Pages: 1 2 3 … 5

 

2005-11-09 03:14:21
kilroy0097
Kilroy Is Here!
+81|7088|Bryan/College Station, TX
First let me post this news tidbit:

From Slashdot.org - "The Kansas State Board of Education voted 6-4 to allow science students in public schools to hear materials critical of evolution in biology classes. The new curriculum mentions that theories of life arising from similar building-block molecules through purely random processes can be challenged by recent findings in the fossil record and by molecular biology. Not all were happy, however. 'This is a sad day. We're becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that,' said board member Janet Waugh. The new standards will be used in statewide standardized testing; the students are still expected to know 'basic evolutionary principles.' As part of the decision, the Board of Education also went so far as to redefine science itself, saying that it is 'no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.'"

Now if you want to learn a bit more about something kind of related read up on the:
Flying Spaghette Monster

Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (FSM) is a satirical parody religion created to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to allow intelligent design to be taught in science classes alongside evolution.

After reading all that.. discuss.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
2005-11-09 03:45:41
Kirks
Member
+0|7092|Portland, OR USA

kilroy0097 wrote:

...Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (FSM) is a satirical parody religion...
I think you are just jealous you weren't touched by his noodly appendage

I am sad to read about Kanas, but happy to see that Pennsylvania voters ousted its board members touting Intelligent Design Reuters Article.  I have tried to discuss this in person with acquaintances and met with much frustration. Those I spoke with seem unable to separate the points "Is Intelligent Design Valid?" vs. "Does it belong in Public Schools Science Class?".  The former is a pure philosophical debate.  While the latter is a matter of constitutionality Establishment Clause's separation of church and state.

I believe that Intelligent Design does not belong in public school science class.  Although, I also think that public school students would benefit from a class covering many religious schools of thought:  Christian, Hindu, Islam, FSM, etc.
2005-11-09 05:03:58
beeng
Get C4, here!
+66|7031

aaah you americans, always looking for the 'right' answer.
A lot of countries teach many theories... because really we don't know the 'right' answer yet, and may never know.  Giving students an understanding of the most popular theories is best, I'd say.
2005-11-09 05:05:05
kilroy0097
Kilroy Is Here!
+81|7088|Bryan/College Station, TX
Intelligent Design is nothing more than an attempt to cleverly relabel Christian Belief in a skewed way.
One supreme being created the universe and everything and exists in the governance of all things.
It's your basic Non-Denominational belief.

What they don't understand is the more they support this and the more it gathers believers in this way of explaining it the more in fact they destroy all other religions. You actually turn most Christiens into a Non-Denominational follower or more into Agnostics. The belief that there is a surpreme being but that the God that is labeled as such by Christians is not necessarily it.

Also such parodies as the Flying Spaghetti Monster is perfectly acceptable. Also that Aliens from a different galaxy actually engineered the human species and we are an experimental creature in a big petri dish called planet Earth.

I find the whole thing humorous and I find those that are actually buying into it very gulible and the perfect example of mindless sheep who also seem to be the one that pretty much accept all commercials as fact and anything that comes out of the mouth of W. as gospel. Yes the human species can really be that dumb if given a chance.

First thing on the list of things I hate.
#1: Stupid People.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
2005-11-09 05:12:09
beeng
Get C4, here!
+66|7031

kilroy0097 wrote:

Intelligent Design is nothing more than an attempt to cleverly relabel Christian Belief in a skewed way.
...
Also such parodies as the Flying Spaghetti Monster is perfectly acceptable. Also that Aliens from a different galaxy actually engineered the human species and we are an experimental creature in a big petri dish called planet Earth.
...
Well yes, despite the americans say they are a 'religious free' state, they truly aren't.  I think you're right when you say their motives are to promote christianity, Darwin's theory has been around and makes sense as far as science goes. 
Those other theories you speak of are discussed in (other countries') classrooms, but are usually dismissed because there isn't enough evidence.  By dismissed I mean 'non-testable'.  You can't really ask someone the five principles of spaghetti man's church... which also goes for any other religion; you suddenly become a promoter of a specific religion or belief.
2005-11-09 05:14:10
pfcilng
Member
+0|7011|Northern Illinois University
HEHE I posted about the FSM during the political discussion.  Anywho, it is sad to see our country heading in that direction, no wonder we lag behind in math and science.

