It's not about being anti-christian, it's about keeping public education secular. Redguard said it best, imo, lemme find his post.

EDIT: here it is

Quote :

""Not that I defend Intelligent Design because I think it's a load of crock (my personal opinion being that it's a big type conflict), but evolution is a THEORY. There are gaps in it that we cannot prove at this time with the scientific process. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should kill it; Darwin's Theory is the best we have right now. However, almost as disturbing as the intelligent design folks are those who treat Darwin as dogma: they have no appreciation for how science works. Sadly though, thanks to ID which exploits this nuance, that point is being lost.""

-RedGuard

12/20/2005 3:57:37 PM

junk science....

12/20/2005 3:59:28 PM

Quote :

"Why do evolution assholes always have this air of superiority about them, calling themselves "smart people" and shit? You are not any more superior than anyone else - peopl ehave disagreeing views. Schools are not the place to be indoctrinating students into your ridiculous anti-Christian mindsets."

very christian of you. i bet jesus called his detractors assholes all the time.

12/20/2005 4:02:44 PM

how about junk arguments

Quote :

"Evolutionists take the equivalent of 5 pieces of a 1,000 piece puzzle, put them together, and call it complete."

Nobody calls it complete, except those few on the opposite extreme of the spectrum who have no idea what they are talking about, but they are equally as stupid as those who want religion mandated in public schools.

Quote :

" But I also don't believe that evolution should be taught as fact."

Everybody's way ahead of you on that, champ. No school, or textbook, to my knowledge has ever taught evolution as irrefutable fact.

12/20/2005 4:03:34 PM

How dare we teach anything that we are not 100% sure of?

From now all, all the books I'm reading are blank.

Quote :

"Why do evolution assholes always have this air of superiority about them, calling themselves "smart people" and shit? You are not any more superior than anyone else - peopl ehave disagreeing views. Schools are not the place to be indoctrinating students into your ridiculous anti-Christian mindsets."

There is nothing anti-Christian about evolution.

12/20/2005 4:15:52 PM

Quote :

"Evolutionists take the equivalent of 5 pieces of a 1,000 piece puzzle, put them together, and call it complete"

I'll accept that, if you accept that ID/Creationist cut out their own puzzle pieces of construction paper (using plastic scissors too), color them with nonsense, then glue them over the evolution puzzle pieces, and say they are more right.

12/20/2005 4:16:32 PM

Quote :

"Why do evolution assholes always have this air of superiority about them, calling themselves "smart people" and shit? You are not any more superior than anyone else - peopl ehave disagreeing views. Schools are not the place to be indoctrinating students into your ridiculous anti-Christian mindsets. "

thankfully their are alternatives such as private christian schools or homeschools if you want your child to get a limited and biased education

12/20/2005 4:19:26 PM

i love evolution so much i took ANT 251 three times

12/20/2005 4:24:17 PM

MICRO AND MACRO

micro is 100% fact

macro is not 100% fact

pretty damn simple

12/20/2005 4:35:23 PM

^ ding ding /thread

12/20/2005 4:36:19 PM

hey soapbox, you lost a thread

plz to come and get it

12/20/2005 4:49:29 PM

ITS A WAR ON CHRISTMAS

12/20/2005 5:48:55 PM

i didn't read the whole thread, so i may have missed it, but...

am i the only one in here who realizes that intelligent design (creationism) and evolution are the same thing? christians who have a problem with evolution are idiots...scientists who dismiss the possibility of intelligent design are also idiots

Quote :

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941"

12/20/2005 6:00:58 PM

^THANK YOU

neither science nor religion can answer every question fully, we need both. But both camps are so entrenched right now that they have a hard time working together. Not much has changed since the Enlightenment on that front...

[Edited on December 20, 2005 at 6:04 PM. Reason : ]

12/20/2005 6:04:27 PM

Einstein also said

"I refuse to believe that God plays dice with the universe"

12/20/2005 6:08:29 PM

Science, religion, same shit different johns.

12/20/2005 6:14:42 PM

^^ true...but that was to niels bohr in reference to quantum mechanics concerning probability...completely different subject, and i don't really see how anyone could see evolution as God playing dice (the issue of quantum mechanics was about laws of nature and the fundamental construction of the universe as a whole...see the difference?)

btw, i'm not trying to be sarcastic or condescending

[Edited on December 20, 2005 at 6:14 PM. Reason : arrows]

12/20/2005 6:14:44 PM

Quote :

"i don't really see how anyone could see evolution as God playing dice"

Quagmire needs to shutup and evolve.

12/20/2005 6:18:33 PM

faith + grace take you to god

reason takes you to science

one can be taught in church, the other in school, no reason to claim that they are mutually exclusive.

12/20/2005 6:19:56 PM

^^ wow...you told me...i guess you win, then? oh, wait, no, you've contributed nothing

[Edited on December 20, 2005 at 6:20 PM. Reason : arrows]

12/20/2005 6:20:17 PM

My Philosophy of Science class taught theories of intelligent design too

OMG no!

