We appreciate your manhood.dshak wrote:
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)
I agree with you. Just because the theory of evolution has some gaps in it, that doesnt prove creationism.beeng wrote:
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.
Last edited by Fonehat (2005-11-09 23:53:12)
Religion => Segregation => Hate => War = Death = LOL!
Science => Education => Advancement => Peace = Life = lol?
Science => Education => Advancement => Peace = Life = lol?
I agree with many of the statements on this forum. I also find it funny that all people can do is mock ID but never say why it is not possible. I believe in ID, but I also believe in evolution. I don't know how the Creator created I just believe that the complexity of life does not just happen. There has to be something that guides it along. Otherwise what causes a species to have a slight change in genetics in the first place that causes it to be better than its parent and so cause the species to evolve into something better. To believe that all life happened by chance is just plain ignorance. (not stupidity, just ignorance.)
PS - glad to see you on here dshack and foxster
PS - glad to see you on here dshack and foxster
Y'know...I don't give a sh*t about this, it just pisses me off that they teach this, IN SCIENCE CLASS...
It should be tought in social studies/history...not f*ck*n' science...
It should be tought in social studies/history...not f*ck*n' science...
Cool quote BTW, the Maclean one.[1stSSF]=Nuka= wrote:
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 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...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.
"What are they teaching children in school these days?!"
As for the topic of religion and government, you did point it out more clearly however we are right now experiencing a breach in that. By having a controling party in government that is making laws, passing bills and indeed electing Supreme Court justices based upon their moral values and in fact the very religion they practice then you are promoting a certain type of religion in all aspects of government. And though its not coming out and saying that the government is funding the "Holy Church of Bush Idiocy" its still baseing new laws, new institutions, new bills, new financing and new school curriculum on the religious beliefs of a single heavily Christian party. While this may be no different from the past, the past at least was more subdued about it and not so blantent in their bias towards anything non-christian in moral or religious belief.
Hence my argument that the separation of Church and State is being broken.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
Not in the Classroom. Save it for church. We are not going to start "promoting" any sort of religion as official curriculum in the classrooms. If you want to have a before school pray club then go right to it, however if you want to learn in depth about your religion, whatever it may be, then go to your church or see your personal spiritual leader. Religion, outside the usage of it in History class, does not belong in the Public School System.audioboxer217 wrote:
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.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
Religions of the World 101 would be a History class if done a certain way or a Theology class if a bit more indepth. Religions in tandum with Cultures of the worlds to supplement instruction and learning is not teaching Intelligent Design or "Beliefs" in school. It's simply teaching the background and historical values of Religion on Cultures around the world and how it helped shape them.chuyskywalker wrote:
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.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 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.
I agree with Religion in this sense. I Do not agree with teaching Belief systems in school. History, Anthropology good, Bible Study Class.. bad.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
Why do we even bother with this?
Teach neither, or teach both in History/Social studies...
This bitching is pissing me off...I like talking about this, yet all this bitchin' is pissin' me off...
Teach neither, or teach both in History/Social studies...
This bitching is pissing me off...I like talking about this, yet all this bitchin' is pissin' me off...
BTW Thank you everyone for your time and discussion on this topic. I know its a very heated subject for some but so far it has been very civil and I have enjoyed it quite a bit. Thanks again.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
lol I always thought Steve Vai was the 'Noodle Master'
<edit>
This doesn't mean he doesn't suck
<edit>
This doesn't mean he doesn't suck
Last edited by BladeRunner (2005-11-10 13:33:30)
Did you even fully read my post? I was saying that it doesn't promote any religion. Other people were posting that it is only a Christian belief and that is simply not the case. It is a viable theory, with just as much evidence as evolution, that should be taught if evolution is going to be taught. I personally would rather them teach none of the above, but if they are going to teach one theory then they should be required to teach them all.kilroy0097 wrote:
Not in the Classroom. Save it for church. We are not going to start "promoting" any sort of religion as official curriculum in the classrooms. If you want to have a before school pray club then go right to it, however if you want to learn in depth about your religion, whatever it may be, then go to your church or see your personal spiritual leader. Religion, outside the usage of it in History class, does not belong in the Public School System.audioboxer217 wrote:
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.
Let me just make this clear, Intelligent Design is not a religion, nor does it recognize any religion in it's teaching. Personally, I dont see where this topic should be controversial at all, as long as a defunct thoery such as evolution is still being taught as an explanation for the origin of species.kilroy0097 wrote:
Not in the Classroom. Save it for church. We are not going to start "promoting" any sort of religion as official curriculum in the classrooms. If you want to have a before school pray club then go right to it, however if you want to learn in depth about your religion, whatever it may be, then go to your church or see your personal spiritual leader. Religion, outside the usage of it in History class, does not belong in the Public School System.audioboxer217 wrote:
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.
