Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design in Science Class - Sample curriculum please
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 76 of 108 (308609)
05-02-2006 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by RAZD
04-30-2006 9:44 PM


Re: Links to other site's ID curriculum, if you can
haven't seen it) ...
(1) How does teaching evolution impact the education in math? Evolution has nothing to do with math education, so there should be no correlation to performance in math education. (2) Private schools that teach evolution (the non-religious ones eh?) have no such correlation with poor performance in maths and sciences. For your conclusion to be valid (that teaching evolution is the cause of poor grades) then both (1) and (2) should NOT happen. They do.Thus your conclusion is totally invalid
Teaching of evolution has nothing to do with the performance in Maths. I want the students to learn what is evolution.Issue here is not what is taught. But, how it is taught. When the teacher emphatically states that EVOLUTION is a fact based only on the premise that facts will not be presented,but are presumed as facts.
You can say anything about private schools. The taste is in the pudding. For learning mathematics and Science, the teachers must encourage critical thinking. The best way, Science can be taught is to allow students to make Critique of what is being taught. The questions: Why should it be this way? why not the other way? If only students atre given this opportunity, they will certainly develop logical reasoning on any other topic, not necessarily related to the studies. But, this applies to everyday issues in life.
This is a serious flaw and a defect which is being perpetuated by the School administration all over the country.No wonder our students are one track minded. This is why we need school choices.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 04-30-2006 9:44 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by ReverendDG, posted 05-03-2006 1:00 AM inkorrekt has not replied

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 77 of 108 (308614)
05-02-2006 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by RAZD
04-30-2006 9:44 PM


Re: Links to other site's ID curriculum, if you can
haven't seen it) ...
(1) How does teaching evolution impact the education in math? Evolution has nothing to do with math education, so there should be no correlation to performance in math education. (2) Private schools that teach evolution (the non-religious ones eh?) have no such correlation with poor performance in maths and sciences. For your conclusion to be valid (that teaching evolution is the cause of poor grades) then both (1) and (2) should NOT happen. They do.Thus your conclusion is totally invalid
Teaching of evolution has nothing to do with the performance in Maths. I want the students to learn what is evolution. I mean it. Issue here is not what is taught. But, how it is taught. When the teacher emphatically states that EVOLUTION is a fact based only on the premise that facts will not be presented,but are presumed as facts, we have aproblem.
For learning mathematics and Science, the teachers must encourage critical thinking. The best way, Science can be taught is to allow students to Critique what is being taught. The questions students must be encouraged to ask will be: Why should it be this way? why not the other way? If only students are given this opportunity, they will certainly develop logical reasoning on any other topic, not necessarily related to the studies. At this point, we should expect much better performance in Mathematics and Science.Critical thinking will also be applicable to everyday issues in life.
The word Brain washing is really hard( I did not watn to use it) and this is exactly what is going on in schools today. This not meant to insult anyone. This is the reality.We must face the facts.
I was attending a conference of learning and memory in Magdeburg(E.Germany) which was under Soviet occupation. I visited the Church that Martin Luther attended. In those days, Churches were not allowed to be used for Christian worship.There was no religious freedom. But, they were used to educate young children on Marxism. On Sundays, the children were mandated to attend their classes in which only Marxism was taught. This is indoctrination. How is teaching only Evolution and not any opposing views is not a form of indoctrination?
This is a serious flaw and a defect in our system which is being perpetuated by the School administration all over the country.No wonder our students are one track minded. There has been a huge cry that the schools need more money. In our state, we had a robust economy. But, the school system gave itself 2% raises every year. Because of this, our taxes were raised. If the money went to the class room, I will be the happiest person. The extra money is going towards the best pension/ retirement plans of teachers which is enviable. In spite of added funds, the children still do not do well in Maths and Science. It is a shame that A senator even proposed that we must IMPORT brilliant Students from INDIA who are good in maths and Science. We all must be ashamed of this approach and our dying system. One alternative to this is to give school choices.
This message has been edited by inkorrekt, 05-02-2006 09:37 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 04-30-2006 9:44 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by RAZD, posted 05-05-2006 7:07 PM inkorrekt has replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 78 of 108 (308669)
05-03-2006 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by inkorrekt
05-02-2006 9:18 PM


Re: Links to other site's ID curriculum, if you can
Teaching of evolution has nothing to do with the performance in Maths. I want the students to learn what is evolution.Issue here is not what is taught. But, how it is taught. When the teacher emphatically states that EVOLUTION is a fact based only on the premise that facts will not be presented,but are presumed as facts.
ok now you are just backpedaling, YOU brought up the corralation that evolution affects children's ability to learn math and science. you just made a huge strawman and now you are contradicting yourself.
evolution IS taught in science classes as the scienctists are theorizing in the ToE. Evolution is a fact, no scientist doing science will deny this, unless they have some reason to do so that has nothing to do with science. what facts are you talking about? do you have any evidence that teachers are not presenting studients with facts?
You can say anything about private schools. The taste is in the pudding. For learning mathematics and Science, the teachers must encourage critical thinking.
this has nothing to do with private schools and more to do with the teachers they hire and how much crap the parents can whine about, private schools are supported by people who arn't ignorent, public schools arn't
you are making corralations between things that have nothing to do with eachother and passing it off as fact
The best way, Science can be taught is to allow students to make Critique of what is being taught. The questions: Why should it be this way? why not the other way? If only students atre given this opportunity, they will certainly develop logical reasoning on any other topic, not necessarily related to the studies. But, this applies to everyday issues in life.
they can do this, this doesn't mean they can just argue that evolution is wrong, because they don't agree with it. But the fact is you are not being remotely realistic at all.
Part of school is learning how to learn so they learn what the current scientific theories are, so later in life if they decide to go into science they can take what they learned and come up with a better theory if there is one.
Finding a better senario with evidence is how we should do things not just dismiss it because we disagree with it
This is a serious flaw and a defect which is being perpetuated by the School administration all over the country.No wonder our students are one track minded. This is why we need school choices.
blame the parents and the goverment for making the school admins break down to their wishs, this has nothing to do with science or evolution, but corrupt politics and fear of progress

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by inkorrekt, posted 05-02-2006 9:18 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 79 of 108 (309494)
05-05-2006 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by inkorrekt
05-02-2006 9:34 PM


Re: Links to other site's ID curriculum, if you can
Teaching of evolution has nothing to do with the performance in Maths.
Good.
For learning mathematics and Science, the teachers must encourage critical thinking. The best way, Science can be taught is to allow students to Critique what is being taught.
This would also apply to all the other courses being taught (with a possible exception of sunday school)
Can you explain why math is affected but other non-science courses aren't?

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by inkorrekt, posted 05-02-2006 9:34 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by inkorrekt, posted 05-07-2006 11:25 PM RAZD has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 80 of 108 (309530)
05-05-2006 10:48 PM


ID in class
when we all say that ID should not be taught in science class (well, we all don't say that, for only one person has stated what should happen on this topic), they are wrong.
We teach plenty of false theories in biology, geology, and astronomy. Like what the geocentric universe was and why its wrong, like what spontaneous generation is and why it is wrong (note, not abiogenesis), like what spontaneous combustion is and why it's wrong.
ID will be included to show why it's wrong as compared to evolution.
Also, Inkorrect made a comment somewhere that this is a free country with a free market, and then he linked this to the need to teach both sides of the debate. Last time I checked, free market has to deal with economics, and specifically captialism, not education.

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Percy, posted 05-06-2006 8:21 AM kuresu has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 81 of 108 (309591)
05-06-2006 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by kuresu
05-05-2006 10:48 PM


Re: ID in class
kuresu writes:
We teach plenty of false theories in biology, geology, and astronomy. Like what the geocentric universe was and why its wrong, like what spontaneous generation is and why it is wrong (note, not abiogenesis), like what spontaneous combustion is and why it's wrong.
ID will be included to show why it's wrong as compared to evolution.
Hmmm. I suppose there could be a place for ID in science classrooms when approached from the perspective of history, but even when taking this approach it would be of a different nature than the history of sciences like biology, geology and astronomy. When, for example, we study the history of astronomy, we're studying the history of scientific efforts to understand our planet's place in the universe. A study of the history of ID would, for the most part, be one of religious, not scientific, efforts.
There has been scientific work done on ID, but it mostly isn't anything IDists would recognize or accept. For example, cosmologists have noted the apparent fine tuning of cosmological constants for making life possible, and IDists have incorporated this into their arguments, but the conclusions of the scientists involved in such work don't tend toward the theological or anything IDists would find acceptable. In other words, agreeing to teach something like the fine tuning of cosmological constants in science class by outlining the work of actual scientists is unlikely to satisfy IDists. Despite protests to the contrary, they want something that comes much closer to indicating the Christian God of the Bible.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by kuresu, posted 05-05-2006 10:48 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Jon, posted 05-06-2006 11:14 PM Percy has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 108 (309873)
05-06-2006 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jman
01-08-2006 3:33 PM


