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

[j2k4]

So let me make sure I have this right..."Christian conservatives", "educators" and "scientists" are all codewords we've been indoctrinated with by Reuters?

K then.
Removing the "bias" you imply leaves us with....
"Some people are suing some other people over some stuff. Could be important."

Oh yeah, much better.
No information, but no bias either.

Fifty-five percent of Americans believe God created humans in their present form, the poll found.

That same 55% believe that NASCAR racers are just like their Fords/Chevys and that Jerry Springer's guests are real human beings.
We base science on public opinion polls now?*

Earlier this month a top Roman Catholic cardinal critical of evolution branded scientific opponents of intelligent design intolerant and said there need not be a conflict between Darwin's and Christian views of life's origins.

As long as you ignore Darwin that is.

*All bias, emotional connotations, and implications supplied by me...Reuters had no input here....

So the sum total of your view on the matter of media bias is that it exists only on FOX NEWS?

For the life of me, I see more of it elsewhere, but if you have an example of FOX's journalistic bias, I'd like to see it.

[Busyman]

1. So are there any? What does this mean?
2. What's your point?

As the conservative movement in the US grows, It seems to be only a matter of time before the arguement is authenticated. Evolutionists can only hold out for so long; they are losing time to find that damning evidence in time for their presentation...

I guess they'll show us their evidence when the other lot shows them theirs...

what has always made me wonder is where the heck is the intellegent designer supposed to have sprung up from. I mean besides somebodys vivid imagination. The intellegent design school of eternity?

Hi! Good question, which seems to get glossed over all too readily...


Oh by the way, here is a picture of the universe...



Intelligently Designed???? Rubbish! A 3-year-old could do better.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050925.html

Read the blurb. The universe will continue to expand forever.

What sort of a design is that? Rubbish!

In the projected full timeline of the universe, the period which contains stars and galaxies is such an infinitesimally small time compared to the whole lifetime of the universe.... Stars and galaxies will be seen as a short-term afterglow of the Big Bang, the universe for most of it's lifespan will be cold, dark, and empty.

Designed that way? Get outta here!!!!

You don't know that. You missed the point as well.

manny is a Christian conservative in college btw. He will develop independent thought when he gets older.

Notice he said, "As the conservative movement in the US grows, It seems to be only a matter of time before the arguement is authenticated."

That means the conservatives will have most of the say in what's what whether right or wrong.

If people don't see this country being turned into one where religious zealots hold the power then you just as much sheep as Christian neocons. (I mean ffs, people laying down in the street 'cause The 10 Commandments were being removed from a courthouse )

This is coming from Christian (albeit a potty-mouthed one).

[clocker]

So the sum total of your view on the matter of media bias is that it exists only on FOX NEWS?
Where did I say that?
We have been discussing a very specific news bit which you apparently consider the paragon of Reuteran bias.
I don't see it, that's all.

For the life of me, I see more of it elsewhere, but if you have an example of FOX's journalistic bias, I'd like to see it.
If I considered Fox News as journalism at all I might be bothered.
Since I think they are merely a very effective advertising delivery vessel, applying journalistic standards to their performance would be unfair.

[j2k4]

So the sum total of your view on the matter of media bias is that it exists only on FOX NEWS?
Where did I say that?
We have been discussing a very specific news bit which you apparently consider the paragon of Reuteran bias.
I don't see it, that's all.

For the life of me, I see more of it elsewhere, but if you have an example of FOX's journalistic bias, I'd like to see it.
If I considered Fox News as journalism at all I might be bothered.
Since I think they are merely a very effective advertising delivery vessel, applying journalistic standards to their performance would be unfair.

Perhaps then you would (as a favor to an old pal) give forth with a quick one-sentence summation of your opinion(s) anent media bias, specifically:

Do you see it, and, if so, where?

[3RA1N1AC]

Point is chaps, science is not sacrosanct. Ask any decent physicist.

Not bloody likely...inconvenient facts, logic...

i meant to comment on this earlier, but neglected to.

asking a decent physicist whether newton is correct on every single point... is very different from telling that decent physicist: "empirical methods have worked wonderfully and done a lot of good for humanity, but we've decided we're going to throw empiricism away so that we can change science's focus from the physical to the metaphysical and teach children about god and aliens in gov't funded science classes. in essence we're redefining your field of work & study." which is what this current controversy is about. uh. there already are academic disciplines which deal with metaphysics, they're just not the same as the one that deals with darwin's theory of evolution.

if the next project is to have geometry taught in poetry classes, poetry taught in geometry classes, or business management strategies taught in gym classes... then i disagree with all of that, in advance.

[Rat Faced]

@ JPaul,

I meant to answer your post on Newtonian Physics being taught in schools earlier and forgot.

Newtonian Physics is taught in schools because it does match what happens in our day to day lives... which is all you need to know at basic school level.

ie: If you throw something up, it will come down at such and such a speed (in other words, dont jump off a building)

Its also taught that Newtonian Physics is not universal, (at least in the school I went to, and I assume, all other UK Schools) and includes experiments with electricity and magnets that shows this (energy/matter interaction was not covered by Newtonian Theory as electricity had not been discovered as such at the time ) in Practical Physics classes.

When you get to higher level qualifications then you learn the other stuff depending upon your speciality as the field is vast; ie stuff that the normal person will never have to know about such as Quantum Mechanics, Nuclear Physics etc etc


As to Intelligent Design... when they explain the appendix, tonsils and other crap left over from when we needed them at an earlier stage of evolution, i may be prepared to take them a little more seriously.

