TOPEKA, Kan. (Nov.
– Risking the kind of nationwide ridicule it faced six years ago, the Kansas Board of Education approved new public-school science standards Tuesday that cast doubt on the theory of evolution.The 6-4 vote was a victory for “intelligent design” advocates who helped draft the standards. Intelligent design holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.Critics of the new language charged that it was an attempt to inject God and creationism into public schools in violation of the separation of church and state.
I had two debates on Monday a private Christian school in Connecticut on the subject of Intelligent Design. Their thought and arguments were the standard stuff, and I combatted with the standard stuff….Until the children started asking questions. “What exactly IS evolution?” “Did we really evolve from monkeys”? “Evolution is foreign to me — how does it work?” I realized that these kids, who were SUPPOSED to “hear both sides and make a choice”, weren’t hearing one side at all. These seniors knew less about standard scientific theory than my 8-year-old daughter, which IMO is sure to give them a disadvantage in college.HERE’S SOME GOOD NEWS: Dover ID’ers booted out by smart citizens!http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/11/clean-sweep-in-dover.html
jcc:
That’s a statement I find intriguing.
When it comes to human affairs, I think perhaps the standards vary widely from those of speculation as to the origins of life and/or the universe.
Science does tend to correct itself far more regularly, than religion, to my uninformed eyes. 1 of the initial attractions for me vis-a-vis skepticism.
It also seems that skeptics are more prone to correct 1 another than theists. Not positing an absolute: observation only. I could be wrong on this.
Really, it all boils down to guesswork.
Some guesses are better than others, I’d say.
P.S, copying & pasting actually does work for a long link, the pasted link simply goes way off the perimeters of the post. It’s still there. A better technique is to perhaps separate parts of the link w/a RETURN.
P.S.S, I still reserve the right to ridicule & mock, BTW. It’s part of my nature to poke & joke. Sorry. Just don’t take it personal.
karen:
You asked for proof of a historic human event. I gave you the only proof possible for such a phenomenon: a written record, the only method available at the time for preserving it. Sure, it would help if it were backed up by forensic evidence (of which there is some, but nothing conclusive) but, as with virtually all other historic human activity, it?s all we have.
I ask for fossils that indicate what I should expect to see if Darwin were correct, but you are only able to produce a partial, inconclusive record as well?again, it?s all we have.
You conclude Darwin is right because you choose to based on that spotty physical record and the plausibility of the theory, but that?s not all. Your choice was also heavily influenced by personal experiences that led you to reject Christianity and embrace Atheism. Any ?gaps? in evolution you assume will eventually be filled in by future discoveries and confirm the theory?something, you choose to put your faith in because of what you know and what you have experienced.
My story is very similar. I conclude Christ is the Son of God because of the textual criticism of the New Testament and the internal consistency of the theology. But, that?s not all. My choice was also heavily influenced by the results of the Cosmic Background Radiation Explorer satellite in 1992. Results that essentially confirmed the Big Bang theory and caused me to re-examine the claims of Naturalism and redirected my curiosity toward theology. Since then, I, like you, have had personal experiences that have reinforced that belief. I also, like you, have no direct or irrefutable proof of what I believe, but, like you, I do have plausible evidence for it. I choose to put my faith in it because of the combination of what I know and what I have experienced.
We both have our individual standards for belief. Unfortunately, mine doesn?t satisfy yours and yours doesn?t satisfy mine. The only thing that will change this situation is for one of us to experience something new that will force us to reevaluate the presumptions upon which we?ve based our belief.
reluctantatheist:
I agree. I too, was highly skeptical of Christianity, but as I dug into it deeper and took time to understand the historical context in which the New Testament was written, I found that it corrected my misinterpretation of it. The parts I had rejected for most of my life I later realized were really palimpsests?the truer, deeper meaning had been obscured by my lack of historical context and just plain bad teaching of it to me when I was a kid.
Thanks for the pasting tip.
I didn?t take it so much as personal as just being frustrated at not being taken seriously.
Funny how we can look at the exact same evidence and then draw completely different conclusions. Makes me almost want to go all post-modern. Almost.
rainbows4dinosaurs:
But, by saying
that is a Post-Modern mindset. Sure, in theory, Copernicus could be wrong, but in reality, every single observation indicates he?s right. The objective reality of the results of the observations never changes.
karen:
Oh, I still have lots of theological questions but I?m not searching for answers to those here (that would sorta be like asking for a taco at a sushi bar).
