Kansas Votes 4-1 To Allow Intelligent Design

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:19 am

From Kansas Votes 4-1 To Allow Intelligent Design:

Topic for debate:

Should Kansas have voted to allow Intelligent Design in order to achieve "balance"?

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Sat Feb 06, 2010 9:04 am

joeyknuccione wrote:From Kansas Votes 4-1 To Allow Intelligent Design:

Topic for debate:

Should Kansas have voted to allow Intelligent Design in order to achieve "balance"?

It should not have. It put those standards in in 2005, and reversed it's decision in 2005.

I will point out that it only took them a little more than a year after "Intelligent Design" was declared to be a religious movement at the end of 2005 to reverse their course. I suspect if they tried to put those standards back, there would be a nice little law suit based on the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case in PA as a precedent.

cnorman18 · Post by **cnorman18** » Tue Feb 09, 2010 5:34 pm

Check out today's "Bad Reporter." I can't figure out how to post a link. Trust me, it's absolutely on point and worth the Google.

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:26 am

cnorman18 wrote:Check out today's "Bad Reporter." I can't figure out how to post a link. Trust me, it's absolutely on point and worth the Google.

LOL

That's my link.

But Goat is right, we need to stay on top of this issue. It came very close to happening.

Miles · Post by **Miles** » Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:58 pm

cnorman18 wrote:Check out today's "Bad Reporter." I can't figure out how to post a link. Trust me, it's absolutely on point and worth the Google.

"Bad Reporter is a semi-weekly editorial cartoon in comic strip format that first appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on September 25, 2003[1].

It typically contains four panels, the first a simple black panel with a caricature of creator Don Asmussen and the slogan "The lies behind the truth, and the truth behind those lies that are behind that truth". The remaining three are spoofs (parodies) of newspaper articles containing a mock-up of a prominent newspaper masthead (such as the Chronicle or the New York Times), a headline, a simulated photograph, and a short text introduction or lead. Images are often obviously doctored file photographs or images from recent newspapers. Often there are humorous sidebars and other graphics.

The strip grew out of an earlier effort for the paper entitled The San Francisco Comic Strip. Its first topic was the recall of Governor Gray Davis. It then moved on to cover the 2004 presidential election and events beyond.

Source: Wikipedia"

To post a link, simply copy the url address, such as "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Reporter" Put it between and another [size=134][b]][/b][/size] ... ze=134][b][/size]

source

Don't include the quotation marks. In this case it will appear as the clickable link: source

cnorman18 · Post by **cnorman18** » Wed Feb 10, 2010 3:19 pm

Miles wrote:
cnorman18 wrote:Check out today's "Bad Reporter." I can't figure out how to post a link. Trust me, it's absolutely on point and worth the Google.

"Bad Reporter is a semi-weekly editorial cartoon in comic strip format that first appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on September 25, 2003[1].

It typically contains four panels, the first a simple black panel with a caricature of creator Don Asmussen and the slogan "The lies behind the truth, and the truth behind those lies that are behind that truth". The remaining three are spoofs (parodies) of newspaper articles containing a mock-up of a prominent newspaper masthead (such as the Chronicle or the New York Times), a headline, a simulated photograph, and a short text introduction or lead. Images are often obviously doctored file photographs or images from recent newspapers. Often there are humorous sidebars and other graphics.

The strip grew out of an earlier effort for the paper entitled The San Francisco Comic Strip. Its first topic was the recall of Governor Gray Davis. It then moved on to cover the 2004 presidential election and events beyond.

Source: Wikipedia"
To post a link, simply copy the url address, such as "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Reporter" Put it between and another [size=134][b]][/b][/size] ... ze=134][b][/size]

source

Don't include the quotation marks. In this case it will appear as the clickable link: source

Yeah, I know all that. I just couldn't get Google out of the URL. I think it's this new iGoogle that my new laptop came with.

(Oh, yeah - I don't have to type in everything with my left thumb any more. I moved up from my BlackBerry, though I still post from it sometimes.)

micatala · Post by **micatala** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 5:30 pm

I have to say I love the new lyrics to Dust in the Wind.

Maybe Wierd Al can do a knock off for us.

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 1:27 pm

micatala wrote:I have to say I love the new lyrics to Dust in the Wind.

Maybe Wierd Al can do a knock off for us.

That would be cool. I can only hope he reads these threads.

cswella · Post by **cswella** » Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:09 am

joeyknuccione wrote:From Kansas Votes 4-1 To Allow Intelligent Design:

Topic for debate:

Should Kansas have voted to allow Intelligent Design in order to achieve "balance"?

Only if they also teach the Flat Earth theory, the Germs vs Curses debate, and dedicate an entire class period to ascertain if Santa exists...

Whether or not Evolution is true (it is), we should be teaching the Scientific Method in Science Class. What exactly do they want teachers to say about ID? Evolution is one theory postulated from evidence, and ID is another theory postulated from a single dubious book?

How can you apply scientific rigor and testing to ID? What can kids learn from teaching ID that will apply to job skills later in life? Should they learn to believe everything that's written down or told to them by authority? Should they learn to justify belief by subverting fact to fit one's ideals of life?

Is blind belief in the unprovable really more important than learning to trust/question fact?

chatfouz · Post by **chatfouz** » Sun May 23, 2010 1:44 pm

science class is for science. ID is not science.

ID has no central hypothesis, no central theory.
Who is the creator? they don't know
How did the creator do it? They dont know
When did the Creator do it? They dont know
What is the limit of the Creator? They don't know
Can you tell the difference between the Creator and Micro Evolution? Sorta

That is not science. If ID could come up with a testable science sure let it in the classroom. But if no paper on ID has ever been published in Nature or other such journals why would we let it in the classroom?

Evolution doesn't need balance. Science is science. There is no balance involved. Its not a moral discussion. You don't have to like the answer, just accept that that is what science is...

Debating Christianity and Religion