You don't seem to understand this Evolution offeneds some people. It should be ok for them to teach Intellegent Design. People shouldn't have to go with one thing just because it science.
58 comments
Excuse me, why in hell should someone "shouldn't have to go with one thing just because it (sic) science" in a school? It is an institution of education, not a church! TEACH RELIGION IN YOUR CHURCH AND SCIENCE IN OUR SCHOOLS! Damn that felt good!
Intellegent (sic) Design is anything but intelligent.
When your so-called scientists can prove their "theory" has been peer reviewed, then they can teach it in science class.
That evolution offends some people is of no consequence. It is proven fact, with plenty of evidence and science behind it, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.
I happen to be offended by outright stupidity. To me, the insistence on teaching the biblical creation in science class, is outright stupidity.
Study biology, and you'll learn that the last thing we are is "intelligently" designed. Stupidly designed, maybe. But there is no intelligence whatsoever in the way so many species are put together, including our own.
Since "science" is the organized and systematic process by which actual truth is discovered about the world around us, then yes, yes, absolutely yes, people should have to go with one thing just because it is science.
I can disprove intelligent design with three words, or two, depending on your view of hyphens. Ready? Here it comes...
Duck-billed platypus.
If the duck-billed platypus was designed, it was by an idiot. A really, really stoned idiot.
"You don't seem to understand this Evolution offeneds some people."
I understand that. I don't really care, but I understand that. That a well-constructed, well-supported, scientific theory offends your delicate, but retarded, sensibilities does not worry me.
"It should be ok for them to teach Intellegent Design."
I agree. As soon as the ID camp produces some credible, compelling evidence and formulates and tests a scientific theory of ID, then ID should be allowed in schools.
"People shouldn't have to go with one thing just because it science."
Yes. Yes, they should. If they want to use public monies, what is taught should be scientifically valid. Only an asshat would be in favor of teaching unsupported conjectures as truth.
You are absolutely right. You are free to stick your head up yours, or someone else's butt, if reality conflicts with your preconceived notions. Everyone has the right to be just as smart or dumb as they set their minds to.
People shouldn't have to go with one thing just because it science.
Unless thgey are trying to create houses, airplanes, bridges, cars, medicine, electricity and many, many other useful and potentially lethal items if you don't make sure you create them in the right manner.
Fine, go ahead and teach ID. Seriously, I don't have a problem that.
Just not in science class. In science class, we're gonna teach evolution. Deal.
The don't have to "go with one thing".
Unless, you know, they're in a science class, in which case they do have to go with one thing becaause it's science. See the connection here? Science class...science?
James : "I can disprove intelligent design with three words, or two, depending on your view of hyphens. Ready? Here it comes...
Duck-billed platypus.
If the duck-billed platypus was designed, it was by an idiot. A really, really stoned idiot."
Y'know, one of my college friends once opined that God must have made the platypus in order to thumb his knows at us humans, whom he knew would want to name and categorize the animals. I think his idea was that the platypus would make biologists scratch their heads and wonder where to put it, in perpetuity.
My response? We make up a whole new category! The platypus is a monotreme, if I recall correctly. We've known about them since we explored Australia, so what's to scratch our heads over?
@Chan
Researchers recently discovered that platypi have ten sex chromosomes, one of which, unsurprisingly given it's appearence, shares genes with bird sex chromosomes.
I was just remarking that if the platypus was created, the creator was almost definitely running out of ideas. Perhaps he started cutting out pictures of other other animals from a magazine and arranging the body parts into his perfect creature.
You don't seem to understand this Evolution offeneds some people.
No, actually, I don't understand that. How can anyone take offense to the idea that living beings adapt to their environments over time? It's something that happens, not an idea or a philosophical stance.
It should be ok for them to teach Intellegent Design.
It is, in church, and in your home. But religion has no place in the curriculum of a public school.
You don't seem to understand this Evolution offeneds some people. Right. Let's stop teaching facts because they offend people. Great argument there. Let's refrain from teaching future kids about 9/11, too, and say the towers were downed by an earthquake. After all, we don't want to incite islamophobia in future generations, do we now? Oh, and we need to present an Alternative Viewpoint, don't we?
