Too pathetic.
Posted on 03/21/2006 5:24:29 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Assembly Bill 8036 is back. Originally introduced on May 3, 2005, the bill would have required that "all pupils in grades kindergarten through twelve in all public schools in the state ... receive instruction in both theories of intelligent design and evolution." It also charged New York's commissioner of education to assist in developing curricula and local boards of education to provide "appropriate training and curriculum materials ... to ensure that all aspects of the theories, along with any supportive data, are fully examined through such course of study."
NCSE previously reported that the bill died in committee when the New York State Assembly's legislative session ended on June 24, 2005. But apparently not: on January 4, 2006, the bill was again referred to the House Committee on Education, where, after two amendments, it remains. The main difference is that the bill now would require pupils to receive instruction in "all aspects of the controversy surrounding evolution and the origins of man," including but not limited to "intelligent design and information effectively challenging the theory of evolution."
That is true. It more than matches their description. They're just twiddling, while I get to the point. It is neither logically nor scientifically unfeasable to attribute the presence of organized matter performing specific functions to intelligent design. Nor is it inherently unscientific to begin with the assumption God has a hand in everything science observes, with the duty of science being to discover how He does this.
Too pathetic.
Too pathetic.
yes wonderful for you...but saying it does not a constitute a scientific fact for the world to view as fact. Just your own personal reality and experience.
right...for you.....
good luck.
Too pathetic.
There are plenty of other good threads on FR that deal with the general dumbing down of education in America (in subjects besides science). The dumbing down of evolutionary science (which, in the mind of its antagonists, deals also with many other fields of science as well, ranging from geology to astrophysics) is a part of this dumbing down. Coyoteman and many others here happen to have the expertise to deal with this particular aspect of the 'dumbing down', so they choose to do so.
Why is that "pathetic"? This fact that there is a bigger problem does not justify ignoring one if its constituent parts.
No I just went along with you game and what you propose as fact. Its obvious that you don't know the difference between a material fact and faith and belief.
testing
testing Thanx Metmom
Jesus Saves.
Sorry thats a opinion. Faith and belief cannot be observed as fact. Its a minority opinion,70% of the world disagrees.
Why wouldn't it be? If you believe that evolution was the way it was done, then the mutation(s) that occurred to set the human race apart should have happened initially in only a very small number of creatures. It seems improbable that the exact same mutation would have occurred at the same time in various locations around the world. If you believe in creation, then you would believe that God had created Adam and Eve (and every other living creature) perfect in every respect, and that would of course include genetically. The thinking of those at AiG, which I realise doesn't carry much weight around here, is that GOd created each creature as a *kind* and with a huge genetic potential for variation. They think/speculate/believe that natural selection resulted in a lost of information as species became isolated, which is why you can't go back to the original.
Also, it appears that meteorlogical conditions could have been different before the Flood and so between the fact that it would have taken some time for mutations to occur and the vast amount of genetic material that could compensate, or mask, mutations, there would not have been the problem with close relatives breeding. Also, recessive characteristics are not going to start showing up until they are spread throughout the gene pool which could take some time. The problem with inbreeding is that recessive mutations are more likely to show up, but if there were no mutations, there'd be no problem.
I do not particularly see "evolutiondidit" as a difficult assumption to support through the interpretation of physical evidence. Again, science the easy way says, "Since these biological entities look alike, they must be related in history." Evolutionism is emprically vapid. I hesitate to call it science, unless one also wishes to call astrology science. Its modern founder was a natural philosopher. Too bad some people are so lazy minded as to elevate his ideas to the status of empirical science and then expect such ideas to have sole reign in the public school classroom by law.
To which you replied: Veeeeeerrrry silent. No room for the Master Builder in evolution.
By this standard, all of science is anti-Christian. Not only is biology silent on the subject of the Divine, but physics, astronomy, geology, all of science and engineering is as well. This observation has been lamented in these threads many times.
Clearly, there is a campaign among some (not all, thank Heaven) religious congregations that opposes the naturalistic framework of modern science. It ignores the fact that many, many people working in the sciences in general, and biology in particular, are people of faith and that these people accept the natrualist framework and have no problem understanding what the theory of evolution says and how it relates to other sciences. This does not stop creationists/intelligent design supporters from trying to "do something" about the "problem."
So-called "intelligent design" movement is an umbrella political movement. It is not science, it is a political movement. It makes no theological or scientific claims, except that evolution is bad. The "intelligent design" movement cannot state any real position beyond "evolution is bad" because its adherents have such wildly varying views on theology that they cannot be reconciled. The only thing adherents to "intelligent design" aka creationism agree on is that they are opposed to evolutionary theory, that evolutionary theory runs contrary to their religious beliefs, and that it must be opposed in the public arena. The movement exists for the sole purpose of shooting a torpedo into evolutionary biology and use the force of law to have theological concepts injected into secondary school life sciences class for the nebulous purpose of making schools "better."
It should come to no surprise to anyone that the vast majority of people working in science and engineering disciplines, even those who are Christians or Jews, oppose the introduction of creationism/intelligent design principles into science curricula. If supporters of creationism/intelligent design would spend as much creativity and energy lobbying for theology and ethics classes in school, we would all be a lot better off. I think you'd find in this case that the vast majority of people working in the sciences and engineering fields would support the movement, instead of being opposed as they are now.
It is a weak example, which I freely admitted. But it is hardly "inconceivable" that the basic elements would lose their cohesiveness or properties that allow us to intelligently distinguish them from one another. The best evidence against intelligent design would be the disintegration of all particle matter into chaos. So, intelligent design is a strong theory. Much stronger than evolutionism, which essentially says little more than "naturedidit." Intelligent design may reasonably be posited as the cause behind all the matter man has been able to observe and contemplate. Another evidence against intelligent design would be the absence of humans to observe and comprehend reality. That hasn't happened yet either.
Now if you want to change the subject to matters of absolute proof as opposed to evidence, then I will concede that the theory of intelligent design falls short. By that standard so does the theory of evolution.
Jesus does not save.
Provide the evidence that either is or is not a fact.
I don't recall having any religious instruction in the public schools I attended when a child. And the children of that day did beautifully in the temporal world...unlike most today.
The teaching of science and theology are, in my view, mutually exclusive. How much time and space... you might ask... did Darwin or the intricacies of evolution vs. creationism occupy in the elementary, middle , and public high schools of this country in 1940's and 50's....Answer...little or none.
Grades one through 12 should not be spending time debating "who made the world"....They should be concerned with learning in the classical sense that made this country's schools the finest in the world until post WWII. And that is why I use the word pathetic when describing this peccadillo.
" I hesitate to call it science, unless one also wishes to call astrology science."
Funny, in an earlier thread you said:
"I consider astrology to entail a fair amount of direct observation, and insofar as it does so, to be scientific in nature."
and
"Do yourself a favor and look up a brief history on the science of astrology. You might be surprised at the amount of direct observation that was made and recorded, both on the part of stars and planets and human behavior. Of course there were elements spun out of whole cloth from time to time. Fact is, they were able to make some decent predictions, not unlike the predictions we can make to this day r.e. PMS."
You're arguing with yourself again Fester.
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.