http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=336583

I especially like how the Fox reporter says, without any connection whatsoever to the facts being discussed, that it is a "clearly a violation of First Amendment rights."

On one hand I don't think creationism should be taught in public schools.

On the other hand I don't see why the teacher needs to bring it up in class at all, other than to be a dick to people who might be of a religeous bent.

Back on the other hand, I don't think said dickery means any of the offended students are entitled money.

P.S. I didn't watch the whole video.

I'm really starting to think the state needs to get out of the education business. This stupidity will never end till there is no one to sue. Fundy schools and school boards get sued for pushing the "Intelligent Design" crap, fundies sue when their views are not taught. Add in some whining about correct history vrs feel-good history, self esteem vrs grade inflation, sport culture vrs academic necessity... I can keep going.

Didn't Frederick Douglas say something about the path to socialism being paved with government-run schools? He obviously hadn't seen what a cock-up a bunch of concerned parents can squeeze out of vote hungry pols.

Creationism is a theory, just like evolution and, if allowed in the public school classroom at all, should be taught as such. I didn't watch the video but am not surprised in our lawsuit happy nation that some dingbat would sue a teacher over something like this.

I just had an issue last week with my daughters 7th grade social studies teacher's lack of knowledge of the Reformation. I was appalled that a handout she gave the class for homework showed a diagram with Jesus at the top in a circle and Roman Catholics and Protestants each branching off in separate circles from that. The way she had it drawn and noted actually made it look like the Protestants "broke away" from Jesus instead of from the Catholic Church as there was absolutely no link at all from Catholic to Protestant. It was an obvious and glaring error. I inquired with my sister who is the public school curriculum director in a large western state and she suggested that many teachers do not know much about the subjects they teach and are not required to. She admitted to having to teach math for two years "out of the book" (her specialty is history) and hoped her students actually learned what they were supposed to. My daughters teacher has been teaching social studies for many years. I can only suspect what her motives may be as I cannot imagine she is unaware of her error, but I am deeply concerned at what other "facts" our children are walking away from school each day with. Public schools have no business teaching religious history either if they can't even get the basics right.

Posted by Trixi Creationism is a theory, just like evolution

No. Not at all. Not even a remotely true statement.

Posted by Trixi showed a diagram with Jesus at the top in a circle and Roman Catholics and Protestants each branching off in separate circles from that. The way she had it drawn and noted actually made it look like the Protestants "broke away" from Jesus

I think you were looking for an issue. Jesus at the top seems to be a simple graphical way to indicate the beginning of Christianity. I don't think anyone would interpret a branch of Christianity as having separated itself from Jesus from such an image.

I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory (or law of nature).

Posted by MutantMandias I think you were looking for an issue. Jesus at the top seems to be a simple graphical way to indicate the beginning of Christianity. I don't think anyone would interpret a branch of Christianity as having separated itself from Jesus from such an image.

The teacher's diagram on the Reformation did not reflect in any way that the "protest" was begun by Catholics and was initiated in response to certain abuses by clergy and in the Church's hierarchy regarding indulgences and so forth. The graphic should have indicated "Protestant" as a circle with a line directly under "Roman Catholic" which would show that the Protestant faith descended or branched off from the Roman Catholic, which is a historical fact. She even had the Church of England branching off of the Protestant circle, another huge mistake. Henry VIII was a devout Catholic until his wife couldn't bear him a son and he decided to dump her off rather than deal with the consequences of possibly having no male heir. When the Pope, rightly, would have none of that, Henry took over the Church in England and made himself boss.

As far as me looking for an issue, that is simply not so. The diagram and its notations did not reflect the facts. When you are helping your child with their homework and you notice that the teachers handout incorrectly states as fact that 2+2=5 does that mean you were "looking for an issue" too? I would be equally concerned regardless of the subject matter.

None the less, 7th grade social studies content should not be any more concerned with the details of Catholics and Protestants other than "there was one."

Posted by Trixi Creationism is a theory, just like evolution

No.

