Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

How do you work that out? You don't know anything about me.

When you can't answer a point you start all that stuff and as you can't answer any of the points, and it's all on the record, you turn the thread on me and then you say I've done it. Such a base and underhand trick might work in your milieux but it doesn't wash with me.

There's some stuff about your goodself though here and there. And fm feels the need to tell us his plans and which elite bodies he's on and plenty more.

It is the contribution the school makes to the character which, of course, has other aspects of life outside school either reinforcing it or weakening it to some degree.

If ever you've raised a point at once topical, worthy of serious consideration and thoughtfulk response, I assure you I'll make the effort - once I've recovered from my surprise, of course.

hey ros. You make that? Its what we call "outsider art".
I started a thread on the new oil find in the Gulf Of Mexico. Ill check in the AM to see if gungasnake wants to play. Then we shove off for Woods Hole.

hey ros. You make that? Its what we call "outsider art".
I started a thread on the new oil find in the Gulf Of Mexico. Ill check in the AM to see if gungasnake wants to play. Then we shove off for Woods Hole.

Of course there is C14 in fossil fuels. Science understands and has no problem with C14 in fossil fuels, but ID-iots can't/won't come to grips with that; while their "literature" brings it up all the time, their "science" is worse than wrong, its dishonest.

For the last time Wolf-- you don't teach intelligent design. What it comprises is everything. It doesn't fit into your specimin cases or under "I" in the filing cabinet. It is the contribution the school makes to the character which, of course, has other aspects of life outside school either reinforcing it or weakening it to some degree.

I want people who haven't written God off running schools rather than those who have because I think a better character is produced. I know that is an opinion. I said so when I said "I think". I find I need to emphasise obvious things quite often.

One thing you can't do is think such a thing won't have social consequences. I think they will be quite dramatic. To an extent they already are.

Everytime media touches education it trivialises it. It shows two schoolgirls having hysterics 'cos they've passed and the minister saying that 99% have passed and we've all had our IQs uprated again. Big smiles all round and they're up 2 points in the next poll. Then the catch the Deputy PM shagging in Admiralty House and they're down 8 just to show how educated we are.

"The first trick that the IDers want to pass over your eyes , is to have you believe that they are not, in any way, related to Creationists"--

Creationists are anti-ID, because they don't like the idea of Evolution.

"You dont teach ID" if thats the case then why has the Discovery Institute and all its "tootlets" ttried to infiltrate sciebce curricula of the various states?

Which suggests you don't read the posts of others too carefully being in such a rush to blurt your own stuff which never adds up to much unless one has specialised in your specialisation which you seem to think is the centre of all wisdom.

Because Darwin et al blots everything else out. Not just Creationism. All creation myths. All understanding of history.

All art.

All classroom discipline not based on fear and some kids are fearless. Girls as well.

What does the DI have to do with me? They are not on this thread. I am. They, of necessity, have to make a pitch at the unruly mob so they have to keep it simple.

Panel to consider teaching guidelines
(By Erica Ryan, Associated Press, September 7, 2006)

COLUMBUS - The state school board is considering setting teaching guidelines that would say students should form judgments of controversial topics using critical analysis, which critics say could allow religion-based challenges to evolution.

The Ohio Department of Education drafted a framework for teaching contentious issues at a board committee's request and plans to present it at a meeting Monday, department spokesman J.C. Benton said Wednesday.

The optional guidelines would help teachers target students' reasoning skills and could be applied to subjects such as global warming, immigration, the national debt and evolution, said committee member Deborah Owens Fink of Richfield.

"We want to make sure that we have curriculum that is rich and allows these conversations," Owens Fink said.

Critics said the proposal is the latest attempt by some school board members to allow religion-based criticisms of evolution into science classes.

"Teachers who want to teach creationism can use it as cover," said Patricia Princehouse, who teaches philosophy and evolutionary biology at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. She noted that the framework uses the term "critical analysis," which also was used in a state lesson plan that encouraged students to seek evidence for and against evolution.

In February, the Ohio Board of Education voted 11-4 to delete the lesson plan and the state science standard to which it corresponded. Critics said the lesson echoed arguments from proponents of intelligent design, the idea that DNA and other aspects of life are so complex that they're best explained as the intervention of a higher power.

The board's achievement committee was asked to determine whether the deleted curriculum should be replaced. The framework to be presented Monday is not a lesson plan, Benton said.

Owens Fink said she wasn't sure how many committee members support the idea, but added board members typically seek feedback from school superintendents and other educators before taking action on a proposal.

She said some districts already use templates similar to the proposal and emphasized that it would support teaching subjects across the board, not just science.

"It seems so ironic to me that these are the same people that said, 'Don't single out evolution for critical analysis,"' she said.

Fm praised your post and I pointed out that on one important point you had said the opposite to what he had said. In this case you were right. Creationism is opposed to intelligent design.

A variation of the "teach the controversy" tactic. If people complain about evolution being singled out, just throw in a bunch of other "controversial" topics.

wandeljw wrote:

A variation of the "teach the controversy" tactic. If people complain about evolution being singled out, just throw in a bunch of other "controversial" topics.

What do you mean 2+2 can only equal 4? That is controversial and you have to change my grade because sometimes it could equal 57.

wande-

You're doing it again. You define "anti-evolution" your way and come to the appropriate conclusion. One can fully agree with the whole of evolutionary theory and accept it as fact and be anti-evolution because of the social consequences of it. You are just betting the future's lifestyles on your pet idea and you may well win the bet but it is still a bet and it is one which you have nothing to lose due to the timescales involved.

You need to try to show that the consequences would be beneficial to society and stop cosying up to the luxuries you have which are the social consequences of a Christianised society.