[j2k4]

Not bloody likely...inconvenient facts, logic...

i meant to comment on this earlier, but neglected to.

asking a decent physicist whether newton is correct on every single point... is very different from telling that decent physicist: "empirical methods have worked wonderfully and done a lot of good for humanity, but we've decided we're going to throw empiricism away so that we can change science's focus from the physical to the metaphysical and teach children about god and aliens in gov't funded science classes. in essence we're redefining your field of work & study." which is what this current controversy is about. uh. there already are academic disciplines which deal with metaphysics, they're just not the same as the one that deals with darwin's theory of evolution.

if the next project is to have geometry taught in poetry classes, poetry taught in geometry classes, or business management strategies taught in gym classes... then i disagree with all of that, in advance.

A point:

While I'm sure many of us has a bit of physics study under his/her belt, I don't know that any of us hold a Doctorate in the field, and hence aren't truly qualified to hold forth in that arena, but...

I know that for any of us to assign the quality of "good" or "bad" to physicists is an over-step, or a malaprop.

I don't think we can question whether one or another physicist is more-or-less capable or educated than another, but surely we cannot be precluded from questioning, given that each of them must have at least a roughly equivalent fund of learning to draw from, how they might disagree, and on what basis they arrive at so drastically differing conclusions vis a vis something like global warming, or industrial policy and it's impact on the latest rash of hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones or tornadoes.

Since none of us can adequately parse their calculations (nor even properly determine the quality of same), we are left, ultimately, to co-opt whichever set of opinions we find convincing or supportive of our preconceptions.

All this is to say that we would do well to realize we are mostly whistling in the dark.

[vidcc]

If public schools are going to be compelled to teach Intelligent design (not creationism and is not religious... honest ) then these private religious schools should be compelled to state that there is a debate that God might not exist and that there is a theory called evolution.

[spinningfreemanny]

Posted by 3ra1n1ac

okay, here's william a. dembski. he's considered an authority on the topic, right? writing in a letter on february 1st, 2005:

Wrong audience, wrong topic, wrong format.

He is writing to designists, obviously, and is not discussing the persuasiveness of the theory. If fact, this is exactly what I am pointing to. Where can you find the evidence of the designist theory? Hopefully in a court case looming...

Originally Posted by crucial62
what has always made me wonder is where the heck is the intellegent designer supposed to have sprung up from. I mean besides somebodys vivid imagination. The intellegent design school of eternity?

See, I believe in the beginning, God. You believe in the beginning, Dirt. Where did mass come from? now the notion that mass has the capacity to create the universe is sprung from a vivid imagination indeed.

Originally posted by Busyman
Someone already pointed out that your answers to 1 and 2 would be simply be....'oh yeah intelligent design'.

That's not science worthy, manny.

You can't have a science class and say, "Observe this devolution. See God did it" and have a science class.

The first evidence is Geology. Is that not a science? the Grand Canyon's entrance is significantly higher (4000+ feet) then the entrance of the river. Rivers don't flow uphill. this and many other geological examples lead to believe that a massive flood or ice age, or some combination of the 2 has happened. This is a significant part of the intelligent design theory.

the second is Physics. 2nd law of thermodynamics. BTW, what laws support evolution?

Barbarossa
What sort of a design is that? Rubbish!

In the projected full timeline of the universe, the period which contains stars and galaxies is such an infinitesimally small time compared to the whole lifetime of the universe.... Stars and galaxies will be seen as a short-term afterglow of the Big Bang, the universe for most of it's lifespan will be cold, dark, and empty.

Designed that way? Get outta here!!!!

hmm, Lets see you do better...

and you are mixing Universal evolution with the perspective that God made it that way? How in the world do you make a timeline based on a relative "blink" of a "blink" of a "blink of an eye, if what you believe is true?

Busyman:
Notice he said, "As the conservative movement in the US grows, It seems to be only a matter of time before the arguement is authenticated."

That means the conservatives will have most of the say in what's what whether right or wrong.

heh, read my words, interpretation is not needed. An "argument" being "authenticated" does not mean a tyrannical majority will say whats right and wrong...in fact its quite opposite: if it is that way, how can there be an argument?

The problem is that there's not even an argument! the evolutionists have strong-armed confrontation for a long time; maybe sooner or later it will happen.

Finally; my aim is not to convert everyone to the intelligent design theory. the aim is to have an official discussion on it.

Yes, the notion of a God in the beginning is religious. But, so is the notion of not one. See, the religion of some hang on the evolution theory as the religion of others hang on the intelligent design theory. Both have religious elements. so, if intelligent design is to ethereal for science, someone better check the evolution theory as well, especially considering that it is bad science that violates quite a few laws (yes, laws, not holes or gaps). According to the scientific method, it would be thrown out, if not for the religious sect behind it.

[vidcc]

The first evidence is Geology. Is that not a science? the Grand Canyon's entrance is significantly higher (4000+ feet) then the entrance of the river. Rivers don't flow uphill. this and many other geological examples lead to believe that a massive flood or ice age, or some combination of the 2 has happened. This is a significant part of the intelligent design theory.

the second is Physics. 2nd law of thermodynamics. BTW, what laws support evolution?

How is this evidence or proof of ID?

There are many factors involved in erosion. Just because a river flows lower than the entrance doesn't point to a "creator". rain falls from altitude and water gets into cracks. If this water freezes the cracks open and structural integrity is compromised. Rockfalls and wind erode.

Are you saying that the well known ice age is proof of ID?