henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on May 27, 2011 1:24:51 GMT -5
In 2008 the Louisiana legislature made it legal for teachers to introduce theory of intelligent design, (creationism), alongside the theory of evolution, (Darwinism), to students who take science classes in the state's public schools. Apparently, since neither theory has been positively identified as "the" way the universe, , , and the human race, , , got here it was successfully argued and voted on by state lawmakers as appropriate that if one is "required" the other should be "permitted". Not happy with school aged children being exposed to the side by side teachings of where we may have originated Louisiana State Senator Karen Peterson introduced a bill to remove the theory of intelligent design from the state's science education classes. In pushing her objection she said it was to defend the integrity of Louisiana public education and end "an embarrassment" for the state. A Roman Catholic, Peterson quoted from the Nicene Creed, which calls God the "creator of all things, seen and unseen." She called it a statement of faith, not a conclusion of scientific discovery. She wielded endorsements of her repeal effort from 43 Nobel laureates, faculty members and administrators from Louisiana State University and LSU's Pennington Biomedical Research Center, and a host of state and national organizations of scientists and educators. Dr. Wade Warren, a biology professor at Louisiana College, countered with a letter signed by 15 scientists who support the law as it is. The Louisiana Education Committee agreed with the 15 and voted to keep the law as it is currently written. Committee members were not convinced there is a problem to be fixed. "Why are we here?" Sen. Julie Quinn, R-Metairie, asked, after a state Education Department representative told senators that there have been no complaints about materials since the law was implemented. Interestingly, prospects for repeal were a long shot from the beginning. Sen. Ben Nevers, the Bogalusa Democrat who sponsored the act three years ago, remains chairman of the committee. Regardless of ones personal opinion on whether creationism should be discussed in public school classrooms, it is a compelling article. www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/05/senators_reject_repeal_of_2008.html
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on May 27, 2011 12:25:30 GMT -5
I would be having a fit if I lived in LA & they were trying to pass-off intelligent design as science to my kids.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,241
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on May 27, 2011 12:43:14 GMT -5
Do the kids get creationism lessons before or after the transgender fish lesson?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 4:58:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2011 12:56:45 GMT -5
It would have been stupid to change something that is working fine and has had no complaints until a few people got together and decided to try to cause trouble. Seems the parents have no problem with the curriculum. If some people are embarrassed by LA, maybe they should move somewhere that is better suited to what they like and agree with.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 4:58:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2011 12:58:12 GMT -5
LOL, drama. I'm thinking the people of Louisiana would not vote in favor of the he/she fish lessons.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on May 27, 2011 13:30:11 GMT -5
I believe the article infers, "since neither theory has been proven as the origin of the universe and what it is made up of, if one theory is "required" that other should be "permitted".
Can (WILL), anyone who has an objection to that approach please explain why they have such an objection?
Angel, a few days ago I saw a post where one of the ladies made a comment something like, "I swear by God", , , , , , or "By God I'd" , , , , , , or something very close. I don't recall who made the comment or what it was in reference to, but it struck me at the time as odd that this particular lady would make such a comment.
I take it, it was not you.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,241
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on May 27, 2011 13:42:25 GMT -5
I'm going to don my flame suit and say that I disagree with being taught in SCIENCE class because creationism cannot be held up to the scientific method. I cannot prove the existence of God anymore than I can disprove the existance of God. A hypothesis has to be falliable. I have to be able to collect quantative and qualatative evidence to support any claims that I make.
If you want to teach it as a religion class fine, if you want to teach it as part of debate class fine, if you want to teach it as part of history fine because a lot of scientists past, including Darwin did operate under the assumption that there was a divine plan/divine order to the world.
That's a valid part of scientific history and should be taught.
But creationism IS NOT science and should not be taught as a valid opposing theory to evolution. People already have such a piss poor grasp of what science actually is and how it has to work, I don't like it being even more muddled by claiming biblical texts are a valid scientific theory.
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on May 27, 2011 13:48:14 GMT -5
I have an objection because I feel that Intelligent Design should not be taught side by side with the Big Bang in a science classroom. I have no objections to teaching Intelligent Design, but not under the label of science.
