Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Intelligent Design' Wins In Kansas
CBS News ^ | 10 November 2005

Posted on 11/09/2005 4:31:43 PM PST by Aussie Dasher

(AP) Revisiting a topic that exposed Kansas to nationwide ridicule six years ago, the state Board of Education approved science standards for public schools Tuesday that cast doubt on the theory of evolution.

The board's 6-4 vote, expected for months, was a victory for intelligent design advocates who helped draft the standards. Intelligent design holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.

Critics of the proposed language charged that it was an attempt to inject creationism into public schools in violation of the separation between church and state.

The board's vote is likely to heap fresh national criticism on Kansas and cause many scientists to see the state as backward. Current state standards treat evolution as well-established — a view also held by national science groups

(Excerpt) Read more at worthynews.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Kansas
KEYWORDS: antiscience; creation; crevolist; god; idiocy; idtruth; idvictory; ignoranceisstrength; intelligentdesign; kansas; schoolboard; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 241-242 next last
To: Senator Bedfellow
Senator Bedfellow, it is obvious you know nothing about those topics. I was hoping you'd be interesting in finding out the facts, or grant me the courtesy for sake of discussion, but I see that you are not interested in either, and only wish to engage in verbal swordplay in the hopes of covering up your ignorance.

Look down, for your obliviousness is showing.
81 posted on 11/09/2005 6:58:37 PM PST by This Just In ("Those are my principles, if you don't like them, I've got others" - Groucho Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: This Just In
Senator Bedfellow, it is obvious you know nothing about those topics.

This would be the point where you support your contention that some or all of the things you've listed are "fabrications", perhaps by...oh, I don't know, providing some evidence of their fabricated nature. Something like that. Something other than your say-so, anyway. Rotsa ruck.

82 posted on 11/09/2005 7:00:40 PM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

So you are saying since you cant please everyone please no one?

There is absolutely NO way that the Kansas government schools can come to a solution this is non-neutral politically, culturally, or religiously.>>>

Then you do not understand intelligent design.


83 posted on 11/09/2005 7:01:08 PM PST by aft_lizard (I need a new tagline since Miers is done for, any help would be appreciated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard
I would also like to ask for you to point at one time of known history that has a negative population growth, surely you can do that one small thing.

This has nothing to do with the issue of whether Kansas equips its children for the future by teaching creationism and/or intelligent design in schools instead of in church.

However I point out that historical (written) records are spotty, and the period of time between when written records began to be kept and the arbitrary date of 100,000 years ago that you chose is much longer than historical time.

In that 100,000 years there was an ice age.

Teaching so called intelligent design is not teaching science. The truth is that science is finding more and more answers all the time and filling in more and more gaps.

84 posted on 11/09/2005 7:02:31 PM PST by Free as the breeze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

heres a little bit of an article I found

Einstein's physics: a violation of church/state separation?

Anthony Flew's Deism is a little different from Jefferson's and Madison's Deism. Anthony Flew said he believes in Einstein's God. Einstein said in 1929 and was quoted by the New York Times, "I believe in Spinoza's god who reveals Himself in orderly harmony that exists, not a God who concerns himself with the fate of human beings" (source: Albert Einstein – Scientist, edited by Paul Schilipp 1970). Spinoza was a rationalist philosopher and a pantheist. He believed that everything is interconnected within one gigantic system and that this system and everything it contains is "God." Monotheistic religions and traditional Deism sharply differentiate between Creator and creation. Spinoza, Einstein, and Flew make no distinction between God and the cosmos. Intelligent design science brought Flew to Einstein's impersonal pantheistic God. It did not bring him to a personal faith in a personal God or to anything remotely resembling a religion.

http://www.renewamerica.us/analyses/050818hutchison.htm


85 posted on 11/09/2005 7:03:27 PM PST by aft_lizard (I need a new tagline since Miers is done for, any help would be appreciated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Free as the breeze

Ok you give up. Fine with me.


86 posted on 11/09/2005 7:04:28 PM PST by aft_lizard (I need a new tagline since Miers is done for, any help would be appreciated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: ConsentofGoverned
a little competition to one theory by another

What is this other theory being introduced? It certainly isn't Intelligent Design, which doesn't even rise ot the level of hypothesis.
87 posted on 11/09/2005 7:06:03 PM PST by Quick1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard
Ok you give up. Fine with me.

No, you gave up. I declined to fight your strawman or go chasing down some diversionary rathole you pointed at that you were never willing to explore.

88 posted on 11/09/2005 7:09:25 PM PST by Free as the breeze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard

Thank you. Just to comment on Jefferson's Deism--he rejected revelation, but thought that Christian morality could be descerned in nature. That is he subscribed to a kind of natural law morality. Thus he thought of the Christian religion as something to be supported because it provided men with a guide to good behavior. So he is more like Locke than Spinoza.

But back to the main point: Christians ought not to confuse ID with creationism, which IS a relgious doctrine.


89 posted on 11/09/2005 7:13:08 PM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: This Just In
For sake of argument, I would suggest that superstition is no worse than fabrication.

For examples:

Lucy

I'll take a whack at this one.


AL 288-1, "Lucy", Australopithecus afarensis Discovered by Donald Johanson and Tom Gray in 1974 at Hadar in Ethiopia (Johanson and Edey 1981; Johanson and Taieb 1976). Its age is about 3.2 million years. Lucy was an adult female of about 25 years. About 40% of her skeleton was found, and her pelvis, femur (the upper leg bone) and tibia show her to have been bipedal. She was about 107 cm (3'6") tall (small for her species) and about 28 kg (62 lbs) in weight.

In 1987, creationist Tom Willis accused Donald Johanson of fraud, claiming that the skeleton known as "Lucy" consisted of bones that had been found at two sites about 2.5 km (1.5 miles) apart. Willis had actually confused two separate finds which belong to the same species. (This was in spite of the fact that a best-selling book (Johanson and Edey 1981) has photos of both fossils: AL 129-1 is a right knee, while Lucy has a right femur and a left tibia.) This was a spectacular error which could hardly have been made by anyone who had done the most elementary research, but that didn't stop many other creationists from picking up the claim and repeating it. For a full history of this claim, read the talk.origins knee-joint FAQ file (Lippard 1997).

Creationists rarely address the issue of why australopithecines have a foramen magnum at the bottom of the skull. Gish (1985) criticizes Dart's reasoning that the Taung baby walked upright, based on the position of its foramen magnum. Gish correctly states that the position of the foramen magnum is closer in juvenile apes and humans than it is in adults (in apes, it moves backwards during growth), and concludes that Dart was unjustified in analyzing this feature on a juvenile skull. This is the same criticism that Dart originally faced from scientists, but Gish fails to mention that later evidence proved Dart's analysis correct and silenced his critics.

Creationists also rarely mention australopithecine teeth. Gish says that "[Dart] pointed out the many ape-like features of the skull, but believed that some features of the skull, and particularly of the teeth, were man-like". (Note the misleading implication that the apelike features really exist, while the humanlike ones are a figment of Dart's imagination.) Gish disputes this, pointing out that the molar teeth of africanus are extremely large. What Gish does not tell readers is that this is one of the few differences between them and human teeth. When the teeth of the Taung child could be properly examined, Dart's claim was strongly confirmed, and is now generally accepted:

"In fact, though the molars were larger than is now normal, most of the teeth [of the Taung child] could have belonged to a child of today." (Campbell 1988)

Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piths.html.

See also: Lucy's Knee Joint: A Case Study in Creationists' Willingness to Admit their Errors.

So, it looks like, for Lucy at least, the charge of fabrication is false. That still leaves superstition--but the ball's in your court now.

90 posted on 11/09/2005 7:15:26 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

How many evolution versions are there/have there been?


91 posted on 11/09/2005 7:21:04 PM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Free as the breeze

I see that you are a revisionist also. How wonderful. You are the one who refused to answer my questions calling them strawman, and when declining you threw up unprovable facts of your own, rather than even attempting to get to the true point of my questions.

WHenever you would like to actually attempt my excercise again without quiting or throwing up assumptions of your own, please be my guess you have my number.


92 posted on 11/09/2005 7:21:22 PM PST by aft_lizard (I need a new tagline since Miers is done for, any help would be appreciated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

I agree. I believe ID is a relevant and provable science that fits in where evolution cannot.


93 posted on 11/09/2005 7:23:04 PM PST by aft_lizard (I need a new tagline since Miers is done for, any help would be appreciated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard

I think that, in many ways, ID simply rem,inds us where modern science has come from. Thru Pythagoras and Plato, and the idea that we discover science rather than invent it.


94 posted on 11/09/2005 7:27:12 PM PST by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
How many evolution versions are there/have there been?

Are you criticizing science for finding better explanations as more data come in and theories advance? Are you really against science progressing?

Or is it just evolution you are against?

And what is the alternative? Goddidit and no further investigation required? Is this what you want? And for how many fields of investigation do you want this? Evolution? Population biology? Geology? Radiometric dating? Medicine? Don't forget, the bird flu is evolving--that's why its a problem. Stop the research?

It sounds like you want a veto power over any science which disagrees, or might disagree, with your religious belief.

95 posted on 11/09/2005 7:27:58 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

And thats where many assualting ID fall short.


96 posted on 11/09/2005 7:31:43 PM PST by aft_lizard (I need a new tagline since Miers is done for, any help would be appreciated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow
I will demonstrate your disinterest in facts by presenting some information. Let those of us who are devoted to truth, regardless of where the chips may fall, see how consistent you are.

In 1968 a film crew documented the footprints in the limestone bed on the Paluxy River. After hearing of these findings the anti-creationists, Dr. Schafersman and Milne conceded that if this is true, and the footprints, which had dated as far back as 120 million years, were true, this would present quite a dilemma in what they believed to be true.

Before ANY of anti-evolution scientists performed field research they ignored, ridiculed, and distorted(Quite a professional and unbiased group) the research which was revealed by those in the field. In 1982(why did it take them so long?) The American Humanist Association(No prejudice motivation of course) gathered a group of four scientists; Drs. Schafersman, Cole, Godfrey, and Hastings, only one has performed any field studies.

A await your single sentence retort, absent of any ounce of knowledge or understanding of those topics which I previously mentioned.
97 posted on 11/09/2005 7:32:15 PM PST by This Just In ("Those are my principles, if you don't like them, I've got others" - Groucho Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Are you criticizing science theology for finding better explanations as more data come in and theories advance? Are you really against science progressing?

Or is it just evolution you are against?

I happen to believe in creation and evolution. I think creationists have bible time wrong.

98 posted on 11/09/2005 7:35:26 PM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: aft_lizard
I agree. I believe ID is a relevant and provable science that fits in where evolution cannot.

So prove it....without resorting to philosophy, the bible, or any other religious argument.
99 posted on 11/09/2005 7:36:13 PM PST by ARCADIA (Abuse of power comes as no surprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: ARCADIA

The basic gist of argument is based on probability theory which is respectful science.


100 posted on 11/09/2005 7:37:32 PM PST by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 241-242 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson