Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

ID = a load of rubbish.
Creationisim = a bigger load of rubbish
Evolution+big bang = Practical working theory

The reason intelligent design doesn't work is because the universe is uniform where we are, there are many places like this we can see in the universe, there are many planets and since we can see only the largest extrasolar planets we must assume that planets like earth exist elsewhere. ID suggests that someone/something had a hand in designing the uiniverse, why wouldn't that person/thing make the universe simple with just what was needed and then create more when that was needed and so on.

The idea that a pefect plan exists is flawed, a plan must be adaptable therefore the laws of physics and the form of the universe would need to be adaptable.

The reason creationisim doesn't work is because it was written before the beginning of time (according to creationists) By egyptians, not "god".

Religious eduction has no place in school. I live in england, I went to a church of england school and I never prayed more than once and never studied anything approaching ID and definately not Creationisim (the church of england doesn't believe in it anyway) and the first amendment in america is meant to seperate church and state. so there can be no state sanctioned church of america. If you don't teach evolution in school you will put america behind the rest of the world.

Marx said somewhere that all revolutions have a prior "nice" phase followed by a "nasty" phase. And anti-ID is revolutionary. It is at the coffee morning state at this juncture. It's infantry, in tuxedos and frocks, is recruited from the dissident temperment even if its power elite have a proper sense of what they are doing and which I am well able to justify under certain provocations.

Precisely because the anti-ID infantry has no capacity to allow a justification for ID or even creationism, or animism generally, is convincing proof of its anti-intellectual and anti-scientific state of mind. Its certainty is also anti-modern and anti-diversity. It is therefore anti-evolution as well at a fundamental level. But all infantry is like that for otherwise it would not serve its power elite's purposes efficiently. Anyone who doesn't know what those purposes are has not been paying attention.

In Marx's "nice" phase the enemies of the settled power combine in a self-congratulating, (see thumbs up and down), united, harmonious and progressive front. In the "nasty" phase, which never arrives if the revolution is put down, they fight it out for the succession and their differences loom large. Marx of course, in the Museum library, saw to it that he remained firmly in the "nice" phase leaving his various fans to fight it out later in the "nasty" phase. The latter can be said to be "good" because it is inevitable if the revolution takes place. Monkeys do it. It's Darwinian in its necessity.

What happens in the "nice" phase is that all the objections to the ancien regime fuse in a delerious harmony of anticipation, the nastiness of the "nasty" phase being in direct proportion to the delerium, and of righteous condemnation of all the inadequacies of the past or what are seen as inadequacies at least; based on partial understandings provided by the power elite and which are easy to understand and which readily engage the emotions of those susceptible to the refined pleasures of indignation.

The coalition of the "nice" phase has elements given to liberal values and democratic participation but it also has elements which call for the rule of experts as with the fawning over the 40 Nobles, the use of esoteric language as the priests of old used Latin, and the constant parading of academic (ahem!!) titles and ceremonies such as those Prof, Dawkins presides over and which the democratic masses have no way of placing a value upon except poetically in the symbolism of the Mad Scientist.

But that's a the high end. Where promotion to the power elite is a possibility: as inevitably occurs due to the effects of time upon biological tissue.

Ordinarily there is gathered the masturbators, the debauchers of young female innocence, which is a delight to see, the serial monogamists, polygamists and whatnot, the homosexuals, the abortionists and their clients and advisors, the adulterers and libertines and, sitting grinning fiendishly in a dark corner, the odd eugenicist.

In the sort of society we are now living in, the UK is thought to be 5-7 years behind the US, this is a very formidable army, as our media conglomerates well know, and our legal profession, and when it turns on itself over the prostrate body of the enemy in the "nasty" phase we might not be able to avert our eyes because it might be all there is to look at.

Defeating such a revolution during its "nice" phase might well be the humane thing to do. Or preventing the body of the enemy from becoming prostrate at the least so that things get no more disorderly than they are now which seems to be easily manageable. So much so that it is fast becoming a species of entertainment. Which is only a continuation and development of media's need to have us entertain ourselves since it, understandably, ran out of new ideas. The emotion gladiators were an obvious substitute. Fortunes have been made without having to learn to balance on one finger on a technicolour medicine ball while doing variously impossible other things and occasionally flashing a shiny silk tasselled gusset at the audience. Big Brother is the minimilist version. The whisper is that real-life shagging is in the offing and you can't get more minimilist than that. Perversions being out because they are inconsistent with minimilism. As if consistency is a factor when money is involved. TWUFOG.

