97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 26 Mar, 2008 03:05 pm
spendi wrote: I hope you don't think I thought he could fly or bounce tank shells off his chest. That's poetic licence you silly moo.


I know it's silly; but doesn't the bible describe Jesus floating upwards to heaven? A miracle.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Wed 26 Mar, 2008 03:08 pm
wandeljw wrote:
Foxfyre,

Reading your posts, I have noticed that you use the word "I" more than any other word. You should spend more time on clarifying an actual position. Science teachers do not teach "viewpoints." They teach scientific facts and explain scientific methodology.


Wandel, giving as much attention to the content of other people's posts as you seem to give to mine might give your opinion more credibility. Or perhaps you think only my posts are in error or unsuitable for your thread? If so, I can live with that.

Perhaps you could provide an example of what you think has not been adequately explained? Sorry you don't like the word "I", but it is generally useful when one is expressing his/her own opinion and how that opinion was derived rather than simply parroting (or posting) what others say.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 26 Mar, 2008 03:20 pm
wande wrote-

Quote:
Science teachers do not teach "viewpoints." They teach scientific facts and explain scientific methodology.


Oh yeah. Do you not read my posts either?

Are you related to a science teacher wande?

With a few lessons the kids can be led to understand what pie and cake shops are for so what is your explanation of the lingerie shops?

Or have they been indoctrinated to not ask such questions?

Foxy- your joke is sexist. None the worse for that of course. I like a bit of sexist banter as long as it is light-hearted.

You might have been better having the lady being a Florida school board member voting for our side with a fossil collecting husband. A relationship a bit like that of Mr Darwin to his wife. The Harry Stubbs option Germaine Greer called it and she's a feminist. Isn't she?
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Wed 26 Mar, 2008 03:23 pm
FLORIDA UPDATE (Breaking News from Florida Senate)

Quote:
Evolution criticism bill weakened
(BY MARC CAPUTO, Miami Herald, March 26, 2008)

A bill to ensure teachers can scientifically criticize evolution was made less controversial Wednesday when it was re-written to all but bar the controversial theory of Intelligent Design in science classrooms.

Originally, the bill encouraged teachers to present the ''full range'' of ''scientific information'' about evolution, but it didn't define what that information is.

And that lead to the real possibility that teachers could profess the Intelligent Design, which a 2005 federal court banned from Pennsylvania science classrooms because it was a religious theory in that it posits an intelligent cause -- God to most adherents -- designed biological organisms.

To quell critics who thought that she was trying to sneak religion in the classroom, Sen. Ronda Storms, a Valrico Republican, decided to define scientific information as ``germane current facts, data, and peer-reviewed research specific to the topic of chemical and biological evolution as prescribed in Florida's Science Standards.''

Storms said the standards are too ''dogmatic'' and could unfairly lead to penalties of teachers and students who question evolution.

Storm's changes pleased scientists like as Paul Cottle, an FSU physics professor, and Gerry Meisels, a chemistry professor at the University of South Florida. Both men helped form the new state science standards, approved last month by the Board of Education, that evolution be explicitly taught clearly and consistently for the first time in Florida public schools.

They both noted that the standards already call for critical thinking, so they questioned the motives of the religiously minded groups pushing for the bill.

''The standards are not broken. Please don't try to fix them,'' Meisels said.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Wed 26 Mar, 2008 03:26 pm
Spendi wrote
Quote:
Foxy- your joke is sexist.


Well yeah. I can only defend myself by saying that I didn't write it. I only posted it. Oh jeez, I just used "I" two...no three more times. There is surely another chastising on the way. . . .
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Wed 26 Mar, 2008 04:11 pm
setanta, (chichulan) said[quote]
[/quote]Fox acknowledged that BS like ID could be taught in separate, comparative religion classes. Now she's gone all fanatical on us, and is hysterically alleging indoctrination and government-control. [QUOTE]

Ya know, I remembered her being rather insistant on that point, but I didnt feel like going back to dig out her contributions. Ive been observing that foxy, like natural selection, makes minute almost unnoticed changes in her opinions and grdully morphs them until she is often at 180 different from her initial stances.

I remember how her first contribution was a loaded question, ostensibly posed by her granddaughter that stated'How can something evolve from something else if they are existing today". I think ros answered it and then foxy started her entry into the ID camp.

Whew,
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Wed 26 Mar, 2008 04:22 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I don't think those supporting the Academic Freedom Act are suggesting any of that Ros.

They are opening the door for that.

There is no need to open that door.


To not open that door opens the other door for the State to have full license to indoctrinate children any way they might choose. In my way of thinking, risking exposing children to erroneous information is far less dangerous than allowing the government full license to decide what chlidren may or may not learn.

We're not talking about limiting thought. We're talking about defining valid subject matter within the context of a public institution.


I have been very clear that I have no problem with the teacher being required to teach a prescribed curriculum or the students being expected to know the content of that curriculum.

On that we all agree.

Foxfyre wrote:
My quarrel is with a notion that a teacher should not be allowed to advise the students that the curriculum is not the sum and end of all knowledge there is to know or is the only point of view that exists.

No such restriction on teachers exists, and nobody has suggested that one should be created, nor has any legislation been proposed which would impose this restriction.

The piece of legislation being proposed (which lead to this particular line of conversation) does not imply what you have written above.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Wed 26 Mar, 2008 04:27 pm
farmerman wrote:
I remember how her first contribution was a loaded question, ostensibly posed by her granddaughter that stated'How can something evolve from something else if they are existing today". I think ros answered it and then foxy started her entry into the ID camp.
Whew,

Yes, it's been a long and twisted road Smile
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 26 Mar, 2008 04:29 pm
Foxy wrote-

Quote:
Well yeah. I can only defend myself by saying that I didn't write it. I only posted it. Oh jeez, I just used "I" two...no three more times. There is surely another chastising on the way. . . .


Ladies are naturally self-centred. It is related to their biological role as creators of the human race in which men play but an insignificant part being, as Ms Greer said, like carrots: cheap and plentiful and easily cooked, as I know to my cost.

It is laughable that men professing to be Darwinians should not find it an endearing quality but for them to mock it is pitiful and is a clear demonstration of their male chauvinist piggery in that they must assume that ladies should be like men, obviously thinking themselves superior beings and thus worthy of emulation even when they talk about themselves un-necessarily.

When I hear men use the "I" word a lot and talk about themselves overmuch I generally shift myself down the bar a bit but when ladies do it I move a little closer and try to tease out the secret springs of their actions. Leading her on a bit is quite permissable. Narcissism in ladies is perfectly natural given the biological facts. In men it is merely tiresome. And dangerous as it gives away too much to a crafty listener.

She does hold all the aces.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 26 Mar, 2008 04:32 pm
fm wrote-

Quote:
Ya know, I remembered her being rather insistant on that point, but I didnt feel like going back to dig out her contributions. Ive been observing that foxy, like natural selection, makes minute almost unnoticed changes in her opinions and grdully morphs them until she is often at 180 different from her initial stances.

I remember how her first contribution was a loaded question, ostensibly posed by her granddaughter that stated'How can something evolve from something else if they are existing today". I think ros answered it and then foxy started her entry into the ID camp.


And that surprises you does it fm?

You must have it made.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Wed 26 Mar, 2008 05:48 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
farmerman wrote:
I remember how her first contribution was a loaded question, ostensibly posed by her granddaughter that stated'How can something evolve from something else if they are existing today". I think ros answered it and then foxy started her entry into the ID camp.
Whew,

Yes, it's been a long and twisted road Smile
Evil or Very Mad

Re my granddaughter's joke, posted here as an effort at humor--I should have known better I know---damn said "I" again.....Tico installed this little program on another thread. It might be useful here as well:

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/7915/humorsetupww0.gif
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 26 Mar, 2008 06:09 pm
It made me laugh.

Installing a sense of humour into an AIDs-er is like making a big shaggy go down the cellar steps for a bath when it knows what's waiting for it at the bottom on the Pavlovian scientific principles so beloved of the road traffic managers.

Do you do a little jig fm when you find oil?

The World According to Garp is where that comes from. With a tweak from Your's Truly.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 26 Mar, 2008 06:11 pm
After all, finding more oil is like giving the destruction of the planet the hurry ups.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 26 Mar, 2008 06:25 pm
According to scientists I mean.

I haven't got a clue personally as Settin' Aah-aah, a term deriving from baby **** drying in the sun, often makes clear.
0 Replies
 
Pauligirl
 
  1  
Wed 26 Mar, 2008 09:20 pm
Foxfyre wrote:

See, this is where you AIDers dishonestly keep trying to restructure the question. The IDers ARE NOT, HAVE NOT, DO NOT advocate teaching ID in the public schools.


Really?

Quote:
Phase III. Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula. The attention, publicity, and influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate with design theorists, and we will be ready. With an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences.
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

The Wedge has had its most significant impact in its attempt to penetrate the public schools. The Pandas book mentioned above predated the Wedge movement, and an attempt to introduce it into the Plano, Texas, schools in 1995 failed due to overwhelming opposition from the local populace. In 1999 the Kansas State Board of Education, with coaching from Wedge activists, omitted some requirements related to teaching evolution. This action was rescinded the following year with the de-selection from the board of several fans of creationism. An attempt to include "intelligent design" in the Ohio school curriculum in 2002 failed when academics state-wide came out in opposition to the proposal. The Wedge team came to Texas last year to plead for dilution of Darwinism in the selection of biology texts, but they left empty handed after a grueling fourteen-hour presentation of arguments by both sides.10
http://www.ntskeptics.org/2004/2004august/august2004.htm
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Wed 26 Mar, 2008 11:30 pm
Really. Some fundamentalist Creationists do, yes, and they are as opposed by the IDers as are the AIDers.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Thu 27 Mar, 2008 05:17 am
Jesus Christ . . . you can put the evidence right under her nose, and she'll still deny it.

If you claim that supporters of "intelligent design" do not call for the inclusion of their beliefs in science curricula, Fox, why have you been ranting that failure to include them constitutes indoctrination and an unacceptable interference by the state? You can't even agree with yourself from one page to the next.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Thu 27 Mar, 2008 05:29 am
Somehow, I dont think foxy would make a good witness for just about any concept.

As far as her initial attempt at humor vis-a-vis her grand daughters original comment, I recall how really steamed foxy got when we got too close to her belief system on that very subject . I suppose she should have pushed her own buttons.

Im done with this witness. You can have her back.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Thu 27 Mar, 2008 05:33 am
foxy
Quote:
Really. Some fundamentalist Creationists do, yes, and they are as opposed by the IDers as are the AIDers.




I know why the Anti Science folks oppose Creationism. I wonder what the "curricula" reasons the IDers use to oppose the same?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Thu 27 Mar, 2008 05:49 am
Setanta wrote:
Jesus Christ . . . you can put the evidence right under her nose, and she'll still deny it.

If you claim that supporters of "intelligent design" do not call for the inclusion of their beliefs in science curricula, Fox, why have you been ranting that failure to include them constitutes indoctrination and an unacceptable interference by the state? You can't even agree with yourself from one page to the next.

Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 07/12/2025 at 08:59:00