You'd be quite surprised. My strong feelings regarding public school education stem from the fact that no religion has the right to force its views on those who do not follow it, and thus religious belief has no place in public school. Public education should only include those subjects which are secular and, in the case of science, have observable and experimental evidence to back them up.In other words, keep religion in church and at the home, where it belongs. Public schools, as a place where children of all faiths and no faiths are instructed, is not the place for religious teachings of any sort, regardless of how the majority feels.The seperation of church and state was devised expressly so that a minority religion could never be persecuted by a majority religion with the support of the state. Don't be dense. I also believe I have felt God's presence, and of course I have met others who feel the same way. I am a firm believer in God.I brought up fairies and unicorns because, to those who are not Christian, Christian beliefs have just as much evidenciary support as magic invisible unicorns or the Giant Flying Spaggheti Monster. I'm not saying that God doesn't exist, only that Christians have no right to teach Biblical Creation or even Inteeligent Design in a public school setting in science class of all places. These things are philosophy ans theology, not science! Leave them where they belong, and everybody will get along just fine.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Off Topic. Please do not reply to this message

You guys complain that ID is off-topic for science because of the concept of a Designer, maintaining that only "physical" areas are acceptable for science.I call BS on that. You can't define physical any longer based on purely classical principles.If something is real, it is part of reality whether it was called physical or spiritual, natural or super-natural.That's where you guys make a mistake. You assume science cannot deal with the spiritual, but in fact, all spiritual traditions I am aware of believe there are spiritual laws and that the spiritual is closely connected and intertwined with the physical. So per science, the "spiritual" is physical, and the supernatural is natural. It's just a distinct part of reality, a sector of reality, and in fact, QM seems to even deal with what were formerly known as spiritual principles. One aspect of the "spiritual" is invisibility to the naked eye, but somehow connection to energy. Another aspect is connection to consciousness.So it is improper to criticize theories as unscientific simply because they overlap with religion or spiritual traditions.It is unscientific in fact to assert an outdated paradigm of what science is based on a false definition of physical reality, which no one here thus far seems capable of providing anyway.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 09-02-2005 10:58 AM

Open a thread about the nature of physical reality, I would be happy to respond there. Admin Jar has labeld this Off Topic.

I think both forms of design theory should be taught.Teach the problems with the intelligent design concept and show the flaws in the reasoning and the major holes in its evidence.This will let students decide between the intelligent design concept and the silly design concept.There is obviously much more evidence for SD than there is for ID: all those little things that evo's keep bringing up as poor examples of intelligence in design are just proof that Silly Design was in operation.One doesn't need to show intelligence to posit that a designer was involved, as many objects of human design show strong evidence for silly design practices, and we know that they were designed.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

If we start teaching ID, then I want my IP theory taught in school as well.Here it is in short: IP Intelligent Pusher
We are kept from flying off into space not by some invisible force "gravity" for which there is no proof, but instead by the downward pressure exherted on us by the Intelligent Pusher.Why do birds, bugs, bats and balloons fly? Don't have an answer for that, but we suspect it has something to do with the letter b.

you'll have to take that up with Son Goku and CaveDiver ... there are real problem with design theory and a lot of controversy between different ID proponents, and I think that schools and media need to be made aware of the controversy. both sides need to be provided.I'm working on a new post to better describe the controversy and demonstrate how SD answers some of the questions raised, but I'll be away a couple of days.Enjoy.

---

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.

I replied to this message once before and have waited some time for an answer. To recap, you claimed that Behe was doing science in support of ID. I countered that he seemed to be doing nothing but writing for the popular, non-scientific, press. I asked for an example of an experiment (experimentation being how science is done) from any source that Behe is doing or has done recently.I would like to ask again that you respond or withdraw your claim that Behe is doing science in support of ID.

I was finally decided that randman was totally incapable of supporting his assertions or even understanding sources he used as support. He's outta here. His return is not likely.

randman has been permanently booted.

---

If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

I doubt that randman will be responding any time soon. See Message 80

Well, all I can say is "oops'. Go out of town for a few days and miss all the good stuff...Thanks for the information.

With Reference to the Behe and Snoke (2004) paper, I'm not sure why you couldn't find it. It has been in print for some time now, in fact there was a paper critiquing Behe and Snoke and proposing a model more in line with the current literature published just last month in Protein Science (Lynch, 2005), along with a response from Behe and Snoke.TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 09-07-2005 02:35 AM

Just what does your post have to do with the subtitle on it? Could you watch those a bit?

Well it was Randman to whom the initial request for the information on the Behe and Snoke paper was addressed and I was posting this since he is obviously unable to answer for himself and Mike was asking him to.. So I posted with material relevant to that claim because, 'Randman is gone'.But I've changed the subtitle anyway, always glad to oblige.TTFN,WKP.S. what does your post have to do with the subtitle on it?

Thread copied to the 2/3rds of Americans want creationism taught. thread in the In The News forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.