"Intelligent design ... isn't!"

[jmaster306]

I found this little article in the commentary section of a local newspaper and it has promptly recieved many angry "Letters to the Editor" responses. Since it managed to spawn some good debate at my boring job, lets see if we can get anything here.

*Note, I am well aware that the author hates bush, lets try to discuss the context and not bitterness of his ad homin attacks.*

"Government-sponsored religion should be taught in all public schools." It's an edict you expect from an ayatollah of Iran – the kind of top-down, force-fed religion from which Americans traditionally recoil.

This time, however, the edict came from the president of the United States. Which makes it all the more shocking, and all the more repulsive.

Bush has already racked up more vacation days than Ronald Reagan did in eight years – and he still has three and half years to go! That distinguishes him as not only the worst, but also the laziest, president in our lifetime. Yet his latest pronouncement makes you wish he spent even more time clearing brush and less time wrecking public policy.

Before leaving for another five weeks on his Texas ranchette, Bush told a clutch of Texas reporters that he believes the so-called theory of "intelligent design" should be taught in public school science classes, right up there alongside evolution. Demonstrating what little intelligence he has himself, Bush said: "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought."

No, Mr. President. What education is all about is teaching students the facts, and teaching them the truth. It is not about confusing fact with fiction. Nor is it about mixing science with religion. And make no mistake about it, the bogus doctrine called "intelligent design" has nothing to do with science. It is nothing but poorly disguised religion.

According to intelligent designer backers, certain higher forms of life – like cell structure, molecular design or the human eye – are too complex for us to understand. They couldn't have just evolved that way. They must have been set in motion ahead of time by some intelligent designer: namely, God (unless you believe in space aliens).

This is, first of all, a ridiculous theory. There are a lot of things we don't understand. I don't know how my TIVO works, but that doesn't mean God made it. Besides, throughout history, our understanding and knowledge have grown with the advance of science – which is one good reason for not derailing science by replacing or confusing it with fairy tales.

Intelligent design is simply junk science, or what someone has called "creationism in a cheap tuxedo." It's the latest attempt by the American Taliban to force religion into our public schools. They can't do so directly, because the Supreme Court, in 1987, rejected a Louisiana law requiring the teaching of creationism, in addition to evolution, as a violation of the wall of separation between church and state. So religious zealots have repackaged creationism and given it a fancy new name. Any doubt about what they're really up to was resolved by of Dover (Pa.) school board member William Buckingham, arguing for forcing intelligent design into local schools. "Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross," he told the board. "Can't someone take a stand for him?" Well, yes, but not in science class.

The main argument made by intelligent design proponents is that evolution is still not 100 percent proven. Which is ridiculous. Maybe we haven't yet discovered physical evidence linking every single step in the growth from slime to slug to sloth to sleuth. But there is zero physical evidence for intelligent design. It's just a zany theory. Period. I'll take 98 percent over zero any day.

And that's no put-down of religion. We are a God-loving people. Of course, kids should be taught religion: to believe in God and to read the Bible as a manifestation of God's power and love. But religion should be taught at home and in church. Because not all Americans believe in the same God, or in any God at all, the teaching of religion does not belong in the public classroom.

Not only that, forcing public schools to water down science is the last thing this country needs right now. We're already struggling to keep up with advanced scientific standards of other countries. We already have to import scientists because we're not producing enough. Mixing science with religion will be bad for students, bad for schools, and put America even further behind in the race for scientific achievement.

Before he starts spouting off about educational philosophy, President Bush should go back to learning his ABC's. Religion is not science. Public school is not Sunday school. America is not Iran.
source

[seventy-one]

I don't think intelligent design should be taught along with evolution, maybe a footnote that the eye is "too complex" for us to understand, but any further, and you get to that circle of debating that will never end. The debate between creationism and evolution.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 8/18/05 04:34 AM, jmaster306 wrote: No, Mr. President. What education is all about is teaching students the facts, and teaching them the truth. It is not about confusing fact with fiction. Nor is it about mixing science with religion. And make no mistake about it, the bogus doctrine called "intelligent design" has nothing to do with science. It is nothing but poorly disguised religion.

I just wanna point out this paragraph here.

