RoR: Forum

Toto, I'm glad we're not in Kansas anymore.

Ethan

(Actually I've never even been to Kansas)

(Now I know Why)

Post 1

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 4:23pm

Ethan:
You're not missing much!

Christy

Post 2

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 4:48pm

Seems like it's less and less every day to miss, too...

Post 3

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 7:46pm

Aw come on now - that's just not fair!

If a state is to be judged on the quality of its politicians what does Chappaquiddick Ted Kennedy say about Massachusetts???

You guys are just jealous because your states don't have the world's biggest ball of twine!!

Bahahahaha

(Edited by Robert Winefield on 11/08, 8:35pm)

Post 4

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 8:07pm

Massachusetts hit the bottom after John Quincy Adams died... Teddy who?

Post 5

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 9:17pm

Wolf, where are you? [inside joke]

In my view, reactions could go both ways:

Way #1: Folks'll get hysterically religious (because "science" is no longer considered as merely "natural" -- but, also, "supernatural")

Way #2: Folks'll see how groundless creationism is (as compared to evolutionary theory), and drop it like a hot potato.

Any predictions?

Ed

Post 6

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 10:30pm

You really have to ask?

(Edited by robert malcom on 11/08, 10:33pm)

Post 7

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 - 4:44am

People who opposethe teaching of evolution generally base their position on the fact that it hasn't happened to them yet!

Post 8

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 - 8:20am

Those theist bastards!!!
This is why government schools are gutter trash.
If there are going to be state science standards, let scientists decide them, you assholes on the KBOE! Nonbiologists should not get to decide what is good biology and what is bad biology.

This better not go unanswered. I expect to see that lawsuit really soon, as well as a battle over the Establishment Clause. If we don't win this, America will be even more fucked over than it already is.

Excuse the language. "It's all about context!"

Post 9

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 - 9:57am

Here I am Ed.

Until evolutionists can answer Mivart's objections, they will be lumbered with ID. The ball is in their court. Once they solve it, ID will evanesce as quickly as the morning dew.

http://www.arn.org/blogsq/index.php?cat=22

(Edited by Robert Davison on 11/09, 10:29am)

Post 10

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 - 10:33am

Actually Mark it isn't the Theist's fault.

They as taxpayers just want their kids to be taught according to the ideals they hold dear. In so doing they run roughshod over the wishes of the wishes of atheist taxpayers.

The problem is that both sides accept as natural the role government currently plays in education.

Remove coercion from the realm of education and nobody will give a rat's-arse about whether you send your kids to be educated by Theists or Atheists.

Post 11

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 - 10:41am

Robert,

Interesting link. The problem with ID, however, is that the Intelligent Designer falls victim to the question of how it came about. Who or what created the creator? Darwin's theory is just that, a theory that fits the evidence. If evidence proves it false, then we have room for debate. That's fine, but that still doesn't get us to an acceptance of ID, due to the issue I mentioned here.

Ethan

Post 12

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 - 10:43am

Good point Robert W.

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 - 11:03am

Ethan, it's not only about how the creator being originated, but about why the ID movement exists at all. If everyone were thinking about nature as opposed to "supernature", ID would not have come up at all. As it is, however, the whole motive of the movement deals with religion (or perhaps aliens, but not to many), or at least gods/God.

And to whomever said it's not the theists' fault: I meant the ones on the Board. They have disregarded/misinterpreted the Establishment Clause.

Post 14

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 - 11:09am

Mark,

I don't disagree. I'm just pointing out the logical inconsistency of ID.

Ethan

Post 15

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 - 11:10am

Ethan,

I guess I have to say again that I do not favor ID except as an agent of change.

Post 16

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 - 11:24am

Robert D.

Do you mean as an agent of change to the thoughtless acceptance of evolution that most people have?

Ethan

Post 17

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 - 1:51pm

"Most people" have a thoughtless acceptance of it?

Post 18

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 - 5:12pm

Ethan,

That's exactly what I believe. There is much to be said for evolutionary (not necessarily Darwinian) theory, but it needs major tweeking. It has been in the hands of the uniformitarians for way too long. Up 'til now it has been career suicide for a scientist to suggest a new think, and grants certainly are not available for anything other than traditionally accepted research, usually digs.

Because no one wants ID, it will be a catalyst for a renaissance in evolutionary studies and result in the ultimate desmise of ID.

Post 19

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 - 5:58pm