Mr Jindal, and myself, will fight on. We might not be understood but the above will be nothing new to a Rhodes scholar.

I think he said it at the pub over a cold one. What thehell are you even talking about? Its nonsense.

That's spendi for you; he spews nonsense from past writers that doesn't make any sense to the topic at hand.

His gratuitous way of telling everybody that he's well read.

No, no fm. It is out of date. The 27 amendments are proof of that. And the pending ones. In fact everything is out of date. Your position is out of date. It fails the uncertainty principle. Certainty went out years ago.

It is a sign of its health that it goes our of date continually. Are you really an evolutionist?



And I also know that in each phase there are a lot of conversations, positionings and surveys of the landscape going on in which 40 Nobles are not unlike cigarette ash on the waistcoat.

Oooooh!! Aaah! Fancy that.

What will the palæontologists of the future make of us?

anti-ID is unneccessary I am not anti-ID, ID makes a whole lot more sense than creationisim.
What I am against is the dilution of the efforts of man and the wonder of the universe by saying "It was god" rather than "It is an amazing, wonderful accident" which is what I believe.

ID's main flaw is that you could use it as an argument for anything you want, as in, "yes I think that hyperdimensional aliens created the universe to, <insert crackpot theory here>."

Karl Marx was an atheist, so quoting him to prove ID is something he would be against.

Unlike the other posters i do not believe that your argument is invalid, simply misinformed, I both allow for Intellectual and Scientific discourse, the fact that I am willing to discuss it from a standpoint of complete disbelief proves that I am willing to keep an open mind.

All I ask for is proof. No-one has ever presented proof of intelligent design or creationisim. The proof does not need absolute proof simply as many theories of which I am a proponent merely apply occams razor.

That is to say you should present a theory that makes the fewest possible assumptions.

you will soon see grasshopper, past discussions with spendi have ridden many rails. His main thesis is that evolution SHOULD NOT be taught in schools to kids in biology. His arguments dont trash science as much as he fears the rise of materialistic atheism. His other attempts at argument are mere fluffinutter, and efforts to hold his place in line.

There is an argument that ID is a fall back position in the fight against the encroaching horde of scientific materialists and that it is better to stand firm in the front trench rather than the one in the rear.

I quoted Marx in relation to social dynamics and not ID. That there are "nice" and "nasty" phases to a revolution has nothing to do with the nature of it.

There is nothing wonderful about a random, meaningless accident. But it might be amazing.

There are no proofs. If there were we wouldn't be here.

I'm up for evolution being taught in schools if it is necessary. I don't think it is and it gets in the way of many necessary things.

We all know why it is necessary to you lot.

spendi wrote,

Your idea of what is necessary or not in our school system is irrelevant.

I think you "Know" very little. Youve lied about being a scientist and , when given several key concepts in your expressed field of practice, you knew nothing . Your argument ws that it was "30 years ago" I believe. SO what have you been doing these last 30 years, undergoing memory loss treatment?

Actually, spendi exacerbated his memory problem with more drinking at the pub.

We are internationally linked ci. Your isolationism is naive. It is born of a simpler way of life than we have. It's an anachronism. A harbour for the weak minded with some nice, easy platitudes for solace.

My responses to your posts aren't platitudes; they just confirm what you write on these boards, and are significant to that extent - only. No morality is intended; just facts.

Good thing our isolationism wsnt completed until , during the "Post Columbian Exchhange" we gave you potatoes, tomatoes, tobacco, and personal hygiene

No. Widening my scientific researches into those scientific areas you dare not tread. Attention to things insignificant loss morelike. Something you should try. You didn't even know what a psuedomorphosis was. And that is not insignificant.

Come on, spendi, tell us where your "research" is directing your current scientific interests?

Into this topic mainly.

Oh, really! Can you share a paragraph or two to show us what your thesis is about?