More Intelligent Design
 

Saw this on a friend's refrigerator. Made me laugh.
From the New Yorker

INTELLIGENT DESIGN
by PAUL RUDNICK
Issue of 2005-09-26
Posted 2005-09-19

Day No. 1:
And the Lord God said, “Let there be light,” and lo, there was light. But then the Lord God said, “Wait, what if I make it a sort of rosy, sunset-at-the-beach, filtered half-light, so that everything else I design will look younger?”
“I’m loving that,” said Buddha. “It’s new.”
“You should design a restaurant,” added Allah.

Day No. 2:
“Today,” the Lord God said, “let’s do land.” And lo, there was land.
“Well, it’s really not just land,” noted Vishnu. “You’ve got mountains and valleys and—is that lava?”
“It’s not a single statement,” said the Lord God. “I want it to say, ‘Yes, this is land, but it’s not afraid to ooze.’ ”
“It’s really a backdrop, a sort of blank canvas,” put in Apollo. “It’s, like, minimalism, only with scale.”
“But—brown?” Buddha asked.
“Brown with infinite variations,” said the Lord God. “Taupe, ochre, burnt umber—they’re called earth tones.”
“I wasn’t criticizing,” said Buddha. “I was just noticing.”

Day No. 3:
“Just to make everyone happy,” said the Lord God, “today I’m thinking oceans, for contrast.”
“It’s wet, it’s deep, yet it’s frothy; it’s design without dogma,” said Buddha, approvingly.
“Now, there’s movement,” agreed Allah. “It’s not just ‘Hi, I’m a planet—no splashing.’ ”
“But are those ice caps?” inquired Thor. “Is this a coherent vision, or a highball?”
“I can do ice caps if I want to,” sniffed the Lord God.
“It’s about a mood,” said the Angel Moroni, supportively.
“Thank you,” said the Lord God.

Day No. 4:
“One word,” said the Lord God. “Landscaping. But I want it to look natural, as if it all somehow just happened.”
“Do rain forests,” suggested a primitive tribal god, who was known only as a clicking noise.
“Rain forests here,” decreed the Lord God. “And deserts there. For a spa feeling.”
“Which is fresh, but let’s give it glow,” said Buddha. “Polished stones and bamboo, with a soothing trickle of something.”
“I know where you’re going,” said the Lord God. “But why am I seeing scented candles and a signature body wash?”
“Shut up,” said Buddha.
“You shut up,” said the Lord God.
“It’s all about the mix,” Allah declared in a calming voice. “Now let’s look at some swatches.”

Day No. 5:
“I’d like to design some creatures of the sea,” the Lord God said. “Sleek but not slick.”
“Yes, yes, and more yes—it’s a total gills moment,” said Apollo. “But what if you added wings?”
“Fussy,” whispered Buddha to Zeus. “Why not epaulets and a sash?”
“Legs,” said Allah. “Now let’s do legs.”
“Are we already doing dining-room tables?” asked the Lord God, confused.
“No, design some creatures with legs,” said Allah. So the Lord God, nodding, designed an ostrich.
“First draft,” everyone agreed, and so the Lord God designed an alligator.
“There’s gonna be a waiting list,” Zeus murmured appreciatively.
“Now do puppies!” pleaded Vishnu. “And kitties!”
“Ooooo!” all the gods cooed. Then, feeling a bit embarrassed, Zeus ventured, “Design something more practical, like a horse or a mule.”
“What about a koala?” asked the Lord God.
“Much better,” Zeus declared, cuddling the furry little animal. “I’m going to call him Buttons.”

Day No. 6:
“Today I’m really going out there,” said the Lord God. “And I know it won’t be popular at first, and you’re all gonna be saying, ‘Earth to Lord God,’ but in a few million years it’s going to be timeless. I’m going to design a man.”
And everyone looked upon the man that the Lord God designed.
“It has your eyes,” Zeus told the Lord God.
“Does it stack?” inquired Allah.
“It has a naïve, folk-artsy, I-made-it-myself vibe,” said Buddha. The Inca sun god, however, only scoffed. “Been there. Evolution,” he said. “It’s called a shaved monkey.”
“I like it,” protested Buddha. “But it can’t work a strapless dress.” Everyone agreed on this point, so the Lord God announced, “Well, what if I give it nice round breasts and lose the penis?”
“Yes,” the gods said immediately.
“Now it’s intelligent,” said Aphrodite.
“But what if I made it blond?” giggled the Lord God.
“And what if I made you a booming offscreen voice in a lot of bad movies?” asked Aphrodite.

Day No. 7:
“You know, I’m really feeling good about this whole intelligent-design deal,” said the Lord God. “But do you think that I could redo it, keeping the quality but making it at a price point we could all live with?”
“I’m not sure,” said Buddha. “You mean, what if you designed a really basic, no-frills planet? Like, do the man and the woman really need all those toes?”
“Hello!” said the Lord God. “Clean lines, no moving parts, functional but fun. Three bright, happy, wash ’n’ go colors.”
“Swedish meets Japanese, with maybe a Platinum Collector’s Edition for the geeks,” Buddha decided.
“Done,” said the Lord God. “Now let’s start thinking about Pluto. What if everything on Pluto was brushed aluminum?”
“You mean, let’s do Neptune again?” said Buddha.

I got to do the ocelots and tigers, too. Jesus was the one who threw in the damn apes. I forget who came up with salmonella. :headshake

until late in day 6 I thought this was just a summary of a Queer Eye episode.

I kept waiting for some sort of punchline about how nothing intelligent could ever come out of a committee.

My favorite bit is the god known only as a clicking noise.

That was very funny. I laughed out loud......which was mildly embarrassing because I was covering reception in centre for the lunch hour and an entire waiting room full of people heard me snort :P

Dana, all you can do in that case is share the joy.

Religious-wise, I find a Divine Wisdom in a Creation that goes of itself, and goes with a remarkable freedom. Saves the Almighty a lot of bother, not having to bust a separate miracle for each species. This is how I'd do it if I were The Eternal.

And as for the "can God make a weight so heavy he can't lift it?" "Well -- it's a Mystery," on alternate Wednesdays I'd switch off the making and the lifting. You know -- resistance training on a really Universal machine. And I ain't even Mormon.

I.D. debate. :lol:

:lol2: :lol: :rotflol: :notworthy :fsm:

Ok, OK! you had me at kneecap!! I'd hang out in this guy's front yard anytime.

I saw that earlier, but the updates are pretty fun, too.
:fsm:

*sigh*

Ooops. Your slip is showing.

I found this amusing. The fella's point in court is that ID is not creationism. Then when asked in court about it, he said he doesn't conflate the two. They're not the same thing. I want ID to balance evolution, we're not talking about creationism. I never said creationism. Under oath.

When faced with video footage of this same set of questions asked by a television reporter, he says evolution should be balanced with creationism. Now he says he "misspoke". He and I agree on that one point. But I suspect we disagree on which of his statements was misspoken.

Hypocrite.

Dover Area School District newsletter.

Science? Dover kids dont need no fancy science learnin'. It caint be understood, so we best not try. Evolution theory is more for them curious, critical thinkin', innovative, progressive, leadin', wealthy entrepreneur types. Ya know, like them India kids.

democracy, you get the government you deserve. Or school board as the case my be.

Not bad - actually bloody good. Would have liked some sausages though. Maybe a bit on more on the cullinary side. You know, forbidden fruit turning into mum's apple pie sort of thing and seven exciting ways to serve brassicas, or an expalanation for the creation of Jamie Oliver.

I know...., never satisfied.....

Twain also had a memorable quote about school boards, something like "First, He created idiots for practice. Then, He created school boards." Twain died in 1910 -- have we a chronic problem here?

Caesar, in an Astérix book: "Oh, stuff your Brassica olerata capitata!!!" The original French was perhaps a trifle more delicate: "Sais-tu où tu peux le mettre, ce brassica?!" Probably don't have either exactly, but that's the sense.

