Gov. Ernie Fletcher’s (R-KY) ‘State of the State’:
By on Jan 17th, 2006 at 11:30 am
Gov. Ernie Fletcher’s (R-KY) ‘State of the State’:
“[W]here does this freedom come from that many have died to protect? Our founding fathers recognized that we were endowed with this right by our creator. So I ask, what is wrong with teaching ‘intelligent design’ in our schools?” Apparently the Declaration of Independence doubles as a biology textbook.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
The Declaration may double as an ID textbook, but it’s not the law of the land. Next!
January 17th, 2006 at 11:31 amLiving here in very Blue Louisville (2000 and 2004 voted Dem.), the Governors comments have been met with nothing but ridicule. As a teacher in our public schools, I here nothing but snears when Intelligent Design is mentioned.
January 17th, 2006 at 11:35 amIs this Govenor “I’ll pardon all the guilty parties to avoid the publicity of a scandal” Fletcher? Hmm go figure.
Gov Fletcher really needs too look beyond the words of the founders who wrote the declaration and see what they thought and what they menat when they wrote it. It’s not hard to read about their views. Beyond that he needs to realise that the declaration is not law, that phillosophy (ID) is not science and that those freedoms he supposedly care about are under attack form his political party.
January 17th, 2006 at 11:37 amEven the Vatican, the more pro-God and traditionalist institution in the whole Earth recognizes that ID is merely a bad joke: Vatican on ID
January 17th, 2006 at 11:42 amThe word “God” is not in the Constitution. People seem to forget that it was very intentionally left out.
January 17th, 2006 at 11:43 amResidents of Kentucky, you have my pity. Supporters of this lying theif that was elected governor of Kentucky, all you have is your own shame.
Now, if you’ll pardon me…
January 17th, 2006 at 11:45 amFine with me – as long as “the Creator” is the Flying Spaghetti Monsterâ„¢
January 17th, 2006 at 11:48 amMy creators were my parents… Biology already covers that. No religious supplements necessary.
January 17th, 2006 at 11:51 amLiving here in very Blue Louisville (2000 and 2004 voted Dem.), the Governors comments have been met with nothing but ridicule. As a teacher in our public schools, I here nothing but snears when Intelligent Design is mentioned.
Comment by GREG ARMSTRONG — January 17, 2006 @ 11:35 am
Glad to hear that, as in the deep south Evolution still gets the snears…
Had to respectfully remind a tenth grader who was going off about the stupidity of us evolving from a single celled organism that she came from a single cell – her mothers egg.
January 17th, 2006 at 11:53 amFrom the Dover case:
From the Vatican:
From Spudge_Boy:
Stop calling it intelligetn design if you mean creationism. Come on you pussy republicans. If you want to destroy the seperation of church and state, stand up and say so. Otherwise sit down and STFU.
January 17th, 2006 at 11:55 am#8 unbelievable – I second that. My creators were your parents, too! :) Just kidding, but you’re right.
I would also add that the good Governor Fletcher is confusing the founders’ religious beliefs with how they thought man should be governed. He’s easily going down the slippery slope of thinking that everything the founders believed in should be the way it is today, and that would have to include slavery. They weren’t Christians, they were Deists. And they felt that public money should not be used to promote one religion over another. And in this, they were wise.
January 17th, 2006 at 11:56 amYes, Governor, let’s talk about what the Founders believed.
Of course, that would be a metaphysical discussion best suited for a philosophy class.
So Gov. Fletcher: shall we mandate an exploration of philosophy in our high schools, developing critical thinking that might interfere with dogmatic church teachings?
I thought not.
January 17th, 2006 at 11:57 amI can’t believe how many people failed high school government class.
January 17th, 2006 at 12:01 pmI can’t believe how many people failed high school government class.
Comment by Zookeeper — January 17, 2006 @ 12:01 pm
Me neither. Nor can I believe how high in elected office some of them rose.
January 17th, 2006 at 12:03 pmGeorge W Bush = living proof that there’s no such thing as intelligent design?
January 17th, 2006 at 12:09 pmthe problem is only in public schools, dipshit… that is, schools where people of all backgrounds, races and faiths attend… push religious beliefs in religious schools… why is this issue so hard for some to understand?
January 17th, 2006 at 12:11 pmThe good governor is the latest example of why one hopes the party on the other side is smart because you can’t outsmart a dumbass. Which is why it is almost invariably the case that there is no real discussion of intelligent design,its supporters believe and true believers aren’t about to be dissuaded by logical arguments.
