Bush wants schools to teach intelligent design.

Parent Cafe
901

<p>TheDad, i am the least bit offended by you, but now it’s getting a little annoying that you’ve posted three consequtive posts, nearly identical posts that lack substance. </p>

<p>“It’s a religiously based flim-flam”</p>

<p>“ID isn’t an intellectual position, it’s a sheep in sheep’s clothing and is about as valid as astrology.”</p>

<p>TheDad, TheDad if you’re going to make an attack, please pretty please make sure it’s valid, like with REASONING or like with EVIDENCE??? </p>

<p>“I stand by my position.”</p>

<p>you realize that if everyone on this thread is just going to stand by their positions and not explain, then we might as well just have a poll, “do you like ID or not”, and people could just come in here and clickety-click and stand by their positions. The point of this thread is “discussion”.</p>

<p>it’s funny how one would expect to find more zealots on the so called “religious” side~ </p>

<p>and i think that is an irrefutable indication of that something needs to be done with the science classes.</p>

902

<p>“Intelligent Design” seeks to be regarded as a respectable alternative. It deserves no such respect, any more than astrology, phrenology, the social theories of the Ku Klux Klan, or the racial theories of the Nazis. </p>

<p>Yes, its adherents will feel offended by the lack of respect. That is not my problem.</p>

903

<p>TheDad wastes no time confirming my Smithsonian employee theory, and with bells on…equating ID with KKK and Nazism. Naked, drooling rage. Sometimes he seems so normal.</p>

904

<p>so I have a question
ID is about "beginning’ of life?
so does it allow for new species to be found? evolve?
forgive me if I am slow- but say I beleived that a being, created life this doesn’t necessarily seem at odds with evolution of species</p>

<p>what I am getting that people ( who back ID) are saying it that all they want is for there to be mentioned that " an intelligent" source may have created life. HOwever there is nothing that says that this life so created, didn’t evolve into other completely different life forms.
as that can’t be disproved and is easily proved.
just to be clear</p>

905

<p>Pat Roberson’s comments in the paper today. If you don’t agree to teach intelligent design in the classroom you are rejecting God. Hmmm. Kind of seems to have a strong religious, non-scientific agenda if you ask me.</p>

906

<p>I don’t think that Pat Robertson represents the views of ID anymore than Bill Gates represents the views of Republicians.
HOwever - I could be wrong
I am also wondering if Arnold is actually a plant from Hyannisport that united voters.</p>

907

<p>

Well, exactly. I’ve no doubt that there are biblical “creationists” who subscribe to intelligent design, but that doesn’t make every person who is willing to consider ID a “knuckle-dragging goober,” to borrow from TD’s elegant parlance. You can go all the way back to post #2 and see that I see no contradiction between Darwinian evolution and the idea that something might have put the evolutionary ball in motion. Or not. This whole thread began when Mr. B posted a poorly written article in which it was alleged that President Bush was demanding that intelligent design be taught. In fact, responding to a reporter’s question (this was not a policy speech…it was a gotcha question), the president said that if evolution was being taught as an explanation of the <em>creation</em> of life, then ID should be presented as a possibility as well. Even if amino acids can be created in laboratories using electrical charges to simulate lightning that might have created amino acids in the primordial soup…where did the soup come from? Or the lightning? It’s just the old “prime mover” philosophical debate, which is very, very old, and probably unsolvable–either way. Which is why bneg’s point–and the president’s–are smart and valid.</p>

<p>And Pat Robertson speaks for Pat Robertson.</p>

908

<p>Well, this is a conversation I really don’t want to get involved in, but since I already posted (why did I do that!!!), here goes. Is Intelligent Design against evolutionary theory or not? I got the impression that the school boards that were trying to get this into schools were trying to get an “alternate theory” to evolution represented, and do not believe that Intelligent Design actually might be compatible with evolution, which is what I think you said you believe Driver?–that evolution could be compatible with ID, that is. . .</p>

909

<p>Yes, I think that ID is perfectly compatible with evolution. However, I think the theory that everything we know sprang spontaneously from a “void” is just as unprovable as the theory that it sprang from a creator. All the president said was, if you’re going to teach the first theory, you ought to teach the second. Or perhaps leave both of them for philosophy class.</p>

910

<p>Said the Magic word: astrology.</p>

<p>Weather out here in OR was partially clear 3 days in the early evenings, this week. Did you know, Mars, eastern sky, is ascending and extremely bright now and really appears to be reddish. Venus, also very bright, appears in the lower western sky, is descending and fades into the horizon in the early evenings.</p>

911

<p>Isn’t that astronomy? I think even TD believes in that.</p>

912

<p>ID is not against the idea of evolutionary change in living creatures. It is, as driver says, against the idea that everything is entirely random. And just as there are different versions of evolution, there are likely different versions of ID, some of which see evidence for more design than others. Basically, the idea is to study living things and see if evidence can be found for design. It is NOT to decide ahead of time how much is designed and rig the evidence.</p>

<p>And, as driver indicates and I have said before (somewhere in this thread), most ID supporters would be content with the teaching of evolution in the schools, so long as it is taught as theory, with the indication that it does not yet answer all questions about how all types of living creatures came to be, and as long as it does not overstep its boundaries and try to say how the universe came to be and how life arose from nonlife, since it has no real evidence for that.</p>