See the Recipe thread in Food & Drink for exciting way Number One, first post in the thread... something simpler is steam it well and drizzle with olive oil, salt and pepper. Excitingness there probably depends on the quality of the olive oil.

i've thought from the beginning of this "intelligent design" business that it's pretty obiovus it's just a legalistic way of saying "God". the problem, of course, is that proponents of the ID theory want it taught in place of evolution, because they say that evoilution is only a theory and is therfor not to be taught as a truth (to which i agree). but the problem i have with ID is that it also claims to be a theory. if it claimed to be a truism, then that opens up a shitstorm of debate, which at first it did, imagine that. it's obivious that ID is just a way to get creationism taught instead of evolution. i've stated something similar to this in another post already, but i'll say it again: religion is not truth. it is faith. if something is true, then there is no need to have faith in it. i have no problems with faith, i have faith too. but parading your theological beliefs (note they are beliefs) around to be truisms is rediculous. i should also say that i have an easy solution:

we want to educate our children in the world because someday they will inherit it from us. in order for progress to trail on, it is important to provide information and information alone, allowing children to make their own decisions about the world. it is immoral and unethical to brainwash our kids into blindly accepting a shaky theory as a truth, be it scientific or idealogical. instead, education ought to be founded on the idea that we don't know which is correct, and we don't know what the great truth is. so we teach evolution in a philosophy class, for exactly what it is, and we teach creationism in a religion class, for exactly what it is, nothing more. let future generations make up their own minds.

i know most of us have, but you have to break free of something to do it, am i right? it's almost like a chore at first, it feels wrong when parents, teachers, and peers tell you that you are wrong because you are asking questions or deconstructing a problem. let's not burden our children with that chore. instead let's open up the world and all of it's information to them.

i've been drinking wine.

All that would accomplish is making their life more complicated and difficult. :right:

how so?

Evolution isn't philosophy, it's science. A philosophy class could discuss the moral implications of evolution, but the mechanics of evolution are science.

I'm getting a bit worried about UG - he seems to be metamorphosing into Gordon Ramsay.....

evolution as science. well, let me put it this way: i think that adaptation and natural selection are scientific facts, like Stephen Hawking's example of the white and black moths on the paper trees and smoke stacks in a brief history of time. but, evolution is still a little shakey. it's still only a theory, there is little to no evidence. however, i suppose by me saying that one could argue that all physics are not scientific either because there is a lot of theory involved. but anyway, that's why i say philosophy instead of science. and philosoophy could discuss way more than moral implications, philosophy is an all encompassing school of thought. sure the mechanics are scientific, i will agree. but what are these mechanics?

you know, this whole thing boils down to two perspectives trying to explain reality. or rather the origin of reality. we have a theological one and a scientific one, neither of which is really what i would call an explination. i do believe in the big bang, that makes a lot of sense to me.

No, "theory" is the scientific term for "strongly supported by evidence". There is no word that suggests more certainty than "theory". (If you're curious, the scientific term "law" refers to a theory that can be expressed mathematically. The concept behind the mathematical expression is still "only" a theory.)

Right. The scientific one should be taught in science class, and the theological one(s) should be taught in religious institutions, or comparative religion classes, since there are so many of them.

You noticed too?? Even a whole bottle of cooking sherry couldn't produce such a personality change. I was beginning to think he sent in a ghost writer whenever he had to visit the head :ghost:

:p :p Nanner nanner to both of you.

Eating well is living well. Aside from that, I don't look anything like the guy -- I'm bearded, slowly balding, and wear glasses. Like Walt Whitman, I'm vast; I contain multitudes (my forty-inch waistline (maybe shrinking) supports the contention). Unlike Walt, I'm pretty much heterosexual.

Oh, and have nothing to do with cooking sherry. Use sherry you'd enjoy drinking straight rather than that inferior salted stuff -- more flexible and your sherried sauces taste better.

This is the trouble you see, you almost have me there with the looks bit, and then you go and wax lyrical in a Ramsayesque way about sherry. Quite confusing. Sorry, I'm still not convinced. I mean this metamorphosing thing, it doesn't just happen in a flash you know. It takes time. Remember the caterpillar is what I say..... :worm:

Neat, just the thing for tequila night.

Cycle: quick, look @ the re-edit. Might clarify. :)

You've seen a lot of me at daggers drawn, and you've seen me enjoying food and drink. These two have always been around, along with other goodies. It should not cause "character shock" if another facet of a character should from time to time emerge.

Send a buch of teens out into the real world with no knowlege of science and steeped in philosophy?
Well, that will give us a shot at beating out Pakistan in the 7-11 clerk dominance race. :(

Not the Arnie-Connery type I'd imagined at all then? (Sigh) What is a man to do...??

ok, let me reiterate. i'm not suggesting that we ignor science and teach children strictly on philosophy. wow, my brain shut off. i really don't how to explain this. well, i can say that we can stop teaching kids that the real world begins after high school, and that they're already in it. we shouldn't be placing them in these narrow modes of thought, like sending you're kid to school and saying "now remember, if you're teacher talks about evolution, cover your ears because it's not true" rather it should be "here are two theories, what do YOU think about them?". which really isn't done until college, and by that time students are already drilled to memorize thing instead of conceptualizing them. like, a girl in my english 102 class the other day said "this poem is stupid, it doesn't mean anything" so the teacher explained it to her that there are many ways of interpreting it and looking at it, and there are many ideas that one can draw from these perspectives. but she was so focused on looking for some direct meaning in the poem, she couldn't see how it meant something that wasn't right there in front of her face. and she's not stupid, but no one probably taught her poetry like that before.

it's like in math, i'm horrible at math. they give you rules to solve problems, but never explain how they work conceptually. not that it's difficult to understand, but why teach math if you're only going to make kids memorize a bunch of rules for operation when they have no idea what they're really doing? or care?

i guess i should also say that i don't think creationism should ever be taught in place of anything scientific, just to clarify. what you guys are feeding back to me makes sense and i agree. i'm pretty bad at making my point most of the time.

so i'm surious to know, (and i'm not being a smart ass, i really want to know) what evidence is there for evolution? they shouldn't teach it as truth if they don't know for sure. and that's my big problem, that we teach kids things are true and they don't question it, so when something comes up that challenges this (like how people think god made man out of dirt and women from a rib) they freak out. it's better, in my opinion, to just say "here's everything we know about THIS, tell me what you think" it's dangerous to base an entire tree of thought from a fallible axiom, like in my opinion, creationism as a truth of science. there are so many ways to deny it as truth, it's almost useless to spell it out to the proponents of it. plus we shouldn't be imposing religion on people in public places anyway, i think. spitituality is a personal thing, no one's going to take it away or tell you that you are wrong unless to force them to.

The principles of evolution are even found in children born with what we call deformities. One need only go back through fossils to see the progression of life as species 'deformed' to become other species. In that chain are the so called 'missing links'. But even DNA analysis demonstrates massive identical strains between man and other 'so called' lower level mammals.

To have a theory, first one must demonstrate the theory is consistent with other known facts and theories. To take that theory to fact is what we are all taught even in junior high school science. There must be a consistent theory AND (second) there must be experimental evidence. As additional evidence continues to demonstrate the concept of evolution, the concept becomes a more complete fact. Remember, much evidence of evolution (like most science) has only been discovered in the last hundred years. But already there is much evidence that supports the theory.

Meanwhile Intelligence Design is only speculation. Intelligence Design does not even have sufficient information to be called a theory. Does it have any supporting evidence? No. None. Is it consistent with other existing science facts and theories? No. In fact the concept of Intelligent Design often contradicts well established science principles. But then show me. Show me where Intelligent Design meets the criteria as taught in junior high school science? It does not. It does not even meet the criteria to be a theory.

Intelligent Design (ID) is similar to a Rush Limbaugh decree. Somehow we just know it must exist because someone all powerful told us to believe it. We need not know why nor have any supporting evidence. Somehow that is sufficient to call it a science. ID does not even meet the criteria necessary to be a theory.

ID is based upon an interpretation of an early science book called the bible. Mankind has since used what was learned from the bible and other good books - then moved on. Mankind disposed of parables that were clearly erroneous.

But you tell me. If Adam and Eve had Cain and Able, then how did Cain and Able have children? Spontaneous reproduction? Inbreeding? As even Father Jerome Murphy-O'Connor notes, "The Gospel should be read spiritually, but with critical intelligence." "What the church insists on is the spiritual message of the Bible, not its literal truth."

What worked from the bible, then mankind carried forward to develop new ways of thinking, proving, learning, and therefore advancing mankind. The bible was an early attempt at establishing order. To base ID on a strict biblical interpretation when the bible has so many errors, well, that again makes ID only speculation.

Therein lies a fundamental difference between science and religion. Science has long since move forward - established better criteria - defined a difference between a fact, theory, hypothesis, and speculation. Science says we have so many more of god's laws to learn. But the teachings behind Intelligent Design says we already know all god's laws. How myopic - as well as bad science.

