Unbelievable! The facility should be closed down rather that than teach dangerous pseudo science. I came to America 20 years ago and I can’t believe how stupid this country is becoming! It’s as though we’re living inside a science fiction movie and the mindless zombie hoards are stumbling around destroying all common sense. The thing is. It’s not a movie. It’s real. It’s actually happening. America is going backwards.

Unfortunately for the teachers, at wherever this is, they are on the front line in this struggle and have been thrust into a very unpleasant position. They need to make a stand. It is too important to simply “grin and bear it” I realize that it’s easy for me to order others into battle when my livelihood isn’t on the line but I make this prediction. If those involved make a lot of noise and attract enough national publicity, if they do loose, and their jobs are no longer funded, they will be offered new jobs by others on their side. Others who feel strongly about the alarming direction in which America is heading and are in a position to provide employment to teachers with principles and a deep concern for the future of both their students and America as a whole.

In fact, the call should go out now for someone to step forward and make it clear to these embattled educators that they will be offered new positions should the worst happen.

Verily, there is no limit to human stupidity and arrogance.

What world do these people think they are preparing their kids to join? The third world.

Soon they will be teaching the bible in math class. And to hell with medicine. People are sick because of sin. Goodbye to biology and physics, hello righteous poverty for the masses.

Am I the only one that is in a blind rage over the idiot layman use of the word "theory" by the fundies? Great Odin's raven pick up a book and read once in a while you taliban wannabee's.

Scientific process prescribes that you set forth a hypothesis (which is an unproven idea) design a test, test, analyze and conclude. If the evidence in your test confirms your hypothesis, it is now a theory. Once enough evidence is gathered that irrefutably proves the theory, that theory becomes a fact.

This is where idiots don't understand the system. Scientists are very cautious about calling anything a fact. So, many things that we take for absolute granted are still theories. Gravity for instance. I don't know that anyone would argue the existance of gravity, but but it is as irrifutable as evolution. mountains of data backing a hypothesis.

Proving a theory as complex and old as evolution, based on the type and random distribution of data, is likely an asymtotic effort. thus meaning, it will never be conclusively proven. each new step towards conclusion requires larger and larger amounts of harder to find data. therefore that last piece of the puzzle is statistically impossible to attain.

I don't know who said it, but somewhere along the way a noted scientist was asked how he was so certain of evolution, he told the person that if they could find a bunny rabbit in the mezozoic period, he would no longer believe in evolution.

Ben, your comment reminds me of an article the Onion wrote on the "Intelligent Falling Theory." The postulated that there was no universal force of attraction between all matter but instead that an intelligent force was pulling things down towards the earth, saying that the theory explained such phenomenon as Jesus ascending to heaven.

A friend of mine also once told me about Pastafarianism. Back when the court of a certain state (I forget which one exactly) suggested that an equal amount of time be spent on evolution and intelligent design, Pastafarianism was founded believe that the earth was created by the great flying spagetti monster. Their argument was that their beliefs must be taught in schools because their beliefs had just as much evidence supporting them as intelligent design.

Making fun of these people is just too easy. It's a shame they're dangerous when assembled in large groups.

I think science should boycott arkansas, anything that science gave them should be taken away. No more medication, TV, computers, or anything for them, they don't respect science, they don't get to use it.

Pfft, if we keep our populace ignorant, it is then much easier to foist ignorant public and social policies upon them. Good job Arkansas for continuing to pave the way!

That was J. B. S. Haldane, and it was "a fossil rabbit in the Precambrian."

So, which organ of his was it that Gov. Huckabee had stapled/removed? His stomach or his brain?

Certainly, the idea of taking from the backwards states anything that science has given them is an amusing one. I'll push it one step further and say that anything that is operating under a scientific principle that is "just" a theory should be removed.

Because of the nature of this forum being decidedly progressive, I'll assume that most of us are more highly educated than Joe Redstate, and that a high percentage are familiar with Ohm's law. Voltage = Current * Resistance. It is the founding principle of electrical engineering, power transmission, electronics, et al. Ohm's law has never been conclusively determined a scientific fact, it is a theory.

So, Arkansas, no more electricity, no more computers, no more things that are MADE with electricity, because if electricity is "only a theory" and to be dismissed as such, then anything made with its ungodly powers must then be tainted.

Science, slayer of God, enlightener of men. Est. 4th C. BC

BTW, I am familiar with the works of FSM, much praise and honor be upon him, including the creation of the mountains, some trees, and a midget.

http://www.venganza.org/

just for interests sake. if you found any fossil in the precambrian larger than something quite small, youd become quickly - quite famous .. as in .. youve probably found proof that precambrian rock formed quickly as well. then youve busted up both the young earther's and the old earther's theories.

i think Haldane made a pretty safe bet ;)

I thought i'd seen everything... What will the leaders of tomorrow look like? Bush? OMG.

