A landmark legal trial begins on Monday that could determine how the theory of evolution - one of the basic tenets of modern science - is taught in US schools.
In the town of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 11 parents of children who already attend the nearby Dover High school or who will in future, together with the American Civil Liberties Union, are suing the Dover Area School District for voting in new rules that will encourage children to consider alternatives to evolution such as “intelligent design” (ID).
Full Story @New Scientist?
I don't know how a "theory" can be taught as being the only option. Seems like the U.S. is not as free and open a society as we like to make believe. -Ed
So you belive in intelligent design? Please tell me how scientist can test this hypothesis? Oh wait, they cant.
Next.
So you belive in evolution? Please tell me how scientist can test this hypothesis? Oh wait, they cant.
Next.
There's no reason why schools can't teach both (I mean if they *really* have their heart set on this evolution thing and really have a hard time letting it go). Besides, if schools are truely on board with letting kids grow into mature, responsible, free thinking adults who should be encouraged to expand their open minds to other beliefs....then why *not* allow Creationism in and let the kids decide for themselves?
Posted by: mrs. muddy at September 25, 2005 12:25 AMLet the kids decide for themselves... Sure. But if they have to decide for themselves they need to receive sound teachings and learn to base their forecasts on hard data, using a scientific method without prejudices.
Any body working without prejudices ends up seing evolution is a real phenomenon, first apes, then humans, first single cells then organisms with several cells ... etc.
Makes no matter if there is an intelligent design. Nobody knows. May be, may be not. That's not testable.
Evolution is what is proven. May be there's something behind evolution. But from a scientific view point, it's not testable so nobody cares.
Teach intelligent design in religion courses. That's ok.
On the other side, creationism (different from intelligent design) is blatantly false only stupid and prejudicd people believe in it.
Evolution is not something that is at heart. Evolution is something proven, it's a mind thing. Now may be some people who lack a mind and have a sweet heart can't understand that, but that's the reality.
"On the other side, creationism (different from intelligent design) is blatantly false only stupid and prejudicd people believe in it."
From you...I'll take that as a compliment. (BTW...only stupid and prejudiced people would label us that way.)
Oh...and FYI: Intelligent design and Creationism are the same thing. As a creationist, I know that God is the Intelligent Designer.
Posted by: mrs. muddy at October 3, 2005 07:56 AMmrs muddy with all respect to your kind heart, you are brainless, you can't understand that though one may like something to be in a given way or some people better than others, things are not always the way one wants them to be, and some people one dislikes may be better qualified for a job than someone one likes.
Stupid creationists think humans were created as is, from the mud by god, or stuff like that.
They reject the idea that Man's ancestors were apes.
Wise people defending intelligent design (there are some) know of course that man's ancestors are apes, as this is not debatable. However they argue that simple evolution laws can't explain how apes turned into humans. And the same is true about how reptiles became birds or fish became mammals etc. etc. There are quantum jumps in evolution if you want and the evolution theory has little explanation of this.
So intelligent proponents of intelligent design argue : this can only have happened because some force, let's call it God, designed the process of evolution.
We humans build plastic bags out of oil. We know that plastic bags are not created out of mud because we make them by refining oil. Only our designing activity is what explains how oil can be turned into plastic, and plastic given the form of a bag.
Oil does not jump into a plastic bag through evolution.
That's the point made by intelligent proponents of the intelligent design theory.
this theory has many drawbacks of its own, that since your IQ seems very limited I will not develop here, however you will please take good note that nothing, NOTHING, in intelligent design theory says that man was created out of mud, that the bible has a scientific validity or that facts can be distorted if you don't like them and other crap that Bush and co like to believe.
Facts exist and this is something that you are bound to learn in your life time.
a
"mrs muddy with all respect to your kind heart, you are brainless,"
Is that a compliment or a putdown? Sorry, it's just with me being so brainless...I can't figure that one out.
"Stupid creationists think humans were created as is, from the mud by god, "
"since your IQ seems very limited I will not develop here, however you will please take good note that nothing, NOTHING, in intelligent design theory says that man was created out of mud,"
Well, it's like I said earlier:
"I know that God is the Intelligent Designer."
Now, I would continue to tell you how arogant and closed minded (among a few other things) you are (that's already been spoken before anyway)....but alas, with my very small IQ and brainless way of thinking - I just can't seem to muster up enough intelligible words to complete my thought.
This all goes back to my first point, instead of flopping the issue, please explain how Creationism can be tested scientifically? It can not stand up to the scientific method.
THAT is why it is not a legitimate theory because it can not stand scientific testing.
Posted by: mooseboy84 at October 10, 2005 07:13 PMFirst Mrs Muddy acknowledged not reading links that contained information she did not like.
Thus ensuring she would never learn a thing.
Then she argued that any point of view she did not like was just based on "taste" "prejudice" or anything like that.
She made sure in saying so, that no rational discussion was possible what so ever.
Besides she proved that she had no understanding of the word "prejudice", since the idea of a "pre" judice, supposes the belief in the concept of a "judice", judgement, where facts and evidence are tested, weighted and an informed judgement follows.
Mrs Muddy does not believe in informed judgement. She believes in following her own prejudices discarding any information that does not fit into them and discarding any people in disagreement with her as biased and prejudiced.
Mrs Muddy is not part of the Fact based community, she's part of the faith based community.
And in many occasions (WMD, creationism), the faith based community has no relation to God at all, it's just a bunch of greedy kids believing Santa Klaus will deliver the goods promised, because "THEY HAVE FAITH IN HIM".
Now she finally admits she can't utter an intelligent sentence.
I think nothing more can be done for her now through rational words. You can't force someone to learn if it does not want to.
We can only pray for God to open her eyes to rational thinking.
Don't underestimate the power of God Mooseboy84. It can do miracles...
DF:
First I would like to thank you for the laugh you gave me after I read your comment. I almost fell out of my chair. Pheeewwwww....I can ALWAYS count on you for that.:-)
Secondly - Since you've gone out of your way to word your comment in the way that you thought would *make* me responed....I thought...ok, what the hell.
Thirdly -
"First Mrs Muddy acknowledged not reading links that contained information she did not like."
Nooooooo....what I've SAID before is that I don't read the links YOU send. Not because I don't LIKE what they have to say but because I've read them in the PAST AND I found them to be biased.
"Then she argued that any point of view she did not like was just based on "taste" "prejudice" or anything like that.
She made sure in saying so, that no rational discussion was possible what so ever."
DF...you have NEVER given me ANYTHING of "rational discussion" to go on. Well, at least for the most part.
"Besides she proved that she had no understanding of the word "prejudice", since the idea of a "pre" judice, supposes the belief in the concept of a "judice", judgement, where facts and evidence are tested, weighted and an informed judgement follows."
PREJUDICE:
1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics....
That definition (for those who *don't* understand) is according to the Merriam-Wabster Dictonary. AND it is what I've ALWAYS known, been raised on and live by.
"Mrs Muddy does not believe in informed judgement. She believes in following her own prejudices discarding any information that does not fit into them and discarding any people in disagreement with her as biased and prejudiced."
Boy....is THAT the pot colouring the kettle black! DF....stop while your waaayyyy behind on understanding and knowing me. On second thought...never mind. It does make for a great laugh when you try.
"Now she finally admits she can't utter an intelligent sentence."
Where did I "admit" that? If your talking about my last comment...I was being a total smart ass in response to your degrading my IQ. I figured I'd pick my battles and at the time - you weren't worth it so I just decided to "play" with your belittling words. ....and here I thought you *knew* me SO well.
"We can only pray for God to open her eyes to rational thinking.
Don't underestimate the power of God Mooseboy84. It can do miracles..."
So you believe in a god that's an "It"? Ok...so - where do you stand in *your* belief in "santa clause"?
Of course god is a It. You don't believe it has a sex do you ?
Next thing i know you'll end up saying he is male or female, because you have seen his her genital organs ... lol.
Look,
"an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge"
That's exactly the definition of your position on creationism and intelligent design. You mix both. You don't have a clue about the scientific debate, but you just want to side with your religious friends.
ANd it's the same with the WMD scandal, this website is probably one of the only who has not admitted that, indeed intelligence reports in the US about iraq were false, indeed there was no immediate threat, indeed the case was purposefuly exagerated ... And it's about the only place where it is possible to see someone blaming Powell for finaly admitting the wrong things he's done.