Whilst he is right that some parts of educaiton are about facts, the origin of life on earth, whether it be through human evolution,the story of creation or Intelligent design, is purely theory. Unless we invent a time machine we will never be able to entirly prove or disprove the theory of evolution. As we can't prove beyond all doubt that we did evolve from monkeys then why the hell shouldn't kids be taught the other theories?

One of the thigns I think schools should do is prepare kids for adult life and by intorudcing them to differing opinions,theories and such so they can make up their own minds about the theories in question.

Why the hell should Evolution be taught and intelligent design not? They are both theories , both have flaws( althought intelligent design does sem to be based around the holes in the theroy of evolution which somewhat damage its credibilty.), and neither can be proven 100%.

Untill one is proven and the other is disproven then both should be taught so kdis can decide for themselves.

[Redbob86]

I don't think it's right, except for Catholic, Baptist or other religious schools, to force God into the classroom. However, at the same time, I think it's wrong for students in public schools to not be allowed to pray or bring any religious things into the school.

You can't force God down a kid's throat, but you also can't suspend a kid for wearing a cross or saying a prayer.

In other words, just lighten up.

[fli]

At 8/18/05 04:53 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Why the hell should Evolution be taught and intelligent design not? They are both theories , both have flaws( althought intelligent design does sem to be based around the holes in the theroy of evolution which somewhat damage its credibilty.), and neither can be proven 100%.

Because the theory of evolution was created soley on the most scientific and conclusive evidences without scientific bias, whearas intelligent design looks for the necessary evidence to be the theory. And the folks the proponents of intelligent design have a bias-- they want to prove that God (or a god, or gods) made the world.

Science should strictly teach scientific things. While the theory of evolution is not fact, it is however the most conclusive scientific explaination out there. If it is proved wrong, then it won't be taught anymore. If it is proved as fact, then it is taught as a fact. That's science--

Intelligent design, while it is a good explaination, just isn't a scientific theory. It's a religious theory that sorts evidences for its cause. But with the theory of evolution, it doesn't look for the necessary evidences to be scientific.

[Fishslap]

At 8/18/05 04:53 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

Whilst he is right that some parts of educaiton are about facts, the origin of life on earth, whether it be through human evolution,the story of creation or Intelligent design, is purely theory. Unless we invent a time machine we will never be able to entirly prove or disprove the theory of evolution. As we can't prove beyond all doubt that we did evolve from monkeys then why the hell shouldn't kids be taught the other theories?

Ah, but a theory is true until disproved, instead of that a theory is false until proved. Still, that is a valid point.

[Redbob86]

Intellegent design shouldn't be taught in science class because it isn't a scientific theory, it's a religious one. While evolution is also just a theory, it is atleast a scientific one.

While I support religion, I think it's stupid to teach non-scientific things in a science class.

[Redbob86]

I got to church to learn about God, I got to science class to learn about science.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 8/18/05 05:05 AM, fli wrote: Because the theory of evolution was created soley on the most scientific and conclusive evidences without scientific bias, whearas intelligent design looks for the necessary evidence to be the theory. And the folks the proponents of intelligent design have a bias-- they want to prove that God (or a god, or gods) made the world.

whilst Intelligent design is Biased becuase the scientists or ,whoever came up with the theory, need to prove the existence in God, A theory is still a theory and in my opinion to truly prepare a kid for the outside world you need to give them the choice between all the theories so they can make up their own mind.

Science should strictly teach scientific things. While the theory of evolution is not fact, it is however the most conclusive scientific explaination out there. If it is proved wrong, then it won't be taught anymore. If it is proved as fact, then it is taught as a fact. That's science--

Then why is Evolution taught as fact when it is only a theory? I spent 3 weeks in my biology lessons learning about evolution and it ws being taught as though it were fact. Whilst there is evidence there to support it, it's not 100% proven so it shouldn't be taught as a fact.

Intelligent design, while it is a good explaination, just isn't a scientific theory. It's a religious theory that sorts evidences for its cause. But with the theory of evolution, it doesn't look for the necessary evidences to be scientific.

if I take two scientists with a differing opinion on Global warming ( one whothinks it shappening another who thinks its Bullshit) and I give them the same data, both of them will look at the data in a different perspective to try and find the facts that support their theory and their opinion.

