Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools

Religions > Atheism > Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 7

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	""
Date:	25 Feb 2006 11:28:32 AM
Object:	Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools

Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools
http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/2006/02/24/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/5288dc77ed0bca188625711f0010ef05.txt
Munster Times - Munster,IN,USA
According to Ayesha Khan, legal director for Americans United for
Separation of Church and State, "It is against the constitutional
separation of church and ...
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools	26 Feb 2006 11:37:14 AM

"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

:|You realize the irony that you want religion out of government but have
:|no problem putting government posts in religious groups...right. I
:|guess your separation is a one way street.

The only irony is how you keep sticking your foot in your mouth but never
seem to realize it ahead of time.
Dummy is being dumb again.
Hey dufus, The government doesn't own the posts I post nor are any
religious grioups here really a religious group as in run by a religion,
etc.
Thus your comment is only another example of your ignorance.
You are your own worse enemy, dude. Your comments, over and over again,
show people you have no serious credibility
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools	02 Mar 2006 10:15:49 AM

wrote:

:|buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:
:|> "Wide Eyed in Wonder" <

> wrote:
:|>
:|> >:|You realize the irony that you want religion out of government but have
:|> >:|no problem putting government posts in religious groups...right. I
:|> >:|guess your separation is a one way street.
:|>
:|> The only irony is how you keep sticking your foot in your mouth but never
:|> seem to realize it ahead of time.
:|>
:|> Dummy is being dumb again.
:|>
:|> Hey dufus, The government doesn't own the posts I post nor are any
:|> religious grioups here really a religious group as in run by a religion,
:|> etc.
:|>
:|> Thus your comment is only another example of your ignorance.
:|> You are your own worse enemy, dude. Your comments, over and over again,
:|> show people you have no serious credibility
:|>
:|
:|And what denomination is controlling the religion you say is in
:|government? If you can generalize about the religious, I can put all
:|government talk as part of the "state". If I, being religious, am part
:|of the "church" in your equation, you are part of the "state."

Wnat try the above again and this time try using English
The above makes no sense, however par for the course with you.
You would be better off cutting your losses and poofing again.
But you are fun to watch as you stick ur foot deeper and deeper down your
throat.
BTW dude, all you need to know is found here
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.

User: "fred"
Title: Re: Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools; article fails 10th A. test	25 Feb 2006 12:55:18 PM

wrote:

Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools
http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/2006/02/24/opinion/letters_to_the_=

editor/5288dc77ed0bca188625711f0010ef05.txt

Munster Times - Munster,IN,USA
According to Ayesha Khan, legal director for Americans United for
Separation of Church and State, "It is against the constitutional
separation of church and ...

Sigh. :^(
A typical reference from enemies of the Constitution to words that
aren't even in the Constituton. Anti-religious expression factions
ignore that the Founding States had the power to legislate religion
before they established the federal government and its Constitution.
They also ignore that the Founding Christians reserved the power to
legislate religion uniquely for the States as evidenced by comparing
the 1st and 10th Amendments:
1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.
Indeed, Jefferson, Mr. "wall of separation" himself and hero of
American atheists, even noted the relationship between the 1st and 10th
Amendments:
"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also
expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that
'the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively
or to the people': and that no power over the freedom of religion,
freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US.
by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful
powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the
states or the people..." --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions 1798.
The States have the constitutional power (10th) to authorize public
schools to teach non-mandatory (14th) classes about the pros and cons
of evolution, creationism and irreducible complexity, for example,
regardless that atheists, separationists, secular judges and the
liberal media are misleading the American people to think that teaching
such things in public schools is unconstitutional. But consider that
these secular factions mislead the people because they want to protect
their wallets from bully pulpit preachers who would predictably
overlook that "secular" tax dollars would be spent to buy Bibles for
public school Bible classes, for example. Indeed, Jefferson also had
something to say about their concerns:
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation
of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."
--Thomas Jefferson: Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers 2:545
The bottom line is that the constitutionally ignorant American people
need to wake up to the fact that secular judges are walking all over
their religious freedoms because the states have never gotten their
acts together with respect to making religious tax laws that respect
various religious perspectives. The people need to shake themselves
out of their stupor and heed Lincoln's advice for dealing with corrupt
judges and shortsighted state lawmakers:
"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts
- not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who
pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln: Political debates between
Lincoln and Douglas, 1858

***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS =B7 Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the US and a couple from overseas as well]

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why =

page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisne=

256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************

User: "fred"
Title: Re: Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools; Court misreprentented Jefferson	26 Feb 2006 02:19:00 PM

wrote:

Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools
http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/2006/02/24/opinion/letters_to_the_=

editor/5288dc77ed0bca188625711f0010ef05.txt

Munster Times - Munster,IN,USA
According to Ayesha Khan, legal director for Americans United for
Separation of Church and State, "It is against the constitutional
separation of church and ...

The reason that people, even the legal experts, complain about
so-called constitutional separation of and state violations in the
first place is because anti-religious expression Justices
misrepresented Jefferson by using his words to help justify their
treasonous interpretation of the establishment clause in the Everson
opinion. They did this by including Jefferson's "wall of separation"
words in the same paragraph in the Everson opinion where they defined
their "new and improved" but *unconstitutional* interpretation of the
establishment clause. Note Jefferson's words in the last sentence of
this treasonous paragraph:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at
least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a
church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all
religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor
influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his
will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No
person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or
professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or
non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to
support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be
called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly,
participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and
vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment
of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between
Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page
164." --Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP. 1947.
What people don't understand is that Jefferson had also written that
the Founding Christians had delegated government power to legislate
religion uniquely to the state governments when the Founding States
established the federal government and its Constitution. This is
because the state governments had the power to legislate religion
before they created the federal government anyway. Consider
Jefferson's words:
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to
others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation
belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the
care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious
freedom." --Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262
More specifically, the Founding Christians had written the 1st and 10th
Amendments so that the state governments alone, not the federal
government, would have the power to legislate religion. But not only
did the crooked Everson Justices "inadvertently overlook" any reference
to the 10th A. in the Everson opinion, but they had also overlooked
that Jefferson, Mr. "wall of separation" himself, had also noted the
relationship between the 1st and 10th A. where the unique powers of the
states to legislate religion is concerned:
"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also
expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that
'the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively
or to the people': and that no power over the freedom of religion,
freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US.
by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful
powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the
states or the people..." --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions 1798.
So the States actually have the constitutional power (10th) to
authorize public schools to teach non-mandatory (14th) classes about
the pros and cons of evolution, creationism and irreducible complexity,
for example, regardless that atheists, separationists, secular judges
and the liberal media are misleading the American people to think that
teaching such things in public schools is unconstitutional. But
consider that these secular factions mislead the people because they
want to protect their wallets from bully pulpit preachers who would
predictably overlook that "secular" tax dollars would be spent to buy
Bibles for public school Bible classes, for example. Indeed, Jefferson
had something to say about their concerns too:
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation
of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."
--Thomas Jefferson: Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers 2:545
The bottom line is that the constitutionally ignorant American people
need to wake up to the fact that secular judges are walking all over
their religious freedoms because the states have never gotten their
acts together with respect to making religious tax laws that respect
various religious perspectives. The people need to shake themselves
out of their stupor and heed Lincoln's advice for dealing with corrupt
judges and shortsighted state lawmakers:
"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts
- not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who
pervert the Constitution." --Abraham Lincoln: Political debates between
Lincoln and Douglas, 1858

page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisne=

User: "fred"
Title: Intelligent design discrimination is anti-choice, same as race discrimination	25 Feb 2006 02:54:09 PM

wrote:

Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools
http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/2006/02/24/opinion/letters_to_the_=

editor/5288dc77ed0bca188625711f0010ef05.txt

Munster Times - Munster,IN,USA
According to Ayesha Khan, legal director for Americans United for
Separation of Church and State, "It is against the constitutional
separation of church and ...

There is no reason why students cannot be informed that intelligent
design classes, for example, represent a niche perspective of science
as opposed to more popularly accepted science perspectives before they
choose to sign up for any such non-mandatory class. The bottom line is
that liberal factions are now showing their true colors with respect to
their pro-choice facade and a student's right to choose.

page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisne=

User: "Bert Hyman"
Title: Re: Intelligent design discrimination is anti-choice, same as race discrimination	25 Feb 2006 03:03:42 PM

In news:1140900849.097927.178320@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

There is no reason why students cannot be informed that intelligent
design classes, for example, represent a niche perspective of science

Sure there is; it's not science.
[Any reason you're posting this same message multiple times, to different
newsgroups?]
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com
.

User: "Brian Henderson"
Title: Re: Intelligent design discrimination is anti-choice, same as race discrimination	28 Feb 2006 07:33:36 PM

On 25 Feb 2006 12:54:09 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

Because intelligent design does not represent a niche perspective of
science, intelligent design is not science because it cannot be
tested. ID exists solely to poke holes in evolution, it does not have
one iota of evidence to support itself.
Therefore, ID doesn't belong in a science class until it proves itself
to be demonstrable, testable science. I'm not sure why this is so
hard for people to grasp.
.

User: "Michelle Malkin"
Title: Re: Intelligent design discrimination is anti-choice, same as race discrimination	01 Mar 2006 12:38:01 AM

--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
"Brian Henderson" <BrianL.Henderson@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:e7t902tqs90qphplfokja7l7il81331gsf@4ax.com...

