Teaching creation still legal in Louisiana schools

[cereb]

May 27, 2011 16:08:28 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2006/07/02

That about sums it up. ;D

[Shirina]

Hey there, cereb. Long time no see, as they say.

[billisonboard]

May 27, 2011 17:51:25 GMT -5 henryclay said:

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?

For many things that started with a big bang, time wears off the jagged edges. Not all, but for many it does.

[cereb]

May 27, 2011 18:46:40 GMT -5 Shirina said:

Hey there, cereb. Long time no see, as they say.

You too Shirina! hope all is well.





Please pardon the off topic folks...

[formerexpat]

I would be having a fit if I lived in LA & they were trying to pass-off intelligent design as science to my kids.

I understand. There is nothing intelligent about the design of humans that live in LA (I'm thinking the city). The place is filled with degenerates.

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.

Hopefully, in teaching children pseudo sciences created out of agenda, they'll also cover global warming or climate change or whatever they are calling it now and show children how that is not a valid science either.

In fact, that would be a perfect time to reiterate that real scientific experiments demand the hypothesis be determined before the conclusion and not the other way around.

Perhaps they'll go as far as showing the difference between a real documentary and a fictitious movie that uses Hollywood effects to further push its agenda.

One can wish that education didn't have a liberal agenda.

[Deleted]

I don't see why it is anybody not in LA's business what they want to teach their kids. Especially when it is the individual schools that make those choices. Let the people do what they want. How can I, in AZ, say what people in LA should or should not do? Same as I can't say what some schools in CA can do. Not my choice. All we can do is comment, and stay active in state and local politics. But, really, I think people should try to live in an area that reflects their values if they want to be happy. Not always possible, but for the people that have the $$$$ and clout to challenge laws I bet it is.

[cereb]

ID isn't science. plain and simple.


I'm pretty sure they still use corporal punishment in the LA public schools. Anyone with two nickels to rub together sends their children to private school in Louisianan. The public schools are appalling.

[billisonboard]

May 27, 2011 21:21:22 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

I don't see why it is anybody not in LA's business what they want to teach their kids. ...

One answer is because that kid is free to be my neighbor tomorrow. Another is because that kid will grow up to have the same one vote that I have for our nation's leader. And a third is because it is fun to debate such issues on a political board. Ultimately, it is the decision of those people in LA.

[Deleted]

So it is your thought that there should be some sort of universal education, also?? LOL!! I tell ya what, I could live easier with the cajuns than the circumcision crowd in SF. Do you actually expect people in the bayous to be like people in Berkeley or something?? LOL!! Come on-- where's your love of diversity?

[cereb]

The sun rises in the East and sets in the West no matter what your culture may be.

[Deleted]

Do you guys just wish people in LA were more refined, more socially aware and cultured?? LOL!! Would you know what to do if an alligator was in your front yard???

[billisonboard]

May 27, 2011 22:01:48 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

So it is your thought that there should be some sort of universal education, also?? LOL!! I tell ya what, I could live easier with the cajuns than the circumcision crowd in SF. Do you actually expect people in the bayous to be like people in Berkeley or something?? LOL!! Come on-- where's your love of diversity?

You said you didn't see why it was anyone else's business, I gave three reasons why it is other people's business. Did you happen to notice my final statement of that post? There was my love of diversity.

[cereb]

Krickitt, the majority of the folks who live in LA are not like Billy the Cajun alligator wrestler. They are are a very proud, very cultured and very impoverished group of people who have been smacked in the head for decades with poorly run and sometimes criminally run governments and police departments and a host of other problems such as high crime rates, alcoholism and drug addiction.



BTW, it's a pretty smart idea if you have an alligator in your front yard...use the back door..

[ed1066]

Once the anti-Christian bigots take over the thread, it's gone...

[cereb]

Anti christian bigots? Where are they?

[Deleted]

I have been to LA many times, and not to Mardi Gras. Had some good times there, ate some great food, CA it is not. Salt of the earth people, get along just fine with Texans like me.

[cereb]

I lived there for awhile. No, it's not California.

