Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

fm wrote-



So what's the point of the squabble then?

That's what I've been saying all along. The idea that not teaching Darwin in grade schools will inhibit American science is not only fatuous but an insult to the scientifically inclined which is a small minority in any case. And any of them can get up to speed on Darwin in a week.

Is it really book production, control freakery, mother-lodes of easy copy and public displays of self importance? (Circulating elites of a predatory nature).

That's your problem, spendi. You studied Darwin for only one week. You still have no idea what evolution is about.

Don't show yourself up c.i.

It didn't take me a day. It's that simple. I've read plenty about it though but for other reasons. Have you read The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals and The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex?



That's an emotional expression.


You don't understand it at all.

Not emotion; factual.

Not me (the others can speak for themselves). I only care what's taught in public schools (or what's funded by public dollars).

The parents of home-schooled children can teach their children anything under the sun; it doesn't impact the teaching of children in public schools. It's in the public domain paid by tax dollars that has consequences.

c.i. wrote-



That's emotional as well. A blurt and incorrect.

You post as if nothing else exists on the thread.



Pray tell c.i. I'm dying to know about the "consequences". I've been trying to get you anti-IDers to discuss those for years.

Elaborate. Avoiding that red-herring about American science going to the dogs and the snow about the pillar of biology.

c.i., as Farmerman pointed out on the previous page, home schooling is also supported by tax dollars.

spendi, It's been repeated so often, you have not been paying attention. ID starts and ends with creationism; it's not even a supportable "theory." Who created the creator? You see? It's always a dead-end. No alpha or omega.

Science continues to reveal more of our universe and the chemistry that makes it up. Unfortunately, those "wise" men who wrote those fictional books in the bible didn't have any knowledge of palentology, anthropology, chemistry, and satelites/rockets to send man to the moon and beyond.

Those of you who still believe in the bible think the world is flat, and have been unable to grow beyond that. When you begin to believe that the world is round will you begin to see evolution. Untili then, you'll live in your isolated world of the bible.

Tutors are a good thing; I have absolutely no problems with that.

mesquite wrote-



And he also said that the cream will rise to the top no matter what happens in a dusty corner of biology lessons in grade schools.And he's right.

c.i. Your other post is pure ranting. It has nothing to do with anything I've said anywhere on this thread or anywhere else for that matter.

I can't understand where you're coming from other than that you must have a bee in your bonnet. ID has nothing to do with creationism.

Why don't you pay attention? Your posts today could just as easily have been written when you were a young man. They are simple, trite cliches and too generalised to have the slightest meaning.

You're running on the spot.

Serious education bureaucrats don't spout in public.

So, foxfyre, it appears that ci, ros, and myself have gone on record to refute your Anti-IDjit comment. We all feel that the public schools are not the place for any religious based science.

Mesquite-public funding is earmarked for all students as a function of population of school aged kids. In Pa 9000/year is earmarked for the ed of every kid. This money is then made available in a formula for Parochial , Charter, and homeschooled. Usually te parochial do not avail themselves of the money but instead , the parents of parochial students pay a "double dip" by paying school taxes and their parochial school bills. Homeschooled and Charter schools are really separate and funded by providing reading resources , and any in-kind school stuff and often tutors and special teachers (like music or art) . The school districts that encompass the homeschoolers keep half (or more )of the earmarked funds, but,in all cases the homeschooled do use tax dollars. The fact that theyre off the map is why many of us dont really care about what they teach, since they are a closed loop and not subject to exposing the larger student body. If homeschooling got to be a significant percentage of those being schooled, my opinions about letting em alone would necessarily change since they are no longer a tiny minority. If they reach, say 10% of the total student body, Id want the Dover rules and the Aguillard restrictions enforced or theyd lose their money teat.

I dont know whether anyone has mentioned this but science savvy is a CUMULATIVE THING, BEST BEGUN YOUNG AND BEST BEGUN WITH A FIRM BASIS IN REALITY, EVIDENCE, PROOFS, TRUTH, AND DISPASSIONATE REPEATABILITY, AND invested in the concept of falsifiability. Just thought Id place this on the table as a consideration of why we cant waste any time in teaching fairy tales to our kids and make believe that itheres a valid "alternative theory" to that which is firmly established science.

Im still for teaching the data gaps and holes in evolution, like what happened to the horses in the US? why are the earliest bats only 110 my old (newest data ), what are the ages of cumulative mutations and when do they manifest in new morphological features? How did life begin? etc.

Its just that, the next step of admitted ignorance doesnt auto-default to the "poofster".

spendi said
Thats a bit of misspeaking there but, assuming that does occur, the cream will only rise as high as the glass is full of milk. To not provide the kids with more than they need to be challenged in any subject leads to diletantes disposed to trolling in bpb's and useless counter- kibitzing. It produces People who are just educated enough to be conversant with a few terms but not so much as to actually be of any use. ANybody come to mind?

As I said just before, science savvy is a cumulative repertoire, not to present it early and accurately leads to guys like you. OH THE HUMANITY!!

spendi, Your repeated refutation that ID isn't creationism is a moronic statement without any basis of proof. Even you have difficulty explaining it, because it sits on a foundation of poofism.

fm wrote



Loved it fm. I understand now.

fm wrote- and will soon regret having done so,



And which of evolution's fantastic productions has ever given two ****s about being of some use?

I told you you were a Christian fm. Why don't you admit it.

Does it bother you that the Jesuits can do anything they want with your head?

Until you learn that you have had your head indoctrinated right off your shoulders you will never make the slightest sense.

Foxy as well.

It doesn't bother me.

What "Anti-IDjit" comment would that be FM? Because I beg you to show any place that I have EVER advocated religious based science in the public schools. Or any place where I suggested there is any such thing as religious based science for that matter.

c.i. wrote-



That's a load of bollocks folks.

Hey- it's good this assertion game.

Do you need to grow horns. Evolve them I mean.

Foxy wrote-



How about when you walked into a classroom in a tight skirt with high heels and garter belt holding up your classy stockings, and no headscarf, ear-rings, hint of cleavage and businesslike mien?

You make me laugh thinking that 10 through 12 graders don't know the score.

fm wrote-



That's probably as near as we are going to get to an fm confession.