Discussion:
Bill tries to force creationism in public schools
(too old to reply)
Terry Lomax
2004-02-15 15:35:12 UTC
Permalink
This article is over a month old, but some people might have missed
news of the bill by the religious right to force creationism (under
the PC name "intelligent design") into Missouri schools:

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/7665979.htm

One of the bill's supporters was on the St. Louis CBS affiliate KMOV
Channel 4 last night. What a lunatic! Ever notice how fanatical
Bible-thumping women are usually hideously ugly? Anyone who's seen a
picture of Brenda Warner knows what I'm talking about.
John Kuthe
2004-02-16 02:24:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Lomax
This article is over a month old, but some people might have missed
news of the bill by the religious right to force creationism (under
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/7665979.htm
One of the bill's supporters was on the St. Louis CBS affiliate KMOV
Channel 4 last night. What a lunatic! Ever notice how fanatical
Bible-thumping women are usually hideously ugly? Anyone who's seen a
picture of Brenda Warner knows what I'm talking about.
Yes, BUT! Intelligent design leaves the door open to such insanity as the
possibility of life on Earth originating from being seeded by aliens!
Yano? Doesn't necessarily mean "God". Just something intelligent. Like
Jimi Hendrix's chickens!! ;-)

John Kuthe...
Michael Chance
2004-02-16 11:17:29 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@posting.google.com>, Lomax47
@hotmail.com says...
Post by Terry Lomax
This article is over a month old, but some people might have missed
news of the bill by the religious right to force creationism (under
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/7665979.htm
Actually, the theory of intelligent design has a number of highly
respected academics backing it, and backing it with some solid, peer
reviewed research. And, if I recall my history correctly, Darwin was
considered a "lunatic" and "fanatical" in his day, with many of the same
arguments used to keep the teaching of the theory of evolution (and it
is just a theory) out of classrooms for almost a century.

So, tell me: What's the harm in presenting both theories, evolution and
intelligent design, with the arguments for and against each?
Post by Terry Lomax
One of the bill's supporters was on the St. Louis CBS affiliate KMOV
Channel 4 last night. What a lunatic! Ever notice how fanatical
Bible-thumping women are usually hideously ugly? Anyone who's seen a
picture of Brenda Warner knows what I'm talking about.
So the best argument that you can muster against intelligent design is
an ad hominem attack on the appearance of one of the supporters? How
convincing!

Michael Chance
Default User
2004-02-16 23:06:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Chance
So, tell me: What's the harm in presenting both theories, evolution and
intelligent design, with the arguments for and against each?
Why not every other crackpot "theory" too? There isn't a shred of
credible evidence supporting intelligent design.




Brian Rodenborn
j***@rr.com
2004-02-17 03:25:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Chance
@hotmail.com says...
Post by Terry Lomax
This article is over a month old, but some people might have missed
news of the bill by the religious right to force creationism (under
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/7665979.htm
Actually, the theory of intelligent design has a number of highly
respected academics backing it, and backing it with some solid, peer
reviewed research. And, if I recall my history correctly, Darwin was
considered a "lunatic" and "fanatical" in his day, with many of the same
arguments used to keep the teaching of the theory of evolution (and it
is just a theory) out of classrooms for almost a century.
So, tell me: What's the harm in presenting both theories, evolution and
intelligent design, with the arguments for and against each?
What's the harm? "Creation science" isn't science at all. It's
belief and conjecture. It's not based on observable facts and it's
not useful. "Creation science" supposes that a supreme being couldn't
possibly be intelligent enough have chosen evolution as a mode of
creation. What an arrogant assumption to make! Not to mention how
Judeo Christian centric the whole concept is. Suppose I think that
alligators created everything - should we teach that? Remember, they
called Darwin a "lunatic" too.

By the way, the Wall Street Journal published a nice article last week
about intelligent design. It pretty much blowed holes in it's basic
assumption "Gawd, it's so's complicated that only God could have done
it". Read it. YMMV.
Post by Michael Chance
Post by Terry Lomax
One of the bill's supporters was on the St. Louis CBS affiliate KMOV
Channel 4 last night. What a lunatic! Ever notice how fanatical
Bible-thumping women are usually hideously ugly? Anyone who's seen a
picture of Brenda Warner knows what I'm talking about.
So the best argument that you can muster against intelligent design is
an ad hominem attack on the appearance of one of the supporters? How
convincing!
Michael Chance
We'll, I've got to agree with you on that. Making judgements based on
someone's appearance is asking for trouble.

John
Terry Lomax
2004-02-17 15:04:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Chance
So, tell me: What's the harm in presenting both theories, evolution and
intelligent design, with the arguments for and against each?
The religious aspects of intelligent design are yet another violation
of separation of church and state. The religious right only wants
separation when it benefits them (tax exemption for "religious"
entities). They want to _force_ kids to say "under God" in the Pledge
(words added by Eisenhower, a Republican). The Bush administration
wants to give huge taxpayer handouts to private religious schools
("vouchers"). Religious fanatics also get involved politically,
supporting US wars because they condone the genocide of Moslems, and
the Zionist wars fufill their prophecy of "The Jews are God's chosen
people who are supposed to control Israel/Palestine".

