If Utah schools force teachers to teach about Intelligent design....

[Sean Reynolds]

Does that mean I can sue the State of Utah and force them to teach my belief on how we all got here? I believe little UFOs came down and dropped off small elves that lived in the ground for decades. Then one day they came up, pooped out life and that's where we all came from.

Now I understand there's no scientific evidence to back my claim up, however I haven't seen any scientific evidence to back up intelligent design either.

So if we're going to allow one belief, why not allow all?

[opihimoimoi]

1. They have absolutely no EVIDENCE of Intelligent Design because

they have no evidence of the designer and who designed the designer

its conjecture at its worst, designed to fool people..

almost on the level of Fatal Rationalization....

[KansDem]

33. I was wondering about this...

How does one teach Intelligent Design?

I mean, what is the knowledge base? How detailed is the research? How extensive are the writings?

In other words, if one were given the task of planning a 15-week course with three one-hour meetings a week (45 class meetings total), how would one go about organizing a course syllabus with lectures, papers, projects, research & analysis, readings, bibliography, etc? What would the text be?

Is this even possible?

[WildClarySage]

2. And I want students taught that the universe was hatched from a blue

footed booby egg.

Actually, it was a simple goose, I just like saying the word "booby".

[Erika]

3. I heard the creator of intelligent design was a blue grasshopper

and you know how Utah Mormons think of grasshoppers. The "great spirit" in the sky.

[Mythsaje]

4. I tend to think

the idea of the Earth being seeded by aliens as being MORE rational than their "theory."

Of course, I also tend to think that revealed religion is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated against mankind.

The only true answer to the question is "I don't know."

[musical_soul]

5. True.

Why can't these people leave teaching religious beliefs for the churches? I understand there is so called "scientific" reasons behind IT, but they can teach that at home or in church as well. IT is not science.

[demwing]

6. Why do you care?

If you don't think that one creation theory (biblical) should be taught next to another creation theory (evolution), then home school your kids, if you have any.

Please don't try to make a mountain out of this molehill.

If various beliefs are presented as beliefs, and then evolution is taught honestly--warts and all, then no one should care.

I don't see the problem with discussing religious beliefs along side of scientific theory, asl long as one doesnot push the God of either the church, or the science lab.

[Sean Reynolds]

7. Because...

I don't think our PUBLIC schools should dictate religious beliefs without full scientific evidence. If we allow this, why not allow other theories as well? Where do you draw the line?

[demwing]

9. Dictate?

What is it about discussing an idea, or even teaching the basics of a belief, that translates into "dictate" ???

[Sean Reynolds]

18. Oh I don't know.....

Because they're the ideas of CHRISTIAN America and that's pretty much it?

They're not teaching the basic beliefs of other people's opinion's on how we got here. So why I allow them to teach the Christian belief?

[Ediacara]

19. If it was just "discussing"

I wouldn't have a problem. If ID were discussed in a comparative religions class, prefaced by the caveat, "People who believe in intelligent design creationism believe in x, y, and z," I would have no problem.

But it isn't just "discussing." Proponents of ID creationism want it taught (not just discussed) in biology classes as a valid scientific alternative to biotic evolution. In most cases the motives are to teach ID creationism in place of biotic evolution.

That's the problem, that's where dictate comes into play.

ON EDIT: Spelling.

[GracieM]

21. Christians believe X?

Or the prevailing theory among these religions is Intelligent Design.

I have serious problems with the 'theory' being taught as truth, but I have no problem with the theory being mentioned in the proper context. Such as: "Despite no scientific evidence, many religious fundamentalists believe....X. Other religions believe that the earth is the center of the universe."

[The Night Owl]

22. No theory should be taught as truth, but ID does not even qualify...

No theory should be taught as truth, but ID does not even qualify as scientific theory, let alone truth. ID is deeply flawed even when taken as a purely philosphical concept.

[GracieM]

24. While the concept might not qualify as theory

it is a fact that some people believe in the concept. I don't mind the teaching of that fact.

[Ediacara]

25. Again though

The proper place should be a comparitive religions class, not a science class.

[GracieM]

27. Probably...

Problem is as soon as you allow it anywhere...what do they say about a camel and a tent....

[Ediacara]

10. Because it isn't true

It's akin to saying that Bush invaded Panama because Noriega nuked Louisville, KY; and that this idea should be taught in history classes along side the theory of the historical establishment. In other words, it's lying.

And as to why ID is unscientific? 1) It relies on the supernatural 2) It's essentially a philosophy of laziness (I can't think of how this happened, so it must have been magic) 3) It relies on axioms that are at best, questionable in their validity, primary among them is the concept of irreducible complexity.

I'm curious.... what's the God of the science lab?

[ibegurpard]

12. While I don't think you can say it's NOT true

neither can you say it IS. It is untestable, unquantifiable, and unsupportable by anything other than personal belief. Hence, it does NOT belong in SCIENCE classes. Period.

[Ediacara]

14. It's untrue in the same sense that Noriega nuking Kentucky is untrue

They both could have happened. Just because there is absolutely no data suggesting that anything remotely similar actually happened, doesn't mean it didn't. Everyone in Kentucky and Ohio could have been brainwashed, and Louisville could have been rebuilt with holograms. :-)

So essentially... ID is untrue because it's a claim with no data, and no method of testing.

[fujiyama]

15. Intelligent Design

is a Trojan Horse for teaching creationism in the schools. It's not science and does NOT belong in a freakin science class.

Why should someone have to homeschool their child if they don't want them fed a bunch of religious crap in the name of science?

By the way, which creation story should be tought in class? Why should just the Christian story be tought? Why not native American stories? Hindu/Buddhist creation stories?

Maybe you didn't read that the US has lost its edge on the sciences. It's because of shit like this.

[The Night Owl]

16. The problem is that ID supporters are pushing their ideas as science.

Supporters of ID are not satisfied to merely have their ideas brought into the classroom. They want their ideas brought into the classroom and presented as science.

ID conjecture is not science. Why even have a class called science class if it is to be a free-for-all forum of both philosphical and scientific ideas?

[fujiyama]

17. Exactly

Science can be falsified and tested.

My impression of ID is that it is a "God fill in the gaps" theory. Why bother asking anyone questions when you can just say "Because Goddidit" or "Because Godsayso".

[Viking12]

26. Pssst....Evolution is not a "creation" theory

Get. A. Clue.

[demwing]

28. Psst...You're "whispering" through your keyboard!

Are you saying that evolution does not attempt to explain the creation of life, or that the theory of evolution is not actually a "theory"?

Either answer would be interesting.

If the evolutionary concept was never meant to explain the creation of life, then why worry about creation theories at all? They obviously don't contradict evolution.

Maybe the real fear is that science, for all it's grandeur, doesn't have a clue about how life began, and any discussion of the beginnings of life will ultimately bring that informational void to light. Is that it?

BTW - If I get a clue, as you suggest, will I then have to capitalize--and put a period after--each word in a sentence?

I don't think I'm trendy enough for that. Sorry :)

[Viking12]

29. Evolution does not attempt to explain the creation of life

Anyone with a basic education should know this. I'm not "worried" about religious creation stories, they just don't belong in the science classroom.

Maybe the real fear is that science, for all it's grandeur, doesn't have a clue about how life began, and any discussion of the beginnings of life will ultimately bring that informational void to light. Fear? What is there to fear. Science is open about the "informational" void concerning the beginnings of life. Again, a basic education would help us avoid some of these silly assertions.

[0rganism]

31. Creationists get a lot of mileage from conflating abiogenesis & evolution

Because their favorite mythologies don't make a distinction between the creation of life and its continuing development, creationists find it easy to criticize evolution for infringing on creation "territory" even though the theory of evolution says nothing about the ultimate origin of the first living things.

And because that mistake is so easy to make and so plausible to so many, it is usually counterproductive for creationist advocates to clarify the distinction themselves.

[demwing]

35. I feel just the opposite...

I dont see evolution as "infringing on creation 'territory'." What I do see is evolutionists refusing to listen to creation theories because they don't fit into the current matrix of scientific theory.

I dont believe creation and evolution are exclusive, I don't believe in Adam and Eve styled creationism, and I don't believe the world is 5000 some odd years old, but I do believe that there is a God, that spirituality can not be understood through scientific method any more than can love, and as such, intelligent design makes perfect sense.

[ibegurpard]

38. I feel much the same as you

But ideas like this don't belong in science classes.

[demwing]

34. Apparently, all a basic education provides...

...is the instinct to ridicule that which you disbelieve.

I'm so happy to have received better than a basic education.

Why is religion so derided by the "liberal" community? Sure, some liberals are religious, and some non-religious libs are respectful in their disagreement. But it rarely takes long for the pompous, sniggering variety of athiests to enter the debate, act as if they, and they alone understand the nature of truth.

Maybe it really is time for a third party to emerge. One that acknowledges the fact that only about 15% of the population is atheistic or agnostic. One that can balance honest scientific theory with the sincere belief in God, displayed (collectively and individually) by an overwhelming majority of the citizens of this country.

[Viking12]

36. Where have I ridiculed religious belief??

Have I mocked ignorance of science and evolution? Sure. I find it amusing that pointing out someone's ignorance of science can be construed as an attack on that person's religious belief. Apparently the persecution complex is alive and well on DU.

[Vickers]

32. Bwahahahahahaha!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:








Oh, you were serious? Sorry. :(

[ToeBot]

8. No, but the Scientologists will sue you for plagerism... n/t

[Toots]

11. Are you saying your aliens(elves) are not intelligent?

What you are suggesting is the same thing they are suggesting. Some form of intelligence created life. :shrug: I like the Spaghetti idea better.

[Sean Reynolds]

20. Sadly they're not intelligent.

It was only a chance of luck. Inside each elf's feces are human seeds and when exposed to enough sunlight they sprout humans. The reality is, women don't get pregnant through sex! They either eat elf feces or the seed somehow gets into their belly another way.

:D

[markus]

13. Three worsds for you

Flying Spaghetti Monster.

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

[GOPFighter]

23. The FSM is responsible for all life on this planet

And the sooner Utah teaches it the better.

[markus]

30. I'm a Calimarist myself

and everyone knows the Calimari comes before the Spaghetti, but I'm always feeling eccumenical after my second Pinot Grigiot. (All that Noodly Appendage stuff is, well, so derirative of the Tentacle Primorial.

I was a Marinarianist for a long time, but got tired of saying all those rosaries. I mean, how can you eat and do that at the same time? And I kept getting sauce on my scapula.

[GOPFighter]

37. Well, okay...

...I guess it's okay for Utah to include the Calimari theory of creation, however I hear the Nez Perce in that state are furiously against it. (Go figure)

I too had to give up on the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory after I ran into his lordship in a cafe in Wakarusa, Indiana. Too many inconsistencies in his theology (AND he hadn't changed his marinara sauce for days).

[markus]

39. Actually, I think they should just let the LDS teach everything

Yeah, they can talk about Blood Attonement, and that bit where a bunch of horny-handed old men annoint nekkid young brides with oil before their wedding. Talkin' lizards. I mean, I read Casteneda like it was an instruction manual in my misspent youth, but I'm way past my talking lizard stage. I think people would unanimously vote to expell Utah from the union if we just let them have their way. And then we'd have someplace to send Dobson, et al.