New Evolution spat in U.S. schools goes to court

[Busyman]

I think you fellows are missing the point.

I.D. is being offered anew as a "third" way, so to speak;

No, I think you ( and all proponents of this nonsense) are trying to obfuscate it.
The "point" of ID as it is being packaged for sale is to get religion taught as science.
Period.

Day One, third period...Science class.
"Today we will be exploring the theory of Intelligent Design."
"Who is the Intelligent Designer?"
"Ummmm...we don't know, but it's NOT God!"
"Right then, what do we talk about tomorrow?"

Exactly. I don't see where one can further with ID in science class.

[j2k4]

I think you fellows are missing the point.

I.D. is being offered anew as a "third" way, so to speak;

No, I think you ( and all proponents of this nonsense) are trying to obfuscate it.
The "point" of ID as it is being packaged for sale is to get religion taught as science.
Period.

Day One, third period...Science class.
"Today we will be exploring the theory of Intelligent Design."
"Who is the Intelligent Designer?"
"Ummmm...we don't know, but it's NOT God!"
"Right then, what do we talk about tomorrow?"

Nonsense?

Awfully dismissive, that.

Aside from not having addressed your patronizing attitude toward students, the objection should not be so great, if, as you seem to suggest, the class could be taught start-to-finish in a few days.

Frankly your stance is not open-minded in the least; I must ask again:

Why this irrational fear of I.D.?

If it's provenance is so apparently suspect, why not allow students to determine it themselves?

As with every other question I've asked throughout this thread, I imagine these will also go begging...

[vidcc]

Frankly your stance is not open-minded in the least; I must ask again:

Why this irrational fear of I.D.?

It's not an irrational fear of ID it is the rational desire to not teach the irrational as being rational and call it science.

If it's provenance is so apparently suspect, why not allow students to determine it themselves?

.

Good. We should teach any theory no matter how little proof we have.

Teach that babies are delivered by storks. why not allow students to determine it themselves?...lets put this one in Math class.

Or if it is just that we must teach both sides "if there is a debate"

Teach homosexual lifestyles. why not allow students to determine it themselves? This can go in either history or any religious education classes

Teach devil worship, why not allow students to determine it themselves? Physics.

[j2k4]

It's not an irrational fear of ID it is the rational desire to not teach the irrational as being rational and call it science.

If it's provenance is so apparently suspect, why not allow students to determine it themselves?

.

Good. We should teach any theory no matter how little proof we have.

Teach that babies are delivered by storks. why not allow students to determine it themselves?...lets put this one in Math class.

Or if it is just that we must teach both sides "if there is a debate"

Teach homosexual lifestyles. why not allow students to determine it themselves? This can go in either history or any religious education classes

Teach devil worship, why not allow students to determine it themselves? Physics.

See how neatly the presumptuous (and misplaced) tone of your first sentence makes room for the rest?

You liberal lot do fear it, the same way you fear public referendums on all the little issues contained in your post-you need the courts to "decide" such issues for the rest of us because you know full well the majority of the American voters wouldn't pass those things.

You worship at the altar of "expertise", and, if you wish to continue to do so, you'd better rush an amendment through to enforce that caveat, because the Constitution doesn't mention them anywhere...

[vidcc]

See how neatly the presumptuous (and misplaced) tone of your first sentence makes room for the rest?

how is it presumptuous or misplaced? ID is creationism with a few edits....in other words a fairy tale. There is no scientific basis at all. I don't object to it being taught in a religious education class so how can you say I fear it?

You liberal lot do fear it, the same way you fear public referendums on all the little issues contained in your post-you need the courts to "decide" such issues for the rest of us because you know full well the majority of the American voters wouldn't pass those things.

You worship at the altar of "expertise", and, if you wish to continue to do so, you'd better rush an amendment through to enforce that caveat, because the Constitution doesn't mention them anywhere...

On that note what is it that you conservatives fear about letting people live their own lives? Why do you try to legislate peoples private choices while using the other side of your mouths to preach "freedom".
Why is it that conservatives are constantly saying that the constitution doesn't mention abortion yet ignore totally the separation of church and state part which is mentioned? ( i appreciate not that exact phrase but in the "making NO law part")

[GepperRankins]

No, I think you ( and all proponents of this nonsense) are trying to obfuscate it.
The "point" of ID as it is being packaged for sale is to get religion taught as science.
Period.

Day One, third period...Science class.
"Today we will be exploring the theory of Intelligent Design."
"Who is the Intelligent Designer?"
"Ummmm...we don't know, but it's NOT God!"
"Right then, what do we talk about tomorrow?"

Nonsense?

Awfully dismissive, that.

Aside from not having addressed your patronizing attitude toward students, the objection should not be so great, if, as you seem to suggest, the class could be taught start-to-finish in a few days.

Frankly your stance is not open-minded in the least; I must ask again:

Why this irrational fear of I.D.?

If it's provenance is so apparently suspect, why not allow students to determine it themselves?

As with every other question I've asked throughout this thread, I imagine these will also go begging...

evolutionists aren't open-minded but creationists are


i'm all for letting people choose what they want to believe, but I.D is not science.

[clocker]

Why this irrational fear of I.D.?

If it's provenance is so apparently suspect, why not allow students to determine it themselves?

As with every other question I've asked throughout this thread, I imagine these will also go begging...

Oh no j2, please allow me.

I'm all for letting students "determine" things for themselves.
Right after the ID "science" class (presumably rotated with phrenology and astrology) they can toddle into Sex Ed and "Introduction to Alcohol", OK?

I didn't realize Conservatives were so...well, liberal.

[Biggles]

At the end of the day what exactly is ID and what value does it add to scientific debate?

Manny had a few points with regards a particular interpretation of the first and second laws of thermo-dynamics but other than to suggest that the whole show may or may not have had some intelligence behind it, what can one say. It still does not preclude a big bang or evolution but merely attempts to fill in a couple of gaps. What is wrong with simply saying we do not know yet?

It is one hell of a jump from ID to a young universe and Noah and his Ark. Ultimately, any attempt to try to promote religion through the science class is going to end in confusion and dismay.

Faith is not science.

[fkdup74]

On that note what is it that you conservatives fear about letting people live their own lives?

ummm.......vid.......sorry dude, but it's the liberals doing that
the liberals have taken just about every liberty away from us, ironic eh?

-freedom of religion
-freedom of speech

in the Bill Of Rights, yet have been restricted by liberal legislation
you can probably get sued just for saying "God" in public by now
(maybe not, but it's soon to come no doubt)
you can get sued for saying something someone finds "offensive",
even if the words aren't aimed at that particular person

now, what about letting people live their own lives?

[clocker]

On that note what is it that you conservatives fear about letting people live their own lives?

ummm.......vid.......sorry dude, but it's the liberals doing that
the liberals have taken just about every liberty away from us, ironic eh?

-freedom of religion
-freedom of speech

When did "liberals" manage to pull this off?
Why was I not informed?

For some recent abridgements of personal liberties please read the Patriot Act...hardly a liberal creation.

At the end of the day what exactly is ID and what value does it add to scientific debate?

An excellent question sir.
We do know that ID has nothing to do with religion...mainly because the Christian conservatives who are attempting to foist it off on us say so.