Skip to comments.`Intelligent design' ban is proposed (Democrats to the Rescue!!)
Posted on 02/18/2006 1:56:49 AM PST by gobucks
MADISON, Wis. -- Two Democratic lawmakers introduced a bill to ban public schools from teaching "intelligent design" as science, saying "pseudo-science" should have no place in the classroom.
The proposal is the first of its kind in the country, the National Conference of State Legislatures said.
The measure would require science curriculums to describe only natural processes and follow definitions from the National Academy of Sciences.
Its sponsor, Rep. Terese Berceau, acknowledged the measure faces an uphill fight in a legislature where Republicans control both houses.
Berceau said science education is under attack across the country as proponents of intelligent design promote alternatives to Darwinian evolution. Intelligent design holds that details in nature are so complex they are best explained as products of a designer, not only unguided natural selection of mutations as with Darwin.
Critics say intelligent design is thinly disguised religion that lacks any basis in science. In December, a federal judge in Pennsylvania outlawed a school district's policy of reading a statement to classes citing intelligent design options.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Ah, hello CM. Hope your saturday weather can support some practice on the golf range later!!
As for your question, a false delineation of the word science is at issue. Democrats are now appealing to force, governmental force, to affect how a single word is seen.
Scary. But talk about an Amen for the effectiveness of the I.D. position!!
The death of critical thinking!
Interesting that you're too cowardly to just come out and say whatever it is you're trying to imply here.
No they aren't. You're misunderstanding your own article.
I used to shoot golf in the 60s.
(Then I had to give up for college and grad school, and haven't played since.)
Furthermore, when the people institute an alternative (vouchers) the FL SC gets activist and has the fix in.
Actually, it seems that you could have used a better education yourself. Macroevolution is "junk science", eh? Feel free to support that claim if you think you can. Be sure that your response matches all the available evidence and research, and isn't just parroting something you read in a creationist pamphlet.
So when is the book burning scheduled?
Very well. How do you normalize the Creation with evolutionary theory?
Thank you for the stats. I stand corrected.
Careful, most evolutionists I've read would then make a leap in logic to conclude most evolutionists most evolutionists consider homosexuality acceptable and then assert their conclusions were scientifically founded.
"I have other ways to challenge myself. "
I see. Well, I know a lot of men who are too busy for golf too...
And they are not chicken, they would say.
"It's all a question of this: what is imagination made of? Be honest Mr. I, and answer that question. "
The exploration of possibilities.
Close. But it is not more accurate and precise to say "The Creation of possibilities"? Because w/o man, does imagination exist? Or, did you really mean to say, 'the 'exploration'?
As if these possiblities already exist? If so, then, you do believe in God...
"No they aren't. You're misunderstanding your own article."
Incorrect. By introducing a bill regarding I.D., they are not really outlawing anything ... but they are 'inlawing' the meaning of a word instead, science.
btw, laws are to be enforced, by gov't, no? Can you identify any other words 'gov't' is attempting to delineate by statute?
"So when is the book burning scheduled?"
During break week from re-education camp this summer...
Y-a-a-awn. Do they teach tarot card reading in schools? Or palmistry and phrenology? ID and other suchlike baboonery is to be done in seminaries, where it rightfully belongs. Suum quique; Jedem das Seine; To each one's own, and so on - in whatever language. There is a profound reason why there are schools and then there are seminaries as separate institutions.
(#185)Havoc: No, I didn't misrepresent the ages of anything. I refered to something that is said to be misrepresented by someone else. Apparently, that is equivelent to lying on some planet in this universe - which I guess would make Bush a liar; but, we must compartmentalize and esteem the two differently to save face.. lol. Next question.Note that this doesn't even admit to any error on either his own part, or on Hovind's, as I stated. The most he will "admit" (and this is like Clinton's "non-apology apology" in the Lewinsky matter) is only that it is *said* to be misrepresented "by someone else". He's just using the schoolyard standby, "well that's what *you* say..." He can't even admit that it was well documented that it was blatantly false, by comparing Hovind's claim against THE ACTUAL TEXT OF THE PAPER THAT HOVIND HIMSELF CLAIMED HE GOT HIS CLAIM FROM, and it turns out the paper actually says no such thing. For some reason, Havoc can't even bring himself to admit that *this* establishes the falseness of Hovind's claim. What more would he require, do you suppose? And the problem is that after having ALREADY been informed of and shown all this, he cared do little about the truth that he made the *same* claim a short while later without any shame or sidenote about how the issue was under dispute in any way. *This* is what elevates his act to a lie -- intentionally making a claim he knew to be false, or at least knew full well that its veracity was severely in question. And no, none of his later comments improved the situation any. This kind of behavior from a scientist would, quite frankly, destroy his career. For anti-evolutionists, however, it seems practically a *requirement*.
In fact, I copied you to post #181 (my original question to Havoc) of that same thread, but we're all busy, so it's easy to lose track.
I don't always have time to read even the posts I'm pinged to. In any case, in that thread you praised one of his rants on dating methods, but unfortunately almost everything he said in that post was wrong. Here is some good material on the actual validity of dating methods, and refutations of common creationist propaganda against them:
Well, the two biggest problems with that post are 1) incorrect expectations about what transitions should exist, and 2) unrealistic expectations about the rate of fossil formation.
First, you ask for things like "fish with opposable thumbs", but this is silly, because opposable thumbs arose in primates, not in fish, etc.
As for raw numbers of fossils, most people do not appreciate just how rare an event successful fossilization is. Not just for transitional forms, but *any*. Keep in mind that fossil representatives are available for only a very few species out of the several million species which are alive *today*, which we *know* exist, many of them with population figures in the many millions (organisms, not fossils). This gives an indication of just how uncommon fossilization in general is. And some creatures fossilize more readily than others. Animals without bones, for example, are often eroded or decomposed to little or nothing before they can be successfully fossilized. Note that insects, despite their enormously vast numbers while alive, have a very sparse fossil record, except for the few "lucky" ones (from our standpoint) which managed to get trapped in amber, one of the few ways they could be preserved well. So don't get too insistant about being shown "millions" of fossils -- we're lucky to have found the ones we have. For a longer discussion of the factors that affect this, whether the expected density of the fossil record matches evolutionary expectations, and why the honest person looks at the found fossils and not the "gaps", see this older post of mine.