[billisonboard]

May 27, 2011 22:15:04 GMT -5 @krickitt said:

...Would you know what to do if an alligator was in your front yard

You sing to it of course:

[txbo]

"Louisiana students can't compete with kids across the country and around the world if we're not being taught evolution," said Zack Kopplin, 17.

"This hurts Louisiana students' chances of getting the good science-based jobs we want. Research centers, like Baton Rouge's Pennington Center, are not going to hire Louisiana kids because they won't know whether we were taught the science we need to work there," he said, adding that in a world constantly making rapid advancements in scientific understanding, Louisiana can't afford to backslide into the dark ages.

www.alternet.org/news/151120/17-year-old_challenges_michele_bachmann_on_law_allowing_creationism_to_be_taught_in_public_school_science_classes

[handyman2]

I do not know if there is a heaven we go to after death as described by the religious side. However I like Einstien although not nearly as smart accept the premise there had to be a genius far greater than anything we can comprehend that controls our universe. Mathmatically our own part of of the solar system is so mathmatically prescise in it's relationship to each and every planet in size and speed that it can be no accident derived from just the big bang theory. If one of the planets was off just a second in it's place or have a different gravitational pull our solar system would have collapsed long ago. I fail to see how that could be from just being blasted into place in a big bang theory.
The other factor is the DNA patterns of the human body is so intricately complex far above any animal or plant on the earth that deriving such a complex system by accident again does not hold water.
Who are what brought this about I do not know but logical thinking and mathmatics cannot support it all being done by the big bang theory. There has to be another answer.
On the other hand the problem that religionests have is that they say the earth was created some few thousand years ago. Math and science does not support that theory either.
In truth no body really knows the total story how it all came about. All we have is theories that each must choose for themselves. I have no problem with them being taught as a theory in schools for the human mind is always at it's best when energized by studing the unknown looking for answers. That is how we progressed over time.
Not to long ago there were scientests who said spliting the atom was not possible. Where are they now?
The question of how our universe and we came from are legitimate fields of study so why stifle our minds with only one side of the question?

[Angel!]

May 28, 2011 6:56:32 GMT -5 Lady Gaga Gaga Snerd said:

If evolution is true and the science it claim to be, then it has no fear to stand up to any other theories or opinions. When we have to only hold one opinion as dogma then you have to wonder about the fear of being able to look at any other theory.

I don't have any fear of evolution standing up to other theories. What I fear is bad science being taught to children. It is somewhat like teaching in a math class that 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 are both valid & then giving a bad math explaination as to why 2+2=5.

I don't mind if kids learn the idea in a religious class or even when discussing scientific history, but teaching them bad science as fact is ridiculous. It would be like still teaching kids that the atom is the smallest object that exists, when we know the atom can actually be broken down further.

The scientific explainations behind intelligent design generally consist of evolution can't work because X, when scientists have already explained how X occurred. Much like the earlier idea that the big bang doesn't make sense because jagged objects can't form the universe, when science & physics has already explained how jagged objects can form a universe.

Which leads me to my other problem with intelligent design - the theory is nothing more than evolution is wrong, therefore "god did it" or as someone else put it "magic". Intelligent design focuses solely on disproving evolution, but you don't prove a theory by disproving another, you need proof of your own theory, which intelligent design lacks. "God did it" is not a scientific answer & even if evolution is disproven, that doesn't mean that "god did it", it just means there is another scientific explaination that has yet to be found.

[Angel!]

May 28, 2011 9:19:51 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

Mathmatically our own part of of the solar system is so mathmatically prescise in it's relationship to each and every planet in size and speed that it can be no accident derived from just the big bang theory. If one of the planets was off just a second in it's place or have a different gravitational pull our solar system would have collapsed long ago. I fail to see how that could be from just being blasted into place in a big bang theory.

Billions of solar systems exist within the universe. Our existence is not necessarily proof that the universe was designed for us, but rather shows that circumstances were right that life could develop & life developed in such a way that it could survive. Consider that the universe was not designed for us, but rather we evolved due to how the universe already existed.

Us believing the universe was designed for our existance is like a plant in the desert believing that it could never grown there by chance. What are the odds of it's seed being dropped in that specific location & then a rainstorm coming through just often enough to support its life, but not so often as to drown or flood it. From the plant's perspective there must be a higher power or else that plant may have never grown. But from a outside perspective, that plant was grown by chance - its seed could have easily landed elsewhere, maybe it would have grown & maybe not, the rainstorms could have not come through & it would have never grown. The desert, the rains, and everything else allowing that plant to grow were not designed so the plant could exist, but rather the plant existed simply because circumstances happened in such a way that it could survive.

[henryclay]

Us believing the universe was designed for our existance , , ,

Did I miss that part of the thread? Who said that?

the big bang doesn't make sense because jagged objects can't form the universe, when science & physics has already explained how jagged objects can form a universe.

Isn't that "explanation" only a theory?

How can objects bumping into each other form anything round? Better yet, how can things bumping into each other form EVERYTHING not only round, but also NOT bumping into each other, , , any more? And if two objects bump into each other with enough force one of them, (maybe both), will break up into more jagged parts. . . . won't they? And if the universe was frmed by everything bumping into everything else, can science tell us when , , , , and why , , , , the bumping stopped? Like for instance, , ,
How does science explain that the process of wearing everything down nice and round is all finished, just when the wearing down phase ended, and the nice neat "everything in its place" phase began?

If science can explain that, then science should be able to also say which were the last two objects to bump into each other. . . . . . But can it?

Or in the end, isn't it all just an unproven theory anyway? And isn't it true that the belief in an unproven theory is based on faith and that faith is based on the fact that no other "explanation" has been "proved", and that, , , , , to believe in an intelligence being behind it all is just not an option.

[cereb]

May 28, 2011 10:38:50 GMT -5 henryclay said:

Us believing the universe was designed for our existance , , ,

Did I miss that part of the thread? Who said that?

the big bang doesn't make sense because jagged objects can't form the universe, when science & physics has already explained how jagged objects can form a universe.

Isn't that "explanation" only a theory?

How can objects bumping into each other form anything round? Better yet, how can things bumping into each other form EVERYTHING not only round, but also NOT bumping into each other, , , any more? And if two objects bump into each other with enough force one of them, (maybe both), will break up into more jagged parts. . . . won't they? And if the universe was frmed by everything bumping into everything else, can science tell us when , , , , and why , , , , the bumping stopped? Like for instance, , ,
How does science explain that the process of wearing everything down nice and round is all finished, just when the wearing down phase ended, and the nice neat "everything in its place" phase began?

If science can explain that, then science should be able to also say which were the last two objects to bump into each other. . . . . . But can it?

Or in the end, isn't it all just an unproven theory anyway? And isn't it true that the belief in an unproven theory is based on faith and that faith is based on the fact that no other "explanation" has been "proved", and that, , , , , to believe in an intelligence being behind it all is just not an option.

Is it just me?

[billisonboard]

May 28, 2011 11:26:56 GMT -5 cereb said:

...
Is it just me?

No.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...to my knowledge, there are two principle explanations/theories of the beginning of our known universe... one is the big bang and one is intelligent design...

...this thread even demonstrates that fact, since no one has presented a significant third option...

...so, what's the big whoop if LA teaches their kids that there are two principle explanations/theories of the beginning of our known universe?

[handyman2]

Been there done that: The truth is that no one wants to admit they are wrong. people were burned at the stake because they said the earth was not flat. Supposed factual, unchallangeable science has been in time proven wrong more than once as we continue to allow minds to hear and evaluate both sides of an issue.

[Angel!]

May 28, 2011 11:45:50 GMT -5 Lady Gaga Gaga Snerd said:

We don't know nor will never know how the universe was formed. It is all speculation. There is "good science" behind intelligent design as well.

Please provide examples of some of this "good science". I have done extensive research into intelligent design vs. evolution & have not found any good science behind intelligent design.