To those who dont live in the U.S, what do they teach at school??

I lived in Ecuador for a few years, and there I learned the Theory of Evolution together with the big bang and all that science stuff.  The teacher never mentioned religion, non of the kids got upset about the mentioning of TOE.


I guess when somethign in science is to hard to understand, you make your own answer.

I wonder if my Control Systems professor would give me an A that if I solved a problem by using a little bubble that represents miracle and then give an answer, according to Kansas school board, that would be okay.
2005-11-09 05:16:39
beeng
Get C4, here!
+66|7031

pfcilng wrote:

I guess when somethign in science is to hard to understand, you make your own answer.
Science isn't understand though!  There is evidence that proves some of the theories!  Religion is -very- hard to prove and -very- much open to interpretation.
2005-11-09 05:29:00
kilroy0097
Kilroy Is Here!
+81|7088|Bryan/College Station, TX
The biggest issue about the USA is that the government can't keep Church and State SEPARATE.  They are so inept and bias as leaders that they can't even conceive of running things without having to thrust their religions and morals onto their constituants.

School is a place to learn about all things to benefit the knowledge base of the student. English, Grammer, Math, Science, Literature, Art, etc.

Church is a place where you learn about the Religion that YOU have choosen to follow and support.

School = Governmental Category
Church = CHURCH

Separation of CHURCH and STATE is a basic concept and I am so sick and tired of hearing the back and forth about it. 

And no the Pledge of Allegiance does not go against the No Reglion in school For fuck sakes its the Pledge of Allegiance. Teach some damn patriotism to our kids. Next we will be taking off "In God we Trust" from all the US currency. People just don't get it. Don't teach religion in the classroom. Teach religion in Church. Patriotic and Traditional American songs and pledges are part of history and give a sense of nationality. Nit picking assholes I swear.

Last edited by kilroy0097 (2005-11-10 12:42:34)

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
2005-11-09 05:38:45
pfcilng
Member
+0|7011|Northern Illinois University

beeng wrote:

pfcilng wrote:

I guess when somethign in science is to hard to understand, you make your own answer.
Science isn't understand though!  There is evidence that proves some of the theories!  Religion is -very- hard to prove and -very- much open to interpretation.
Hey Beeng, I didnt quite understand  "Science isn't understand though" statement.  What I was getting it is if something it to complex, instead of learning the details on the theory, some decide to make an easy answer.
Like in the natives in Ecuador that live in the mountains, they believed that lightning was caused by god.  But they are different than the fundamentalists here in the U.S.  No one explained to them the cause of lightning, fundamentalists in the U.S cant handle that complex of an idea.
2005-11-09 05:50:48
[1stSSF]=Nuka=
Banned
+23|6995|PDX Metro Area, OR, US, SOL
I was really pleased to see the Catholic Church come out against ID. I've been saying for many years that there is no real reason why Evolution was inconsistent with the Bible. I love Norman Maclean's quote...
As a Scot and Presbyterian, my father believed that man by nature was a mess and had fallen from an original state of grace. Somehow, I developed an early notion that he had done this by fallen from a tree.
As for separation of church and state, you need to read more history. There is NO place where the foundational documents of the USA state "separation of church and state" as anything more than "thou shalt have no state sponsored religion." This was specifically directed at the Anglican Church, btw...

"What are they teaching children in school these days?!"

Last edited by [1stSSF]=Nuka= (2005-11-09 05:51:34)

2005-11-09 05:53:03
audioboxer217
Member
+0|7005
I think that is a good thing to teach Intelligent Design.  It does not promote only Christianity as many other religions, such as Jews, Muslims, and Buddist, believe in Intelligent Design as well.  Also, evolution is not proven fact and should not be taught as such.  All possible theories should be taught until one is proven as absolute fact.
2005-11-09 07:52:09
chuyskywalker
Admin
+2,439|7092|"Frisco"

Kirks wrote:

Although, I also think that public school students would benefit from a class covering many religious schools of thought:  Christian, Hindu, Islam, FSM, etc.
I could get behind a "religions of the world 101" class for high schoolers. Honestly, I think it'd be a good idea -- worldy exposure and what not.

