MERGED -> Bush endorses 'intelligent design' + Politicized Scholars... - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-03-2005, 04:20 PM   #76
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
VertigoGal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: I'm never alone (I'm alone all the time)
Posts: 9,860
Local Time: 08:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel


Fine, I have no problem with that. But keep them in their respective places. After all, I wouldn't teach science in a church.

Angela
Exactly. Discuss intelligent design in religious theory, and evolution in science. I'm taking biology this year, and I swear to God I will make the biggest fuss if they try to include intelligent design as a valid scientific theory.
__________________

__________________
VertigoGal is offline  
Old 08-03-2005, 04:22 PM   #77
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 08:34 PM
If we have to learn about ID in biology class, then those kids whose parents are pushing this should also be learning about genetic theories of homosexuality.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 08-04-2005, 12:30 PM   #78
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:34 PM
Inspiration for Doubters of Darwin
Bush appears to give moral support to the 'intelligent design' camp by again backing public schools' teaching of an alternative to evolution.

By Johanna Neuman, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON — Advocates of an alternative to the theory of evolution took heart Tuesday from President Bush's remarks that "both sides ought to be properly taught" in public schools.

In an interview with several Texas newspapers Monday, Bush was asked about the growing debate over the idea of "intelligent design," which holds that intelligent causes are responsible for the origin of the universe and of life. "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "And I'm not suggesting — you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

ADVERTISEMENT

The remarks were in keeping with what Bush has said in the past. During the 2000 presidential campaign, Bush or his aides said several times that local school boards should decide questions about teaching evolution and its alternatives; at times, they said that both evolution and creationism should be taught.

"I think it's an interesting part of knowledge [to have] a theory of evolution and a theory of creationism. People should be exposed to different points of view," Bush said during one 1999 appearance, according to a news account at the time. "I personally believe God created the Earth," he said.

Proponents of teaching evolution — the theory that holds that existing animals and plants developed gradually from previous forms through natural selection — have said that an increasing number of school boards seek to diminish its use in science classes or promote alternatives.

Bush's comments Monday appeared to give moral support to groups that back teaching intelligent design.

"What the president's remarks do is heighten public interest in the issue," said John H. Calvert, managing director of the Intelligent Design Network, a Kansas advocacy organization.

Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education, an Oakland group, said initiatives to counter the teaching of Charles Darwin's theory had been launched this year in 28 states and communities. On Tuesday, a group of Kansas educators said that proposed science standards written by the State Board of Education promoted intelligent design and had "no scientific credibility." The educators had been appointed by the state board to review the standards.

Branch read little into Bush's Monday remarks. "The question was presented to him as a fairness issue," he said. "For a politician, that's like opposing fairness or apple pie."

Still, Branch said, he was sure the president's comments "would no doubt prove inspirational to creationists."

Creationists believe that God created the Earth and its inhabitants as described in the Bible's Book of Genesis, and that evolution played no role. For decades, some creationists have pressed school boards to teach creationism in schools.

Intelligent design, which started to gain notice about 10 years ago, holds that evolution alone does not adequately explain some complex biological mechanisms, suggesting that a plan by an intelligent force is behind changes in species.

"Creationism and intelligent design are often confused," said Jay W. Richards, vice president for research at Discovery Institute, a Seattle research and advocacy group for intelligent design. "Both have in common the idea that the universe exists for a purpose." Where intelligent design parts company with creationism, he said, is that it is neutral on Darwin's claim of common ancestry among species while challenging his theory that species change over time because of natural selection.

But critics say intelligent design is a form of creationism, stripped of references to the Bible to make the contention more palatable to skeptics.

"They are striving to maintain a big tent," said Branch, the evolution advocate. He said intelligent design supporters duck questions — such as the age of the Earth — that could alienate traditional creationists.

The debate over intelligent design grows louder. In a March letter to members, the National Academy of Sciences warned of "a growing threat to the teaching of science through the inclusion of non-scientifically based 'alternatives' in sciences courses throughout the country."

Bush's science advisor, John H. Marburger III, seemed to differ with the president at a February appearance before the National Assn. of Science Writers. Marburger said that "intelligent design is not a scientific theory."

Asked about Bush's comments, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said the president had said nothing new Monday. Bush believes "that local school districts should make the decisions about their curriculum," McClellan said. "But it's long been his belief that students ought to be exposed to different ideas."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press was used in compiling this report.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-04-2005, 01:42 PM   #79
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
VertigoGal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: I'm never alone (I'm alone all the time)
Posts: 9,860
Local Time: 08:34 PM


(and why does Bush seem to think evolution has anything to do with the origin of the universe? "I personally believe God created the Earth." and?)

__________________
VertigoGal is offline  
Old 08-04-2005, 01:47 PM   #80
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
ouizy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: s p o r a t i c
Posts: 3,788
Local Time: 08:34 PM
Too bad George senior and Barbara do not believe in 'Intelligent Design.'
__________________
ouizy is offline  
Old 08-04-2005, 01:49 PM   #81
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 01:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Perfect! Let's have both
Okay, but once we've decided that theories with no scientific basis can be taught in the science classroom, where do we draw the line?

I don't know whether I should really ask this, and you should feel free not to answer if you wish, but do you personally believe in 'intelligent design'? I only ask because it seems quite easy to argue that a religious theory should be taught in schools when it's one with which you agree, but I can't help feeling it might be a different matter if people proposed teaching a theory based on a religion other than your own.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 08-04-2005, 02:48 PM   #82
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:34 PM
Call me simplistic....

and I remember arguing this in my science class in college (Nazarene College).....

But why can't eveolution be a part of it? Who is to say evolution is not the way God worked?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-04-2005, 04:39 PM   #83
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
VertigoGal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: I'm never alone (I'm alone all the time)
Posts: 9,860
Local Time: 08:34 PM
^I agree. It would only make sense that a higher power would design creatures that, rather than being static, would adjust and grow.

I don't think most people are saying they can't coexist, but that religious theories shouldn't be treated with validity in a science class more than anything else that I could come up with off the top of my head. A disclaimer saying that not everyone accepts evolution and some religious groups believe in ID is all that's needed, and even that's pushing it.

I can see this popping up in biology next year in my county...we've had problems with this in the past, suing, etc. Once I make sure my teacher won't fail me for it, and if it becomes an issue, I do plan on being a little smartass in class and, erm, speaking my mind on the issue.
__________________
VertigoGal is offline  
Old 08-04-2005, 04:56 PM   #84
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,272
Local Time: 07:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by VertigoGal
I don't think most people are saying they can't coexist, but that religious theories shouldn't be treated with validity in a science class more than anything else that I could come up with off the top of my head.
Bingo. Exactly.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 08-04-2005, 09:16 PM   #85
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
But why can't eveolution be a part of it? Who is to say evolution is not the way God worked?
It's a power trip, that's why. Scientists came up with the theory, rather than the clergy concocting it in their basement and passing it along to the praise and worship of their congregation.

Call it the right-wing equivalent of "teenage rebellion."

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 08-04-2005, 09:42 PM   #86
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 09:34 PM
To all those who ask why ID shouldn't be taught in science classes, I ask why don't you worship Vishnu in your Christian church?
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 08-04-2005, 10:04 PM   #87
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 08:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


It's a power trip, that's why. Scientists came up with the theory, rather than the clergy concocting it in their basement and passing it along to the praise and worship of their congregation.

Call it the right-wing equivalent of "teenage rebellion."

Melon
Don't just chalk it up to a "power trip", melon. Consider the spiritual ramifications (at least upon Christianity) of Adam and Eve not actually existing.

If Adam and Eve did not exist, Christianity is bunk. The reason I say that is because Christ and Paul both spoke about Adam in the context of Adam actually having lived.

If Adam did not exist, then Christ was either (1) mistaken or (2) a liar. Either way, it would prove Christ to be imperfect, and therefore not the Son of God, not God in the flesh, and not capable of being the redeemer of mankind.

As for Paul, he spoke about Adam being the man by which sin came into the world and, and about Christ being the "Second Adam", by which man could be redeemed from the power of sin.

The inter-relatedness of man is a very important theme in the Bible. It is through the lineage of one man, Adam, that the sin nature is passed down to every person ever born. It is that sin nature which keeps people away from God, and it is only through eradication of the sin nature, through being "born again" in Christ that man can be saved and enter into an eternal relationship with God. That's all right there in Romans, Hebrews and other New Testament books.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 08-04-2005, 10:10 PM   #88
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 07:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


If Adam and Eve did not exist, Christianity is bunk. The reason I say that is because Christ and Paul both spoke about Adam in the context of Adam actually having lived.

If Adam did not exist, then Christ was either (1) mistaken or (2) a liar. Either way, it would prove Christ to be imperfect, and therefore not the Son of God, not God in the flesh, and not capable of being the redeemer of mankind.

Don't buy it for a second. First of all no one said Adam couldn't exist if evolution exists. Secondly Christ was very capable of speaking to us in analogies, and that's exactly what I see most of Genesis, even most of the OT as being. I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with God using analogy to communicate with us, it just makes sense. We cannot comprehend even the simplist complexities of God.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 08-04-2005, 11:13 PM   #89
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


Don't just chalk it up to a "power trip", melon. Consider the spiritual ramifications (at least upon Christianity) of Adam and Eve not actually existing.

If Adam and Eve did not exist, Christianity is bunk. The reason I say that is because Christ and Paul both spoke about Adam in the context of Adam actually having lived.

If Adam did not exist, then Christ was either

(1) mistaken or

(2) a liar. Either way,

......


or (3) misquoted
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 08-04-2005, 11:24 PM   #90
Refugee
 
unosdostres14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ogacihC
Posts: 1,558
Local Time: 01:34 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by indra
To all those who ask why ID shouldn't be taught in science classes, I ask why don't you worship Vishnu in your Christian church?
Exactly. It's another theory.....why isn't it taught as well?



In science class, you teach evolution and evolution only. Science classes are for the study of what man has PROVEN through scientific means. It's not a place to study different unproven religious theories.
__________________

__________________
unosdostres14 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com