why even have science class anymore

just say thanks to the intelligent designer (but never say his name, he's like Candyman)

and move on to social studies class where we never mention other countries

11/10/2005 6:21:26 PM

Look, my history classes from High School on were filled with talk about how history gets revised all the time, history isn't trustworthy because it's written by the winners, etc. It was a little frustrating, sure, to constantly be told, "This is what we have to work with, but it's changed before and it might change again." But at the end of the day I realized that you had to say that so that people didn't just assume everything they heard was an immutable fact.

Next someone will say, "Teh facts r n0t im00tabl3!!1" and I will respond that words mean what the people bloody well say they mean, and as it stands right now, when you tell someone that you are teaching them a "fact," they take that to mean that anything in contradiction to it cannot be true. So either convince everyone that "fact" means something other than what they think it means, or pick a new fucking word.

11/10/2005 6:33:30 PM

so, are any of the folks in kansas willing to admit that the "intelligent designer", in all his/her splendor, could have used evolution?

and by "any of the folks"

i mean anyone

11/10/2005 6:41:22 PM

I should think so. Several times in reading about ID I've seen references to such thinking, though never relating specifically to Kansas as I recall.

11/10/2005 6:51:34 PM

truthfully i feel the only real solution is to remove evolution from school, but definately not replace it with creationism. both are arguably the same with respect to philosophical debate, though when it comes to creationism there isn't a shred of scientific evidence to support it.

11/10/2005 7:33:57 PM

so what you're saying is

on the chapter about the beginning of existence put a big fat

O RLY?

11/10/2005 7:35:44 PM

you mean in a science book or bible?

11/10/2005 7:39:47 PM

the bible isn't a science book?

11/10/2005 7:55:39 PM

The difference between historical interpretation and scientific evidence is so great there's really no comparison between the two.


People need to stop pretending that ID has more than .0000000000001% of the credibility that evolution does.

11/10/2005 7:56:06 PM

Quote :

"GRAVITY IS JUST A THEORY."

This really isn't as clever as it seems. Arguing against the theory of gravity would not actually mean believing that apples just do whatever the hell they want when you drop 'em. Newton's theory was wrong - or at least less right than Einstein's. And they still haven't completely figured out quantum gravity yet, so it's almost certain the theory will be revised again.

11/10/2005 8:21:09 PM

Actually, it's very clever. We shouldn't be teaching stupid "theories" like gravity in the classroom. If it's not a fact, it's not science. That's what my preacher told me.

11/10/2005 8:26:14 PM

I don't think I've ever been taught anything about gravity in any classroom.

Could most college students explain Newton's theory of gravity? I doubt it.

All most of us need is 9.8 m/s for physics... if that.

Some other way of explaining gravity wouldn't matter much to the majority of people. Shit would still fall.

11/10/2005 8:30:08 PM

Quote :

"I don't think I've ever been taught anything about gravity in any classroom."

Quote :

"Major : English Creative Writing/History"

Did you at least take physics in high school?

Quote :

"Some other way of explaining gravity wouldn't matter much to the majority of people. Shit would still fall."

And shit would still evolve even if we were being taught ID.

Why even learn science in the first place?

11/10/2005 8:33:26 PM

I didn't go to highschool.

Obviously the theory of gravity should be taught, but arguing against wouldn't mean saying stuff doesn't fall. Just like any smart ID theory would leave much of evolutionary theory intact. It certainly wouldn't say organisms can't change over time or anything like that.

So it's not as exciting as it could be. That's the only point I'm trying to make.

11/10/2005 8:37:35 PM

On the other side of the coin is Dover, Pa

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-11-09-pennsylvania-intelligent-design_x.htm

which Pat Robertson has damned to hell

Quote :

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city"

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/11/10/religion.robertson.reut/

11/10/2005 8:43:01 PM

Quote :

"The difference between historical interpretation and scientific evidence is so great there's really no comparison between the two."

How do you figure? There's all kinds of parallels.

Everything in history as it actually happened is fact, just like everything that is actually true about science is fact. We do not, as it happens, know what actually is true in either case, we just have the best idea we can piece together from the evidence available to us.

And ID doesn't have any credibility and I don't see anyone here claiming that it does. I'm not arguing that ID should be taught, I'm arguing that evolution should be taught better.

Quote :

"We shouldn't be teaching stupid "theories" like gravity in the classroom. If it's not a fact, it's not science."

You're mocking a position that has not been presented.

If it's not a fact, it's not a fact, simple as that. Such a status does not preclude it from being science.

11/10/2005 8:53:52 PM

Quote :

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city"

WAIT, I thought ID wasn't about God?

