Skip to comments.
"Intelligent design" legislation in New York dies
National Center for Science Education ^
| 26 June 2006
| Staff
Posted on 06/27/2006 3:41:53 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 261-274 next last
To: SampleMan
"So you didn't read the post I linked to you."
Yes I did. It didn't make your case.
"Interestingly, when I posted roughly the equivalent to what you say above, I got not one single nasty hysterical response from any IDers."
If you said what I said about ID, or anything close to it, you wouldn't be comparing the death of this bill with burning heretics at the stake.
To: PatrickHenry
Good. The last thing we need is
yet more social engineering in the classroom, be it from the left or the right. And the whole "intelligent design in the classroom" controversy
is a social engineering movement no matter how you package it.
This is no different than the people who don't mind activist judges so long as they are "conservative".
62
posted on
06/27/2006 10:25:32 AM PDT
by
tortoise
To: CarolinaGuitarman
You attack evolution, with typical ID positions and mischaracterizations, and act like ID'ers are some kind of martyrs because they can't get their crap into science classrooms. Don't insult our intelligence. Evidence? When did you become plural?
Finally, I'm not making a point about ID'ers, I'm making a point about you. So far though, you've done a better job of painting that self-portrait than me.
I'm reminded of people who respond to "calm down" with a 30 minute scream fest about how they're "not upset!", and label everyone who doesn't take their side as the enemy.
To: SampleMan
Yes, thank God...er, never mind...thank the unfeeling random acts of synapses firing in the brains of those multi-cellular life forms in New York. They've saved the kids from learning about an alternative to the wholly unprovable theory of macroevolution.
64
posted on
06/27/2006 10:33:31 AM PDT
by
Recovering_Democrat
(I am SO glad to no longer be associated with the party of "dependence on government"!)
To: SampleMan
"I'm reminded of people who respond to "calm down" with a 30 minute scream fest about how they're "not upset!", and label everyone who doesn't take their side as the enemy."
You reminded me of that too.
Go list more examples of evilutionary persecutions against ID'ers with someone else. Your ranting is getting a little, well, boring.
Have a great life! :)
To: Recovering_Democrat
"They've saved the kids from learning about an alternative to the wholly unprovable theory of macroevolution."
Since no theories are proven in science, and since ID isn't a scientific claim, they did well to kill this bill.
To: tortoise; RadioAstronomer
Good to see you. Don't be a stranger.
67
posted on
06/27/2006 10:39:11 AM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: CarolinaGuitarman
From my earlier post on THIS thread:
I think religion should be taught in religious classes and that science should be clear when it is projecting theories beyond what is actually known (but I'm fine with them being taught). From archaeologists that create entire civilizations from shards of pottery, to Darwinists that insist all change can only be the result of survival of the fittest, (and yes religious people too) I think too much certainty about the uncertain is arrogant and begets conflict.If you said what I said about ID, or anything close to it, you wouldn't be comparing the death of this bill with burning heretics at the stake.
You mean if I had deep personal disdain for them, and took every opportunity to be as nasty as possible to them by calling them idiots, etc.?
FYI, as mentioned several times previously, my post was in response to the attitude of someone like you, not to the bill not being passed.
You are the equivalent of the loud obnoxious drunk at the end of the bar, that you don't want on your side in a discussion. Maybe you're at the wrong end of the bar to understand this analogy.
To: CarolinaGuitarman
I had already posted before you made your cut and run declaration. My apologies. I will quite certainly leave you alone. ;)
To: CarolinaGuitarman
Since no theories are proven in science, and since ID isn't a scientific claim, they did well to kill this bill.Ooops. Both are theories that try to explain the diversity of species and origin of life. So thank ___ the government won't allow an alternate explanation to the wholly unprovable/undemonstrable theory of macroevolution.
70
posted on
06/27/2006 10:57:31 AM PDT
by
Recovering_Democrat
(I am SO glad to no longer be associated with the party of "dependence on government"!)
