^

Quote :

"So tell me, what is so fucking bad about what is effectively just a damned disclaimer being added to the science curriculum in order to actually uphold one of the most basic tenets of our gov't?"

8/4/2005 5:51:01 PM

^dude, wtf does the establishment clause have to do with science?

It concerns the government not supporting religion. The ID proponents are the ones trying to bring religion into this mess. Last time I checked, evolution isn't a religion.

8/4/2005 5:53:53 PM

Why can't they at least present the ID theory, and not call it "scientific"? Where's the harm in that?

I see no where in that article where it is stated that this has to be taught in science class, which seems to be the main argument against its inclusion by most of you. All you are saying is that since its not scientific, it can't be taught in science class. Fine, just present it in another forum.

8/4/2005 5:56:43 PM

^I think most people agree with that just fine.

However, the article is about an "alternative to evolution" and evolution is mainly science, so that's where it would happen anyways.

[Edited on August 4, 2005 at 5:58 PM. Reason : edit]

8/4/2005 5:57:31 PM

Wow there's a whole lot of stupid being thrown around in this thread.

I mean really.

packguy381 and MathFreak pretty much raped this argument.

Just let it go.

8/4/2005 5:58:43 PM

Even Santorum doesn't want ID taught in science classrooms.

8/4/2005 6:10:38 PM

no way. I mean why dont they start teaching Magic instead of chemistry?

8/4/2005 6:59:00 PM

Quote :

"dude, wtf does the establishment clause have to do with science?"

Let me connect the dots for you, since you are obviously incapable of doing so.

1) Both religion and science have creation explanations
2) The gov't mandates that science be taught in its schools.
3) Science is taught as 100% right and true.
4) Science's creation explanation differs from that of many religions
5) Thus, science is calling religion wrong
6) The gov't is mandating that school children be told that religion is wrong

get it? its pretty fucking obvious. not surprising that you don't get it...

Quote :

"Why can't they at least present the ID theory, and not call it "scientific"?"

it all depends in how its called "not scientific." If its done so with "scientific" meaning "right," then there is a problem... If its done so with "scientific" being explained as a methodical approach involving observation and measurement, then there isn't a horrible problem with it, as long as the text and teacher refrain from making a value judgement. I whole-heartedly agree that evolution is a whole lot better as a building block for scientific exploration than is ID. And, that could be fairly stated by a teacher as the reason for focusing more on evolution than ID. Plus, what is there really to say about ID? "Ummm, some people think that a creator being made everything... This is called ID. It encompasses every religion with a creation story. Evolution could even fit in with ID. The basic principle of ID, the existence of a creator being, as far as we know, is not testable... Thus, we won't dwell on the ramifications of ID at all. Thats for philosophy..." Then you explain how evolution fits in very well with observations and fossils and such...

Quote :

"I see no where in that article where it is stated that this has to be taught in science class, which seems to be the main argument against its inclusion by most of you."

Thats all fine and dandy, except that science is presented as "fact" most of the time. Thus, putting it in another forum would make one think "hmmm, ID must not be fact..." Besides, ID fits better in with the origin part of science classes than it does in math or social studies...

Quote :

"no way. I mean why dont they start teaching Magic instead of chemistry?"

that depends... does magic have any religious associations with it that are refuted by chemistry as it is currently taught in public schools?

8/4/2005 8:03:56 PM

Quote :

"3) Science is taught as 100% right and true. "

Innnnnnnnnnncorrrect.

8/4/2005 8:16:50 PM

3, 5, and 6 completely wrong

religion disagrees with science. you won't see in a science textbook "there is no God"

I'm sorry I made you feel insecure and everything, that's why you have to throw out insults after every thought, even though you're presenting a retarded argument.

8/4/2005 8:22:12 PM

Quote :

"exactly. you are ASSUMING its the truth. AKA, you don't know for SURE its the truth."

I do, but I admit it. Faith says that something IS true with no evidence. I say I don't know, faith says I do know.

Quote :

"BTW, your "blind" definition of faith is the most heinously wrong definition of faith ever."

Judging from previous arguements I'm inclined to believe that you know absolutely nothing about defintions.