Seriously, EVERYONE, read about exactly what it is that Intelligent Deisgn advocates, and then read Darwin's, "Origin of Species." Natural selection was the main focus of his book, and all of the things he said we would find in the fossil record to validate the theory have not been found. To the contrary, all of the fossil record evidence to date shows it was quite the opposite, that speciation and diveristy occured rather rapidly in a period known as the Cambrian Explosion. Additionally, read up on the philosophic validations that ID has, it's really quite astounding how many great points ID makes about the world,a nd vice verse, it is astounding how the world often points to an Intelligent Design. Based on the ID theory, it could have just as easily been aliens that bioengineered life on Earth. It DOES NOT advocate a religion at all, nor does even neccessaryily advoacte a "god."
^
Yes, some thing do point to it, yet I think they think this is about religion since it involves A god...
Yes, some thing do point to it, yet I think they think this is about religion since it involves A god...
Let me quote the definition of Intelligent Design as gotten from: http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
Now ordinarily I could see perhaps having a healthy discussion on this and perhaps even a debate between Evolution and Natural Selection versus Creation Science. I could even see it being discussed in a Philosophy class or a Theology class however I hardly see this theory being discussed in it's full form within the public school system. I see it given a slant and a very simple vague summary giving the student no other source of comparison except Religion. Creationism is in fact Religion and tells us that all things were created by God or by some sort of higher being.
While Intelligent Design itself may not directly tell you to go out and find a church, to the youth and impressionable it is nothing more than putting Creationism in a Scientific coat and trying to pass it off as a viable theory. Those studying the theories and evidence of Natural Selection and Evolution are already analyzing patterns as possibilities. This is nothing new as we have to attempt to find the ideal situation in which promotes evolution. This by default includes patterns. What makes a Pattern a Design is simply adding some sort of Intelligent Being engineering the pattern.
This Intelligent Being will be hinted at as God. I highly doubt seeing our public school system hinting at the Intelligent Being as an Alien species from another galaxy. Even though this theory is just as Sound as any theory on a supreme God like figure.
The spin that will be put on Intelligent Design will skew and mutate it over night. The theory is like any other I simply don't trust humans to not put their own personal spin on something this delicate. This is why I don't want it in the school system to be taught as a Science. It is not a Science, it is Theology and Philosophy.
While this definition of Intelligent Design implies that it is the study of patterns and design probability do not let it fool you into thinking that this is a pure science. It is nothing more than "Creation Science" which has come up before in the past. Essentially Intelligent Design attempts to prove in some fashion that the universe and all things in it were developed with one goal in mind. Life. And not just life but specifically the life of the human species. Hence if we were to be evolved from apes and them from other organisms over billions of years this was all the plan of some higher being who designed this to happen.The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.
In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.
ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.
Now ordinarily I could see perhaps having a healthy discussion on this and perhaps even a debate between Evolution and Natural Selection versus Creation Science. I could even see it being discussed in a Philosophy class or a Theology class however I hardly see this theory being discussed in it's full form within the public school system. I see it given a slant and a very simple vague summary giving the student no other source of comparison except Religion. Creationism is in fact Religion and tells us that all things were created by God or by some sort of higher being.
While Intelligent Design itself may not directly tell you to go out and find a church, to the youth and impressionable it is nothing more than putting Creationism in a Scientific coat and trying to pass it off as a viable theory. Those studying the theories and evidence of Natural Selection and Evolution are already analyzing patterns as possibilities. This is nothing new as we have to attempt to find the ideal situation in which promotes evolution. This by default includes patterns. What makes a Pattern a Design is simply adding some sort of Intelligent Being engineering the pattern.
This Intelligent Being will be hinted at as God. I highly doubt seeing our public school system hinting at the Intelligent Being as an Alien species from another galaxy. Even though this theory is just as Sound as any theory on a supreme God like figure.
The spin that will be put on Intelligent Design will skew and mutate it over night. The theory is like any other I simply don't trust humans to not put their own personal spin on something this delicate. This is why I don't want it in the school system to be taught as a Science. It is not a Science, it is Theology and Philosophy.
Last edited by kilroy0097 (2005-11-10 18:15:49)
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
i was brought up to be quite scientific, and so i'm not religious, at all. i think there is no way (like someone said before) that the world was creater 6000 years ago, in 7 days. i don't think humanity was spawned from adam and eve, because that would just couse incestial relationships resulting in everyone on earth having bad lungs and 6 fingers.
however, i can see where intelligent design is coming from. some things are just too weird to explain using conventional evolution.
an example:
there is a fish that lives in the pacific, its called the leaf fish. not surprisingly, it looks a lot like a leaf. the way it protects itself from predators is that it finds leaves that have blown its way from south america, and swims behind them for a while, observing their movement. then it imitates how the leaf moves, and floats behind it. and without concentrating really hard, its very hard to tell the difference.
