School district in MI votes tomorrow night whether or not to allow ID

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Apparently Ms. Ryan sent out the same email to everyone who emailed her with their input. She also neglected to use the BCC function, so which of the following is you, Rip?

jadamski@kalamazoo.net, jeffb@ymcasl.org, kreag717@sbcglobal.net, dmc@safetyservicesinc.com, mrainey47@sbcglobal.net, drussell473@msn.com

Um, those are the other members of the school board.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
The information I posted came directly from the school board president, Deb Miller.

Feel free to contact her to verify the information.

Why don't you post what Deb told you verbatim? We've already verified that the information you're providing is false, so doing so might help clear things up.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Riprorin
The information I posted came directly from the school board president, Deb Miller.

Feel free to contact her to verify the information.

Why don't you post what Deb told you verbatim? We've already verified that the information you're providing is false, so doing so might help clear things up.

Why? Because I don't know if she wants her e-mail posted publically.

Like I said, go ahead and contact to verify the information I posted.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: NJDevil

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Not sure where Rip is getting his information, but one of the Board members was so kind as to email me back their decision:

The school board voted unanimously that ID can not be taught in science classrooms in the district, nor can an ID text be used as a supplement to the standard curriculum.

:thumbsup:

D'oh! Rip is a liar then?

Surprise surprise ... what a good Christian

I got the information in an e-mail from the president of the school board. Her name is Deb Ryan.

Feel free to verify it.

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
What was the result of the vote???

ID will be offered in a philosophy, social studies, etc class at the High School as an elective.

Seems like some people heard what they wanted to hear when it came to this decision. :roll:

Any teaching of ID will have to go through the administrative approval process all over again. The ID-proponents are effectively back to square one on this issue.

The information I posted came directly from the school board president, Deb Miller.

Feel free to contact her to verify the information.

Ryan or miller or monkey assed liar?

It's Deb Ryan, not Miller. My mistake.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Riprorin
The information I posted came directly from the school board president, Deb Miller.

Feel free to contact her to verify the information.

Why don't you post what Deb told you verbatim? We've already verified that the information you're providing is false, so doing so might help clear things up.

Why? Because I don't know if she wants her e-mail posted publically.

Like I said, go ahead and contact to verify the information I posted.

I don't have her e-mail address, so I can't contact her. But more importantly, the report we're getting from the gentleman who attended the meeting (link) is claiming that any decision to include ID in any curriculum would require administrative approval before doing so.

They did accept the committee's recommendation that the board approve ID as a potentially suitable subject for a high school level elective course in social studies, humanities, political science or philosophy, but that would have to go through the normal process of being approved separately by the administration and could not begin until at least fall of 2006.

Back to the drawing board I guess, eh?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Riprorin
The information I posted came directly from the school board president, Deb Miller.

Feel free to contact her to verify the information.

Why don't you post what Deb told you verbatim? We've already verified that the information you're providing is false, so doing so might help clear things up.

Why? Because I don't know if she wants her e-mail posted publically.

Like I said, go ahead and contact to verify the information I posted.

I don't have her e-mail address, so I can't contact her. But more importantly, the report we're getting from the gentleman who attended the meeting (link) is claiming that any decision to include ID in any curriculum would require administrative approval before doing so.

They did accept the committee's recommendation that the board approve ID as a potentially suitable subject for a high school level elective course in social studies, humanities, political science or philosophy, but that would have to go through the normal process of being approved separately by the administration and could not begin until at least fall of 2006.

Back to the drawing board I guess, eh?

dryan2528@tds.net

In her e-mail to me, she said that it WILL be offered. She didn't say that it would have to be approved separately by the admininstration.

I'm surprised that you weren't able to find Deb's e-mail address. I was able to find it rather easily.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Funny how yesterday you were rather lamely trying to assert ID is science and should be taught in science class. Since your pathetic argument was shot down so easily not only on this board but also by Gull Lake's Board of Ed, you're now more than happy to have ID examined in a philosophy class. Pull up your pants, your motives are showing, and they're not the least bit attractive.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Funny how yesterday you were rather lamely trying to assert ID is science and should be taught in science class. Since your pathetic argument was shot down so easily not only on this board but also by Gull Lake's Board of Ed, you're now more than happy to have ID examined in a philosophy class. Pull up your pants, your motives are showing, and they're not the least bit attractive.

Can you point out where I siad that I was happy with the decision?

Obviously, I think that it should be taught in science class since that's where it belongs,

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
again, how is the idea that creation was by intelligent design something disprove by science?

It's not that it's "disproved" scientifically, it's that ID is not a scientific theory.

It's as much a scientific theory as attributing biogenesis to random happenstance. We have no evidence either way, and even if we where there to see it happen we couldn?t test it. It?s completely a statement of faith either faith in atheistic causes or theistic causes, and neither should be taught as the ?truth? in school.

Abiogenesis (I assume this is what you meant) is a scientific theory because it utilizes known facts about the natural world and the elements of life in order to postulate a reasonably practical scenario, whereas ID is just a... wild guess.

the question isn't the theory but rather to whom or what you credit the action to, chaos or God it's a matter of philosophy not science.

Nice attempt to shift the ground from evolution to abiogenesis.

same deal with the big-bang right?

point is that ID doesn't conflict with science, only some of the philosophy that has grown up around it our scientific evidence.

but now that i read the thread further i see that this is the reasonable conclusion that the board came to as well.

and

The school board voted unanimously that ID can not be taught in science classrooms in the district, nor can an ID text be used as a supplement to the standard curriculum.

in no way conflicts with

ID will be offered in a philosophy, social studies, etc class at the High School as an elective.

I don't want to be rude, but those who don't see that are honestly not as intelligent or thoughtful as they seem to presume themselves to be.

Why the twisting of words...Why the twisting of words? I

because the vote didn't occur due to no demand, demand by the families will make those classes go forth.

why the total lack of charity for those who disagree with you?

M: You are quite mistaken. I know you and Rip to the extent that I know myself.

It is your reaction to that, your projection, that tells me my old self is you.

i'm touched, but i think we've had totaly diferent reactions to psychodelics.

ID is an attempt by fundamentalist Christians to preserve a literal interpretation to a Book written before the modern scientific era out of fear that if a single word is shown to be false the whole house of cards will fall.

no attempt needed, there are no contradictions between science and the bible, when looked at in it's proper literary and historical context.

Love doesn't care where the universe came from. The beginning and the end all disappear in Being.

at least you and everyone in my Sunday school class agree on something.

he fact that evolution happens is fact so it's quite provable. i

that adaptation occurs is a fact, that evolution from one species to another isn't a fact as there are absolutely no transitional fossils. I figure that the jumps between one and the other occurred so quickly that there's no fossil record of them and i figure the jump occurred that quickly because it's what God wanted of those species at that time.

Funny how yesterday you were rather lamely trying to assert ID is science and should be taught in science class.

it should be taught in class just as much as chaos-creation is.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
the question isn't the theory but rather to whom or what you credit the action to, chaos or God it's a matter of philosophy not science.

Uhh... the question very much is the theory. One is scientific, the other isn't. Only scientific theories should be taught in a science class.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
again, how is the idea that creation was by intelligent design something disprove by science?

It's not that it's "disproved" scientifically, it's that ID is not a scientific theory.

It's as much a scientific theory as attributing biogenesis to random happenstance. We have no evidence either way, and even if we where there to see it happen we couldn?t test it. It?s completely a statement of faith either faith in atheistic causes or theistic causes, and neither should be taught as the ?truth? in school.

Evolution is not taught as truth except as a tremendously powerful theory. It stands up to every test and makes powerful predictions. It is a theory with weight and gravitas is what convinces serious people. But every versed student of science knows that a theory is a working hypothesis we use as if it were true to see what else it tells us. When the day comes when a better predictor comes along the theory is modified. Creation science is not in that league even remotely. It is neither creative or science and can you imagine a 'creation scientist' saying, "OOPS WE WERE WRONG!".

 

[LordMagnusKain]

It is neither creative or science and can you imagine a 'creation scientist' saying, "OOPS WE WERE WRONG!".

haha

There?s not proving or disproving the aspects of creation that ID attempts to question of generally accepted evolutionary theory. Which is a good thing, building bits of faith around basic facts is why the ?plum-pudding? theory of the atom lasted despite evidence that was ?yet unexplained? when it was developed. Luckily scientists where still Christian at the time, willing to accept that they didn?t have to know everything and as such where willing to change there ideas after experimental evidence to the contrary was developed.

What experimental evidence is there that shows ID to be false?

Because as anyone who paid attention in jr. high science knows: science doesn?t ever prove anything true, it just finds many specific things to prove false.

 

[kogase]

When we're talking about teaching this in a science class, there's only one question: is it scientific? The point isn't whether or not there is any evidence to disprove ID, the question is whether or not there is any scientifically obtained evidence to support. Not even to prove it, to support it.

 

[Riprorin]

Is it good science to rule out a potential cause a priori?

Isn't open mindness and a willingless to go where the data takes you necessary for legitimate scientific inquiry?

 

[LordMagnusKain]

The point isn't whether or not there is any evidence to disprove ID, the question is whether or not there is any scientifically obtained evidence to support. Not even to prove it, to support it.

scientifically supporting evidence consists entirely of possible null hypothesis that have been disproved. in that respect both the chaos and ID theory's of creation have exactly the same amount of support.

I have no doubt that every miracle from creation to the parting of the sea to Jesus walking on water are scientifically possible and within the realm of physical possibility, but that doesn?t change that it both takes faith to believe in and disbelieve in God?s direct intervention to create such highly unlikely events.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
What experimental evidence is there that shows ID to be false?

Because as anyone who paid attention in jr. high science knows: science doesn?t ever prove anything true, it just finds many specific things to prove false.

WTF? Now you're asking us to prove a negative?

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
What experimental evidence is there that shows ID to be false?

Because as anyone who paid attention in jr. high science knows: science doesn?t ever prove anything true, it just finds many specific things to prove false.

WTF? Now you're asking us to prove a negative?

I?m sorry, a proper representation of the situation is to say ?find no support for it?s null hypothesis?.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

The point isn't whether or not there is any evidence to disprove ID, the question is whether or not there is any scientifically obtained evidence to support. Not even to prove it, to support it.

scientifically supporting evidence consists entirely of possible null hypothesis that have been disproved. in that respect both the chaos and ID theory's of creation have exactly the same amount of support.

I have no doubt that every miracle from creation to the parting of the sea to Jesus walking on water are scientifically possible and within the realm of physical possibility, but that doesn?t change that it both takes faith to believe in and disbelieve in God?s direct intervention to create such highly unlikely events.

There is no scientific evidence to support the notion that water could support a human being, or that a human being could spontaneously cause a large body of water to part (otherwise known as sorcery). It does take faith to believe in something without proof. Which is why the word "theory" is used.

First biogenesis, now chaos... you are referring to abiogenesis right? Abiogenesis is supported by our knowledege of the elements and environment necessary to form life, at the least. ID is supported by no scientific evidence. ID is supported only by the completely subjective notion that life "seems to have been designed by a greater being". It is really just a wild guess, supported by no facts and no logical conclusions.

Neither of them are proven, but one is science, one is not. Hence, only one should be taught in a science class.

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

I?m sorry, a proper representation of the situation is to say ?find no support for it?s null hypothesis?.

There cannot be a null hypothesis when ID doesn't even provide a testable hypothesis. ID is a philosophy, scientific tests cannot be applied to a philosophy. When ID provides a testable hypothesis, get back to us. Otherwise, don't throw around ideas like a null hypothesis, when it isn't even applicable to the situation.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

There cannot be a null hypothesis when ID doesn't even provide a testable hypothesis.

nor does chaos theory of creation
which is why i said

The point isn't whether or not there is any evidence to disprove ID, the question is whether or not there is any scientifically obtained evidence to support. Not even to prove it, to support it.

scientifically supporting evidence consists entirely of possible null hypothesis that have been disproved. in that respect both the chaos and ID theory's of creation have exactly the same amount of support.

Otherwise, don't throw around ideas like a null hypothesis, when it isn't even applicable to the situation.

i wish people who disagree with ID wouldn?t throw around the laughable idea "scientific fact" when it has absolutely no application to the ideas that ID disagree with.

absolutes are for mathematicians and theologians, science is supposed to keep every possibility open and make no judgments on anything that can't be put into a testable hypothesis.

There is no scientific evidence to support the notion that water could support a human being,

quantum theory, apparently a book needs to be written on the subject.

 

[Moonbeam]

LMK: There?s not proving or disproving the aspects of creation that ID attempts to question of generally accepted evolutionary theory.

