how it works in some circumstances, but not all. We don't even know what causes it or how it relates to other forces, like magnetism. What we have is a theory that best explains what we do know and can observe about gravity. For most purposes, it works fine, but there are still a lot of unanswered questions. The search for a Grand Unified Theory has been dogging physicists for decades. It's a complex problem that probably won't be settled for many hundreds of years. Even then, it will remain a theory because new, possibly contradictory, evidence will still be found.

There isn't really any such thing as a Scientific Law. Nothing in science is absolute. It's just a game of probabilities. We can be 99.99999999999999% sure of something, but there is always room to be proved wrong.

-Local

Quoted: Remove humans from the equations and prove that fish grew legs and walked out of the water onto land... Oh, I forgot.  No proof of that, either.

Then will somebody please tell these mudskipper fish to quite breathing air and scooting around on their forelimbs out of water?

www.naturia.per.sg/buloh/verts/mudskipper.htm

ETA


More mudskippers just hanging around the shoreline

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There are creation scientists. Who? "Scientists" like Kent Hovind? Name some and let's check out their credentials. Here is a few for you

Dude, the home page of that website starts with "Answers in Genesis: Upholding the Authority of the Bible from the very First Verse"

Do you not smell a little bit of bias?

Quoted: Here is a few for you

BTW, it's important to sound like you went to school in a debate like this.  


ETA I propose that "mudskippers" be henceforth known as "Devil Fish".

Quoted: Do you not smell a little bit of bias?

The ONLY difference between us and you is we ADMIT our bias.

And besides, bias is not always a bad thing. I'm biased toward Americanism. Not a bad thing. Which doesn't prevent me from seeing the good in other nations and cultures.

And my Christian bias doesn't prevent me  from seeing the plausibility in your evolutionary assertions.

Comparatively , you are so consumed by bias, which  you refuse to admit you have, that it blinds you to the plausibility of our design assertions.

That's the difference betwen us and you.

Given we can admit the plausibility of your assertions, and you cannot admit the plausibility of ours, when neither assertions can be proven, it reeks of fear on your part.

BTW, it's important to sound like you went to school in a debate like this.

Attacking the other person on matters irrelevant to the discussion  has always been the refuge of those who subconciously sense themselves losing the debate on a logical basis.

I don't know if you feel that way, rodent, but such tactics make you look like you do.

We smell the fear.

Quoted: There isn't really any such thing as a Scientific Law. Nothing in science is absolute. It's just a game of probabilities. We can be 99.99999999999999% sure of something, but there is always room to be proved wrong. -Local

We once theorized that the sun was the center of the universe and that the earth was flat.

Both with probably similar evidence that either was true, little or none.

I clicked on this thread because I feel that teaching "Intelligent Design" in public school is worse than public school itself.

That said, I'm pretty shocked to read so-called scientists saying that macro evolution is fact.  Macro evolution is no more or less proven than "Intelligent design" is.  Either way, i think the entire topic of intelligent design is just some pathetic attempt at getting bible thumping into public school.

In my public school, neither macro evolution nor intelligent design was taught.  We learned about micro evolution....you know, what Darwin actually studied....finches beaks changing and such, not apes coming down from the trees to walk on two legs, talk, etc.

I'm not even the slightest bit interested in biology anymore so I doubt any further study on my part will be done.  I personally think that both the macro evolution crowd and ID crowd is full of idiots that make up "facts" to suit their purposes.  When they support the theory with fact instead of trying to support the fact with theory, I will read both and decide for myself.  Until then, let them continue to study and find this, "Truth" we all seek with science.

Sorry I was short earlier.  I had a final to go to with the most pompous, liberal piece of trash professor that wouldn't be qualified to teach teeth brushing at a real college.

Quoted: Attacking the other person on matters irrelevant to the discussion  has always been the refuge of those who subconciously sense themselves losing the debate on a logical basis. I don't know if you feel that way, rodent, but such tactics make you look like you do. We smell the fear.

Nevermind the fact that I was halfway out the door on the way to an English final when this guy is trying to give me an English lesson.

Quoted: Us I.D.'ers just want a seat at the table - the opportunity to present our side of the story. But you REFUSE to allow it - yer gonna maintain your monopoly of thought. So you might as well do taht book burning.

