Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

I've met quite a few a2kers over the years, and many are now my friends. I feel very fortunate to have met these interesting, intelligent, fun-loving, friends.

Quote:

Ohio board moves to fire teacher over creationism
(ASSOCIATED PRESS, June 20, 2008)

A family has sued Freshwater and the school district, saying Freshwater burned a cross on their child's arm that remained for three or four weeks.

I don't know what it is that I'm supposed (asserted) to be "really not getting". If I did know I'd be getting it. I also don't know who the "someone else" is. And I've a good idea what my subtexts are--yes. The world is off its head seems pretty clear.

fm's opinions don't need teasing out. They begin and end with "ID-iots" and "ID-jits". They are the same now as they were years ago.

And they are not relevant in a society where Christian values are the norm and certainly not in a conversation because such a position is a conversation stopper.

There's nothing to discuss once his opponents are declared idiots.

Only votes count in such circumstances. And it's the same with "silliness" and "impede". Such things are assertions.

All that is mud to me.

You claim I confuse others and you don't say who they are.

I don't confuse those I don't confuse.

You seem to me to be setting the bar at the level you can jump and assuming there's no higher level.

Now, what is it about my points that you are confused about? You haven't brought any of that up until the last couple of posts so far as I can tell. I'll gladly reexplain if you're interested.

Shirakawasuna wrote:

Do you even advocate anything related to ID?

Yes- that if a State wants it it should have it and not have scientific materialism forced onto it by outsiders based on some specious justification that US science will go down the tube if it isn't. There are much more important reasons why US science might not keep up and claiming that a State's free and democratic choice in this matter is the cause is a smokescreen to hide them and therefore facilitates failing to address them.

Teleological explanations, especially in biology, and more especially in evolution theory, explain causes from effects and are thus a fruitful field for speculation, self-justification if some aspects are ignored, grant-aided largesse, work avoidance and photo-ops.

Unfair/fair/foul have nothing to do with it.

If fm's state votes to go "scientific" that's okay by me. If you vote an atheist President with an atheist agenda into office that's okay too.

Don't be so silly.

How convenient for you.

You claim the position later in this post.

I can't see how science can inform on anything relating to the issue.

I consider that complete bullshit starting with the "tend". It's a bit like saying it's alright to smash car windows on the basis that it's the right thing to do if a car's on fire with someone inside it.

How many instances are there where the mother's life is genuinely at risk?

Yes. Extremely so.

I presume you mean agreeing with you. No chance. I'll stick with you thinking I'm unreasonable.

Did it? I've forgotten. Was it to do with you saying I had "cried foul"?

I don't give a damn what anybody says. If you do you should practice what you preach.

You haven't at all for the simple reason that you can't just like everybody else can't.

They can merely arbitrate with life. There's nothing irrational about facts. Nor did I lie about it. You lie by saying I lied.

I don't see anything wrong with an unintentional pregnancy either but I do when the responsibility is all shifted onto the woman.

It's dead simple what to do if you don't want to have babies.

I can't see the non-sequitur.

If religious people are in favour of natural justice, honesty and dignity it does't prevent atheists being. The matter has nothing to do with religion.

spendius wrote:

You claim the position later in this post.

Let's see if it actually surfaces. Just to be clear, this will be the position I apparentlly advocate later on: "declaring a mite legally killable at a point you have chosen for reasons having nothing to do with the mite."

I don't know what it is that I'm supposed (asserted) to be "really not getting". If I did know I'd be getting it. I also don't know who the "someone else" is. And I've a good idea what my subtexts are--yes. The world is off its head seems pretty clear.

fm's opinions don't need teasing out. They begin and end with "ID-iots" and "ID-jits". They are the same now as they were years ago.

And they are not relevant in a society where Christian values are the norm and certainly not in a conversation because such a position is a conversation stopper.

There's nothing to discuss once his opponents are declared idiots.

Only votes count in such circumstances. And it's the same with "silliness" and "impede". Such things are assertions.

All that is mud to me.

You claim I confuse others and you don't say who they are.

I don't confuse those I don't confuse.

You seem to me to be setting the bar at the level you can jump and assuming there's no higher level.

Now, what is it about my points that you are confused about? You haven't brought any of that up until the last couple of posts so far as I can tell. I'll gladly reexplain if you're interested.

Shirakawasuna wrote:

Do you even advocate anything related to ID?

Yes- that if a State wants it it should have it and not have scientific materialism forced onto it by outsiders based on some specious justification that US science will go down the tube if it isn't. There are much more important reasons why US science might not keep up and claiming that a State's free and democratic choice in this matter is the cause is a smokescreen to hide them and therefore facilitates failing to address them.

Teleological explanations, especially in biology, and more especially in evolution theory, explain causes from effects and are thus a fruitful field for speculation, self-justification if some aspects are ignored, grant-aided largesse, work avoidance and photo-ops.

Unfair/fair/foul have nothing to do with it.

If fm's state votes to go "scientific" that's okay by me. If you vote an atheist President with an atheist agenda into office that's okay too.

Don't be so silly.

How convenient for you.

You claim the position later in this post.

I can't see how science can inform on anything relating to the issue.

I consider that complete bullshit starting with the "tend". It's a bit like saying it's alright to smash car windows on the basis that it's the right thing to do if a car's on fire with someone inside it.