On 25 Feb 2006 12:54:09 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

Because intelligent design does not represent a niche perspective of
science, intelligent design is not science because it cannot be
tested. ID exists solely to poke holes in evolution, it does not have
one iota of evidence to support itself.

Therefore, ID doesn't belong in a science class until it proves itself
to be demonstrable, testable science. I'm not sure why this is so
hard for people to grasp.

The religious fundamentalists you are referring
to are not expected to think. Their leaders don't
want them to think; just to believe what they're
told to believe. That's the whole thing about blind
faith. They believe because they believe (faith has
nothing to do with proof or verification) and refuse
to understand anything that goes against their
beliefs. This could be out of fear of going to hell or
simple laziness.
There's a great article in the current issue of
Discover Magazine about Unintelligent Design.
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
.

User: "Puck Greenman"
Title: Re: Intelligent design discrimination is anti-choice, same as race discrimination	25 Feb 2006 05:09:21 PM

On 25 Feb 2006 12:54:09 -0800, "fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:

buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:

There is no reason why students cannot be informed that intelligent
design classes, for example, represent a niche perspective of science
as opposed to more popularly accepted science perspectives

I can think of one good reason. "Because it doesn't."
The nearest that ID has come to offering any scientific explanation, for anything, is to
say that they don't believe it, or that in their, far from intellectual, opinion, thy
don't think is very probable.
No experiment, no evidence, nothing, nada, zip.
--
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.

.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: Intelligent design discrimination is anti-choice, same as race discrimination	26 Feb 2006 01:16:19 PM

On 25 Feb 2006 12:54:09 -0800, in alt.atheism , "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> in
<1140900849.097927.178320@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> wrote:

buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:

There is no reason why students cannot be informed that intelligent
design classes,

Should children "be informed" on various sexual option? How about drug
use options?

for example, represent a niche perspective of science

It is an empty niche in terms of science.

as opposed to more popularly accepted science perspectives before they
choose to sign up for any such non-mandatory class. The bottom line is
that liberal factions are now showing their true colors with respect to
their pro-choice facade and a student's right to choose.

So show your "true colors", support full student choice on study
topics.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.

User: "MarkA"
Title: Re: Intelligent design discrimination is anti-choice, same as race discrimination	25 Feb 2006 07:21:34 PM

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:54:09 -0800, fred wrote:

buckeye-elo@nospam.net wrote:

There is no reason why students cannot be informed that intelligent design
classes, for example, represent a niche perspective of science as opposed
to more popularly accepted science perspectives before they choose to sign
up for any such non-mandatory class. The bottom line is that liberal
factions are now showing their true colors with respect to their
pro-choice facade and a student's right to choose.

"...a student's right to choose?" Since when do students decide the
content of their curriculum, except for designated 'electives'? In order
to make an informed choice, you have to be familiar with the subject
material. Students, by definition, are not. If they were, they would be
called 'teachers.'
--
MarkA
(this space accidentally filled in)
.

User: "Guitar George"
Title: Re: Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools	08 Mar 2006 06:10:24 AM

Maybe intelligent design doesn't belong in schools, but I wish they
would design the schools intelligently!
GG
.

User: "VRWC10"
Title: Re: Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools	25 Feb 2006 12:04:21 PM

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:28:32 -0500,

wrote:

Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools

If so, then neither does ANY other theory of human origin.
Too bad you libbies don't actually believe in freedom of expression
like one of your favorite shills:
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise,
we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky
.

User: "Larry Hewitt"
Title: Re: Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools	25 Feb 2006 12:24:14 PM

"VRWC10" <private@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mv61029jbordiviflbjus90r9thb7lfvp8@4ax.com...

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:28:32 -0500,

wrote:

Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools

If so, then neither does ANY other theory of human origin.

The problem with your logix is that ID IS NOT a theory, but IS a fable.
Larry

Too bad you libbies don't actually believe in freedom of expression
like one of your favorite shills:

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise,
we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky

User: "Sharon"
Title: Re: Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools	25 Feb 2006 12:58:28 PM

Larry Hewitt wrote:

The problem with your logix is that ID IS NOT a theory, but IS a fable.

My daughter just enquired on planets... stars... the sun... "Mama,
what's a galaxy? Mama what's the Cosmos?" Children have so many
questions.
I pulled out my VHS of "Contact", and just let the intro play... there
we see Earth ...and its radio waves beaming into outer space, and there
you see the camera focusing on the moon -moving farther away ...zipping
past Mars the camera passes by a moon of Jupiter, and then Jupiter
comes into full view and quickly fades into the distance as the viewer
is brought through the static of the asteroid belt, travelling beyond
Saturn and its moons, and the radio waves continuing to go farther back
in time (of course that's mostly science fiction than science about the
radio waves) -- beyond the boundaries of our solar system, back into
silence -- before man developed the technology to make a radio wave
--back until the Milky Way comes into full view. The Milky Way itself
fading into thousands of other similar and disimilar galaxies -- the
short intro ends, leaving the rest to human imagination -- the cosmos
is inconceivable to the human mind (but biblical believers tell us now
the ancient Hebrews understood the immensity of space, and "knew" the
earth wasn't flat, "knew" the earth rotated around the sun) -funny how
biblical believers can only find in scripture, what science has
currently discovered up to this point in time --does the Bible tell us
what's on the other side of the expanding universe, or will that only
be revealed in scripture, when science makes that discovery(scripture
is clear the heavenly bodies are fixed, and occasionally shaken from
their places, but science is saying the universe is constantly
"expanding", so these things cannot be "fixed" afterall) -- it's all
far more astonishing and breath-taking than the heavens portrayed by
the Hebrew philosophers.
If biblical writers were uninspired on such matters as Cosmology, -then
how much their inspiration to tell man anything about God (which cannot
be seen), or relations with their fellow man. The Bible is a dangerous
moral guide... a dangerous medical guide... a dangerous science guide...
.

User: "20VRWC"
Title: Re: Re: Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools	09 Mar 2006 08:28:13 AM

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:24:14 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:

"VRWC10" <private@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mv61029jbordiviflbjus90r9thb7lfvp8@4ax.com...

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:28:32 -0500,

wrote:

Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools

If so, then neither does ANY other theory of human origin.

The problem with your logix is that ID IS NOT a theory, but IS a fable.

Poor Larry -- fails to realize that life is more complicated than it
appears to the liberal eye.
Since you insist on a pretense of pedantic standards as you spin
reality in your favor, the technically accurate description of ID is
that ID is NOT a theory -- it is nothing more than a question. So,
what is it you fear about questions?

Larry

User: "Jim07D6"
Title: Re: Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools	09 Mar 2006 09:26:02 AM

20VRWC <private@allrightsreserved.com> said:

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:24:14 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:

"VRWC10" <private@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mv61029jbordiviflbjus90r9thb7lfvp8@4ax.com...

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:28:32 -0500,

wrote:

Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools

If so, then neither does ANY other theory of human origin.

The problem with your logix is that ID IS NOT a theory, but IS a fable.

Poor Larry -- fails to realize that life is more complicated than it
appears to the liberal eye.

Since you insist on a pretense of pedantic standards as you spin
reality in your favor, the technically accurate description of ID is
that ID is NOT a theory -- it is nothing more than a question. So,
what is it you fear about questions?

Cal it what we will, ID as it is advanced in the US has been
officially defined as a movement.
Page 18. pp 106 -107 of
http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/kitzmiller_decision_20051220.pdf
--- Jim07D6
.

User: "Rich Travsky "
Title: Re: Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools	09 Mar 2006 11:59:32 PM

20VRWC wrote:

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:24:14 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:

"VRWC10" <private@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mv61029jbordiviflbjus90r9thb7lfvp8@4ax.com...

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:28:32 -0500,

wrote:

Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools

If so, then neither does ANY other theory of human origin.

The problem with your logix is that ID IS NOT a theory, but IS a fable.

Poor Larry -- fails to realize that life is more complicated than it
appears to the liberal eye.

Since you insist on a pretense of pedantic standards as you spin
reality in your favor, the technically accurate description of ID is
that ID is NOT a theory -- it is nothing more than a question. So,
what is it you fear about questions?

It's a question??? You'd best tell that to Behe, who was humilated at the
Dover trial where they tried to push the notion that it IS science:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8042
23 September 2005
...
The debate over ID, an idea that opponents call camouflaged
creationism, has been raging since the publication in 1989 of
a book called Of Pandas and People, which introduced the concept.
The trial, known as Kitzmiller-Dover after one the parents
Tammy Kitzmiller, will be the first to expose ID to the scrutiny
of a court.

It will hinge on whether ID is a respectable scientific theory,
or a religious belief that masquerades as science to sidestep a
1987 Supreme Court ruling that outlawed the teaching of
creationism in schools.

The plaintiffs will argue that it is the latter. There is so much
evidence that this is just the latest incarnation of creationism,
says Walczak. He points to early drafts of Of Pandas and People,
written before 1987. Its identical except for where it says
creationism it now says intelligent design.
...
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178
Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the
same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design
to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard
on Tuesday.
Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at
Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition
of theory was so broad it would also include astrology.
Behe was called to the stand on Monday by the defence, and testified
that ID was a scientific theory, and was not committed to religion.
His cross examination by the plaintiffs attorney, Eric Rothschild of
the Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton, began on Tuesday afternoon.
Rothschild told the court that the US National Academy of Sciences
supplies a definition for what constitutes a scientific theory:
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect
of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and
tested hypotheses.
Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science
organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed
journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not
be included in the NAS definition. I cant point to an external
community that would agree that this was well substantiated, he said.
Behe said he had come up with his own broader definition of a theory,
claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are
actually used by scientists. The word is used a lot more loosely than
the NAS defined it, he says.
Rothschild suggested that Behes definition was so loose that astrology
would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that
Behes definition of theory was almost identical to the NASs definition
of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.
The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with
local members of the public and the school board.
...

User: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools	10 Mar 2006 12:22:31 AM

On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 23:59:32 -0600, Rich Travsky wrote
(in article <441115C4.E34F683C@hotmMOVEail.com>):

20VRWC wrote:

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:24:14 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:

"VRWC10" <private@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mv61029jbordiviflbjus90r9thb7lfvp8@4ax.com...

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:28:32 -0500,

wrote:

Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools

If so, then neither does ANY other theory of human origin.

The problem with your logix is that ID IS NOT a theory, but IS a fable.

Poor Larry -- fails to realize that life is more complicated than it
appears to the liberal eye.

Since you insist on a pretense of pedantic standards as you spin
reality in your favor, the technically accurate description of ID is
that ID is NOT a theory -- it is nothing more than a question. So,
what is it you fear about questions?

It's a question??? You'd best tell that to Behe, who was humilated at the
Dover trial where they tried to push the notion that it IS science:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8042
23 September 2005
...
The debate over ID, an idea that opponents call camouflaged
creationism, has been raging since the publication in 1989 of
a book called Of Pandas and People, which introduced the concept.
The trial, known as Kitzmiller-Dover after one the parents
Tammy Kitzmiller, will be the first to expose ID to the scrutiny
of a court.

It will hinge on whether ID is a respectable scientific theory,
or a religious belief that masquerades as science to sidestep a
1987 Supreme Court ruling that outlawed the teaching of
creationism in schools.

The plaintiffs will argue that it is the latter. There is so much
evidence that this is just the latest incarnation of creationism,
says Walczak. He points to early drafts of Of Pandas and People,
written before 1987. Its identical except for where it says
creationism it now says intelligent design.
...

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178

Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the
same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design
to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard
on Tuesday.

Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at
Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition
of theory was so broad it would also include astrology.

Behe was called to the stand on Monday by the defence, and testified
that ID was a scientific theory, and was not committed to religion.
His cross examination by the plaintiffs attorney, Eric Rothschild of
the Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton, began on Tuesday afternoon.

Rothschild told the court that the US National Academy of Sciences
supplies a definition for what constitutes a scientific theory:
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect
of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and
tested hypotheses.

Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science
organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed
journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not
be included in the NAS definition. I cant point to an external
community that would agree that this was well substantiated, he said.

Behe said he had come up with his own broader definition of a theory,
claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are
actually used by scientists. The word is used a lot more loosely than
the NAS defined it, he says.

Rothschild suggested that Behes definition was so loose that astrology
would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that
Behes definition of theory was almost identical to the NASs definition
of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.

The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with
local members of the public and the school board.
...

It sounds as if Michael Behe has gone from
an intellectual ***** to an intellectual *****.
I betcha that he was supremely disappointed
that the thirty pieces of silver turned out to
be dimes.
Gray Shockley
----------------------------
Still need more to buy a
cup of frou-frou coffee.

User: "thomas p"
Title: Re: Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools	10 Mar 2006 11:31:38 AM

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:22:31 -0600, Gray Shockley
<grayshockley@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 23:59:32 -0600, Rich Travsky wrote
(in article <441115C4.E34F683C@hotmMOVEail.com>):

20VRWC wrote:

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:24:14 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:

"VRWC10" <private@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mv61029jbordiviflbjus90r9thb7lfvp8@4ax.com...

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:28:32 -0500,

wrote:

Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools

If so, then neither does ANY other theory of human origin.

The problem with your logix is that ID IS NOT a theory, but IS a fable.

Poor Larry -- fails to realize that life is more complicated than it
appears to the liberal eye.

Since you insist on a pretense of pedantic standards as you spin
reality in your favor, the technically accurate description of ID is
that ID is NOT a theory -- it is nothing more than a question. So,
what is it you fear about questions?

It's a question??? You'd best tell that to Behe, who was humilated at the
Dover trial where they tried to push the notion that it IS science:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8042
23 September 2005
...
The debate over ID, an idea that opponents call camouflaged
creationism, has been raging since the publication in 1989 of
a book called Of Pandas and People, which introduced the concept.
The trial, known as Kitzmiller-Dover after one the parents
Tammy Kitzmiller, will be the first to expose ID to the scrutiny
of a court.

It will hinge on whether ID is a respectable scientific theory,
or a religious belief that masquerades as science to sidestep a
1987 Supreme Court ruling that outlawed the teaching of
creationism in schools.

The plaintiffs will argue that it is the latter. There is so much
evidence that this is just the latest incarnation of creationism,
says Walczak. He points to early drafts of Of Pandas and People,
written before 1987. Its identical except for where it says
creationism it now says intelligent design.
...

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178

Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the
same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design
to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard
on Tuesday.

Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at
Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition
of theory was so broad it would also include astrology.

Behe was called to the stand on Monday by the defence, and testified
that ID was a scientific theory, and was not committed to religion.
His cross examination by the plaintiffs attorney, Eric Rothschild of
the Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton, began on Tuesday afternoon.

Rothschild told the court that the US National Academy of Sciences
supplies a definition for what constitutes a scientific theory:
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect
of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and
tested hypotheses.

Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science
organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed
journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not
be included in the NAS definition. I cant point to an external
community that would agree that this was well substantiated, he said.

Behe said he had come up with his own broader definition of a theory,
claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are
actually used by scientists. The word is used a lot more loosely than
the NAS defined it, he says.

Rothschild suggested that Behes definition was so loose that astrology
would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that
Behes definition of theory was almost identical to the NASs definition
of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.

The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with
local members of the public and the school board.
...

It sounds as if Michael Behe has gone from
an intellectual ***** to an intellectual *****.

I betcha that he was supremely disappointed
that the thirty pieces of silver turned out to
be dimes.

And he was overpaid.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)

.

User: "Ted King"
Title: Re: Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools	11 Mar 2006 08:51:29 AM

In article <cge012923u6h4h2hl5tjhgsvjo9ckb9v48@4ax.com>,
20VRWC <private@allrightsreserved.com> wrote:

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:24:14 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:

"VRWC10" <private@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mv61029jbordiviflbjus90r9thb7lfvp8@4ax.com...

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:28:32 -0500,

wrote:

Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools

If so, then neither does ANY other theory of human origin.

The problem with your logix is that ID IS NOT a theory, but IS a fable.

Poor Larry -- fails to realize that life is more complicated than it
appears to the liberal eye.

Since you insist on a pretense of pedantic standards as you spin
reality in your favor, the technically accurate description of ID is
that ID is NOT a theory -- it is nothing more than a question. So,
what is it you fear about questions?

From that peculiar perspective the following could also be considered
nothing more than questions, so all of them should be taken seriously in
public school science classes:
* Astrology
* Chakra theory
* Characterology
* Clairvoyance
* Context speaking budgies
* Cryptozoology
* Dianetics
* Essentialism (biological)
* Eugenics
* Graphology
* Modern geocentrism
* Neuro-linguistic programming
* New Chronology
* Novelty Theory
* Orgonomy
* Palmistry
* Parapsychology
* Schemes for Perpetual motion
* Phrenology
* Physiognomy
* Precognition
* Pyramidology
* Spiritualism
* Time Cube
* Telekinesis
* Telepathy
(the above were blatantly "borrowed" from a Wikipedia article)
Ted
.

User: "Rich Travsky "
Title: Re: Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools	14 Mar 2006 12:50:32 AM

Ted King wrote:

In article <cge012923u6h4h2hl5tjhgsvjo9ckb9v48@4ax.com>,
20VRWC <private@allrightsreserved.com> wrote:

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:24:14 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:

"VRWC10" <private@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mv61029jbordiviflbjus90r9thb7lfvp8@4ax.com...

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:28:32 -0500,

wrote:

Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools

If so, then neither does ANY other theory of human origin.

The problem with your logix is that ID IS NOT a theory, but IS a fable.

Poor Larry -- fails to realize that life is more complicated than it
appears to the liberal eye.

Since you insist on a pretense of pedantic standards as you spin
reality in your favor, the technically accurate description of ID is
that ID is NOT a theory -- it is nothing more than a question. So,
what is it you fear about questions?

From that peculiar perspective the following could also be considered
nothing more than questions, so all of them should be taken seriously in
public school science classes:

* Astrology
* Chakra theory
* Characterology
* Clairvoyance
* Context speaking budgies
* Cryptozoology
* Dianetics
* Essentialism (biological)
* Eugenics
* Graphology
* Modern geocentrism
* Neuro-linguistic programming
* New Chronology
* Novelty Theory
* Orgonomy
* Palmistry
* Parapsychology
* Schemes for Perpetual motion
* Phrenology
* Physiognomy
* Precognition
* Pyramidology
* Spiritualism
* Time Cube
* Telekinesis
* Telepathy

(the above were blatantly "borrowed" from a Wikipedia article)

But not so far from what IDers would do to us:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178
Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the
same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design
to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard
on Tuesday.
Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at
Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition
of theory was so broad it would also include astrology.
Behe was called to the stand on Monday by the defence, and testified
that ID was a scientific theory, and was not committed to religion.
His cross examination by the plaintiffs attorney, Eric Rothschild of
the Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton, began on Tuesday afternoon.
Rothschild told the court that the US National Academy of Sciences
supplies a definition for what constitutes a scientific theory:
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect
of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and
tested hypotheses.
Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science
organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed
journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not
be included in the NAS definition. I cant point to an external
community that would agree that this was well substantiated, he said.
Behe said he had come up with his own broader definition of a theory,
claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are
actually used by scientists. The word is used a lot more loosely than
the NAS defined it, he says.
Rothschild suggested that Behes definition was so loose that astrology
would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that
Behes definition of theory was almost identical to the NASs definition
of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.
The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with
local members of the public and the school board.
...
.

User: "thomas p"
Title: Re: Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools	09 Mar 2006 01:01:28 PM

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 08:28:13 -0600, 20VRWC
<private@allrightsreserved.com> wrote:

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:24:14 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:

"VRWC10" <private@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mv61029jbordiviflbjus90r9thb7lfvp8@4ax.com...

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:28:32 -0500,

wrote:

Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools

If so, then neither does ANY other theory of human origin.

The problem with your logix is that ID IS NOT a theory, but IS a fable.

Poor Larry -- fails to realize that life is more complicated than it
appears to the liberal eye.

Since you insist on a pretense of pedantic standards as you spin
reality in your favor, the technically accurate description of ID is
that ID is NOT a theory -- it is nothing more than a question. So,
what is it you fear about questions?

The problem is that it is not a theory in science, therefore it would
be dishonest as well as counterproductive to teach it as if it were a
viable alternative to the theory of evolution. One could, with just
as much justification, have science teachers offer (as an alternative
theory) the idea that leprosy is a punishment from god. There are a
huge number of "alternative theories" for a huge number of physical
phenomena; where do you suggest the line be drawn, since the amount of
time available for education is limited?
One more question, what does acceptance of science or of recognizing
the limits of what a science class should deal with have to do with
being liberal?
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)

.

User: "Gray Shockley"
Title: Re: Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools	10 Mar 2006 02:02:00 AM

On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 13:01:28 -0600, thomas p wrote
(in article <7qu0125v4tmto1v350uq1sbjmg7ajls10e@4ax.com>):

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 08:28:13 -0600, 20VRWC
<private@allrightsreserved.com> wrote:

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:24:14 -0500, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:

"VRWC10" <private@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mv61029jbordiviflbjus90r9thb7lfvp8@4ax.com...

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:28:32 -0500,

wrote:

Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools

If so, then neither does ANY other theory of human origin.

The problem with your logix is that ID IS NOT a theory, but IS a fable.

Poor Larry -- fails to realize that life is more complicated than it
appears to the liberal eye.

Since you insist on a pretense of pedantic standards as you spin
reality in your favor, the technically accurate description of ID is
that ID is NOT a theory -- it is nothing more than a question. So,
what is it you fear about questions?

The problem is that it is not a theory in science, therefore it would
be dishonest as well as counterproductive to teach it as if it were a
viable alternative to the theory of evolution. One could, with just
as much justification, have science teachers offer (as an alternative
theory) the idea that leprosy is a punishment from god. There are a
huge number of "alternative theories" for a huge number of physical
phenomena; where do you suggest the line be drawn, since the amount of
time available for education is limited?

One more question, what does acceptance of science or of recognizing
the limits of what a science class should deal with have to do with
being liberal?

google groups on :
+vrwc +tax
4,530 hits.
S/he has a bit of a "mental problem".
++ gray

Thomas P.

"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"

(Kierkegaard)

User: "Bert Hyman"
Title: Re: Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools	25 Feb 2006 12:09:32 PM

In news:mv61029jbordiviflbjus90r9thb7lfvp8@4ax.com VRWC10
<private@nospam.com> wrote:

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:28:32 -0500,

wrote:

Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools

If so, then neither does ANY other theory of human origin.

I hope you don't think that so-called "ID" qualifies as an actual
theory. Invoking magic to explain things you don't understand isn't
something that should be taught in any real school.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com
.

User: "Eric Brze"
Title: Re: Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools	25 Feb 2006 01:33:52 PM

On 25 Feb 2006 18:09:32 GMT, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:

In news:mv61029jbordiviflbjus90r9thb7lfvp8@4ax.com VRWC10
<private@nospam.com> wrote:

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:28:32 -0500,

wrote:

Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools

If so, then neither does ANY other theory of human origin.

I hope you don't think that so-called "ID" qualifies as an actual
theory. Invoking magic to explain things you don't understand isn't
something that should be taught in any real school.

It's not magic. It's philosophy. It may not be a good idea to teach
intelligent design in science class, but it is definitely a good idea
to teach intelligent design in philosophy class. The problem may be
the people who advocate intelligent design may not really understand
it after all. They don't understand the difference between philosophy
and science. To them science is the highest form of knowledge when
wisdom is the real supreme knowledge in the kingdom of God.
.

User: "Rich Travsky "
Title: Re: Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools	26 Feb 2006 10:47:10 PM

Eric Brze wrote:

On 25 Feb 2006 18:09:32 GMT, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:

In news:mv61029jbordiviflbjus90r9thb7lfvp8@4ax.com VRWC10
<private@nospam.com> wrote:

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:28:32 -0500,

wrote:

Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools

If so, then neither does ANY other theory of human origin.

I hope you don't think that so-called "ID" qualifies as an actual
theory. Invoking magic to explain things you don't understand isn't
something that should be taught in any real school.

Or one on mythology.

the people who advocate intelligent design may not really understand
it after all. They don't understand the difference between philosophy
and science. To them science is the highest form of knowledge when
wisdom is the real supreme knowledge in the kingdom of God.

User: "Bert Hyman"
Title: Re: Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools	25 Feb 2006 02:09:13 PM

In news:cmb102d7q8ua1ohvcidi2382p4jvejgmpn@4ax.com Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:

On 25 Feb 2006 18:09:32 GMT, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:

In news:mv61029jbordiviflbjus90r9thb7lfvp8@4ax.com VRWC10
<private@nospam.com> wrote:

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:28:32 -0500,

wrote:

Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools

If so, then neither does ANY other theory of human origin.

I hope you don't think that so-called "ID" qualifies as an actual
theory. Invoking magic to explain things you don't understand isn't
something that should be taught in any real school.

It's not magic. It's philosophy.

If anything, it's anti-philosophy.
ID:
1. I don't understand this.
2. It must be magic.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com
.

User: "Les Hellawell"
Title: TQOTM Re: Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools	25 Feb 2006 02:23:50 PM

On 25 Feb 2006 20:09:13 GMT, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:

In news:cmb102d7q8ua1ohvcidi2382p4jvejgmpn@4ax.com Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:

On 25 Feb 2006 18:09:32 GMT, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:

In news:mv61029jbordiviflbjus90r9thb7lfvp8@4ax.com VRWC10
<private@nospam.com> wrote:

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:28:32 -0500,

wrote:

Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools

If so, then neither does ANY other theory of human origin.

I hope you don't think that so-called "ID" qualifies as an actual
theory. Invoking magic to explain things you don't understand isn't
something that should be taught in any real school.

It's not magic. It's philosophy.

If anything, it's anti-philosophy.

ID:

1. I don't understand this.
2. It must be magic.

<end nominated portion>
I wish I put put ideas that precisely and concisely. I can only
sit back and marvel at the skill. Must be magic.
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.

User: "Les Hellawell"
Title: AQOTM Re: Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools	25 Feb 2006 04:16:26 PM

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 20:23:50 +0000, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:

On 25 Feb 2006 20:09:13 GMT, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:

In news:cmb102d7q8ua1ohvcidi2382p4jvejgmpn@4ax.com Eric Brze
<brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote:

On 25 Feb 2006 18:09:32 GMT, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:

In news:mv61029jbordiviflbjus90r9thb7lfvp8@4ax.com VRWC10
<private@nospam.com> wrote:

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:28:32 -0500,

wrote:

Intelligent design classes don't belong in public schools

If so, then neither does ANY other theory of human origin.

I hope you don't think that so-called "ID" qualifies as an actual
theory. Invoking magic to explain things you don't understand isn't
something that should be taught in any real school.

It's not magic. It's philosophy.

If anything, it's anti-philosophy.

ID:

1. I don't understand this.
2. It must be magic.

<end nominated portion>

I wish I put put ideas that precisely and concisely. I can only
sit back and marvel at the skill. Must be magic.

Damn I am making a reet mulluck of this. 'put put' indeed
that should be 'could put'. And it should be Atheists quote of
the month not blinking theist.
Please withdraw TQOM and substitute this instead
My apologies to Bert Hyman: I am sorry for calling you a theist.
(its no excuse but I doubt anybody would be mistaken :-)
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.

Page 1 of 7