National Academy of Sciences takes a stand

[Everon 0]

Quote

So teaching intelligent design is not so much the issue as long as its not considered science.

The fact is that it is religion and cannot be taught in a biology classroom. They pitch the "teach the controversy" crap when in fact there is absolutely no competing SCIENTIFIC theory for evolutionary biology. If there were, then that would also be taught in that arena. ID is neither testable nor falsifiable.

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

NO, just for you and like thinkers

Ok, I'll string the exchange together:

Quote

Chan: Teaching little Jimmy how to put a condom on a banana so he can stick it to Jill doesn't seem to cause a constitutional crisis,

Me: Intelligent design is religion, last I checked condoms weren't.

You: You are absolutely correct! YOU are talking about the absence of morality and the support of immorality.

n23x: Education doesn't represent a support of immorality.

You: Not talking "education" sir, we are talking about how some one "USES" law. Pay attention, you might learn something. Oh, and your "education" code word supports my statement.

What the hell does that mean? Are you honestly telling me that you think you are making perfect sense there? Since when were we not talking about education? What's the 'codeword'? Who's Deepthroat?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

You have not followed the thread.

Do you recall this?

The judge ruled that teaching intelligent design in the science classroom is unconstitutional.

And then the condom and banna posts?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Linda Lovelace

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

The judge ruled that teaching intelligent design in the science classroom is unconstitutional.

And then the condom and banna posts?

What I quoted in my previous post is what has appeared in our exchange.

If you're going to quote one thing and then write a reply to something else altogether then you've got to expect that no-one is going to understand what you're saying.

(And you know that you've now spent much longer arguing with me than it would have taken to just re-phrase your argument into coherent english.)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

The judge ruled that teaching intelligent design in the science classroom is unconstitutional.

And then the condom and banna posts?

What I quoted in my previous post is what has appeared in our exchange.

If you're going to quote one thing and then write a reply to something else altogether then you've got to expect that no-one is going to understand what you're saying.

(And you know that you've now spent much longer arguing with me than it would have taken to just re-phrase your argument into coherent english.)

I quoted what was in this thread. Not my fault if you can read it all

And, you present yourself as so fucking smart I thought you might figure it out but no, I was wrong

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

I quoted what was in this thread. Not my fault if you can read it all

Read through the thread dude, at no point did you quote or reply to the statement The judge ruled that teaching intelligent design in the science classroom is unconstitutional. You simply did not mention it.

What you did quote and reply to was Chan: Teaching little Jimmy how to put a condom on a banana so he can stick it to Jill doesn't seem to cause a constitutional crisis, Me: Intelligent design is religion, last I checked condoms weren't. And n23x: Education doesn't represent a support of immorality.

I'm not sure what the hell you expected people to think you were talking about.

What were you talking about? What is your point? Do you have a point? Do you support teaching religion as science? Do you oppose teaching safe sex? Do you oppose ever using the courts to decide what kids are taught by state funded teachers? Let us know what is in your mind.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I quoted what was in this thread. Not my fault if you can read it all

Read through the thread dude, at no point did you quote or reply to the statement The judge ruled that teaching intelligent design in the science classroom is unconstitutional. You simply did not mention it.

What you did quote and reply to was Chan: Teaching little Jimmy how to put a condom on a banana so he can stick it to Jill doesn't seem to cause a constitutional crisis, Me: Intelligent design is religion, last I checked condoms weren't. And n23x: Education doesn't represent a support of immorality.

I'm not sure what the hell you expected people to think you were talking about.

What were you talking about? What is your point? Do you have a point? Do you support teaching religion as science? Do you oppose teaching safe sex? Do you oppose ever using the courts to decide what kids are taught by state funded teachers? Let us know what is in your mind.

surrender, you win

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

surrender, you win

Or you could just tell us what you meant?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[n23x 0]

What's the concern with the unconstitutional ruling?

Intelligent design IS religion. Intelligent design IS creationism.

A separation of religion and education is important and healthy. Parents can indoctrinate their children with their specific religious beliefs in their home, or place of worship. School is to learn.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[rushmc 23]

....and the rulings (as they are currently today) of the seperation of church and state and not even close to what the founders intended.

That, is more of my point.

You, are a US citezen. jakee is not so I really dont care what he thinks about the US (at least his profile seems to indicate he is not from the US)

I RESENT the people think the schools should teach my children about sex and protection. That is to my "education" comment.

This type of "education" does NOT belong in the schools unless you think the schools shoud be teaching morality and life lessons instead of you. I, do not.

Now, creationism is taught in schools. Why should we not teach inteligent design? And you need to consider this question in the context of how the US founders INTENDED the seperation of church and state.

The Constitution is NOT a living breathing document. It was NOT intended to be. That is why there is a process to change it and that "process" is not easy. Those that do not like that "process" use the courts instead. THAT, IMO, is one of the greatest dangers to this country that I know of.