M: HUH? You need perhaps to spend more time in English class. At least this makes no sense to me. Did you mean "You can't prove or disprove the aspects of creation that ID attempts to question the generally accepted evolutionary theory? If so what are the aspects you refer to and what is the theory you call generally accepted? I have no idea what you are talking about and wonder if you do either.

LMK: Which is a good thing, building bits of faith around basic facts is why the ?plum-pudding? theory of the atom lasted despite evidence that was ?yet unexplained? when it was developed.

M: HUH? Mind making this clear rather than a string of words you some how take for granted. I have no idea, again, what you are talking about.

LMK: Luckily scientists where still Christian at the time, willing to accept that they didn?t have to know everything and as such where willing to change there ideas after experimental evidence to the contrary was developed.

M: Hehe, did you do a test to prove this? It sounds preposterous to me.

LMK: What experimental evidence is there that shows ID to be false?

M: Who cares? It is not a scientific theory and not amenable to scientific test.

LMK: Because as anyone who paid attention in jr. high science knows: science doesn't ever prove anything true, it just finds many specific things to prove false.

M: But you miss the point. Science aims at the practical in terms of explanation. It isn't about how many angels can stand on the head of a pin. It is about the real world and real world measurable phenomenon, how they work and how they can be explained. It is about polishing an apple, not about vaporware. Subtracting the false from pragmatic questions to more closely refine what is left. It is about the use of insight and inspiration in the analysis of data to discover jewels.

'Creation science' postulates its own jewel and polishes it with bull sh!t. It does an end run around reality and science starting with a conclusion and inventing excuses for it. It came from no research lab but the rationalizations of fanatical Christians. It is so much religious dogma and cowardly faith.

Luckily scientists aren't all fanatical Christians who get their truth from misreading the Bible, but instead get it from reading the earth.

 

[DealMonkey]

You know what? I would have a lot more respect for proponents of ID if they would just come out and say, "Look we believe in evolution too, it's just that we believe it was a process put in place by and directed by the hand of God. We understand that species have been evolving over millions of years of life on this planet, it's just that we believe this process was part of God's divine plan."

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
'Creation science' postulates its own jewel and polishes it with bull sh!t.

You can't polish a turd, LMK. Nope, you sure can't.

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
nor does chaos theory of creation

Abiogenesis? RNA Hypothesis. That's a testable Hypothesis. And the evidence is mounting. RNA is the only organic molecule that contains genetic material, possibly can self replicate, and can catalyze reactions.

Creation of organic molecules from inorganic molecules? Testable by experiments like Miller.

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
i wish people who disagree with ID wouldn?t throw around the laughable idea "scientific fact" when it has absolutely no application to the ideas that ID disagree with.

absolutes are for mathematicians and theologians, science is supposed to keep every possibility open and make no judgments on anything that can't be put into a testable hypothesis.

I did not throw around the word "fact."

You are correct that science shouldn't judge anything that lacks a testable hypothesis. That's why ID should be relegated to philosophy, along with creationism, theology, or athieism. Science should be taught in science classes. ID is not science. It has no place in a science classroom.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

The point isn't whether or not there is any evidence to disprove ID, the question is whether or not there is any scientifically obtained evidence to support. Not even to prove it, to support it.

scientifically supporting evidence consists entirely of possible null hypothesis that have been disproved. in that respect both the chaos and ID theory's of creation have exactly the same amount of support.

I have no doubt that every miracle from creation to the parting of the sea to Jesus walking on water are scientifically possible and within the realm of physical possibility, but that doesn?t change that it both takes faith to believe in and disbelieve in God?s direct intervention to create such highly unlikely events.

There is no scientific evidence to support the notion that water could support a human being, or that a human being could spontaneously cause a large body of water to part (otherwise known as sorcery). It does take faith to believe in something without proof. Which is why the word "theory" is used.

First biogenesis, now chaos... you are referring to abiogenesis right? Abiogenesis is supported by our knowledege of the elements and environment necessary to form life, at the least. ID is supported by no scientific evidence. ID is supported only by the completely subjective notion that life "seems to have been designed by a greater being". It is really just a wild guess, supported by no facts and no logical conclusions.

Neither of them are proven, but one is science, one is not. Hence, only one should be taught in a science class.

Please show me your proof that a simple self-copying molecule can self-generate a compound such as DNA.