Kansas School Board Approves Intelligent Design

CJ Cregg · Commodore Joined: 05 Oct 2002 Posts: 1254

I always found it very odd that the US has no national education curriculum. Surely everyone should learn the same things.

The UK introduced one in the early 1990's and its been a huge success. Everything is now the same nationwide

IntrepidIsMe · **Tue Dec 20, 2005 7:50 pm**

I don't see how it makes sense for a colleges across America to follow a specific curriculum. Science is science, it's not as if you can change what is taught between schools. Same goes for college level math. You either learn it or you don't. And the rest usually falls under liberal arts, which is just...

Anywho:

Republican_Man · **Tue Dec 20, 2005 7:53 pm**

Heard about that. I completely disagree with the judge on his reasoning for the ruling, because fact is, Intelligent Design and Creationism are different things. Now, if he ruled, judging from the evidence portrayed by both sides, that it was not scientific, that would be another story.

Jeff Miller · **Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:33 pm**

I'm glad I didn't have this problem back in the 90's when I was in school. I say it should be the way it was than.

magenta · **Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:03 pm**

Why the push to have it taught in schools?Why cant it be taught in church or at home after school!
I am certain that I would not want my kids taught that in school!
Sounds like a brainwashing attempt to me!
Leave 'theorys and beliefs' at home!

IntrepidIsMe · **Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:10 pm**

Evolution is a theory, so is electricity, the Earth's orbit around the sun, and tectonic shifting. My point is, that most of these things have been accepted as fact. Theories can be just as important as facts. The question is if there is enough evidence behind the theory to support it being taught in science classes.

Republican_Man · **Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:22 pm**

Well we don't have such strong debates over issues like electricity, now do we? Case and point. Why can't more ideas on such a controversial issue be taught, so long as the most scientific idea takes precedence? I mean, in this case all the students did was read FOUR PARAGRAPHS and were told to consider it as another option. That's it.
And if anyone's brainwashing, magenta, it's gotta be those who want ONLY evolution taught, because it's not letting more ideas taught in the school on such a topic. It's forcing one idea down the students' throats when there are so many other ideas.

IntrepidIsMe · **Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:26 pm**

I have yet to see any viable evidence for ID, evidence that isn't pure speculation. The only argument that seems to be being presented is that that other ideas should be taught. That's all well and good, not to mention agreeable, but science is about evidence.

Republican_Man · **Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:33 pm**

I was just arguing your point about theories and the debate over them, with different ideas. We've been over that part of the debate already. You just made an argument that I argued against. I'm not going over the basic underlying ID debate--at least not right now, again, even though I will need some more prep time. You can see me, in the coming week, arguing both sides, because I need to do that for a debate.
And if you can contribute any ideas for either side for my Speech and Debate debate coming up in a few weeks (public forum) in my CC topic on it. I could really use good arguments for both sides! Thanks!

Link, the Hero of Time · **Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:46 pm**

I just thought I'd mention this before anyone starts with any "activist judge" talk, Jones is a Republican who was appointed by Bush.

RM, ID is "creationism in a cheap Tuxedo"

"Creationism or creation theology is the belief that humans, life, the Earth, and the universe were created by a supreme being or deity's supernatural intervention." - from Wiki

Now doesn't that sound familier?

Humans, the Earth and the universe were all guided by some intelligent being.

No matter how you want to water it down they end up equaling the same thing for anyone who can look past the lies.

Republican_Man · **Tue Dec 20, 2005 11:54 pm**

I don�t believe in Creationism. But I do believe in Intelligent Design. As a believer of ID but not Creationism, I think I have the ability to say that it�s different because it IS. Creationism is the belief that God created every aspect of the universe and had the exact role in the creation of the universe. Intelligent Design is not this.

Intelligent design is a theory that nature and complex biological structures were designed by intelligent beings and were not created by chance. (Dictionaries.com)
It�s different from Creationism, that everything was created by an intelligent being. Designing and creating is a different thing, or do you not understand this?
I can design a building, but an architect creates the building. Difference.

Although you did give me a pretty reasonable argument, of course, for my debate.

Leo Wyatt · **Wed Dec 21, 2005 6:23 am**

Creationims is not cheap in a tuxedo link only people who don't believe in God feels that way. God did create everything. Can't form without him. Can't appear out of nowhere.

webtaz99 · **Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:17 am**

I don't get it.

Is ID saying that intelligent being(s) designed ALL existing lifeforms on Earth?

Is it a rejection of the idea that new species can derive from existing ones?

Republican_Man · **Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:42 pm**

What I would argue is that Intelligent Design is the belief that
A) The Universe wasn't created by chance
B) It explains how the universe can work in such perfection, because a supernatural being designed the universe and its workings.
C) I don't think that it's necessarily a rejection of evolution principals. I happen to not believe in creationism, but believe in a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis. I happen to believe in Intelligent Design AND evolution, with the belief that they can go hand-in-hand.

webtaz99 · **Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:48 pm**

OK.

1) What is the difference between "God" and "a supernatural being"?

2) Evolution was put forth to explain how new species arise from existing ones, not how life started. And it never went anywhere NEAR how the universe was created.

3) What is the "perfection" of the universe that you refer to?

Republican_Man · **Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:54 pm**

I'll respond to your two questions.
1. God is a term that could be used for supernatural being. So could the Giant Spagetti Monster or whatever Tach posted a while back. So could the Giant Computer. It doesn't conform with any specific religious idea.
2. Sun rises, sun sets. Cells are organized in amazing ways. The universe works. The aspects of the operation of the universe are amazing. Life works. Things like that. You look at the universe, and it's rather perfect in the sense that everything works, it's very well-organized, etc. That's one of the main reasons why I, personally, believe in God, and also believe in Intelligent Design. Because of how the universe works. I don't see how it could have been created by chance, or how there could be no designer and, religiously, no God. But my religious beliefs don't necessarily conform to ID--there are some, I'm sure, that aren't even religious or a believer in a religion but can find validity in the ideas of Intelligent Design.
Keep in mind that any references to God there and not simply Intelligent Design is a more complete answer, because I was saying that that's part of why I believe in a religion is because of how things are--which doesn't necessarily say ANYTHING about ID.

webtaz99 · **Fri Dec 23, 2005 8:38 am**

Every culture on Earth has one or more "gods", all of whom are "supernatural beings". Judeo-Christian cultures refer to "God" as the one and only supreme "supernatural being". I just don't see a difference between unprovable "gods" and unprovable "intelligent beings". They both come down to faith (i.e. an unprovable belief).

Under the hood, the universe is not so "perfect". First off, have you heard of "entropy"? And why can't asteroid orbits be predicted over more than a few hundred years? How about Brownian motion, atomic gas theory, and electron drift? Then there's quantum behavior, which can ONLY be accurately modeled with statistical math (that's probabilities - meaning "chance"!).

The problem is that we are only aware of our universe. It may be the only one, but even if there are more we can't experience them. So we have no basis for comparison in saying, "Wow, this universe is so perfect!" There might be (or could have been) others, both "better" and "worse".

Leo Wyatt · **Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:18 pm**

1: In the beginning God created the Earth.
2: He created man and then he put Adam in a deep sleep and took one of Adam's ribs out.
3: Out of the rib, he made Eve.

Evolution is a theory it is not fact. God is fact. We can't just appear out of nowhere like people seem to think...

CJ Cregg · Commodore Joined: 05 Oct 2002 Posts: 1254

Leo Wyatt · **Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:54 pm**

How do you know? Evolution is not real. So don't tell me to stop. You don't order me honey.

You can tell me God is not real but he is. I think I have the right to believe in him and speak up about it.

CJ Cregg · Commodore Joined: 05 Oct 2002 Posts: 1254

I didn't say god wasn't real, stop putting words in my mouth. And don't patronise me. I said God isn't a Fact. it isn't. Prove 100% that god is real and it will be a fact. otherwise its a "theory" just like evolution

Leo Wyatt · **Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:01 pm**

I was not putting words in your mouth, that was not my intention. God is fact , but I will show proof when I get back from my trip . I will post about it Monday. I wish I could stay longer. I can't wait.

IntrepidIsMe · **Fri Dec 23, 2005 6:20 pm**

Things like electricity and tectonic shifting are theories, too. But we accept them, because they're obviously apparent and you can just connect the dots together. The same goes for evolution pretty much, except the dots are further apart.

Republican_Man · **Fri Dec 23, 2005 7:12 pm**

Well, no one's discrediting them or arguing against them

I'd say their laws--heck, I forgot they were theories.

But anyways, after hearing a bit more about this new ruling I actually agree with the decision. Reason being that in this case it WAS creationism in a cheap tuxedo. All they did, apparently, was take the creationist book in their library and change the name to Intelligent Design. And so I do agree with this decision, because of the context of this version of ID--which is them abusing the debate over ID and trying to blanket creationism as ID.