GWB endorses teaching "intelligent design" to schoolchildren!

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution isn't 100% understood and mapped out completely.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are confused. Evolution theory is a totally robust and "well mapped out", as you put it, theory. It embraces a number of disciplines (Biology, Archaeology, Radiology, Astronomy, Geology, etc) which all subscribe to the paradigm of evolution.

What is "lacking" is not some piece of "logic" or some "arguments" in the paradigm but, rather, data (findings) that will fill in the blanks for certain periods in cosmological History. (Say, some hundreds of millions of years, nothing much...) There is nothing out there that could fill in the blanks and (even remotely) contradict the theory and its basic tenets.

On the other hand, Intelligent Design is an embarassment of arbitrary thinking and baseless assertions. The only good thing about teaching it in scientific classes would be that it'd show the kids how stupid some grown-ups can be.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
The only good thing about teaching it in scientific classes would be that it'd show the kids how stupid some grown-ups can be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that is a subject which should be mandatory. Especially when you read some of the youngsters on here who are just repeating parrot-fashion some of the garbage their parent spout.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I suspect that you do know better and are just being dishonest to further your agenda, but it's sad either way.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm honestly curious - what in the world do you think my agenda is? Rest assured this question isn't tinged with sarcasm; I'm genuinely curious what kind of agendas you're assigning to people who advocate keeping ID out of the science classroom.

If you think this question is hijacking the thread and somewhat off topic, by all means start another post or PM me or something, but I'm honestly curious as to what kind of agenda, other than respect for science, you think people who reject ID have.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't claim to know specifically what that agenda is...I just couldn't see any other reason for someone as apparently well-educated as you to make such a clearly false statement as "Evolution is proven." But that was apparently just a mistake, which I can accept...we all make mistakes...even scientists! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] So I retract the claim about your agenda entirely.

However, I will say (and I don't know if you are one of these people) that there are people who will distort the facts and do anything to undermine any mention of God or a religious claim, just as, IN FAIRNESS, there are people who will distort the facts and do anything to PROMOTE God or a religious claim. Both sides have their black sheep.

The political climate in America has become so absolutist it's absurd. (I just made "absolutist" up...it's time we thought of something else to say besides "divided.") Clearly there are good Democrats and bad Democrats, good Republicans and bad Republicans, good scientists and bad scientists, good preachers and bad preachers, good teachers and bad teachers, good CEO's and bad CEO's, etc. Any person who can't acknowledge this (and there are surprisingly many who can't) is just another Kool-Aid drinker.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm honestly curious as to what kind of agenda, other than respect for science, you think people who reject ID have.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's funny how you phrase that.

I understand your position that only science should be taught in science class, and it's a rational one and I completely agree.

But, seriously...respect is something you give another person or spiritual entity, not an object and definitely not an idea. Why waste time trying to "respect science?" Who cares? Does science send you a Christmas card? I guess I'm not on the list. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Generally, mocking religious zealots (a favorite hobby of some here at 2+2) is a textbook example of the pot calling the kettle black...for me, personally, it's easier to justify zealotry over the belief in a being that controls your eternal destiny rather than "science," or, "art," or whatever else people are zealous about that won't matter one bit on their deathbed. (Curiously, all the science in the world hasn't been able to cure this ongoing death epidemic. Rather than "respect science," I think we ought to file a class action lawsuit against it for medical malpractice. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

P.S. This reminds me of how some sports analysts wax poetic about the importance of "respecting the game." Seriously...how stupid is that? Does that annoy anyone else?

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
LINK TO ARTICLE

[ QUOTE ]



In a wide-ranging question-and-answer session with a small group of reporters, Bush essentially endorsed efforts by Christian conservatives to give intelligent design equal standing with the theory of evolution in the nation's schools.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

An irony just struck me about this topic ...

G-Dub is an oilman, right? Where does he think that all that oil came from?

[tomdemaine]

Hate to ressurect old topic but...

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
G-Dub is an oilman, right? Where does he think that all that oil came from?

[/ QUOTE ]

The argument for this is often along the lines of 'god put em there to test our faith by giving an alternative explanation of how we got here' or similar. At least, that's how they explain carbon dating, dinosaur fossil ages etc etc

If I believed in God, I'd be insulted by this, makes him sound like some enourmous trickster ('better leave some dinosaur bones here to keep em on their toes....'.

But then, I've never understood why you need to believe in the garden of Eden, the ark, that there's only been 6000 years of existence etc et to believe in God, but that's 'isms' for ya (in this case Christian fundamentalism).


I gotta stop adding to this thread - it's ridiculous!

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
Hate to ressurect old topic but...

[/ QUOTE ]


Intelligent Falling......yup, that's the ticket.

next thing we'll have is 'Intelligent Stupidity'.

[CORed]

I have no objection to teaching "intelligent design" in public schools -- in a philosophy or comparative religion class. Teaching it in a science class, however, is absurd. "Intelligent design" is a religious or philosphical theory. It is not a scientific theory, because there is no experiment or data gathering process which can verify or falsify it.