And your specific contribution to this website is to see everything through the lenses of "likes-dislikes", prejudices etc, for instance you dare write that the school teachers "*really* have their heart set on this evolution thing". It seems you can't grasp the fact that it's not a matter of likes dislikes. It's a matter of fact. Evolution is a fact. It can't be denied. thousands of human skelettons have been found and they prove an evolution. Skelletons of dinausors have been found and we can see how reptils are of the same family and descend from them... Etc. Etc. Now it may hurt poor little mrs Muddy rereading it's genesis chapter and saying "hey It can't be true if you like God, becauses God said, the world was created in 7 days". But truth is not made to be fun, or agreable. Truth is truth. It is truth when agreable and still truth when disagreable. So for instance those who are darwinists believing in natural selection have a problem with the quantum leaps I mentionned above. However those who believe in evolutionism have a problem because : 1 their theory is very humano centric and many such theories have been proven false, 2 they offer little proof that there is such an intelligent design, 3 their main support come from religious extremists ...
See it's easy to prove you, muddy, skywalker (I don't even talk of Cwilli), are heavily prejudiced.
But try to find points I have made that were backed on prejudice ... Try to find one point I made non backed on fact. Try to find one time where I did not distinguish between some valid points that you could make (yes planes have been found in the sand) and dangerous generalisations from them (no these are not WMDs, not at least in the sense used by Bush& co )
Let me know when you have found any.
However your last point on teachers having evolution theory "at heart" has convinced me that you have no grasp of what a rational discussion is. And that's probably you have never been able to discuss with me rationnaly. I bet you believe being rational means bowing to your point of view.
Show me the WMDs, start to discuss evolutionism, bring on the facts.
Of course it's a bit harder than relying to name calling.
Of course god is a It. You don't believe it has a sex do you ?
Next thing i know you'll end up saying he is male or female, because you have seen his her genital organs ... lol.
Look,
"an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge"
That's exactly the definition of your position on creationism and intelligent design. You mix both. You don't have a clue about the scientific debate, but you just want to side with your religious friends.
ANd it's the same with the WMD scandal, this website is probably one of the only who has not admitted that, indeed intelligence reports in the US about iraq were false, indeed there was no immediate threat, indeed the case was purposefuly exagerated ... And it's about the only place where it is possible to see someone blaming Powell for finaly admitting the wrong things he's done.
And your specific contribution to this website is to see everything through the lenses of "likes-dislikes", prejudices etc, for instance you dare write that the school teachers "*really* have their heart set on this evolution thing". It seems you can't grasp the fact that it's not a matter of likes dislikes. It's a matter of fact. Evolution is a fact. It can't be denied. thousands of human skelettons have been found and they prove an evolution. Skelletons of dinausors have been found and we can see how reptils are of the same family and descend from them... Etc. Etc. Now it may hurt poor little mrs Muddy rereading it's genesis chapter and saying "hey It can't be true if you like God, becauses God said, the world was created in 7 days". But truth is not made to be fun, or agreable. Truth is truth. It is truth when agreable and still truth when disagreable. So for instance those who are darwinists believing in natural selection have a problem with the quantum leaps I mentionned above. However those who believe in evolutionism have a problem because : 1 their theory is very humano centric and many such theories have been proven false, 2 they offer little proof that there is such an intelligent design, 3 their main support come from religious extremists ...
See it's easy to prove you, muddy, skywalker (I don't even talk of Cwilli), are heavily prejudiced.
But try to find points I have made that were backed on prejudice ... Try to find one point I made non backed on fact. Try to find one time where I did not distinguish between some valid points that you could make (yes planes have been found in the sand) and dangerous generalisations from them (no these are not WMDs, not at least in the sense used by Bush& co )
Let me know when you have found any.
However your last point on teachers having evolution theory "at heart" has convinced me that you have no grasp of what a rational discussion is. And that's probably you have never been able to discuss with me rationnaly. I bet you believe being rational means bowing to your point of view.
Show me the WMDs, start to discuss evolutionism, bring on the facts.
Of course it's a bit harder than relying to name calling.
I wrote
those who believe in evolutionism
And I meant
those who believe in intelligent design.
FYI
even in this article
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/publications.htm
Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution, by William S. Harris, Ph.D.and John H. Calvert, J.D. (National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Autumn 2003).
It comes from the intelligent design network so I think you can read it it won't bite you, even in this article with its wrong heading, the paper states that
"evolution as change is accepted by all scientists. THe question is not "has there been change", but what has caused change" ?
So in short, creationism is dead, god dit not create humans out of mud, humans come from apes, that's for sure.
THe debate is :
did apes turn into humans through natural selection, ?
Or did an intelligent force with a design help apes to turn into humans ?
That is the debate.
You may get more info on this source,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
And you can contribute to this one since this is wikipedia, the only encyclopedia made on a voluntary basis.
And if you want the rational view (I especially recommand the FAQ part)
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309064066/html/
So far, the intelligent design proponents have not convinced a significant numbers of scientist. They may or may not do so in the future, depending from the evidence they gather. However, there is no reason to teach that theory in school before it gets enough evidence, just because it suits a given lobby. Especially if the ultimate aim of that lobby is not to foster knowledge about evolution processes, but to foster the belief in God, and if its next step, once intelligent design has passed, will be to ask for creationism to be tought in school... back to middle age.
See it's always the same, as soon as the discussion needs some thinking, as soon as it becomes necessary to move higher than "I like it, I dislike it" "you're prejudiced ! No you are prejudiced". Mrs Muddy is away, can't find time to read the links. Can't find time to learn.
Well as we say in France
on ne fait pas boire un âne qui n’a pas soif
It's impossible to fore a donkey not thirsty to drink.
You have to have the thirst for knowledge in the first place.
DF:
This may very well be the last time I break my silence to you and only because I want to help you understand. I'm going to be completely honest with you. I was going to place links to websites that *do* intelligibly support my argument. I was going to tell you AND moose that for once I would go out of my way and even take time to read ANY links you guys would post - no matter HOW biased they would be (and they would be just that) if you guys would equally and fairly give me the same respect....but why? What's the point?
You see...I've come across MANY people like you in my life. However, some actually have enough class to be respectful towards the beliefs of others. Some cannot even muster that much. You are a perfect example of the later. Now, if I have ever done or said anything to belittle your beliefs then I'm sorry. I may not agree with them and may find them *completely* asinine BUT I do respect your *right* to believe in them. However, this "debating" that we're doing is a lost cause. We're beating our heads against a brick wall. We're both beating dead horses and for what? Have I changed your mind? Have you changed mine? So why are we doing this? Is it worth it to you? It's NOT worth it to me. I have way too much going on in my life right now to engage my energies in a losing battle. It's - not - worth - it.
Think what you want of me, DF. That's your choice and I have no control over that and I don't care enough to even make a difference in that area anyhow.
Have a nice life, DF...may you be truely happy. I hope you find what your looking for.
Posted by: mrs. muddy at October 24, 2005 10:57 AMThanks for this last post Mrs Muddy.
Actually I told you were you went to far and in your terms "bellittled my beliefs" and you must realise that even in this very post, that I know you meant to be soothing, you are crossing the line of what is offensive.
It is offensive to talk about tastes and belief (in the religious sense) when we are debating science and facts.
You may find that some other people (me, mooseboy, whoever) offer proof that you find unconclusive. You may offer counterarguments. You may criticize their position. But you can not accuse them of choosing their positions out of tastes. It is even worse to "grant" them the "right" to choose their beliefs about fact. This precisely is offensive.
Teachers do not "like" the darwinian theory of natural selection. They have pondered the facts they have and they find that this is, until now, the best explanation. This has nothing to do with tastes. And even if it has, this is irrelevant to the matter. The matter is : is there a better explanation ? Can we find some fact based better theory ?
WHen you accuse teachers, the scientific community at large, to have a preference based on taste for a given theory, this is an outrage of enormous consequences.
Besides, it is only because there are commonly shared facts, that we can have a freedom to choose our beliefs for the rest. If you start to discard science, how far are you from discarding the constitution of your country ?
There needs to be some things on which those who disagree agree (judicially established proof relying on scientific facts especially), or this ends in war.
I have a huge respect for your beliefs as long as they remain a private matter regarding your relation to God (your christian interpretation of it), your relatives, your private life. I find that on overall i can feel you have a very gentle nature and positive too and this is great.
I respect your right to have different political opinions than mine. I do not like your ideas. But politics is not a science. And often from progress comes from debates.