Quote :

"leaving the basics of ID out of the science classroom violates the establishment clause"

ID ISN'T SCIENCE, HES EXPLAINED HOW AND WHY.

Quote :

"since science can't prove its most basic tenent: that everything we observe and measure actually is true"

Niether can history, neither can math, neither can english, nor anything in the world under the Descartian level of scrutiny. The fact is that ID is not science. US history isn't science either. This is why it is a seperate subject. If you wanted to put ID in the classroom it would need to be it's own subject, and the arguement agianst including it would be of course that it has absolutely no relevance to anything. English, history, science and math all have uses, ID has none, ID can prove nothing to be true under any assumptions.

8/4/2005 8:29:17 PM

CREATION IS CUBIC, but
you are educated singularity
stupid by academic bastards.
Greenwich 1 day time is evil.
I know that you possess the
mind to think that there are 4
simultaneous 24 hour days
within a single Earth rotation,
I think that you are just evil.
Can you explain the 4 days
rather than the 1 day taught?
If not, you are truely stupid.

8/4/2005 8:32:11 PM

looks like UberComedian has some competition.

8/4/2005 9:11:51 PM

Threads like this are why I prefer arguing in real life, where you can grab someone by the shoulders, shake them really hard, and say,

"DID YOU JUST HEAR THE CRAZY SHIT THAT CAME OUT OF YOUR MOUTH?"

8/4/2005 9:19:06 PM

Quote :

"religion disagrees with science. you won't see in a science textbook "there is no God""

It doesn;t say it explicitly, no. But it says it implicitly. If science says "every living being is descended from one organism," then that wholly disagrees w/ the Bible where it says that Adam was the first human and that he was created from scratch. AKA, no ancestor. Thus, science disagrees w/ religion.

nice try, buddy.

Quote :

"Faith says that something IS true with no evidence."

wrong. It means you believe it to be true without proof. There's a difference.

Quote :

"I say I don't know, faith says I do know."

Nope, faith says you believe it.

Quote :

"ID ISN'T SCIENCE, HES EXPLAINED HOW AND WHY."

"The sky is blue..."
"NO! THAT CAR IS RED!!! LOOK AT IT!!!"

Quote :

"Niether can history, neither can math, neither can english, nor anything in the world under the Descartian level of scrutiny."

So? Do any of these subjects conflict with religion? nope, they don't. Thus they are irrelevant.

You are still arguing that ID is "wrong." Thats irrelevant, because you aren't actually proving it wrong. Furthermore, you aren't addressing my point: establishment.

8/4/2005 9:22:28 PM

Reading what you write is like watching two huge, burly, hairy men having messy anal intercourse.

8/4/2005 9:30:23 PM

turns you on, eh?

8/4/2005 9:38:31 PM

Quote :

"5) Thus, science is calling religion wrong"

IT IS, YOU FUCKING EUNUCH. IT IS FUCKING WRONG. IT'S A BUNCH OF FUCKING FAIRY TALES. YOU TAKE YOUR WHOLE RELIGIOUS TENET OF LYING IS WRONG AND DO EXACTLY THAT TO EVERY FUCKING CHILD OR SIMPLETON YOU COME ACROSS THAT'S FUCKING GULLIBLE TO BELIEVE THAT BULLSHIT. YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF FUCKING HYPOCRITICAL ASSHOLES.

NOW YOU WANT TO <CONTINUE TO> PERPETUATE THAT SHIT IN SCHOOLS, AS IF THERE'S NOT FUCKING SUNDAY SCHOOL FOR YOU FUCKING SHEEP TO DO THAT IN. IF THE FUCKING PARENTS WANTED THEIR KIDS TO GET THAT SHIT, THEY'D FUCKING HAVE THEM IN SUNDAY SCHOOL EVERY FUCKING SUNDAY FOR THEIR DOSE OF KOOL-AID.

NOW SHUT THE FUCK UP AND EAT A DICK. EVERYONE, EVEN THE PEOPLE WHO AGREE WITH YOUR STUPID ASS, IS FUCKING TIRED OF YOUR BULLSHIT.

[Edited on August 4, 2005 at 10:18 PM. Reason : *]

8/4/2005 9:49:42 PM

Quote :

"wrong. It means you believe it to be true without proof. There's a difference."