January 17th, 2006 at 12:11 pmWhenever this topic comes up,the only good response is either to walk away or be seriously aggressive in questioning the person who subscribes to the belief such that it is likely to be the last time you talk to that person.But that is probably a good thing for both of you.
Intelligent design is a theory. I repeat, a theory. Evolution is a theory. Why can’t both be taught as theories. Why do teachers want to block the teaching of theories?
The National Education Association is the country’s largest teachers union. The NEA’s top brass lives large. Reg Weaver, the union’s president, makes $439,000 a year. The NEA has a $58 million payroll for just over 600 employees, more than half of whom draw six-figure salaries. Last year the average teacher made only $48,000, so it seems you’re better off working as a union rep than in the classroom.
I would say that there might be a little corruption in the education community. You think?
January 17th, 2006 at 12:40 pmBen, responding to your first paragraph:
January 17th, 2006 at 12:44 pmThe semantic term “theory” aside, focus on this — SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
How about a one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people-eater?
That’s ‘intelligent design’ if there ever was such a thing.
God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.
Just in case you gerfot.
January 17th, 2006 at 12:47 pm“Intelligent design is a theory. I repeat, a theory. Evolution is a theory. Why can’t both be taught as theories. Why do teachers want to block the teaching of theories? Ben”
Actually Intelligent Design is religious idea, not a scientific theory – and that’s why the Judge in Penn. said it shouldn’t be taught. Besides, Evolution began as a theory, but is well proven, just like the theory of relativity. Theory is a science term, it doesn’t mean it isn’t proven. That’s why many people don’t use the word ‘Theory’ any more and simply say ‘Evolution’.
The Intelligent Design premise is that of an ‘anti-theory’. It says, well scientists don’t know specifically how bees fly, so the theory is flawed. Not only does this show a fundamental misunderstanding of science and what a theory is, it’s just plain silly.
If you want to believe in religious fairy tales, help yourself, but keep them out of the class room. And as an adult, please put the tooth fairy and the rest of the childish silliness like intelligent design behind you.
January 17th, 2006 at 12:47 pmEvolution is not a theory in the same sense ID is a theory. ID is an uneducated guess. Gravity is a theory, but only because we don’t have a full understanding of the gravitational force.
January 17th, 2006 at 12:48 pmEvolution is fact upon which many theories are launched.
Same for gravity. Same for music.
There is no body of scientific data to study ID.
to begin with Intelligent design does not stand up as a scientific theory. Evolution does stand up as a scientific theory. Not really sure what corruption in the NEA has to do with this subject.
January 17th, 2006 at 12:50 pmRead here and learn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
January 17th, 2006 at 12:56 pmBen, really you do not understand what science means by the word ‘theory’. A scientific theory is not the same as a theory in general terms. Evolution is a fact and a scientific theory. Below is a definition of scientific theory for you from another poster called Mark – note the use of the word ‘verified’;
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
January 17th, 2006 at 12:57 pmBen- Aren’t you a little off the argument by discussing the NEA? Teachers don’t want to teach ID as a science becuase IT IS NOT A SCIENCE! ID is creationism you reich wing fruit loops.
January 17th, 2006 at 12:57 pmKrazny,
The extent to which the NEA sends money to states for political agitation is revealing. For example, Protect Our Public Schools, an anti-charter-school group backed by the NEA’s Washington state affiliate, received $500,000 toward its efforts to block school choice for underprivileged children. (Never mind that charter schools are public schools.) And the Floridians for All Committee, which focuses on “the construction of a permanent progressive infrastructure that will help redirect Florida politics in a more progressive, Democratic direction,” received a $249,000 donation from NEA headquarters.
The NEA does not support the teaching of ID. The Democratic Party does not support the teaching of ID. Get it?
ID is a possible theory for why we are here. Evolution is a possible theory for why we are here.
Human evolution has not been proven.
January 17th, 2006 at 12:58 pm“ID is a possible theory for why we are here. Evolution is a possible theory for why we are here.
Human evolution has not been proven. Ben”
And here’s why you’re wrong. ID tries to answer ‘why’, evolution answers ‘how’. The distinction is why ID is not a theory but instead a religious dogma, and Evolution is scientific.
As for the Human evolution being proven, sure it has been proven. What planet do you live on? Certainly not planet earth if you don’t know this.
January 17th, 2006 at 1:02 pmHuman evolution is far more along the road to provability the ID. I think you are reaching on the NEA and connection with defeat of teaching ID in schools. Remember it was the town of Dover that threw out the teaching of ID in thier schools, not the NEA. Turn Limbaugh off for a bit and try to find some less biased news reporting.
January 17th, 2006 at 1:02 pmGary,
The religiously brainwashed like Ben don’t have room in their world for facts or science – especially when it contradicts their religious fairy tales. I feel pity for Ben – clearly he’s lost.
January 17th, 2006 at 1:03 pm#18 Ben, when you say Evolution is a theory you are absolutely correct. However I have the sneaky suspicion that you have no clue as to what a scientific theory is. Id on the other hand is not a theory, ID is a hypothesis which is unprovable. It is really a philosophy at best.
A scientific theory is one where the hypothesis has been tested and the observations noted catalogued etc… then these observations have been put through the rigors of scientific review. Once the review process is completed, and evolution, or natural selection has been through this process, the hypothesis is either elevated to theory level or it is dismissed. Once it achieves the scientific notation of theory it is as close to being a fact as it can be. The only higher order is scientific law, which natural selection is not because the same result can not be repeated over and over, like with gravity (a law) for instance.
Perhaps once you get the idea that a scientific theory is nothing at all like what laymen consider a theory to be then is might maker a little more sense to you. Other than that please do continue with the hysterical rantings.
January 17th, 2006 at 1:03 pm#27 – If you don’t have a good argument, change the subject.
January 17th, 2006 at 1:05 pmThe word evolution is usually thought of in a biological sense, but it also applies in a geological sense. The evidence of geological evolution, out here in the west, is visually apparent for any who have eyes to see. The extinct (and live) volcanoes, the lava tubes, and most importantly the layers and layers of the earth’s strata which have been laid down and then eroded over time, so that when we look we can see the evidence of evolution up close. We can touch the layers and sometimes the mollusk shells from ancient seas and marvel at the millions of years of transformation our mother earth has experienced. After looking at this evidence, can you say that the earth as we see it was created in situ? Not if you have half a brain, which seems to be half more than ID proponents have. Could we have evolution of the earth but not of people?
January 17th, 2006 at 1:07 pmKraz, for the record I do not listen to Limbaugh. Not a fan.
January 17th, 2006 at 1:10 pmThe mere statemnet that something has a greater probability does not equate to accuracy in the final result of a single event. One third of the worlds’s population is Christian. I don’t think that human evolution is part of their beliefs. That is almost 2 billion people. Why is it so difficult to say the facts. The facts are we do not know with certainty why we are here, how we began, or whether we will ultimately go somewhere after here? Why is there such fear about having those philosophical discussions with students? And it should include the other significant theories about the answers to those questions. Not pushing any one theory more than the other. Why the fear?
Don,
Look at the evolution of wolves into boston terriers. These species look nothing alike and even act very differently, yet in a few thousand years human being evolved their bodies, their intellect and the personalities. Evolution was proven by man through domestication of plants and animals long before Darwin recognized the fundamental science of this.
January 17th, 2006 at 1:11 pmBen,
Where do you live? I want to make sure I don’t come anywhere near you. You are the kind of guy that would stand a ladder in a pool, take off your shoes and use a electric screw gun to hang a light fixture.
Should I just look for a short yellow bus?
January 17th, 2006 at 1:12 pmRightPunch – I agree with you but lets give Ben a chance.
Ben, I will continue on the premise that you are willing to learn/discuss your rationale maturely. Please can you explain in detail why you think evolution has not been proved in humans?
January 17th, 2006 at 1:13 pm“One third of the worlds’s population is Christian. I don’t think that human evolution is part of their beliefs. That is almost 2 billion people. Why is it so difficult to say the facts. The facts are we do not know with certainty why we are here, how we began, or whether we will ultimately go somewhere after here? Why is there such fear about having those philosophical discussions with students? And it should include the other significant theories about the answers to those questions. Not pushing any one theory more than the other. Why the fear? Ben”
Why is it so difficult to say the facts? The facts are that evolution is proven, and no matter what religious beliefs people have, science trumps. Unless you’re also willing to believe that the earth is flat like the ‘bible’ says as well. Should we discuss the theory of the flat earth while we’re at it? And lets not forget that this nation was explicitly founded on the separation of church and state, and the founding fathers wrote that non-christians and christians alike had the freedom to worship. Does this mean we should introduce the native american or other religions into class and discuss those?
You still seem unable to recognize that ID is ‘religion’, and has no place in the scientific classroom. If you wish to teach ID in a philosophy class – then that’s where it belongs.
January 17th, 2006 at 1:14 pmAgain ID is not a theory and has never been one. ID is creationism in disguise. ID is not now nor has it ever been a theory. If you wish to teach your children about ID then do it at home, or through your church.
January 17th, 2006 at 1:15 pmBen;
January 17th, 2006 at 1:16 pmYou are talking about philosophy not science. There isn’t a ban on teaching ID, there is only a ban on teaching ID in science class as a science.
ID is not a science. No one does experiments to prove it. What really proved it wasn’t a valid science for me is one organization offered to give out grants to people doing scientific research from an ID standpoint. No one came up with a valid research proposal.
It was decades after its formation, and countless experiments and evidence gathered that at least partially PROVED most aspects of evolution before it was ever taught in the classroom. You don’t believe they won the scopes trial by magic do you? Ben I’m sure you’re a decent person, but you really need to spend some time actually looking at the scientific body of work around evolution – instead of the 2 bit nonsense written about it by religiously indoctrinated people with an agenda and a bias.
January 17th, 2006 at 1:19 pmGary, I am not proclaiming to be some scientist. I recognize that the human body has changed over time. I was stating that the fact that human evolved from something other than being a human originally has not been proven.
Creationism cannot be proven. It can’t be disproved either. If those things were possible I think religions would have some explaing to do.
SpudgeBoy, seriously why don’t you grow up. Is that all you know how to do?
Mark, I am not hysterical one bit. If you guys can give me a logical argument on how there is no way that creationism is possible or how we at one time were creatures other than humans I am all ears. I definitely will change my mind if I am convinced otherwise. My position is that we do not know and likely will never know in our lifetime. I believe both are possible. Maybe you have a theory on how it all started. You know, life, how did it start? What was before then?
January 17th, 2006 at 1:24 pmNope, there are lots of things I know how to do and I am quite old enough thank you.
You need to grow up, go outside, meet some smart people, go on a trip outside the US and learn some sh!t.
January 17th, 2006 at 1:29 pmBen, it’s good that you are reasonable enough to know that the human body has changed over time. To reason maturely with you – and I think you want to reason maturely – I need to know what ‘facts’ exactly are you referring to when you state;
“I was stating that the fact that human evolved from something other than being a human originally has not been proven.”
Please detail what facts you are referring to and we can discuss them like the adults we are. If you cannot state what facts you are referring to then your arguement comes unsuck at this early point.
January 17th, 2006 at 1:30 pmOh yeah and stop being a pussy republican or build a bomb shelter.
January 17th, 2006 at 1:30 pmIf you guys can give me a logical argument on how there is no way that creationism is possible
Comment by Ben — January 17, 2006 @ 1:24 pm
You are misunderstanding the argument.
The argument is that Intelligent Design is not science and hence does not belong in a science classroom.
Nothing more.
January 17th, 2006 at 1:31 pmBen,
All the scientific data currently available points to evolution. However, as you correctly pointed out, there is no ABSOLUTE proof yet that evolution occurred, hence the missing link.
So, you are correct that there are other possibilities. However, there is as much scientific proof that a flying spaghetti monster deposited us on this planet for future harvesting (just waiting until we are ripe) as there is scientific proof of creationism.
The point here is this: Teach science in science classes, and teach religion in your church/synogue/mosque. This is the only logical approach to it.
May the flying spaghetti monster bless us all (and may he/she eat Ben first).
January 17th, 2006 at 1:33 pmMaybe you have a theory on how it all started. You know, life, how did it start? What was before then?
Comment by Ben — January 17, 2006 @ 1:24 pm
How life started is out of the scope of the Theory of Evolution.
The Theory of Evolution seeks to explain the diversity of life on Earth -it presupposes the existence of life.
January 17th, 2006 at 1:33 pmCreationism cannot be proven. It can’t be disproved either. If those things were possible I think religions would have some explaing to do.
Comment by Ben — January 17, 2006 @ 1:24 pm
Worse than that -Creationism cannot be falsified, meaning, it cannot be proven false. No amount of evidence can be put forth to falsify it; its proponents can always say “God did it”, or “God wants it so” and the argument would stand. After all, God’s designs are inscrutable.
Creationism is, by its very nature, a metaphysical argument. Again, it is a philosophical stance -not a scientific one.
A scientific theory can be falsified. One must be able to falsify a scientific theory with evidence. That is not the case with Intelligent Design aka Creationism.
January 17th, 2006 at 1:41 pmWell, at least he admits that Intelligent Design is just another term for Creationism.
Good job Ben, the truth will set you free. You have more balls than most religious cooks.
January 17th, 2006 at 1:41 pmBen, you can certainly educate yourself if you’re open about it. All the information is out there. Like this:
January 17th, 2006 at 1:42 pmhttp://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
You are misunderstanding the argument.
The argument is that Intelligent Design is not science and hence does not belong in a science classroom.
Nothing more.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — January 17, 2006 @ 1:31 pm
OH, I see, can’t be taught in the science class. Gregor, I did not know that was the rub. Could it be taught in a class the same as Greek Mythology is taught in a class? Could Greek Mythology be construed as a type of religion? Or maybe the Mayan Indians?
I don’t really care about when or where it’s discussed. But to exclude the logic behind of one third of the world’s population and yet include that of another group which is significantly fewer people does not seem right.
January 17th, 2006 at 1:45 pmYES. YES YES YES.
OMG, I am so happy for you Ben, you finally figured it out. It should be taught in a World Cultures Class or something like that, not a science class.
January 17th, 2006 at 1:47 pmI am not proclaiming to be some scientist. I recognize that the human body has changed over time.
Comment by Ben — January 17, 2006 @ 1:24 pm
With that statement, you have just accepted evolution is a fact. From the wikipedia:
In biology, evolution is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation.
Evolution
I was stating that the fact that human evolved from something other than being a human originally has not been proven.
What you are talking about here is a very specific aspect of the evolutionary process, to wit, speciation.
Also, nothing in science is “proven”. You either have evidence that points to a conclusion, or against it.
Scientific theories are models that explain observed facts and phenomena. The Theory of Evolution seeks to explain the fact of evolution.
The explanation is based on evidence -of which there is plenty. No evidence has surfaced so far that would point against the fact of evolution or falsify the Theory of Evolution.
Also, the Theory of Evolution is now a Highly Confirmed Scientific Theory.
Check the wikipedia for a list of scientific theories
January 17th, 2006 at 1:58 pmOkay guys and gals got to scoot. I will read some of those links posted later tonight. Always open to others opinions. Wish everyone would be.
Worse than that -Creationism cannot be falsified, meaning, it cannot be proven false. No amount of evidence can be put forth to falsify it; its proponents can always say “God did itâ€, or “God wants it so†and the argument would stand. After all, God’s designs are inscrutable.
Creationism is, by its very nature, a metaphysical argument. Again, it is a philosophical stance -not a scientific one.
A scientific theory can be falsified. One must be able to falsify a scientific theory with evidence. That is not the case with Intelligent Design aka Creationism.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — January 17, 2006 @ 1:41 pm
I agree with that. But if the philosophical stance turns out to be true then it would be a scientific one. Again, I believe it is important to discuss in school what creationism or intelligent design is and that it is a belief or theory and cannot be proven or disproven.
January 17th, 2006 at 2:02 pmCould it be taught in a class the same as Greek Mythology is taught in a class?
Comment by Ben — January 17, 2006 @ 1:45 pm
Yes
Could Greek Mythology be construed as a type of religion? Or maybe the Mayan Indians?
“Construed”? “CONSTRUED”!?!?!?!?!
Greek Mythology IS a religion – a dead one, to be sure, since nobody believes in it anymore. The same goes for the Mayan religion. That was a very ignorant comment.
Also, yours was a sad, feeble atttempt at a put down of both ancient Greeks, Mayans, and their cultures.
January 17th, 2006 at 2:02 pm“OH, I see, can’t be taught in the science class. Gregor, I did not know that was the rub. Could it be taught in a class the same as Greek Mythology is taught in a class? Could Greek Mythology be construed as a type of religion? Or maybe the Mayan Indians? Ben”
All religion is always a wierd mix of philosoply and mythology, whether it’s greek or otherwise. And the same is true for Christianity. The fact that you believe that one of your ‘gods’ was born from a virgin is in fact similar to the Greeks – where Hercules was born of a virgin priestess, and Athena sprang from Zeus.
“I don’t really care about when or where it’s discussed. But to exclude the logic behind of one third of the world’s population and yet include that of another group which is significantly fewer people does not seem right. Ben”
So you’re saying that if the majority of people believed that the world is flat, you’re OK with teaching that in science class. Wow. You sure have a strange idea of what belongs in science class. See what people ‘believe’ isn’t relevant in science class generally, it’s what they can prove. Are you saying you can prove the bible’s story of creation? Because all science I’ve read on the topic 100% disproves it. Science proves Christianity is a ‘myth’, just like Greek mythology.
January 17th, 2006 at 2:02 pm“I agree with that. But if the philosophical stance turns out to be true then it would be a scientific one. Again, I believe it is important to discuss in school what creationism or intelligent design is and that it is a belief or theory and cannot be proven or disproven. Ben”
If it cannot be proven, it isn’t a theory, it’s a religion. See the difference between ID and Evolution, is that Evolution has scientific proof, and ID doesn’t.
January 17th, 2006 at 2:04 pmI always like to remind people that if there really was intelligent design or god shaping us from mud he wouldn’t have been unintelligent enough to create an appendix who’s sole purpose is to kill us with little warning. It’s a useless organ, and a horribly unintelligent design. In one fell swoop you’ve shown that Intelligent Design and Divine Creationism is nonsense mythology.
January 17th, 2006 at 2:10 pmBen,
I have a couple of definitions I would like you to ponder:
Main Entry: myth
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek mythos
1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY
3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
Main Entry: my·thol·o·gy
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French mythologie, from Late Latin mythologia interpretation of myths, from Greek, legend, myth, from mythologein to relate myths, from mythos + logos speech — more at LEGEND
1 : an allegorical narrative
2 : a body of myths : as a : the myths dealing with the gods, demigods, and legendary heroes of a particular people b : MYTHOS
3 : a branch of knowledge that deals with myth
And now try to apply that to your own religious beliefs.
While you sneeringly call the ancient Greek and Mayan religions “myths”, please keep in mind that for those peoples their gods were as real as your god is to you -those gods also delivered rains, sunshine, food, and inflicted punishment on those who misbehaved while showering blessings on those who were in their favour.
Whose religion is the “true” religion? Whose god is the true god”?
January 17th, 2006 at 2:16 pmRightPunch,
January 17th, 2006 at 2:16 pmRight — the breeding of animals and the development of new plant species.
By the way, I just read that humans have half their DNA in common with bananas. Gives new meaning to Chiquita Banana.
Also, to paraphrase Garrison Keillor, if there is ID of the human body, why was the playground placed so close to the dump?
But if the philosophical stance turns out to be true then it would be a scientific one.
Comment by Ben — January 17, 2006 @ 2:02 pm
Until that happens, it should be kept out of the science classroom.
Again, I believe it is important to discuss in school what creationism or intelligent design is and that it is a belief or theory and cannot be proven or disproven.
This sounds like a course on Philosophy of Science. Again, philosophy. Not science.
January 17th, 2006 at 2:19 pm#34 If I read you right you assume that christians do not have evolution as a prt of their beliefs? Is that correct? If that is your thought, then once again you are wrong. I am a christian and I believe very firmly that evolution is scientific fact. Which if fact, it does not matter what I believe now does it?
And of course you still push the evolution as only a theory angle. However in science, which is what we are discussing, a theory is as good as gold. In phillosophy, the realm ID falls into a theory is a guess.
At least admit that ID is not science. However if you wish to teach your children that ID is science and is fact then go right ahead. I, on the otherhand, do not want crap pseudo science being taught to my kids. How psuedo science is defined is probably going to be a point of contention between us, but to me science is science and phllosophy is phillosophy. If all you have is a belief in soemthign with NO EVIDENCE to support it, then all you have is a belief system.
What was here before life? I have no idea and the theory of natural selection makes no claims about that either. My guess based on my readings is that the world was full of gasses, radiation, water, molten and solid rock etc… Anyhow I’ll take the millions upon millions of documented pages of evidence supporting natural selection, over the short passage in the bible.
You knwo what will convince me that ID proponants might have it right? Rabbit fossils sitting saide by side with the big dionsaur fossils. Or what amounts to a modern version of the hosre skeleton being found side by side with those prehistoric horse fossils. How about a modern human fossil buried in the rock along side a dinosaur or australopithicus? This will show that mammals existed side by side with the creatures they supposedly evolved from. As soon as the ID & creationist people can show me that these beings all existed at the same time, I’ll start to believe Untill then I’ll stick with real science.
Besides in the long run for christians it really does not matter what our origins are does it? If that has any effecct on your faith, then your faith is too shaky.
One thing ID proponants have no clue about is the passage of time and just how long one billion years is. Now compound that billion by addiung three to five billion more years and suddenly the notion of time is absolutely mind boggling.
January 17th, 2006 at 2:23 pmIf we’re going to teach Christianity in school,then we should do so in a mythology course along with all the other myths that mankind has concocted.
January 17th, 2006 at 2:49 pm#63 – If you don’t believe in the ‘theory of evolution’ then I can only assume that you do not request a flu shot on an annual basis.
Don’t forget that the flu virus ‘evolves’ annually into a different strain. Each year, the vaccine is built around the strains that have ‘evolved’ beyond the ability of the previous vaccine to successfully combat.
Therefore, if you feel that human evolution is unproven then you must logically believe that evolution is unproven. This, by extension, means that you must believe that evolution does not work anywhere. Therefore, you must not want to get a flu vaccine.
Of course, it would be ludicrous to assume that any opposition to evolution assumes opposition to all evolution. (I just had to twist your knickers into a knot. ;-)
Since you’ve stated your opposition to evolution, could you explain why there are fossils of horses that had three-four toes instead of a hoof, and why there are no fossils of horses with hooves of the same carbon-dated age? Or maybe could you explain why there are no three-four toed horses running around today, but there were a whole bunch a few thousand years ago?
January 17th, 2006 at 3:03 pm#64 – While I consider myself a Christian, I agree with you completely.
If the proponents of Intelligent Design are so adamant about having their “faith” shrouded in the guise of “theory” then it should be classified the same way all “faith” is classified. “Myths†are just “faiths” that no longer have adherents.
Also, if the “theory” of ID is based on the Bible, why don’t the proponents care to have the validity of the Bible questioned? Or what about all the inconsistencies and contradictions in the bible? If the “theory†of faith is so convincing, why are the contradictions swept under the rug?
January 17th, 2006 at 3:08 pm#64 I think you have me confused with someone else or perhaps you have mis interpreted my comments. I fully believe that the theory of natural selection is correct.
January 17th, 2006 at 3:11 pmOops that should have been #65, my mistake.
January 17th, 2006 at 3:11 pmNo person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States.
The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.
Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.
January 17th, 2006 at 3:31 pmWhen ever this topic comes up, it seems to follow a certain pattern. Those in denial like to flop out the word “theory”, and say that their interpretation of what the word means just shows how questionable the evolution theory is. And with a typical “so there!” sort of challenge to prove them wrong. I would like to hear them explain their “theory”, beyond glomming on to TOE, saying,”well, since you can’t explain EVERYTHING, your whole premise is wrong.” Is that the best they can do? Well, I would like to know, if God created Adam and Eve, and they had 2 kids, and one brother killed the other, and was banished, where did he find the wife he later showed up with? Please tell me!!! I like a good mystery, but I need to know this one. Spill!! And, wouldn’t incest have been needed to populate the Earth? Kinda creepy, don’t you think? So… show me yours!
January 17th, 2006 at 3:36 pmCyra,
January 17th, 2006 at 3:40 pmIn a totally creepy way, you answered your own question. Think about it.
May the flying spaghetti monster bless us all (and may he/she eat Ben first).
Comment by Optimist — January 17, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
Flying spaghetti monster? and here I am looking at Trinary vertex theory, Gravitational Waves and Zero point energy fields, accreation of matter thru the doubling of the Cube and the golden ratio 1.618…But I know of what you speak. As do the Halls of Amenti
Thoht was chased by the Horlets, the Angles, while Thoght circled back to his body, he was chased by these horlets from the clear.
So if you look into the LISA nasa program, the kuiper belt, you shall fine these trinaries chasing the Single.
Paralells of the texts..
January 17th, 2006 at 3:46 pmhttp://lisa.jpl.nasa.gov/WHATIS/grav-wave.html
#67 & 68: My pardon! I’m a bit busy, and wasn’t paying attention to what I was responding to in my post.
Next time, I’ll double check before I inadvertently shoot myself in the foot! If only the trolls would do the same, it would eliminate the need to show them the error of their ways!
January 17th, 2006 at 3:51 pmCyra,
There were actually three bothers. But, your arguement still stands.
Cain
Able
Seth
This stuff is always weird. Check this out.
“And Adam said to Eve, ‘Behold, I have begotten a son, in place of Abel, whom Cain slew.’ And after Adam had begotten Seth, he lived eight hundred years and begat thirty sons and thirty daughters; in all sixty-three children. And they were increased over the face of the earth in their nations.”
As afr as I know, 30+30=60. What the hell were the other three if they weren’t boys or girls? And like you said, Who was Seth F’ing to make these kids? As far as I know, Eve was the only female at that point.
January 17th, 2006 at 3:55 pmRead the link LISA about the Tremors in space, then read socrates the shaking of the Earth, Poseidon. Read Thoht, emerald tablet and the vibrations..
Seek the number three. As the Pyramid, lights are angles,
O . A point
1 _. length
2_._ width
3_|_ Height
connect the lines to make the angle, 6 of these connect them a shell as Nautilus, a torus will you make, more and more larger still the Pi of the earth the Pi of the circle.
A 3-d Hadron or Hedron if you will
The sun a Photon very large?
The people very small?
Aei Pei isnt that Motion as the Waves? as the waves resonate the earth does not thy Cranium thus resonate?
For does not order come from chaos?
for does not socrates speak of the Flux, the lines of ley, the aether the shaking of Space?
What does confuse thy about life? So simple look and see.
January 17th, 2006 at 3:58 pmyou are all and all are we
January 17th, 2006 at 4:07 pmseek thee light take the light
see the time as in the mirrors
slices perfectly smaller
the space inbetween as that of the Line of lubber
forget thy names and see thy actions
myths link truth link science
for the light is inside of you
take it grab it expand your mind
There is no room in science class for mysticism and fairy tales. Leave that to fantasy 101.
January 17th, 2006 at 4:50 pm#74 Spudge,
I think that what they would have us believe is that after having Seth, he had 30 plus 30 more children making 63 in all (counting the first three named sons.)
I had heard once (and it made a lot more sense than the King James version of the Bible) that the hebrew word translated as “years” was actually supposed to be “months” or “moons”. If so, then we can cut down all those old-timers’ ages to 1/12 or 1/13 of what they said they were. (12 if it’s supposed to be months; 13 if moons, since there is a new moon every 28 days). This would put Methuselah’s true age at more like 70-75 years, which really makes a hell of a lot more sense when you thknk about it. Sure, life expectancy was much lower then, but 75 years would not have been impossible. But, as they like to tell us, it’s just a “theory” and therefore it doesn’t mean anything.
Otherwise, the creation myth espoused in the Bible is no more valid to me than the Native American creation myths that involve things like a giant bear throwing up all the stars and planets and such. Equally valid.
January 17th, 2006 at 4:54 pm#78
Wayne,
You are correct. They are speaking of Adam and not Seth.
So, then it was those 63 girls and boys that helped to populate the Earth. Wouldn’t that be insest? Ewwww.
January 17th, 2006 at 5:15 pmSpudge,
Yes, it was incest, but the religious leaders believe that incest was ‘ok’ then. I’ve heard these poor fellows say that incest only became a problem as man became polluted from his wickedness (whatever the heck that means). These people are off their crackers, and religion is their insanity plea. Poor things.
January 17th, 2006 at 5:19 pm#52 – Hey missing link, unintelligent design is supernatural bullshit. I would never want children to stop asking how life began. Unintelligent design is merely a cop out. ID is for the nonthinker.
Dang, Cletus, this here world is so big and thar’s so much stuff around here it must be sumthin bigger’en us we ain’t seen to go beginnin it.
January 17th, 2006 at 5:22 pm#78 I LIKE that theory better. Giant bears throwing up stars? That is truly brilliant and beautiful. And hell, sounds a lot more plausible than that snake crap.
January 17th, 2006 at 5:25 pm#52 Greek, ROman, Egyptian etal mythology is not taught in science class. They are not taught as fact, they are taught as myth. Can’t you even see the incinsistencey of your own postings?
January 17th, 2006 at 5:45 pmOtherwise, the creation myth espoused in the Bible is no more valid to me than the Native American creation myths that involve things like a giant bear throwing up all the stars and planets and such. Equally valid.
equally parallel
January 17th, 2006 at 6:02 pmself pump phase conjugate universe 1% baryon
time light mirror
inconsistency is consistency
parallel the stories
not equally validate
January 17th, 2006 at 6:04 pmfor thats opinion
opinion is argument
see not bias
bias blinds you by age and religion and time
#34 In fact, a Great part of the Christians are Catholics and, yes, they believe in evolution, as states this edict from the Vatican: Pope John Paul II declares Evolution A FACT
This lets only some branches of protestants and orthodox christians believing in archaic believings as of today.
January 17th, 2006 at 7:49 pmOne third of the worlds’s population is Christian. I don’t think that human evolution is part of their beliefs. That is almost 2 billion people. Why is it so difficult to say the facts.
Comment by Ben — January 17, 2006 @ 1:10 pm
Catholicism is one of the world’s major religions, with about 1.1 billion followers. That’s roughly half of the world’s Christians today.
As Evil Spaniard already said, the Catholic Church sees no conflict between their tenets and the Theory of Evolution.
And the Catholic Church is not alone: Most Christian denominations accept evolution as a fact -including human evolution- and have abandoned the literal interpretation of the Bible:
Evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis; however, according to the two oldest branches of Christianity (Orthodoxy and Catholicism; and most Protestant Churches, these days), Biblical Literalism is not mandatory.
Theistic evolution
Your disbelief that good Christians could accept the fact of evolution is rather baffling.
January 17th, 2006 at 8:06 pm