| Are you happy with this decision? |
| Yes |
|
28% |
[ 6 ] |
| Somewhat/Don't Care/Unsure |
|
19% |
[ 4 ] |
| No |
|
52% |
[ 11 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 21 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
 Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:42 am Kansas School Board Approves Intelligent Design |
|
| Quote: | Kansas State Board Approves Teaching Standards Skeptical of Evolution
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
TOPEKA, Kan. � New science standards for Kansas' public schools, criticized for promoting creationism while treating evolution as a flawed theory, won approval Tuesday from the State Board of Education.
The board's 6-4 vote, expected for months, was a victory for intelligent design advocates who helped draft the standards and argued the changes would make teaching about evolution more balanced and expose studels teach science.
It's unclear how the new standards will affect what's taught in classrooms. Those decisions will remain with 300 local school boards, and some teachers have said they won't change what they teach. However, some educators fear pressure will increase in some communities to teach less about evolution or more about creationism or intelligent design.
Supporters see the proposed standards as promoting academic freedom.
"It gets rid of a lot of dogma that's being taught in the classroom today," said board member John Bacon, an Olathe Republican who supported the board's action.
The board's vote was along ideological lines.
Member Janet Waugh, a Kansas City Democrat, said "This is a sad day. We're becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that."
Kansas has attracted international attention, largely because the vote Tuesday was the third time in six years that the board has rewritten standards with evolution as the central issue. Hearings in May, in which intelligent design advocates attacked evolution, attracted journalists from Canada, France, Great Britain and Japan.
The Kansas board's action is part of an ongoing national debate over evolution. In Pennsylvania, a trial is underway in a lawsuit against the Dover school board's policy of requiring high school students to hear about intelligent design in their biology classes. In August, President Bush endorsed teaching intelligent design alongside evolution.
The new standards contain an explicit disclaimer saying they're not designed to promote intelligent design, which argues that an intelligent cause is the best way to explain some natural features that are well-ordered and complex.
However, the standards repeat intelligent design advocates' arguments against evolutionary theory that natural chemical processes could have created the building blocks of life and that all life has a common origin.
In addition, the board rewrote the standards' definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.
Many scientists argued such changes are designed to allow teachers and students to discuss God in the classroom. Critics contend creationists repackaged old ideas in new, scientific-sounding language to get around a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1987 against teaching creationism in public schools.
Kansas law requires the state board to update its academic standards regularly. In 1999, the board deleted most references to evolution in the science standards, making the state an object of international ridicule.
Two years later, after voters replaced three members, the board reverted to evolution-friendly standards. Elections in 2002 and 2004 changed the board's composition again.
Source |
This is excellent news. At last, alternate ideas are being permitted in the education system. I am glad to hear it.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:43 am |
|
and the second it gets brought into court they'll throw it out of the ciriculum.
It's Philosophy not science.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:47 am |
|
It's an alternative idea with scientific AND philosophical elements. Allow for debate in the classroom. And allow some room for philosophy in science, which I would say is key to the scientific debate. Don't just push one opinion down the throats of the children in such a case as this.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:31 am |
|
I blame the scientists for this. . . .
(And if anyone wants to read past that statement, my reasons are quite simple. The scientists were so busy boycotting this whole black-tie affair that they eventually defeated themselves by not showing up to do anything about it.)
Philosophy has zero place in science.  Otherwise, it isn't science. There's a reason why philosophy is an arts course. Science needs theories, facts, and fringe crazies in order to function, but not philosophy. There's already enough doubt in science to go around twice over.
Once again, philosophy deals with why. Why are we here? Why can we make these annoying sounds with our mouths to communicate with people even though they don't listen? Why, oh why, does the BBC exist?!
Science deals with how. How do we get from point A to B? How do we make these annoying sounds with our mouths to communicate with people even though they don't listen? How, oh how, do we sack the executives at the BBC?!
The difference is this: one cannot prove a philosophy. Even when one lives one's entire life according to a philosophy, this is not proof, since philosophy uses certain ineffable truths. After all, if it was good enough for Plato, it may or may not be good enough for us, eh? The point is that philosophy is completely subjective. This is why one person can think that government is good, and the other person can think it is bad.
One can, however, demonstrate science. It can be proven, not as an absolute fact, but beyond what one could call a "reasonable doubt." Take gravity, for instance. Should one drop an object off a building, it will fall (unless it lands on the back of a rather large bird, but we won't get into that). How does it fall? Because gravity accelerates it downward, not upward, or sideways, etc. Moreover, it will always fall. This is not an absolute certainty, but we are so certain of this that I would be willing to stake my life on it, assuming the object is not attached to any sort of wires or devices that would help suspend it in midair.
One can debate that. One can debate how gravity is caused. Einstein himself thought about that, said it was because mass warps space-time, and then promptly died before doing any more homework for the human race. It's not philosophy, but it's still debate, and one does not need philosophy in a science classroom to debate things.
Now, we've had this debate before. I have no problems with teaching intelligent design in a classroom. Evolution itself may seem hard to "prove," but then again, I would like someone to show me an atom--there you go. However, intelligent design is basically evolution with a god, it seems . . . and that is a philosophy if I've ever heard one.
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Wed Nov 09, 2005 9:45 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | It's an alternative idea with scientific AND philosophical elements. Allow for debate in the classroom. And allow some room for philosophy in science, which I would say is key to the scientific debate. Don't just push one opinion down the throats of the children in such a case as this. |
No, this does not allow for debate in the classroom, this allows for phiolospohical teachings that: A: Cannot be proven and B: Cannot be debated.
You cannot prove that ID has any basis in science and can be proven scientifically. Therefore it does not belong in a classroom. A court case will see this and dump it as soon as possible if anyone has the guts to stand up against it.
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Wed Nov 09, 2005 9:56 am |
|
Just found this and thought it was quite funny. It seems even the Vatican is against ID
| Quote: |
Evolution in the bible, says Vatican
From:
By Martin Penner
November 07, 2005
THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.
Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.
His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.
"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".
This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".
His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html |
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:49 pm |
|
I suppose this is good news if you don't support science being taught to your child. Most Catholic high schools don't even include ID in their science program.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:02 pm Evolution in the bible, says Vatican |
|
| Quote: | THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.
Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.
His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.
"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".
This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".
His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail. |
Link
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:45 pm |
|
The only good thing I've heard out of the Vatican in a LONG time
-------signature-------
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:29 pm |
|
ID is not the creation story. If anything, it's more like the metaphorical interpretation of the story, anyways.
I am happy because this adds alternate ideas into the classroom. It doesn't simply force one view on the kids; it allows for more ideas, which I think is very important. We should not subject the kids to one view on something like this when there are a wide variety of views, in a public school.
Again, this is NOT creationism, and if it was, I wouldn't be supporting it--unless all views, period, were taught. Heck, I don't even believe in Genesis until Abraham. I think that the creation story is more metaphorical, a story to which ID fits, but yet is not, and don't believe in Adam and Eve. I believe in the creation of the universe as ID and Darwin's Theory of Evolution instead of Adam and Eve.
ID isn't biological evolution arguing, but rather evolution in terms of the creation of the universe. It's simply an idea that a higher power had a role in designing the universe, that's it. We should not be exclusive to one idea in any circumstance in the education system that is not sexual education.
Allow for the free expression of ideas and teachings of alternate ideas. Allow for debate in the classroom, and don't teach one idea over another. I would be opposed to this if it was declared that only ID would be taught, and would be completely opposed to it if creationism were the only thing that would be taught.
I say go in-depth into evolution (other type of evolution, not biological, whatever you call it) and ID and touch base on all other forms of creation that are prominent in the US, if need be (Genesis, Hindu, etc). Don't exclude to one idea, but be sure that ID is far from creationism. Does it say anything about God doing this and that and this? No, it doesn't. It just said that there is a supernatural being who played a role in creation. I think that the Vatican doesn't understand that, and if they did, they would support it. Not to mention, the article is biased, but hey.
Why is it so frightening, other ideas being taught? Teaching one idea here when there are a number of others is just as bad as when creationism-only was being taught in schools. And remember, that just went away in the 1960s, so clearly it wasn't seen as a threat for two hundred years.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:41 pm |
|
Just move it down the hall to the philosophy classroom.
Seriously, I'm better at marketing than some of those Intelligent Design fellows! If they had marketed it as a philosophy thing, it would be accepted much more easily. 
| Republican_Man wrote: | | I say go in-depth into evolution (other type of evolution, not biological, whatever you call it) and ID and touch base on all other forms of creation that are prominent in the US, if need be (Genesis, Hindu, etc). Don't exclude to one idea, but be sure that ID is far from creationism. Does it say anything about God doing this and that and this? No, it doesn't. It just said that there is a supernatural being who played a role in creation. |
Biology class should only deal with biological evolution.
Sociology could deal with social evolution, but again, that's society, and not the human species itself. Hinduism is a religion, and therefore it too would fit nicely in that cozy philosophy classroom. The word "supernatural" should not appear in a science text, eh.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:54 pm |
|
This whole issue is sickening. It's poorly disguised fundamentalism. It's the mirror image of "Islamic extremism".
It's all about whether you believe the literal Word of the Bible.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Nov 09, 2005 9:09 pm |
|
It's FAAAR from Islamic extremism. We're not killing anyone or anything like that. It's not even CLOSE to islamic extremism. How DARE you compare it to that? And by the way, it's NOT the literal interpretation of the Bible. I believe in ID, I believe, and yet I do not believe in ANY literal interpretation of Genesis!! I don't believe in God creating everything in 7 days. I do not believe in Adam and Eve. I do NOT believe in it. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS, and yet I do think that I BELIEVE IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN. And I believe that it should be taught alongside evolution, to give a more broad spectrum. I don't understand what's so frightening about that.
So for you to retroactively say that ID is forcing the literal interpretation of the Bible is just false, because it is darn-well far from it. It's not it, and I wouldn't be supporting it in schools if it were (unless all other ideas were taught, not just evolution and ID). For you to retroactively say, also, that it's like Islamic extremism is far away from the mainstream and so far out there, it's rather insane. It's FAR FROM ISLAMIC EXTREMISM!!! Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting...
Got it? Does the caps, italicization, bolding, and extra-large size get through to you?
(Yes, I used caps because I was yelling.)
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Wed Nov 09, 2005 10:14 pm |
|
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:21 am |
|
((Ironically, I know the person who made that image.  ))
Oh, I don't think it's a literal interpretation of the Bible. Yet it is still reliant upon the existence of a supernatural intelligence to influence causal events in the universe, which strikes me more as philosophy, as one cannot construct empirical experiments to demonstrate this, nor have I seen an equation in which a supernatural being can be expressed as a variable.
If a being can neither be empirically derived nor expressed as a variable, it is therefore beyond the comprehensive limits of today's modern science. Science, however, can never embrace something that is incomprehensible. That is the equivalent to saying, "Sod it all, let's give up and go home for some tea, gentlemen!" No, instead of doing that, scientists continue to learn and explore and slowly push forward the boundaries of their understanding without resorting to explanations that can only be proven by anecdotal evidence.
I have no problem with teaching intelligent design in a classroom.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:23 am |
|
For the benefit of my ignorance, could you explain the difference between creationism and "intelligent design"?
Not all Islamic extremists are terrorists. In fact, only a small fraction are, but torrorists are the ones doing the killing.
And not all backers of "intelligent design" are creationists, but creationists are the ones who started the movement and are behind the legal actions.
What is the difference between Islamic extremists wanting Islam to be the law of the State, and creationists wanting their religious beliefs to be law?
They tried to get "creationism" put in school and failed on Constitutional grounds. Now they are trying "intelligent design". Same car, new paint job.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:50 am |
|
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | and the second it gets brought into court they'll throw it out of the ciriculum.
It's Philosophy not science. |
Evolution is also not science. "We believe that this happened..." A common quote from most evolutionists, "We don't know the mechanism." They aren't able to show facts. And actually? A lot of modern science proves the creation theory more so than evolution.
Like the location of mountain ranges, fossils, etc... The "the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs" comment always amuses me,
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sat Nov 19, 2005 12:25 am |
|
| Quote: |
Vatican Astronomer: Intelligent Design Not Science
Friday, November 18, 2005
VATICAN CITY � The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms, becoming the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.
The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.
"Intelligent design isn't science, even though it pretends to be," the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."
His comments were in line with his previous statements on "intelligent design," whose supporters hold that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.
Proponents of intelligent design are seeking to get public schools in the United States to teach it as part of the science curriculum. Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism � a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation � camouflaged in scientific language, and they say it does not belong in science curriculum.
In a June article in the British Catholic magazine The Tablet, Coyne reaffirmed God's role in creation, but said science explains the history of the universe.
"If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best of modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly."
Rather, he argued, God should be seen more as an encouraging parent.
"God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity," he wrote. "He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves."
The Vatican Observatory, which Coyne heads, is one of the oldest astronomical research institutions in the world. It is based in the papal summer residence at Castel Gandolfo south of Rome.
Last week, Pope Benedict XVI waded indirectly into the evolution debate by saying the universe was made by an "intelligent project" and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order.
Questions about the Vatican's position on evolution were raised in July by Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn.
In a New York Times column, Schoenborn seemed to back intelligent design and dismissed a 1996 statement by Pope John Paul II that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis." Schoenborn said the late pope's statement was "rather vague and unimportant."
SEARCH
Click here for FOX News RSS Feeds
Advertise on FOX News Channel, FOXNews.com and FOX News Radio
Jobs at FOX News Channel.
Internships at FOX News Channel (Accepting Fall Applications Now).
Terms of use. Privacy Statement. For FOXNews.com comments write to
[email protected]; For FOX News Channel comments write to
[email protected]
� Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright � 2005 ComStock, Inc.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright 2005 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
All market data delayed 20 minutes.
|
Am glad to see that the Catholic Church is taking this stance on it. I am rather surprised that they would say this, given some of their history, but am happy none the less.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Sat Nov 19, 2005 1:35 am |
|
| Puck wrote: | | Am glad to see that the Catholic Church is taking this stance on it. I am rather surprised that they would say this, given some of their history, but am happy none the less. |
The Church has become increasingly adept at maneuvering through these sorts of debates since the time of Galileo and his contemporaries. With increasing secularisation and faster transfer of information, its direct control over people has diminished in many respects; scientists can no longer be declared heretics and arrested, unfortunately. For instance, back when the Big Bang theory started gaining favour, the Vatican gathered some scientists together to listen to their thoughts and see how it could be presented in a manner that didn't conflict with religion.
I think "intelligent design" is an interesting concept that could be explored in an intelligent (pardon the pun) and thoughtful manner, as long as the subject matter is taught in the right place (not the science classroom).
And for the record, I don't claim that evolution is a watertight theory. It's open to criticism, to debate--when relevant scientific observations are around to support arguments--and to change. After all, theories evolve too.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Sat Nov 19, 2005 11:11 am |
|
Yeah, that's another bit I like. "Theories evolve", and are proven incorrect all of the time. Grab a few science books, each one will have a different picture of pangea, a different age for the Earth, yet you have the Bible, which remains constant and consistent, so it deeeefinitely must be wrong.
And as for what the Catholic hierarchy thinks? Not to be rude, but I don't care. They have many things they teach that aren't even Biblical, but that'd be a discussion for another time and place.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:59 pm |
|
Still waiting.....
Can anyone differentiate creationism and ID?
Anyone?
Anyone?
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:13 pm |
|
Creationism is basically taking directly from the bible. God created man just as they are.
ID is applying science to creationism. It claims that evolution happened, but with divine intervention. We were designed to come out on top, our evolution was guided by a greater being.
Neither one is my personal belief, but that is generally what they are viewed as.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:14 pm |
|
Creationism: In 7 days, God created the sky, Earth, sun, human life, etc, etc.
Intelligent Design: A superior being had a hand in designing the universe, but that doesn't mean it created the universe.
Different ideas. They're not the same.
But this debate is over. I'm tired of it.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:16 pm |
|
Creationism has no elements of science to it. Intelligent design, at least in my mind, takes a convoluted form of evolution and attributes it to a higher power as the guiding hand. Which is why I don't really see any point to teaching it in science classrooms, because the only thing that is different from evolution is the fact that a "higher power" was involved--and science doesn't deal with higher powers.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:20 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | Creationism has no elements of science to it. Intelligent design, at least in my mind, takes a convoluted form of evolution and attributes it to a higher power as the guiding hand. Which is why I don't really see any point to teaching it in science classrooms, because the only thing that is different from evolution is the fact that a "higher power" was involved--and science doesn't deal with higher powers. |
That statement as stands is incorrect. Maybe they teach it that way, but that doesn't mean that there is no science for it, or learned.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