I initially came here out of curiosity. The vast majority of my friends are people of some degree of faith, and I?ve never gotten to know any really ?devout? atheists like I?ve found here. Conversing with you and the others here since last summer has been a fascinating learning experience for me. I?ve learned so much about how you all think, what motivates you and what experiences and realizations you?ve had that brought you all to where you are in your ?faith? journey. And I?ve learned the most from you, karen. I know you often find me to be ?dumbfounding,? but I often wonder what lasting effects our conversations will have on you?if they?ve given you cause to consider new things or reconsider some old. And I must say that it?s never been boring.
Okay, look. The people of Kansas have allowed this ID crap. That doesn’t mean the rest of the US will.
I think they should offer a choice in all schools. There’d be a “science” class and a “Bible Humping” class, and kids could choose which class they want to take. Not the parents, THE KIDS!
The kids are the ones learning. And most of the time, the kids of bible humping parents will choose a bible humping class. I can almost guarantee this.
Alexandra,
“Bible Humping” (love that term!) class shouldn’t be taught in public schools – at least not as a class unto itself. That would require you (if you currently are working as well as going to school) and me to subsidize the teaching of a single religion in a publicly-funded institution. Tax dollars should not be used to educate people on their faith.
But, if they wanted to cover Christianity and other current world religions in a “world religions” type class, and they covered all religions in an equal manner, as an elective, I wouldn’t complain. ID could be taught there, or even in a philosophy class.
The problem with ID being taught as science is VERY simple; ID cannot be applied to the scientific method and scientific predictions cannot be made using the theory, therefore, it is not science and should not be taught as such.
Proponents of ID have discovered that American’s are woefully ignorant when it comes to science and therefore have begun exploiting that ignorance by attaching “scientific-sounding” language to their argument, confusing most on how it is or isn’t science. They have also bypassed the scientific community and went straight to the public with their “theory”. For me, this instantly renders their argument for ID incredulous.
If they feel strongly about ID, put it to the test. Submit their “findings” to scientific journals and let their peers decide if it is a valid theory – not a scientifically ignorant American public.
Boston Creme Pie- 2 Pack
Been interesting to see the audience change over the years too as I Great as always. Saw them in 77,2 t…
Curiosly enough, I was watching Ellen Johnson at the convention on c-span; she made a reference about a Thomas Jefferson quote,”The truth will stand on it’s own”. She was proud when she spoke those words. Three questions; why are you atheists so worried about separation of church and state? The truth will stand on it’s own right? Last question; I wonder where Thomas Jefferson came up with that quote? You know; the quote everyone in the conference was clapping to.
The best argument against Intelligent Design that I can think of is to look at a case of actual intelligent design — i.e., at a particular thing that was designed by human intelligence. Take the case of the automobile. Clearly, a Ford automobile built in the early years of the twentieth century bears the imprint of intelligent design. But so does a Ford authomobile built in 2007. And yet the two automobiles are distinctly different, and the reason for this is that intelligent design itself is operative only within the larger context of evolving intelligence. Intelligent design in no way connotes Perfect Design, and so even though a thing might show characteristics suggestive of an intelligent creator, the presence of a single flaw or imperfection in an object, no matter how cleverly it appears to be designed, shows that the creator cannot possibly be “God,” as god is by definition perfect. Hence, flat feet and slipped disks in the human skeletal system show conclusively that the design can be improved upon. Only a forward-reaching evolutionary process could possibly accomplish that. So whether a system is designed by an intelligence or whether it evolves through a series of chance adaptations to changing environments, there can be no “god” in either case, for in order for intelligent design to apply, it HAS to be subject to evolutionary processes.
traffic tickets prices
website traffic
legal free advice
Castlebar. ie was a tremendously popular local website, receiving as many as three million hits per month- or at least it did up until last Saturday, when the site announced on its main page that it had been‘ forced to cease operation after more than…
free legal aid advice
Ok this may be off topic BUT, did you know in Alaska, it is legal to shoot bears. However, waking a sleeping bear for the purpose of taking a photograph is prohibited. Odd??
free legal help divorce
A couple, let’s call them Ms I and Mr U.K, used to argue about fish, particularly cod. In time they learned to compromise and share. Now, however, they’ve become openly hostile again. This time it seems the issue is about money. He put some in her …
how to get my ex girlfriend back fast
The breakup may have occurred because of one specific event, or even from a behavior that your ex didn’t want to deal with anymore.
hotel roma
Of course. You get full control over your guide- so if you already know where you’re staying, you can click to deselect all of the information about hotels, for example. You can add customized chapters and fill them with information that you gather fro…
Raw Minerals Free Trial
From earliest times people wore masks when droughts or other disasters struck. They believed that the demons who had brought their misfortune upon them would…