Intelligent Design (nice euphemism, by the way) is hopelessly intertwined with religion no matter how some will try to claim otherwise. Almost all students will have been exposed to religious beliefs many years before they reach the point in their studies where cosmology is taught. When the science teachers are talking away about a "creator force," every child in the room is going to fill in that blank with the god of their religion and now you have science legitimizing faith. Utter rubbish.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,241
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on May 27, 2011 13:52:52 GMT -5
I think the whole Intelligent Design movement is an insult to both religion AND science, myself. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive but the whole ID thing is downright disturbing.
I've read a lot of ID books and stuff, creationism as taught in the church IS NOT the same thing the ID people are trying to push into schools.
Actual Bibilical teachings of creationism I have absolutely no problems with.
ID people seek to try to twist evidence for evolution to fit into creationism with bad science and poor exercise of the scientific method.
It's not something that should be taught in schools. You want to teach it to your own kids knock yourselves out, but in a school I don't want my kids learned a warped view of science in teh science classroom.
Nor would I want my kid learning ID in sunday school.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on May 27, 2011 13:59:30 GMT -5
I believe the article infers, "since neither theory has been proven as the origin of the universe and what it is made up of, if one theory is "required" that other should be "permitted". Can (WILL), anyone who has an objection to that approach please explain why they have such an objection? I object to that idea because it makes it sound as though both theories have equal standings within the scientific community & that is not true. Both may be technically theories, but the theory of evolution has tons of scientific research backing the theory & up til now has held up to all the research & testing using the scientific method. It is a theory the same way gravity is a theory. Whereas intelligent design is no more than creationism repackaged to make it appear scientific. It does not hold up to any sort of rigorous research or theory testing using the scientific method. All the supposed scientific proof used to argue the theory of intelligent design has been disproven by science. There is no scientific evidence of intelligent design any more than there is scientific evidence of a flat earth.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on May 27, 2011 14:00:31 GMT -5
drama
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on May 27, 2011 15:42:22 GMT -5
I love when libs get their knickers in a twist over this, because so few of them know that the so-called "hard science" of evolution is riddled with holes and gaps in the information. That's not to say it isn't correct, but it is by no means proven beyond doubt. Evolutionary biologists will be the first to tell you there is A LOT they don't know for sure, and yes, many of their conclusions are reached by having "faith" in the science (that is, they don't know or undersrand how certain evolutionary processes occurred, but are willing to accept them as possibilities because they make sense). Hilarious...do some research and discover that evolution is a theory, no more and no less, and there are many, many elements of evolutionary "science" that have no supporting scientific data, but are merely inferences based on knowledge of other things...
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on May 27, 2011 16:00:41 GMT -5
ed - If you feel this way about evolutionary theory, then I think you would have to agree that intelligent design theory is an absolute joke.
There is always additional research to do & more work to do when it comes to science, but so far all research in many fields back the theory of evolution & no research has disproven the theory. Whereas, the theory of intelligent design has literally no science or research backing it & has been disproven in many ways.
This is how a theory works - it is tested & tested & tested using the scientific method. Research is gathered & analyzed to determine if the theory holds true. The theory is then updated/rewritten as necessary if faults are found with the theory based on the results of the research. A single bit of data or testing could easily blow a theory to bits & prove it wrong, but 150 years after evolutionary theory & nothing has disproven it yet. It has been tweaked & changes as new research is completed, but no major breakthrough have shown that the entire theory is trash.
Therein lies the difference between the 2 theories - one has 150 yrs of scientific testing behind it in a dozen fields of study & the other theory is nothing more than saying the world is so complex it must have a designer & even their "proofs" of the complexity are shown to be wrong.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,462
|
Post by billisonboard on May 27, 2011 16:03:15 GMT -5
I have no problem with a good science teacher teaching students how Intelligent Design (ID) is not a valid scientific theory. It is a great example to use in helping kids understand how an agenda can create pseudo-science. If ID is properly taught, those that currently wish to have it taught would be very unhappy.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 27, 2011 16:05:06 GMT -5
Creationism belongs in Sunday school. Evolution is science and should be taught as so- the problem with the ID folks is they want to push their religion on others through pseudo-science, and they fail to realize that the two can co-exist. Once again the issue is twisted into pro and anti religion, which is not the case. If there is a creator, an intelligent designer, then they created/designed the process of evolution as well.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on May 27, 2011 16:08:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on May 27, 2011 16:29:24 GMT -5
I don't "feel" any way about it, that's the way it is. Do some research, evolutionary theory has many, many "articles of faith". There are a lot of holes in the theory that scientists have to fill with guesses and plain old trust that their theories are right, because it can't be proven.
