Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
LostInSpace

So it begins: Kansas school board redefines science

Recommended Posts

New standards question accuracy of evolutionary theory

TOPEKA, Kansas (AP) -- At the risk of re-igniting the same heated nationwide debate it sparked six years ago, the Kansas Board of Education approved new public school science standards Tuesday that cast doubt on the theory of evolution.

quote:

The challenged concepts cited include the basic Darwinian theory that all life had a common origin

Excuse me, but isn't that what ID people are trying to prove? That God is the common origin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

They did it AGAIN, did you notice that.

Because the idiots that did it the first time were voted out of office, the standards changed back, and the the idiots were able to get voted back INTO office to do it again.

The cycle continues, the idiots will be KICKED out of office again, the standards changed back, and 2-6 years from now we will hear that the idiots got voted BACK in, and changed the standards AGAIN....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I should have title this thread: And so it begins again and again.....

BTW: Thanks to whoever moved the thread out of the science section. I couldn't decide where this thing should be posted. Another post that was a gray line on to where it should go, for me anyway. I played it safe, however, by keeping it with the other discussions on ID.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Remo Williams

I have no problem with it as long as evolution is not omitted completely. Since they are both theories why not teach them both? I myself see evolution as part of the grand design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ID is not a scientifictly viable theory. And even if it was, it should not be taught in schools until it went through the vigorous scrutiny that other scietific theorys have had to go through in order to enter public education curriculums. And no, one peer reviewed paper doesn't cut it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Remo Williams:

I have no problem with it as long as evolution is not omitted completely. Since they are both theories why not teach them both? I myself see evolution as part of the grand design.

You and I know that the agenda isn't going to stop where it is. That's what I'm affraid of. Religion wants the old days back. Where, if you claim, anything scientifically that disproves what they believe they will burn you at the stake, keep you under house arrest until you recant your claims etc.... Or as I think Jaguar already stated something some time ago like: Let's throw up our hands because we don't understand it we'll just say it's too unknowable and it's God's design only he can understand it. Hence, scientific discovery stagnates and returns to the dark ages.

ID is religion trying to impose itself on the scientific community to regain it's old power over it. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's like going to a Buddhist and telling them they cannot teach their religion without also including the teachings of another religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Aperson:

ID is not a scientifictly viable theory. And even if it was, it should not be taught in schools until it went through the vigorous scrutiny that other scietific theorys have had to go through in order to enter public education curriculums. And no, one peer reviewed paper doesn't cut it.

I agree, it's not a theory but a byproduct of ones own faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Remo Williams

Sad actually, but yes it does look hopeful for the atheists. Maybe someday students will be able to learn the whole instead of being taught a small part of the ID which is known by the atheists as evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Remo Williams:

I have no problem with it as long as evolution is not omitted completely. Since they are both theories why not teach them both? I myself see evolution as part of the grand design.

Evolution is science, ID is not.

Evolution has gone through the scientific method, it has been through rigorous testing and peer review, it is a scientific "theory".

ID is NOT a scientific theory, it has NEVER been peer reviewed, and when it was tested by scientists, it's IC (Irreducible Complexity) mantra was thoruoughly debunked.

ID is NOT even a scientific hypothesis, so it has no place within a scientific curriculum of any sort.

Teach it in religious studies class, teach it in a social studies class, but it does not belong in a science class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally Posted by Jaguar

...(Irreducible Complexity)...

I was trying to remember what the favoured method of attack on evolution was called.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Remo Williams:

Yeah right, what ever you say Jaguar.

He's right. And even if he wasn't, my point on it not being rigorously tested enough still stands.

(And I take forever to post.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Remo is playing devils advocate, as well as putting his views forward without turning this thread into a brawl.

He's doing a rather good job so far..LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by nomad:

Well, if I am the result of an Intelligent Design according to God's intent, I wonder how intelligent God must be...

Oh, you opened yourself up BIG time...

I could really have fun with that, but I am not gonna do it, wouldn't be prudent.... LOL

But you're right, if we are a product of "Intelligent" design, I would hate to see what UNintelligent design looks like.

Whoever designed us was an amatuer to say the least..

What a fricking mess, but, if looked at from an evolutionary viewpoint, it makes perfect sense.

Interesting how that works....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Pat Robertson tells Dover residents that they have rejected God

I do believe that we all owe Pat a big old, thank you!!

The discovery institute is now crapping their pants.

The ID crowd have ALWAYS claimed that it had nothing to with religion, yet Pat here claims that Dover has rejected God by rejecting ID.

Thanks Pat, I appreciate your support of my view..LOL

ID is religious in nature, it creationism, trying to hide itself under the cloak of ID in order to be considered "scientific".

Thanks again Pat, I appreciate it, A lot more then you know, you have made my argument for me, and have brought the ID debate into sharp focus...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah. I forgot about that. Was laying in bed last night scanning the channels when I hit on the Jimmy Kimmel show on ABC and he showed that in his opening routine. I laughed.

I would laugh so much more if it was discovered that ID is indeed a fact but that it was no God involved at all. Just a space alien species that was bored and had nothing better to do than to experiment and create life. Might explain all the ufo traffic. They are observing their experiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Remo Williams

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Remo is playing devils advocate, as well as putting his views forward without turning this thread into a brawl.

He's doing a rather good job so far..LOL

Heh, busted!

Oh well just for the hell of it lets see if I can explain myself a little better.

First off do I think ID and evolution should be taught in the same science class as opposing views of how we possibly came to being? The answer to that is a big fat NO.

Do I believe that evolution is part of the creation? The answer is YES.

Do I think we should use science to study the evolution of the creation? The answer is YES.

Our Intelligents has evolved incredibly in the last few hundred years just as we were told it would. If you look at how the human body or the body of any live creature was put together from a genetic point of view was this the work of an amateur if indeed this was done by ID?

How you have developed your mind has nothing to do with the creator, or how he put evolution into effect, or how he determine all the laws that govern how the universe works. The potential is there for unlimited knowledge its up to you to fill the void between your shoulders.

If the atheists are correct then we'll all fade away into nothingness having lived a life without any meaning or reason. On the other hand if there is a creator there are billions that are going to go OOPS in the end. Only time will tell and this is one point that we will all know for sure someday. Until then I'm sure the debate will continue with no one on either side able to say with 100% certainty how it all began.

Well thatÔÇÖs all I have to say here lets continue to keep it clean gentlemen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Lets continue to keep it clean gentlemen.

Or else you will be smitten too!

Anyway, very well put, Remo. I really have nothing to add, except to say that, while I am a Christian, Robertson does not speak for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Remo Williams:

On the other hand if there is a creator there are billions that are going to go OOPS in the end.

More than likely, they will shout more than "Oops" ... they will probably demand to be tried by a jury of their peers. Only problem being, their peers will either be in Hades or demanding their own trials. Can someone awaiting trial be called to sit jury on another trial of a similar nature ... or would that be a conflict of interest?

Personally, I plan to only shout "Oops, I was afraid this would happen" ... and have the good form not to demand anything as foolish as my constitutional right to enter the Pearly Gates. After all, I've been warned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

Yeah, I should have title this thread: And so it begins again and again.....

BTW: Thanks to whoever moved the thread out of the science section. I couldn't decide where this thing should be posted. Another post that was a gray line on to where it should go, for me anyway. I played it safe, however, by keeping it with the other discussions on ID.

So what you're saying is that it's appropriate to believe in the "Big Bang" Theory, you know, everything in the universe was once the size of a spec, then BANG!!! The Universe was born and has been expanding ever since.

Oh yeah, that's VERY scientific. Please, it takes even MORE Faith to believe that than Intelligent Design. It only defies EVERY law of Nature that there is.

However, even if we move Billions of years into the future to the puddle of muck/water/whatever, to say that Life somehow evolved from "Nothing", there's another one that takes BLIND faith to believe in. First of all, water is a Solvent, it doesn't cause things to "Come Together". And Second of all the number of Enzymes, Protiens, Nucleic acids and so forth that would have to come together at just the right time, at just the right amount for even the absolute "simplest" single celled life form to spontaneously form is so rediculously minute and so far fetched, that if Darwin would have understood the complexity, I guarantee you that he would not have put together his theory.

Take apart a Swiss Watch, then imagine something about 1000X more complex and say to yourself, would this be able to put itself together... I don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Remo Williams

Yes the theory of evolution has flaws, some of which you just touched on. Darwin was looking in the right direction though unfortunately what he perceived from his studies was way more extreme than actually has taken place.

It will take much more study before we are able to understand the rules of evolution as defined by the creator IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Well, let's go through these one at a time, shall we?

Darkling, Evolution says NOTHING about origins, NOTHING, the first cell became, and evolution has occurred ever since.

Strawman argument, because evolution says NOTHING about life origins, NOTHING.

As far as the Big Bang, it takes NO faith whatsoever, you need a basic understanding of quantum mechanics, which more then one Creationist has claimed is "spooky science", whatever that means. In Quantum mechanics and particle accelerators, it has been PROVEN, beyond a doubt, that subatomic particles appear out of NOTHING, and disapear completely into NOTHING.

The Big Bang has changed BIG time, and it does NOT take faith, it is just a matter of timing and looking at the galaxies, they are flying apart, at unbelievable speed, away from a CENTRAL point.

The Big Bang HAPPENED, now it is just a matter of figuring out the cause, and if it is knowable by science, science will figure it out.

This says NOTHING about the existence, or nonexistence of god.

Remo,

Just because someone understands evolution, does NOT make them an atheist, over 40% of scientists in the US are Christians. They are able to separate their religious BELIEFS, from their Scientific understandings, just as I do, I can argue evolution with a creationist until the cows come home, they use their strawmen, and religious beliefs ALL day long, and they will call me atheist, or tell me that evolution is my religion etc, And NEITHER is true. Evolution is NOT a religion, and I am a Deist, NOT an atheist.

The bottom line is this, Belief gets in the way of LEARNING, so you must set your belief aside when it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Evolution is a scientific theory, one of the MOST rigorously tested in the world, it has some gaps, NOT holes, and it has NO inconsistencies WHATSOEVER, or else it would NOT be a scientific theory. BUT, that is ALL it is, a scientific theory, a theory, that if there is evidence enough, will change as the evidence grows.

Those that cannot separate their religious beliefs from their scientific understandings cannot have a scientific discussion, because it becomes a discussion of theology.

You can discuss science in a theology discussion, but you cannot discuss theology in a scientific discussion, because it then becomes a theology discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

So what you're saying is that it's appropriate to believe in the "Big Bang" Theory, you know, everything in the universe was once the size of a spec, then BANG!!! The Universe was born and has been expanding ever since.

There is quite a bit of evidence to back this up, the most prominate being the microwave (I think that's the type) background radiation (which, you too can see if you turn your TV on to the right blank channel). Then again it isn't considered a Law.

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

Oh yeah, that's VERY scientific. Please, it takes even MORE
Faith
to believe that than Intelligent Design. It only defies EVERY law of Nature that there is.

Like?

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

However, even if we move Billions of years into the future to the puddle of muck/water/whatever, to say that Life somehow evolved from "Nothing", there's another one that takes BLIND faith to believe in. First of all, water is a Solvent, it doesn't cause things to "Come Together". And Second of all the number of Enzymes, Protiens, Nucleic acids and so forth that would have to come together at just the right time, at just the right amount for even the absolute "simplest" single celled life form to spontaneously form is so rediculously minute and so far fetched, that if Darwin would have understood the complexity, I guarantee you that he would not have put together his theory.

For the 6012374th time. Evolution ONLY explains how creatures came to be the way they are. It DOES NOT explain how they were first created.

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

Take apart a Swiss Watch, then imagine something about 1000X more complex and say to yourself, would this be able to put itself together... I don't think so.

For a different example, which engineer would you call better: one who can make a robot for a specific environment or one that makes a robot that can adapt to its environment?

EDIT: Jaguar beat me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×