First, let's just make sure we're clear that there is no chance of either Creationism or Intelligent Design ever being taught in at least any U.S. schools for many years to come.
Check:
Edwards v. Aguillard {creationis}
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District {id}
And also that there is no risk in evolution ever not being taught, as in Epperson v. Arkansas where a State was forbid from excluding evolution from schools.
This is good if you're living here in the States and if you go to a public school.
But we cannot just conclude that the courts have always decided what's best, so there is a chance that perhaps they are wrong and we should teach ID/Creationism. But the fact that even a judge can see the obviously religious influence behind both these theories should say something.
You lot seem to have quite a discussion going on the scientific validity of ID, so I'm not going to try to jump in, but just thought I'd add my 2 worth .
Trék

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jman, posted 01-08-2006 3:33 PM Jman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Jman, posted 05-07-2006 2:20 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 108 (309874)
05-06-2006 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Percy
05-06-2006 8:21 AM


Re: ID in class
quote:
A study of the history of ID would, for the most part, be one of religious, not scientific, efforts.
Or, like I just pointed out, perhaps for study in a law class.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Percy, posted 05-06-2006 8:21 AM Percy has not replied

  
Jman
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 108 (309903)
05-07-2006 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by randman
01-24-2006 3:17 PM


Re: a tall order to do a whole curriculum
Good Randman!
I agree with you 100% in your msg 9. I agree that in all those topics are implications of ID. Now if you add to that the Biblical story of Creation, I will disagree.
I believe that ID is followed by Creation is followed by Evolution. For this to make sense leave out religion.
In this package, it's easy to establish a timeline for everything that we observe in the universe which agrees with ID.... except the Biblical Story of Creation.
rephrased...
See? It's simple, logical and easy to run with. but it conflicts with the Bible so.... considering Occam's Razor and my own intellect, the Bible is wrong.
The struggle between these ideas has never been about God vs Science. It's always been about religion vs Science.
What is happening now is very similar to what happened a long time ago when the Roman Church sought to inject it's worldview on people. The Church won the day. The result? Enforced ignorance, repression of intellect. The dark ages!
We who oppose religious practice in thinking remember the dark age and fear their return in these times. The fundies are like neo Roman Papists. They embody mindless zeal.
"the practice of religion has always divided people".
100,000 belivers are the mental equivalent of 1 thinker.
Later Man,
Jman
Note: the critic who will claim that ID is a separate issue from Creation should be aware that I believe that the first precedes the second and they can thus be used in the same topic line with no compromise...
Religion belongs in Sunday School, science in the lab...
This message has been edited by Jman, 05-06-2006 10:50 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by randman, posted 01-24-2006 3:17 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Jon, posted 05-07-2006 3:09 AM Jman has replied

  
Jman
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 108 (309913)
05-07-2006 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Jon
05-06-2006 11:06 PM


Invictus,
I agree that "for the most part" religion and creation are considered together. Yes, theoretical law study would see an advantage in their separation, or at least would see a new avenue to explore. This is because in law school we are taught to think. My discussion has little to do with scientific validity of ID. My position in these matters is apparently unlike that of others. I simply maintain that one may believe in God externally of any "religion". I do this because of my conviction that religions are all man made and, as such, are flawed and illocical. I ask: "why should our study of God result in disagreement, confusion and divisiveness?" I answer: "it shouldn't" but it does because humans are involved. They "create" dogma, require beliefs and promise punishment for non-compliance (all in the name of God).
I leave the (obstructionist) requirements of religion out of my thoughts of God. In this way I easily reconcile ID, Creation and Evolution in a single timelime.... everything dovetails nicely. I find this approach satisfactory. I don't believe God disapproves. It answers the ethical, scientific and spiritual questions but not the religious ones. Three out of four ain't bad, for one of this "lot" anyway.
Kindly see my msg 84 to Randman for more.
Later Dude,
Jman
ps.... literary critics please take a number and be seated
This message has been edited by Jman, 05-06-2006 11:32 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Jon, posted 05-06-2006 11:06 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jman
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 108 (309918)
05-07-2006 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Quetzal
02-06-2006 9:21 PM


