Intelligent Design/Evolution War:4-20-06 Georgia Governor signs Laws putting Bible Class in all schools and Commandments

[shira]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari
Lets teach them that Homosexuality is great!

It would be more useful to teach them that religious zealots through history have demonized those that disagree with their religious ideology, torturing and killing those they cannot force to conform. And as a comparison, we can also teach that homosexuals throughout history have demonized no one, have tortured and killed no one, have forced no one to conform.

From your utterly predictable hate responses, I'm beginning to suspect that you are the product of severe child abuse. What was done to you that has lead you to despise with such vitriol homosexuals?

I thought liberals wanted religion out of schools.

No, you didn't think that. You're lying.

What liberals want is for religion to be the subject of classes in history, philosophy, social studies, and/or (gasp) religious studies. What liberals do not want is for non-science to be taught in science classes.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
11-1-2005 'Intelligent Design' Battle Goes to Polls

DOVER, Pa. - A battle over a policy requiring that ninth-graders in this rural community learn about "intelligent design" in biology class is being fought on two fronts ? one political, one legal.

In a federal courtroom in Harrisburg, 20 miles away, a judge is hearing arguments in the sixth week of a landmark trial over whether the concept can be introduced in public school. The non-jury trial is expected to conclude Nov. 4; it is unclear when the judge will issue a decision.

At the polls in Dover, voters will render their decision Nov. 8 on whether to retain eight of the nine Dover Area School Board members ? all Republicans ? or replace them with a Democratic slate whose platform calls for removing intelligent design from the curriculum.

Republican voters outnumber Democrats in the district nearly 8-5.

But party affiliation may not matter in the election: While the challengers are running on the Democratic ticket, half of them are actually registered Republicans, according to a spokesman.
===============================================
Can someone explain how it is legal for registered Republicans to be running as Democrats???

How would it be illegal? As a voter I can register with both parties if I want. So why couldn't I run under either banner?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
11-1-2005 'Intelligent Design' Battle Goes to Polls

DOVER, Pa. - A battle over a policy requiring that ninth-graders in this rural community learn about "intelligent design" in biology class is being fought on two fronts ? one political, one legal.

In a federal courtroom in Harrisburg, 20 miles away, a judge is hearing arguments in the sixth week of a landmark trial over whether the concept can be introduced in public school. The non-jury trial is expected to conclude Nov. 4; it is unclear when the judge will issue a decision.

At the polls in Dover, voters will render their decision Nov. 8 on whether to retain eight of the nine Dover Area School Board members ? all Republicans ? or replace them with a Democratic slate whose platform calls for removing intelligent design from the curriculum.

Republican voters outnumber Democrats in the district nearly 8-5.

But party affiliation may not matter in the election: While the challengers are running on the Democratic ticket, half of them are actually registered Republicans, according to a spokesman.
===============================================
Can someone explain how it is legal for registered Republicans to be running as Democrats???

How would it be illegal? As a voter I can register with both parties if I want. So why couldn't I run under either banner?

Not so much the party jumping, but the stacking of the deck to pull the wool over the people.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari
Lets teach them that Homosexuality is great!

It would be more useful to teach them that religious zealots through history have demonized those that disagree with their religious ideology, torturing and killing those they cannot force to conform. And as a comparison, we can also teach that homosexuals throughout history have demonized no one, have tortured and killed no one, have forced no one to conform.

From your utterly predictable hate responses, I'm beginning to suspect that you are the product of severe child abuse. What was done to you that has lead you to despise with such vitriol homosexuals?

I thought liberals wanted religion out of schools.

No, you didn't think that. You're lying.

What liberals want is for religion to be the subject of classes in history, philosophy, social studies, and/or (gasp) religious studies.

What liberals do not want is for non-science to be taught in science classes.

BFT

Thank you sir :thumbsup:

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari
Lets teach them that Homosexuality is great!

It would be more useful to teach them that religious zealots through history have demonized those that disagree with their religious ideology, torturing and killing those they cannot force to conform. And as a comparison, we can also teach that homosexuals throughout history have demonized no one, have tortured and killed no one, have forced no one to conform.

From your utterly predictable hate responses, I'm beginning to suspect that you are the product of severe child abuse. What was done to you that has lead you to despise with such vitriol homosexuals?

I thought liberals wanted religion out of schools.

Apparently you don't understand the difference between teaching about religion and teaching religion.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari

I thought liberals wanted religion out of schools.

No, you didn't think that. You're lying.

What liberals want is for religion to be the subject of classes in history, philosophy, social studies, and/or (gasp) religious studies. What liberals do not want is for non-science to be taught in science classes.

These posts:

"no way in hell I want some ignorant parents deciding what is taught in school. you can pull your kid out and teach them crap if you want, just don't inflict your views in a public schools.."
"religion in always scampering to save face with 4,000 year old fables. Sorry folks, you are all chimps, literally."
"This isn't about belief or lack thereof, but about whether it should be taught in schools. The obvious answer is no;"

seem to not want religion in schools.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari

I thought liberals wanted religion out of schools.

No, you didn't think that. You're lying.

What liberals want is for religion to be the subject of classes in history, philosophy, social studies, and/or (gasp) religious studies. What liberals do not want is for non-science to be taught in science classes.

These posts:

"no way in hell I want some ignorant parents deciding what is taught in school. you can pull your kid out and teach them crap if you want, just don't inflict your views in a public schools.."
"religion in always scampering to save face with 4,000 year old fables. Sorry folks, you are all chimps, literally."
"This isn't about belief or lack thereof, but about whether it should be taught in schools. The obvious answer is no;"

seem to not want religion in schools.

Do you know the difference between public school and private religious school?

Did you go to public school or Catholic school?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari

These posts:

"no way in hell I want some ignorant parents deciding what is taught in school. you can pull your kid out and teach them crap if you want, just don't inflict your views in a public schools.."
"religion in always scampering to save face with 4,000 year old fables. Sorry folks, you are all chimps, literally."
"This isn't about belief or lack thereof, but about whether it should be taught in schools. The obvious answer is no;"

seem to not want religion in schools.

Do you know the difference between public school and private religious school?

Did you go to public school or Catholic school?

Public.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari

These posts:

"no way in hell I want some ignorant parents deciding what is taught in school. you can pull your kid out and teach them crap if you want, just don't inflict your views in a public schools.."
"religion in always scampering to save face with 4,000 year old fables. Sorry folks, you are all chimps, literally."
"This isn't about belief or lack thereof, but about whether it should be taught in schools. The obvious answer is no;"

seem to not want religion in schools.

Do you know the difference between public school and private religious school?

Did you go to public school or Catholic school?

Public.

No wonder you don't know the difference.

 

[dmcowen674]

Kansas Officially rejects Evolution and now only teaches "Intelligent Design".

11-8-2005 Kansas state Board of Education approved science standards for public schools Tuesday that cast doubt on the theory of evolution.

TOPEKA, Kansas - 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.

All six of those who voted for the new standards were Republicans.

"This is a sad day. We're becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that," said board member Janet Waugh, a Kansas City Democrat.

The latest vote likely to bring fresh national criticism to Kansas and cause many scientists to see the state as backward.

 

[pol II]

"In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena."

I cannot fathom this. The board members are administrators for goodness sake, not scientists. The fools!!

 

[Polish3d]

Yeeesh... I'll have to read more about this, but I don't see any reason to teach intelligent design in a science class unless it has real SCIENTIFIC backing. In a philosophy class, fine.

 

[zendari]

Kansas is showing how out of touch the liberals are with mainstream society.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: zendari
Kansas is showing how out of touch the liberals are with mainstream society.

Need a finger emoticon :roll::roll::roll::roll::roll: :| :| :| :|

 

[stateofbeasley]

Can you tell me why subjects that belong in philosophy classes shoudl be put in SCIENCE classes?

Originally posted by: zendari
Kansas is showing how out of touch the liberals are with mainstream society.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: zendari
Kansas is showing how out of touch the liberals are with mainstream society.

Mainstream society rejects science?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: zendari
Kansas is showing how out of touch the liberals are with mainstream society.

Mainstream society rejects science?

Yes, the 51% Republican part of mainstream society does

 

[Polish3d]

No way, I voted for Bush in 2004 and I'm extremely against this move.

Now, I haven't read enough about ID to decide whether it has significant scientific backing but I doubt it as its premise is unprovable (as no one knows if God exists, and there is no proven basis for the idea that something that looks intelligently designed "has to be.").


This is pretty disturbing, no good is served by having this in a science class, period.


And btw, I tend to think ID is a plausible THEORY but it is not for science class IMO.


I'd join the left and vote democrat before I'd let anything like this get permeate public schools at a larger level. If we are going to continue to have the public school system, this should not be taking time away from real science.


Now I'm not Christian, but I'm sympathetic to their complaints that liberals are excessively hostile to Christianity... however, they need to be responsible in their behavior and this isn't it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Frackal
No way, I voted for Bush in 2004 and I'm extremely against this move.

Now, I haven't read enough about ID to decide whether it has significant scientific backing but I doubt it as its premise is unprovable (as no one knows if God exists, and there is no proven basis for the idea that something that looks intelligently designed "has to be.").

This is pretty disturbing, no good is served by having this in a science class, period.

And btw, I tend to think ID is a plausible THEORY but it is not for science class IMO.

I'd join the left and vote democrat before I'd let anything like this get permeate public schools at a larger level. If we are going to continue to have the public school system, this should not be taking time away from real science.

Now I'm not Christian, but I'm sympathetic to their complaints that liberals are excessively hostile to Christianity... however, they need to be responsible in their behavior and this isn't it.

You voted Bush and support Republicans and now you cry me a river??? :| :thumbsdown:

Here's your well deserved and for all you that support the Republicans and this cesspit you plunged the Country into, here is your well deserved 's

 

[Polish3d]

Ok...


Anyway, as I said, I supported Bush and continue to do so in many areas, but if Republicans go overboard with this than I personally will support their opponents, despite disagreeing with them on many other issues.

 

[stateofbeasley]

Heh. Give the guy a break. I don't agree with Frackal much but give credit where it's due. He doesn't want to see religion in the science classroom and neither do I. No need to flame him for it.

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
You voted Bush and support Republicans and now you cry me a river??? :| :thumbsdown:

Here's your well deserved and for all you that support the Republicans and this cesspit you plunged the Country into, here is your well deserved 's

 

[EatSpam]

I wonder if they're supporting the teachings about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in addition to their Christian mumbo-jumbo.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

No, but I hope when biology teachers are inevitably asked the question, 'Who is the intelligent designer?', they answer, 'FSM!'.

Then we can also teach that global warming is inversely correlated with the number of pirates on the high seas.

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh...

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari

I thought liberals wanted religion out of schools.

No, you didn't think that. You're lying.

What liberals want is for religion to be the subject of classes in history, philosophy, social studies, and/or (gasp) religious studies. What liberals do not want is for non-science to be taught in science classes.

These posts:

"no way in hell I want some ignorant parents deciding what is taught in school. you can pull your kid out and teach them crap if you want, just don't inflict your views in a public schools.."
This first quote objects to parents deciding what should be taught in science classes. I agree. Why should parents, who may be woefully ignorant on the subject of science, define what is an accpetable science curriculum. I'd equally object to parents deciding what is correct for inclusion in an English, social studies, or geography class. This is not an objection to teaching about religion.

"religion in always scampering to save face with 4,000 year old fables. Sorry folks, you are all chimps, literally."
This quote was from a person objecting to teaching religion in SCIENCE classes. Can you not get through your head that the issue is "pushing religion" version "teaching about religion"?

"This isn't about belief or lack thereof, but about whether it should be taught in schools. The obvious answer is no;"
The quote continues, "Obviously only an uneducated and stupid person would believe their religion should be pushed on others." Again, the objection is to proselytizing in school, not to teaching ABOUT religion.[/b]

So as we've seen, you completely distorted the context that these quotations were taken from. In every case, the objection is to PUSHING religion. Proselytizing religious views as part of the classroom experience is grossly inappropriate. Teaching about religion as subject matter is completely appropriate. Obviously, you can't distinguish between these obviously different contexts.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: zendari
Kansas is showing how out of touch the liberals are with mainstream society.

Oh, goody. Let's take a poll of Kansas parents and ask them to explain various scientific concepts. For example, we'll ask them to explain:

Newtons laws of motion.

Photosynthesis.

The human immune system.

Conservation of energy.

We'll take the "majority view" on what these things are and that's what we'll teach in the classroom. After all, why should teachers be allowed to teach what the majority doesn't believe?