1. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum...
    You are currently logged out and viewing our forum as a guest which only allows limited access to our discussions, photos and other forum features. If you are a 12ozProphet Member please login to get the full experience.

    If you are not a 12ozProphet Member, please take a moment to register to gain full access to our website and all of its features. As a 12ozProphet Member you will be able to post comments, start discussions, communicate privately with other members and access members-only content. Registration is fast, simple and free, so join today and be a part of the largest and longest running Graffiti, Art, Style & Culture forum online.

    Please note, if you are a 12ozProphet Member and are locked out of your account, you can recover your account using the 'lost password' link in the login form. If you no longer have access to the email you registered with, please email us at info@12ozprophet.com and we'll help you recover your account. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum (and don't forget to follow @12ozprophet in Instagram)!

Bush: intelligent design to be taught in schools

Discussion in 'News' started by imported_Tesseract, Oct 13, 2005.

  1. Bush: intelligent design to be taught in schools

    Discussion started by imported_Tesseract - Oct 13, 2005

    President George Bush has started a national debate in the US over the teaching of evolution in school.

    The president has suggested that a theory known as "intelligent design" should be taught in the classroom.

    It proposes that life is too complex to have developed through evolution, and an unseen power must have had a hand.

    President Bush's championing of intelligent design will be interpreted as further evidence of the growing influence of the religious right.

    The US president told newspaper reporters in Texas that children should be taught about intelligent design so they could better understand the debate about the origins of the universe.

    Intelligent design differs from biblical creationism in that it is not tied to a literal interpretation of the biblical book of Genesis.

    Nevertheless, intelligent design points to the role of a creator, and it has become increasingly influential in Christian circles.

    Scientific arguments

    Yet even those on the religious right, such as Republican Senator Rick Santorum, are cautious as to how it should be taught.

    "I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom," he says.

    "What we should be teaching are the problems and holes, and I think there are legitimate problems and holes in the theory of evolution."

    The debate, though, is already having a real impact.

    In Kansas, the board of education has been re-evaluating the way evolution is taught - a sign that more conservative politicians and officials want to reflect the theory of intelligent design.

    Many scientists insist, though, it is just that - a theory.

    Alan Leshner, the chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, says that the proponents of intelligent design are "trying to cloak a religious concept in the mantle of science".

    "There is no science to intelligent design, it's not even a scientifically answerable question," he says.

    In 1925, the Scopes trial marked a defeat for creationists and opened the way for evolution to be taught in US classrooms.

    Eighty years on, intelligent design is offering the creationists new comfort.

    Once again, they are putting evolution on trial.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4136690.stm
     
  2. imported_Tesseract - Replied Oct 13, 2005

    Thats super serious
     
  3. casekonly

    casekonly 12oz Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2002
    Messages:
    8,264

    casekonly - Replied Oct 13, 2005

    yep. when we start moving science classes over to fantastic tales of
    magic gardens and great entities in the sky....wow....

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]
     
    casekonly - Rank: 12oz Veteran Member - Messages:
    8,264
    - Joined:
    Aug 6, 2002
  4. Herbivore

    Herbivore 12oz Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,431

    Herbivore - Replied Oct 13, 2005

     
    Herbivore - Rank: 12oz Senior Member - Messages:
    1,431
    - Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
  5. yum

    yum 12oz Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    122

    yum - Replied Oct 13, 2005

    im not religious at all, ive studied intelligent design theory at uni, and i dont think its a bad thing to teach it as a THEORY to students that are old enough to be able to question things and not take everything on face value. definitely shouldnt be taught in science class htough
     
    yum - Rank: 12oz Junior Member - Messages:
    122
    - Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
  6. Tyler Durden

    Tyler Durden 12oz Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2001
    Messages:
    5,263

    Tyler Durden - Replied Oct 13, 2005

    ....And the hits just keep on coming.
     
    Tyler Durden - Rank: 12oz Veteran Member - Messages:
    5,263
    - Joined:
    Nov 18, 2001
  7. Biggus Dickus

    Biggus Dickus 12oz Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,371

    Biggus Dickus - Replied Oct 13, 2005

    Thank you for setting our country back 200 years, Mr. Bush.
     