You're saying that intlligent design is biased when in reality every single theory is biased. Don't all scientists go out of their way to prove or disprove a theory? If they thinkthe theroy is accurate they try and prov eit. if they think its bullshit they try and disprove it.

Because Science and religion always seem to be at odds with each other, I can make an assmption that some scientists would og out of their way to prove the theory of evolution andwhen they look at the facts because their eyes are clouded with thier bias they see thigns as they wnat it.

A prime example of this cluding of the eyes is the Roman Doctor Galen, who is possibly the most influential doctor in the history of man kind. At times when he made an observation he saw what he wanted to see.(ie the blood moving through the septum in the heart instead ofit being pumped aound)

Galen,like darwin, was a man of science and if one man of science can make that mistake whats to say that darwin or somene else that was influential in evolution didn't make that same mistake?

If they did then the theory of evolution is as biased as Intelligent design.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 8/18/05 05:08 AM, Maniac_13 wrote: Ah, but a theory is true until disproved, instead of that a theory is false until proved. Still, that is a valid point.

If a theory is true untill proven false then Intelligent desgin is therfore true. If it is true, it is fact. IF its fact it needs to be taught. And as it links directly to the origin man and how we came to be and how we evolved(or whatever itis intelligent desgin says happens) then it is part o biology which means it needs to be taught in Science lessons.

[Redbob86]

You can twist every example all you want, but it is a poor comparisan to common sense. Relgion is in church, science is in science class. Simple, easy, no conflict whatsoever.

[Redbob86]

I honestly don't see why people feel they NEED to teach God in the schools. I mean, isn't that what church is for? If you want your kids to learn about God, then get your lazy ass up on Sunday and go to church.

[jobelow]

I've talked about this a couple of times before, but it's happening again.

When debating evolution, people way too often take the term "theory" out of context. When we use the term "theory" in the context of the Theory of Evolution, we mean the following:

"In the sciences, a theory is a model or framework describing the behaviour of a certain natural or social phenomenon. Theories are formulated, developed and evaluated according to the scientific method."

http://www.answers.com/scientific%20theory

Here, this pretty much sums up what I've been saying in response to the form "evolution is only a theory. It hasn't been proven to be 100% true."

"The modern synthesis, like its Mendelian and Darwinian antecedents, is a scientific theory. In plain English, people use the word "theory" to signify "conjecture", "speculation", or "opinion". In contrast, a scientific theory is a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which falsifiable hypotheses can be generated and be verified through empirical observation. In this sense, "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition, but rather exist in a reciprocal relationship — for example, it is a "fact" that an apple dropped on earth will fall towards the center of the planet in a straight line, and the "theory" which explains it is the current theory of gravitation. Currently, the modern synthesis is the most powerful theory explaining variation and speciation, and within the science of biology, it has completely replaced earlier accepted explanations for the origin of species, including creationism and Lamarckism"

http://www.answers.c..act%20of%20evolution

Here's the fact, in my own words: there is variation in populations of living things. When some factor in the world of these populations tests that variation to the point of eliminating individuals whose variations are not fit for this factor, those who are fit survive to reproduce. This is evolution, and yes, it does exist. It is fact. When this type of occurence coincides with spacial or niche separation, such as one section of the population being separated from the rest by a deviation in migration or a change in geography, or one varied group of a population takes on a behavior different from another part of the group to the point that different factors decide their fitness, eventually this evolution can change that portion of the population to the point that said portion can no longer produce viable offspring with the other portion. This is speciation, macro-evolution, one species evolving into another. It happens.

There, the fact and theory of evolution.

[Redbob86]

Rule of the World:

The longer a person talks about the meaning of a word, the more likely he's full of shit.

[jobelow]

Sign of someone truely being full of shit:

At 8/18/05 06:12 AM, Redbob86 wrote: Rule of the World:

The longer a person talks about the meaning of a word, the more likely he's full of shit.

[Redbob86]

At 8/18/05 06:14 AM, jobelow wrote: Sign of someone truely being full of shit:

At 8/18/05 06:12 AM, Redbob86 wrote: Rule of the World:

The longer a person talks about the meaning of a word, the more likely he's full of shit.

If you can't debate an issue, and instead you rely almost entirely on a twisted and distorted definition of a word, then you ARE full of shit.

[jobelow]

here's debate for you, how exactly is the correct definition of a word for the context "twisted", and how is pointing out that definition to clarify some rough points in a debate "full of shit"?

[Redbob86]

At 8/18/05 06:19 AM, jobelow wrote: here's debate for you, how exactly is the correct definition of a word for the context "twisted", and how is pointing out that definition to clarify some rough points in a debate "full of shit"?

Bill Clinton defend himself by asking what the definition of the word "is" was.

[jobelow]

At 8/18/05 06:24 AM, Redbob86 wrote: Bill Clinton defend himself by asking what the definition of the word "is" was.

that's nice. I didn't ask, I told, for one, I cited reliable sources, for two, and I'm not even debating or arguing here, I'm only helping to clear things up, for three.

Now quit trying to build a pointless attack based on something totally irrelevant that seems similar on the surface and either contribute something useful or shut the fuck up.

[Redbob86]

I've contributed plenty on this thread, I've stated my opinions on science and religion in their respected locations, and how this shouldn't even be a concern anyway because you can still go to church if you want your kids to learn about God.

[Jimsween]

At 8/18/05 04:53 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Why the hell should Evolution be taught and intelligent design not? They are both theories , both have flaws( althought intelligent design does sem to be based around the holes in the theroy of evolution which somewhat damage its credibilty.), and neither can be proven 100%.

No, it doesn't work like that. Evolution can be proven 99%, intellegent design can be proven 0%.

Thats like saying we should teach the "US bomb the pentagon" version of 9/11 because neitehr can be scientifically proven.

Intellegent design has absolutely zero science involved. None, whatsoever. I challenge any advocate of intellegent design to present a scientific arguent for it. All it consists of, is claiming evolution doesn't make sense, like saying the eye is too complex. The eye is not too complex, your just too dumb to understand it, the eye in its most rudimentary form is very simple, and it is made more complex through evolution.

To teach intellegent design is to teach what we know for a fact is wrong. The only way a teacher could teach intellegent design and not be lying is if they didn't even know how evolution worked. All of the fundamental claims that make up intellegent design can be easily explained away. Just take a look at wiki-evo and you will see.

Most importantly, however, even beyond the fact that all the claims against evolution that intellegent design has are bullshit, is that when intellegent design comes to the conclusion that evolution is flawed through flawed science, they then assume that the reason for this is there is a god directing human existance. This is based upon absolutely nothing, and is simply an advent of religion.

The moral of the story, creationists are morons. If a creationist is reading this, you are a moron, and I hope your feelings are hurt, I don't care if your a nice person, your an idiot, and for your idiocy you should be publically ridiculed.

[ReiperX]

At 8/18/05 04:53 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 8/18/05 04:34 AM, jmaster306 wrote: No, Mr. President. What education is all about is teaching students the facts, and teaching them the truth. It is not about confusing fact with fiction. Nor is it about mixing science with religion. And make no mistake about it, the bogus doctrine called "intelligent design" has nothing to do with science. It is nothing but poorly disguised religion.

I just wanna point out this paragraph here.

Whilst he is right that some parts of educaiton are about facts, the origin of life on earth, whether it be through human evolution,the story of creation or Intelligent design, is purely theory. Unless we invent a time machine we will never be able to entirly prove or disprove the theory of evolution. As we can't prove beyond all doubt that we did evolve from monkeys then why the hell shouldn't kids be taught the other theories?

Because most of the other theories have little to no evidence to really support them, while evolution is still a theory it does have a ton of evidence supporting it, which is why I support teaching this theory. Just as the theory of quantum physics, theory of gravity, atomic theory, and all of the other theories that are not necisarilly laws, but they have little evidence to counter them, and a lot of evidence to support them. Other theories should maybe be mentioned, but not taught without sufficient evidence that they may be the way it actually happened.

Why the hell should Evolution be taught and intelligent design not? They are both theories , both have flaws( althought intelligent design does sem to be based around the holes in the theroy of evolution which somewhat damage its credibilty.), and neither can be proven 100%.

Which damaged which credibility?

Untill one is proven and the other is disproven then both should be taught so kdis can decide for themselves.

It hasn't been disproven that space aliens are the reason for the extinction of the dinosaurs, yet that is a theory. Should that also be taught?

[jobelow]

At 8/18/05 06:28 AM, Redbob86 wrote: I've contributed plenty on this thread,

yes, you have. I just sifted through your posts, and yeah, we share mostly the same views on this subject. I wasn't even debating anyway though, I reiterate, but anyway, my point is it was out of line to attack my contribution because it reminded you of Clinton, and I didn't appreciate it.

[Timfro]

All i know is that i was taught both in school. Next to nothing on creatism because there isn't much to say about it while it takes more to explain evolution with examples and the history of the theory.

As far as i'm concerned both are theorys that have been put forward and both can be taught. Since they're both theory's then let the students decide which is more plausable and realistic.

[MortifiedPenguins]

if evolution was taught, why not many other theories for the beginning of the universe, string theory for example. but yes i do aggree that science is for science class, and church is for school. as long as the science teacher doens't go out and say god doesn't exist and heres why i'm okay. anyways how many teenagers actually listen and care in school

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 8/18/05 05:46 AM, mofomojo wrote: No that's just idiocy.

Idiocy is allowing someone else to make your mind up for you. By allowing kids to se the other options on the table you let

You can't just lay down a bunch of options on the table and make a kid make his mind up on one.

I'm not syaing that you should lay down the options and then just make them choose. What I'm saying is that all options should be taught then after the kids have learnt all the facts/theories/whatever THEN they can make up their minds.

You need to teach a kid the scientific process, experimentation, and so forth.

Which would still happen. All I'm suggesting is that the schools say that there is another theory apart from evolution. They don't have to go into much detail about just explain the basics of it and then move on.

if I a kid is interested enough to wants to know mre he can research it ask his teacher a question and then make his own mind up on the matter.

So they can learn, not just make up their mind on one thing and except it as fact for the rest of their life. Hell, the only evidence denying evolution is the bible.

You really do seem to be mising my drift here. no wher ehave I actually said that the Theory of evolution is wrong. Hell I believe Darwin was right and I also believe that Intelligent design is just a theory that only came about through the hoels in the theory.

But that doesn't mean people shouldn't learn about it.

and again i stress I am not suggesting that kids stop learning the theory of evolution. All I am saying is that by providing them with a bit mroe information you giv ethe kids the ability to make up their own midns when they want to.

Which would you ratehr have? A nation of brainwashed idiots or a nation of people that are capable of thinking for themselves?

Did you really think that god would create 100's of versions of man just to have most of them killed off?

I'm an agnostic so I don't really have an opinion on God as I don't know if he is real or not.

but whether he is real or not doesn't matter.

At 8/18/05 05:53 AM, mofomojo wrote: A theory is not true until proven false, it is true when proven true. Despite popular belief.

I was only going on the logic that was given to me my maniac.

You can't just say that certain things are not designed to be comprehended by man, that just limits our motivation to strive for understanding of all. Religion is for the simple minded, the thoughtless.

And science is for people who are worldy who know everything?

Whether someone is religious or not does not affetc their capability to think or their ability to perform ina ny area of life. If you truly believe religion is for the simple minded and thoughtless then you need to wake up and look at the world.

And here you are linking Intelligent design and proclaiming it as the one be all fact. Are you a fucking idiot?! I think you are, sir.

if you actually look at what i've said I have never at alls aid that Intelligent design is real. inf act in my first post I said that intelligent design appears to be base don the hoels in the theory of evolution. NOWHERE in this thread have I said I believed in Intelligent design.If you inferred soemthign form what i've written that made you think i did then it is either you misreading it or my fault for not making myself clear. I am just in favour of people being able to learn different theories whetehr they be scientific or religious.

Goddam, the idiocy is fucking outrageous. Science is experimentation, developing theories (Not making them, developing them off of evidence, not fables in a book), you can't just give up proclaim some fable to be correct. No sir, that's not how it's done.