To: Recovering_Democrat
"Both are theories that try to explain the diversity of species and origin of life."
Really? Could show me where either theory attempts to explain the origin of life?
71
posted on
06/27/2006 11:03:13 AM PDT
by
Boxen
(Social conservatism? What's that?)
To: Boxen
You're not capable? I s'pose I should have expected that.
72
posted on
06/27/2006 11:12:10 AM PDT
by
Recovering_Democrat
(I am SO glad to no longer be associated with the party of "dependence on government"!)
To: JCEccles
Stifle debate, suffocate science, all in the name of the liberal state religion.</Drama Queen Mode>
Obviously neither of those things are happening here, nor possibly could be, since this is about secondary and primary science curricula, not about science itself. All science curricula at these levels are introductory. Introductory curricula simply presents and explains the content of science. Such curricula are not, and cannot be, part of the debate that determines the content of science.
I don't know how to make this distinction any more clear. Most creationists (and some evolution supporters for that matter) seem almost congenitally unable to "get it". To see any decision about curricula as directly effecting scientific debate is just absurd. I mean, what are people even thinking when they write or utter such rhetoric? Do they think research scientists are throwing down their journals and consulting highschool textbooks instead???
73
posted on
06/27/2006 11:16:04 AM PDT
by
Stultis
(I don't worry about the war turning into "Vietnam" in Iraq; I worry about it doing so in Congress.)
To: Recovering_Democrat
So thank ___ the government won't allow an alternate explanation to the wholly unprovable/undemonstrable theory of macroevolution. I agree, it would be great to allow alternative scientific explanations to observed phenomena in the classroom. All theories should be held to the same performance standards before accepted into the scientific mainstream - that is scientists should collect data, study the data, draw falsifiable conclusions, submit them for peer review in mainstream science journals, allow them further review and testing in the field by other scientists across the world, submit them to even bigger journals, then let them be drafted into school textbooks and taught in the classroom.
Evolutionary theory has passed these standards time and time again - but what do you know - there isn't even any peer-reviewed work in any reputable journal on intelligent design - how about that - why do you think that is? Surely you're not suggesting affirmative action for this special theory that hasn't passed this standard as every other theory must?
74
posted on
06/27/2006 11:18:31 AM PDT
by
Quark2005
("Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs." -Matthew 7:6)
To: Recovering_Democrat
You're not capable?
This does not demonstrate that either the theory of evolution or the claim of intelligent design attempt to explain the origin of life.
75
posted on
06/27/2006 11:22:51 AM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Recovering_Democrat
Capable? Capable of what? I'm afraid I don't understand your question.
I take it then that you are unable or unwilling to support your own position. It seems to me that your understanding of both Intelligent Design and the Theory of Evolution is flawed.
76
posted on
06/27/2006 11:24:17 AM PDT
by
Boxen
(Social conservatism? What's that?)
To: Recovering_Democrat
"Both are theories that try to explain the diversity of species and origin of life."
Wrong on every account. Evolution does not try to explain the origin of life. ID is not a scientific theory, it's a theological claim.
"So thank ___ the government won't allow an alternate explanation to the wholly unprovable/undemonstrable theory of macroevolution."
It won't allow theological claims (ID) into a government classroom.
BTW, evolution is demonstrable.
To: DaveLoneRanger; Alana
...But really, it is impossible to leave one's preconceptions behind. ...That'w why peer review and replication are fundamental.
To: DaveLoneRanger
It shows that scientists who are not approaching the field from a Christian perspective still observe problems too great to be met by naturalistic answers in the theory of evolution. You don't think the drivers behind the ID jalopy are coming from a Christian background? Behe, Dembski and their DI cronies? LOL! That takes the cake.
Do you actually bother the read anything on these threads?
To: Alama
Well it seems to me that the people that want to stiffle debate are the one peddling intelligent design The ID peddlers know nothing about biology or science whatsoever, but want to tell us all how to teach it.
God help this country in the 21st century.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 261-274 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson