Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

rosborne wrote: The first amendment stands as our defense against bullshit like this.

Not while Bush is in the white house. He's one of "them."

0 Replies

I thought you AIDs-ers were all agreed that the White House is one complete package of bullshit.

Why do you keep repeating it?

We heard first time. We listen to what you say. Have you had a problem with people not listening to what you say in the past?

You're starting to sound like a bad tempered jackhammer.

If you can't raise your game in three sodding years it might be the best policy to keep you well away from the educational process IMHAHO.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Is it also bullshit when refusal to even acknowledge that millions of people do believe in ID is interpreted as anti-religious prejudice?

The bullshit here is in the phrasing of that question. It was not acknowledgment that millions of people believe in ID that was refused, it was your suggested mandate that teachers make such an acknowledgment in response to questions about ID, thereby giving it implied validity.

Foxfyre wrote:

My opinion is that all the teacher needs to do is explain that some form of ID is a belief or theory held by millions of people but it cannot be tested, proved, or refuted scientifically and therefore it can't be considered as science.
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3068973#3068973

Foxfyre wrote:

I think it is appropriate for the teacher to acknowledge that hundreds of millions of people think as the student thinks but it cannot be tested or proved or falsified scientifically and therefore it is not science and it won't be on the test. Darwin will.
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3077625#3077625

0 Replies

How is "teacher" defined in a discussion about whether ID is science or religion?

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Is it also bullshit when refusal to even acknowledge that millions of people do believe in ID is interpreted as anti-religious prejudice?

The bullshit here is in the phrasing of that question. It was not acknowledgment that millions of people believe in ID that was refused, it was your suggested mandate that teachers make such an acknowledgment in response to questions about ID, thereby giving it implied validity.

Foxfyre wrote:
My opinion is that all the teacher needs to do is explain that some form of ID is a belief or theory held by millions of people but it cannot be tested, proved, or refuted scientifically and therefore it can't be considered as science.
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3068973#3068973

Foxfyre wrote:
I think it is appropriate for the teacher to acknowledge that hundreds of millions of people think as the student thinks but it cannot be tested or proved or falsified scientifically and therefore it is not science and it won't be on the test. Darwin will.
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3077625#3077625

This is where you anti-IDers are so damn dishonest. Both statements of mine that you posted were my opinion of the proper response of a teacher when the issue of Creationism or ID is raised by a student. I think the large part of all this ID versus Darwin stuff is triggered purely by refusal of the education system to acknowledge a student's religious belief and rather attempt to denigrate it. I think that is pushing Atheism, pure and simple, and I think that violates the First Amendment, and I think that is what is behind most of these Darwin vs ID flaps in the schools.

0 Replies

In my post above "teacher" was used in the context of a public school science teacher in the US as the links indicated.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

In my post above "teacher" was used in the context of a public school science teacher in the US as the links indicated.

The context was and has always been science class.

0 Replies

Yes, I know. I was responding to spendius' question.

Quote:

How is "teacher" defined in a discussion about whether ID is science or religion?

0 Replies

You also implied that for a science teacher to acknowledge a student's belief in ID is somehow the teacher giving validity to ID. And that is bullshit. Why shouldn't a teacher acknowledge a reality that exists? Hundreds of millions of people do believe in ID. How can that be honestly denied?

In political science class should a liberal teacher deny that conservatism exists? If he or she does, is he or she giving validity to the conservative point of view? Or is he simply acknowledging a reality in the sociopolitical spectrum?

0 Replies

Okay avoiders of points using pedanticisms.

How is "teacher" defined in a discussion about whether ID is science or religion in a public school science class?

Could it be allowed that when there's no learning there's no teacher?

Is this theoretical teacher young or old, male or female, WASP or Latino or any one of a large number of other personal categories.

Is your teacher a speak-your-weight machine and the student a audio receptor?

0 Replies

Its all dependent upon what the meaning of "is" is.