I can see A LOT of the same people who are pushing for ID Theory hating that kind of class becasue it would teach their "good Chrisitian" children about the "evil" other religions. Sooooo...

However, including ID in standardized testing, which thay mentioned would happen, is total bullshit.
2005-11-09 10:14:27
pfcilng
Member
+0|7011|Northern Illinois University
How would you test that kind of stuff?  I can see it now, have miracle as the answer for everythign in sciece.

Patient:  Doctor, doctor, why am I sick?
Doctor: Well you probablly sinned, so therefore god is punishing you. 

My little sister went to a catholic highschool, in religion class she learned about many many religions.  In Science calss, she learned about TOE.
2005-11-09 10:36:15
redfoxster
Chopper Whore Extraordinaire
+3|7018
I have taken a few courses dealing with religion and science and how they have conflicted throughout history, and this is a very popular topic that we covered.  Based on what I learned from them, and my own opinions as well:

A) Intelligent design is NOT a Christian teaching, it is simply a theory trying to explain our world as we know it.

B) Evolution has been disproven almost completely as a viable theory to explain the origins of "life"

C) A publicly funded school most definetly can and should teach I.D. as it is not an endorsement of any religion at all.  The reason it SHOULD be taught is because we are still teaching kids Evolution, and like I said, it is not considered a viable explanation for the origin of species anymore.  At least ID is still a viable explanation for the way things are.
2005-11-09 10:53:20
redfoxster
Chopper Whore Extraordinaire
+3|7018

beeng wrote:

Well yes, despite the americans say they are a 'religious free' state, they truly aren't.  I think you're right when you say their motives are to promote christianity, Darwin's theory has been around and makes sense as far as science goes. 
Those other theories you speak of are discussed in (other countries') classrooms, but are usually dismissed because there isn't enough evidence.  By dismissed I mean 'non-testable'.  You can't really ask someone the five principles of spaghetti man's church... which also goes for any other religion; you suddenly become a promoter of a specific religion or belief.
I wish I had read more of these before posting my first reply.

Darwin's theory of evolution as a means for the explanation of the origin of species has been radically and totally disproven.  The natural selection theory is widely accepted and that's fine, but that's not what we are talking about.  According to Darwin, if evolution were to explain the origin of species, the fossil record would indicate a natural steady progession from simple organisms to complicated ones.  Instead, the fossil record shows simple cretures like worms, jellyfish, etc.. and then within a 10,000 year period, the Cambrian explosion, suddenly there are several species of birds, mammals, reptiles, etc.... totally deviating from Darwin's theory.  Darwin proposed the we would find cross-over species, and the archeoptrix found in Germany, which was thought to be a half Dinosaur half bird, turns it is physiologically like 99% dinosaur. 

It's been a while since I was in 9th grade biology, so correct me if I'm wrong, the Miller? experiments in the 50s supposedly proved that protein chains could have spontaneously generated in what was thought to be the early earth atmosphere, turns out, science has shown that their assumptions about the atmosphere were wrong at the time, and could not have occured under what we now believe the Earth's early atmosphere to be like.

Additionally, Darwin's thoery of Evolution is based purely on slow changes in species from mutation in the genetic structure of living organisms.  So how can it explain the development of multiple celled organisms, until the functionality of the second or more cells was fully developed in the genetic code, the additional cells would simply be burdens and decrease the organisms chances of survival, thus they would have to defy the natural selection part of the theory to move up and survive and procreate.

Last edited by redfoxster (2005-11-09 15:55:45)

2005-11-09 14:58:26
AnD-MasterMatt
Member
+0|6996|Vancouver, WA - USA
A few things on this topic.