The concepts of evolution pioneered by Darwin are regularly demonstrated in fossils, DNA, biochemistry, and other scientific principles. ID is based only upon spiritual speculation which is sometimes in direct contradiction to science. After all, biblical interpretation also insisted that the earth was flat and that the sun went around the earth. This too was proven from scriptures - and then recanted when scientific principles prove those speculations as false. That's right - speculations.

If ID had any scientific basis, then spontaneous reproduction is also a valid theory. Spontaneous reproduction has as much basis in fact as Intelligent Design. Neither meets the criteria as even taught in junior high school science.

But look. If your religion believes Intelligent Design, then good. Do as my religion did. We went to religion class after school to learn about religious beliefs. Concepts based upon religious speculations have no place in science, math and public school. Those parts of the bible that were accurate are already taught in and as science and math. I resent speculations being taught as science when Intelligent Design clearly violates principles upon which science and math are based. The word is 'clearly'. But then show me. Using principals of science as taught in junior high school, show me how ID meets that criteria. It should be easy given that ID has been taught for well over 2000 years. Show me.

High school it the real world? :rolleyes: Not even close, neither is college in most cases. You want the truth? You can't handle the truth.** I show you a wrench. I show you how to put it on a nut and move it counterclockwise to loosen the nut and clockwise to tighten the nut. That’s all you need to use the tool. You don’t have to know who invented the tool, what steel alloy it’s made of or how much it cost. None of those things matter when you have a nut to turn.
Math rules are tools. If you are that into the concept behind them, become a math major. When you are trying to solve a problem, pass an exam in physics or straighten out your budget, the concepts behind the tool are the last thing your mind, you’re just grateful for any tool that works.
The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain how the flora and fauna changed over the millennia to what we see today, it’s strictly Biology.
It has nothing to do with other sciences like Geology, Astronomy, Chemistry or Physics.
It takes years of study to learn just the rudiments of evolution.
ID takes 3 minutes to cover in its entirety. Are you going to schedule an entire year, semester or even a class to cover a 3 minute lesson?
**It took thousands of scientists hundreds of years to slowly put the theory of evolution together and you want me to explain it to you here? They were being told this long before they ever were taught any science. First of all it would take the rest of your life to just explain "everything we know about THIS", and you still wouldn't be in a position to pass judgement because you're not a trained scientist. First, find out what you're talking about and stop throwing around terms you don't understand. It you want to make a decision learn the terms and the facts behind them. Don't try to boil it down to choice between two 3 minute statements.

well, you don't have to be a jerk about it. i don't come here to argue, just to share information. i understand expectly what i'm saying. sorry that you don't. and i don't say you don't because you're stupid, i mean that judging by your reply im really think either i didn't do very good job of making myself clear or you missed my point. who said i waned to make a decision?

so, i'm done with this thread, but just in case anyone has the wrong idea about anything i said:

1. i think ID is bunk because it's a mask for creationism
2. why do people trust in science over religion? (this does NOT mean i distrust science, it's just a question, because both are trying to explain reality. myself, i'm partial to science, because, well, probably for the same reasons anyone else is, it's examination is founded more objectively than myth or religion but, just look at the question, not the one asking it, will you?)
3. i think education should be more objective and just provide information, like how the news doesn't give you the news, they give it to you with their opinions...

Because science has a by-product, technology, that proves its method to be sound. Whether or not you strust the scientific method, technology works for you. If you don't believe in religion, it does nothing.
Exactly. Science is information, and religion is opinion.

Forget science, ID and evolution. Take remedial English for spelling and punctuation if you want to make your opinions known. :p

Don't look now but...

Evolution in the bible, says Vatican

these are the same people who think that birth control is bad, that missionary position is the only "acceptable way" to have sex, and that if you enjoy sex, you're sinning. Oh yeah, and you can buy your way to heaven.

Yeah, like I'm going to listen to them.

Genesis is not meant to be a scientific treatise.

A clear reading of the hebrew text gives clear, unambiguous understanding of what the book is saying. The book says HaShem (God) made the universe, sun, moon, stars, earth, all plants, animals and men and women, in six literal, 24 hour days. (It says "yom" and "yom" preceded by a number always, with no exeptions, means a 24 hour day)

From timelines in the bible that can be historically validated outside of the book itself, this happened about 6,000 years ago.