You guys can sit at the table when you bring some science.  Until then leave religion in church or history/social studies classes.

But while you're at it you should also attack the theory of gravity and replace it with Intelligent Falling.

Quoted: Attacking the other person on matters irrelevant to the discussion  has always been the refuge of those who subconciously sense themselves losing the debate on a logical basis. I don't know if you feel that way, rodent, but such tactics make you look like you do. We smell the fear.

yes, something you've done numerous times.  Why is it ok when you do it, but when others slip up, it hurts their argument?

Quoted: You guys can sit at the table when you bring some science.  Until then leave religion in church or history/social studies classes. But while you're at it you should also attack the theory of gravity and replace it with Intelligent Falling.

At best, that's disingenuous. Mostly cuz this discussion has been had a hundred times on Arfcom.

Intelligent Design theory is based on the design EVERYWHERE observed.

Observing design (without regard to first causes, meaning the potential Intelligence behind the design ) in nature is a scientific field that could consume the next thousand years.

Once that is done, then we could calculate statistical probabilities of randomness (which is a scientific study all in itself) of some "intelligence" or randomness being the likely cause for all that observed design.

TO this point in our research, we would need have made NO religious  assertions at all.

But you (used generically) REFUSE to take a single step down that road.

I don't understand that.

Is it fear? The desirre to monopoize the discussion? What?

Why do you REFUSE to allow that conversation to happen?

And you won;t even allow other alternatives - like not teaching the macro compoenet of evolution in schools, so that I, as a taxpayer donlt have to PAY FOR indoctrinating school children AGAINST the Bible.

Basically, I view your position this way - you are gonna get things your way, no one will allowed to be able to rpesent a differing viewpoint, and youa re gonna force the people who disagree with you to PAY FOR your point of view to be taught.

Its simply stunning to listen to your chutzpah.

Quoted: yes, something you've done numerous times.  Why is it ok when you do it, but when others slip up, it hurts their argument?

I've  done that ONCE in this forum, to my recollection (actually playing off psyops doing the same thing) , and its been a LONG LONG time since I;ve done it anywhere.

Feel free to link me to where I've done it, adn I'll be glad to retract it.

Quoted: You guys can sit at the table when you bring some science.  Until then leave religion in church or history/social studies classes. .

Then let me ask -

Would you ALSO allow me regular acccess to history / social studies classes in gov't schools, to teach the Biblical alternative to macro evolution?

(Putting aside the fact I've show a hundred times that ID is a completely legit scientific pursuit)

Quoted: Quoted: You guys can sit at the table when you bring some science.  Until then leave religion in church or history/social studies classes. . Then let me ask - Would you ALSO allow me regular acccess to history / social studies classes in gov't schools, to teach the Biblical alternative to macro evolution? (Putting aside the fact I've show a hundred times that ID is a completely legit scientific pursuit)

There are two problems with that.  First of all evolution is a science topic not a history one.  Secondly teaching your 'Biblical alternative' in a public school would not be appropriate anyways (in the context of evolution/creationism, as historical significance that is different).  See you can pretend that ID is something other than creationist propaganda but your agenda could not be more clear.

Quoted: Why do you REFUSE to allow that conversation to happen? And you won;t even allow other alternatives - like not teaching the macro compoenet of evolution in schools, so that I, as a taxpayer donlt have to PAY FOR indoctrinating school children AGAINST the Bible. Basically, I view your position this way - you are gonna get things your way, no one will allowed to be able to rpesent a differing viewpoint, and youa re gonna force the people who disagree with you to PAY FOR your point of view to be taught. Its simply stunning to listen to your chutzpah.

You see the problem is you view information that contradicts with your religious view as 'indoctrinating against the Bible' whereas any reasonable person calls it 'science class'.  There is no religious agenda in the theory of evolution, but because it calls into question long-held tenets of revealed faith, certain fundamentalists have to MAKE it about religion.

Quoted: Quoted: Then let me ask - Would you ALSO allow me regular acccess to history / social studies classes in gov't schools, to teach the Biblical alternative to macro evolution? (Putting aside the fact I've show a hundred times that ID is a completely legit scientific pursuit) There are two problems with that. .