11/10/2005 9:02:19 PM

Evolution is a theory composed of numerous supporting facts.

[Edited on November 10, 2005 at 9:07 PM. Reason : ...]

11/10/2005 9:07:11 PM

I haven't said otherwise. I haven't said you have to teach kids otherwise.

11/10/2005 9:10:14 PM

And I almost edited a comment like "I don't think we're at odds here" into the edit box.

11/10/2005 9:12:55 PM

And a corollary to that:

There is -no- legitimate competing theory

11/10/2005 9:13:22 PM

Quote :

" There is -no- legitimate competing theory "

among the scientists. among the biologists.

joe-shmoe-real-every-day-american thinks evolution is unlikely, we should really listen to him. ordinary non-expert type people know just as much as real scientifists. its those liberal east-coast ivy league educated activists, im telling ya.

as a hindu, i also demand that science class stop attacking my religion. to teach that people die completely flies in the face of my freedom to believe in hinduism. i know for a fact you get reincarnated.

can anyone here proved that peoples soul goes to heaven and not other bodies? no.

death is just a theory.


you know what? lets just throw away all science. and before we teach any of it, we say its all just theories put together, based on observations and experiments, not faith and religion. which is makes it all, wrong.

[Edited on November 10, 2005 at 9:29 PM. Reason : -]

11/10/2005 9:17:24 PM

[Well the day you figure out a quantitive way to research God make sure to get published.
]

I'm sure if I did it would be feverishly attacked by "mainstream" science. They have their reputations to protect.

11/10/2005 9:34:27 PM

my faith doesnt need research. its already all in one book. when will science get that?

11/10/2005 9:37:27 PM

Ahahaha

yeah

scientists hate the Truth

11/10/2005 10:02:40 PM

i prefer "back alley" science, myself.

11/10/2005 10:21:34 PM

intellegnt design says that god is smart.

and the theory of evolution states that god is stupid.

only a stupid god would make a world where a majority of people believe in evolution.

which is why creationism is right.

[Edited on November 10, 2005 at 10:25 PM. Reason : -]

11/10/2005 10:24:53 PM

Quote :

"my faith doesnt need research."

something i cannot stand at all is the reliance on faith. not saying it isn't admirable, but it is completely retarded. i can have all the faith i want that the sun is going to launch cruise missiles at mars any moment now. it's not scientifically possible. why do people have a hard time understanding this? faith is a cop-out, think for yourselves people. nothing wrong with believing in god, but have reasons to believe other than mothergoose said so.

Quote :

"intellegnt design says that god is smart. and the theory of evolution states that god is stupid. only a stupid god would make a world where a majority of people believe in evolution. which is why creationism is right. "

i read and my first thought was "haha good old sarcasm." then it occurred to me that it may not be, to which i reply INCREDIBLY STUPID. how does the theory of evolution state that god is stupid? please ignore the last few sentences if that quote was sarcasm.

[Edited on November 10, 2005 at 10:32 PM. Reason : bork]

11/10/2005 10:29:47 PM

Not to be an ascientific dick or anything, but since when was faith missing from science?

11/10/2005 10:32:04 PM

i'm not sure how science itself has faith, i understand that scientists all hold different beliefs and that they themselves may have faith but how is science based on faith? like i maybe see what you're saying if you're implying that before the atom was discovered, people had faith that there was something smaller than what was currently known. but they didn't just leave it at that, they started experimenting and created tests to verify this. the majority of religious people i know, and no this doesn't represent everyone, but the majority of them, if you ask even the most simple question about religion, will immediately respond with a ready made quote from the bible and say that because it's in the bible it's true. that would be an example of faith.

11/10/2005 10:35:47 PM

it takes more faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in creationism. why? beacuse its easier. becuase its simplier. because god is smart.

why would god go thru all that complicated evolution stuff when ge could just put a man and woman on earth?


^^evolution says god is stupid, becuase intellegent design disagrees with evolution. which means, they cant both have an intellegent designer. theres nothing intellegent about evolution, becuase no god, would by definition be a stupid god. he un-created himself. thats stupid.

[Edited on November 10, 2005 at 10:36 PM. Reason : dgfsdfg354t2345]

11/10/2005 10:36:11 PM

Quote :

"evolution says god is stupid, becuase since intellegent design disagrees with evolution, which means, they cant both have an intellegent designer. theres nothing intellegent about evolution, becuase no god, would by definition be a stupid god. he un-created himself. thats stupid."

are you drunk?


anyway, believing god is a muuuch more simple solution than evolution. i'm not sure how you think it's the other way around. here's the question: how did life start? here are the two answers:

answer one: life began with single celled organisms which developed, morphed, and evolved over millions and millions of years creating life (obviously much more complicated than that)

answer two: god created life

11/10/2005 10:39:51 PM

Wow. I predict that the quality of Cherokee's posts will not improve, and that he will quit Soap Boxing by December.

11/10/2005 11:14:53 PM

the quality may not improve based on your criteria but i don't think i'll quit posting;

enlighten me, what was wrong with my post?

11/10/2005 11:26:00 PM

he hates the red man!

11/10/2005 11:30:29 PM

Other than the fact that you foolishly second-guessed your initial assumption that Josh was being sarcastic, said nothing but the most tired, trite garbage that has ever been put forward on the subject, acted as though your garbage was groundbreaking, did it in a format that makes it unreadable to 98% of the TWW population, insulted every religious person on the face of the planet, demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of the meaning of the word "faith," and generically demostrated an incompetence identical to that of a half-dozen short-lived n00bs who enter the Soap Box only to leave in shame...

...nothing, I guess.

11/10/2005 11:31:43 PM

second guessing i'd give to you if it wasn't meant to be humorous...

tired, trite, call it what you want, it's still 100% valid

never implied it was groundbreaking, not sure how you interpreted that

format unreadable....trouble reading english?

insulted every religious person on the planet? nope, wrong here again, i do believe i made clear that i was not categorizing all religious people, not to mention the fact that not all religious people believe in a specific god or any for that matter

ignorance of the meaning of faith..hmm, as i recall, wait lemme check, yup faith is:

faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

i do believe i demonstrated a fundemental understanding of faith

incompetent? no need for me to even comment here

"...nothing, I guess." <<<finally got it right

11/10/2005 11:37:52 PM

Catholics are fine with most tenets of evolutionary theory. You should do your homework. John Paul II talked about how he didn't mind evolutionary theory because it let us reconcile the Biblical account with scientific findings in order to find out what God meant when he inspired scripture. Don't be such a Jew with your categorical assumptions. (and yes, I get the irony)

11/10/2005 11:39:35 PM

the thing with using John Paul II saying he didn't mind evolutionary theory is that you read this after genesis, you know, the whole "god created everything" book.

11/10/2005 11:44:30 PM

It's a sad night when the best thing for me to do on here is yell at you.

Don't try to backtrack now, your misreading his sarcasm was obvious. Take your licks, boy, it'll build character.

Your shit wasn't valid. You denied that there existed an element of faith in science, which is laughable all the way to the bank. Science is built in part on a long list of assumptions in which you simply have to have faith. Gravity, evolution, and a metric shitton of other theories are just that -- theories. Sure, you have plenty of evidence to back them up. You can be %99.9999999.... certain that they're right, but to claim 100% is just plain dishonest. Too many things have been "known" with 100% certainty only to become laughingstock ideas later on -- yes, even within the realm of science.

You also effectively implied that believing in a religion or god was only acceptable when it was somehow provable, which is to say, it is never acceptable.

You acted as though your shit were groundbreaking (at least for here) when you deemed it fit to elaborate as though we had not heard the same stuff a thousand and one times before your soon-to-be-forgotten ass came along.

I have no trouble with English, as is perhaps demonstrable by my use of capitalization, punctuation, and other basic rules thereof. I also avoid making gigantic paragraphs that, on a computer screen, are a bitch to read, especially when they are written without all those helpful little mechanics. Unless, that is, I'm making a bulky paragraph on purpose to mock insolent web-babies.

You called faith "retarded." You can't really insult religion more than that, hoss.

I see you chose the second definition of the word offered, perhaps because the first sank your effort at argument. I would be entertained beyond measure to see you logically prove much of anything. You can, at best, demonstrate that something is likely, perhaps highly so. A great many people have made logical "proofs" of the existence of God that, to be totally honest, are above the attacks of what I can safely call the overwhelming majority of dingbats on an internet message board. (Note that I'm using the specific "you" in this paragraph)

You have faith in a vast number of things in your day-to-day life, but you do not call it retarded then. Perhaps this is because, in reality, you don't have a beef with faith. You have a beef with religion, but it looks bad to admit as much.

[Edited on November 10, 2005 at 11:52 PM. Reason : ]

11/10/2005 11:50:56 PM

Quote :

"You also effectively implied that believing in a religion or god was only acceptable when it was somehow provable, which is to say, it is never acceptable."

um, correct imo, which is why it shouldn't be taught in school alongside science

Quote :

"Science is built in part on a long list of assumptions in which you simply have to have faith. Gravity, evolution, and a metric shitton of other theories are just that -- theories."

a theory is based on evidence, faith is based on lack of evidence. faith in god is like a hypothesis that you can never test

Quote :

"You called faith "retarded." You can't really insult religion more than that, hoss. "

if you pay attention to the context of my statement you'll see that i'm implying that relying on faith to be the absolute truth is retarded, not that religion is retarded. you can be religious and question said religion.