And it isn't like gravity (another fallacious analogy libs love), because gravity can be repeatedly and measurably demonstrated at any time. Evolution can't. It is merely a theory that essentially guesses about events that supposedly occured at a time when observing and measuring them was impossible...
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on May 27, 2011 16:31:55 GMT -5
That is exactly the gist of intelligent design, that the Creator "designed" the processes that allowed humans and animals to reach their present state...
Most pure evolutionists completely discount the possibility that any Supreme Being had any hand at all in our becoming...
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on May 27, 2011 16:43:12 GMT -5
Most pure evolutionists completely discount the possibility that any Supreme Being had any hand at all in our becoming... No, most evolutionists believe that the argument that "god did it" is not a valid scientific theory. It doesn't mean that there isn't a god involved in the process, it just means if we are going on the argument that "god did it", then all science is meaningless. Our world follows scientific & physical laws & science is the process of figuring out how the world works. Many evolutionists are religious, the two ideas can co-exist.
|
|
|
Post by Mkitty is pro kitty on May 27, 2011 16:49:37 GMT -5
Look everyone, Ed's our resident "liberal expert." And here I thought the May 2011 issue of Journal of Evolutionary Biology ( www.blackwellpublishing.com/jeb_enhanced/ ) was just full of people congratulating themselves on finding out about everything, and maybe it even has a Darwin centerfold. It's a model, and as research goes on, that model will change. Some things are so thoroughly proven that it's doubtful any of it will change. And it's silly to use the term "doubt." Anyone can doubt the third law of thermodynamics or that 2+2=4. Well, duh, it's their job to find stuff out. That's what scientists do through research and stuff. Well what do you expect when you're at the forefront of something? If they "accept" something because it "makes sense," then at least it's through logic and not "faith." You're even more hilarious...take an elementary science class not at Oral Roberts U. Do you know a scientific theory is? No, it's not a theory like, "I have a theory on what happened to her last night." And everything is a [insert what it is here], no more and no less. In terms of research, there's guesses, hypothesis, and things they can't figure out at all. The more something is researched and as more data comes in, the more credible it is in the scientific community. But in terms of science and children in school, the stuff they teach to them is so well researched and elementary, that there's very little chance of it being wrong. The stuff researchers do is well beyond any school or even undergraduate college students would learn.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on May 27, 2011 16:56:25 GMT -5
I don't "feel" any way about it, that's the way it is. Do some research, evolutionary theory has many, many "articles of faith". There are a lot of holes in the theory that scientists have to fill with guesses and plain old trust that their theories are right, because it can't be proven. Whether you "feel" that way or it is a fact. Evolutionary theory has far more research & facts to back it than intelligent design (which has virtually none). Therefore, if evolution is a questionable theory, intelligent design is a crack-pot theory that is worthless. Perhaps you should do your own research, because evolutionary is continuously tested. It isn't done in the same way as the theory of gravity by simply rolling a ball down a ramp. But, it is tested through observation & data collection & with controlled environments. This can make it harder to test, but does not mean it is not tested. The theory of evolution was not developed in a black hole - it was developed through extensive research going back 150 years in a dozen different fields.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on May 27, 2011 17:13:34 GMT -5
Our world follows scientific & physical laws & science is the process of figuring out how the world works. Many evolutionists are religious, the two ideas can co-exist. As our friend bills might say, "BINGO!!!" In support of that disclosure the article addresses only one opposition to changing the law. That opposition was a letter signed by 15 scientists. Specifically, "Dr. Wade Warren, a biology professor at Louisiana College, countered with a letter signed by 15 scientists who support the law as it is."Carry on liberals. You have the floor.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on May 27, 2011 17:22:46 GMT -5
"........ gravity is a theory......"
Is there a theory as to why an object will indicate a weight of X at sea level, but a different weight at a depth of a mile underground or still another weight at 50 thosand feet up in the atmosphere? Is there a theory as to why that same object apparently has no weight at all when it is placed in space to sit stationary over a given place above the earth?