I knew you wouldn't allow it.

Making your "leave religion in church or history/social studies classes" a rather hollow offer.

You want to monopolize the discussion. That much is clear. The only question is "Why?"

You say it's  doesn't "religion" belong.

I say yer afraid people will find it a more plausible explanation for the design that is seen EVERYWHERE. And that if people ever stopped to think about it, they'd  realize asserting design can come out of randomness is a CROCK o' CRAP.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Then let me ask - Would you ALSO allow me regular acccess to history / social studies classes in gov't schools, to teach the Biblical alternative to macro evolution? (Putting aside the fact I've show a hundred times that ID is a completely legit scientific pursuit) There are two problems with that. . I knew you wouldn't allow it. Making your "leave religion in church or history/social studies classes" a rather hollow offer. You want to monopolize the discussion. That much is clear. The only question is "Why?" You say it's  doesn't "religion" belong. I say yer afraid people will find it a more plausible explanation for the design that is seen EVERYWHERE. And that if people ever stopped to think about it, they'd  realize asserting design can come out of randomness is a CROCK o' CRAP.

You ask why then you don't listen to the answer and call it a crock o' crap.  The separation of church and state may not be something you respect but you can't go into public schools pushing your religion onto kids.  Now, Christianity (and many other faiths) have a historical significance which is relevant to history/social studies but not to science.

Quoted: ... I was halfway out the door on the way to an English final when this guy is trying to give me an English lesson.

Helpful hint: Don't use your phrase

Quoted: Here is a few for you

on your final.  
 

Quoted: ... allow me regular acccess to history / social studies classes in gov't schools, to teach the Biblical alternative ...

Do you want all religions taught, or just yours?

Quoted: Quoted: You guys can sit at the table when you bring some science.  Until then leave religion in church or history/social studies classes. . Then let me ask - Would you ALSO allow me regular acccess to history / social studies classes in gov't schools, to teach the Biblical alternative to macro evolution? (Putting aside the fact I've show a hundred times that ID is a completely legit scientific pursuit)

when ID is viewed as a valid competing theory by science, then it belongs in science class

They currently teach a historical view on many religions in history class.

I'm ok with teaching Bible study in schools, as long as it is elective and electives are available for other religions for non-Christian students.

As long as it doesn't come down to forcing a non-Christian to be indoctrinated in your religion, I don't see an issue.

Quoted: when ID is viewed as a valid competing theory by science, then it belongs in science class

So, ONLY evolutionalists get to determine what competing ideas will be allowed to challenge evolutionary theory......


Nice plan. Completely monopolize the discusssion.

So much for free thought, and the open exchange of ideas.

Just goes to show how BOGUS your claim is that science is always willing to challenge current theories and hypothesis. They won't let anyone else speak.

What an inbred mindset.

Its funny you don't see how  "religious" your statement is.

"... Only "the Church" shall be able to speak as to what the Bible means...."

"only "scientists" get to say what science really is..."



The scientific emperor TRULY has no clothes.

Quoted: You all stand here trying to destroy about the only thing that is left between our rights and tyranny. I hope you all get a chance to live under the regime that you strive to create. Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.

Its truly sad to hear people demand their rights (gun rights, etc) , and simultaneously erode the foundation of their rights - their Creator."

Kicking God out leaves a vacuum, that gov't is the most likely to fill. Nature abhors a vaccum. If they think gov't isn't gonna fill the void they are creating, they are truly self deceived.

Quoted: Quoted: when ID is viewed as a valid competing theory by science, then it belongs in science class So, ONLY evolutionalists get to determine what competing ideas will be allowed to challenge evolutionary theory...... Nice plan. Completely monopolize the discusssion. So much for free thought, and the open exchange of ideas. Just goes to show how BOGUS your claim is that science is always willing to challenge current theories and hypothesis. They won't let anyone else speak. What an inbred mindset. Its funny you don't see how  "religious" your statement is. "... Only "the Church" shall be able to speak as to what the Bible means...." "only "scientists" get to say what science really is..." The scientific emperor TRULY has no clothes.

