Intelligent Design

Jackie Pies

I've been thinking about doing this for awhile....
so back in April + May the Kansas School Board, despite being told by our KS supreme court that they needed to take care of a new school budget as soon as possible (which they still haven't finished taking care of) decided to hold a hearing on Intelligent Design to help them make up their minds about adding it to the school's science curriculum. Being KS, our school board, like 80% of our local government is controlled by the Republican party- it's KS, that's just how it is. So we all know they're gonna add ID to the curriculum anyways b/c some of the members have admitted that they don't care how the hearings go, they've already made up their minds. Besides, last time republicans controlled the board they banned the teaching of Macro-evolution in the school district (some of you may have heard of this) well, it is now again allowed to be taught, but now they want to add ID in there too.
anyways, scientists boycotted the hearings and only ID people really showed up, which is a pretty big movement here in KS, what w/ our Kansas Intelligent Design and its leader John Calvert. One man did show up to argue in favor of science and point out that scientists worldwide largely accept it, but he was merely a local civil rights attorney.
Here's a little tidbit that every news source out here picked up on about one of the board members:A further embarrassment came when, after a witness admitted that he had not read the full draft standards, board member Kathy Martin consoled him by saying, according to the Wichita Eagle, "Please don't feel bad that you haven't read the whole thing because I haven't read it myself."
http://www.cascience.org/kansasncse.html
so what I'm getting at is that soon our highschoolers and middleschoolers will be learning the tenets of Intelligent Design-frankly little more than a dressed up Creationism w/ a few new words, such as Intelligent being or Creater rather than God.
(Kansas can be fucking nuts sometimes, but so help me I still love her)

So what do you think about Intelligent Design? Evolution? Should these stupid kids be taught both? why not leave them ill prepared for when they finally leave this state, as most kids are desperate to do.

Miakal

It's sad that some people still can't accept evolution.

It must be the same people who read Harry Potter and Dan Brown books. But anyway, worse than stupid people is that our government is apparently full of them. Why can't religion, just once, step aside and let educators do their job for once?

thirty7

I got kinda lost in there (lord help me, I'm not that bright) but what i gathered is that they're gonna start teaching more Evolutionary and scientific theories of the creation of humans. If that's the case, it'll have to be treated with great sensitivity as the religious implications come into play. If a kid is a devout follower of their religion, this course should not be taught to them, as it is a right of every single person to follow their religion. When i was in school, it was kinda weird, because in one section of the day, we'd be told about all these great things God did and then after the lunch break, be told about how Dinosaurs came from bacteria. It was all very confusing as a 10 year old.

If I've missed the point, I'm sorry, that's how i understood it.

I wish my sex life was like ECW, first you get a One Night Stand followed by 2 months of nostalgic orgasms and then 6 months of constant sucking.

Jackie Pies

Sorry, Intelligent Design is not evolution. nor is it science. Like I said at the bottom, it's basically creationism w/ a new name and some new terms.
here's a decent enough def:

Although Intelligent Design may have been born out of opposition to the theory of evolution, it does not oppose the concept of evolution as a mechanism for directed, intelligent creation, nor even for limited, apparently undirected natural change. Ostensibly its main purpose is to investigate whether or not there is empirical evidence that life on Earth was designed by an intelligent agent or agents
Proponents of ID look for evidence of what they call signs of intelligence — physical properties of an object that necessitate design
Critics call ID religious dogma repackaged in an effort to return creationism into public school science classrooms and note that ID features notably as part of the campaign known as Teach the Controversy. The National Academy of Sciences and the National Center for Science Education assert that ID is not science, but creationism.^[2] While the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection has observable and repeatable facts to support it such as the process of mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, adaptation and speciation through natural selection, the "Intelligent Designer" in ID is neither observable nor repeatable. This violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability. ID violates Occam's Razor by postulating an entity or entities to explain something that may have a simpler and scientifically supportable explanation not involving unobservable help.

Critics point to the fact that implicit in ID is a redefinition of natural science

ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.


a much shorter def:
Intelligent Design (or ID) is the controversial assertion which states that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by positing an intelligent designer. The majority of ID advocates state that their focus is on detecting evidence of design in nature, without regard to who or what the designer might be. However, ID advocate William Dembski in his book "The Design Inference"^[1] lists God or an alien life force as two possible options. Despite ID sometimes being called Intelligent Design Theory, the scientific community does not recognise ID as a scientific theory and considers it to be creationist pseudoscience. Both the Intelligent Design concept and the associated movement have come under considerable criticism.

thirty7

Aha, don't quite get it completely. It looks interesting though, i may do some research on it

I wish my sex life was like ECW, first you get a One Night Stand followed by 2 months of nostalgic orgasms and then 6 months of constant sucking.

Disco Raheem

What's not to follow? It's saying God created the world without using the word God.

Jackie Pies

I changed up the definition a little, hopefully it's more clear now.

Twisted Nerve

ye thats what i sorta got from it , cant they jus teach al lthe possibillieties ? or is there too much detail ? i think all possibillilites should be acknowledged

thirty7

See the thing is, I'm incredibly stupid. I agree with Twisted though, all theories should be taught, because none can be proven 100% right or wrong

I wish my sex life was like ECW, first you get a One Night Stand followed by 2 months of nostalgic orgasms and then 6 months of constant sucking.

Reilly

Evolution isnt a theory though, its a fact of life.

You have one hand, in which evolution, is backed up by countless bits of evidence, and then you have religion, which is contradicted in just about every way by scientific fact.

Give it time