We are talking about true relative to belief. You saying 'A' is true doesn't make 'A' true, it means you believe 'A' is true.

Quote :

"So? Do any of these subjects conflict with religion?"

No, but you are trying to apply the Descartian level of scrutiny to one subject in order to call it untrue, and yet leaving the others alone.

Quote :

"You are still arguing that ID is "wrong.""

It doesn't prove itself like math and science do, thus it is wrong.

8/4/2005 10:00:10 PM

It doesnt matter if its wrong or not. Anything as implausible as ID doesnt belong in schools. Theres more evidence supporting telepathy and reincarnation than there is supporting intelligent design and neither of those belong in primary school.

And no, they dont neccesarily have anything to do with a religion.

8/4/2005 10:48:39 PM

evolution says nothing of the presence of god. neither way. nope. sorry.

8/4/2005 10:53:23 PM

I think there were 4 quadrillion clones of Jesus living in Vermont in the year 1337. However, history teachers don't teach this in class and tell their students they don't believe there to be any Jesus clones that lived in Vermont at that time. Obviously it's the government violating the establishment cause and telling me there's no God.

CREATION IS CUBIC

I've never heard of one teacher talk about the time cube. fucking commies

8/4/2005 11:37:49 PM

My sides hurt, stop!

8/5/2005 1:47:12 AM

I've never seen such an ignorant discussion by such arrogant people on such an important subject.

8/5/2005 1:58:26 AM

and I've never seen words dat big

8/5/2005 2:23:58 AM

If it were up to Bush we would only have these subjects in school:

1. Creationism
2. Evil Doers
3. Strategery
4. How to not be daturd
5. How to make people think you are a Texan when you were born in New England
6. Nascar
7. Good Consumers
8. Lie, Cheat, Steal, Kill
9. Talk like a 7th grader

8/5/2005 6:14:37 AM

Quote :

"I've never seen such an ignorant discussion by such arrogant people on such an important subject. "

You only think its important because it makes your logic-craving penis hard. It isn't an important issue, its barely worth discussing. There are so many other issues we should put ahead of semantic arguments.

8/5/2005 8:57:55 AM

Quote :

"No, but you are trying to apply the Descartian level of scrutiny to one subject in order to call it untrue, and yet leaving the others alone."

The only reason I apply that scrutiny to science is because science more or less claims that that level of scrutiny must be applied. No other sujects say such a thing.

Quote :

"IT IS, YOU FUCKING EUNUCH. IT IS FUCKING WRONG. IT'S A BUNCH OF FUCKING FAIRY TALES. YOU TAKE YOUR WHOLE RELIGIOUS TENET OF LYING IS WRONG AND DO EXACTLY THAT TO EVERY FUCKING CHILD OR SIMPLETON YOU COME ACROSS THAT'S FUCKING GULLIBLE TO BELIEVE THAT BULLSHIT. YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF FUCKING HYPOCRITICAL ASSHOLES. NOW YOU WANT TO PERPETUATE THAT SHIT IN SCHOOLS, AS IF THERE'S NOT FUCKING SUNDAY SCHOOL FOR YOU FUCKING SHEEP TO DO THAT IN. IF THE FUCKING PARENTS WANTED THEIR KIDS TO GET THAT SHIT, THEY'D FUCKING HAVE THEM IN SUNDAY SCHOOL EVERY FUCKING SUNDAY FOR THEIR DOSE OF KOOL-AID. NOW SHUT THE FUCK UP AND EAT A DICK. EVERYONE, EVEN THE PEOPLE WHO AGREE WITH YOUR STUPID ASS, IS FUCKING TIRED OF YOUR BULLSHIT."

so in other words, "fuck the establishment clause." got it!

Quote :

"It doesn't prove itself like math and science do, thus it is wrong."

Science doesn't truly prove itself. Thus, why should it be looked at as any different from any other logic-based class? Science operates on this logic: as long as the initial assumption(truth of all observations) holds, then everything else follows. ID questions the initial assumption. Thus, it should be mentioned in a class that is fucking based on that unprovable assumption.