Here's a thought, if you hate the evolutionary theory so much why don't you go study biology, archeology, and all those other fun sciences and work to contribute something to science instead of labeling it as a competing "religion".  Thus far, the ID proponents have not offered anything in the way of evidence of their theory, only that an unseen magical god created everything (oh and he works in 'mysterious ways' that we can never understand).  You keep mixing science and religion as if they are interchangeable and this is a fundamental error in your judgment of this topic.

Quoted: Its truly sad to hear people demand their rights (gun rights, etc) , and simultaneously erode the foundation of their rights - their Creator."

You are free to believe that if you want, but our constitution is written the way it is for a reason.  Rights do not come from any "creator," they are inherent of being human.

Quoted: Quoted: ... allow me regular acccess to history / social studies classes in gov't schools, to teach the Biblical alternative ... Do you want all religions taught, or just yours?

What a question, Rodent

Why only the one proven TRUE of course.

Tengri Dancing the Cosmos into Creation.

Quoted: Its truly sad to hear people demand their rights (gun rights, etc) , and simultaneously erode the foundation of their rights - their Creator."

Yup, what we need is another good, old-fashioned Christian theocracy so our rights won't continue to be eroded.

Quoted: Quoted: Its truly sad to hear people demand their rights (gun rights, etc) , and simultaneously erode the foundation of their rights - their Creator." You are free to believe that if you want, but our constitution is written the way it is for a reason.  Rights do not come from any "creator," they are inherent of being human.

There HAS to be a source.

If that source is humanity itself, then humanity has the right to change those rights. Bye, bye gun rights.

The only way  these rights can survive human machinations and tampering is if they come from a Higher Source.

And besides - get your facts right.....

It is the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution  that asserts we are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights.

Unless you want to rescind the Decflaration of independece, and again be a British colony.

Nice pictures, people.

Wanna join the rest of us, in the 21st  century?

Quoted: Nice pictures, people. Wanna join the rest of us, in the 21st  century?

Um, g-man, we're trying to get YOU out of the Dark Ages.

Quoted: Quoted: Nice pictures, people. Wanna join the rest of us, in the 21st  century? Um, g-man, we're trying to get YOU out of the Dark Ages.

How so?

You refuse to let my point of view speak (in schools and academic circles)  cuz YOU claim its not "science" - all the while reserving the right YOURSLEF to determine what is and is not "science"

Yer not intersted in learning or doscovery for EITHER of us.

You just want to monopolize the discussion.



.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Its truly sad to hear people demand their rights (gun rights, etc) , and simultaneously erode the foundation of their rights - their Creator." You are free to believe that if you want, but our constitution is written the way it is for a reason.  Rights do not come from any "creator," they are inherent of being human. There HAS to be a source. If that source is humanity itself, then humanity has the right to change those rights. Bye, bye gun rights. The only way  these rights can survive human machinations and tampering is if they come from a Higher Source. And besides - get your facts right..... It is the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution  that asserts we are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights. Unless you want to rescind the Decflaration of independece, and again be a British colony.

You say there has to be a source, but an atheist would disagree with you, and for good reason.  I disagree with you as well, because I know plenty of people that believe in no religion, yet believe in the human rights protected by our constitution.

The Declaration of Independence is not the law and there is a reason why our constitution was written differently.

Quoted: Quoted: The only way  these rights can survive human machinations and tampering is if they come from a Higher Source. You say there has to be a source, but an atheist would disagree with you, and for good reason.  I disagree with you as well, because I know plenty of people that believe in no religion, yet believe in the human rights protected by our constitution.

You "beleive?"

Who cares what you beleive?

You reject my logic (in red above) and replace it with what you beleive ?

Don't you see your religion shining thru?

Address the logic of my assertion in red, and spare me your religious drivel.

To maybe get your attention, I'll now try the color blue....

How do human rights survive political human machinations (up to and including amending the Constitution) if they come from no Higher Source?

The Declaration of Independence is not the law and there is a reason why our constitution was written differently.

SO if the Constituion is right, and therefore legal and binding, then he DoI must be flawed, and NOT legal and binding, and therefore not valid.

Your view still has us as a vassal state of England.