'Monkey trial' continues in Roseville

dailydemocrat.com ^

[chance33_98]

'Monkey trial' continues in Roseville

ROSEVILLE (AP) - Nearly a century has passed since the famous Scopes "monkey trial," but Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is still being tested - most recently before the Roseville Joint High School District.

At issue was how high school students should be taught evolution and if competing ideas about man's place in nature should also be included in a science textbook. But after a lengthy debate from dozens of residents and parents, board trustees approved a new science book that presented only Darwin's side of the story. School officials said there is no book on the mainstream market that presents what some call the "intelligent design" theory of evolution - a belief that life did not evolve randomly but instead progressed according to a plan or design. Officials said the book selected is readable and provides material that students will be tested on by the state.

[ALS]

[metacognative]

Don't you dare tell those kids that Big Science hasn't got all the answers. True Darwinites have the TRUTH.!
Maybe we haven't got the fossils, or explanations that explain...but who does? Not those spiritual guys whove been saying the same thing for two thousand years.

[ALS]

Obviously you haven't heard of the Know-It-All atom. It resides right there next to the No-Matter-What-There-Ain't-No-God atom. Mindless atoms bouncing around are the essence of intelligence, remember?

[PatrickHenry]

PLACEMARKER

[f.Christian]

Maybe we're going to have to accept evolution as intellectual welfare and reparations and work around it ... keep the idiots off the street --- homeless occupied !

[ALS]

Or we could just allocate them some surplus "purple pills".

[goodseedhomeschool]

PLACEMARKER

[f.Christian]

Purple pills in evoland ... what will that do --- fan their egos like croaking frogs --- locust !

[ALS]

[f.Christian]

Not those spiritual guys whove been saying the same thing for two thousand years.


42 posted on 07/05/2003 6:39 PM PDT by metacognative

You're goimg to publicly challenge God -- Christianity ...

things are going to get very rumbling around here (( designeduniverse.com )) !

[xm177e2]

do you account for irreducible complexity in nature?

Head over to TalkOrigins if you're interested in reading about how evolutionists contend with that creationist argument. But you're not interested in seeing the evolutionist response. You just want to keep asking the question, over and over and over again.

[vaudine]

The study of science includes theories, one of which was evolution before people who want that to be true just started declaring it IS a factual history of creation.

Intelligent design is a theory, and therefore eligible to be taught.

Speaking of evolution--now that is the teaching of miracles in the miraculous random selection of so many intricate entities.

vaudine

[Aric2000]

Intelligent Design is a hypothesis, it is NOT a Theory, and it is certainly NOT scientific.

There is NO evidence, it has NOT been written up in scientific journals NOR peer reviewed.

Poor little Behe couldn't figure it out, so he threw up his hands and said "goddidit" Hey, that sounds good, I'll publish that instead.

It is NOT science, God can niether be proven NOR disproven, therefore god(intelligent designer) CANNOT be used as a causation in science, therefore ID is NOT scientific.

You want it taught in school, then teach it in theology or philosophy, but it DOES NOT belong in a science class.

It is NOT science.

[LiteKeeper]

I have read the "evolutionist response" over and over again. In fact I teach it. And the reality is, it doesn't pass any of the test of critical thinking. I suspect that you haven't read the creationist responses..."certainly they can't be scientific." You might want to head over to TrueOrigins web site for a point-by-point response to TalkOrigins. Or perhaps you might want to check out Answers In Genesis for some very credible articles, written by scientists with earned doctorates. That is if you are open to another point of view.

BTW- those who dismiss, out-of-hand, arguments from another view point are labeled bigoted. But, I won't go that far. I just humbly request you check out our side...I certainly have looked at the evolutionist side...and find it sadly lacking.

[Aric2000]

Come on now, we know what you mean by critical thinking.

We don't say god did it and try to figure it out from there, therefore from your side it is NOT critical thinking.

Irreducibly complex is just another way of saying, we haven't a clue.

The evolutionists say, "we don't know either, YET."

BIG difference, Irreducibly complex, OK, Goddidit, all done, no more research necessary.

Evolution, we don't know, YET, well, let's get together and figure this out.

Yours stops, right there, end of road, bridge out ahead, we on the other hand go, hmm, road out here, let's build one, bridge is out here, better build a bridge then.

This needs to be figured out, this is called science.

[f.Christian]

You take out the bridge and dig a trap - hole !

Over the hole you build a circus -- side show !

For a trough of pig slop -- you get the pick of the slop !

Beast science -- master !

[Dimensio]

Intelligent design is a theory, and therefore eligible to be taught.

What does Intelligent Design theory state? How can it be tested? What observations should be seen from these tests if the theory is accurate? What observations would falsify the theory?

[PatrickHenry]

Intelligent Design is a hypothesis, it is NOT a Theory, and it is certainly NOT scientific.

No, not even hypothesis. An "hypothesis" is a sort of rough draft of a theory (and a "theory" is a comprehensible, testable, falsifiable, cause-and-effect explanatory model of certain verifiable observations). My sense of it is that an hypothesis will graduate into a theory after it's been tested a few times, so that it can be taken seriously. But even before then, when it's first proposed (and is thus not yet an accepted theory) the term hypothesis doesn't ever mean "wild shot in the dark."

When it comes to ID, the term "conjecture" would be more like it, and even that's being too forgiving. ID is, at best, a purported explanation of certain as yet unidentified phenomena (the so-called irreducably complex structures). And even if there were such things -- so far there is no agreement on any of them -- the ID conjecture doesn't provide a testable explanation. So it's not scientific. Actually, it's dogma. There is certainly a place for such things, but it's definitely not in anyone's science class.

[Helms]

The Democratic League Of X-Extraordinary Presidents is now out of political commission.

Clinton is shown faking illness to get a h--- job from nursie, FDR is paralyzed, Carter has deformed hands from Habitat for Humanity work, and JFK has become Christopher Reeve, after decades of revelations.

Note the guy in the chair next to FDR may be Satan wait'n on Billyboy.

[Helms]

Thought of you and this fine movie: