if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
FSM: 3, ID: 0
by Lee
In the battle royale between ID and the FSM, score another one for He of the Noodly Appendage.
A creationism class was canceled this morning by a public school district in the town of Lebec that promised never again to schedule such a course in its classrooms.
The El Tejon Unified School District agreed to discontinue the class, which used creationist materials that insist that the biblical Book of Genesis is literally true and is scientific.
Opponents challenged the four-week course as an “infomercial for creationism” that violated the constitutionally-ordered separation of church and state.
The school district, in a statement, said it could not afford to fight the lawsuit.
The course used specific religious materials, which stated that the Book of Genesis is true? Why, it almost sounds like (gasp!) ID is religion! And it’s amazing, isn’t it, that the people pushing ID are all (gasp!) Christians, rather than Hindus or atheists. But, again, ID has nothing to do with religion. It’s all science.
It’s pretty sad. I was originally supportive of the school teaching this class, provided it didn’t turn into a primer for fundamentalist Christian orthodoxy, which is exactly what happened.
Comments
I was originally supportive of the school teaching this class, provided it didn’t turn into a primer for fundamentalist Christian orthodoxy, which is exactly what happened.
They pay taxes, they should get their class. Latino special interests get theirs, blacks get theirs, gays get theirs, along with every other group (at least I’ve seen it here in CA). Maybe our fucked up public school system can get the same amount of scrutiny these days as someone who is Christian. As long as everyone is forced to feed the kitty, everyone has the right to their own little interest.
They pay taxes, they should get their class.
So should every Creation Mythos from every religion - Hindu, Shinto, Wiccan, Muslim, Buddhist, Norse, the Australian Aboriginal “Dreamtime”, even atheism… Those people pay taxes, too.
Either you teach ALL religions or you teach none of them. That’s the only way to be fair with tax dollars.
I would have to agree with you, Lee (gasp!). It’s pretty bad when fellow Christians behave with this kind of ignorance--it hurts my witness because I’m then expected to defend these people.
Also, not that I’m disagreeing with you saying they wanted to only teach the Christian viewpoint, but Genesis is a book included in all three major religions. It could be argued that they were practicing diversity of faith in the ID class. I’m just saying for argument’s sake.
That poor, poor dead horse....
How is it a dead horse when these evangitards keep bringing it up?
Does the book of Genesis contain anything about Christ in it? Im just asking cause I don’t know for sure, and as quicksilver said, isnt the book of Genesis used by a few religions?
Also what other books could be included from other religions that specifically talk about the creation of everything?
My idea would be to just set a new course up that teaches every theory, idea, fact about evolution and ID. Teach it to high school kids and let em form their own opinion. Of course, kids that age dont give a crap, but oh well.
Elsewhere, Iran threatens to bring about WW3…
Sad and Pathetic. ID exists independant of creationalism and religion. When people start to teach that ID leads to the Christian God you stop teaching ID and you start tearching the Teleological Argument for the Existence of God with “empirical evidence”. To say “Genesis is literally true and is scientific” is impossible because there’s simply no way ID today or in the next hundred years could possibly prove the existence of this EXACT God.
Does the book of Genesis contain anything about Christ in it? Im just asking cause I don’t know for sure, and as quicksilver said, isnt the book of Genesis used by a few religions?
Christ isn’t in Genesis since it’s in the Old Testament (before his birth). There may be a mention of a Savior to come, but not that I remember from my Sunday School days. Anyone else?
Oh, and which 3 major religions are you talking about? I know that Christianity and Judaism use the Old Testament, but what is the 3rd one you are referring to? I wasn’t aware that any others (Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.) used the Old Testament.
Islam does but says the current forms are corrupted by the infidel.
Either the world is a mere hodgepodge of random cohesions and dispersions, or else it is a unity of order and providence. If the former, why wish to survive in such a purposeless and chaotic confusion; why care about anything, save the manner of the ultimate return to dust; why trouble my head at all; since, do what I will, dispersion must overtake me sooner or later? But if the contrary be true, then I do reverence, I stand firmly, and I put my trust in the directing power. Meditations
Marcus Aurelius
He wasn’t even a Christian. Say what you want, it brings some of us comfort to believe that the world is in the hands of something much greater than bureaucrats and scientists. You can call us stupid or weak minded all you want and it’s okay because we are forgiving by nature. It’s just irritating that you are so quick to turn against religious Conservatives for the sake of looking independent minded to a bunch of liberals who won’t respect you any more for it. Stop bagging on those of us who believe in God and start going after the people who think they are gods and that in whom we should put all of our faith. Do something that surprises me; pretend this is a conservative and not merely a libertarian website. Like it or not, libertarians alone do not defeat Democrats.
Considering all the prominent scientists that have debunked the “evidence” of Darwin’s theory, I’d say sticking to the talking point that evolution is a fact is just as much of religion requiring a bigger leap of faith than ID. But of course, all the evolutionary zealots will now burn me at the stake, in effigy of course.
I’d like to see a science book that, instead of showing all the debunked “proof” of evolution, showed how those same myths have been disproven. Instead they recycle the same tired old stories used for decades.
Islam does but says the current forms are corrupted by the infidel.
Thanks for that info...I did not know that. Do they call it Genesis or something else?
you are so quick to turn against religious Conservatives for the sake of looking independent minded to a bunch of liberals who won’t respect you any more for it. Stop bagging on those of us who believe in God
I’m not bagging on people who believe in God. I never have, and I defy you to quote me where I have done so. What I *have* bagged on, and will continue to bag on, are those believers in God who are so insecure with their own religious conviction that they try to redefine the concept of science to fit the narrow predictions of their own particular religious dogma. The Bible is a religious text, it is NOT SCIENCE. The Bible has value as a religious text, not as a science book. If you want someone to defend the Bible as a religious text, and of your right to the free exercise of your religious beliefs, you won’t find a bigger defender than me. And if you try to weasel creationism into science classrooms through the idiocy of ID then you’ll find no bigger opponent than me.
It’s quite simple. Science versus not science. If it’s not science, it doesn’t belong in science class.
Do something that surprises me; pretend this is a conservative and not merely a libertarian website. Like it or not, libertarians alone do not defeat Democrats.
This isn’t a libertarian website. I’m a subscriber to the classic Reagan wing of the GOP, the small government libertarian wing. What we have in power now with Bush and Congress is the big government fundamentalist Christian wing. If the GOP wants to start giving my wing of the party a little bit more than lip service then maybe I’ll start paying them a little more respect.
Grr...I hate ID as much as the next intellectual (not saying that I am an intellectual...uhmm....beer), but if a school district wants to have an ELECTIVE class for ID or Hindu Creationism or WHATEVER, I think they absolutely should be allowed to teach it.
Now, was this class an elective...as in, not mandatory? If so, I have no issues with it.
The BIGGEST problem I have with ID is that it’s NOT Science and should be creditted as Science and that students should NOT be forced to learn it.
If a student, presumably under the direction/influence of their parents, wants to take an elective ID or Comparative Creationist Mythology class for a few empty credits, it’s FINE. Let that school district be as long as they have a certified and real science class.
I’m somewhat disappointed that this school district didn’t have the strength to let this elective class be taught.
-Pain
Lee, if you and everyone else in here believes in God (and national polling indicates that at least 90% of us do) why is it so unreasonable to think that an all powerful God created all life on Earth? Maybe evolution just shows HOW he did it. An intelligent debate would be asking if there is some kind of middle ground between these theories. Referring to Christian conservatives who support the theory that God made it all happen as the “ooga-booga crowd” as you have done in the past is hardly constructive.
P.S., our mutual hero, Ronald Reagan, supported school prayer. Don’t tell me that this push for religious values in our public schools is a some kind of Bush/Robertson/Falwell cabal. It isn’t.
As a college prof in the sciences, I’d still have problems with ID as an elective, because even though you want to take it, it’s still chock full of material that has no basis in science.
Granted, that’s half of the psychology catalog… kidding, of course.
But ID is not science, as it has no testable hypothesis. I can’t add indicator to a test tube, shake it up, and because there’s a green tint, God Exists.
If you REALLY want to have an ID class, call it, “Scientific Abnormalities”, and teach all about the science that goes against pattern. I could cover 2-3 weeks on water alone, and how it’s an amazingly remarkable molecule for its moelcular weight. Then another 2-3 weeks on the chiral selectiveness in nautre, ending with enzymes for a couple of weeks. Then talk about the idea of molecular preorganization compared to the statistical probability. Finally, I’d wrap up with some cosmology, dealing with the Drake equation and the sheer improbability of planets like Earth to exist.
And in all that, not talk about any Creator being (Sorry spaghetti monster noodleheads). But, it will leave you with enough information to “wonder”. The best part-- I won’t have to omit any science to talk about it.
THAT’S an ID course. None of this “Bible says so” garbage.
Nethicus, I’d attend that class—wait for it—religiously. :)
And isn’t it true that the Bible, pre-King James, had /two/ versions of the world being made in Genesis? If so, which one do they teach?
--TR
The El Tejon Unified School District agreed to discontinue the class, which used creationist materials that insist that the biblical Book of Genesis is literally true and is scientific.
Lee, this isn’t quite the “gotcha” that you think it is. The person who WROTE the article is the one that believes that the materials insist that Genesis is literally true. Plus, what if they do use that material. After all, it’s a philosophy class and so it is totally reasonable to have examples of groups of people that believe in intelligent design. I’m willing to bet that they also have material from other religions as well that believe a creater was the one that made the earth the way it is. Go ahead and ask a muslim, jew, or hindi if the earth was created by some being. If they say yes (and they will), then that means that *gasp* they too believe in ID.
Also, believe it or not ID actually challenges the Big Bang theory, NOT evolution. Unfortunately you have been duped by the media time and time again. Ever since Bush won the 2004 election the media has tried to make christians look as bad as possible. You didn’t even notice how the media made it seem that only christians didn’t want Terry Schiavo to be killed, yet a huge number of athiests and agnostics felt the same way, or if Fred Phelps and his organization protested at a funeral the headline would say “Christians Organizations Protest Funeral” (notice the plural).
Of course many christian organizations support ID classes. Could it be that *gasp* the majority of religious people in this country are christian and that *gasp* what they believe in fits with intelligent design?
Also, stop going on about how you never bashed christians. I mean, you only bash one of the core beliefs of christians time and time again (that God created the earth). You also constantly act like christians don’t believe in science. How ignorant you are.
Nethicus--
I’m not sure I understand why you object to an ID (or any other origins myth) course as an elective...like basket-weaving or shop or water polo.
I don’t see why students and parents can’t choose to enroll their students in an any-Creation course that the school district offer if they choose.
Of course, if the elective course does not fill up, it should be cancelled. But if there is a demand for it and the student/parents of a district want it...so be it.
In some districts, it’s really important to have regional emphasis electives as options for their students. I support the district’s rights to have electives that support the needs/wants of their community.
Heck, where I grew up, automotive repair was entirely too emphasized...but it was an elective.
-Pain
Maybe it’s just me, but I see nothing in that article about ID at all. I see a school attempting to teach Creationism. IMHO, this should be in no way interpreted as a defeat for the ID crowd, because the class was not an ID class.
Whether or not you wish to admit it, Lee, ID and Creationism are different theories, and those who wish to teach strict Creationism are much more fundamentalist than those who are trying to teach the compromise, ID.
The problem is that IDers are trying to fly under the radar, discreetly introducing ID into science curricula.
Hey, at least the school had the decency to make it a small elective course instead of integrating it into the science curriculum.
I’d like to see a science book that, instead of showing all the debunked “proof” of evolution, showed how those same myths have been disproven. Instead they recycle the same tired old stories used for decades.
Sean, you aren’t reading the right textbook. Try “Evolution” by Monroe Strickberger.
Lee, if you and everyone else in here believes in God (and national polling indicates that at least 90% of us do) why is it so unreasonable to think that an all powerful God created all life on Earth? Maybe evolution just shows HOW he did it. An intelligent debate would be asking if there is some kind of middle ground between these theories.
I agree, but until we can find people that are willing to approach the subject from a neutral standpoint, i.e., TEACH BOTH SIDES, I think this is a wholly bad idea. I’ve seen first hand how opponents to evolution (and proponents of ID/creationism) can completely misrepresent evolution, both from a theoretical standpoint, as well as the facts involved. It’s scary, frankly.
And right on, Nethicus.
Hey, at least the school had the decency to make it a small elective course instead of integrating it into the science curriculum.
That’s cause if they tried to insert it into accepted science courses, they’d have lawsuits and shite on their hands. This is less a matter of “decency” and more a matter of how close can they get to teaching it in public school.
But ID is not science, as it has no testable hypothesis.
I guess evolution isn’t a science then, either. Since it isn’t testable.
Also, believe it or not ID actually challenges the Big Bang theory, NOT evolution.
Actually, the Big Bang theory pretty much is ID. Think about it. Matter and Energy created out of nothing. Everything ordered for the creation of life from the very instant of the Big Bang itself. Evolution, according to lots of its adherents over the years, destroys the need for a God to create everything. It doesn’t, actually, but that’s what some would have you believe.
Now. Evolutionists always balk at going all the way back to the very beginning of evolution - to the creation of life. There is absolutely no scientific explanation for this. It is, essentially, infinitely improbable that life began from inorganic chemicals all on its own. Evolutionists, on this site even, argue that just because we don’t know the cause behind something doesn’t default it to God. True. But when science has completely failed in an explanation, the issue overlaps into the field of philosophy, which leaves plenty of room to entertain alternative explanations that are equally plausible with the idea that life was a random accident. The idea and evidence behind evolution doesn’t really improve from that starting point. But hey, to each their own.
And this isn’t just me, plenty of world-class scientists feel that the so-called evidence for evolution is flimsy at the very best. Such that any other “theory” would be highly questionable if not outright scrapped.
Clinging to the sinking ship that is evolution requires a bit of intellectual dishonesty and a lot of religious adherence to a dogma.
Local school boards should be permitted to teach whatever the communities want. If the community rejects the curriculum, then vote the offending board members out of office as has been done in New England. The course was only removed because of typical ACLU tactics such as bringing legal action with the intent of bankrupting the district through legal fees. I don’t know what exactly was in that course and neither does anyone else right now, but I’m horrified that right wingers are on here pretending that this is anything other than another victory for the secular left. The “opponents” are not mentioned by name, but I would not be surprised to see some big leftist names among them. Socialist, Atheistic lawyers from NY and LA have no business telling local school boards what to teach, nor do people in Middle America need to tell the entire population of San Francisco that they’re going to hell. Those of you who call yourself conservatives while celebrating this act are nothing more than Useful Idiots to a bunch of wild eyed leftists who are most hostile to what this country really stands for. I don’t think I’ll open the champagne right now. Thanks. I am a lot more concerned about universities that accept my tax dollars teaching ignorant 20 year olds that Bush is a Nazi and Che Guevara was a hell of a guy. Our public school teachers aren’t completely free of that either. How about a posting on that?
Also, stop going on about how you never bashed christians. I mean, you only bash one of the core beliefs of christians time and time again (that God created the earth). You also constantly act like christians don’t believe in science. How ignorant you are.
Okay, I’ll explain this again. (I usually have to re-explain this point about once every six months or so.)
I have never once, ever, mocked the idea of believing that God created the world. If you can quote me doing so then go for it. Belief in a creator of some kind, whether God or other, is a completely rational belief to hold. However, if your belief in God causes you to place more scientific weight in allegorical Biblical creation myths than you do in contemporary geology or genetics, then yes, you’re a moron. If you actually, honestly believe that Noah created an ark which held two of every animal, and that all of life was wiped out in a great flood, then you’re functionally retarded.
If you use religion as a basis for moral guidance, to provide answers to philosophical dilemmas, or to give your life a sense of purpose and connection with the universe, then you are completely rational and normal. If you look at modern scientific fact, and are willing to discount it because the facts tend to disagree with a myth written thousands of years ago, then you’re a moron.
Religion is not science. Science is not religion. Both have their own valid places in society. But keep them separate. It’s like using the rules of English to try and disprove math.
Those of you who call yourself conservatives while celebrating this act are nothing more than Useful Idiots to a bunch of wild eyed leftists who are most hostile to what this country really stands for.
Many of us are celebrating the triumph over stupidity.
So, the next step would be for those school districts to refuse federal funding. You see, if you take the federal money in Kansas, you’re going to have a bunch of asshats in California telling how to run things. In some way, rightly so.
You want your local board to call 100% of the shots without my input? Don’t take the money. Simple. I’m tired of paying for programs in other states anyway.
That’s what this country use to stand for.
Religion is not science. Science is not religion.
Lee, I’m going to email you my recent lettor to the editor of our little local newspaper. I think I used those exact words.
Religion is not science. Science is not religion.
Lee, I’m going to email you my recent lettor to the editor of our little local newspaper. I think I used those exact words.
Why not just post it here and share it with all of us?
…I’m horrified that right wingers are on here pretending that this is anything other than another victory for the secular left. The “opponents” are not mentioned by name, but I would not be surprised to see some big leftist names among them. Socialist, Atheistic lawyers from NY and LA…
Interesting. ID is allegedly not religion, and not a religious argument. Yet, mysteriously, when it is defeated you consider it a victory for the “secular” left and “atheistic [sic] lawyers”. If ID isn’t religion, then how is its defeat bad for religion? And if it is religion, then what place does it have in a science class?
Your turn, hotshot.
Again, I’m not sure this particular debate has much to do with ID. It’s more about whether local non-private schools can have elective classes that broach the religious themes. Sadly, it seems that they can’t. But they SHOULD be able to. If it’s an elective and the school board supports such.
IF, and it’s an IF because really don’t know from the article, the class was an elective, I can’t imagine what grounds the ACLU or whomever (Thrill...we really don’t know who was against it) was using to stop the course from being taught.
But if it was mandatory, then I’d be among those who would try to stop it. If I had kids, I’ll sure as heck teach them religion in home, thankyouverymuch.
In short, we have too little information and not enough to go on. Branding this as a victory for anything other than ignorance is silly.
-Pain
That poor, poor dead horse....
How is it a dead horse when these evangitards keep bringing it up?
When did Lee accept Jesus?
Anyone else?
Isaac is viewed as a foreshadow of Jesus, in the sense that Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son. High Priest Melchizidek (sp?) can also viewed as a preincarnate Christ by some.
The symoblism of the Passover (Exodus, but still a long time ago!) is HEAVILY linked to the events of Christ’s death. Probably lots more......
It’s just irritating that you are so quick to turn against religious Conservatives for the sake of looking independent minded to a bunch of liberals who won’t respect you any more for it. Stop bagging on those of us who believe in God and start going after the people who think they are gods and that in whom we should put all of our faith. Do something that surprises me; pretend this is a conservative and not merely a libertarian website. Like it or not, libertarians alone do not defeat Democrats.
Couldn’t have said it better myself, Thrill.
I’ve met LOTS of intelligent Christians who are barraged into silence by the obviously correct elite, be they right wing or left these days.
Dave D.
I’d like to see a science book that, instead of showing all the debunked “proof” of evolution, showed how those same myths have been disproven. Instead they recycle the same tired old stories used for decades. “That would require humilty, Sean. Something that the percieved elite on both sides of the aisle do NOT posess.