If you want to disprove the theory of evolution you would need to come up with a plausible explanation for DINOSAURS, refute several hundred years of biology, genetics, anthropology and paleontology.

Of course evolution, a scientific theory, is open to new EVIDENCE, and subject to change based on that. The basis of scientific theory is that it can be changed to reflect new or contradictory EVIDENCE.

Of course there is no EVIDENCE to support creationism, wich is a poor alternative explanation based only on wishful thinking and first century scripture that is filled with errors and misinformation of all kinds, and not a shred of EVIDENCE.

ID is nothing more than a program of political and religious advocacy masquerading as a theory, and therefore cannot be called a SCIENTIFIC theory.

The idea that you cannot rule out intelligent design in the universe is ridiculous. There are an infinite number of stupid ideas that science cannot rule out - but they are all equally worthless negative proof fallacies.

Anyone familiar with biology knows that the facts don't support any guided design much less intelligent.

Either you have good reasons to believe the things you do, or you do not.

Posted by tekriter Either you have good reasons to believe the things you do, or you do not.

I have many superb reasons shared by a fairly large amount of scientist and academics. Read this by Dr. Walter Bradley if you would like to know more:
"Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God? How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe"
http://www.origins...xistenceofgod.html

His conclusion is:
"...that it takes a great deal more faith to believe in an accidental universe than to believe in an intelligent creator, or God who crafted such a marvelous universe and beautiful place of habitation in planet Earth, and then created life (including human beings) to occupy it."

Posted by Trixi His conclusion is: "...that it takes a great deal more faith to believe in an accidental universe than to believe in an intelligent creator, or God who crafted such a marvelous universe and beautiful place of habitation in planet Earth, and then created life (including human beings) to occupy it."

No, no it doesn't.

Posted by Trixi I have many superb reasons shared by a fairly large amount of scientist and academics. Read this by Dr. Walter Bradley if you would like to know more: "Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God? How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe" http://www.origins...xistenceofgod.html His conclusion is: "...that it takes a great deal more faith to believe in an accidental universe than to believe in an intelligent creator, or God who crafted such a marvelous universe and beautiful place of habitation in planet Earth, and then created life (including human beings) to occupy it."

Hi, all! Long-time member, first-time poster!

Anyway, I felt compelled to comment on that abysmal excuse for a paper that made my eyes bleed. It's rant time!

Oh, where to start?

Maybe the worst thing about that travesty is that it rambles for page after page after page for no reason other than to look impressive, and basically say "Wow, the world is complex, and all the actual science is so elegant! Must have been created by someone, eh?!"

Seriously, that's the entire argument, if it's even reasonable to use that word. It's just a vague, meandering abuse of the 'anthropic principle' that tries to look flashy by including a ton of irrelevant material. The relevant points could have been summarised in a few short paragraphs. Grr!

Oh, the references! Yeah! There's a big impressive set of footnotes. Why is it so long? Because of stuff like this!

The "just so" nature of the universe has fascinated both scientists and laypersons, giving rise to a flood of titles such as The Anthropic Cosmological Principle,{11} Universes,{12} The Accidental Universe,{13} Superforce,{14} The Cosmic Blueprint,{15} Cosmic Coincidences,{16} The Anthropic Principle,{17} Universal Constants in Physics,{18} The Creation Hypothesis,{19} and Mere Creation: Science, Faith and Intelligent Design.{20}

Yes, I kid you not - this guy is padding his references like a desperate undergraduate student in a last-minute rush. I don't think this approach would have cut the mustard on his PhD thesis.

I do love the cheek in putting a reference against a quote like this:

{4} Galileo Galilei, this comment is widely attributed to Galileo, but without reference.

Sadly, the references don't actually provide support for anything that actually requires it - they really only provide sources for the name-dropping quotations sprinkled liberally through the text. And it's a shame the references aren't there, since there's stuff in there that's just plain wrong. Of course, since none of it constitutes any kind of support for the ultimate argument, errors are really an academic point.

Honestly, it's plain embarrassing. Trixi, I would dump this guy and find someone who can properly frame an argument

Anyway, I'll stop ranting now Thank you for reading.

Posted by Trixi His conclusion is: "...that it takes a great deal more faith to believe in an accidental universe than to believe in an intelligent creator, or God who crafted such a marvelous universe and beautiful place of habitation in planet Earth, and then created life (including human beings) to occupy it."

There is no "accidental" in evolution. Like most ignorant folks he mistakes the element of chance that produces genetic drift with accidental. You need to understand the relationship between geologic time, chance, adaptation and natural selection.

Since you like to read, you should check out On the Origin of Species and then maybe try the Blind Watchmaker.

The origins of the universe are not yet understood, but that is not an excuse to imagine an anthropocentric or magical explanation.

Evolution explains all of the evidence, yet ID cannot overcome the basic incongruence of a bad design (the universe is far more efficient at creating black holes than planets habitable by humans indicating that the "designer" is more interested in blackholes than what we do when we are naked), the need for so many billions of intermediate steps, or our own poor, vulnerable human "design" - not to mention cancer, painful childbirth, psoriasis and Islam.

Oh, and by the way, wishful thinking is not a good reason.

There are no more good reasons to believe in ID than there are to believe Elvis is alive.

Posted by metawaffle Hi, all! Long-time member, first-time poster!

Cool, nice to hear from you.

Honestly, it's plain embarrassing. Trixi, I would dump this guy and find someone who can properly frame an argument

Good grief, I offered the link to the paper to support the fact that scientists and other intelligent people do take creation seriously and don't think it is a bunch of hoo-haw, not because I think the dude is some scientific Shakespeare with all the answers. Heck, it made my eyes bleed too. I share the hope that someday, traditional scientific methods and mathematics will be able to explain the creation event. Perhaps it may then be become possible understand the nature of God.

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade here, but there simply is no real evidence available in the fossil record to support anyone's theory of evolution, or to explain away the very real Cambrian Explosion in the fossil record that has simply baffled scientists for almost 3 centuries.

There is no explanation from "science" as to where life originated. None. In fact the worlds foremost evolutionary biologist just came out and said that he believes that life may have been planted here by an advanced alien civilization. Now if that is not ID, I don't know what is.

I think the problem is that too many so called evolutionists relate Intelligent Design with Christianity, when in fact among real Scientists it is approached much differently. Also every single religion on the planet has a version of a "creation story", yet I find the hatred is directed mostly at Christianity, and usually from the people that preach so-called "tolerance".

Real Science has proven an origin point in our universe. And an action that sprung from that origin point; commonly referred to as the "big bang". However "science" has not provided us with the cause of said origin action. Now if every action has an equal and opposite reaction, then there had to have been an action that caused the reaction that we know as the "big bang". (This is not rocket science people) No form of evolution has ever been able to explain how the first extremely complex cell became "alive".

So if "science" does not provide us with an answer, I do not understand why there is a problem with people of many faiths believing that something greater started all of this. Even evolutionists believe that the "greater" actions of time and space and the universe are responsible for our "accidental" existence.

As a man of faith I CHOOSE (I know most evolutionists are very fond of freedom to choose) to believe it happened one way, and that is what faith is all about. Very much like evolutionists CHOOSE to believe it happened another way, which is just a different kind of faith. One chooses to put faith in a higher power, the other chooses to put faith in themselves. Its that simple.

Either way this is an argument that will never ever be resolved. There could be undeniable film of homo-erectus and it wouldn't change any faithful persons mind. And in the same vein there could be undeniable film of the 6 day creation and that wouldn't change an evolutionists mind.

Bottom line, we both consider each other to be indoctrinated. And short of global conversion (either direction) that will not change.

Posted by Cerealx59 No form of evolution has ever been able to explain how the first extremely complex cell became "alive".

You're entirely right, the issue of how the first 'living' thing came to be is a big and unanswered question.

Just a pedantic point, though - that's an entirely separate thing to evolution, which is concerned with how such living things change over time, but doesn't touch at all on how that very first state came to be.

/nerdy nit-picking

Posted by Cerealx59 Another conceited "I'm right you're wrong" argument.

Ever give a thought that both sides are right, and that the way to truth lies in a combination of all sides?

Also, what makes you think you can know the infinite? You think a book will be able to give you the insight to know a thing that IS all existence. A book written by men. Man cannot know the will of god, because god doesn't have a will. Will is a human thing.

Posted by dirt Ever give a thought that both sides are right, and that the way to truth lies in a combination of all sides? Also, what makes you think you can know the infinite? You think a book will be able to give you the insight to know a thing that IS all existence. A book written by men. Man cannot know the will of god, because god doesn't have a will. Will is a human thing.

I do not see at all how my argument was conceited, nor how it fell into the category of "Im right you are wrong". In fact my entire argument was simply an "Agree to Disagree" argument and cannot be spun to be anything different.

Too which "book" do you refer? If you are referring to The Bible, which I believe you are, I am not surprised that an "evolutionist" attacks Christianity unprovoked, without any form of educated response, which has become the standard.

I offered a few points based on facts, and all you have is that it was "conceited". Sir you have proven my point, real Scientists do not use emotional responses to argue there hypothesis. They use facts, something that even your most studied evolutionary biologist cannot use to prove their THEORIES. Which is why the category of "accepted scientific theory" was INVENTED 90 years ago, because so-called "scientists" were to frustrated by the FACT that they could not PROVE their theories using the Scientific method, that they came up with it as to not feel inadequate due to there ineptness to practice sound Science.

I did not use Christianity in any one of my arguments except in the point of "Agree to Disagree". In fact I think I repeatedly referred to many faiths. Yet your "Argument" to which there wasn't any point, used the word "book" and not "books", which is clearly a ploy to single out Christianity.

No true Christian has ever claimed to know the "Infinite", because we know that our minds are created in a finite manner. And no good Christian should ever claim such a thing. That is why we have Faith. Because we are aware of our limitations as Human Beings.

Do you believe that the Egyptians built the Pyramids? Of course you do, why because someone, a MAN told you so. And because it is written in BOOKS. In the same manner I choose to believe in The Bible. I believe in it for what it is; a collection of oral histories and traditions that were passed through time and eventually written on tablets and parchments, and scrolls. Do I believe in
Divine Inspiration? Yes. Do I believe that an all powerful God would make sure his inspired words were written correctly and preserved. Yes. Why because I believe Faith is a good thing for me, and that is all I need. That and some really awesome underground tunnels.

Posted by tekriter There is no "accidental" in evolution. Like most ignorant folks he mistakes the element of chance that produces genetic drift with accidental. You need to understand the relationship between geologic time, chance, adaptation and natural selection. Since you like to read, you should check out On the Origin of Species and then maybe try the Blind Watchmaker. The origins of the universe are not yet understood, but that is not an excuse to imagine an anthropocentric or magical explanation. Evolution explains all of the evidence, yet ID cannot overcome the basic incongruence of a bad design (the universe is far more efficient at creating black holes than planets habitable by humans indicating that the "designer" is more interested in blackholes than what we do when we are naked), the need for so many billions of intermediate steps, or our own poor, vulnerable human "design" - not to mention cancer, painful childbirth, psoriasis and Islam. Oh, and by the way, wishful thinking is not a good reason. There are no more good reasons to believe in ID than there are to believe Elvis is alive.

Your "poor design" theory has been trounced upon and dismissed by the "Delicate Design" theory. The fine balance in this universe, is the reason that Human Beings and our entire world continuesto exist. If our Solar orbit were to degrade by a micron. It would be all over for us. That my friend is not "poor design".

When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?
Psalms 8:3-4

He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.
Ecclesiastes 3:11-12

It is I who made the earth and created mankind upon it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.
Isaiah 45:12

Posted by Cerealx59 I do not see at all how my argument was conceited, nor how it fell into the category of "Im right you are wrong". In fact my entire argument was simply an "Agree to Disagree" argument and cannot be spun to be anything different.

Agree to disagree because you think you are 100% right.

Too which "book" do you refer? If you are referring to The Bible, which I believe you are, I am not surprised that an "evolutionist" attacks Christianity unprovoked, without any form of educated response, which has become the standard.

Yes I'm referring to the bible, I don't see Yogi(something I know a lot about) texts, spouting their mouths about intelligent design. Evolutionist? Wow you have your head somewhere else. Pick up a book on Raja Yoga, you will see the major difference in mind set. As I have had it explained to me numerous times, the bible is the word of god. Because of this, it is Thee truth. In terms of standards, it is a standard argument that what you say cannot be challenged because it is your faith, Faith that has less grounds than science. Yet, I challenge your faith by saying that you got it all wrong. Not that your are wrong in your faith, but wrong in considering yourself right over others. The bible has truths, as an student of the occult I can see them. To say that evolution is is false based on faith is backwards.

I offered a few points based on facts, and all you have is that it was "conceited". Sir you have proven my point, real Scientists do not use emotional responses to argue there hypothesis. They use facts, something that even your most studied evolutionary biologist cannot use to prove their THEORIES. Which is why the category of "accepted scientific theory" was INVENTED 90 years ago, because so-called "scientists" were to frustrated by the FACT that they could not PROVE their theories using the Scientific method, that they came up with it as to not feel inadequate due to there ineptness to practice sound Science.

Your facts were non issues like meta already stated. Evolution is the act of progression, and of adaptation. There is plenty of evidence to show how things gradually change over millions of years. All you could state as evidence is that we don't know how life began. In in some ways we do. I'm forgetting a lot of the information, but some scientists somewhere were able to create simple proteins in water, using certain natural chemicals, and electricity. So who know what might have happened between that time and now. That is besides the point. You look over some very major points. Accepted Scientific Theory came out of a odd time. During the Edwardian period, lots of religious baggage was being shed. All before that, the church controlled everything. So your point is moot. All AST does is allow for a basis to grow. And if something down the line shows that,"oh shit, something went wrong" then they can look over everything a second time and change what needs to be changed. That is the great thing about science. Anyone can disprove something if it is wrong. Faith, not so much. I don't see faith building particle accelerators.

I did not use Christianity in any one of my arguments except in the point of "Agree to Disagree". In fact I think I repeatedly referred to many faiths. Yet your "Argument" to which there wasn't any point, used the word "book" and not "books", which is clearly a ploy to single out Christianity.

No, you did not cite the bible to prove an argument. But your whole outlook on the subject is based of your faith. Without Christianity, this argument would not exist.

No true Christian has ever claimed to know the "Infinite", because we know that our minds are created in a finite manner. And no good Christian should ever claim such a thing. That is why we have Faith. Because we are aware of our limitations as Human Beings.

Bullshit. You claim it all the time. If the bible is the word of god, and you read the bible, then you know what is in gods head. Yet again, you think you know that god created everything. But is that is so, how could you know that without knowing the nature of god. The fact that you create an image for the dude shows how much you pretend to know. Stinks of hypocrisy.

Do you believe that the Egyptians built the Pyramids? Of course you do, why because someone, a MAN told you so. And because it is written in BOOKS. In the same manner I choose to believe in The Bible. I believe in it for what it is; a collection of oral histories and traditions that were passed through time and eventually written on tablets and parchments, and scrolls. Do I believe in Divine Inspiration? Yes. Do I believe that an all powerful God would make sure his inspired words were written correctly and preserved. Yes. Why because I believe Faith is a good thing for me, and that is all I need. That and some really awesome underground tunnels.

I know that the Pyramids were built, I can see picture of them. It has nothing to do with faith. Man builds things, so by reason, it is obvious that the Egyptians built them. Just how man writes books, and the bible, like all other books, were written by men. If the bible is the word of god, then why do texts contrary to the bible exist, written by disciples of Jesus? http://en.wikipedi...ag_Hammadi_library

Yea, blind faith. See were that has got the human race in the past. Do we really need more.