now a million years ago, did a normal fish see a leaf and say "i think i'd like to look like that leaf in a million years."? i don't see how the fish could have evolved that way by itself. because for the hundreds of generations between the origional fish and the leaf fish, it wouldnt have looked much like a leaf at all yet, and its defense mechinism would be worthless.
i just think some things don't just happen like that. it isn't possible in my opinion. and i don't think that God, or Allah or whoever did it, mainly because i don't beleive in them, but i think that something must have caused that to happen because i can't see any other way it could have. do you get my drift?
however, i can see where intelligent design is coming from. some things are just too weird to explain using conventional evolution.
an example:
there is a fish that lives in the pacific, its called the leaf fish. not surprisingly, it looks a lot like a leaf. the way it protects itself from predators is that it finds leaves that have blown its way from south america, and swims behind them for a while, observing their movement. then it imitates how the leaf moves, and floats behind it. and without concentrating really hard, its very hard to tell the difference.
now a million years ago, did a normal fish see a leaf and say "i think i'd like to look like that leaf in a million years."? i don't see how the fish could have evolved that way by itself. because for the hundreds of generations between the origional fish and the leaf fish, it wouldnt have looked much like a leaf at all yet, and its defense mechinism would be worthless.
i just think some things don't just happen like that. it isn't possible in my opinion. and i don't think that God, or Allah or whoever did it, mainly because i don't beleive in them, but i think that something must have caused that to happen because i can't see any other way it could have. do you get my drift?
here is another point. if we evolved from apes, why do we still have apes? how come they didnt evolve with us? hmmm..kilroy0097 wrote:
Hence if we were to be evolved from apes and them from other organisms over billions of years this was all the plan of some higher being who designed this to happen.
Just another note, my mum teaches at a catholic school and its compulsory to attend religious studies at all catholic schools here. she notices a lot of the catholic boys are really pissed off about having 2 go to a mosque because "the arabs hate us", but she says by the time the course is over they tend to have a much better understanding of other faiths. so i think that is a good idea to, but this is off topic anyway. sorry.chuyskywalker wrote:
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.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 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.
Kilroy,
I just want to reiterate that the article you quoted never used the word God once, and religion only once in a disclaimer saying that this science has an impact on religion. Like I said before, ID does not imply the existence of a god at all, though that is a possible source of intelligence. It is very possible to explain and teach ID in any public school exactly within the context to which I am referring, and to think that is not the case is just wrong. If in the state of Texas, a school can be sued for having a prayer before a football game, then there is no way that a teacher anywhere is gonna get away with teaching ID as a religious doctrine. You have no faith in the public school system.
To Everyone,
Not one person has responded to my arguement that evolution is completely defunct as an origins thoery, that being the case, why is this thread still active?
I just want to reiterate that the article you quoted never used the word God once, and religion only once in a disclaimer saying that this science has an impact on religion. Like I said before, ID does not imply the existence of a god at all, though that is a possible source of intelligence. It is very possible to explain and teach ID in any public school exactly within the context to which I am referring, and to think that is not the case is just wrong. If in the state of Texas, a school can be sued for having a prayer before a football game, then there is no way that a teacher anywhere is gonna get away with teaching ID as a religious doctrine. You have no faith in the public school system.
To Everyone,
Not one person has responded to my arguement that evolution is completely defunct as an origins thoery, that being the case, why is this thread still active?
You're right. It does not state that God created the universe and everything, of course that's the point. If ID is taught in it's pure "form" then God should never enter the equation because you purposely ignore the concept of God and concentrate instead on an unknown being not labeled by any religion. However because it can not be fully explained because of its basis in Creationism (Hence where faith comes in) then the only other example any teenager will have to compare ID to is one or another form of organized religion. The leap from ID to the belief structure of an organized religon is not hard at all and a great many will make this leap. As for being sued for having a prayer before a football game and all other instances where religion has caused controversy in school, ID is absolutely the perfect method in which to imply Creationism without the usage or verbage of an organized religion. For some it will be a legitamite science and there will be good discussion about it but to others it will merely be used as Creationism in the wool clothing of Science. Creationism of course leads to organized religion most of the time.redfoxster wrote:
I just want to reiterate that the article you quoted never used the word God once, and religion only once in a disclaimer saying that this science has an impact on religion. Like I said before, ID does not imply the existence of a god at all, though that is a possible source of intelligence. It is very possible to explain and teach ID in any public school exactly within the context to which I am referring, and to think that is not the case is just wrong. If in the state of Texas, a school can be sued for having a prayer before a football game, then there is no way that a teacher anywhere is gonna get away with teaching ID as a religious doctrine. You have no faith in the public school system.
Most likely because evolution has only been defunct in the eyes of a single group of scholars and is not widely accepted as a disproven theory. Though I am not a proffesional in the field and so I can not comment on if it was scientifically disproven and unless you are a proffesional I can not take your word for it. Please state a source or two so that we can better discuss this portion of your argument. It might even branch off to it's own thread if we can get a compelling banter going on it.Not one person has responded to my arguement that evolution is completely defunct as an origins thoery, that being the case, why is this thread still active?
Last edited by kilroy0097 (2005-11-10 20:33:32)
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
That is the part of the mystery actually. Some theories state that Evolution is environmentally dependant. In other words not all apes (or whatever their species was at the time) were exposed to the catalyst that prompted evolution that eventually led to our species. Creatures evolve at different rates and at different times due to different environmental exposures. In an obvious example we can point at skin pigment of different races on the planet who are all of the human species. Not everyone is naturally born tan, or dark skinned. This is an evolutionary example based upon environment. A further example of this would be bone structure and height differences which might also be further divided by muscle structure and genetic similarities based upon geographical region.nzjafa wrote:
here is another point. if we evolved from apes, why do we still have apes? how come they didnt evolve with us? hmmm..kilroy0097 wrote:
Hence if we were to be evolved from apes and them from other organisms over billions of years this was all the plan of some higher being who designed this to happen.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
Should this discussion/debate be moved to the Debate and Serious Talk section?
Once again thank you for the stimulating discussion on this topic. Kudos to all that responded.
Cheers.
Once again thank you for the stimulating discussion on this topic. Kudos to all that responded.
Cheers.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
From a New York State (NYC) Certified Teacher...
Oh boy, don't even get me started on this subject. I'm a social studies teacher, and although i don't mind talking about this in social studies class, i VERY MUCH object for this to be taught in science classes. One main argument of intelligent design advocates is that it should be included because it is just as viable theory as evolution. Well, theories have EMPIRACLE data, and not just logical deductions.
However, THE BIGGEST problem with intelligent design is being able to write a balanced curriculum about it. More specifically, if we are to treat evolution and intelligent design equally, the 'omnipotent being' needs to be expressed diversely as well; basically every religion. You cannot just say, intelligent design and not get the connotation (in America at least) that it is a Judea-Christian symbolism. Therefore, the representation of Eastern religions becomes prevalent. And u know what? u need a whole other class for that and you can't do that with the current time frame we have. And no, i'm not going to teach longer school years at the same pay i'm getting now.
Oh boy, don't even get me started on this subject. I'm a social studies teacher, and although i don't mind talking about this in social studies class, i VERY MUCH object for this to be taught in science classes. One main argument of intelligent design advocates is that it should be included because it is just as viable theory as evolution. Well, theories have EMPIRACLE data, and not just logical deductions.
However, THE BIGGEST problem with intelligent design is being able to write a balanced curriculum about it. More specifically, if we are to treat evolution and intelligent design equally, the 'omnipotent being' needs to be expressed diversely as well; basically every religion. You cannot just say, intelligent design and not get the connotation (in America at least) that it is a Judea-Christian symbolism. Therefore, the representation of Eastern religions becomes prevalent. And u know what? u need a whole other class for that and you can't do that with the current time frame we have. And no, i'm not going to teach longer school years at the same pay i'm getting now.
Bravo *clap clap*. Thank you for putting an educational perspective on this topic. ID, if it is to be taught at all in the public school system, needs to be taught in something other than Science subject classes. Social Studies, Philosophy or Theology class are better suited for this theory due to its curriculum and religious discussion needs. Perhaps even a World Culture class due to the broad range of world religions. Creationism is not a science and should never be considered a science. As I have stated into nausium within this thread, ID is Creationism in the wool clothing of Science.theoflow wrote:
From a New York State (NYC) Certified Teacher...
Oh boy, don't even get me started on this subject. I'm a social studies teacher, and although i don't mind talking about this in social studies class, i VERY MUCH object for this to be taught in science classes. One main argument of intelligent design advocates is that it should be included because it is just as viable theory as evolution. Well, theories have EMPIRACLE data, and not just logical deductions.
However, THE BIGGEST problem with intelligent design is being able to write a balanced curriculum about it. More specifically, if we are to treat evolution and intelligent design equally, the 'omnipotent being' needs to be expressed diversely as well; basically every religion. You cannot just say, intelligent design and not get the connotation (in America at least) that it is a Judea-Christian symbolism. Therefore, the representation of Eastern religions becomes prevalent. And u know what? u need a whole other class for that and you can't do that with the current time frame we have. And no, i'm not going to teach longer school years at the same pay i'm getting now.
Last edited by kilroy0097 (2005-11-11 11:16:04)
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
I've been saying that all along...ID DOES NOT belong in SCIENCE class...something that teaches theories/cultures/beleifs is ok, but making it a SCIENCE ciriculum...that is just trying to take this theory into fact...not even Evolution does that...