Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A victory for freedom of thought and individualism in the school, and a stinging defeat for the secular mind police. We enjoy freedom of speech, not freedom from speech you find disagreeable.
'NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- A bill that encourages classroom debate over evolution will become law in Tennessee, despite a veto campaign mounted by scientists and civil libertarians who say it will reopen a decades-old controversy over teaching creationism to the state's schoolchildren.'
Tenn. governor allows evolution debate bill to become law
Imagine the lively debate and opening of minds which can now flourish in the previously flat-earther science rooms across Tenn, and hopefully the rest of America!
You have decided that science must adhere to methodological naturalism. Not everyone agrees with your flat-earth thinking. We shall be debating the science of ID in classrooms in Tennessee, and perhaps soon throughout the Nation.
Actually the scientific method is fairly well established.
And God should not be debated in public schools. The teachers are not schooled in theology. Its like asking a tv repair man to fix the space shuttle. No expertise.
ID is not theology. It is a competing theory to the 'non-directed primordial ooze bumped and grinded itself into a set of advanced information and instructions which Bill Gates once described as 'like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created' - or simply, the scientific equivalent of and 'then a miracle happened.'
That must have been one hell of a lighting bolt.
Absolutely!! That's how we create people who think, and can back up their thoughts with reason.
We covered alchemy when I was in school manymanymany moons ago. Bottomline was, it's horseshit. and indisputable horseshit.
When did it become worthy of debate again? Where was I when that happened?
Actually as AlCHEMy is the historical forerunner of CHEMistry. It's not bullshit at all.
Strains of bacteria can 'evolve' a genetically transmissible resistance to certain antibiotics, producing an entirely new strain that can exhibit that resistance,
solely by having been exposed to said antibiotic over a period of time.
There no evidence whatsoever of the need for an intelligent designer to effect that process;
the process of natural selection and survival of the fittest selects out particular bacteria and allows them to reproduce, until the capability for resistance has been built into the genes of successive generations.
No one wants to offer an ID based refutation of the above? Do you really wish to allow it to stand unchallenged, without contradiction?
It pretty much shoots down ID.
Depends on what you consider Intelligent Design.
If one considers ID as just another term for 7 day creationism, then yeah...if one assumes that 7 day creationism is a reasonable theory based on every other piece of evidence proving it wrong.
But, if you believe ID is that Science is telling us HOW God did things then, no, it doesn't shoot it down. A lack of need doesn't prove that it didn't happen.
My two year old daughter doesn't NEED me to carry her across a room. She can walk. Her ability to walk does not PROVE that I didn't carry her.
Lol
Tennessee.
No one wants to offer an ID based refutation of the above? Do you really wish to allow it to stand unchallenged, without contradiction?
It pretty much shoots down ID.
Depends on what you consider Intelligent Design.
If one considers ID as just another term for 7 day creationism, then yeah...if one assumes that 7 day creationism is a reasonable theory based on every other piece of evidence proving it wrong.
But, if you believe ID is that Science is telling us HOW God did things then, no, it doesn't shoot it down. A lack of need doesn't prove that it didn't happen.
My two year old daughter doesn't NEED me to carry her across a room. She can walk. Her ability to walk does not PROVE that I didn't carry her.
The lack of any evidence whatsoever of an invisible supernatural hand with indescribable inexplicable powers being necessary to cause bacteria to undergo changes in response to the presence of an antibiotic is what shoots it down.
You do appreciate the significance of 'no evidence' in analyzing the merits of a theory don't you?
rules and techniques:*the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice
speculation:*abstract thought or contemplation
Depends on what you consider Intelligent Design.
If one considers ID as just another term for 7 day creationism, then yeah...if one assumes that 7 day creationism is a reasonable theory based on every other piece of evidence proving it wrong.
But, if you believe ID is that Science is telling us HOW God did things then, no, it doesn't shoot it down. A lack of need doesn't prove that it didn't happen.
My two year old daughter doesn't NEED me to carry her across a room. She can walk. Her ability to walk does not PROVE that I didn't carry her.
The lack of any evidence whatsoever of an invisible supernatural hand with indescribable inexplicable powers being necessary to cause bacteria to undergo changes in response to the presence of an antibiotic is what shoots it down.
You do appreciate the significance of 'no evidence' in analyzing the merits of a theory don't you?
What you consider "no evidence", I call miracles. You have the right to not believe what I believe and you also have the right to not be subjected to my beliefs in a public school.
And, if you look at my other posts, I'm not advocating teaching miracles in public schools. The place for that is in the home and in the church.