Thanks for an honest question

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Lindsey 0]

Creationism and Intelligent Design (I'm not sure if they actually differ in any meaningful way) should not be taught in science classrooms. But, in my opinion, are fine being taught in religion classrooms. I also think it's okay to teach kids how to protect themselves from sexually transmitted diseases in health class.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

Now, creationism is taught in schools.

Not in science classes.

Quote

Why should we not teach inteligent design?

Because it's creationism dreesed up in new clothes. And creationism is not taught in science classes. Because it's an establishment of a specific religion.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Now, creationism is taught in schools.

Not in science classes.

Agreed.

Quote

Quote

Why should we not teach inteligent design?

Because it's creationism dreesed up in new clothes. And creationism is not taught in science classes. Because it's an establishment of a specific religion.

Bullshit flag, here.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

This type of "education" does NOT belong in the schools unless you think the schools shoud be teaching morality and life lessons instead of you. I, do not.

Condoms are not about morality. Teaching someone to use a condom does not equate to telling kids to go out and have loads and loads of casual sex. It's about recognising that lots of kids do go out and have casual sex, and about getting them to protect themselves and their partners.

If someone thinks that all the caution and guidance that they have instilled in their kids can be undone by an hour of condom demonstrations and pictures of genital diseases then they've probably done some pretty half-arsed parenting.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,032]

Quote

Quote

Care to clarify? It is, literally, next to impossible to understand about 95% of your posts.

.jim

Ya, why I am not surprised.

No, I not taking the time

Mirror, mirror, on the wall,
Who is most incomprehensible of all?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Creationism and Intelligent Design (I'm not sure if they actually differ in any meaningful way) should not be taught in science classrooms. But, in my opinion, are fine being taught in religion classrooms. I also think it's okay to teach kids how to protect themselves from sexually transmitted diseases in health class.

Sure, split hairs. Teach what you think should be taught in schools and get a court to exclude what you think should not be.

Congress shall make NO laws what is in the Constitution. Dam simple if you ask me.

IF, you really believe this then you should support vouchers so I can put my kids in a school that does not follow YOUR rules.

And, YOU, as a parent should teach your kids about STD's in the context YOU belive it correct and right. I do not want others teaching my kids about these issues in any context.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Care to clarify? It is, literally, next to impossible to understand about 95% of your posts.

.jim

Ya, why I am not surprised.

No, I not taking the time

You NEED a mirror.

It may help you be less of an ass

Mirror, mirror, on the wall,
Who is most incomprehensible of all?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

Bullshit flag, here.

Why? Intelligent design is a strategy to pave the way for the teaching of the Biblical creation story in schools. This has been recognised, in court, by a right-wing christian judge. You calling bullshit on him?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

I could give a fuck less what you think about my country.

Mind your own business

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Bullshit flag, here.

Why? Intelligent design is a strategy to pave the way for the teaching of the Biblical creation story in schools. This has been recognised, in court, by a right-wing christian judge. You calling bullshit on him?

Are you a US citizen? Acording to your profile you are not. Why should I give two squirts of piss what you think?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

I could give a fuck less what you think about my country.

Then why spend so long talking to me about it?

(And to use your tactic - nice admission that you can't refute my argument.)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,032]

Quote

Quote

Creationism and Intelligent Design (I'm not sure if they actually differ in any meaningful way) should not be taught in science classrooms. But, in my opinion, are fine being taught in religion classrooms. I also think it's okay to teach kids how to protect themselves from sexually transmitted diseases in health class.

Sure, split hairs. Teach what you think should be taught in schools and get a court to exclude what you think should not be.

Congress shall make NO laws what is in the Constitution. Dam simple if you ask me.

IF, you really believe this then you should support vouchers so I can put my kids in a school that does not follow YOUR rules.

And, YOU, as a parent should teach your kids about STD's in the context YOU belive it correct and right. I do not want others teaching my kids about these issues in any context.

Just curious - does this have ANYTHING to do with the NAS publication on evolution?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Bullshit flag, here.

Why? Intelligent design is a strategy to pave the way for the teaching of the Biblical creation story in schools. This has been recognised, in court, by a right-wing christian judge. You calling bullshit on him?

No, on you for saying it's establishing a religion...as it patently is NOT.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lindsey 0]

Sure, split hairs.

Don't see how that's splitting hairs. It's simply putting things in their right places. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not science, no matter how you contort it. They're religion. Religion should be taught in religion classrooms, not science classrooms. Health class. What should be taught in there, if not health? People whose parents don't teach very well still need to know that gonorrhea might make 'em infertile. AIDS might make 'em die, and syphilis might make 'em insane before they die. But they can protect themselves from all of these things.

I teach teenagers about safe sex just about every day in clinic. And ya' know what? It's one area where parents do NOT have the right to know what their teenagers talked about with their doctors. Any teenager can go to his/her doctor and get the skinny on sex and the physician cannot tell their parents unless the child gives consent. That's cool, imho.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail