Inteligent Design

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:08 pm

why do they have to dumb things down in public school?

Because they are making too many allowances for the creationists.

Leona Conner · Post by **Leona Conner** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:40 pm

". . . why do they have to dumb things down in public school? as a teacher, i already know this is happening in north america. kind of undermines the thesis a bit."

Cuz as bubba Dubya said ". . . no child left behind." If we expect them to learn then they won't move on and they will get left behind. So it's not that we're dumbing things down, it's just that were uping dumb things.

archaeologist16 · Post by **archaeologist16** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:12 pm

Because they are making too many allowances for the creationists

now that was funny minimalist

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 8:39 am

The ARchbishop of Canterbury weighs in:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepubli ... m0322.html

Archbishop opposes teaching creationism

New York Times
Mar. 22, 2006 12:00 AM

LONDON- The archbishop of Canterbury opposes teaching creationism in school and believes that portraying the Bible as just another theory devalues it, he said in an interview published Tuesday.

"I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories," the archbishop, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, told the Guardian. "Whatever the biblical account of creation is, it's not a theory alongside theories. It's not as if the writer of Genesis or whatever sat down and said, 'Well, how am I going to explain all this?' "

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 8:43 am

The ARchbishop of Canterbury weighs in:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepubli ... m0322.html

Archbishop opposes teaching creationism

New York Times
Mar. 22, 2006 12:00 AM

LONDON- The archbishop of Canterbury opposes teaching creationism in school and believes that portraying the Bible as just another theory devalues it, he said in an interview published Tuesday.

"I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories," the archbishop, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, told the Guardian. "Whatever the biblical account of creation is, it's not a theory alongside theories. It's not as if the writer of Genesis or whatever sat down and said, 'Well, how am I going to explain all this?' "

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 8:46 am

The ARchbishop of Canterbury weighs in:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepubli ... m0322.html

Archbishop opposes teaching creationism

New York Times
Mar. 22, 2006 12:00 AM

LONDON- The archbishop of Canterbury opposes teaching creationism in school and believes that portraying the Bible as just another theory devalues it, he said in an interview published Tuesday.

"I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories," the archbishop, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, told the Guardian. "Whatever the biblical account of creation is, it's not a theory alongside theories. It's not as if the writer of Genesis or whatever sat down and said, 'Well, how am I going to explain all this?' "

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 8:48 am

The ARchbishop of Canterbury weighs in:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepubli ... m0322.html

Archbishop opposes teaching creationism

New York Times
Mar. 22, 2006 12:00 AM

LONDON- The archbishop of Canterbury opposes teaching creationism in school and believes that portraying the Bible as just another theory devalues it, he said in an interview published Tuesday.

"I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories," the archbishop, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, told the Guardian. "Whatever the biblical account of creation is, it's not a theory alongside theories. It's not as if the writer of Genesis or whatever sat down and said, 'Well, how am I going to explain all this?' "

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:54 pm

he is saying that it should not be taught as a theory which i would agree with. he did not say that it shouldn't be taught in shools.

for the most part of that particular quote i agree with his assessment. the Bible is the truth and needs to be taught as such.

most proponants of the intelligent design theory tend to compromise too much instead of standing their ground which weakens their case.

Post by **Minimalist** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:58 pm

The archbishop of Canterbury opposes teaching creationism in school

I hope you read your fairy tales with more attention than you read the newspapers!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:05 pm

sorry i missed that i am tired as it is 6 am here

so i will amend what i said and say that i disagree with him in part and agree with him in part. but as i look at the text i feel that the title is in error as he is talking about teaching it as a theory not removing it from the school curriculum.

too small of a story to get a full idea of his thinking

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:55 am

The whole subject of ID is not worth much ink.

Pippin · Post by **Pippin** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:06 pm

Hi

I think religios people are alowed to make whatever theories they like, i just dont think they should force it on children not of that religion.

Pippin

Pippin · Post by **Pippin** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:06 pm

Hi

I think religios people are alowed to make whatever theories they like, i just dont think they should force it on children not of that religion.

Pippin

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 5:57 pm

BBC News:

Thursday, 23 March 2006, 10:58 GMT

South Park gets revenge on Chef

Isaac Hayes did not participate in the new episode
South Park has exacted revenge on its former star Isaac Hayes by turning his character Chef into a paedophile and seemingly killing him off.
The opening episode of the 10th series, screened in the US on Wednesday, appeared to be a satire on Scientology.

Hayes, a Scientologist, quit the animated comedy after a different episode ridiculed the religion.

In the new show, Chef is brainwashed by the "Super Adventure Club" - thought to be a veiled reference to Scientology.

The other characters are angry at "that fruity little club for scrambling his brains".

Patched together

Hayes did not participate in the episode but his lines were apparently patched together from previous recordings.

Chef arrives after travelling the world with the Super Adventure Club and repeatedly tells the children he wants to "make sweet love" to them.

The children take him to a psychiatrist and then a strip club, where he remembers his love for women and is cured.

But he is brainwashed by the Super Adventure Club again - before falling off a bridge and being burned, stabbed and mauled by a lion and a grizzly bear.

'Hurt and confused'

At his funeral, one of the children says: "A lot of us don't agree with the choices the Chef has made in the last few days.

"Some of us feel hurt and confused that he seemed to turn his back on us.

"But we can't let the events of the past few weeks take away the memories of how Chef made us smile."

Isaac Hayes was admitted to hospital with exhaustion in January
Soul singer Hayes recently announced he had left the show because of its "intolerance and bigotry toward religious beliefs".

But co-creator Matt Stone said: "In 10 years and over 150 episodes of South Park, Isaac never had a problem with the show making fun of Christians, Muslim, Mormons or Jews.

"He got a sudden case of religious sensitivity when it was his religion featured on the show."

US TV network Comedy Central then pulled a different episode, which mocked Tom Cruise and more explicitly lampooned Scientology.

That prompted rumours that Cruise had demanded that the episode be dropped, which were denied by his representatives.

Hayes, 63, was admitted to hospital with exhaustion in January.

That's what happens to hypocrites.[/b]

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Mar 24, 2006 2:09 am

That's what happens to hypocrites

hypocrites are everywhere and religion does not have a monopoly on that attribute.

I think religios people are alowed to make whatever theories they like, i just dont think they should force it on children not of that religion

even thoughi think this is a fake i.d. and post i will say the reverse is true for those who do not believe in evolution.

why should evolution be forced down people's throats when it is unproveable, untenable and illogical? the Darwin display, i believe in new york, only serves to prove my point. fossils, charts and so on with the gaps filled in with what scientists 'think' what happened. there is no proof that those skulls transformed from one to the next.

why do i say that because no one has any verifiable proof that it actually took place, it is also 110% conjecture or assumption, nothing else. they are just bones arranged the way the scientists wanted them to be arranged.

dating also doesn't prove evolution because it can not prove the process just an age and even that date is suspect. so putting your hope in the dating process just adds to the folly.