It should be ok for them to teach Intellegent Design. By all means. Teach them about Intelligent Design. But do it honestly, and in Religion/Social Study classes. Point out that Intelligent Design is supported by many, but as of now without any evidence. Fine by me.
People shouldn't have to go with one thing just because it science. Why not?
Yes, every single thing we believe are "facts" today could be wrong. The Earth could technically be a pink cube. There could be dragons in some temperate paradise under the Martian ice caps. There could be an intelligent species in some distant gorge at the bottom of the sea. Kids need to learn that science is not absolute like mythology claims to be.
But as it stands, mountains of evidence prove that evolution is true. No evidence proves that ID is true.
If fundies applied the common sense they look at gravity, atoms, and other facts of life with, they'd accept evolution in the flutter of an eyelash. And on the other hand, if we were to apply Creationist logic to education, we'd have to teach (short excerpt):
The powers of invisible spirits as an alternative to magnetism to explain why some metals are attracted to another.
Intelligent Falling as an alternative to gravity.
Evil deeds by forest creatures such as vættir and trolls as an alternative to allergic reactions to explain why farm animals get rashes.
A divine entity's chariot wheel as an alternative to a star when explaining that huge and incredibly bright orb in the sky.
Thor's horse-and-hammer tantrums as an alternative to electric charges as an explanation for thunderstorm.
The death of a giant as an alternative to accepted scientific facts to explain oceans and clouds (Norse myths have it they are the brains and blood of a long-dead giant).
Dragons as an alternative to water and erosion to explain rivers (some Asian mythologies preach rivers are inhabited by dragon spirits, or that they litterally are dragons).
That the Sun rotates around the Earth as an alternative to heliocentric theory.
The Norse picture of the world, with the tree Yggdrasil at the centre, Åsgard beyond that, and so on, as an alternative to the current world map.
That giant sea wyrms from Norse mythology sunk the Titanic, as an alternative to the iceberg theory.
And so on. Every single thing taught in school would have to be taught as unproven theory with an unproven alternative given equal honour.
And no, we cannot single out evolution for his bizarre treatment. Either all facts are desecrated in this manner, or none are. Simple as that. 'Religious correctness' aside, there's no valid reason whatsoever to drag evolution down to the level of an untested idea, present them as equally well-documented, and 'let the children decide for themselves'. We're talking facts , such as 2+2=4. Should we teach alternatives to proven addition methods, too? Say that 300+366 equals either 666 or 600, and let the children decide for themselves? After all, the number 666 offends some people and we can't let one viewpoint rule the world.
Ludicrous.
TEACH RELIGION IN YOUR CHURCH [...] Beg to differ as not all students go to church and churches are remarkably bad at being objective;).
@James
I can disprove intelligent design with three words, or two, depending on your view of hyphens. Ready? Here it comes...
Duck-billed platypus.
If the duck-billed platypus was designed, it was by an idiot. A really, really stoned idiot.
what if god smoked cannibus,
do you s'pose he had a buzz,
when he made the platypus,
when he created earth - our home...
(What If God Smoked Cannibus )
Im offended by intelligent design, or rather, what lies behind. Sorry, I know I'm saved. And by the way, since when science is irrelevant?, what on earth are you doing typing in your computer?
This reminds me of a religious chick who gave her senior presentation on Evolution versus Creation. Her whole argument was that the idea she came from a frog (seriously) scared her.
I'd wager you're not offended. I think you're scared.
"People shouldn't have to go with one thing just because it science."
On the science class? Are you serious? Answer is yes. Yes, people SHOULD go with one thing that IS science, not with one that isn't.
So, if people are offended by the sun, we will remove it from the sky?
Evolution just goes on and on, all the time, just like the photosythesis and the process of decay. They don't stop just 'cause you don't believe in them.
You can have seminars and evening classes on Intelligent Design all you want, but it has no place in the school. Oh, if they touch on the subject in Religious studies, that might be ok.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.