Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
Posted on 11/08/2005 4:10:06 PM PST by WestVirginiaRebel
TOPEKA, Kan.-New science standards for Kansas' public schools, criticized for promoting creationism while treating evolution as a flawed theory, won approval Tuesday from the State Board of Education.
The board's 6-4 vote, expected for months, was a victory for intelligent design advocates who helped draft the standards and argued the changes would make teaching about evolution more balanced and expose studels teach science.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
Well, if you believe in your version of science you do not need proofs.
Ah, the New Testament.
Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval. (1Pet. 2:18-29)
Dodge, duck, and weave and attempt to change the subject noted.
No, it has to be the one that fits the evidence: Special Creation.
The hysteria among conservatives about this is really rather silly.
The standards don't go into effect until 2007 and I have no doubt the conservatives will lose next year, just as they did the last time they changed the standards.
And frankly, I am starting to take this personally as an attack on my state...comments like yours saying Kansans are a bunch of intolerant morons.
It is starting to piss me off.
What is it about that which confuses you? Hint: Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
What part of "theory" of evolution do idiots not get?
Almost true. Fans of intelligent design seem to assume that what is mysterious to them today will always be so. In this case, they're correct.
Perhaps you have mistaken me for an apostle of this Behe. I am not. I know nothing of him, is he relevant?
OK, let me explain. From the point of view of a biologist who does not believe in God or higher spiritual order, the man are just one of many animal species to which the same rules of racial divergence apply.
I do not have problem with that since I believe that God used the "clay" of natural processes to imprint the image of Himself in human beings. This act of God makes man different from dog. If you think that science supports this biblical view but do not want to show how it is fine with me.
It appears you don't think unfamiliarity with the basic facts and circumstances of a debate should retard your participation.
But I had already figured that out anyway.
I am told on one hand that folk tales in the Old Testament must be believed literally on pain of eternal damnation, but explicit moral instruction that condones slavery is somehow inoperative. And the people who embody these fantastic notions would like to lecture me on morality.
I am not even a tiny bit surprised that scriptural literalists like Southern Baptists and Muslims have been among the most reluctant to abandon the institution of slavery.
As my pappy used to say, any one under the age of 30 that is not a liberal "has no heart" and any one over the age of 30 that is not a conservative, "has no brains".
If it's a theory it makes predictions about future observations; if these predictions are false, the theory is considered falsified.
So, precisely what observation cannot be "explained" as "the designer did it that way"?
My contention is that ID isn't a theory - it is incapable of falsification, ie it is vacuous.
If it's not a theory, it has no place in science class. Possibly in rhetoric class.
From the point of view of a biologist who does not believe in God or higher spiritual order, the man are just one of many animal species to which the same rules of racial divergence apply.
You've gone way off the original statement you made that I first responded to. You've distanced yourself from it and you cannot bring yourself to state explicitly what you plainly implied in it.
You are attempting to attack science by asserting it is directly or indirectly racist yet you won't provide any hard evidence, only vague indirect implications. I'm through going around in circles in this discussion unless you support your claim with some hard evidence.
BTW, biology does not support any racial theories among dogs, cats, fish, humans, etc. Race is a political/sociological/superficial concept.
I can't speak for the Muslims, but I have never heard of slave owning church member. Can you please give me an example of a Southern Baptist slave owner?
Thanks for the ping!
Uhh? What?
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. --- Charles Darwin, M.A.,
Yeah, sure. You are so politically correct.
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.