New Tennessee Monkey Law!

It is the same verbage that the Discovery Institute uses to describe ID.All we need to do now is wait for a teacher to teach creationism in class and the subsequent law suit. If they didn't learn their lesson in Dover perhaps they will learn it this time.

Here you go:

quote:

---

Is intelligent design the same as creationism?

​

No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

​

Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
emphasis mine
What Is Intelligent Design? | Intelligent Design

---

They continually strive to separate themselves from religious claims. I would check out the entire page that I cite above. They make themselves look as scientific as possible while pushing aside references to the supernatural. As far as I can tell, teachers could use this as shelter for presenting ID in science class.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

I think you should read up on a few of these Constitutional cases:The Talk.Origins Archive: Debates, Gatherings & Court DecisionsEpperson v. Arkansas might be worth your attention. Big Government would be using the government to indoctrinate children into specific theologies. That is what we are speaking against.

From reading these forums, we know that there are many adults that don't understand what a scientific theory is. I would suspect that many of the Tennessee legislators who passed this bill probably don't really understand what a scientific theory is.I don't see how this bill attempts to cure this problem. In fact, I only see this bill making it worse. Students may very well be taught what science is by Behe. Get ready for a new generation of kids who think Astrology is a science.

Using the state powers to shield public school teachers who want to teach religion in public school classrooms is Big Government. It is a major violation of our rights. It is government intruding where they should never intrude.

I live in the United States. Give it time.

Which principles are those? From what I have read, our Founding Fathers based this Republic on Enlightenment philosophy, such as John Locke's idea of natural rights and social contracts.If anything, our Constitution is a direct violation of one of the Ten Commandments. The Old Testament tells us that we are to worship no other gods, and have no idols. The US Constitution tells us we can do both. Religious freedom is certainly not in the Bible. I think you should take your own advice.

A violation of any American's rights should concern every American. Every American should worry when Big Government uses legislation to try and work around Constitutional rights. That is exactly the intent of this law. Has been from the very beginning. The motivation of this law was NOT to improve the education of children, but to give teachers the ability to use creationist arguments in science class against theories that religious people find threatening. Nope. Just saying that a court case can not be brought against the state until constitutional rights are actually violated. In my experience, it is only a matter of time before a science teacher uses this law to teach creationist arguments in science class.

If someone can violate the rights of a New Yorker then they can violate your rights as well. I personally think that is a problem. I don't live on the Island of Taq where I am the only citizen. What happens to others within the rule of law also affects me. Odd, isn't it? It's almost like they are trying to hide the intent of the law. Wonder why? Could it be that the intent of the law is to circumvent the 2nd Ammendment? When I attended university many of the professors in the science department attended the same Methodist church. I would strongly suspect that they taught religion within the context of Sunday school or church services, but these lessons were [sarcasm]oddly[/sarcasm] missing from lectures in my genetics, cell bio, histology, etc. classes. I don't doubt that there are scientists out there that teach in other Sunday School's. That is not the point.The point is that it is a violation of the 2nd Ammendment to indoctrinate students into religious beliefs as part of the curriculum in a public, government funded school. When this happens people can bring complaints to the justic system. The Tennessee law gives shelter to teachers who want to bring in creationist arguments against evolution. That is the intent of the law which is obvious to just about everyone.Just read up on the Dover trial. {WRONG AMMENDMENT - SEE BELOW - BUT NO MORE 2ND AMMENDMENT COMMENTS - ADMINNEMOOSEUS}Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : In red.

Hehe, I am getting my discussions mixed up. Was discussing 2nd Ammend. rights with someone else a few nights ago. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : No reason given.