    Biggus Dickus - Rank: 12oz Senior Member - Messages:
    1,371
    - Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
  8. John Birch

    John Birch 12oz Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2004
    Messages:
    747

    John Birch - Replied Oct 13, 2005

    I've been following this issue for a few months, and I notice in article after article, ID folks keep saying it should be taught because of holes and discrenpencies in evolutionary theory.


    What exactly are those holes, discrepencies etc? ID proponents never discuss that...
     
    John Birch - Rank: 12oz Member - Messages:
    747
    - Joined:
    Apr 14, 2004
  9. John Birch

    John Birch 12oz Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2004
    Messages:
    747

    John Birch - Replied Oct 13, 2005

    and I just went to the Discovery Institute's website and skimmed some shit about ID.


    the funny thing is that they keep quoting and mentioning Darwin, Darwin, Darwin, like he was some religious kook like John Smith or L. Ron hubbard...


    The truth of the matter is, is that evolution as a theory was first proposed thousands of yaers ago by the Greeks. darwin and some other guy first proposed a modern theory of HOW things evolve, not whether they do or not.

    And most importantly, our current understanding of evolution was actually first identified by a Catholic monk: Mendl, who observed genetics in plants...
     
    John Birch - Rank: 12oz Member - Messages:
    747
    - Joined:
    Apr 14, 2004
  10. theillp

    theillp 12oz Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    117

    theillp - Replied Oct 13, 2005

    I think a good part of the motive for bush to do this now is to show that he really believes that he did his contreversy actions becasue god told him too.. and so doing this will show that he wasnt just saying that to find any excuse but he really believes it that much..

    on another note is was thinking.. do you think its possible that matter and energy was never created just change form..? i mean it seems people's logical explanation for god is becasue everything that exists needs a creator? why would we think that? is it a lot do do with us seeing humans "create" (mix things that laredy exist and build seeminlgy new things) so we kinda think there has to be an analogy to the existence of everything? im not on any side really just questioning..now
     
    theillp - Rank: 12oz Junior Member - Messages:
    117
    - Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
  11. KING BLING

    KING BLING Guest

    KING BLING - Replied Oct 13, 2005


    I think a world religions class in high school would be appropriate as long as the curiculum is closely monitored to weed out bias.

    Design theory though is a joke - a responce to evolutions conflict with the idea of an Eden created by God. It was developed to give a scientific looking face to religion.

    What confuses me is that people who take evolution as an afront to the Old Testament version of creation must by there belief in that portion also support all the slavery and brutal punishments listed within it. We had a conversation here about it previously - for the religious among you, how do you support the Genesis portion without also supporting the "be a good slave" and "kill all the pregnant women who appose God" portion of the Old Testament?
     
  12. John Birch

    John Birch 12oz Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2004
    Messages:
    747

    John Birch - Replied Oct 13, 2005

    the old testament was written by exiled jewish scholars as a way to write down their oral traditions and give definition and meaning to their culture that was in serious position to be lost. Even back then it was never really meant to be taken literally...allegory in other words...

    biblical literalism arose during the dark ages in Europe as a way to justify serfom and the Divine "Rights" of the Catholic Church and local lords and kings...
     
    John Birch - Rank: 12oz Member - Messages:
    747
    - Joined:
    Apr 14, 2004
  13. KING BLING

    KING BLING Guest

    KING BLING - Replied Oct 13, 2005


    Thats very interesting...any resources you can offer on the matter?
     
  14. theillp

    theillp 12oz Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    117

    theillp - Replied Oct 13, 2005

    i think its good both sides are presented as a theory casue it casues people to think for themselves and realize there isnt certainty (unless you add faith (towards 'god' or athiesm) but you can question that by looking at your (desired) motives for beliving it...
     
    theillp - Rank: 12oz Junior Member - Messages:
    117
    - Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
  15. theillp

    theillp 12oz Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    117

    theillp - Replied Oct 13, 2005

    sorry this might be a silly or offtopic question but just want to write it before i forget.. if god supposedly exists outside of time then how can he judge? i mean thats an action(s) that hes doing.. which includes changing of some form.. so isnt that contradictuary? is it possible to do actions and changes of some sort outside of time?? if so please let me know with a little bit of backed up reasoning cause i stumped myslef.. thanx (and if he could then coundnt we be acting outside of time? whats the differnce)
     
    theillp - Rank: 12oz Junior Member - Messages:
    117
    - Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005