Some of the examples of the "science" behind intelligent design:
- Using a constant rate of growth & today's earth population, we can see that ~6,000 years ago their were only 2 people. Which is fantastic if you actually believe that there has been a constant rate of growth over the past 6,000 years, but just common sense & a little knowledge shows that this isn't true. The black death alone wiped out 20% of the earths population. Follow that back further & only about 100 people built the pyramids. Applying today's growth rate to the past doesn't work because there are too many variables & even recorded history shows enormous variation in growth rates.
- The salinity of the ocean & the rate of salt being brought into the ocean by rivers shows the earth is only 6,000 years old. The biggest problem with this is they completely discounted the rate at which salt is removed from the ocean. The same methodology could be applied using aluminum as proof the earth is only 100 years old, showing the methodology is clearly flawed.
- Irreducible complexity of things - most common example is the eye. Intelligent designers say the eye could not be made as pieces through evolution because it too complex, therefore it must have been designed as a whole. A simple look at nature shows that there are enormous variations of eyes, some more complex & many simplier than ours. If they are irreducibly complex, then why & how do simplier versions exist - going so far as creatures with a single cell that is receptive to light.

If you have some better examples of their "good science", then please share, because I would be interested in learning about it - that wasn't said with sarcasm. I started my extensive research in the subject a few years back because both of my bosses are young earth creationists & were telling me about all the science behind their beliefs. I actually started my research very open-minded because I was interested in all this science I had never been taught. It was only after tons of reading on both sides of the subject did I learn that intelligent design has very little science in it. So if you have something that I haven't yet heard or read, I would love to know about it.

[Angel!]

May 28, 2011 10:38:50 GMT -5 henryclay said:

Isn't that "explanation" only a theory?

Yes, but gravity is also only a theory. The theory you are speaking of follows the laws of physics & has much research showing that it is correct.

How can objects bumping into each other form anything round?

Gravity - it pulls the objects together & as you get enough objects pulled together they start exerting enormous forces on the objects towards the middle - enormous forces on all sides tend to lead object to be round in shape.

Better yet, how can things bumping into each other form EVERYTHING not only round, but also NOT bumping into each other, , , any more?

Stuff still bumps into other stuff all the time - what do you think meteors are? For the most part a lot of the bigger stuff is fairly stable in their orbits, so you don't see a lot of planets crashing into each other. But consider the moon is slowly drifting away from earth. One day it will escape earth's gravity & then who knows where it will go & what it might hit.

And if two objects bump into each other with enough force one of them, (maybe both), will break up into more jagged parts. . . . won't they?

Yes

And if the universe was frmed by everything bumping into everything else, can science tell us when , , , , and why , , , , the bumping stopped?

It hasn't stopped.

Like for instance, , ,
How does science explain that the process of wearing everything down nice and round is all finished, just when the wearing down phase ended, and the nice neat "everything in its place" phase began?

There is no bumping phase vs neat phase. The bumping hasn't ended, it just happens less often.

If science can explain that, then science should be able to also say which were the last two objects to bump into each other. . . . . . But can it?

Objects still bump all the time. Next week is the peak of the arietids meteor shower - thousands of small objects will be bumping into the earth for your viewing pleasure. Why do you think we are always on the lookout for large meteors that might hit earth? A large enough meteor would destroy the human pupolation. Right now they are following one that may hit in 2036.

Or in the end, isn't it all just an unproven theory anyway? And isn't it true that the belief in an unproven theory is based on faith and that faith is based on the fact that no other "explanation" has been "proved", and that, , , , , to believe in an intelligence being behind it all is just not an option.

It is a theory that thus far has been agreed with by all the data & research completed in physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, anthropology & other scientific fields. A single significant find could blow the theory to hell, but that hasn't happened yet.

Most aren't arguing that intelligence may not be behind everything - that we can't know. What we do know, is that intelligence or not, everything in our universe appears to follow scientific laws. Discounting science because your belief disagrees with it is like the way people discounted the sun being the center of the universe because the bible said otherwise. They discounted actual study & science purely based on their beliefs, which is a lot of what is happening now.

[Angel!]

May 28, 2011 13:46:37 GMT -5 Lady Gaga Gaga Snerd said:

I would refer to answers in genesis. There are some good articles there.

I've done tons of reading on that site. One of the best young earth sites out there, their founder is one of the biggest experts on the subject. When I started my research, my boss actually pointed to Ken Ham as someone worth reading. But still never found anything that actually provides scientific evidence showing that intelligent design as a credible theory. Much of that site is devoted to using the bible as proof evolution & old earth theories are wrong.