I'm sure some of you have taken that class. He spends the first half of it bashing Creationism and all the atheists are all like "Fuck yes, damn religion" and then the last part of the class arguing intelligent design theories like "Argument by Design" and the camera shit. Anyway, I don't think banning any theory like that is being intellectually open-minded. Sure you should ban stuff that's outright wrong like teaching that natural selection doesn't exist, but there's nothing wrong with noting the fact that many people believe it is a process divinely inspired by a higher, omnibenevolent, omniscient being.

12/20/2005 6:24:49 PM

BUT NOT IN A SCIENCE CLASS

christ jesus

12/20/2005 6:27:07 PM

Take the class, its a mix of science and philosophy douchebag

btw, turn off the caps, we all know you're speaking loudly...because you're an asshole

[Edited on December 20, 2005 at 6:28 PM. Reason : .]

12/20/2005 6:27:32 PM

do you have any idea what the case was about??

it wasnt about "philosophy of science" classes

go read

12/20/2005 6:29:23 PM

^^ dr. austin? phi340?

[Edited on December 20, 2005 at 6:30 PM. Reason : arrows]

12/20/2005 6:29:47 PM

Yes

And btw, it is about taking the theory of intelligent design out of the classroom. Granted, most primary education facilities don't teach any philosophy. And also granted, this law is basically aimed to prevent some backwoods teachers from teaching that evolution is an incorrect theory and Genesis is fact, which is a noble goal. But the slippery slope (which is in this case, most likely inevitable) is to rid education of any remnant of God or religion. Next thing to go is Paradise Lost, to be replaced with Harry Potter.

12/20/2005 6:32:25 PM

Philosophy of Science is one of the few philosophy classes I've chosen not to take as a philosophy major going to gradschool for philosophy. Most philosophy classes seemed focused on philosopy whereas at a surface glance Phi of Sci seems like its a philosophy class designed for people with no interest in philosophy.

12/20/2005 6:34:30 PM

Quote :

"it is about taking the theory of intelligent design out of the classroom"

you CANT be fucking serious.

if you just clicked on the link, the first thing you would read is:

Quote :

""Intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday,"

Quote :

"But the slippery slope (which is in this case, most likely inevitable) is to rid education of any remnant of God or religion"

STFU with this slippery slope shit. and you know what? public school isnt for learning about god anyway, GO TO CHURCH if you want to learn about God.

12/20/2005 6:36:14 PM

Your surface investigation failed you,

Whereas I may have implied otherwise, only about 1/2 the course is on ID/Creationism/Evolution.
The other half is on the differences between science and pseudoscience and also theories of what makes you you.

Like the problem of Thesius' ship and some other arguments about when a machine becomes alive.

There is some deep philosophy involved in the class, but presented in an approachable way.

12/20/2005 6:37:20 PM

i loved doc austin's phi of sci class...i'm just kind of disappointed that mine was the first semester (a few semesters ago) that he quit doing the cartesian dualism paper, i would rocked that sucker

12/20/2005 6:41:22 PM

So you say to fuck off with the slope arguments rather than address them, fine.

The problem is that those slopes are highly likely to be gone upon. I'm not arguing that this law, in and of itself, is bad, because it isn't. The argument I'm making is that you can't blanket say "Go to church for God" and "Go to school to learn" because in many disciplines, such as history and literature, the two are unable to be divided. Trust me, I was at a school where some "progressives" tried to ban our singing of religious material in chorus, which is utterly ridiculous. Some great works of art and some of the major events in history cannot be taught by removing God or religion from them. Siddhartha and Paradise Lost and Da Vinci's Madonna are all wiped out when you take a church v. school attitude.

This law is fine, in and of itself, but there eventually needs to be drawn a line.

12/20/2005 6:41:29 PM

^^Agreed, I wished I could have written a Dualism paper instead of the test.

12/20/2005 6:43:06 PM

Quote :

"in many disciplines, such as history and literature, the two are unable to be divided"

agreed. but this is not at ALL the same

12/20/2005 6:43:53 PM

Yeah, we're on the same page here, I guess.
But some people don't see it that way. Some wouldn't be happy until none of our subjects can contain divine references and in today's litigious society, they have a climate that might actually favor their cause.

12/20/2005 6:46:07 PM

The denial of science is ignorance not religious faith.

Evolution as a scientific theory is no way contradicts creationism or the christian doctrine. But of course maybe 1 in a million religious nut jobs will actually READ the judgement and realize that the Judge pointed out that ID could very well be true, there might surely be God, and evolution may just be a part of the plan, but that is supernatural and therefore not a part of the scientific process by definition.

Biology and Science is about science, natural occurances and the scientific process. ANY inclusion of the supernatural immediately removes it from science.

The rest of the developed nations have realized years ago that science and religion are not at odds. In fact they are great assets to one another. Why the hell can't the leading economic power in the world get with the fucking times?

I was listening to NPR this evening on this topic and one of the speakers mentioned a recent nationwide poll that showed only about HALF of our citizens even know that the Earth revolves around the Sun once per year. So does that mean we should TEACH alternate theories of planetary orbit? Should be teach that the Earth is the center of the universe and the sun revolves around it? For God's sake, please get some sense.

12/20/2005 6:51:11 PM

^ i agree completely...which doesn't happen often

12/20/2005 6:57:26 PM

Quote :

"The argument I'm making is that you can't blanket say "Go to church for God" and "Go to school to learn" because in many disciplines, such as history and literature, the two are unable to be divided"

You might not be able to teach history, lit, art, chorus and many other humanities without god. But you can keep the faith + grace gets to god and the reason gets to science distinction.

[Edited on December 20, 2005 at 7:02 PM. Reason : .]

12/20/2005 7:00:08 PM

I'm enjoying that you all are like these two theories, each trying to prove the fitter, but neither able to accept eachother.

12/20/2005 7:30:20 PM

uh, evolution has never tried to invalidate religious belief, neither has science in general.

12/20/2005 7:37:10 PM

no, the biggest problem is that most people assume that science attempts to invalidate religious beliefs

12/20/2005 7:43:26 PM

Quote :

"very christian of you. i bet jesus called his detractors assholes all the time."

I don't recall him ever declaring himself to be the Christ. We all fall short of Him.

Quote :

"Einstein also said "I refuse to believe that God plays dice with the universe""

That statement was in regards to uncertainty principle and not anything close to what you were responding to. Einstein sides more with quag at least in his consistencies in quotes: "God does not wear his heart on his sleeve.", "Subtle is the Lord, but malicious he is not.", "The more I study science, the more I believe in God.", and so on. Einstein understood the limits and , sometimes foolishness, of scientific research.

12/21/2005 2:47:09 AM

If anybody is interested in this topic on an academic level, take BO295 with Dr. Van Dyke and do the research on this topic. You dig deep (as others have pointed out), you'll find a lot of holes in each of the differing viewpoints.

12/21/2005 5:52:54 AM

Quote :

"This is absolutely wrong. There IS no scientific proof behind "intelligent design", primarily because it is fundamentally unscientific. There is no data to support it because it has nothing to do with any actual data. It cannot be measured. It cannot be tested. It can neither be proven nor disproven. It is a nonscientific theory. People can believe in it all they want, and that's perfectly acceptible. But it isn't science, it has nothing to do with science, and therefore it has no business being taught as science in the classroom. "

god damn I just creamed my pants at that

Quote :

"i forgot that things magically happened. to bad all the dragons and unicors were killed of 100's of years ago. and fuck big corporations for eliminating the practice of magic thus making my life boring so i must consume their products "

that was hilarious too

[Edited on December 22, 2005 at 3:41 AM. Reason : k]

12/22/2005 3:36:04 AM

Quote :

"god damn I just creamed my pants at that"

why?

12/22/2005 3:42:23 AM

Quote :

"user: IntelligentDesign status: banned"

12/22/2005 9:13:07 AM

Quote :

"This is absolutely wrong. There IS no scientific proof behind "intelligent design", primarily because it is fundamentally unscientific. There is no data to support it because it has nothing to do with any actual data. It cannot be measured. It cannot be tested. It can neither be proven nor disproven. It is a nonscientific theory."

Quote :

"This is absolutely wrong. There IS no scientific proof behind "intelligent design", primarily because it is fundamentally unscientific. There is no data to support it because it has nothing to do with any actual data. It cannot be measured. It cannot be tested. It can neither be proven nor disproven. It is a nonscientific theory."

Quote :

"This is absolutely wrong. There IS no scientific proof behind "intelligent design", primarily because it is fundamentally unscientific. There is no data to support it because it has nothing to do with any actual data. It cannot be measured. It cannot be tested. It can neither be proven nor disproven. It is a nonscientific theory."

12/22/2005 11:18:42 AM

Pad.

12/22/2005 11:27:38 AM

It's not evolution that is theorized but the origin of species, which is clumped into the theory of evolution, along with natural selection, because it was all the same person that came up with them. It is a fact that nature evolves, therefore evolution in that sense is scientific fact. It is the origin of species that people disagree with. I don't see anything wrong with at least mentioning Intelligent Design in a textbook that mentions the Big Bang theory and Origin of Species, but I think it would be best if biology courses just left all that stuff out and a separate science/philosophy course was created for the purpose to learn about origin theories. Of course that exists in college, but high schools won't do that. Because of this, since ID is a theory, I don't see anything wrong with merely mentioning it as a theory that is believed by some, just as some believe Origin of Species, and some the Big Bang.

12/22/2005 11:40:32 AM

Quote :

"since ID is a theory, I don't see anything wrong with merely mentioning it as a theory that is believed by some, just as some believe Origin of Species, and some the Big Bang."

There is evidence to support the Origin of Species, there is none to support ID - sorry.

12/22/2005 11:43:13 AM

There is also a wealth of evidence to support the Big Bang theory. And I don't think there's anything wrong with having an incomplete theory about something so huge as the beginning of what we consider the universe.

12/22/2005 12:04:44 PM