That is what the book says. I don't care what the ID people think or the Catholics think, or anyone else thinks. That is what the book says. Learn the Hebrew and read it. You'll find out that that is what the book says. You'll notice Jews don't have a problem with all this ID/evolution crap because most of the can read Hebrew and read the text for themselves. The book says days. The book says that HaShem breathed life into the man.

Now whether you believe that or not is your opinion. But the fact remains that the book says what it says. It does NOT say that God created the universe over "billions of years" or "periods of time" ago, and that he let events happen making minor adjustments here and there until man evolved from a primordial soup.

And MY opinion is that if you read the book of Genesis (within which there are NOT allegories or parables) literally (as it was intended), it is perfectly clear what the book is saying.

Again, your agreement with the book itself is strictly a matter of opinion. But the book says what it says, I don't care how Cardinal whats his nuts wants to capitulate and compromise to make the Catholics feel more "hip" and "with it". Because that's all he's doing. The whole ID movement is compromising as well. I'll say it again. Either you believe the Genesis account, or you believe in evolution. There is no middle ground, because the text of the book allows no middle ground. It's just not there. I'm sorry, ID people. Read the freaking book.

And as a side note, people like the ID people and this Cardinal do more to hurt Christians than help them. I lump them in the same category as Bush and Robertson. I am proud to say I'm not a Christian like they are a Christian. IMO, they aren't Christian at all.

Actually I've noticed a dearth of opinions on creationism from the jews.

Why don't you cite something for us since you seem to be so tuned in on the issue?

I guess if God created a finished man and woman instead of kids, he wasn't big on paediaphilia either. ;)

Since you have "noticed a dearth of opinions on creationism from the Jews", why don't YOU cite it?

It's kind of hard to quantify a negative don't you think?

Did you do a quick check on what "dearth" means?

Yea!
The voters of Dover, Pa just voted out every single sitting republican school board member wanting to insert ID into the science curriculum. Clean sweep. ID belongs in a discussion of comparative religions. Not in science class.

The fact that The Book of Genesis says what it says, and scientific study says what it says is precisely the whole problem, here. This is why the solution should be simple. Creationism should be taught in Literature classes, and Evolution should be taught in Science classes. Then, the fact that, in Hebrew, Genesis says creation occurred in a 24 hour day could be taught as a language exercise, and Darwinism/Evolution could be taught as a Science exercise.

Seems pretty simple to me. Now...when do I get to sue to be able to teach Evolution in the Churches since we now have to teach Creationism in the schools? Fair is fair, after all. :lol:

I thought "dearth" in context meant "wealth" or "great deal of", and as HM pointed out, I should look up dearth. I did. It means "lack of".

I apologize.

However, I am now confused. I said "You'll notice Jews don't have a problem with all this ID/evolution crap because most of the can read Hebrew and read the text for themselves." and you agree with me in your reply, saying there is a lack of opinion, then request a cite from me saying they don't have a problem with it.

How am I supposed to cite what you've agreed is lack of opinion?

OK, again, for the record, and I'll speak in third person so everyone can be clear.

OnyxCougar does not believe Creationism (or ID, which are two separate things) should be taught in public school. OnyxCougar does not believe Origins Theory should be taught in public school. OnyxCougar believes that Mutation and Speciation occurs, is observable, and repeatable. It is completely within the realm of Observational and Experimental Science, and absolutely should be taught in science classes in public schools. OnyxCougar believes that Observational and Experimental Science has NOTHING to do with Origins Theory, and that cell mitosis and all that other great biology stuff can be taught WITHOUT origins theory. It HAS been done, it CAN be done, and it SHOULD be done.

My problem with Origins Theory is that is taught as FACT. I was watching a show on Stonehenge on the Discovery (natch) channel, and they stated AS A FACT that the ice ages came and went over millions of years, blah blah blah. No scientist in the world can prove that anything is "millions of years" old. They can speculate, they can postulate, they can guess. But there is no proof. There just isn't.

When we're talking about "there is no proof there is a god" it's called religion.
When we're talking about "there is no proof of millions of years" it's called Science.

I call it hypocritical.

Any scientist will tell you carbon dating is accurate only when the item is within a few thousand years old. Anything older (millions of years) is a false reading. Even the guy who came up with carbon dating has stated that it's more and more inaccurate as the dates get older.

