abcnews.go.com— "The State Board of Education on Tuesday approved public school curriculum guidelines that support the teaching of evolution in science classes but not intelligent design."
Oct 11, 2006View in Crawl 4
rodtrentWe have a right to make stuff up and have it taught as fact to children in school? Sweet! Which law is this?Second, evolutionists didn't bring the courts into this, the creationists did. We tried to deal with you the normal way we deal with crack pots. Give us evidence and convince the scientific community or go away.Then creationists went bawling to the courts and politicians because everyone was ignoring your fact-less drivel. (Those nasty scientists said we have to have evidence. That's not FAIR!!!!!!!)Now we've come full circle and WE are the ones bringing the courts into this? You are loosing the court cases YOU brought into it. Amazing...
has anyone else noticed that these christains are trying to go a little to far. i mean im all for freedom of religion. believe whatever the hell you want, but don't push it on my children. My wife and I have rasied them without church and they are turning out fine. If you want your kids to learn creationism, send them to private school that teaches that sort of thing, dont' force my kids to have to learn about something that completely untrue, and totally based on being religious. no thanks. Christains can we have our county back please, there are other people that believe differently that you. I'm not out preaching atheism to your good chirstian children, so don't preach to mine. Thanks.
@Dimensio It fascinates me that so many "educated" people are confined into there understanding of what science really is or isn’t. A statement by the Nobel Prize physicist Percy W. Bridgman stated "No working scientist, when he plans an experiment in the laboratory, asks himself whether he is being properly scientific, nor is he interested in whatever method he may be using as a method." The scientific method is fine for experimentation but it is inadequate in determining what is Science. In the past if a discipline could not be subject to the scientific method, it was not Science. The scientific method should only be applied to experimentation when appropriate and not be used in the determination of what is or is not science, nor should it have any application in defining what is a hypothesis, theory, fact, or law.In terms of the definition of what is or is not a Science, we need to find a definition that is timeless and few could argue against. One of the best way to understand the current definition of something is to look at its history “ignorance of the past will lead to mistakes of the future” It would make more sense to define Science as the "the field of study which attempts to describe and understand the nature of the universe in whole or part." than to try and structure it as a qualifier to specific area’s of study.... the rest of your reply is residual
Can we setup and demonstrate evolution at work? I do not know of any proof of this anywhere to date. Until then it cannot possibly be classified as 'proven'As for the rest… why present ideas riddled with artistic visualizations on something that we think could of happened in science classes? evolution should be presented in schools as a hypothesis along with other ideas up for discussions but I don’t really see a place for it in basic science classes.I agree that neither nor should be taught in schools, why not just keep it real.
Mr. nitsuj,Sir, I did not call you, or those who hold your beliefs, any names. I would appreciate the same courtesy.I never said to remove evolution from schools. I simply said to teach science in science classes. Theirs plenty of room for both evolution and creationism in the philosophy department.Evolution is a philosophy. It is a belief. It is unprovable by any science. And it is being taught as a science at taxpayers expense.Many "scientists" accept evolution today, because anybody who challenges evolution is not considered a "scientist" by the "science-club"."Micro-evolution" is not proof of "Macro-evolution". A more appropriate term for "Micro-evolution" is variation.I am not interested in making America a Religious State.Sir, I am not interested in debating "philosophy" with you, but I wish to point something out that may clarify a key point in this discussion from my point of view.Any state that is run by a religion, with the explicit exception of Israel, is unscriptural and against Biblical teachings! I will be blunt, I will name names. Protestants and Catholics have no right to run any country. It's not in the Bible. Israel was given an edict to do so, not the Church.I don't want to take any of your freedoms away. I have my beliefs, and I won't force them on you as others would. God created you and me as free agents to make our own choices, to our good, or to our bad.My religious ancestors were the Waldenses and Ana-Baptists. I am proud to say that we harbored and protected Muslims from the unbiblical crusades of the Protestants and Catholics.I would like to think that while my religious ancestors were harboring them, that they also witnessed to them.Sir, I have no interest in passing laws that take away freedoms, or make you dress up on Sunday and go into a building and "worship" in this religion or that.I am asking that when something is taught in a science class, that it be undebatably demonstrateable and provable.
I need to clarify. I am not condoning harboring terrorists. Terrorists are the enemy, and should be treated as such. I am referring to law abiding citizens who are hunted for no other reason than the fact that they believe differently.
Physics and chemistry naturally contain patterns, but do NOT naturally contain code. Have you ever seen sheet music or software occur naturally? No, because they require a conscious mind.Every dropped ball falls, due to gravity.Every code contains thought, due to the designer.Both theories are equally inferred, and science states DNA is a code.Therefore, DNA is not a pattern from physics or chemistry. It was created by an intelligence.
eviltandemOct 12, 2006
rodtrentWe have a right to make stuff up and have it taught as fact to children in school? Sweet! Which law is this?Second, evolutionists didn't bring the courts into this, the creationists did. We tried to deal with you the normal way we deal with crack pots. Give us evidence and convince the scientific community or go away.Then creationists went bawling to the courts and politicians because everyone was ignoring your fact-less drivel. (Those nasty scientists said we have to have evidence. That's not FAIR!!!!!!!)Now we've come full circle and WE are the ones bringing the courts into this? You are loosing the court cases YOU brought into it. Amazing...
skaface69Oct 12, 2006
has anyone else noticed that these christains are trying to go a little to far. i mean im all for freedom of religion. believe whatever the hell you want, but don't push it on my children. My wife and I have rasied them without church and they are turning out fine. If you want your kids to learn creationism, send them to private school that teaches that sort of thing, dont' force my kids to have to learn about something that completely untrue, and totally based on being religious. no thanks. Christains can we have our county back please, there are other people that believe differently that you. I'm not out preaching atheism to your good chirstian children, so don't preach to mine. Thanks.
essteeOct 13, 2006
@Dimensio It fascinates me that so many "educated" people are confined into there understanding of what science really is or isn’t. A statement by the Nobel Prize physicist Percy W. Bridgman stated "No working scientist, when he plans an experiment in the laboratory, asks himself whether he is being properly scientific, nor is he interested in whatever method he may be using as a method." The scientific method is fine for experimentation but it is inadequate in determining what is Science. In the past if a discipline could not be subject to the scientific method, it was not Science. The scientific method should only be applied to experimentation when appropriate and not be used in the determination of what is or is not science, nor should it have any application in defining what is a hypothesis, theory, fact, or law.In terms of the definition of what is or is not a Science, we need to find a definition that is timeless and few could argue against. One of the best way to understand the current definition of something is to look at its history “ignorance of the past will lead to mistakes of the future” It would make more sense to define Science as the "the field of study which attempts to describe and understand the nature of the universe in whole or part." than to try and structure it as a qualifier to specific area’s of study.... the rest of your reply is residual
essteeOct 13, 2006
I second that!
essteeOct 13, 2006
Can we setup and demonstrate evolution at work? I do not know of any proof of this anywhere to date. Until then it cannot possibly be classified as 'proven'As for the rest… why present ideas riddled with artistic visualizations on something that we think could of happened in science classes? evolution should be presented in schools as a hypothesis along with other ideas up for discussions but I don’t really see a place for it in basic science classes.I agree that neither nor should be taught in schools, why not just keep it real.
goyeOct 14, 2006
Mr. nitsuj,Sir, I did not call you, or those who hold your beliefs, any names. I would appreciate the same courtesy.I never said to remove evolution from schools. I simply said to teach science in science classes. Theirs plenty of room for both evolution and creationism in the philosophy department.Evolution is a philosophy. It is a belief. It is unprovable by any science. And it is being taught as a science at taxpayers expense.Many "scientists" accept evolution today, because anybody who challenges evolution is not considered a "scientist" by the "science-club"."Micro-evolution" is not proof of "Macro-evolution". A more appropriate term for "Micro-evolution" is variation.I am not interested in making America a Religious State.Sir, I am not interested in debating "philosophy" with you, but I wish to point something out that may clarify a key point in this discussion from my point of view.Any state that is run by a religion, with the explicit exception of Israel, is unscriptural and against Biblical teachings! I will be blunt, I will name names. Protestants and Catholics have no right to run any country. It's not in the Bible. Israel was given an edict to do so, not the Church.I don't want to take any of your freedoms away. I have my beliefs, and I won't force them on you as others would. God created you and me as free agents to make our own choices, to our good, or to our bad.My religious ancestors were the Waldenses and Ana-Baptists. I am proud to say that we harbored and protected Muslims from the unbiblical crusades of the Protestants and Catholics.I would like to think that while my religious ancestors were harboring them, that they also witnessed to them.Sir, I have no interest in passing laws that take away freedoms, or make you dress up on Sunday and go into a building and "worship" in this religion or that.I am asking that when something is taught in a science class, that it be undebatably demonstrateable and provable.
goyeOct 14, 2006
I need to clarify. I am not condoning harboring terrorists. Terrorists are the enemy, and should be treated as such. I am referring to law abiding citizens who are hunted for no other reason than the fact that they believe differently.
boigboigNov 20, 2009
Physics and chemistry naturally contain patterns, but do NOT naturally contain code. Have you ever seen sheet music or software occur naturally? No, because they require a conscious mind.Every dropped ball falls, due to gravity.Every code contains thought, due to the designer.Both theories are equally inferred, and science states DNA is a code.Therefore, DNA is not a pattern from physics or chemistry. It was created by an intelligence.