Dover trial on evolution in schools

[LuvRPgrl]

With no ACLU, I wonder who preachers who want to preach on public streetcorners would go to protect their rights.






The court ruling from Penn. is great news, isn't it! Score one for education and for science, and take one point away from mindless superstitution and Creationism disguised as science.

Hope this one goes all the way to the Supreme Court so they can make Kansas stop pollutnig their kids' minds with completely incorrect ideas of what science is.

hahahhahahhahahahha

sorry to inform you but peoples freedom of speech was being protected LONG before the ACLU existed. Idiot.

GO KANSAS!

 

[Powerman]

hahahhahahhahahahha

sorry to inform you but peoples freedom of speech was being protected LONG before the ACLU existed. Idiot.

GO KANSAS!

Powerman's definition of lunacy: someone celebrating the lowered quality of education

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Powerman's definition of lunacy: someone celebrating the lowered quality of education

Yea, you mean by denying choices???

 

[SpidermanTuba]

hahahhahahhahahahha

sorry to inform you but peoples freedom of speech was being protected LONG before the ACLU existed. Idiot.

GO KANSAS!

Sorry to inform you, but the ACLU has repeatedly defended the religious liberties granted us by the Constitution

September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show.

August 4, 2005: ACLU helps free a New Mexico street preacher from prison.

December 22, 2004: ACLU of New Jersey successfully defends right of religious expression by jurors.

November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas.

November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.

August 11, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska defends church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln.

July 10, 2004: Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets.

June 3, 2004: Under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, officials agree not to prohibit baptisms on public property in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County.

May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian, a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries.

March 25, 2004: ACLU of Washington defends an Evangelical minister's right to preach on sidewalks.

February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages.

July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school.

April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating.


http://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16254res20050302.html



So my question is what would these people have done without the ACLU?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Yea, you mean by denying choices???

What kind of choice is teaching kids non-science as science?

Don't you believe we should also teach them about Spaghetti Monsterism? Wouldn't want to leave out any alternative explanations, no matter how unscientific they are, now would we?

 

[Powerman]

Yea, you mean by denying choices???

Your choice is the equivalent of teaching that 2+2=22

I say teach the kids all we can so long as it is correct material. The reason why intelligent design shouldn't be taught is because it is pseudoscience. If you want to teach stories of creation maybe that should be taught in some sort of religion class. In other words send your kids to private schools if you want them to learn intelligent design. But I'll warn you. If it's a good private school they won't teach it. I went to a catholic school and they taught evolution.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Yea, you mean by denying choices???

Luv, you do realize that Kansas redefined science so that ID would fit? That equates to admitting that ID isn't science, but forcing it into the classroom anyways. They're basically saying, "we know it's not a science; learn it in science class anyways."

 

[Abbey Normal]

Luv, you do realize that Kansas redefined science so that ID would fit? That equates to admitting that ID isn't science, but forcing it into the classroom anyways. They're basically saying, "we know it's not a science; learn it in science class anyways."

Of course it's ridiculous to teach ID as "science". But it is not ridiculous to point out that we cannot *scientifically* explain the origin of life, and that ID is one possible explanation for the inexplicable. For the life of me, I don't see how that is threatening to anyone. Except anti-religious zealots, of course.

Perhaps the answer is to spend 3 minutes in class one day telling everyone that scientists are incapable of proving how life started, and then just move on to things they do know. After all, we don't want to teach currently unprovable theories, do we.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

With no ACLU, I wonder who preachers who want to preach on public streetcorners would go to protect their rights.






The court ruling from Penn. is great news, isn't it! Score one for education and for science, and take one point away from mindless superstitution and Creationism disguised as science.

Hope this one goes all the way to the Supreme Court so they can make Kansas stop pollutnig their kids' minds with completely incorrect ideas of what science is.

This court ruling will backfire on the evolutionists/Anti God gang.

Just like the Scopes trial wound up helping the evolutionists, even though they lost the trial, so too will Dover hurt evolutionists.

If they had left it alone, the local school board changed the science ciriculum to NOT INCLUDE ID to be mentioned. But by bringing it to trial, they will be helping to mobalize the people who think God should be discussed in schools, because the court brought up the old "seperation of church and state" which does not exist in the Constitution, by word or by concept. By pushing this too far, people will unite even more to oust and to nominate judges who believe (and there are many, and growing in numbers) that "seperation" clause is manufactured by the "living breathing document" supporters, and they are working on getting back to the fundamental strict interpetation, reading the Constitution as it was written, and if you want to change it for the changing times, then utilize the provisions provided within the said document to do so, and not by judicial fiat.

