More Intelligent Design

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

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.

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

[BigV]

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.

[jinx]

Dover Area School District newsletter.

[warch]

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.

[jaguar]

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

[Cyclefrance]

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.....

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by jaguar

Democracy, you get the government you deserve. Or school board as the case may be.

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?

. . . and seven exciting ways to serve brassicas . . .

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.

[Cyclefrance]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

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

[Tonchi]

Originally Posted by Cyclefrance

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

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

[Amnesiac42]

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Amnesiac42

so we teach evolution in a philosophy class, for exactly what it is,

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

[Amnesiac42]

how so?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Amnesiac42

how so?

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.

[Amnesiac42]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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.

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.