Michele Bachmann: Not teaching creationism is 'censorship'

After watching that, I think she probably made a real positive influence on her skeptics. I thought it was brilliant. I can't argue with anything she said.

If the government does not allow what is nearly a universal innate characteristic of humans (to believe in a creator), to be taught as AT LEAST ONE POSSIBILITY for creation; it can't be described as anything but censorship.

How do you not teach that most of the people in the world believe in a creator? It'd be like never teaching any religious courses despite their impact on humankind.

 

That would be getting into creation territory there since you cannot test for it.

 

When you can construct a credible experiment to test for God and present evidence it can be taught in science class, until then, it stays in religious studies. Christianity does not change it's core doctrines to accommodate science, the reverse is also true... that's as it should be, they are completely different things

 

In my opinion, at least one mostly nice guy feels he may have been better off with Greco-Roman forms of creationism; because then, he would be able to be more holy and more moral, by praying for true love and performing true love rituals, at a temple dedicated to a goddess of Love, and claim he was merely trying to be a better boy friend to his potential soul mate.

 

No one is denying or disparaging that the subjective value of morals based on religions be taught in a comparative religions class.

 

Why not take your kids to Sunday School?

 

In the wake of the ACLU’s lawsuit attempting to ban ID, student interest in the subject has only increased. No doubt the debate will continue over whether to allow ID in science classrooms or to ban it, but you can’t negate the evidence for design in biology through book bannings, speech codes, or judicial declarations. The ACLU has helped many people realize precisely this fact.


http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo4/IDluskin.php

 

Indeed.

There is nothing related to science in regards to intelligent design. It is not a theory based on anything more than made up nonsense to try and inject creationism back into schools. There is no evidence that some supernatural being laid the framework for evolution. Inability to admit that evolution exists is not a theory.

 

But that's exactly what happened here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision

Both sides got their "day in court", scientists from both sides presented their cases and the decision was made, one part of it read...

 

It's not over by a long shot. Things that have been done, can be undone.

 

Not until you present a credible experiment that tests for God and finds him/her/it. All the irreducible complexity in the world will not matter until the other half of the HYPOTHESIS is dealt with in a scientific matter.

 

Yes, it can be undone if there is ever a testable hypothesis for Intelligent Design and then actually goes through the peer review process, just like every other hypothesis has to go through. Your hypothesis isn't "special" just because it invokes God, and it shouldn't just be able to push itself into science classrooms because of evangelical political forces. Until you can produce a viable hypothesis, there really isn't anything to discuss. Right now, Intelligent Design is paraded around as a scientific theory when in fact the only thing that the Discovery Institute has continuously done is try to poke holes in evolutionary theory. That is NOT how science is done.

 

There is not enough information on many things in our universe for which we can't yet construct an experiment. That doesn't stop scientist from INVESTIGATING and EXPLORING. If your test for any scientific discussion is a credible scientific experiment to prove something prior to engaging in any study; aren't you taking us back to the days of Galileo's persecution? Or at least that level of censorship even if you're not trying to burn Christians at the stake?

 

Were any of you all taught Creationism in school?

 

Studying established theories at school and doing research are two entirely different things. One must do the former before one is qualified to do the latter. You are arguing from a position of complete ignorance to be quite blunt.

 

Who says that evolution has stopped? We're talking about periods of time in the millions of years. The LARGE majority of genetic adaptations are either insignificant or EXTREMELY detrimental to the individual who receives them.

But who, excepting for creationists, is saying that evolution has stopped? Most of the primates are very well adapted to their niches. These populations were prospering for hundreds of thousands of years. Now they are under pressure from the explosion in the human population and there is a threat that they will be eliminated over time. This is what happens. New species arise and encroach on the niches of other species. On of the species comes out the loser.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6QAi5MeizM"]Ambam The Gorilla Walks Like A Man - YouTube[/ame]

As for the Bible, it apparently can't handle the idea that the Earth is older than 10,000 give or take an eon.

 

His post also shows the common misconception that evolution should be in the same direction for all species ie. that humans are the pinnacle and others should follow. Nonsense of course. The measure of success of a species is survival, not intelligence. Our success as a species in evolutionary terms is dwarfed by other species. The crocodile for example

 

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.

There is no mention of God, religion, or adherence to any religious text but rather we use observations about how intelligent design works in the present to look at aspects of the natural world to see if they are designed. Intelligent design theory is based solely upon applying observations about intelligent action and principles of information theory to the construction of biological systems, and nothing more. There is nothing mystical, supernatural, religious, or non-scientific about intelligent design theory. In its current form, intelligent design theory also can say nothing about the designer other than that the designer was intelligent. Whether you agree with the methodology of intelligent design theory or not, you have to agree with one thing: it has a scientific basis.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/832

 

There should be an IQ AND a sanity test before you can run for President.

You don't have to 'pass' them...you just have to have the results made public.

 

LOLOLOLOL.. Good one.

 

Thanks for reminding me that certain sects of the republican party are nothing more than moral authoritarians who want their dogma taught along side real science. Seems she's dead set and ensuring that the US drops to the absolute bottom of the global educational totem pole.

Remember folks, this is the same crazy lady that tried to tell us vaccines cause retardation, can we stop talking about her now and focus on a candidate that doesn't support SOPA and indefinite detention??

 

The premise is bogus and hence it is not a scientific theory: "design" is not a scientific term and has nothing to do with how we understand the structure of living or inanimate things. What IDers mean by design is really a circumlocution for "origins". Science studies the origins of things, including living things, which the theory of evolution explains remarkably well.

To the extent that ID is even remotely a testable theory it fails over and over again. Every assertion it has made of "irreducible complexity" (another nonscientific, cultural catchphrase used to obscure the real issue: origins), has been thoroughly rebutted -- from the flagella of certain bacteria to blood platelets. All of these have evolutionary explanations that make much more sense, and lead to more testable predictions, than saying some unknown entity designed them.

Finally ID fails because it never tells us HOW this supposititious designer did the designing. What was the method, the activity, the mechanism -- that's what would be testable. Since they (purposely) can't tell us that, they have nothing to tell us at all. In short ID is just the most recent version of the argument from amazement -- life is amazing, so it must have been made by something really really amazing! This is the essence of nonscientific thinking.

 

Scientists presents Proof of Intelligent Design ! Charles Darwin - Origin of Species - Evolution

Full length movie 7 parts. You'll have to go to youtube to watch all the parts.

I doubt any of you who only believe in evolution will watch it, but here it is anyway.



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4z0IVivslc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4z0IVivslc[/ame]

 

Jewish reaction to Intelligent Design

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_reactions_to_intelligent_design

 

All debunked over and over again. Which is why ID is a cult. It is impervious to facts.