The judiciary has grown too powerful. The libs dont complain cuz they have had their way with it. They only complain of an imbalance of power when a republilcan president gains that power. They really arent interested in a balance of power, but use that excuse (just like womens right, minorities equal rights, etc) to demonize any republican politician, while they NEVER even mention an imbalance that has been grabbed by the judiciary.

As for powerwoman stating that we dont want people to see both sides, well, me thinks the bong should be put down. Its him and his gang that doesnt want ID mentioned, and we arent talking about ID being discussed, taught, or anything but merely be MENTIONED as an alternative that SOME SCIENTISTS believe in. Now that is not wanting to let people see both sides.

Its a philosophical question, with many complex angles, and hence it deserves mention. Every subject has a philosophical angle to it, including science. Nobody on that side can say WHY it would be harmful to MENTION it in a science class, they can only say, "it doesnt belong there, its not science"

In the true tradition of Libertarianism/Repulicanism, the issue should be left up to local school boards. But the lefties and the ACLU have been on a roll on the federal and state level judiciaries, so they want a blanket law via judicial fiat to eliminate any Christianity from schools all together. Persons such as NUC will use fear tactics and claim parents will send their kids to schools of superstition if we give them school choice. Again, the lefties claim they are for choice, but ONLY when it suits their agenda. They certainly are opposing school choice.

They claim they are for the poor and working lower classes. But polls show that inner city families want school choice, but are denied by the very party that characterizes itself as compassionate to their needs. They will fight tooth and nail to deny those parents the fundamental right to send their kids to the school of their choice, unless the parents want to pay TWICE, via property taxes, via the rent they pay, or maybe they flat out cant pay for private schooling, and the compassionate liberals FORCE these parents to send their kids to drug and gang infested schools where they give high school diplomas to kids who cant read or write at 7th grade levels, dooming them to lives of poverty and govt dependence.

They will have "Gay pride month" in LAUSD, but mention God and you are a horrible individual. Its free speech to put "Fuck you" on a t-shirt, but you're not allowed to say "God bless you" at a graduation speech.

 

[Gunny]

Of course it's ridiculous to teach ID as "science". But it is not ridiculous to point out that we cannot *scientifically* explain the origin of life, and that ID is one possible explanation for the inexplicable. For the life of me, I don't see how that is threatening to anyone. Except anti-religious zealots, of course.

Perhaps the answer is to spend 3 minutes in class one day telling everyone that scientists are incapable of proving how life started, and then just move on to things they do know. After all, we don't want to teach currently unprovable theories, do we.

Bingo.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Sorry to inform you, but your arguement is a straw man. Where did I say the ACLU didnt protect rights? I said, it was being done long before the ACLU showed up. Im sure I could string together a litany of cases, but I wont waste my time, its so damn obvious.

You want me to answer your question? Answer mine and you get your answer. Who was doing it BEFORE the ACLU showed up?

The ACLU had their day, they need to learn from the abolitionists, that once their agenda is fulfilled, its time to disband. Their work has been done for some decades now. Anymore they are just a bunch of self serving godless specks of dog poop trying to justify their existence by attacking a historically accurate cross on the seal of the County of Los Angeles. WHOA, yea, thats really threatening to our society.

Sorry to inform you, but the ACLU has repeatedly defended the religious liberties granted us by the Constitution

September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show.

August 4, 2005: ACLU helps free a New Mexico street preacher from prison.

December 22, 2004: ACLU of New Jersey successfully defends right of religious expression by jurors.

November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas.

November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.

August 11, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska defends church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln.

July 10, 2004: Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets.

June 3, 2004: Under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, officials agree not to prohibit baptisms on public property in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County.

May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian, a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries.

March 25, 2004: ACLU of Washington defends an Evangelical minister's right to preach on sidewalks.

February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages.

July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school.

April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating.


http://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16254res20050302.html



So my question is what would these people have done without the ACLU?

 

[Abbey Normal]

The ACLU had their day, they need to learn from the abolitionists, that once their agenda is fulfilled, its time to disband. Their work has been done for some decades now. Anymore they are just a bunch of self serving godless specks of dog poop trying to justify their existence by attacking a historically accurate cross on the seal of the County of Los Angeles. WHOA, yea, thats really threatening to our society.

Kind of like the unions.

 

[MissileMan]

Of course it's ridiculous to teach ID as "science". But it is not ridiculous to point out that we cannot *scientifically* explain the origin of life, and that ID is one possible explanation for the inexplicable. For the life of me, I don't see how that is threatening to anyone. Except anti-religious zealots, of course.

Perhaps the answer is to spend 3 minutes in class one day telling everyone that scientists are incapable of proving how life started, and then just move on to things they do know. After all, we don't want to teach currently unprovable theories, do we.