First:
you want your local school board to call 100% of the shots without my input? Don’t take the money.
No argument here. But this problem isn’t going away like that. No politician will stand behind a program of cutting all funding to schools for the sake of fairness. I don’t want taxpayer subsidized atheism either. How about tax breaks for people who send their children to schools of their choice? The educational quality is better and it’s not really fair to make people who pay taxes for schools also have to pay tuition at a public school their kids don’t attend. Just throwing it out there.
If ID isn’t religion, then how is it’s defeat bad for religion?
You have a knack for attributing opinions to others and then bludgeoning them for it. I never once said...I’ll wait for you to finish scrolling up and down...that ID is NOT religion. I WANT prayer in school and religious teaching. I WANT religion to be more in tune with science. As I said earlier, Reagan supported prayer in school too. Religion has had to bend to accept science. To be sure, it was wrong about astronomy and medicine. Science, however could use some morality. Science has made possible horrible weapons and technologies that were developed by men who did not give a damn about the consequences. I do not want to see a world that cold and clinical and I will resist it. No specific Biblical interpretation is being used, no specific church doctrine is being used as a model. This is only an issue because the people who believe that government is the most powerful force in the universe think that any mention of God refers to religion. An overwhelming majority of Americans believe in God, I’m one of them, and I don’t understand why we let a handful of malcontents and antisocials tell us what to do. Let’s get back to basics. How’s this for a curriculum?
Teacher: It is possible that all life on Earth developed by a series of complicated accidents that resulted in all that we see.......It is also possible that a Supreme Being set in motion and guided the creation of all life for some unknown purpose.
Student: My dad said that God created the world in six days. What about that?
Teacher: Some people believe that. The truth is that I don’t know and your family is entitled to it’s beliefs.
How fucking hard is that? And if the kid says the teacher is going to hell, the teacher can give him detention. I don’t care.
Thrill & NotNeoConMan--
I guess I’m doomed to whatever heck you choose to assign me...I just don’t think ID is science and you’ll never convince me otherwise. There is nothing, forgive me if I get technical, “sciency” about ID.
However, you will get my full support if you want to have “Comparative Creation Philosophy” electives. Or “Intelligent Design” electives at your local, federally funded schools. As long as they are elective and not part of the mandatory curriculum...I ain’t got a problem with it. If the school board will support it because the community wants it and students will attend it...then go for it.
But it’s not science and doesn’t belong in true science programs.
I just want my children taught religion by me or people I trust...my local church, synogauge, or witch coven.
-Pain
There’s the problem Pain: we don’t know if the class in the above story was just an elective or not. If it was and the district was intimidated into dropping it because they could not fight a lawsuit, I think it’s an outrage.
Why not just post it here and share it with all of us?
Because then people could Google it, revealing my true identity and then all hell would break loose. Or, it would just make me paranoid.
I’ll email you a link though.
When did Lee accept Jesus?
I mean people on school boards and whatnot.
Painlord said:
I’m not sure I understand why you object to an ID (or any other origins myth) course as an elective...like basket-weaving or shop or water polo.
I’ll revise my earlier statement. ID should not be taught as a SCIENCE elective. I’ve got no problem with it as a PHILOSOPHY elective, where nebulous ideas are pandered.
Sean M said:
I guess evolution isn’t a science then, either. Since it isn’t testable.
Evolution is not (currently) experimentally provable. However, there is much evidence which suggests transitional evolution. There is no evidence which suggests an intelligence spawned the universe. It’s all conjecture. ID is still hypothesis on the science stage, but evolution fits much better into theory.
theory: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; “a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory”; “he proposed a fresh theory
hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena
Evolution is not (currently) experimentally provable.
But it does have one thing that ID doesn’t have - falsifiability, a necessary component to scientific theories (and the thing that distinguishes them from hypotheses and conjectures).
So should every Creation Mythos from every religion - Hindu, Shinto, Wiccan, Muslim, Buddhist, Norse, the Australian Aboriginal “Dreamtime”, even atheism… Those people pay taxes, too.
No, I’m just saying with all these other interest groups getting their classes, or group meetings and campus activism at tax payer expense; we shouldn’t be surprised by this. If I were an ID or religious person, I’d be wondering why all these other groups out there are pandered to in the name of multiculturalism, while the overwhelming majority of the population that consists of Christians, gets shit on. They don’t deserve anything, because they are the cause of the Country’s woes. It’s cool to accuse them of this these days. Not necessarily by anyone here, and I don’t think you or Lee, have ever come close to saying that, but it is a popular trend in this Country.
Privatize the schools. I know most think it’s a dumb idea, and that’s my response to everyone of these posts, but I’ll beat dead horses too. Having faith in the government to do their best to educate the kids of this nation is a far more ridiculous belief than creationism. I just don’t see that push here, the push to privatize, as shitty government schooling is the real problem. It’s more about how to fairly deal with the money put into Socialized education.
Privatize the schools.
Amen, brudda. I’d love for someone to point to which section of the Constitution that says that the Government should be involved in education in the first place.
We spend an average of $10,000 per student in this country. For a classroom of 25 kids, that’s a quarter of a million bucks per year, and there isn’t a dime’s worth of capital costs in that amount. We should be able to hire two GREAT teachers (at almost $100K/year) and have another $50K left over for books and other classroom materials.
Every year.
Yet our kids keep falling behind against foreign students, and what do they scream for? More money. More than half of California’s annual budget is for education (K-12 & colleges), and you can add Federal funds and lottery to that. Yet more than 30% of CA high school freshmen never make it far enough to graduate, for one reason or other.
Yeah, let’s raise taxes again…
I know most think it’s a dumb idea, and that’s my response to everyone of these posts, but I’ll beat dead horses too.
I’m dancin’ halleluja with raised hands over here.
I think some of the resistance comes from the inability to envision how poor kids would ever get an education under such a system. The rest is just from socialists who refuse to relinquish power.
the inability to envision how poor kids would ever get an education under such a system.
Attach the money to the child, and let the current schools go free market. The money will follow the product, eventually settling on whichever group can consistently provide a solid education at a reasonable price to the parents…
I have never once, ever, mocked the idea of believing that God created the world. If you can quote me doing so then go for it.
NOt only did you do it in this thread, you did it in the same post!
However, if your belief in God causes you to place more scientific weight in allegorical Biblical creation myths than you do in contemporary geology or genetics, then yes, you’re a moron. If you actually, honestly believe that Noah created an ark which held two of every animal, and that all of life was wiped out in a great flood, then you’re functionally retarded.
Let’s see. Christians believe in what the Bible says. It’s called the Word of God for a reason. In said book, it mentions the great flood and the ark. You said that anyone who believes that story (which would be christians and some sects of jews) are functionally retarded. So right there you bashed christians for believing in the great flood. You also in the same paragraph bashed people (in other words, CHRISTIANS) for believing that God created the earth instead of the Big Bang theory (which is what ID really challenges) and that God created man instead of us coming from apes. Hmmmm....yep, I would say that bashing those beliefs in which 99.99999999% of christians have would mean that you are bashing christians.
22, it’s quite simple. The story of the Ark is absolutely preposterous. Belief in a divine power which drives the universe is completely normal. Belief that a man actually built a ship capable of holding two of every animal is insane. It’s physically impossible. It absolutely cannot be done. It’s not just implausible or unlikely, it absolutely could not have ever happened. Ever. Under any circumstances. IT COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED.
If you are willing to believe that something took place, something which could not have ever actually happened, then you’re insane. Literally, clinically insane.
Is there a God? I have no idea. I am perfectly willing to concede that there very well may be some kind of divine power in the universe. What preceded the big bang? What kind of divine spark was its power? Beats the shit out of me. Maybe it was God. Maybe Jesus was God’s son. Maybe it’s Allah or Vishnu or the FSM or someone else. I have no idea, so believing in a deity is just as rational and normal as not believing in one. However, believing that a man could physically fit two of every animal into a floating ship is insane.