Can it be explained as to how scientific theory is used to dispute the idea that an intelligence was behind the big bang, which itself is only a theory?
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on May 27, 2011 17:25:45 GMT -5
Just because one is a scientist does not mean he or she is any less susceptible to cultural and religious influences. A scientist can succumb to superstition like anyone else. A scientist doesn't know any better than the rest of us if there is a god or not.
However, I find the idea of teaching that a mystical, all powerful being used divine magic to whisk the universe into existence in a science class to be complete and utter bull.
It is mind boggling to see that, even in the 21st Century, there are still people who worship the "God of the Gap." Filling in the gaps of our knowledge with God is something we have been doing for tens of thousands of years. Of course, the moment we discover the real answer, God goes bye-bye. God and the attached religions have never offered a proven, testable answer to anything in all of human history, yet people still keep waiting for it to happen.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on May 27, 2011 17:28:29 GMT -5
Our world follows scientific & physical laws & science is the process of figuring out how the world works. Many evolutionists are religious, the two ideas can co-exist. As our friend bills might say, "BINGO!!!" In support of that disclosure the article addresses only one opposition to changing the law. That opposition was a letter signed by 15 scientists. Specifically, "Dr. Wade Warren, a biology professor at Louisiana College, countered with a letter signed by 15 scientists who support the law as it is."Carry on liberals. You have the floor. I think you mistook my statement. A belief in god does not necessarily equal a belief in creatism. Nor does a scientists equal an evolutionary expert. There are many areas of science that don't study evolutionarily related material. Finding 15 scientists to support a point does not necessarily prove your point. Finding 15 scientists that have done extensive research on the subject & you might have a different story.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on May 27, 2011 17:34:28 GMT -5
"........ gravity is a theory......" Is there a theory as to why an object will indicate a weight of X at sea level, but a different weight at a depth of a mile underground or still another weight at 50 thosand feet up in the atmosphere? Is there a theory as to why that same object apparently has no weight at all when it is placed in space to sit stationary over a given place above the earth? Ummm....gravity. Not sure what your point is here. Scientific theory doesn't necessarily dispute the idea that intelligience was behind the big bang or anything else. What scientific theory does say is that these things can be explained & that explaination isn't just "god did it". The idea that intelligience is behind the big bang is also not the theory of "intelligent design". The theory of intelligient design says that are lifeforms were created as they are today with the exception of micro-evolution. An intelligience behind the big bang wouldn't mean that evolution is wrong.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on May 27, 2011 17:46:54 GMT -5
Finding 15 scientists to support a point does not necessarily prove your point. But shrina, I think it proves my point perfectly. You see, my "point" was simply to "point out" that15 scientists agreed there was no defineable proof of either "theory" and therefore no reason they cannot co-exist in the learning atmosphere of a classroom. If anyone cares to read that as having a religious conotation it is their problem, and I won't go there.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on May 27, 2011 17:46:55 GMT -5
There is nothing higher than a theory in science, the theory of evolution, the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity , these will never be 'elevated' to some higher level (such as a law) because there is nothing to elevate them to, so in science saying something is 'just a theory' is not a derogatory statement because a scientific theory is the explanation of how a something works. The theory of evolution has been tested. Generally scientific theories are used to describe scientific laws, so the theory of gravity describes how gravity works, the law of gravity can be used to determine how objects will behave when subjected to gravity.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on May 27, 2011 17:51:25 GMT -5
I personally have a problem with the "big bang" simply because I have seen some pretty big bangs in my lifetime and they all leave mostly jagged pieces of stuff scattered about. On the other hand I have never seen a bang of any magnitude that left nice round objects of anything at all, and certainly not in the orderly fashion of the universe.
Where are the jagged pieces?
Maybe a higher intelligence caused it all and maybe that's why there are so many nice round things in space instead of big old jagged things. . . . . . do you supose?
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on May 27, 2011 18:34:37 GMT -5
Nope, I don't suppose. There are a lot of nice round things because gravity pulls the surface of planets, moons, and stars toward their centers equally, thus creating nice round things.
henryclay:
The reason why they cannot co-exist in a science classroom is due to the basic premise of the ID position. A belief in ID essentially means a belief in supernatural forces - magic, for all intents and purposes. A science class teaching that the universe was created by magic is preposterous.
|
|