For the last time, I'm going to say this. I have not said a thing in this thread that actually shows me supporting intelligent design. I said it was based on holes in the work of Darwin etc and they just fille din the blanks with the word God.

You are the kind of gloating idiot who votes for Bush.

for a starters I'm british not american. I'm also a supporter of the Liberal Democrats. I despise Bush and what he stands for. I think his policies regarding homosexual marriage and stem cell reearch abortione etc are all idiotic.

but apart form that I'm Bush's biggest Fan!

Go Team Republican!

Consider yourself lucky.

I do. I'm not an idiot who,

a) resorts to threats and flaming

b) isn't able to open his mind to the fact that what he believes isn't neccescarily true.

my opinions on religions and God are my own. Largley I've kept out of them in this thread. all you've seen me discuss is why I believe intelligent design should be taught in schools. If you think that just because someone is open midned enough that they believe intelligent design should be taught in school ( and in my opinion Religion in generla should be taught in schools. Whislt the bible isn't an accurate historical document the stories within offe rmoral lessons for kids to learn. Is teaching kids morals a bad thing?) that they are automatically a bible basher then please just look outside your wndow and tell me how ou explain what you see?

Science can't explain everything. Whislt the church isn't reknowned for being truthful and ope minded scienc eis justa s guilty a sbeing as closeminded and idiotic. And you sir are a prime example of this if what you have said in this threa dis anything to go by.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 8/18/05 06:30 AM, Jimsween wrote: No, it doesn't work like that. Evolution can be proven 99%, intellegent design can be proven 0%.

I'm aware of that but it is still a theory. And even if the meaning of the word theory is different in a scientific contxt(as has been pointe dout) Intelligent design still has a following. so its still technically a theory in that sens eand if Evolution is taught in thats ense why not Intelligent design?

Intellegent design has absolutely zero science involved. None, whatsoever. I challenge any advocate of intellegent design to present a scientific arguent for it. All it consists of, is claiming evolution doesn't make sense, like saying the eye is too complex. The eye is not too complex, your just too dumb to understand it, the eye in its most rudimentary form is very simple, and it is made more complex through evolution.

what you said is fact. I can't deny that and I wouldn't even if I could I think Intelligent design is bullshit. But I just think it should be taught so kids can make up there midns on the subject. Chances are (provided they aren't brainwashed biblebashers) that they will see the lack of evidence and think " Hey thats a load of BS!" but you still need to give them the chance to make the chocie on what theory they believe. After all, isn't that what freedom is all about? Making choices?

To teach intellegent design is to teach what we know for a fact is wrong. The only way a teacher could teach intellegent design and not be lying is if they didn't even know how evolution worked.

look i'm not saying,and never have said that they say " OOOO Intelligent design worls like this. Therfor eit must be right!" I'm saying that they should MENTION IT. Explain WHY people berlieve in it. And then MOVE ON.

Most importantly, however, even beyond the fact that all the claims against evolution that intellegent design has are bullshit, is that when intellegent design comes to the conclusion that evolution is flawed through flawed science, they then assume that the reason for this is there is a god directing human existance. This is based upon absolutely nothing, and is simply an advent of religion.

it is an advent of religions but that sil doesn't mean that schools shouldn't give kids the knowlegde that the theory exists.

The moral of the story, creationists are morons. If a creationist is reading this, you are a moron, and I hope your feelings are hurt, I don't care if your a nice person, your an idiot, and for your idiocy you should be publically ridiculed.

rofl. that made me laugh. 'tis a good thing I'm not a creationist.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 8/18/05 08:49 AM, mofomojo wrote: See, I lost you earlier.

Science accepts all factual evidence. Now, I think you're on my side for this, which is a good thing.

lol glad we got that sorted out :P

I guess I mis-read your post. Well, the whole intelligent design rhetoric seems like a good way to say "I don't know how it happened" for things that there is evidence for what happened. Just to keep the everything politically correct.

lol thats a nice way of putting of it.

So Bush wants to, basically, kick evolution out of the door and make everyone assume that we don't know what happened. Which is wrong.

