| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
07 Jan 2004 02:20:04 AM |
| Object: |
Guest Opinion: Open letter to the Darby School Board |
From the article:
---------------------------------------
On Dec. 10 at Darby School a presentation on intelligent design was
made by Minister Curtis Brickley. It was a multi-media, mixed
power-point and video presentation, attended by 150 people with stacks
of free videos on the topic available to all. The presentation was
slick and convincing, but wholly disingenuous and misleading.
ID is premised on a partial acknowledgment of science and evolution.
ID, however, insists that there is a level of complexity to living
creatures that cannot be attributed to the random selection premise of
traditional evolutionary theory. ID insists that there has to have
been an “intelligent designer,” namely God. ID supporters start with
the premise of divine intervention and then work backwards to find
evidence. This is certainly a noble endeavor, but it should in no way
be confused with science.
-----------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2004/01/01/build/education/guest-id.php?nnn=5
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "Geoff Offermann" |
|
| Title: Re: Guest Opinion: Open letter to the Darby School Board |
07 Jan 2004 06:36:00 AM |
|
|
"Jason Spaceman" <I@Eat.Spammers.For.Breakfast.com> wrote in message
news:tbgnvv49fhi3bi1283k9qi527t9e5bn3m9@4ax.com...
From the article:
---------------------------------------
On Dec. 10 at Darby School a presentation on intelligent design was
made by Minister Curtis Brickley. It was a multi-media, mixed
power-point and video presentation, attended by 150 people with stacks
of free videos on the topic available to all. The presentation was
slick and convincing, but wholly disingenuous and misleading.
ID is premised on a partial acknowledgment of science and evolution.
ID, however, insists that there is a level of complexity to living
creatures that cannot be attributed to the random selection premise of
traditional evolutionary theory. ID insists that there has to have
been an "intelligent designer," namely God. ID supporters start with
the premise of divine intervention and then work backwards to find
evidence. This is certainly a noble endeavor, but it should in no way
be confused with science.
-----------------------------------------
"Noble endeavor"? In what sense noble?
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Klee" |
|
| Title: Re: Guest Opinion: Open letter to the Darby School Board |
07 Jan 2004 09:57:59 PM |
|
|
In article <n5TKb.766538$Tr4.2202733@attbi_s03>, Geoff Offermann
<gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
"Jason Spaceman" <I@Eat.Spammers.For.Breakfast.com> wrote in message
news:tbgnvv49fhi3bi1283k9qi527t9e5bn3m9@4ax.com...
From the article:
---------------------------------------
On Dec. 10 at Darby School a presentation on intelligent design was
made by Minister Curtis Brickley. It was a multi-media, mixed
power-point and video presentation, attended by 150 people with stacks
of free videos on the topic available to all. The presentation was
slick and convincing, but wholly disingenuous and misleading.
ID is premised on a partial acknowledgment of science and evolution.
ID, however, insists that there is a level of complexity to living
creatures that cannot be attributed to the random selection premise of
traditional evolutionary theory. ID insists that there has to have
been an "intelligent designer," namely God. ID supporters start with
the premise of divine intervention and then work backwards to find
evidence. This is certainly a noble endeavor, but it should in no way
be confused with science.
-----------------------------------------
"Noble endeavor"? In what sense noble?
If he's busy lying about evolution, he's not fucking children. That's a
plus.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Guest Opinion: Open letter to the Darby School Board |
07 Jan 2004 05:11:26 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 08:20:04 +0000, Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------------- On Dec. 10 at Darby School a
presentation on intelligent design was made by Minister Curtis Brickley.
It was a multi-media, mixed power-point and video presentation, attended
by 150 people with stacks of free videos on the topic available to all.
The presentation was slick and convincing, but wholly disingenuous and
misleading.
ID is premised on a partial acknowledgment of science and evolution. ID,
however, insists that there is a level of complexity to living creatures
that cannot be attributed to the random selection premise of traditional
evolutionary theory. ID insists that there has to have been an
“intelligent designer,” namely God. ID supporters start with the premise
of divine intervention and then work backwards to find evidence. This is
certainly a noble endeavor, but it should in no way be confused with
science.
-----------------------------------------
I don't suppose the fact that a _minister_ was making the case tipped
anyone off.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Guest Opinion: Open letter to the Darby School Board |
08 Jan 2004 01:34:27 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 08:20:04 +0000 (UTC), Jason Spaceman
<I@Eat.Spammers.For.Breakfast.com> wrote:
From the article:
---------------------------------------
On Dec. 10 at Darby School a presentation on intelligent design was
made by Minister Curtis Brickley. It was a multi-media, mixed
power-point and video presentation, attended by 150 people with stacks
of free videos on the topic available to all. The presentation was
slick and convincing, but wholly disingenuous and misleading.
ID is premised on a partial acknowledgment of science and evolution.
ID, however, insists that there is a level of complexity to living
creatures that cannot be attributed to the random selection premise of
traditional evolutionary theory. ID insists that there has to have
been an “intelligent designer,” namely God. ID supporters start with
the premise of divine intervention and then work backwards to find
evidence. This is certainly a noble endeavor, but it should in no way
be confused with science.
-----------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2004/01/01/build/education/guest-id.php?nnn=5
It's totally inappropriate to be presenting raw theories to school
administrations and parent to be taught to students. There is a well
documented process for theories to pass through before they are proven
enough to teach at lower school levels.
Why doesn't anyone challenge these stupid onslaughts at that level?
Usually it takes the presence of a co-conspirator elected to a school
board before these get this far.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Guest Opinion: Open letter to the Darby School Board |
10 Jan 2004 12:16:23 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 07:34:27 +0000 (UTC), (Kate ),
Message ID: <40020671.11145437@news-west.newscene.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 08:20:04 +0000 (UTC), Jason Spaceman
<I@Eat.Spammers.For.Breakfast.com> wrote:
From the article:
---------------------------------------
On Dec. 10 at Darby School a presentation on intelligent design was
made by Minister Curtis Brickley. It was a multi-media, mixed
power-point and video presentation, attended by 150 people with stacks
of free videos on the topic available to all. The presentation was
slick and convincing, but wholly disingenuous and misleading.
ID is premised on a partial acknowledgment of science and evolution.
ID, however, insists that there is a level of complexity to living
creatures that cannot be attributed to the random selection premise of
traditional evolutionary theory. ID insists that there has to have
been an “intelligent designer,” namely God. ID supporters start with
the premise of divine intervention and then work backwards to find
evidence. This is certainly a noble endeavor, but it should in no way
be confused with science.
-----------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2004/01/01/build/education/guest-id.php?nnn=5
It's totally inappropriate to be presenting raw theories to school
administrations and parent to be taught to students.
ID is *not* a theory. It's nothing other than poorly cloaked
superstitious *****.
There is a well
documented process for theories to pass through before they are proven
enough to teach at lower school levels.
But that requires objective evidence and integrity-which is lacking in
the superstition industry.
Why doesn't anyone challenge these stupid onslaughts at that level?
The american populace, in the main, is terribly uneducated. The
american populace, in the main, has no backbone much less the desire
(and/or ability) to think.
Usually it takes the presence of a co-conspirator elected to a school
board before these get this far.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