913

<p>Kansas has redefined science to include the natural and supernatural world…the truth is out there…but not in Kansas.</p>

914

<p>If design is so intelligent…how did this guy make it through quality control???</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/10/AR2005111001878.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/10/AR2005111001878.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

915

<p>Astrology, my dear, I believe, is the study of the “heavens” to portend the current state of affairs and the future. The god of war, is rising and the fair lady is falling. </p>

<p>Astronomy, as I understand it, is the scientific study of space and time. </p>

<p>The duck dropped when “astrology” was mentioned.</p>

916

<p>Here, here!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I was positively aghast when I read this brave man’s story!</p>

<p>Ah those wascally Smithonian scientists! If they took the sticks out their butts about this “scientific standards” malarkey, they might notice the true genius of the free-thinking daredevil Richard von Sternberg.</p>

<p>As one poster rightly pointed out, this poor man does NOT even believe in Intelligent Design! Now some idiots might say, wait, this guy was a prominent member of the creationist Baraminology study group in 2001, he’s a card-carrying member of the ID professional fanclub ISCID, he’s given all these private lectures for ID conferences, etc etc. “Ohhhh”, those pencil-necked labcoats probably would probably say, “Sternberg’s actions seem to totally contradict his words.” Well ya, maybe in YOUR elitist world, Mr. Scientist, Sternberg would seem like a bald-faced liar, but if you free yourself from the dogma of common sense and logic, you might actually realize Sternberg is just better at free-thinking than you! BURN!!!</p>

<p>After all, we all know that these bug-eyed pencil-pushers are just threatened and jealous of Sternberg academic prowess. The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington maybe an backwater journal dedicated to obscure taxonomy issues on how to classify genuses and families, but it’s the perfect place for a debate on the entire evolutionary theory versus Intelligent Design. What does the ID guy’s paper remotely have to do with the journal’s scope? To be honest, Sternberg’s thought process on that one is pretty incomprehensible. So incomprehensible that it must have been the result of an intelligent designer (Mr Sternberg, good work). ID wins again!</p>

<p>After all the intellectual heavy-lifting Sternberg did, you would think his academic colleagues would be grateful, but no such luck. As totally-impartial-with-no-transparent-political-motives James McVay found, Stephen Sternberg was downright crucified with mean emails… and, uh, EVEN MORE MEAN EMAILS. James McVay, being an astute appointee of George W Bush, noticed the obvious First Admentment violations, specifically in the “special snowflake” provision guaranteeting protection from all meanies and their meanie criticisms. Sternberg may be an intellectual god, but he has a soft heart, and it’s totally unfair to expect that he be all “justifying his argument” instead of the much better “tearworks with sad-violin-playing to the reporter.”</p>

<p>Yessiree, I think Sternberg is just a causality to the lesser minds that surround him.</p>

<p>BUT THEY CANT STOP THE TRUTH!!!111!!!</p>

<p>WHOOOAAA!</p>

917

<p>The god of war, is rising and the fair lady is falling. Look to the east, the brightest object in the sky is indeed, Red. The war god will be visible for entire night sky, 12 hours+(rising at dusk and moving at 30 degrees above horizon, from almost due east to set almost due west just before 6 am. The pretty one is hurrying to avoid the Mars’ fury and disappears in the opposite western sky in but two hours (dusk plus 2 hours). The Messenger, Mercury, preceeds Venus, (in the same western sky, just a few degrees more west, but very close to the horizon at dusk and goes belows the horizon within the hour) having delivered his message and flees to safety.</p>

<p>Back to your discussion. Thankyou.</p>

918

<p>ID is a statement rooted in faith. Mention in church and I’ll shrug.
Mention it as a belief in my home, I’ll offer you a cup of tea and change the subject. Put it forth as “science” and will fight you on the landing grounds and the airfields.</p>

<p>Yes, Driver, even TheDad believes in Astronomy. For years, I wanted to <em>be</em> an astronomer. I was even admitted to Dr. Allen Hynek’s Astroscience Workshop in Chicago while in high school, an honor I did not have the opportunity to enjoy due to a forced relocation to California. But I’ve met dozens, if not hundreds, of people who don’t get that there is a distinction between “astronomy” and “astrology.” </p>

<p>And, yes, questions of cosmology, planetary evolution, formation of organic compounds, etc., are not alien to me.</p>

919

<p>Whether ID will prove to be the explanation of life or random-chance continues to rule the day, one thing is clear, our very own cc representatives of those vehemently opposed to discussing commonly held views, openly and fairly, are some very angry, mean-spirited people that good-sense dictates should be kept away from sharp objects and firearms [and the writings of Trotsky, Stalin and Mao].</p>

<p>It is said that we should ignore the behavior and actions of those who adhere to a particular belief system: common-sense dictates otherwise.</p>

920

<p>Yes, WWork, adherents of astrology, the Ku Klux Klan, phrenology, and the Nazi racial theories would decry the same mean-spirited lack of fair and open discussion about commonly held views.</p>

<p>“Commonly held” signifies absolutely nothing, as any number of examples would show. </p>

<p>“Commonly held” used as lever to imply “deserving of respect” is disingenuous at best.</p>

<p>ID deserves as much respect as any other religious view. Put ID out as science and it’s a different ballgame. And that’s the point under contention.</p>