First of all I think that the concept of intelligent design should not be introduced in public school science classes. However, I think that public schools should have a seperate class on basic philosophies of past and present human civilizations and cultures that include covering the rationale arguements that many religions make for an intelligent design and/or creator. Also, I do believe that evolution should be taught in public schools, but that it should be presented as theory, not fact. Based on my own experience in public school science classes I know that there are teachers who won't even consider the possibility that the theory of evolution is not entirely factual.

Personally, I believe in the theory of evolution, the big bang, and the existence of an intelligent personal creator and design. I think that far too often that many people interpret religious views literally, thereby not allowing a shared scientific perspective on existence as well. At the same time there are those who believe that if one believes in the Big Bang and the theory of evolution that they can not also believe in God or a supernatural power without being contradictory. IMHO, I think it's irrational to believe that the Earth was only created over 6000 years ago. It's equally illogical to believe that the Universe and existence itself is here merely by chance. Even if you do believe in the Big Bang how do you explain the origin of matter that composes the singularity? Also consider that the chances that matter exist at all is somewhere around 1 in 10 to the 22nd power based on the ratio of protons to electrons found in the universe. Why should existence exist at all?

Just my thoughts.
2005-11-09 15:59:09
redfoxster
Chopper Whore Extraordinaire
+3|7018

AnD-MasterMatt wrote:

Why should existence exist at all?

Just my thoughts.
Famous last words, I love philosophy, except that as I study it more it consumes me until i have to put my book down for a few months to regain my sanity.

I agree 100%, science and religion and intelligent design and evolution are can be true and accurate allat the same time, so long as we seperate fact from mythology in each field.  parts of the theory of evolution are very true, other parts have been disproven like I said a few posts ago.  Likewise, some of our religious texts have had human perspectives put on them, making them no longer entirely accurate.
2005-11-09 16:15:40
IronGeek
One Shot, One Kill
+4|7039|Canberra, Australia
Have any of you read a brief History of time?
2005-11-09 18:40:04
dshak
Member
+4|7058
I read one paragraph by steven hawkings once and needed an asprin and some alone time. I seriously, though I consider myself a very intelligent person, felt way out of my league even trying to understand some of the stuff in that book. some people are just so smart they seem to leave us mere mortals in the dust, and the sad part is often it can be hard to tell if they are brilliant or just so crazy they appear brilliant.

As for intelligent design...

I am a firm believer in theory of evolution and natural selection, but that does very little to explain ORIGIN. For something to evolve it must evolve from something else, and the real question is how did that something else come to be. Personally I'm not sure any of it should be taught in schools, but instead filled into that drawer of "mysteries of the universe"... only to be debated by the most brilliant minds on an online forum designed around a first person shooter computer game.

Its hard to even comment on this topic without implying certain personal religious beliefs, because try as it might the best science can ever do, when it comes to a topic like this, is provide theories. Theories that can't be disproven sure, but theories that can't be proven either.

I don't think creation should be "taught" at all in school, but perhaps instead discussed, with fair and complete attention given to a variety of theories, and think this is true of just about any subject were ultimately, no matter how passionately you believe in your own position, it can't be definitively proven.

I believe the theory of evolution should be taught, without question or doubt, as a fact, as there is factual evidence for it. As for how that lemur... the one that turned into the monkey... which turned into something like a person... which turned into a person.... got to be here in the first place??? My advice would be to shrug and say I dunno, what do you think happened?

Evolution is real. Who am I to say it is or is not part of some intelligent design? Also, just incase it happens to be... I'm really making an effort here not to piss off the designer!

And wait just one second... so this means we didn't come from some guys rib? Man, I was sure that was what happened!

Last edited by dshak (2005-11-09 18:46:52)

2005-11-09 18:48:44
NJG HukaMaster
Member
+1|7020

beeng wrote:

aaah you americans, always looking for the 'right' answer.
A lot of countries teach many theories... because really we don't know the 'right' answer yet, and may never know.  Giving students an understanding of the most popular theories is best, I'd say.
OH What would the world be without Canada?  <-----There is an idea for a good thread.
2005-11-09 19:01:01
beeng
Get C4, here!
+66|7031

pfcilng wrote:

beeng wrote:

Science isn't understand though!  There is evidence that proves some of the theories!  Religion is -very- hard to prove and -very- much open to interpretation.
Hey Beeng, I didnt quite understand  "Science isn't understand though" statement.  What I was getting it is if something it to complex, instead of learning the details on the theory, some decide to make an easy answer.
Like in the natives in Ecuador that live in the mountains, they believed that lightning was caused by god.  But they are different than the fundamentalists here in the U.S.  No one explained to them the cause of lightning, fundamentalists in the U.S cant handle that complex of an idea.
ARRRRRGH I hate the computers at school; sometimes they randomly lock up and dont take inputs anymore; what I meant to say was "science isn't that hard to understand"
2005-11-09 19:04:05
beeng
Get C4, here!
+66|7031

redfoxster wrote:

beeng wrote:

Well yes, despite the americans say they are a 'religious free' state, they truly aren't.  I think you're right when you say their motives are to promote christianity, Darwin's theory has been around and makes sense as far as science goes. 
Those other theories you speak of are discussed in (other countries') classrooms, but are usually dismissed because there isn't enough evidence.  By dismissed I mean 'non-testable'.  You can't really ask someone the five principles of spaghetti man's church... which also goes for any other religion; you suddenly become a promoter of a specific religion or belief.
I wish I had read more of these before posting my first reply.

Darwin's theory of evolution as a means for the explanation of the origin of species has been radically and totally disproven.  The natural selection theory is widely accepted and that's fine, but that's not what we are talking about.  According to Darwin, if evolution were to explain the origin of species, the fossil record would indicate a natural steady progession from simple organisms to complicated ones.  Instead, the fossil record shows simple cretures like worms, jellyfish, etc.. and then within a 10,000 year period, the Cambrian explosion, suddenly there are several species of birds, mammals, reptiles, etc.... totally deviating from Darwin's theory.  Darwin proposed the we would find cross-over species, and the archeoptrix found in Germany, which was thought to be a half Dinosaur half bird, turns it is physiologically like 99% dinosaur. 

It's been a while since I was in 9th grade biology, so correct me if I'm wrong, the Miller? experiments in the 50s supposedly proved that protein chains could have spontaneously generated in what was thought to be the early earth atmosphere, turns out, science has shown that their assumptions about the atmosphere were wrong at the time, and could not have occured under what we now believe the Earth's early atmosphere to be like.

Additionally, Darwin's thoery of Evolution is based purely on slow changes in species from mutation in the genetic structure of living organisms.  So how can it explain the development of multiple celled organisms, until the functionality of the second or more cells was fully developed in the genetic code, the additional cells would simply be burdens and decrease the organisms chances of survival, thus they would have to defy the natural selection part of the theory to move up and survive and procreate.
Hey, I never said it was perfect... but it's better than "IT JUST HAPPENED... [omnipotent being] snapped their fingers and POOF, the world!"
The theory has some gaps.. but part of that can be attributed to the fact that we simply don't -know- every species that ever existed, or how they lived.
2005-11-09 22:26:42
polarbearz
Raiders of the Lost Bear
+-1,474|7034|Singapore

Ok. I'm not a super duper strong christian, and i don't want to turn this into a creation/evolution debate. Look at the stars, how can there not be a god?

Would you rather believe that humanity picked the right card from a deck of 300 trillion instead of the existence of a higher power?
2005-11-09 23:24:16
dshak
Member
+4|7058
I'd LOVE to believe we picked the right card out of 300 trillion!!!! Man that would make us lucky.... looking for the nearest indian casino as we speak...

(sometimes, late at night, I get sad that nobody on the BF2S forum appreciates my sarcasm... tear)

Last edited by dshak (2005-11-09 23:25:29)

2005-11-09 23:28:08
polarbearz
Raiders of the Lost Bear
+-1,474|7034|Singapore

lol.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 … 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard