Why should intelligent design not be in schools?

[IndependantAce]

Provided that a specific religion isn't taught but merely logical arguments for design, I don't see how it violates the 1st Amendment, especially considering that the American Founders specifically mentioned a creator in the Declaration of Independence.

 

[guno]

Provided that a specific religion isn't taught but merely logical arguments for design, I don't see how it violates the 1st Amendment, especially considering that the American Founders specifically mentioned a creator in the Declaration of Independence.

I smell bible thumper stench

 

[rdean]

Provided that a specific religion isn't taught but merely logical arguments for design, I don't see how it violates the 1st Amendment, especially considering that the American Founders specifically mentioned a creator in the Declaration of Independence.

Teaching kids to be tards is, well, not good for the kids or the country.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Provided that a specific religion isn't taught but merely logical arguments for design, I don't see how it violates the 1st Amendment, especially considering that the American Founders specifically mentioned a creator in the Declaration of Independence.

Because it has no bearing on reality. We don't teach kids that it rains whenever the sky is sad, we teach them the water cycle.

 

[Jomama]

It doesnt violate the 1st amendment. Neither does norse mythology or wiccans, etc. Where does one draw the line - and to what end? Do you want to bring up ID to force deep understanding about science and probability, or just to push your religious beliefs on my kids?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Provided that a specific religion isn't taught but merely logical arguments for design, I don't see how it violates the 1st Amendment, especially considering that the American Founders specifically mentioned a creator in the Declaration of Independence.

Everything violates the 1st Amendment unless approved by the Democrats.

You think I'm kidding?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Provided that a specific religion isn't taught but merely logical arguments for design, I don't see how it violates the 1st Amendment, especially considering that the American Founders specifically mentioned a creator in the Declaration of Independence.

Because it has no bearing on reality. We don't teach kids that it rains whenever the sky is sad, we teach them the water cycle.

Of course you do. You also teach that taking pills, stuffing pads over the pectorals and cutting one's dick off will make a man a woman.

Oh. The science.

 

[IndependantAce]

Provided that a specific religion isn't taught but merely logical arguments for design, I don't see how it violates the 1st Amendment, especially considering that the American Founders specifically mentioned a creator in the Declaration of Independence.

Because it has no bearing on reality. We don't teach kids that it rains whenever the sky is sad, we teach them the water cycle.

Of course you do. You also teach that taking pills, stuffing pads over the pectorals and cutting one's dick off will make a man a woman.

Oh. The science.

Great point, for some science no longer matters when there's an agenda to push; some of the biggest self declared adherents of "science" are also the ones claiming that sex shouldn't be defined by biology, just by whatever one "feels like they are". Ironic.

 

[Moonglow]

Provided that a specific religion isn't taught but merely logical arguments for design, I don't see how it violates the 1st Amendment, especially considering that the American Founders specifically mentioned a creator in the Declaration of Independence.

Because it has no bearing on reality. We don't teach kids that it rains whenever the sky is sad, we teach them the water cycle.

Of course you do. You also teach that taking pills, stuffing pads over the pectorals and cutting one's dick off will make a man a woman.

Oh. The science.

Great point, for some science no longer matters when there's an agenda to push; some of the biggest self declared adherents of "science" are also the ones claiming that sex shouldn't be defined by biology, just by whatever one "feels like they are". Ironic.

And religious tyrants want to suppress and repress people for practicing their freedom of sexuality.....

 

[TheOldSchool]

Provided that a specific religion isn't taught but merely logical arguments for design, I don't see how it violates the 1st Amendment, especially considering that the American Founders specifically mentioned a creator in the Declaration of Independence.

Because it has no bearing on reality. We don't teach kids that it rains whenever the sky is sad, we teach them the water cycle.

Of course you do. You also teach that taking pills, stuffing pads over the pectorals and cutting one's dick off will make a man a woman.

Oh. The science.

Great point, for some science no longer matters when there's an agenda to push; some of the biggest self declared adherents of "science" are also the ones claiming that sex shouldn't be defined by biology, just by whatever one "feels like they are". Ironic.

Lol wow. It was a terrible point. And you're a joke for agreeing. That argument has nothing to do with the one you made in the OP.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Provided that a specific religion isn't taught but merely logical arguments for design, I don't see how it violates the 1st Amendment, especially considering that the American Founders specifically mentioned a creator in the Declaration of Independence.

Because it has no bearing on reality. We don't teach kids that it rains whenever the sky is sad, we teach them the water cycle.

Of course you do. You also teach that taking pills, stuffing pads over the pectorals and cutting one's dick off will make a man a woman.

Oh. The science.

Great point, for some science no longer matters when there's an agenda to push; some of the biggest self declared adherents of "science" are also the ones claiming that sex shouldn't be defined by biology, just by whatever one "feels like they are". Ironic.

Lol wow. It was a terrible point. And you're a joke for agreeing. That argument has nothing to do with the one you made in the OP.

Au contraire, it has to do with the Democrats' claim of truth through science.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Provided that a specific religion isn't taught but merely logical arguments for design, I don't see how it violates the 1st Amendment, especially considering that the American Founders specifically mentioned a creator in the Declaration of Independence.

Because it has no bearing on reality. We don't teach kids that it rains whenever the sky is sad, we teach them the water cycle.

Of course you do. You also teach that taking pills, stuffing pads over the pectorals and cutting one's dick off will make a man a woman.

Oh. The science.

Great point, for some science no longer matters when there's an agenda to push; some of the biggest self declared adherents of "science" are also the ones claiming that sex shouldn't be defined by biology, just by whatever one "feels like they are". Ironic.

Lol wow. It was a terrible point. And you're a joke for agreeing. That argument has nothing to do with the one you made in the OP.

Au contraire, it has to do with the Democrats' claim of truth through science.

No you just had to vent your obsession with people's naughty parts.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Provided that a specific religion isn't taught but merely logical arguments for design, I don't see how it violates the 1st Amendment, especially considering that the American Founders specifically mentioned a creator in the Declaration of Independence.

Why can't you people teach your own children that nonsense, on your own time?

 

[tyroneweaver]

Provided that a specific religion isn't taught but merely logical arguments for design, I don't see how it violates the 1st Amendment, especially considering that the American Founders specifically mentioned a creator in the Declaration of Independence.

In Utah they have Seminary 1 hour a day. As taught in Mormon cultures. It's called released time
In Idaho it's called Christian ED. Same thing
Ya might get an atheist teaching intelligent design in a HS setting or some other wacko who's dog knows more about the Bible than they do.

 

[BULLDOG]

Provided that a specific religion isn't taught but merely logical arguments for design, I don't see how it violates the 1st Amendment, especially considering that the American Founders specifically mentioned a creator in the Declaration of Independence.

Everything violates the 1st Amendment unless approved by the Democrats.

You think I'm kidding?

No, I don't think you are kidding I think you actually believe that. Unfortunately, for you, it's wrong.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Because 'intelligent design' was designed specifically to get Christianity taught in schools alongside and equal to the Theory of Evolution. The purveyors of that religion see their grip on unreality slipping to reality so they've been busy coming up with whatever batshit will stick to the wall. The 'creation museum' is one such endeavor into ridiculousness. They have dinosaurs with saddles on them and children playing next to them.

There is nothing intelligent about ID except the way the fake Christians that came up with it are trying to sell it as something it isn't. They are using the big lie because their bigger lie isn't working any more. Their arguments continually lose in the debate in the public square. Myths have a tendency to slowly die out as actual knowledge is gained, and people no longer believe a snake talked or that we are all responsible for one woman eating an apple and therefore subjecting the rest of us to an eternity of torture at the hands of a flying father figure who commands all humans to love him or burn in torture forever. That is what Kim Jong IL does.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Provided that a specific religion isn't taught but merely logical arguments for design, I don't see how it violates the 1st Amendment, especially considering that the American Founders specifically mentioned a creator in the Declaration of Independence.

Teaching kids to be tards is, well, not good for the kids or the country.

I've never seen such a statement devoid of facts

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Provided that a specific religion isn't taught but merely logical arguments for design, I don't see how it violates the 1st Amendment, especially considering that the American Founders specifically mentioned a creator in the Declaration of Independence.

Everything violates the 1st Amendment unless approved by the Democrats.

You think I'm kidding?

No, I don't think you are kidding I think you actually believe that. Unfortunately, for you, it's wrong.

Of course you don't think I'm kidding. You know it to be true, pod person that you are.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Provided that a specific religion isn't taught but merely logical arguments for design, I don't see how it violates the 1st Amendment, especially considering that the American Founders specifically mentioned a creator in the Declaration of Independence.

Because it has no bearing on reality. We don't teach kids that it rains whenever the sky is sad, we teach them the water cycle.

Of course you do. You also teach that taking pills, stuffing pads over the pectorals and cutting one's dick off will make a man a woman.

Oh. The science.

Great point, for some science no longer matters when there's an agenda to push; some of the biggest self declared adherents of "science" are also the ones claiming that sex shouldn't be defined by biology, just by whatever one "feels like they are". Ironic.

Lol wow. It was a terrible point. And you're a joke for agreeing. That argument has nothing to do with the one you made in the OP.

Au contraire, it has to do with the Democrats' claim of truth through science.

True religion agrees with true science

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Because it has no bearing on reality. We don't teach kids that it rains whenever the sky is sad, we teach them the water cycle.

Of course you do. You also teach that taking pills, stuffing pads over the pectorals and cutting one's dick off will make a man a woman.

Oh. The science.

Great point, for some science no longer matters when there's an agenda to push; some of the biggest self declared adherents of "science" are also the ones claiming that sex shouldn't be defined by biology, just by whatever one "feels like they are". Ironic.

Lol wow. It was a terrible point. And you're a joke for agreeing. That argument has nothing to do with the one you made in the OP.

Au contraire, it has to do with the Democrats' claim of truth through science.

True religion agrees with true science

Indeed.