From wat i understand of the Intelligent design theory, what it says is that because science can't explain everything the holes in volution how certian thign shappen etc, they think that as the scientific community can not come up with a way to explain it they say "it must be God. only he could do such a thing."

from what i understand of it Intelligent design isn't saying evolution is wrong, its does't sya that Einstein is wrong or that Newton was wrong. it just says that as we can'rt explain how these laws came about that they must be the result of a creator.

If I understand it correctly they are basically saying " Ok. We admit that these rules and laws are here and your right on these points. But as you can't explain X,Y, and Z to us there must be soemthing else to ahve amde them."

it is a BIG jump to come to that conclusion but when you consdier that these people are always looking for some wya to prove the existance of god you cna kind of udnerstand where they are coming from.

I don't udnerstand the big bang theory, I don't understand nuclear physcis. And neither do they. So they are just trying to explain it ina way they cna udnerstand.

Personally if there is a God, I should think he would use sceince to define the laws of the universe. Hell if there is a god and this is how he mad eit then Science IS how he defiens the rules of the universe.

I honestly don't see why people seem to think that you are either for science or religion. In all honesty if Religion is right and ther eis a god science is still useful as we still ned to udnrstand the universe god made.

If science is right, ther eis always going to be soemthing that humans do not understand. And in those blanks people will conclude ther emust be soemthing else.

Personally IMHO, if there is a god,

SCIENCE= GODS RULES ON HOW UNIVERSE WORKS

[Slizor]

The reason why Creationism and Intelligent Design are not theories =
"falsifiable hypotheses can be generated and be verified through empirical observation."

[Solthiel]

I really don't see the harm in saying:

"The Christians believe..."

and

"The Muslims believe..."

Or

"The Shintoists believed..."

If anything, we are sheltering our kids from knowledge by stuffing science down their throat as the absolute facts. We are slowly making them intolerant to the possibilities and stories of religion, by teaching them it is taboo in our society. I remember my teacher actually had to fear for her job once when I stood up in class and brought up a debate about religion. Even though the debate stayed very calm and very levelheaded because everyone was being logical, she was sitting behind her desk fretting and sweating. And this wasn't isolated, I made a point of bringing up religion in every one of my history and science classes. The only teacher that had the balls to debate me, ended up opening my mind, a lot, and after that point, the class actually seemed to have a lot of respect for him (Seeing as I am in the Bible belt...so a good amount of them were most likely Christian in some way)...he was an openly agnostic man, and had no problem having small debates about religion.

If anything, the classes seemed to completely indulge in the conversations I brought up. From time to time there would be of course be those that were afraid somehow they would be offended by the subject and would say something along the lines of "We can't discuss this in school"...and in all reality, isn't that even worse? We can't discuss this thing that is so incredibly important in so many people's lives in the very environment where we are supposed to be learning?

Just discussing possibilities and accepting diversity is the key here, not completely outlawing it, as to avoid the responsibility as such. I really don't see how just saying "Well, the Taoists believe...", if it has context in the conversation. Of course, I don't think they should say "And God made the Earth..."...but bringing up that it is the belief of a good portion of the American population, may be beneficial and logical.

This all came from the reversal of the interpretation of "seperation of church and state"...it is indeed supposed to imply as it is written...but perhaps if you look at its context, you will realize, it is meant to protect the -church- from the -state-...not visa versa...considering the men who founded the country were religous outcasts and quakers...

Of course church is a place to learn about God...but its like deeper searching. I think outlawing all mention of God, creationism, and Intelligent Design is completely absurd and is in many ways denying what this country was built on. A week on religions from all over the world could not be harmful. In all reality, there is no avoiding stuffing something down someone's throat, especially if evolution is being taught...you have to realize to the majority of "young-Earth" creationists, this is pretty detrimental to their beliefs and is quite opressive that they have to answer "How did evolution affect our journey into Homeo-Sapiens?" and they have to answer as if they actually believe "Through micro-evolution we made changes from monkeys to Humans in small changes to our environment and our environments changes in turn to us..."

Who exactly is being driven away here?...it sure doesn't seem like the atheists, it looks as if they are being treated with quite a strong bias, actually. We aren't becoming more accepting of religions, we're just shooing them into the closet so we don't have to talk about them.