0 Replies

TEXAS UPDATE

Quote:

Veteran on state education board holds own against creation backer
(By TERRENCE STUTZ / The Dallas Morning News, March 5, 2008)

Veteran State Board of Education member Pat Hardy of Fort Worth defeated Cleburne urologist Barney Maddox in the GOP primary Tuesday night, holding off an effort by social conservatives to gain a working majority on the politically divided board.

The victory by Ms. Hardy, a former high school teacher and current curriculum adviser in the Weatherford school district, in the GOP primary virtually assures her of another term because no Democrat has filed for the post.

The Fort Worth Republican had been targeted by some social conservative groups for her independent voting ways and her frequent opposition to a bloc of seven social conservatives on the 15-member board.

Social conservatives threw their support behind Dr. Maddox, known for his strong support of creation science and calls to revamp textbooks used in classrooms across Texas.

Education groups and other GOP leaders backed the incumbent.

Ms. Hardy touted her own conservative background, contending that opponents distorted her record for political advantage.

"It is about what is best for kids, not what is best politically," she insisted. "I have been in education for 38 years and am extremely knowledgeable in the field."

Campaign finance reports filed last week indicated that Dr. Maddox had a decided financial edge, with his report indicating expenditures of $61,203 in the last month and $70,000 in loans to his campaign - including $55,000 of his own money. Ms. Hardy's report indicated expenditures of $4,017 and $5,850 in campaign contributions.

But she relied on volunteer help to turn out her base of support in the Fort Worth area.

The board currently has 10 Republicans - including seven social conservatives who frequently vote together - and five Democrats. Seven members are up for election this year, but the only primary races are in District 11 (Ms. Hardy's seat) and District 2 in South Texas.

In the latter contest, incumbent Mary Helen Berlanga, D-Corpus Christi, easily defeated a challenger in the Democratic primary who also supported creation science as a better explanation of the origin of man than evolution.

The board is expected to deal with the subject when it adopts new science standards this year.

0 Replies

Any chance of the voting returns wande?

Total votes cast. % for each candidate. Number eligble to vote.

fm wrote-

Quote:

Its all dependent upon what the meaning of "is" is.

The third person singular, present, indicative of the verb to be.

As in "the reading on the carbon dating machine is 600 million years."

To what extent is "teacher" a figment of a subjective imagination?

0 Replies

Quote:

"the reading on the carbon dating machine is 600 million years

Can anyone spot the glaring error in master spendius" contribution?

0 Replies

Spendi doesn't make errors. His Rabelais/Spengler/Joycean radiocarbon dating machine specifically dates the psycho-resonance carbon isotope.

It goes without saying that this particular isotope has a shelf half-life a bit longer than the ~5,730 years of the left-wing, pinko, communist, commune-living, Jane Fonda loving carbon-14 isotope - or as we like to call it - the sissy isotope.

Then again, being off by a mere 5 orders of magnitude is a marked improvement over most of the statements of our hero.

Of course, my post could simply be an atheistic attempt to denigrate the Judeo-Christian imperative that any clear-thinking, objective respondent might have; in that way denying a proper education to our freckle-faced youngsters -- leading to the loss of precious bodily fluids. (Just thought I'd save Foxy a post)

0 Replies

I though Jane Fonda was great in Klute and in Coming Home.

If that's sissy I'm a bad case of it.

0 Replies

fm- if no one spots my glaring error by this time tomorrow you will tell us all what it is won't you? I'm eager to know.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

fm- if no one spots my glaring error by this time tomorrow you will tell us all what it is won't you? I'm eager to know.

C-14 has a half life of 5730 years. 600 million years is over 100,000 half-lives. If you have 1 mole (14 grams) of C-14 (6.023E23 atoms) after 100,000 half lives even by the limit of Zeno none will be left----consequently carbon dating is meaningless for 600,000,000 years.

In reality with C-14 dating is only possible for less than 10 half lives (~50000 years).

Rap

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know