Posted on 11/06/2004 8:25:29 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
When the Dover Area School Board voted to require the teaching of intelligent design Monday night, it likely became the first district in the United States to do so.
(Excerpt) Read more at ydr.com ...
Did someone forget the BARF ALERT? Religion and science never mix very well.. Trying to come up with a ways to mix modern science and Genesis is a bit of a stretch..
The dam is cracking!
Considering that the scientist who determined the concept of and then discovered the ocean currents' paths, was looking for them specifically because they were said to exist in the Old Testament, it would seem that your objection is overly far-reaching.
And that's one of many scientific instances.
Respectfully.
> The dam is cracking!
Ready to let loose a raging torrent of ignorance.
Well, hell, why don't we start teaching alternatives to astronomy, too? All these damn-fool scientists and their heretical "telescopes..."
> the scientist who determined the concept of and then discovered the ocean currents' paths
Benjamin Franklin?
>looking for them specifically because they were said to exist in the Old Testament
He mapped the Gulf Stream because observations showed that it was there.
ID is NOT Creationism, it is a man-centered science, not religion.
While I agree that ID makes more sense than Evolution, it leaves out God entirely.
It is the PERFECT arguement from man's perspective that Evolutionists cannot argue about: It totally leaves out God in scope, it only makles you think of God when you see the clear meaning of what ID implies; that Evolution is impossile.
...proving you have no idea what ID is at all.
I don't think either of you understand "Intelligent Design Theory".
The media makes it sound like creationism, but it is not.
Intelligent Design (ID) states that random changes cannot account for the intricate sophistication we see in in plants and animals.
ID does not support or expouse creationism.
There is a faction of the ID community that proposes that all the systems and sophistication we see in life may have been created much like a computer program by someone more advanced than we are.
They do not call the creator 'GOD' because it could just as easily be an alien species.
Good for Dover, I live here.
School board member Bill Buckingham is the chief architect of Dover's newly revised biology curriculum that states "Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of life will not be taught."
Mandating the teaching of ID in any school district is a mistake, but it's not likely to have serious consequences because very few other districts are going to follow suit. Of course, there are local consequences for this particular school district, one of which is that those of its students who intend to go on to college and then to medical school are going to have to scramble a bit to come up to speed on the science of evolution. If they choose to treat that science as an 'as if' study (as Planck, Einstein and others treated the granularity of energy in the first two decades of the last century), that's up to them. Such students probably won't make any meaningful contributions to science, but the slack will be made up by others.
> you have no idea what ID is at all.
Yes, I do. It's the latest revision of the Creationism scam, now with a whole lot of pseudoscience thrown in.
> Intelligent Design (ID) states that random changes cannot account for the intricate sophistication we see in in plants and animals.
And on that alone it's nonsense.
> They do not call the creator 'GOD' because it could just as easily be an alien species.
Oddly enough, when the Poofists show up to screamt hat their nonsense be included in textbooks, they are very rarely Raelians.
And the meaningful contributions that we've seen by atheists and agnostics in the scientific arena have been spectular successes in the field of partial-birth abortion techniques, cloning, euthanasia, genetic pre-determinism and modification for fetuses, etc.
A rather outstanding compendium of the 'additions' don't you think? Josef Mengele would have been in his element.
Does regressus ad infinitum mean anything to you?
If ID proposes that randomness cannot account for observed complexity (which is nonsense, as a quick search on "spontaneous organization" will show you), and that some intelligence must be responsible, how can it be called anything other than a creationist theory?
Every tool, every advance in knowledge, brings the possibility of evil uses and abuse.
Franklin? Nah.
Matthew Maury. Long before Franklin numerous mariners understood the concept of a current, but until Maury there was no consideration of the idea that there were 'paths of the sea', that circumlocuted the globe. There were observations of 'currents' but no concept of how that was encompassed in a comprehensive whole. Many of Franklin's era believed that the ocean was a flat bottomed entity, with no 'paths' as we understand topography. Maury began the process of reevaluating our mistaken approach to oceanographic analysis.
Maury is referred to as the "Father of Modern Navigation," and "Pathfinder of the Seas."
Does nunquam veritas perit mean anything to you?
Why is it that anti-God types have such histrionic fits whenever that which cannot be observed is posited, through faith, to exist?
What is it about the singular sense of your ocular observation that has caused you to be such a true-believer in the religion of Science?
You said "Are you prepared to give up all of the benefits of modern medicine, which is the obverse of the things you mentioned? "
This is a non-sequitir. To pose the obverse is fatuous. I would pose that you and society have greatly benefitted from the values and moral structure provided by religion. But, it would be fatuous for me to suggest you would prefer the obverse of this benefit of religion (along the lines of extreme social darwinism in the name of survival).
The better question is "What is the logical extreme, when carried out?"
The trend line for science, and the 'benefits' that I sarcastically mentioned in my previous post, are not encouraging. To what end would you accept the invasiveness of 'science' in your life or the lives of your progeny?
If you can't logically say "all ends" then you are not being intellectually honest, with regards to your position, and your antagonism towards those who posit the concept of a creation.
I'll say a few more words in a moment, but in the meantime if you can find any histrionic fits or anything of that sort in anything I've written on this thread, I'll welcome the heads up.
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.