What sense does it make to automatically attribute anything we can't presently explain to God? It was that mentality that led to the invention of gods in the first place. Time to move forward into the future, not backwards to the Stone Age.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Of course it's ridiculous to teach ID as "science". But it is not ridiculous to point out that we cannot *scientifically* explain the origin of life, and that ID is one possible explanation for the inexplicable. For the life of me, I don't see how that is threatening to anyone. Except anti-religious zealots, of course.

Perhaps the answer is to spend 3 minutes in class one day telling everyone that scientists are incapable of proving how life started, and then just move on to things they do know. After all, we don't want to teach currently unprovable theories, do we.

Double bingo. Its what we have been trying to explain to them, but they keep beating the same drum

You can go back to some of my posts and I claim I dont want ID taught as science, but then I explain how and why it should be included in a science discussion of origins of life and powerman just responds by saying "but it isnt science, why cant you understand that!"

 

[Abbey Normal]

What sense does it make to automatically attribute anything we can't presently explain to God? It was that mentality that led to the invention of gods in the first place. Time to move forward into the future, not backwards to the Stone Age.

If the topic is going to be disucssed at all (which if you read my post, I am fine with not discussing it in high school), then why doesn't it make sense?

Either you stick to teaching only the scientifically provable, or you open the door to allowing unprovable theories you don't personally like. You can't have it both ways and have a credible argument.

 

[MissileMan]

Double bingo. Its what we have been trying to explain to them, but they keep beating the same drum

You can go back to some of my posts and I claim I dont want ID taught as science, but then I explain how and why it should be included in a science discussion of origins of life and powerman just responds by saying "but it isnt science, why cant you understand that!"

Why not include grammar in math class? They do have these things called word problems. And let's teach history in English class...English has been around for a long time. By the time you get done teaching the things that aren't really applicable to their respective subjects, there won't be any time left for the real subject.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

What sense does it make to automatically attribute anything we can't presently explain to God? It was that mentality that led to the invention of gods in the first place. Time to move forward into the future, not backwards to the Stone Age.

Since it has NOT been proven that God DOESNT exist, the possibility remains open.

Because some in the past have misused the concept of God, doesnt mean we cant use it properly today.

I could say the same thing for science, hell, the medical "scientists" at one time thought "blood letting" would heal people.

We dont propose God as a default for everything that cannot be explained, only one thing, beginning of life. But you want to extrapolate that we want it to be used for EVERYTHING because you need some bogus arguements because you have no strong ones.

what are you guys afraid of if God doesnt exist?

 

[Abbey Normal]

Why not include grammar in math class? They do have these things called word problems. And let's teach history in English class...English has been around for a long time. By the time you get done teaching the things that aren't really applicable to their respective subjects, there won't be any time left for the real subject.

If I recall, the ID case in Dover, PA amounted to simply mentioning that ID is a possible theory, and if you need more info, here is the name of a book you can consult. That would have taken less time than roll call.

Plus, the curriculum geniuses in education have been melding subjects for a while now. In 5th grade, for example, my daughter's language arts class included social studies. No separate class for either that whole year.

 

[MissileMan]

If the topic is going to be disucssed at all (which if you read my post, I am fine with not discussing it in high school), then why doesn't it make sense?

Either you stick to teaching only the scientifically provable, or you open the door to allowing unprovable theories you don't personally like. You can't have it both ways and have a credible argument.

I'm not sure if you understood what I said. Let me see if I understand what you just said. In your opinion, either teach all possible explanations, including totally baseless supposition, for things not 100% proven, or don't teach anything at all that isn't 100% proven. Is that what you're suggesting?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Why not include grammar in math class? They do have these things called word problems. And let's teach history in English class...English has been around for a long time. By the time you get done teaching the things that aren't really applicable to their respective subjects, there won't be any time left for the real subject.

Well, of course sometimes grammar is taught in math class, and history in english classes. I learned history in my math class. Ever hear of a guy named Galwah? A french mathmetician, killed in a duel. He wasnt allowed into the University of Paris to study because of political differences, although he was a genius. In fact, some of his formulas and theorms even today are ahead of its time. and so on and so on, my math teacher made math exciting at times. NOW THATS HOW YOU TEACH. If you brought up ID in science, it could turn an otherwise dull class into something interesting.

again, what are you guys afraid of?

and as I say IT SHOULD be up to the local school boards. YOU nor I should be telling a parent in Oklahoma what their kids should be learning in class, and most certainly not some pompous ass senator or supreme court judge who has never seen a corn field in his life and his idea of hard work is carrying a ream of paper to the other room.