[Edited on November 10, 2005 at 11:58 PM. Reason : bork]

[Edited on November 11, 2005 at 12:03 AM. Reason : 8)]

11/10/2005 11:57:23 PM

for some reason, the fact that you have 28 posts makes me want to shit on you

like, warm and wet shit

11/11/2005 12:28:02 AM

whoa whoa. has anyone seen the point? because i think either grumpgop or joshnumbers dropped it.

i'll give you guys a little run down on intelligent design because obviously you guys don't know what it is. creationism and intelligent design are NOT the same thing. creationism states that everything was made by a benevolent being aka god. intelligent design, however, does not state that there is a god, but an intelligent designer. for all i care, the designer can be e.t. look it up if you don't believe me.

and what's this evolution says god is stupid? where did you get that? whoa! let me call nasa and ask them. ... EERRRRRRRRRR. wrong. science is not based on faith. there's a difference between knowing and believing. you can believe in god all you want, but i do know that if i drop a brick on your head, god isn't going to stop it. i don't have to believe in atoms and energy, because i know it exists.

seriously, just stop it. you're making yourself look stupid.

11/11/2005 12:33:11 AM

I am glad I found this article because I didn't want to type another response just for it to be mis-interpreted.

Smug Man Vs Straw
Man - The Science
Vs Religion Hoax
By Michael Goodspeed
Thunderbolts.info
11-10-5

At a recent lunch meeting with a friend, I was asked to identify a single ability or asset human beings must have in order to live successfully. Put to this test, my initial instinct was to blurt out such answers as, "Love! Courage! Forgiveness! Inner peace!" But I forced myself to pause for a moment of introspection, and almost immediately, the answer came to me.

"The greatest asset anyone can have is the ability to tell what is true from what is not."

And my friend raised his eyebrows, seemingly both in pleasure and surprise. He agreed that this is this the most essential ingredient to successful living -- and furthermore, it is a quality that much of humanity has always lacked.

We have difficulty distinguishing between truth and falsehood, because so often, our real choices are misrepresented. If one is told that the path to truth can only be found on roads A or B -- but in reality, both roads lead to a bottomless chasm -- what true choice does one have?

This problem is exacerbated in contemporary society, where a handful of huge corporations have bought the majority of TV, radio, and print media. Meaningful debate is stymied by the (often deliberate) misrepresentation of our choices. Incredibly complex and multi-layered issues are distorted so that they appear as simple matters of black and white, either-or.

In political discussions in the U.S., people who call themselves either "conservative" or "liberal" take turns engaging in polemics and ad hominem attacks. Rarely do popular political commentators offer positive ideas for action, but endlessly accuse one another of hypocrisy, dishonesty, and sleaziness. This breeds divisiveness and close-mindedness in the populace, feeding the myth that a "two-party," left or right political system is the only possible reality in America. And it actively discourages true intellectual vision -- a desire to learn as much as possible wherever that path might lead.

This perversion of reality by popular media touches every area of human interest. Take, for instance, recent coverage of the so-called Science vs. Religion debate. This phrase is used with increasing regularity, as natural disasters, terrorism, fears over coming "pandemics," and warfare have many wondering if we are living in the "end times" prophesied in the Bible. The phrase is also used to frame the evolution vs. "intelligent design" debate - a debate forged by a kind of hidden cooperation between the two sides. Both are happy to "debate" the question, as if the debate precludes other possibilities. One side or the other MUST be correct. For most in the news media, all of this comes down to choosing either the literal interpretations of scripture advocated by Christian fundamentalists versus the disciplined, rational, feet-on-the-ground observations of respected scientists. It's simply a case of "blind faith" vs. "rationality."

Personally, I have no religious beliefs, and I am happy to see the "historical accuracy" of the Bible put to the test by science. But I don't think it is "irrational" either to believe in an active "intelligence" in the universe, or to question the tenability of popular scientific theories such as Darwin's model of evolution by "natural selection." In fact, I suspect that the Evangelicals framed the debate in these terms because they know that most humans have a dependable level of good sense: most will not accept the idea that mere biological mechanics could account for the unfathomable sophistication of living organisms. So if you side with intelligent design, the Evangelicals think they win, which is nonsense.

I agree that a literal interpretation of Biblical accounts, including the story of Creation, is not tenable. But I will not be tricked into believing that the best alternative to religious dogma is atheism and its counterpart materialism (the belief that physical matter is the only reality). In truth, science lends no support at all to the materialist's ideology. Increasing numbers of scientists are exploring questions of spirit and consciousness, and their findings contradict the empty and disconnected Universe envisioned by materialists.

The movie "What the Bleep Do We Know" achieved immense popularity because it spoke for what so many individuals have long recognized, even if they could not express the conviction in words: that there is more to "reality" than the three-dimensional world. "What the Bleep" featured scholars like Dr. Masaru Emoto, who has demonstrated that thoughts and feelings have a measurable effect on physical matter (i.e. water.) Also featured were esteemed scientists like quantum physicist John Hagelin, Ph.D., who discussed a study in Washington D.C., which showed a direct correlation between a group's practice of transcendental meditation, and a reduction of crime in their area. (For an overview of this study, see http://www.istpp.org/crime_prevention).

Other scholars whose works argue against the philosophy of materialism include Dr. Rupert Sheldrake (the psychic connections between humans and their pets), Dr. Gary Schwartz (psychic mediums and the afterlife), Dr. Larry Dossey (the effects of prayer on physical healing), and Dr. Raymond Moody (life after life). None of these researchers have provided "proof positive" of God or a spiritual dimension, but they certainly have experience that goes above and beyond the blind faith of institutionalized religion and/or materialistic science.

But of course, true spiritual discovery is not about proving or disproving this or that "phenomenon" in the eyes of others. Even if it were possible to empirically prove the existence of God, I don't believe this would necessarily be of benefit to the human race. To live a spiritual life, one need not believe in "mystical" or "supernatural" principles, but only to devote oneself unconditionally to seeing the truth in every situation.

And more and more people are waking up to this not-so-little secret. Many spiritual guidebooks have emerged in recent years which teach a philosophy contrary to the Christianity of modern Evangelicals. In my opinion, the works of people like Eckhart Tolle ("The Power of Now"), David R. Hawkins ("The Eye of the I"), and the spiritual manual "A Course in Miracles" are of more value than any religious doctrine, because they deal directly with a destructive thought system. ACIM states: "You may believe that you are responsible for what you do, but not for what you think. The truth is that you are responsible for what you think, because it is only at this level that you can exercise choice. What you do comes from what you think."

And what I think is that the inane Science vs. Religion debate has little or nothing to tell us about the nature of God, spirit, or the Universe as a whole. Skepticism of the Bible is NOT a repudiation of spiritual reality. I have no use for dogma -- scientific OR religious. Given the choice between a smug man and a straw man, I choose neither.

11/11/2005 10:33:47 AM

too many words

11/11/2005 11:11:39 AM

Quote :

"i'll give you guys a little run down on intelligent design because obviously you guys don't know what it is. creationism and intelligent design are NOT the same thing. creationism states that everything was made by a benevolent being aka god. intelligent design, however, does not state that there is a god, but an intelligent designer. for all i care, the designer can be e.t. look it up if you don't believe me."

exactly what i was saying. ID says god is intellegent. and since it competes with every other thoery out there, all the other thoeries must posit that god is stupid. what about this is so hard to understand.

this is a perfect example of how ID works. i believe in ID, which means someone smart created me. which is why im right. you all believe in evolution, which means, by definition, your creator is stupid, and thus, you are all stupid. by deduction, i then can proved that i am right. becuase your God, aka, Darwin, said that the most fit survive. and since you are all stupid, you couldnt have survived; meaning darwinism is false. thus everything had to have been created by my smart designer.

creationism is nether here nor there. we had to have been 'created'. or else there would be nothing. thats why creationism is correct.

[Edited on November 11, 2005 at 4:04 PM. Reason : -]

11/11/2005 3:57:02 PM

Quote :

"i'll give you guys a little run down on intelligent design because obviously you guys don't know what it is. creationism and intelligent design are NOT the same thing. creationism states that everything was made by a benevolent being aka god. intelligent design, however, does not state that there is a god, but an intelligent designer. for all i care, the designer can be e.t. look it up if you don't believe me. "

Is this really the best argument you have? this is terrible.

11/11/2005 3:57:49 PM

its just common sense that god is intellegent. why doesnt evolution admit that?

11/11/2005 3:59:43 PM

Damn scientologists STILL arguing that E.T. did everything.

11/11/2005 4:40:47 PM

Why doesn't the theory of gravity admit that purple monkeys are intelligent?

[Edited on November 11, 2005 at 5:02 PM. Reason : or green retrievers]

11/11/2005 5:01:50 PM