and so it continues…
- Started
- Last post
- 25 Responses
- Point5
I don't know what to say:
- nomis0
Are these people serious?
- Point50
I think so...
- otapnam0
science and religion will never work together
some would say science is a religion of its own too.
- algorithm0
"The 6-4 vote was a victory for “intelligent design” advocates who helped draft the standards"
go figure.
- kyl30
“This is a sad day. We’re becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that,” said board member Janet Waugh, a Kansas City Democrat.
no need to say anything else point5, janet summd it up
- uberdesigner0
more scary that funny
- mikotondria20
what a joke..
Darwins theory of evolution proposes mechanisms by which complex organisms came into being as a result of the interaction of the environment with a species.
Because it is not yet complete, and indeed provides a framework for one of the most complex systems known, these darn ID proponents want to offer an alternative theory - namely that we dont understand it fully, therefore some other force (which we do not understand fully) was responsible.
ID merely states that the complexity of living systems is SO complex compared to the results that might be predicted from our limited evolutionary model, that the evolutionary model is wrong, and the complexity is the result of a force majeure.
Its like 18th century scholars declaring that Newtons theory of gravity was wrong because we could not extrapolate it to galaxies at that point.
What a bunch of deluded, sad, angry stupid fat truck driving, gun toting hicks.
Listen - I can understand your theory, you cannot entertain mine, therefore I am more intelligent than you...I have evolved further, I have intelligently designed my own theory, you are stretching the bounds of your limited brainpower by memorizing the ideas of someone who says they agree with you, and whom you think is more intelligent than you. You are wrong, and I am glad.
- grafholic0
i feel for the kids in kansas. i wish i could rescue them.
- discipler0
I don't know what to say:
Point5
(Nov 8 05, 15:49)
-------------------------------My recommendation is... get used to it. Because you are going to see more and more boards accepting this policy on teaching the controversy.
For 150 years we have bought into and have been teaching our kids, materialistic philosophy masquerading as science - namely, Darwinism. Now, specifically, within the last 30 years we have accumulated new scientific data. Data which demonstrates that the cell, which Darwin thought was a simple plasma blob, is really a liliputian world of mind boggling complexity, with machinery beyond anything humans have devised. With digital sequential code, with backup and protection mechanisms and information transport shuttles and on and on and on. And we know that whenever we see digitally coded information and complex machinery in any other realm of experience... an intelligent entity was the source. So, the inference to a designer is perfectly logical and is good science.
We also know that Darwin's mechanism of Natural Selection + Unguided Mutation, is incapable of producing this machinery on the biochemical level. The removal of any one component from Irreducibly Complex machinery... and the machine breaks completely. It requires all of it's parts at once, or not at all. Something Darwinian gradualism cannot produce.
When we combine this data with the fact that the fossil record shows the sudden appearance of millions of novel body plans and then stasis in every geological column (this indicates the direct opposite of what the Darwinian Narritive would have us believe), we can logically infer... design.
When we learn that the physical laws of our planet and our position in the solar system (and galaxy) are fine-tuned to such a precise tolerance that any slight change would make organic life impossible, we can logically infer... design.
See, it's not "God of the Gaps". It's making a logical hypothesis, based on the data. The shoe is actually on the other foot here: suggesting that "if we wait long enough, we'll find some purely naturalistic explanation..."... balderdash. This is Evolution of the Gaps.
The reason ID will continue to grow and be embraced is because it is based on science, not a wishful narritive. You can't argue with the science. And this is what more and more people are realizing, as they cut through the emotional rhetoric and political bull.
- discipler0
and yes, you will continue to get the same false caricature from the media. Just like the article you've linked in your first post. Replete with misinformation. People never get the facts on the issue, from these cute little articles. I like the way this cartoon puts it...
- prodigalslacker0
all hail the flying spaghetti monster!!!!!
- jevad0
"within the last 30 years we have accumulated new scientific data"
Where? Come on - link me to FACTS that challenge darwinism.
Unbelievable...that so many people are duped by stories from a fucking BOOK as opposed to raw, and FACTUAL scientific data.
Morons the lot of you.
FUck religion
- discipler0
Are you joking, jevad? Who said anything about religion? Religion has nothing to do with Intelligent Design. ID is simply observing specified complexity in biological systems and suggesting that the best explanation is an intelligent cause, instead of unguided material mechanisms.
Now, just a couple of links with the Data which challenges Darwinism:
http://www.ideacenter.org/resour…
http://www.discovery.org/csc/top…
- bk_shankz0
There can still be intelligent design and eveolution. They aren't arguing the same thing. One can exist without the other. There is a wind up clock model for intelligent design which evolution could exist in. To say intelligent design presupposes evoltuion is an incredible fallacy in logic.
- KILLputer0
Darwin himself went to sunday school and was determined to prove God to himself after the death of his daughter above all things. And he grew up just fine didn't he.
Darwin's "facts" are theories, and only partly proven, not unlike the book that is duping the world.
- bk_shankz0
its like being taught utilitarianism instead of bilogy class.
- Mimio0
Don't believe the hype, there is no real science to ID, just very clever lawyers with an agenda. Ask yourself why a "scientific movement" like ID would want to push it's agenda so vehemently without any docuemnted laws, models, explanations for how design happens, or testable predictions? seriously how do they propose this so-called theory be taught?--
"well kids...see the drawing of this cell...it's very complex...rightnow we can't conclusively accept a gradualist explainantion of how it was formed ..so let's just say that something smarter than it created it. - even though we can't explain what that intelligent thing is..."
- utter foolishness
- inkblot0
Darwin's "facts" are theories, and only partly proven, not unlike the book that is duping the world.
(Nov 8 05, 19:34)What in "the book" has been proven?
