|
|
wonner 09-27-2005, 05:37 PM http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2005-09-27T221929Z_01_DIT780226_RTRUKOC_0_US-LIFE-EVOLUTION.xml
HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (Reuters) - Members of a Pennsylvania school board were motivated by their religious beliefs when they decided "intelligent design" should be taught to biology students along with Darwin's theory of evolution, witnesses testified in federal court on Tuesday.
Eleven parents are suing the Dover Area School District to stop the teaching of intelligent design, saying it violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
Proponents of the intelligent design theory say life is so complex it could only have been designed by a higher, intelligent being and not via the Darwinian natural selection theory widely accepted by scientists. Critics argue it is a thinly veiled version of creationism.
Discuss
Well if both are scientific "theories" then they're on equal grounds...
meddle 09-27-2005, 05:48 PM It is nothing but creationism dressed in drag. If I had children in School, I would absolutly fight the district on this. Keep this golden jew handholding bullshit out of schools.
wonner 09-27-2005, 05:59 PM I agree with Meddle(did I just type that?;)). There needs to be a seperation of church and state. I'm not sure, but doesn't darwinism have actual facts to back-up the theory? I can't say the same about "intelligent design".
Queen 09-27-2005, 06:12 PM I agree with Meddle(did I just type that?;)). There needs to be a seperation of church and state. I'm not sure, but doesn't darwinism have actual facts to back-up the theory? I can't say the same about "intelligent design".
I agree to an extent... I don't think children should be exposed to one side of the story and not the other, but intelligent design SHOULD NOT be taught in science class. If you want to teach it in philosophy or religion courses, fine, but it is not a "science" and therefore should not be treated as such. And I agree, it basically is creationism minus the word "God." Evolution, on the other hand, has an immense amount of scientific discovery and experimentation backing it up, and is widely accepted as fact in the scientific community. Many sciences are based on the assumption that it is true. Obviously I'm 100% behind evolution, but both sides should be exposed to kids, be it through their parents, church, whatever, for the time being, just to keep both sides from bitching about such petty shit.
aznpoopy 09-27-2005, 06:35 PM Well if both are scientific "theories" then they're on equal grounds...
agreed
however, intelligent design is not a scientific theory in any sense. it's piece of shit pseudo science.
it fails as any sort of scientific theory because it is 100% untestable. it serves only as a catch-all explanation.
i've said it before. intelligent design inmplies existence of god just as much as it implies the existence of space aliens.
Palumbo 09-27-2005, 06:52 PM as long as dinosaurs are still part of the lecture, i dont care.
man, dinosaurs are so cool.
meddle 09-27-2005, 06:58 PM Then the intelligent designer's son healed the blind dinosaurs vision. Then PonitiouPilotosaurus and the evil VelociRomans killed him. Then the creative designers son rose form his grave............................
wonner 09-27-2005, 06:59 PM as long as dinosaurs are still part of the lecture, i dont care.
man, dinosaurs are so cool.
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b90/wonner/youbelongherekidssandbox-chov.jpg
Much of what is believed by modern scientists regarding creation, can form a nice pretty jigsaw puzzle with Genesis I and II (the creation) and not really have pieces not lining up...
r0t0r-rooter 09-27-2005, 07:59 PM I agree that it shouldn't be taught in schools. There's an article in a recent Time mag that delves into this further....
They also had a funny political comic w/pics of a blackboard with the subjects "Astronomy/Astrology", "Neurology/Phrenology", "Science/Magic", & some others with the tag line "Teach both & let the kids choose one".
Just throwing this out there... The intentions of America weren't religious freedom for just any religion... The whole idea was intended for protestant religious freedoms to get away from the goverment's churches...
ComradeGiant 09-27-2005, 10:00 PM ^
That depends on which founding father you asked. Jefferson and Franklin would likely have at least professed to be in favor of absolute freedom of religion.
Hamilton and Madison, on the other hand, would likely have said that it was intended for white, protestant, landowners.
^
That depends on which founding father you asked. Jefferson and Franklin would likely have at least professed to be in favor of absolute freedom of religion.
Hamilton and Madison, on the other hand, would likely have said that it was intended for white, protestant, landowners.
America was a lot less screwed up when only white male landowners over the age of 21 voted.
RoadRaceJosh 09-27-2005, 10:12 PM The aliens did it! We are a species that can trace it's origins to distant galaxies!http://homepage.mac.com/sms123/.Public/p'shop/DavidET.jpg
Your wife does remind me of E.T...
no shit.
ComradeGiant 09-27-2005, 10:25 PM No, it is obvious that FSM is the only logical answer.
jimlab 09-28-2005, 01:40 AM I buy into the "Stargate Theory" more than I do either Darwinism or Creationism. :D
I firmly believe that species can and do adapt to their environments over thousands of years and that some genetic change occurs, but I don't necessarily believe that they "morph" into wildly different life forms over millions of years or that once upon a time, two single-cell critters in a puddle of primordial soup rubbed together the right way and created all of the various life forms on earth. Creationism, on the other hand, is an absolute crock of horseshit believable only by small children, the terminally gullible, and the mentally deranged.
Bwahahahahaha, this forum would suck without you!
|