Quote :

"Anything as implausible as ID doesnt belong in schools."

Really? I was not aware that the existence of a creator being was implausible.

Quote :

"Theres more evidence supporting telepathy and reincarnation than there is supporting intelligent design and neither of those belong in primary school. And no, they dont neccesarily have anything to do with a religion."

Exactly. telepathy has nothing to do w/ religion, AND it has very little scientific evidence to back it up. Thus, there is little reason to include it in a science class. I'm glad you grasp the concept.

Quote :

"I think there were 4 quadrillion clones of Jesus living in Vermont in the year 1337. However, history teachers don't teach this in class and tell their students they don't believe there to be any Jesus clones that lived in Vermont at that time. Obviously it's the government violating the establishment cause and telling me there's no God."

One big problem there: History includes only that of which we have a verifiable record, written or oral. Unless you have a verifiable record of Jesus clones, then such a thing would be left out of the history books. Futhermore, History class does not say that there weren't 4 million Jesus clones in vermont in 1337. Thus your point moot. Lack of inclusion does NOT equate to calling something wrong. If I write a book that only talks about 2+2 equalling four, that doesn't mean that I am saying 2+3 doesn't equal 5.

Quote :

"I've never seen such an ignorant discussion by such arrogant people on such an important subject. "

well, if its unimportant, then put ID in science class and be done with it.

Quote :

"You only think its important because it makes your logic-craving penis hard. It isn't an important issue, its barely worth discussing. There are so many other issues we should put ahead of semantic arguments."

I'd say an obvious violation of the establishment clause is of greater concern than semantics. I love it when I hear someone (not necessarily the above quoted person) bitch about Christians who pick and choose what they want to believe from the Bible and then that person goes and does the same thing w/ the Constitution...

8/5/2005 9:43:43 AM

there is a difference between espousing a religion and not including one at all.

they're not saying "OMF THE BIBLE IS TEH PWNT"

they're saying "here's the scientific theory"

now your precious little christian children, or muslim or hindu or fucking american indian or what the fuck ever can get whatever theory that's religious from any source they want OUTSIDE.

8/5/2005 11:39:00 AM

If ID is to be included in Science class, then we need to begin reintegrating Philosophy and Physics. A system whose starting point we can't explain or understand but can only label as "God." We can't model God, we can barely describe God, and we definitely have no concrete way of observing God or measuring God. Knowing this, proponents of ID, I ask you how your theory qualifies as "science?"

Forget your proof by negation or statistics of improbability and concentrate the argument on the core problem with ID, God. How does God fit with science? How can you integrate the unexplainable and possibly nonexistent with a field that tries to explain and understand the natural world? Why even have science if God exists? What would be the point of understanding the natural world and the universe if its all just an elaborate environment created by a diety for reasons unknown. A diety which can change the rules at any moment and render irrelevent any understanding we think we may have had and who would know everything and anything before and after it happened.

Do you think science and God can coexist? Eventually I'd like to think that when we've become a bit more advanced socially and scientifically, we may actually be able to tackle this question and begin a new era of understanding.

Right now, however, I don't think the two can coexists. Our language is too crude and our beliefs too firm to explore and understand the contradictions these two entities have with each other and themselves.

[Edited on August 5, 2005 at 11:42 AM. Reason : Peace im out.]

8/5/2005 11:42:30 AM

^^and not even necessarily outside of school, just outside of a science classroom. i was taught plenty about creation myths IN MY WORLD LITERATURE CLASS.

[Edited on August 5, 2005 at 11:43 AM. Reason : ^^]

8/5/2005 11:43:05 AM

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=S%27%28X%24%2FP1%2B%20%21P%23%24%0A

Some notable quotes:

Quote :

"Intelligent design asks interesting questions about evolution, but since all its answers are usually “God”, scientists have rejected it. As the National Academy of Sciences has said, intelligent design “and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life” are not science because their claims cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own. (Instead, intelligent designers poke holes in evolutionary theory.)"

Quote :

"When the Discovery Institute, a promoter of intelligent design, came up with a list of 370 people with science degrees who backed their ideas, the National Centre for Science Education responded with almost 600 scientists called Steve or Stephanie who rejected them."

I know that being majority/minority doesn't make something right/wrong, but that's funny.

Quote :

"Proponents [of intelligent design] do not even demand that intelligent design should replace evolution in the classroom, merely that schools should “teach the controversy” (which they themselves have created). In short, religious Americans who find evolution distasteful are jumping at the chance to teach an alternative that claims to be science."

Quote :

"Whichever way the argument over intelligent design is finally resolved, it is likely to damage science teaching. This is not because bad science standards will necessarily be adopted but because [...] the biggest threat to high standards is the unwillingness of state Boards of Education to offend any sort of pressure group, whether right or left. Instead, they avoid controversial topics altogether."

8/5/2005 1:00:24 PM

the fact that bush made his opinion known is a bad idea

8/5/2005 1:03:51 PM

Quote :

"there is a difference between espousing a religion and not including one at all. they're not saying "OMF THE BIBLE IS TEH PWNT""

Yes, there is a difference. But, when a class is taught as fact like science is, then to include anything in that class that goes contrary to a religion would be a violation of the establishment clause.

Quote :

"If ID is to be included in Science class, then we need to begin reintegrating Philosophy and Physics."

Why? (no pun intended) There is very little common ground between Philosophy and Physics, other than they both start w/ "Ph."

Quote :

"A system whose starting point we can't explain or understand but can only label as "God." We can't model God, we can barely describe God, and we definitely have no concrete way of observing God or measuring God. Knowing this, proponents of ID, I ask you how your theory qualifies as "science?""

Again, why does this matter? I've already mentioned that there is no way to "scientifically" test for the existence of God. Thus, why dwell on trying to prove that in a science class? The only thing to hit on is to admit to the possibility of such a thing and then explain its ramifications TO SCIENCE. Its ramifications to our lives or afterlives aren't relevent to science.

Quote :

"How does God fit with science? How can you integrate the unexplainable and possibly nonexistent with a field that tries to explain and understand the natural world? Why even have science if God exists?"

If we knew for sure that He existed, then that would certainly be a question to tackle. However, we don't know if He exists, and thus science can be valuable. Besides, even if we knew that God did exist for sure, I'd say there is still a value in understanding what "rules" he set in place to goven the physical existence of the universe.

Quote :

"What would be the point of understanding the natural world and the universe if its all just an elaborate environment created by a diety for reasons unknown. A diety which can change the rules at any moment and render irrelevent any understanding we think we may have had and who would know everything and anything before and after it happened."

What would be the point of understanding the natural world if God didn't exist? The answer to my question is the answer to yours.

Quote :

"Proponents [of intelligent design] do not even demand that intelligent design should replace evolution in the classroom, merely that schools should “teach the controversy” (which they themselves have created). In short, religious Americans who find evolution distasteful are jumping at the chance to teach an alternative that claims to be science."

Actually, science itself made the controversy by always presenting itself as fact in schools. Nice try, though.

Quote :

"Whichever way the argument over intelligent design is finally resolved, it is likely to damage science teaching. This is not because bad science standards will necessarily be adopted but because [...] the biggest threat to high standards is the unwillingness of state Boards of Education to offend any sort of pressure group, whether right or left. Instead, they avoid controversial topics altogether."

Oh, what a beautiful cop-out. If they would give the fucking thing one fucking class period it'd be done with and there would BE no controversy, because ID would pretty much plug any potential holes into which controversy could sneak. The only political controversy that can come up right now is the controversy between religion and science. Thats it. Scientific controversy is almost welcomed, so there's nothing to worry about from that perspective. Thus, present a religiously neutral form of ID and you have all your bases covered.

What about atheism, you ask? Well, that one is pretty simple: since ID is offered as a theory and taught as such, then ID doesn't trample on atheists in any way. Atheists can keep on keepin on in, secure in their belief of the basic premise of science: the factual truth of our surroundings.

Quote :

"and not even necessarily outside of school, just outside of a science classroom. i was taught plenty about creation myths IN MY WORLD LITERATURE CLASS."

Thats wonderful. What did you call those again? MYTHS? Wow, that sure sounds like its being presented fairly beside the "fact" of evolution in science class...