However I have no respect at all for those who want to destroy all possibility for the humankind to agree on correctly established facts. Those people who do not believe in facts are those who feed extremists and terrorists worldwide. They disregard any opinion that does not fit with theirs, they systematically discard any possibility of discussion. They are dangerous.
Where do you stand on that issue ? That's rather unclear to me.
How can you say for instance that my links are biased when I precisely chose links from the supporters of intelligent design theory ?
How can you ask me to respect your belief, if your belief says that there are no facts at all on which we can agree ?
How can you accuse others to be disrespectful, when you first wrote that teachers "have their heart set on this evolution thing". How respectful is it to accuse all teachers of being irrationnal people, following their hearts when they should follow their Head ?
How can you expect to be respected in your heart (in your intimate beliefs) if you do not respect other peoples head (their fact based reasonning) ?
That's the question.
And make no mistake. I'm not saying the head ought to rule the heart or vice versa, I m just saying that both need each other to stay separated to be confortable.
Teaching ones tastes is bad. A teacher should not do that.
The heart has its reasons that reason knows not, wrote pascal.
So please stop mixing both.
Evolution theory is a theory. I respect it as a theory. I think they can bring debate and we'll see how it ends.
Your beliefs are your beliefs, I respect them as your beliefs.
However choosing to defend evolution theory out of your belief, that is WRONG. Utterly wrong. Bad. Unfair. etc.
Thanks for this last post Mrs Muddy.
Actually I told you were you went to far and in your terms "bellittled my beliefs" and you must realise that even in this very post, that I know you meant to be soothing, you are crossing the line of what is offensive.
It is offensive to talk about tastes and belief (in the religious sense) when we are debating science and facts.
You may find that some other people (me, mooseboy, whoever) offer proof that you find unconclusive. You may offer counterarguments. You may criticize their position. But you can not accuse them of choosing their positions out of tastes. It is even worse to "grant" them the "right" to choose their beliefs about fact. This precisely is offensive.
Teachers do not "like" the darwinian theory of natural selection. They have pondered the facts they have and they find that this is, until now, the best explanation. This has nothing to do with tastes. And even if it has, this is irrelevant to the matter. The matter is : is there a better explanation ? Can we find some fact based better theory ?
WHen you accuse teachers, the scientific community at large, to have a preference based on taste for a given theory, this is an outrage of enormous consequences.
Besides, it is only because there are commonly shared facts, that we can have a freedom to choose our beliefs for the rest. If you start to discard science, how far are you from discarding the constitution of your country ?
There needs to be some things on which those who disagree agree (judicially established proof relying on scientific facts especially), or this ends in war.
I have a huge respect for your beliefs as long as they remain a private matter regarding your relation to God (your christian interpretation of it), your relatives, your private life. I find that on overall i can feel you have a very gentle nature and positive too and this is great.
I respect your right to have different political opinions than mine. I do not like your ideas. But politics is not a science. And often from progress comes from debates.
However I have no respect at all for those who want to destroy all possibility for the humankind to agree on correctly established facts. Those people who do not believe in facts are those who feed extremists and terrorists worldwide. They disregard any opinion that does not fit with theirs, they systematically discard any possibility of discussion. They are dangerous.
Where do you stand on that issue ? That's rather unclear to me.
How can you say for instance that my links are biased when I precisely chose links from the supporters of intelligent design theory ?
How can you ask me to respect your belief, if your belief says that there are no facts at all on which we can agree ?
How can you accuse others to be disrespectful, when you first wrote that teachers "have their heart set on this evolution thing". How respectful is it to accuse all teachers of being irrationnal people, following their hearts when they should follow their Head ?
How can you expect to be respected in your heart (in your intimate beliefs) if you do not respect other peoples head (their fact based reasonning) ?
That's the question.
And make no mistake. I'm not saying the head ought to rule the heart or vice versa, I m just saying that both need each other to stay separated to be confortable.
Teaching ones tastes is bad. A teacher should not do that.
The heart has its reasons that reason knows not, wrote pascal.
So please stop mixing both.
Evolution theory is a theory. I respect it as a theory. I think they can bring debate and we'll see how it ends.
Your beliefs are your beliefs, I respect them as your beliefs.
However choosing to defend evolution theory out of your belief, that is WRONG. Utterly wrong. Bad. Unfair. etc.