Intelligent design VS Evolution in court in Kansas (moved from ATSNN), page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

Topic started on 12-5-2005 @ 03:52 PM by syrinx high priest

The sticky issue of how to teach Evolution/Intelligent Design is playing out in Kansas. What's at stake is the actual curruculum involed. Many school systems throughout the US will likely be paying attention to the outcome of this trial.

www.msnbc.msn.com
Sharp words traded at evolution hearing
Lawyer blasts intelligent-design advocates in KansasThe Associated Press
Updated: 3:08 p.m. ET May 12, 2005TOPEKA, Kan. - A Topeka attorney on Thursday denounced intelligent-design advocates and conservative State Board of Education members for what he said were their unwarranted attacks on evolution.

Pedro Irigonegaray's arguments came during the last day of hearings before a subcommittee of the State Board of Education, focusing on how evolutionary theory is taught. The entire board plans to consider by August changes in standards that determine how students are tested on science statewide.

During a two-hour attack on language proposed by intelligent-design advocates, Irigonegaray lectured presiding members, telling them they are damaging science education and the state's reputation.

"You have a responsibility to the children and the future of this state that you have sadly — sadly — failed," Irigonegaray told them.

But board members didn't let Irigonegaray's comments go unanswered, saying that he and other evolution defenders had engaged in character assassinations.

"I believe your behavior here was abusive," said Board Member Connie Morris. "I want you to know I forgive you."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

I would like to see school systems expose children to all reasonable explanations for any theory, its a shame it has to be legislated like this. I can't help picturing how issues like this were settled 10,000 years ago, the guy with the biggest club won the argument back then, the guy with the best lawyer wins the argument now.....is that evolution or intelligent design ?

reply posted on 12-5-2005 @ 04:41 PM by spamandham

If they're going to teach intelligent design, then they need to also explain that it fails the first test of a valid scientific theory - it is unfalsifiable. It should also be taught that no-one has witnessed intelligent design in action.

The evidence that counters it should also be exposed. In humans alone there are dozens of serious flaws that a good designer would not have included, such as the useless yet death causing appendix, the laryngeal nerve, the vestigal tail, high mortality rate of birth (before modern medicine) etc.

If we are to teach intelligent design, we should teach what the evidence shows; an imperfect designer who makes mistakes. Somehow I doubt that's what the folks in Kansas had in mind.

reply posted on 12-5-2005 @ 04:54 PM by James the Lesser

Or teach that 2+2=22 in math class. Look, you take a 2, put a 2 next to it, what do you have? 22! See? I am right, 2+2=4 is wrong, anyone who says so is to be killed.
Also, according to the bible, christians aren't suppose to take religon to court.
www.evilbible.com...

reply posted on 30-7-2009 @ 09:41 AM by Mariano

reply to post by James the Lesser

EvilBible.com is Dead

Large portions of evilbible.com have been considered, dissected and declared fallacious on very many levels.
Two examples of this fact are as follows:

Whilst besmirching the Bible for allegedly commanding rape evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention the most relevant biblical text related to the biblical view of and law about rape. Why this omission? Who knows, but it would certainly have gotten in the way of a good session of emotive expression of prejudice—it would have discredited evilbible.com to reference this most important text. Indeed, those annoying little facts have an annoying way of getting in the way of good fallacious assertions.

Whilst besmirching the Bible for allegedly commanding human sacrifice evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention that the Bible does not command but condemns human sacrifice. Evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention that when the Bible reports that human sacrifices did take place they were carried out by Gentile Pagans who were not worshiping the God of the Bible but various false gods. When “Jews” were performing human sacrifices it was only when they turned away from the God of the Bible and joined Gentile Pagans in worshiping various false gods. Yet, in typical militant activist atheist fashion, evilbible.com does not condemn Gentile Pagans but only condemns the Jews.
Further evidence of this is found at this URL:

atheismisdead.blogspot.com...

reply posted on 30-7-2009 @ 10:03 AM by SkipShipman

I think there is something important to say here, that no one else seems to have said.

I believe Darwin's theory is scientifically sound, but that scientists and others looking for authority, use it in a Malthusian indifference to humanity.

Hence intelligent design, that assigns human beings great dignity and a soul, although scientifically flawed, is a moral right. It is not necessarily science, but it is an important side of any debate upon our origins. Darwin was a believing Christian. As long as it is a debate on any front in a classroom setting, it is in some sense academic enough while it may belong in the notion of the history of science.

The entire picture of my argument is that we are human beings, and our future depends upon our understanding of a soul and a spirit assigning great value to us. It is that versus a humanity without a soul akin to insects tearing out a living in a hostile world in which reasonable safety is an illusion.

reply posted on 30-7-2009 @ 01:29 PM by Kailassa

Originally posted by SkipShipman
I think there is something important to say here, that no one else seems to have said.

I believe Darwin's theory is scientifically sound, but that scientists and others looking for authority, use it in a Malthusian indifference to humanity.

Hence intelligent design, that assigns human beings great dignity and a soul, although scientifically flawed, is a moral right. It is not necessarily science, but it is an important side of any debate upon our origins. Darwin was a believing Christian. As long as it is a debate on any front in a classroom setting, it is in some sense academic enough while it may belong in the notion of the history of science.

The entire picture of my argument is that we are human beings, and our future depends upon our understanding of a soul and a spirit assigning great value to us. It is that versus a humanity without a soul akin to insects tearing out a living in a hostile world in which reasonable safety is an illusion.

It's silly to suggest people need to believe in creationism to believe in God and in human dignity. I know there is a god who cares for us, but that doesn't stop me being interested in open-minded scientific exploration of evolution.

Can anyone say god could not have created us by initiating a system in which we would naturally evolve?

I have dignity. I love and respect others and I am loved and respected. I've visited heaven and spoken with god during a near death experience. But in this material plane my body is descended from the ancestors of modern primates.

There is no shame or lack of dignity in that. Our forbears, gradually changing bit by bit from one celled organisms to what we are now, lived through countless challenges, hardships and adventures. We should take joy in all aspects of our being. God is love and truth and laughter. Living with love and laughter, and fearlessly seeking the truth with an open mind, can only lead us closer to god.

reply posted on 23-8-2009 @ 05:35 PM by Conclusion

reply to post by spamandham

The appendix does have a use. Just read a thread on it.. look it up.

reply posted on 23-8-2009 @ 11:45 PM by riley

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
I would like to see school systems expose children to all reasonable explanations for any theory, its a shame it has to be legislated like this.

Any "reasonable" scienctific theory. "ID" (creationism) does not qualify as a scientific theory as it has NO scientific evidence to support it. ToE does and ID is in no way a competing scientific theory.

I can't help picturing how issues like this were settled 10,000 years ago, the guy with the biggest club won the argument back then, the guy with the best lawyer wins the argument now.....is that evolution or intelligent design ?

ID/Creationism does not just have a smaller club.. it has NO club to hit with as it is the science that is important when it comes to deciding what is taught in a science class room.

[edit on 23-8-2009 by riley]

Pages: ^^TOP^^