8/5/2005 5:49:59 PM

DID YOU JUST HEAR THE CRAZY SHIT THAT CAME OUT OF YOUR MOUTH?

8/5/2005 5:57:09 PM

this is pointless...

8/5/2005 5:57:29 PM

yes, it is pointless when you don't believe in the parts of the Constitution that you disagree w/

8/5/2005 5:58:10 PM

Quote :

"There is very little common ground between Philosophy and Physics, other than they both start w/ "Ph.""

Stopped reading here. You're amazingly under-educated.

8/5/2005 6:00:33 PM

I don't think our science classrooms should change according to what religion suggests

8/5/2005 6:05:14 PM

^ too bad I'm not suggesting it from a religious perspective, but rather a Constitutional one.

Quote :

"Stopped reading here. You're amazingly under-educated."

Too bad, because I explained my point in detail after that.

8/5/2005 6:24:10 PM

^ Have you torn your opponents to shreds?

8/5/2005 6:38:22 PM

They dont want to teach anyone ID, they just want to mention to the students that not everyone believes in the Big Bang THEORY. Remember, science coureses are teaching a THEORY just like ID is a THEORY. If anyone of you can prove 100% correctly that the Big Bang THEORY is true then you should present your evidence and you will probably win the nobel prize or something. Until then, what is wrong with just breifly mentioning that the majority of the people of this world do not believe in this THEORY and believe in the ID theory? For religion critics, the BB THEORY an atheist point of view, meaning its part of the atheist religion.

8/5/2005 7:11:03 PM

Quote :

"The only reason I apply that scrutiny to science is because science more or less claims that that level of scrutiny must be applied."

Where does science claim that? It claims that it can learn things from observations, it never says it can undeniably prove anything.

Quote :

"Science doesn't truly prove itself."

Yes it does. Science proves that if I put water in my freezer it will freeze. and it always does. Now whether or not this freezer is a figment of my imagination doesn't matter, the fact is that every time I stick a tray of water in my freezer it will freeze. Sceince never claims that it can prove the existence of the world or that there isn't a god, or anything of that sort. It merely investigates the way the world works through experiementation, nothing about the philosopical existence of this world, THIS IS WHAT ID TRIES TO DO, WHICH IS NOT SCIENCE.

Quote :

"Why? (no pun intended) There is very little common ground between Philosophy and Physics, other than they both start w/ "Ph.""

According to you both explain philosopical issues. "Both religion and science have creation explanations"

Science never explains creation.

8/5/2005 7:11:25 PM

I despise a mother fucker who thinks the word theory, when applied to science, means the same thing as "theory" in everyday use. it's not a goddamn hunch.

And I do believe bigun's last post just trumped anything aaronburro has said for the most retarded diatribe i've seen in this discussion so far.



[Edited on August 5, 2005 at 7:17 PM. Reason : OMG JUST A THEORY]

8/5/2005 7:13:54 PM

Quote :

"They dont want to teach anyone ID, they just want to mention to the students that not everyone believes in the Big Bang THEORY."

When is the big bang theory even discussed in high school? BB is extremely controversial and is a very changing theory. I think the "theory" we're all talking about here is evolution.

8/5/2005 7:16:08 PM

If I remember correctly it was in 10th grade biology class when we talked about the theory of how the earth and life began.

8/5/2005 7:20:34 PM

I don't think the Big Bang created life on earth, nor do I think it accounts for modern evolutionary science. Correct me if I'm wrong.

8/5/2005 7:21:43 PM

The big bang is well out of the scope of biology. Your teacher was talking outside his class cirriculum if he was discussing TBB. TBB is theoretical astrophysics, it isn't even close to relevant to biology. Now evolution is, and perhaps that's what you're thinking of.

[Edited on August 5, 2005 at 7:23 PM. Reason : ]

8/5/2005 7:23:03 PM

at this point this thread is a monkey aaron fucking a football and everyone else is annoyed because it's our ball.

no more good can come to this thread because he's driven all fucking logic and sense out.

8/5/2005 7:50:25 PM

The reason big bang is a theory, and ID is not, is because there are observations to support a hypothesis. No conclusive proof.

8/5/2005 8:04:09 PM