The intelligent design crowd, creationists, postulate the a priori that a God set everything in motion. Marxists postulate a material universe evolving without a god with life originating as an accident of chemistry. Thereafter both carry on their arguments without any proof to confirm their beliefs. They are both arguing the same way, on the simple faith that their a priories are in fact true. Both claim science but show no experimental evidence or offer a valid theory with relevant associations and inferences. The Marxists and Creationists are one and the same in their way of thinking.
This is just what we need.
I thoroughly enjoy watching educational TV as the show producers take a run at explaining existence as well as they can. As far as I know, each of these shows says to me that the Universe has boundaries. If so there is a "this side" of the boundary and a "that side." I wish one of these scientists could explain to me what is on "that side."
They tell me the Universe was once a miniscule, tiny, microscopic, pre-elemental pin prick if pure energy. It seems to me that energy can be measured. I wonder where this measurable thing was. What, exactly, was it in?
They tell me that Einstein was so uncomfortable with the idea of an expanding universe that he interjected a mathematical constant in his calculations to eliminate the thought. He came eventually to think that was a mistake in his life. Yet, I suspect he did what he did because the questions raised by an expanding universe were terrifying to a scientist.
I can't understand why the theory of ID is so horrible to scientists who talk matter-of-factly about a bounded universe. Maybe infinity is just too rough a subject for mere humans.
There is nothing wrong for a science director to criticize the teaching of ID. ID isn't science, it is philosophy. It should be taught in a philosophy class along with the cosmological argument and the ontological argument. It should not be taught in a science class where people actually require something called evidence.
The State of Texas is going to lose big time if this goes to court. The federal courts have already ruled that ID isn't science (for example, in the Dover case). There is no justification for the State of Texas to require somebody to be impartial on the teaching of something that isn't science. Else they would be firing a lot more teachers for criticizing astrology.
Put an end to the Big Government Public School Monopoly and the phony-”oh, the ACLU is great”-liberals would lose their phony platform for their phony godless, liberal schools.
This woman siad, “None of the other reasons they gave are, in and of themselves, firing offenses.”
What were those other reasons? I suspect she was indeed fired for “other reasons,” but is drawing attention to her anti-ID activities because many people agree with her anti-ID stance.
Atheism is a vicious doctrine that offers zero hope.
bump for publicity
Could be. It could also be that politics is behind the efforts of those who insist that only evolution should be taught in schools.