'Intelligent Design' Gets Bush's Nod

ohhhhh.

please excuse me while i go puke my #$&* brains out.

 

Obviously, whatever "Intelligence" was doing the design for GWB needs a course in remedial DNA chain writing. ukeleft:

 

This issue concerns me greatly. Evolution is taught in science classes because it is supported with scientific evidence. Intelligent design should not be taught in science classes; there is no scientific evidence to support it.

 

*sigh*


...when is the Rapture scheduled to begin? I could use the extra parking space.

 

I don't even think that "intelligent design" needs to be dignified with a sticker.

Let's be brutally honest here folks. The bible is a historical "best of" collection that was voted into existance by a committee looking to forward a religious and political agenda.

Taken as what they are - a bunch of quasi-historical stories to suggest how people should live their lives - fine.

To try and put basis in fact behind them... Well, let's be honest here folks - it just doesn't hold any credibility whatsoever.

Dave

 

They should stamp 'just theories and stories; cannot be proven' in the Bible then to be fair.

Meanwhile, people like Bush obviously don't understand massively parallel computing because that's what Evolution (and your brain) is all about. When you have that much parallel computing/evolution going on, a million years is a very short amount of time to pop out new things.

Here's a everyday example of evolution: bacteria that's now resistant to antibiotics. It only took what, a couple of decades?

 

Humm... Does this mean W is going to support the teaching of same sex parents as a "...different school of thought...." in our classrooms?

Funny how when the different ideas fall within his platform it's ok, but if the ideology is different than his, we need a constitutional amendment banning it.

This guy attended an Ivy League school? I'd be embarrassed if I were a facility member of that school, must be giving out diplomas with purchase of backpacks.

 

sequence homology is a FACT. can be proven. can be looked at.

an entity in the sky, however.... is a belief.

i thought science education was about facts.

GAH!!!! this administration never ceases to give me reason to roll my eyes.

 

Folks, GW is NOT stupid. His comment on intelligent design has nothing to do with education.

It's about the 2006 midterm elections.

 

The best distinction that I have heard between science and religion comes from Brian Greene, Physicist and Columbia University professor and proponent of String Theory. ' The purpose of Science is to explain "How". The purpose of Religion is to explain "Why". '

Though not personally religious, I doubt that there is a much more succinct definition than that. I just wish that more people understood this.

 

how vs. why

[font=Comic Sans MS:e38f158658]How and Why can tangle. Why did the bacteria become resistant to antibiotics?[/font:e38f158658]

 

I would like to ask you to consider that from the other side of the fence. For quite some time, evolution has been the theory of choice in the public education realm. It is, however, completly contrary to (at least my own and probably other's) religion and world view. I was required to return the answers as defined by the textbooks, but which I believed to be incorrect. Just as you find this unaccepable for evolutionist to give intelligent design answers, I find it unacceptale for an intelligent designist to return evolutionist answers.

I would consider it a far better method for students to study ALL (or at least those relevent to the cultures represened in the group) of the potential origins. It would be of no consiquence to you to say "the theory of intelligent design says..." nor for me to say "the theory of evolution says..." Acknowledging the concepts of religion is a very far cry from declaring any one of them to be THE correct one.

There is a substatial group out there that firmly believes evolution is scientificlly unsound, and will provide volumes of reasonable scientific evidence. Likewise, those who back evolution will provide volumes of equally reasonble evidence. Neither group will ever believe the other's proof, nor should they have to. But, to dismiss one or the other as a fallicy by simply saying "They have no proof, " is shortcut way out that does nothing but make people angry.

So, I say kudos to Bush for saying this. They more information students aquire, the better. They should be aware of the other theories of origins without being required to pick one. One of the best ways to stimulate intelectual growth is to engage in a real debate with someone who's deepest beliefs are truly opposed to your own. (and by this, I mean a debate with a true desire to understand the other's point)

 

Actually, I probably should have made the "How" and "Why" in bold Caps to make the clearer distinction as in the mechanical vs. mystical sense. As such it is a "how the bacteria became antiriot resistant?" Answer: Among the population of 10 billion bacteria on a petunia dish, a minute but significant number just happened to have a DNA transcription euros that resulted in resistance allowing them to survive and multiply while their brethren died.

 

It appears that evolutional development has skipped the current political class; on both sides of the aisle. We need a third party in the US.

 

Who's to say that there arent' elements of fact and fiction in both evolution and intelligent design. I see no reason as yet to dismiss either out of hand.

 

If you cut through all the "truth" claims that cloud the real issue it comes down to this.

There is a very real problem with creation/intelligent design that makes it so unacceptable. In order to have creation there must be a creator. (OK that is so obvious that it should not need to be said.) From this it would follow that:

1) we are accountable to the creator.
2) the creator has the right and authority to make the rules and tell us what is right and wrong.
3) we don't make the rules and moral judgements.
4) if the creator can make all things out of nothing, it is within the creator's ability to grant eternal blessing and eternal curse.

As the Westminster Shorter Catechism puts it:

Q1: What is the chief end of man?
A1: Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him for ever.
Q3: What do the Scriptures principally teach?
A3: The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.

Soli Deo Gloria

 

Intelligent design, in and of itself, requires no such attribution. One can ascribe godly attributes only if one wants to.