Intelligent Design can not be taught in Pa. schools

This is all rather pathetic, actually. I do see things from your perspective, and it's ENTIRELY a matter of trying to force your beliefs onto others. I suppose if your religion taught that George Washington was actually the Messiah instead of a mere mortal we would have to include that in our classrooms, too.

Evolution is a scientific fact. There is no other option. Alleles modify over time. Your religious denials can't change that.

There is no such thing in science as "proven theories", so if you expect only those to be taught in science class we'd still be riding around in horse and buggy.

The man who believes that sticks turned into snakes and that Jonah survived 3 days in the belly of a whale and that people developed different languages because people built a tall tower to heaven who now appeals to "sense" provides chuckles, I'll grant that.

Evolution has stood up to the test. Allele modification is observed every day.

Science doesn't deal in "proofs". Proofs are an element of mathematics and logic. Science deals in explanation, and Darwinism is the best explanation science has. It's the only explanation that makes any scientific sense.

That's because you don't have the slightest bit of scientific training or the slightest inclination toward an objective mind.

A flat earth was NEVER a scientific theory. It never passed the rigors of the scientific method. It was ALWAYS a purely unscientific notion and it was religionists who persecuted those who told us otherwise.

No thanks to people such as yourself.

You obviously don't understand what constitutes a scientific hypothesis from a scientific theory, and you make yourself look silly trying to make some points using the terminology.

And the judge was correct. Science doesn't deal in proofs.

That's an understatement. He states that is THE accepted explanation from science discipline.

Well, it's not like any of your other beliefs are rational, either, so why start now?

Then I suggest you get a new religion, because you're bucking heads against the truth.

Then gather all your friends and try to get the First Amendment repealed.

So, because your church is doing a lousy job of attracting people you want the rest of us to pay for your nonsense.

In other words, you want a lie taught. That's not unexpected, coming from the man who denies that Jefferson actually meant a separation of church and state when he wrote the words.

Tell it to your child when he comes home from school. What you really mean to say is that you want EVERYBODY to hear your religion. Do it on your own time, and with your own money.

No, it's not. What's unjust is for me to be forced to pay for your religion. What's unjust is to be dishonest and teach people things that are not science in science classes.

Correct, and therefore keep it out of science class.

Darwinism is a scientific theory; yours is not a theory at all, but a dogma. Scientific theory is best suited for science classes. Science has no room for dogma.

Because science says so.

As it should be.

Yes, they'd have a better society to gain, but I know that's not what you meant. But the question is So what? You didn't object to the Iraq War because Cheney's Halliburton friends had a lot to gain, did you?

What men have ever believed that they are all knowing? Just more of your dishonest strawmen.

If this came off as uncivil it's not because your beliefs are dangerous and destructive (which they are)... it's because you're DISHONEST. The danger and destruction that I see in your beliefs can be quite unintentional from your perspective, and you don't deserve to be treated sternly for that aspect. The problem I have with you is that you're DISHONEST.


__________________

 

http://www.tigerforums.com/showthread.php?t=34100

 

See the linked article below. ESPECIALLY if you're pro Intelligent Design. This website is a British religious thinktank, is probably the most insightful article about the Christian perspective that I've read.

It states my thoughts a bit better than I can.

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_051222noid.shtml

 

I wish they would tell us how they really feel.

religio-political?



http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/features2/article_051219jesus.shtml

 

What do you mean? I'm assuming you're being sarcastic, but just in case, it seemed plain to me that they are creationists that do not appreciate the proponents touting ID as "science." It just seems so obvious that it's not science.

It's so bizarre that so many people assume evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. The same people that assert the world is 7,000 years old and that God made everything look older (scientifically) contest that God could have created evolution. That makes no sense to me.

 

Inaccuracy of radiocarbon dating techniques:

http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/Radiodating.html

 

So is the thinking that dinosaurs roamed the Earth fairly recently?

 

I am amazed how many intelligent people cannot see that there is no inherent contradiction between Evolution and Intelligent Design. The men who wrote the Bible were not scientists. They were theologians. As a result, they were asking entirely different questions that a scientist would ask. They were concerned only with making the point that God created the universe; they were not interested - nor did they explain - how he did it. As an evolutionary diest (someone who believes in both principles), I believe God created the universe, but he did it through evolution. Just because the Bible does not evolution does not mean it is a credible theory. The Bible does not mention electricity or gravity either, but that is not evidence they did not exist. It is a huge mistake to claim that the Bible is the sum total of all truths found in the universe. It is only concerned with theological truths. As a result, it is entirely inappropriate to teach Intelligent Design in a science class because it is not science. It should be limited to a theology class. The statement that was to be made to the science class was clearly an attempt to put down Evolution for which there is more than ample evidence to give it scientific credibility. Yes, it is a theory. But there are theories and there are theories. Some are much stronger than others. Such as Einstein's Theory of Relativity on which all of physics is based.

 

Yeah, I was being sarcastic. That particular article was writen by someone who really hates the right wing here in America. They're not the biggest fans of Pat Robinson either. I'm not really sure how the people who run that site feel.