By the way, the "scientific" program on the "Discovery Channel" about Stonehenge also mentioned that about they have the first history of man in the region, about 5,000 years ago. What a coincidence.

Look, I'm not trying to convert people to Christianity. I'm not saying Science is Evil! I'm just saying that people are not thinking critically about this origins theory, but posit it as a fact, and are trying to brainwash our children into "buying it" as "real science", when it's clearly not. That is wrong.

Let's teach our children to think critically about ALL subjects, ask their own questions, and form their own opinions based on Observational, Experimental Science.

I don't want ANY religion in public school, including Evolutionism. Leave faith to philosophy, huh?

It is simple.

I disagree. Creationism and Origins Theory should not be taught in public school at all. Or, if you insist, they should both be taught as philosphy, along with the great turtle, Gaea, Atlas, and other religious theories of Origin.

This is where the debate hinges. I say quell the debate by not teaching ANY of them in public school.

Had Hebrew been available in my High School, I would have taken it. But if you offer Hebrew, you better offer Arabic and Latin as well. Wouldn't want to be biased, now would we?

Here is the crux of the debate. Origins theory is NOT science. Hence, it should not be taught as such in public school. Lump it in with Philosophy if you feel it MUST be taught.

Let me throw this out there....

No doctor or surgeon will tell you that Origins Theory has ANYTHING to do with healing a patient. No AIDS researcher needs to believe that we evolved from primordial ooze to find a cure, no geneticist needs to believe that in order to find the gene that "turns on" Altzheimer's or Cancer or Down's or Sickle Cell or ,or, or. No physicist in the world needs to believe that dinosaurs evolved from birds to smash atoms together to try to find theoretical quarks. Origins Theory is just not a science, guys. I'm sorry that you think it is. I truly am.

I'll go so far as to say that you don't have to choose OT or Creationism. You don't have to choose anything at all. You can just accept we're here, this is the way things are, this is how it works, and go from there. That's ok, too. And that's how it should be taught in public school. Origins is entirely the realm of religion. As a parent, I don't want any school teaching my children religion of ANY kind. That is not what that school is there for.

I think that every church, synagogue, temple and mosque (and other places of worship) need to teach ALL the theories it can. Absolutely. My particular faiths call me to be responsible for my choices and actions and to be able to answer questions as knowledgebly and with as clear an understanding as I can.

Absolutely. Keep Origins Theory (Humanism) in the religious realm with Christianity, Islam, Baha'i, Shamanism, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and all the rest of the -isms, and out of my son's school.

No problem.

Isn't there, somewhere out there, an article or something citing where jews fall on this issue?

And more to the point, is there anyone other than evangelical xtians pushing the ID agenda?

This is where you derail, no, hijack the discussion. By putting the words "Origins Theory" in the mouths of people who say for themselves "Darwinism/Evolution", you unilaterally move the discussion from the scope of the subject likely to be taught in public grade schools, and into an area that is not at issue in a 9th grade science class. Come on. It is a reasonable direction to explore, backward in time, what might have happened before, and before that and before that, etc. And ultimately the question about the "origin" must be faced. But by the time that question is in front of us, we've left the borders of a high school biology class with a section or two on the Theory of Evolution far far behind.

That's why insisting on the different terms and focusing on a very different aspect of the information is unhelpful.
I haven't see the television show you're talking about. But I do know a little about the scientific method, and about colloquial english. Incidentally, the two only overlap in part. And I think you're complaining about one of the areas where the two do not overlap. Terms like "fact" and "theory" and "law" and "proof" mean very different things when used in the context of science compared to watercooler discussions. You interchange their meanings at your peril. The most egregious example of this is when opponents of teaching evolution claim that evolution is weak because it is "only" a "theory". Please save yourself some embarassment and everyone around you some confusion by being clear and correct in your usage.

One datum:

My kids go to Catholic school here in the Chicago suburbs. I help the kids prepare for most of their tests so I can tell you:

1) They have covered the big bang theory in science.
2) They have learned about plant and animal adaptations.
3) Their teachers use the term evolution in class and they have been taught what it is.

Well, the vatican came out in favor of evolution here.

"But we also know the dangers of a religion that severs its links with reason and becomes prey to fundamentalism," he said.

"The faithful have the obligation to listen to that which secular modern science has to offer, just as we ask that knowledge of the faith be taken in consideration as an expert voice in humanity."

Poupard and others at the news conference were asked about the religion-science debate raging in the United States over evolution and "intelligent design."

Intelligent design's supporters argue that natural selection, an element of evolutionary theory, cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms.

Monsignor Gianfranco Basti, director of the Vatican project STOQ, or Science, Theology and Ontological Quest, reaffirmed John Paul's 1996 statement that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis."

"A hypothesis asks whether something is true or false," he said. "(Evolution) is more than a hypothesis because there is proof."

Oh, I think there are some fundamentalist Muslim parents around here that don't dig their kids learning about evolution and science, too. From what I gather, Nancy Drew mysteries are a threat as well.

From here...
Emphasis mine. That's why it's not science, you can't just make up the definition of the words you like to suit yourself. IDiots crave the credibilty of the word science. But since their predefined conclusions do not conform to the scientific method, they just hijack the word.

Spreading FUD by teaching the (entirely self generated) "controversy", they kick up enough dust to redraw the lines. This is no different than identity theft. If someone used your name and personal information to their own personal benefit that they otherwise would not have been able to get, you'd feel violated. The ID movement's misdirection of "teaching the controversy" and "redefining the word science" (excuse me, I just have to laugh--like when our kids were little and they'd dress up in our clothes, big shoes, coats that hung to the floor, tromping around pretending to be grownups...please. It's cute when it's your kid, but it's frightening when it's your kids' educators.)...It's just plain fraud.

Fear based fraud. How can you be so insecure that your God can't handle a seemingly complicated bankshot like evolution. There are **lots** of things going on in the world that I don't understand. That doesn't mean that God put a little cosmic backspin on the ball just to confuse poor li'l ol' me. Stop trivializing God. If you can't understand it means He couldn't have done it that way? I don't find God and evolution incompatible, much less mutually exclusive. Hmm. Maybe my God's just more talented than theirs.

If gravity is only a theory, does that mean that we will have to worry about learning IF (intelligent falling)?

With evolution, there are observable things that can be corroborated in order to determine unambiguous age for an item or event. The theories that result are therefore based upon known quantities, known progression of processes that are observed not only on Earth, but on the other planets of our Solar System.

Creation (or ID) is based on *a book*.

I'm as big a fan of faith in the unknown/supernatural as anyone here, I think, but the teaching of Science will eventually encounter Evolution, or you aren't teaching it correctly. Teaching Science will never encounter Creationism, because it doesn't add up to the observed processes and evidence. It is based on a book, and nothing else. The associated theories of Creationism and Intelligent Design grew out of a book...and that isn't Science.

As I posed in another thread...what if the Intelligent Designers are just really, really advanced aliens, and we are essentially a big ant colony? Do we still have to call them God?

Uh-Oh Now you've done it
 

From here
From threatening foreign leaders to small rural towns, this man's work is never done.

Long ago when that original right wing school board was running for election and when Nightline had reported on this upcoming story, I took a trip to and spent about 1/2 day in Dover PA. I expected to find a town that was predominately religious. In fact, I couldn't find anyone who really had any religious attitudes. Most residents had breadwinners who commute long distances out of that town. There was no business district. It mostly centered around an Exxon station whose pumps did not display a real price. Pay cash and the price was lowered.

At a high point in the town was a church with big speakers for church bells. But no one really knew that those speakers were there - as if they never really played any religious themes or church bells.

There were lots of campaign signs for the school board outside most homes then. But I did not know who the religious extremists were so I could not say what I was looking at. If not for those signs, then I would not have even known an election was upcoming.

Dover was no different than most rural PA towns I had visited. Even the town diner had few breakfast customers - the town being that small. Nothing special about the people. No special convictions. No religious symbols on the cars. Apparently it was a town with a strong extremist minority that spun up a maelstrom with only a few strong supporters. I believe same could happen in most any little town.

BTW, the strongest advocate of Intelligent Design was the school board member who, this time, received the least number of votes. Apparently god was not out campaigning for him.

Well I went to Dover. Did Pat Robertson? Maybe I should go back to see what a devil and evil now looks like? "A man who marries outside of his religion inherits the devil for a father-in-law". I wonder if I can find a bride in Dover?

The rules are made by whoever shows up.

Poor, self-righteous Pat Robertson is sad and ridiculous. He should be allowed every opportunity to prove it to a wide audience.