Commissar

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Science doesn't consider perspectives that have no standing without science itself. You're starting to sound like you think science is some sort of atheist devil tool. It doesn't care whether it hurts or helps Christianity or any other religion.

No, you're wrong. The topic being discussed is how man came about, right? Science teaches man came about through evolution. ID teaches that man came about by some supernatural outside force. They are two radically different theories, but they are presenting both sides of the same topic. World War II, however, has absolutely nothing to deal with math. If you're discussing functions in math, bringing up WWII won't help you one bit in determining the vertex of a parabula. It's a completely different, impertinent subject. They are two completely different things. They don't even discuss the same topic. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Intelligent design is not science. World War II is not mathematics. You know, I'm sorry, Mothman, but if you really can't understand how creationism does not meet the standards necessary to be considered a scientific theory, I really can't help you. I can tell you this, though: the Kansas school board recognized it couldn't possibly be considered science, and consequently changed the definition of science to suit the teaching of intelligent design. If creationism was good science, they wouldn't have needed to do that.

Well said. I believe in evolution, but not in the way "evolution" is most commonly known today. The term has been misinterpreted to mean "Darwinism", but Darwins theory used evolution, not created it. I believe evolution in the sense that I believe that environments evolve over time. I believe that animals and mankind alike evolve (over time) to better suit their environment and climate. I do not believe that mankind oozed from a mud pool, then turned to some ape-creature, then evolved into its current state. Let me also lay down some common sense to this discussion. To set the record straight, "Intelligent Design" does not advocate Christianity, or any other religion. This assumption comes from athiest (and like minded people) who want to feel a sense of authority in today's society. I, myself, feel that to boycott things such as this (and make up claims of it being religious, when it is not) is closed-mindedly absurd, and shows only that individual's ignorance...and the ignorance of all who follow. And for anyone's information (if anyone cares) I am from the south. I am a Christian, and am not ashamed, nor will I ever be made ashamed, to admit it. And I amd sick and tired of the worn-out preassumptions that everyone seems to have of "the South". To enlighten you weak-minded children, the fake accents that you might hear on movies and television shows are just that...fake. They are performed by those who are not from the south, and who have very much the same views as you. Many - if not all - of it is extremely overdone. Most that have seen sound much like a Brit speaking cajun. It just doesn't work. To educate you furthur...with the mass-media that exist today, cultural differences are becoming more and more diminished with every year. And to conclude my minor fit of rage against stupidity... For you to continuously berate others for having been born in an area seperate from yours, or for believing something other than what you believe, shows that your parents failed miserably in teaching you to not judge others. P.S. I would also like someone to explain why the Bible has stated scientific fact, on many occasions, before science did. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And you're missing the point as well. Creationism is not science. How many times am I going to have to say it? I live in the South as well. Been here off and on for eight years. I've also lived all over. The South is pretty damn religious, and I can hear plenty of drawls whenever I care to.

And the argument being presented here is that it doesn't matter. Enough people believe in creationism, so in order to be fair to everybody, we have to mention it. Heaven forbid kids find out that every single scientist not on the Discovery Institute's payroll thinks their beliefs are dead wrong.

Now you really are being silly. That example has no application whatsoever to the discussion. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's an analogy. World War II is to math class as creationism is to science class. And for the record, if you're even remotely religious, you do not want discussions of creationism happening in public schools.

Know what? You're right. We should throw out the definition of a discipline simply because we don't like its conclusions. I think our first step should be to go after Galileo. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Now you're just being silly. Have you even read my posts? I said nothing about throwing out a discipline. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That is precisely what you're advocating. You're saying we ought to teach, in a science classroom, a theory that has absolutely no scientific merit. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No he isn't He's saying it should be mentioned, but not taught. There is a difference. You're not reading what he's actually saying. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Fine. Don't forget to mention the chain of events that led to World War I in math class.

Know what? You're right. We should throw out the definition of a discipline simply because we don't like its conclusions. I think our first step should be to go after Galileo. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Now you're just being silly. Have you even read my posts? I said nothing about throwing out a discipline. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That is precisely what you're advocating. You're saying we ought to teach, in a science classroom, a theory that has absolutely no scientific merit.

Know what? You're right. We should throw out the definition of a discipline simply because we don't like its conclusions. I think our first step should be to go after Galileo.

I think you're missing my point completely. What about those who staunchly believe in creationism, aka intelligent design, who would be forced to hear that their beliefs are wrong. Key word: offending. I think it's fine to teach intelligent design in schools ONLY if it's presented as a theory and not delved into. In other words, present the theory of ID in the classroom as an alternate theory and leave it at that, then go into evolution. And you don't need to "present all sides" as long as you keep the intelligent design theory generic. In other words, make it applicable to any religion/belief. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think you're missing our point. It is not science. I'm sorry if people are offended by the current best scientific theory to explain human development, but maybe science just isn't for them.

It isn't science. It will never be science. How many times do I have to explain this? It has nothing to do with fair. You can't teach Tolstoy in math class because Tolstoy's not math. You can't teach creationism in science class because, you guessed it, creationism isn't science.

Well... You can't stop our boys, since your governments are allowing it. Even if you wanted to, you probably couldn't catch them anyway. As far as the Middle East goes...we're sort of sitting on our hands at the moment and seeing how you blokes do with Iran.

It's not right wing to suggest that Europe needs the US.

Sure they are.

Did any of the Scandinavian countries even qualify for the World Cup tournament last time? And if there's one thing you can say about England...they sure know how to buy their talent. That's why their league teams are pretty good, but turn them loose in a competition where actual Englishmen have to play? Pff. Substitute a flag pole in for the goalie, they're still not going to score.

I disagree, because it actually says that science is the study of the physical world alone (and the physical world's manifestations). So I think you meant to say that science for the rest of the world does not include natural phenomenon unless it is making itself manifest in the physical world. But it does not say that the explanations for natural phenomenon come only from the physical world. If what you said is true, then there is nothing other than the physical world. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Wow.

Alright, let's stop framing this as an actual scientific debate. Science has nothing to do with what's going on in Kansas. These people wouldn't be capable of caring less about science if it didn't explicitly contradict claims made in their how-to-live-life manual. It's about fear of science, if anything. It is about forcing religious views into the classroom in order to reaffirm their own sense of what's true about this world. How this all is not considered an endorsement of religion by the government is entirely beyond me. Many people don't understand why it's such a big deal. They are fundamentally changing the definition of an entire discipline just to bring it in line with their personal beliefs. That school board member was right when she said it's going to make Kansas a laughingstock. And you know what's worse? Kansas is just the first state to do it.

I predict that this particular statement will draw all sorts of fire, and so I'll try and preempt it. Religion is inescapably tied to changing conceptions of morality; numerous individuals in this thread have placed religion itself above reproach, and have demanded that all immorality that has had religion as its root cause in history be relegated to the status of misunderstanding religion. Human failings, not religious ones. If we're to be at all fair, we must do the same with science - nevermind that science is not a dogma, a theology, or even a set of beliefs. If religion is never at fault, neither is science.

I just listened to a little of the Star Wars III commentary...Lucas really has a technology fetish. It seriously sounds like he's a step away from orgasm whenever he talks about the technology that they used. "This shot right here, where he walks through the little antechamber, it's my favorite, because the whole thing is a CGI matte painting!"

Why do I feel like I'm back in class all of a sudden?

No. The second definition makes it very clear that explanations for natural phenomenon come only from the physical world. The new Kansas definition allows those explanations to come from anything. I still say somebody ought to sue to get FSM taught. Or we ought to simply kick Kansas out of the union.

That makes me want to cry. Edit: In Dover, however, eight of the nine Republicans who backed the ID push there were up for election; all were beaten by Democrats who disagreed with teaching creationism in public schools. http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11/09/ev...n.ap/index.html

I do. He's not one of the "home grown boys". Ovechkin could score 50 goals and Crosby would still take the Calder. The hype is just too great. Did you know that Nicklas Lidstr

Liar. You, like everyone else, like the sail barge scenes for the Leia costume.

I've also done a little theoretical tinkering, and come up with what I think will be a line that'll give Washington a chance to win consistently. First, they need to go out to Falls Church and find the fattest bum they can. They need to stick him in pads before every game, give him a heavy shot of horse tranquilizers, and shove him in the net. Then, they get four cardboard cut-outs of Darth Vader, duct-tape skates to the bottom, and throw them on the ice with Ovechkin. They need to have a fifth cut-out in reserve to toss out whenever he needs a breather.

He said something like it before the start of the series, too. Something like, "If I lived in Washington, I'd have a season ticket just to watch that kid play." Crosby's good, and I'm biased, but if Ovechkin keeps this pace up, I don't see how he avoids catching the Calder. He's getting almost no help from his team, and their two most recent wins came on his stick.