How many instances are there where the mother's life is genuinely at risk?

Yes. Extremely so.

I presume you mean agreeing with you. No chance. I'll stick with you thinking I'm unreasonable.

Did it? I've forgotten. Was it to do with you saying I had "cried foul"?

I don't give a damn what anybody says. If you do you should practice what you preach.

You haven't at all for the simple reason that you can't just like everybody else can't.

They can merely arbitrate with life. There's nothing irrational about facts. Nor did I lie about it. You lie by saying I lied.

I don't see anything wrong with an unintentional pregnancy either but I do when the responsibility is all shifted onto the woman.

It's dead simple what to do if you don't want to have babies.

I can't see the non-sequitur.

If religious people are in favour of natural justice, honesty and dignity it does't prevent atheists being. The matter has nothing to do with religion.

spendius wrote:

You claim the position later in this post.

Let's see if it actually surfaces. Just to be clear, this will be the position I apparentlly advocate later on: "declaring a mite legally killable at a point you have chosen for reasons having nothing to do with the mite."

spendi is insane, pass it on.

Apparently, if you mutilate people in the name of God, its a civil matter

The report also cites evidence that Mr. Freshwater told his students that "science is wrong because the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin and so anyone who is gay chooses to be gay and is therefore a sinner."

(CNN) -- School administrators in Ohio voted Friday to begin the process of firing a middle school teacher accused of burning a cross into a student's arm and refusing to keep his religious beliefs out of the classroom.

A middle school student in Ohio says his teacher branded a cross on his arm.

The Mount Vernon School Board passed a resolution to terminate the employment of John Freshwater, an eighth-grade science teacher for the past 21 years.

Freshwater, according to an independent report, used an electrostatic device to mark a cross on the arm of one of his students, causing pain to the student the night of the incident and leaving a mark that lasted for approximately three weeks.

According to the Ohio Department of Education, the student's family has filed a lawsuit.

Freshwater was also reprimanded several times for refusing to move his Bible from his classroom desk and teaching creationism alongside evolution, according to the 15-page independent report. The report also cites evidence that Mr. Freshwater told his students that "science is wrong because the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin and so anyone who is gay chooses to be gay and is therefore a sinner."

The Board of Education of the Mount Vernon City School District met in special session Friday to address the case.

Freshwater has the option to contest the process by requesting a formal hearing before the Board of Education. Neither Freshwater nor his attorney could be reached by CNN for comment.

Louisiana's Latest Assault on Darwin
(New York Times Editorial, June 21, 2008)

It comes as no surprise that the Louisiana State Legislature has overwhelmingly approved a bill that seeks to undercut the teaching of evolution in the public schools. The state, after all, has a sorry history as a hotbed of creationists' efforts to inject religious views into science courses. All that stands in the way of this retrograde step is Gov. Bobby Jindal.

In the 1980s, Louisiana passed an infamous "Creationism Act" that prohibited the teaching of evolution unless it was accompanied by instruction in "creation science." That effort to gain essentially equal time for creationism was slapped down by the United States Supreme Court as an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. State legislators, mimicking scattered efforts elsewhere, responded with a cagier, indirect approach.

The new bill doesn't mention either creationism or its close cousin, intelligent design. It explicitly disavows any intent to promote a religious doctrine. It doesn't try to ban Darwin from the classroom or order schools to do anything. It simply requires the state board of education, if asked by local school districts, to help create an environment that promotes "critical thinking" and "objective discussion" about not only evolution and the origins of life but also about global warming and human cloning, two other bêtes noires of the right. Teachers would be required to teach the standard textbook but could use supplementary materials to critique it.

That may seem harmless. But it would have the pernicious effect of implying that evolution is only weakly supported and that there are valid competing scientific theories when there are not. In school districts foolish enough to head down this path, the students will likely emerge with a shakier understanding of science.

As a biology major at Brown University, Mr. Jindal must know that evolution is the unchallenged central organizing principle for modern biology. As a rising star on the conservative right, mentioned as a possible running mate for John McCain, Mr. Jindal may have more than science on his mind. In a television interview, he seemed to say that local school boards should decide what is taught and that it would be wrong to teach only evolution or only intelligent design.

If Mr. Jindal has the interests of students at heart, the sensible thing is to veto this Trojan horse legislation.

Bad? It's the children who will suffer from being exposed to creationism along with science at such a young age

I never learned how to swim in spaghetti lakes I'm afraid,

I grant precedence and full rights to those who have. I give them the benefit of the doubt and concede their wisdom on every point.

I assumed you are pro-choice at some point which I cannot see existing. If you don't wish to discuss justifications for cut off points I quite understand.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Please accept my apologies for putting you to so much trouble and inconvenience.

It was announced on our News yesterday that last year there were nearly 200,000 abortions in the UK. A spokesman in favour of that said that a kid was better off not being born than being born to a mother who was unfit in some way which he didn't bother specifying.

Could you explain why a senior medical man, and he is senior, would go on media with such utter drivel?

How the hell does he know?

A kid might equally be said to be better off not being born than having him being their Dad. I would have thought that.

If my Dad left me £50 million from a career doing abortions I would send the lot to as many ophanages as I could find to use it properly. Or something of a similar nature. And it's nothing to do with religion.

It's to do with dolls.