Kansas votes for Intelligent Design

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: broon
They shouldn't be teaching ID or Darwinism. Creationism belongs in the home and at church, not at school. Darwinism can't be proven so it doesn't belong there either.

idiots like that is what allows this kind of nonsense to happen :roll:

I'm disgusted with people like this. They have no idea how freaking stupid they make Americans look. Nowhere else in the first or second world but the US South is this even an issue. NOWHERE.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: broon
They shouldn't be teaching ID or Darwinism. Creationism belongs in the home and at church, not at school. Darwinism can't be proven so it doesn't belong there either.

idiots like that is what allows this kind of nonsense to happen :roll:

Im a mathematician by nature, not a scientist... so following the rules of proofs...

Nothing can ever be proven true... only false. You only prove false by counterexample.
So technically he is correct. Darwinism cannot ever be proven true, but it will stand until it is eventually (possibly) proven false.

so if you can't prove God exists, he will eventually be proven not to exist?

I (was not) am not offering any type of opinion of what may or may not come to pass. Only what is possible. The answer to your question is once again (possibly eventually).

what you must understand is that there exists no such thing as absolute truth. Believing otherwise whether scientific or religious is absolutely foolish.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
It doesn't claim that there's no Santa Claus either, but does that mean we should be teaching kids that Santa Claus guides evolution?

I believe so, yes.

 

[Accipiter22]

why can't one unproven theory (evolution) be taught alongside another unproven theory?

Just curious, I personally believe mostly in evolution.....but still it is just a theory, and so is intelligent design. It's no less plausible that a supreme being created life than the premise that it suddenly spontaneously warped into existance out of a puddle of goo....

 

[FeuerFrei]

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
why can't one unproven theory (evolution) be taught alongside another unproven theory?

Just curious, I personally believe mostly in evolution.....but still it is just a theory, and so is intelligent design. It's no less plausible that a supreme being created life than the premise that it suddenly spontaneously warped into existance out of a puddle of goo....

It can.
It's a constitutionally bulletproof practice.
Present options, and let the student decide.
Both sides should find this agreeable.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
why can't one unproven theory (evolution) be taught alongside another unproven theory?

Just curious, I personally believe mostly in evolution.....but still it is just a theory, and so is intelligent design. It's no less plausible that a supreme being created life than the premise that it suddenly spontaneously warped into existance out of a puddle of goo....

evolution is based on science where you have facts to back it up

ID is just .... basicly anything but science, it is just wishful thinking

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
why can't one unproven theory (evolution) be taught alongside another unproven theory?

Just curious, I personally believe mostly in evolution.....but still it is just a theory, and so is intelligent design. It's no less plausible that a supreme being created life than the premise that it suddenly spontaneously warped into existance out of a puddle of goo....

"Intelligent Design" is not a scientific theory. It has no evidence that can be tested.

If you can devise a scientifically reproducible experiment that proves the existence of God, and explains who or what created God, then it can be taught in science class.

 

[broon]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: broon
They shouldn't be teaching ID or Darwinism. Creationism belongs in the home and at church, not at school. Darwinism can't be proven so it doesn't belong there either.

idiots like that is what allows this kind of nonsense to happen :roll:

I like how you resort to name calling.

Darwin's theory is not any different than ID. Both are someone's idea of how things were. Neither belong in the classroom.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
why can't one unproven theory (evolution) be taught alongside another unproven theory?

Just curious, I personally believe mostly in evolution.....but still it is just a theory, and so is intelligent design. It's no less plausible that a supreme being created life than the premise that it suddenly spontaneously warped into existance out of a puddle of goo....

Teaching ID in a science class is like teaching musical theory in a history class.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: broon
Darwin's theory is not any different than ID. Both are someone's idea of how things were. Neither belong in the classroom.

That's where you're wrong. The theory of evolution has generally been accepted by the scientific community, and as such belongs in a science class. ID has generally been rejected by the scientific community, so it does not belong in a science class. The theory of evolution is a deep subject, whereas ID is basically a footnote.

 

[Rockzilla]

Originally posted by: shimsham
wheres the problem? sounds like democracy in action. the citizens of missouri want it taught, so they voted it in.

There's also a seperation of church in state in there too. Why does it seem like all the liberal states want to make anything religous including the word Christmas or pledge of alleigance illegal and all the conservative states want to forget logic and replace it for religous cop-outs. Why can't kids learn facts at school and exercise their constitutional rights without everyone who isn't in school or doesn't have kids trying to force an agenda on them. Science is about presenting facts, and evolution like other theories is just a hypothesis with strong facts to support it. If parents want their kids to discount it they can take them to church. Just like everything else in this country nobody is making them DO or BELIEVE anything. Believe or don't beleive evolution, say or don't say the pledge of allegeince but don't ruin everybody else's education to cater to your agenda.

 

[Spoooon]

Darwin's theory is a little different from ID. The biggest difference is that it's accepted by the scientific establishment. And that scientific establishment is open to change. I doubt any proponent of ID will ever budge on their position no matter the evidence available to refute their position.

 

[broon]

Originally posted by: Rockzilla

There's also a seperation of church in state in there too.

This is another misunderstood concept. The speration of church and state means there will be no state run religion like there was in England. This does not mean religion cannot influence the government.

ID does not endorse a religion.

Regarding Darwin...because of it's controversial nature, it should not be taught in school since it cannot be accepted as fact.

Edit...if you haven't noticed, I'm not a fan of teaching ID either.

 

[Miramonti]

These people of Kansas have just proven that intelligent design doesn't always result in intelligence.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Spoooon
Darwin's theory is a little different from ID. The biggest difference is that it's accepted by the scientific establishment. And that scientific establishment is open to change. I doubt any proponent of ID will ever budge on their position no matter the evidence available to refute their position.

This is so far what I've seen in this thread
Proof by overwhelming evidence. This is not a mathematical proof. But, it is often the best there is in Science, and can be very convincing. The proof "All Numbers Are Less Than A Million" is a based on this idea.

Proof by appeal to authority. Many of my science and pseudoscience articles use this method. When the authority that you appeal to is "the scientific community" or "biologists" or "physicists," that is not proof. They could all be wrong. They have been wrong in the past. But I think that they are probably not all being unreasonable or stupid See "Phlogiston Theory."

Proof by waving your arms. This is when you pretend to prove something. You give some arguments and then leave the proof hanging. This may be satisfactory, under the circumstances. You just may not want to get into it at the time.

I laugh at you all.

 

[broon]

And your position is???

 

[Spoooon]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Spoooon
Darwin's theory is a little different from ID. The biggest difference is that it's accepted by the scientific establishment. And that scientific establishment is open to change. I doubt any proponent of ID will ever budge on their position no matter the evidence available to refute their position.

This is so far what I've seen in this thread
Proof by overwhelming evidence. This is not a mathematical proof. But, it is often the best there is in Science, and can be very convincing. The proof "All Numbers Are Less Than A Million" is a based on this idea.

Proof by appeal to authority. Many of my science and pseudoscience articles use this method. When the authority that you appeal to is "the scientific community" or "biologists" or "physicists," that is not proof. They could all be wrong. They have been wrong in the past. But I think that they are probably not all being unreasonable or stupid See "Phlogiston Theory."

Proof by waving your arms. This is when you pretend to prove something. You give some arguments and then leave the proof hanging. This may be satisfactory, under the circumstances. You just may not want to get into it at the time.

I laugh at you all.

I don't know about others, but I haven't claimed that Darwin proved anything. I just think it's the best theory science has to offer. I certainly find it more reasonable than the idea that some all mighty uber biologist made everything.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: shimsham
wheres the problem? sounds like democracy in action. the citizens of missouri want it taught, so they voted it in.

More like stupidity in action.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: sao123
I laugh at you all.

Right back at ya, chief

 

[sixone]

Originally posted by: jjsole
These people of Kansas have just proven that intelligent design doesn't always result in intelligence.

Meh - idiots are born in every state. You roll your eyes at us today, we'll do the same for you sooner or later. And so it goes...

 

[Anubis]

Flying Spaghetti Monster for the mother fvcking win

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Pocatello
The United States is in the hands of religious freaks, be afraid, be very afraid.

Corrected for you

 

[broon]

Originally posted by: Spoooon
I don't know about others, but I haven't claimed that Darwin proved anything. I just think it's the best theory science has to offer. I certainly find it more reasonable than the idea that some all mighty uber biologist made everything.

But opponents to your thinking could make the reverse argument. That's why neither should be taught. Why teach something in school that might be right? We know how to cut open frogs and worms. We know the elements. We know how chemicals react to each other. Teach those things.

Wouldn't it be better to ignore Darwin and ID and instead address the way history is taught? Kids could learn more from that than the questionable science ideas.

Edit...troll somewhere else, Dave.

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

Originally posted by: shimsham
wheres the problem? sounds like democracy in action. the citizens of missouri want it taught, so they voted it in.

Missouri != Kansas

and the people didn't vote....only the school board officials.

 

[broon]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

Originally posted by: shimsham
wheres the problem? sounds like democracy in action. the citizens of missouri want it taught, so they voted it in.

Missouri != Kansas

and the people didn't vote....only the school board officials.

Agreed. Missouri > Kansas.