This has to be a joke...

stipe,

There are no safe bets in a universe where the Intelligent Designer lurks in the shadows, his wonders to perform.

By the way, I have created a group on YouTube called Intelligent Design where I have attempted to collect pre-existing pro-evo and con-ID video clips. The Ken Miller lecture is particularly good.

If you have any that you would like to add, feel free to join/upload/link. I imagine Norm has a sizeable treasure trove he might be willing to share.

http://www.youtube.com/groups_videos?name=intelligentdesign http://www.youtube.com/group/intelligentdesign

oh come on inwit .. you surely dont believe that! are you trying to tell me that anyone who believes in a personal creator cannot be certain of anything .. cannot make predictions...?

the athiestic and evolusionist worldview is logically obliged to give the creationist view a place in the world. even if creation theory doesnt line up an old earth timeframe .. evolution claims to have produced the creationist viewpoint. how can one honestly or objectively reject creationist claims and assert evolutionary ones from an evolutionary viewpoint?

evolutionists can believe in an impractical theory if they so choose, but they must also face the consequences of their beliefs ... which they are generally less than enthusiastic about doing.

creationists can believe unpopular things if they so choose, but they must also face the consequences of those beliefs .. which they are generally less than enthusiastic about doing.

i challenge you to subject your thinking to any reasonable and most importantly consistant examination of human behaviour. i dont believe there is any way you can justify your opening statement without it also pointing straight back at you.

i'll reserve comment on the website until ive seen it ;)

oh come on inwit .. you surely dont believe that! are you trying to tell me that anyone who believes in a personal creator cannot be certain of anything .. cannot make predictions...?

stipe, I'm speaking for myself. The Universe I live in is a rational one. The moment I admit the existence of a meddling Intelligent Designer, as far as I am concerned all bets are indeed off. How and where will he/she/it interfere next? Can I be absolutely sure that such interference will not occur willy-nilly, that there will necessarily be a method to his/her/its madness? Will the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum break down unexpectedly as a result of such interference? Was that the explanation for all those falls on the ice in the figure skating events at the recent Winter Olympics?

I'm not sure what a "personal creator" is. I suspect the notion is an artifact, if not artifice, of Western Christian thought, something to do with "accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior" perhaps. I know many scientists who are religious to some degree or other. But every single one of them leaves their religion at the doorstep when they enter their laboratories. When they obtain a seemingly irrational result, they seek a rational explanation for it; they don't look askance at the Intelligent Designer. They are able to compartmentalize their religious views separately from their professional scientific ones, something I myself cannot do.

As for the beliefs of others, there is doubtless a sizable segment of the population that believes in an interfering Creator, personal or otherwise. I'll point out that Ohio's state motto is "With God, all things are possible." Presumably someone believes that. Santa Claus may predict that the Sun will rise in the South and set in the South next year. A perfectly logical claim from his vantage point on the North Pole. But the eschatologist would say, "Don't be too sure, Santa. The world may end tomorrow, 'in the twinkling of an eye.'" This is one possible interpretation of the parable of the virgins. Wachet auf!

the athiestic and evolusionist worldview is logically obliged to give the creationist view a place in the world. even if creation theory doesnt line up an old earth timeframe .. evolution claims to have produced the creationist viewpoint. how can one honestly or objectively reject creationist claims and assert evolutionary ones from an evolutionary viewpoint?

That's easy. While evolution can be said to have given rise to the creationist viewpoint, to accept your premise of your question, I no more have to accept creationism itself than I have to accept all the other foibles of the human condition that could be indirectly attributed to evolution. I can accept that "N rays," "cold fusion," and other examples of pathological science happened without having to accept that they are legitimate scientific discoveries; similarly with "Intelligent Design." Just as I can and do accept that the Holocaust happened without accepting that it was, to quote Ms. Stewart out of context, "a good thing."

evolutionists can believe in an impractical theory if they so choose, but they must also face the consequences of their beliefs ... which they are generally less than enthusiastic about doing.

An impractical theory? Surely you jest. Every day, evolutionary ideas are put into practice by biologists, and even by computer scientists, physicists, and engineers. By definition, these cannot be the fruits of an impractical scientific theory. And there are no "beliefs" about it.

It is impossible for me address the second part of your statement without knowing what these "consequences" are of which you write. You have to be specific. And I hope this is something more substantial than a god-of-the-gaps argument, which is easily disposed of.

creationists can believe unpopular things if they so choose, but they must also face the consequences of those beliefs .. which they are generally less than enthusiastic about doing.

Amen.

i challenge you to subject your thinking to any reasonable and most importantly consistant examination of human behaviour. i dont believe there is any way you can justify your opening statement without it also pointing straight back at you.

i'll reserve comment on the website until ive seen it ;)

I can hardly wait.

stipe, I'm speaking for myself. The Universe I live in is a rational one.

full of irrational people? if youre speaking for yourself then please dont speak for anyone else. im speaking for everyone when i make this post.

The moment I admit the existence of a meddling Intelligent Designer, as far as I am concerned all bets are indeed off.

how about if you admitted the existence of god?

I know many scientists who are religious to some degree or other. But every single one of them leaves their religion at the doorstep when they enter their laboratories.

religion should not only be left on the doorstep .. it should be thrown out with the trash...

As for the beliefs of others, there is doubtless a sizable segment of the population that believes... santa claus...

still think you live in a rational universe?

An impractical theory?

yeah sorry .. i stretched the budget on that one. evolutionary theory is very practical when it comes to designing things.

It is impossible for me address the second part of your statement...

you originally said "There are no safe bets in a universe where the Intelligent Designer lurks in the shadows, his wonders to perform." which i read as saying that if i believe in a creator i am unable to make predictions.

if you get to say that then i get to say that evolution leaves you no choice about what you have written. all youre actions .. everything you do is part of the battle to evolve. are you the fittest member of your species inwit?

the fact is that i can look out the window and find many creationists who do science .. in fact i consider the entire human race capable of doing science. that we disagree is only natural. that we each promote our own idea of whats right is only natural. thats human nature and that is what your view of the world has to cater for.

science can paint part of the picture, but science exists within a larger context for human existence. evolution doesnt cater for it because evolution (macro-evolution .. im talking flagellum to flatulence here) doesnt even fit within science.

i looked at the videos on your site, but i couldnt figure out how to leave comments quickly .. i will make more of an effort over there and keep this thread from fracturing any more ...

cheers ;)

Stipe, I think you and inwit are actually arguing the same point from different sides.

That being said, it seems to me as if you are either (a) intentionally playing the devil's advocate or (b) somewhat logically mixed up in your arguments.

You say '.. science exists within a larger context for human existence.... because evolution doesn't even fit within science.'

I don't know what the second point means (how does evolution not fit within science? How does anything 'fit' within science? Science isn't a box of fixed size), and your first point seems not entirely well-formed to me.

Rather, I think it should be 'Human existence provides a context for science'. My version seems logical - physics, chemistry etc. would continue to exist with or without humanity, but 'science' (which I take to mean the study of chemistry, physics, et al) would have no context without humans to provide it.

Maybe I'm just trying to get to the core of what you mean, because it feels like you have a very definite point, but I can't figure out what it is.

er .. whats wrong with arguing the same point from different sides? we are after all ... on different sides.

evolution doesnt fit into science because there seems to be no way to do science any more without first assuming evolution .. and from there extending the usage of evolution into every other field of science.

evolution does not fit with how i see the world and i cannot derive any truth from assuming it as an expression of human origin.

what i do sense is that my opinions are therefore tainted and more easily dismissed as a result. not that im complaining .. thats just human nature. and im sure ill hear no complaint in response if i impose the same assumptions on darwin's followers.

sorry .. that last post was probably a bit over-reactive (it hasnt shown up yet). to tell the truth i didnt register much of what you said tom, rather i reacted to what i thought you might have said.

i appreciate your analysis of this thread and i know that i can speak tangentially at times.

i dont feel capable of responding to any of your issues right now .. so please feel free to pull me up - in the future - on other threads ...

thanks all ..

g'nite

Since I don't take anything on faith, I have to ask what "facility" is being referenced? As to stipe's comments, I also find it difficult to take someone's pretence of learning when they can't even use proper punctuation. Or caps.

who said anything about learning? im the worlds biggest know-it-all .. dont you know?

capitals are for those trying to compensate .. and punctuation is for those who want to say something clearly and well delineated.

if you cant say everything you want to say without using the comma button then its just not worth saying im afraid...

besides .. its really funny when i use the contracted form of 'he will' ...

I got lost in the above discussion but must comment on an idea that was raised a couple of times, partly in jest I believe. The irrationality of us primates has no bearing on the logical structure of the universe.

I live in an often irrational social order, completely surrounded by the rational physical universe.