GWB endorses teaching "intelligent design" to schoolchildren! - Page 11

bills217 · #**101** 08-07-2005, 04:07 PM

This whole thread reflects a much bigger problem that is purely political in nature.

It's hard for one side to play fair when the other side refuses to.

Rather than abusing their majority, the Republicans have tried to play it straight on social security reform, the Supreme Court, etc., and the Democrats use it to take advantage of them in every way possible.

Well...what goes around comes around...maybe Bush is tired of being bullied with filibusters on judicial nominees and the like, and now he's bullying back by pushing ID into the science curriculum, whether it actually belongs or not.

In this forum we might be debating the REAL issue of whether ID belongs in science class, but the Democrats won't allow this in Washington.

The debate in Washington is about one thing: how to stick it to the other side.

And if it means bullying ID into the science curriculum, no matter how inappropriate it is, to stick it to the Democrats...I won't lose a lot of sleep over that.

There are only two kinds of students anyhow: students who are capable of making their own decisions, in which case it doesn't really matter what they're taught in HS science class, and students who aren't. And the students who aren't have much, much bigger problems than what they're taught in science class.

FishHooks · #**102** 08-07-2005, 04:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Here is where my problem is. This is not the way it is currently taught. As Utah said, evolution and abiogenesis, largely due to the poor teaching in our gov't schools, are blurred together, leading to a lot of misinformation. If evolution were taught CORRECTLY, I would have absolutely no desire to incorporate creationism, because there would be no need to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I AGREE 100% GOOD POST MY FRIEND.

Analyst · #**103** 08-07-2005, 05:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]

In this forum we might be debating the REAL issue of whether ID belongs in science class, but the Democrats won't allow this in Washington.

[/ QUOTE ]

I call BS. Please point me to any evidence to support this contention.

edited to add: I would suspect that the Demos would absolutely love to have this debated in the bright lights of Washington. It would show a lot of the middle-of-the-road Republican voters (way, socially mainstream, fiscally conservative) just who is the force of the Republican party.

#**104** 08-07-2005, 05:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Rather than abusing their majority, the Republicans have tried to play it straight on social security reform, the Supreme Court, etc., and the Democrats use it to take advantage of them in every way possible.

Well...what goes around comes around...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, were you around for the period 1992-2000? The Dems may not be perfect, but to turn a blind eye to Republican nonsense during the Clinton presidency -- to say they didn't abuse their majority -- is specious.

You are right, though, about "what goes around comes around". The Dems are doing just what they perceived the Republicans to be doing when the Dems held the White House.

bills217 · #**105** 08-07-2005, 05:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I call BS. Please point me to any evidence to support this contention.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have any evidence. I was just going on the fact that they never allow the debate to be about the actual issues so I don't see why they would start now.

bills217 · #**106** 08-07-2005, 05:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, were you around for the period 1992-2000? The Dems may not be perfect, but to turn a blind eye to Republican nonsense during the Clinton presidency -- to say they didn't abuse their majority -- is specious.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was specifically referring to the post-2004 election Republican groundswell and what has happened since then. Perhaps I should have more clearly articulated this.

tolbiny · #**107** 08-07-2005, 05:47 PM

"I think part of the problem is the smugness that the science communities take towards their own discoveries and knowledge while at the same time skipping over the gaping and fundamental holes in their knowledge."

There really aren't that many "gaping and fundemental holes" in any major branch of science right now. This is a huge misconception- with the major exception of what happend in tghe very early moments of the creation of the universe. The origin of life is only a great problem for people who believe that there is an enourmous distinction between life and non life, and set their definitions up in such a way to exaggerate this.

bills217 · #**108** 08-07-2005, 06:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There really aren't that many "gaping and fundemental holes" in any major branch of science right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hilarious. I'm sure plenty of 1800's scientists agreed with that sentiment.

[ QUOTE ]
with the major exception of what happend in tghe very early moments of the creation of the universe

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yeah, well, except for that, we know almost everything! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

fluxrad · #**109** 08-07-2005, 06:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Here is where my problem is. This is not the way it is currently taught.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no doubt in a future post you will back this up with evidence.

tolbiny · #**110** 08-07-2005, 06:55 PM

I never said or meant to imply that we know everything. But the nothion that there are "gaping" holes in the three major branches of science (physics, biology and chemistry) is absurd. the scientists of the 1800's were working on terribly incomplete information - thoeries about quantum mechanics obviously couldn't exist since the knowledbe of those particles didn't exist at that point. This was easily demostrated by the inability to accurately describe phenomena (like electricity) in a meaningful way. If you currently asked a well thought out question of an expert in that field you would very likely get a detailed answer that would be verifiable.