So, as I said, I have never bashed anyone for their belief in a deity, no matter what form that deity may take. However, if you are willing to believe in something that a third grader could easily tell you was impossible, then you’re a moron.
Tell me, can you really fit 50 clowns into a car?
The story of the Ark is absolutely preposterous.
What?! I own the Indiana Jones DVD set. I know what I saw.
My part in the debate has ended, I’m flying to Miami in a few hours. Be gone for two long weeks. I bid you all adieu!
stupid fundies… drooling inbreds that lee says they are say things like this:
‘Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.’
oh…
wait…
that wasn’t from a fundie…
it was from a highly respected and recongized agonistic/atheist…
one that you might just might have heard of…
albert einstein…
let’s all beat up on albert einstein now… we all know lee is smarter than einstein..
cause, according to lee, einstein is an idiot id’er because he said (numerous times) that he believed ‘something’ created/designed ‘everything’’…
guess i’m an idiot, along with einstein, in lee’s world as well…
that being said, both lee and i are complete and drooling morons compared to einstein… but lee still insists that einstein is below himself for believing in what would become ID…
oh well.. just my opinion..
and, for the record, i DON’T believe in ID… but neither has evolution beyond a reasonable doubt to me…
cause we all know that ‘relativity’ thing is just made up to made the bible untrue… and ‘atomic theory’? well, since einstein said it, according to lee, einstein’s just a drooling fundie, so it can’t be scientific… cause einstein (drooling idiot fundie that he was according to lee) couldn’t be right about anything…
except, so far, einstein’s been right about most things…
that being said… i agree with lee about most everything else…
Syd, Einstein was a religious man. He believed in a creator whom he referred to as God. He believed that a divine force was at work in the universe. That being said, Einstein dedicated his life to theorizing about the makeup of the universe, about who we are and how we got here and where we are going. He didn’t look in the bible for those answers, he turned to science.
What Einstein did not do was look at the gaps in his own theories, then discount the entire theory in favor of a “God did it” response. This is what ID folks are doing, discounting the scientific process in favor of the quick religious answer, which isn’t of course religious.
There is A UNIVERSE of difference between ID and what Einstein believed. In fact, Einstein’s position and mine are almost identical. The only substantive difference between our beliefs is that he had faith in the existence of a supernatural being, whereas I am only willing to concede the possibility that there may be one. Apart from that he and I are very much on the same page.
The story of the Ark is absolutely preposterous.
Couldn’t agree more. At last count, there were hundreds of thousands of species. Even accepting that 9/10 of those were insects, that still leaves thousands of different species, including only minor variants (moose/elk/deer/caribou, polar/grizzly/brown bear, antelope/okapi/wildebeest, dog/wolf/coyote/dingo/hyena, cat/tiger/lion/leopard/panther, etc.), some of whom are carnivores, requiring hundreds of pounds of meat every week, plus silage for the herbivores (elephant, horse, mule, donkey, rhino, giraffe, primates - including all of the variants (baboon, monkey, chimp, ape), for more than a year, using only a crew of 8 (Noah, his three sons, and their respective wives).
I don’t think that they had high-tech suspended animation if they were still building boats out of wood. By hand.
When did Lee accept Jesus?
I mean people on school boards and whatnot.
I know, but Lee is the one who keeps posting this tiring subject. I know I usually just groan and move on, but Thrill’s post got me all worked up for a few minutes.
Here, try reading Einstein’s quote in full-
But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind’s spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man’s own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.
Takes on a different perspective when not taken out of context, eh? Story of my life.
I know, but Lee is the one who keeps posting this tiring subject.
Yeah, how dare I post on something that actually took place in the news that very day.
Next entry: Chainsaw, Machete, and Axe
Previous entry: Dirty Movies
That poor, poor dead horse....