Re: Been There, Done That
Thanks for you note in msg 18. Good to hear.
Sorry it took so long for me to answer. I've been to Cydonia and there's no email service out there yet.
In fact there's not much of anything there. I stayed at the City Pyramid hotel... bummer of a place. I mean, all they had for taxi service was a broken down old space ship that hadn't been registered for 1,712,485 years and service sucked with all that low pressure surcharge and stuff. I ate at the "face restaurant" but all they had to serve was sandwiches with real sand and a glass of "there used to be water". Then I went over to sit on the Wall you know, just to check it out, but the first thing I saw was Hoagland selling souvineer DVD's. OH MAN I came all this way for that? Dude stay here where a guy can get a beer if he wants...
Later,
Jman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Quetzal, posted 02-06-2006 9:21 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 108 (309919)
05-07-2006 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Jman
05-07-2006 1:08 AM


Re: a tall order to do a whole curriculum
quote:
I believe that ID is followed by Creation is followed by Evolution. For this to make sense leave out religion.
I'm nearly speechless to read something like this! Are you trying to say that evolution (with a lowercase 'e'!) spawned Creationism? This is only somewhat true. First off, you must realize that Creationism is a PURELY legal movement, as is ID. They deviate here and there in an attempt to hide their hidden agenda. Evolution is a scientific theory. Darwin didn't wake up one morning and go "Golly gee, it must be evolution." and then start lookking for the evidence. He saw the evidence and then concluded it was evolution. (read my signature) Creationists/ID theorists start with a belief that the Bible is true, and then set out trying to prove it. Even if it's not religion, that right there makes it anything but science. And, if anyone's unsure of it: only science belongs in the science class. Personally, I would've been urked to no end if I would've found out that I was going to have to learn Creationism/ID in my science class.
Evolution is not in conflict with God, but it does pretty much make His existence quite unnecessary, and it is in conflict with the Bible. But, you can believe in a god of somesort if you wish, but as far as we can all tell, he has had no hand in the creation of anything and certainly ought not have a hand in science education.
quote:
the Bible is wrong.
You've got my full support there.
quote:
The result? Enforced ignorance, repression of intellect. The dark ages!
Are you sure? I was always taught that the Dark Ages were a result of the collapse of the Roman Empire, which left the whole of the known world ununited, leading to local control by feudal lords. The church didn't so much put a start to the Dark Ages as it did work to keep the whole world in them when scientists wanted out.
quote:
100,000 belivers are the mental equivalent of 1 thinker.
And in which group do you fall?
I don't quite understand where you stand on the issue.
And like I've said many times where I work: yeeha!
Trék
edit: fixed emoticon
This message has been edited by Invictus, 05/07/2006 02:11 AM

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Jman, posted 05-07-2006 1:08 AM Jman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Jman, posted 05-07-2006 3:45 AM Jon has replied

  
Jman
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 108 (309921)
05-07-2006 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Jon
05-07-2006 3:09 AM


Re: a tall order to do a whole curriculum
ivicto,
You seem to have difficulty with more than a simple, short sentence so let me try again.
I believe in God.
I believe that God:
A. He/She Intelligently Designed
followed by
B. He/She Created (first creative act we surmise as "the big bang",
(not a porno movie)
followed by
C. evolution (with a small "e" which continues to this day...
Now OK that should be clear. Next...
Are you trying to say that evolution (with a lowercase 'e'!) spawned Creationism?
Negative dude. evolution (small "e" follows creation) A single,
simple thought. Don't add to it.
Yes, Creationism is a "movement, a quasi-legal one.
"creation" (small "e") is just a word which I use to identify a process.
I agree with the use of "ID". My use of the term here is simply a convenience on my part, again to identify a process; an event in a timeline.
I see a matter which must be clarified and this one is my fault. Most people use the term "Evolution" and what they really mean is someting like: all from nothing... no God or god... random chance mutations.... etc. These I take to be atheists.
I am a theist but not a religious one. Do you understand?
I believe in God but not religions or dogma.
I've never heard of another expressing this view. Even you mistook me for an athesist (evidenced by your last paragraph).
Another point might be: I truthfully am impatient with those who quote another man's writing (from ages past) in offering evidence to support their position on an argument. If the argument is academic and the subject is that author then this is OK. If the argument is scholastic we may each have our own platform and who will say that it is less valid that one from antiquity? Plato, after all, wrote many opinions and should we accord his work the status of benchmark knowledge. We all have the same abilities and access.
Thank you for your kind response. It's good to know I'm not the only old man who stays up late at night pretending to be wise.
Later Dude,
Jman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Jon, posted 05-07-2006 3:09 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Jon, posted 05-07-2006 4:20 AM Jman has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 108 (309922)
05-07-2006 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Jman
05-07-2006 3:45 AM


Re: a tall order to do a whole curriculum
Okay. Yes, I see I misunderstood your order on the evolution from Creationism thing. However, even the way you put it doesn't work, because to believe what you've said, we would have to first believe that ID/Creationism are real in the sense that their teaching of history is the true one. I don't think you'll find many scientists agreeing with you there.
quote:
I believe in God.
I believe that God:
A. He/She Intelligently Designed
followed by
B. He/She Created (first creative act we surmise as "the big bang",
(not a porno movie)
followed by
C. evolution (with a small "e" which continues to this day...
...that should be clear
You really think it would be, but it's not at all. Points A & B are clear (though I don't agree with them), but point C doesn't make any sense. Read the sentence "I believe that God...evolution..." What do you believe God did with evolution? Started it? Steered it? You need a verb, and then you'll be clear on this point, though I think it was probably just a typing error.
quote:
"creation" (small "e") is just a word which I use to identify a process.
Well, crEation doesn't make much sense, so I can see why you would want a small "e" (once again, I think another typo).
quote:
I see a matter which must be clarified and this one is my fault.
You've certainly muddied the water for me.
quote:
Most people use the term "Evolution" and what they really mean is someting like: all from nothing... no God or god... random chance mutations.... etc. These I take to be atheists.
People who take it to mean that are taking it to mean what it doesn't mean. If you're arguing with them, you're arguing with the wrong people. Evolution has nothing to do with creation, God/god.
quote:
I believe in God but not religions or dogma.
I've never heard of another expressing this view. Even you mistook me for an athesist (evidenced by your last paragraph).
I've heard MANY PEOPLE who express that view; don't think you're the only one. And I'm not sure what in my last paragraph led you to believe I thought you were atheist. Please do tell me what it was that I said that led you to that belief.
quote:
Another point might be: I truthfully am impatient with those who quote another man's writing (from ages past) in offering evidence to support their position on an argument. If the argument is academic and the subject is that author then this is OK. If the argument is scholastic we may each have our own platform and who will say that it is less valid that one from antiquity? Plato, after all, wrote many opinions and should we accord his work the status of benchmark knowledge. We all have the same abilities and access.
I didn't qoute Darwin in an attempt to prove the truthfullness behind evolution. What I was trying to do was give you an example of how he was thinking when he came up with the theory so that you would understand that it was not just developed out of the blue. Darwin very much believed in the 6-day creation, and it took all the evidence he found to convince him otherwise.
quote:
Thank you for your kind response. It's good to know I'm not the only old man who stays up late at night pretending to be wise.
I'm not so much an old man, and I'm not trying to pretend to be wise. I'm simply puting out my opinion and the facts which support it.
Do you see now, "dude"?
Trék
edit: the code has gone all hay-wire
edited to respell "quote" by AdminPhat
This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 05-07-2006 02:30 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Jman, posted 05-07-2006 3:45 AM Jman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Jman, posted 05-07-2006 4:51 AM Jon has replied

  
Jman
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 108 (309923)
05-07-2006 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Jon
05-07-2006 4:20 AM


Re: a tall order to do a whole curriculum
Invictus,
I know. You are correct. My ideas of meanings of terms are different than mainstream and that fact promotes misunderstanding. I suppose the main part that is so hard to "see" is that, as humans, we tend to polarize issues. We divide into camps and erect banners. Here we do this by separating into groups of "create" vs "evolve". My mind works differently. My "default position" is that if we bring everything to the center there are agreements to be discovered, and perhaps consensus.
I used to say it takes time for this to be realized, but anymore I don't think so. Have you noticed how quick people are to attack?
A "fire of mind" I call it. Observe and learn but jump in and get burned.
Agreement by scientists? I think they are mostly very spiritual people. Trained to think, they surely must agree that there is something which seems to be "always just out of reach". And, maybe that something is God. Of course they are also trained not to hypothesize unless there is some firm evidence. So they remain silent. I don't blame them.
Another appropriate thought might be: If we discover that there is a God what will we do with scientific investigation? Shall we give up and say: "God did it and that's good enough for me". We don't just happen to have higher mind functions. We honor our abilities by using them, not by dismissing the results of their use by others.
A.E. said: "I want to know God's thoughts. The rest are details..."
Oh shit I'm preaching again....
Thank you for being good enough to allow an old worn out guy to have his own opinion. Too bad more can't do that.
Later Dude,
Jman
ps... Ahhh, solice in a flagon of ale! The sweet kiss of oblivion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Jon, posted 05-07-2006 4:20 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Jon, posted 05-07-2006 5:33 AM Jman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024