Another harm of teaching intelligent design is the reputation of
Missouri as ignorant Bible Belt hicks. The state is trying to become
a center for life sciences. No life science firm will locate in the
state if we're best known as controlled by Creationist wackos.
Post by Michael Chance
So the best argument that you can muster against intelligent design is
an ad hominem attack on the appearance of one of the supporters? How
convincing!
The linked KC Star article quotes plenty of solid arguments against
intelligent design and against its _forced_ teaching.
Jerry A. Pipes
2004-02-17 16:52:11 UTC
Permalink
The Bush administration wants to give huge taxpayer
handouts to private religious schools ("vouchers").
Just to be accurate, the only voucher systems I've heard of are those that
intend to let taxpayers keep their *own* money to use as they wish. Are you
opposed to that? Or are you referring to some other vouchers?
Default User
2004-02-17 18:20:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry A. Pipes
Just to be accurate, the only voucher systems I've heard of are those that
intend to let taxpayers keep their *own* money to use as they wish. Are you
opposed to that? Or are you referring to some other vouchers?
Actually, I am opposed to it. You either have public schools or you
don't. Why should some people be allowed to withhold their
participation, but not childless taxpayers? I don't get any direct
benefit from the public schools, yet I think they are an important part
of the structure of the community.



Brian Rodenborn
Jerry A. Pipes
2004-02-17 20:41:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Default User
Post by Jerry A. Pipes
Just to be accurate, the only voucher systems I've heard of are those that
intend to let taxpayers keep their *own* money to use as they wish. Are you
opposed to that? Or are you referring to some other vouchers?
Actually, I am opposed to it. You either have public schools or you
don't.
I say let's don't. :)
Post by Default User
Why should some people be allowed to withhold their
participation, but not childless taxpayers?
I say everyone should be allowed to withhold their participation.
Post by Default User
I don't get any direct benefit from the public schools,
I agree. Chances are good that you didn't get any even if you *went* to
one.
Post by Default User
yet I think they are an important part of the structure of
the community.
I used to think that. Then I read this: http://tinyurl.com/5t2g.
Default User
2004-02-17 20:57:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry A. Pipes
Post by Default User
Actually, I am opposed to it. You either have public schools or you
don't.
I say let's don't. :)
Color me SHOCKED! I was tossing you a straight line there.
Post by Jerry A. Pipes
Post by Default User
I don't get any direct benefit from the public schools,
I agree. Chances are good that you didn't get any even if you *went* to
one.
I would disagree with that. I attended both private (Catholic) schools
and public schools in my day, plus public university, and on the whole
thought my public school education was excellent.



Brian Rodenborn
Jerry A. Pipes
2004-02-18 13:00:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Default User
Post by Jerry A. Pipes
Post by Default User
Actually, I am opposed to it. You either have public schools or you
don't.
I say let's don't. :)
Color me SHOCKED! I was tossing you a straight line there.
:) I appreciate it.
Post by Default User
I would disagree with that. I attended both private (Catholic) schools
and public schools in my day, plus public university, and on the whole
thought my public school education was excellent.
Similarly, I went to private school K-8 (Lutheran) and public high
school/university. On the whole I thought my education was adequate. I
really have no specific complaints about either, where my own education is
concerned. But that doesn't excuse the basic principles that are being
violated by the existence of public schools. Add to this their abysmal
performance, and I'm afraid they become impossible to abide or defend.
DH
2004-02-18 03:51:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry A. Pipes
Post by Default User
Post by Jerry A. Pipes
Just to be accurate, the only voucher systems I've heard of are those
that
Post by Default User
Post by Jerry A. Pipes
intend to let taxpayers keep their *own* money to use as they wish.
Are
Post by Jerry A. Pipes
you
Post by Default User
Post by Jerry A. Pipes
opposed to that? Or are you referring to some other vouchers?
Actually, I am opposed to it. You either have public schools or you
don't.
I say let's don't. :)
Post by Default User
Why should some people be allowed to withhold their
participation, but not childless taxpayers?
I say everyone should be allowed to withhold their participation.
Post by Default User
I don't get any direct benefit from the public schools,
I agree. Chances are good that you didn't get any even if you *went* to
one.
Post by Default User
yet I think they are an important part of the structure of
the community.
I used to think that. Then I read this: http://tinyurl.com/5t2g.
Unbelievable! I would argue the opposite. There should not be private
education. What would happen to the public school system if all of-age
citizens had to go to public schools? Now throw into the equation that that
they had their choice of schools. I strongly suspect that the rich would
make damn certain that the school that Timmy was attending, would be
adequate to say the least.

By our present system, because Timmy is born to a rich family, he is allowed
a better education via the private school.

All children deserve an equal education regardless of anything. No family
should have the ability to give their child an advantage because they are
able to afford it.

How can one argue with this?

Dave H.
Michael Chance
2004-02-18 11:44:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by DH
There should not be private
education. What would happen to the public school system if all of-age
citizens had to go to public schools?
Then you would have a violation of the First Amendment, which states
that the federal government (and, through the Fourteenth Amendment, the
states) can make no law regulating the free exercise of religion. Your
plan would outlaw not only those fundamentalist Christian school which
you so fear, but also Islamic schools, Hindu schools, Jewish schools,
Quaker schools, Amish and Mennonite schools.

You would also have the ability for the state to not just to provide
education for everyone, but have exclusive control over what is taught
and how it is taught. We've seen how well that worked in 1930s Germany
and under the Soviet Union.
Post by DH
Now throw into the equation that that
they had their choice of schools. I strongly suspect that the rich would
make damn certain that the school that Timmy was attending, would be
adequate to say the least.
But if the funding for that child's education came from the same source
(that is, all children received the same amount of funding for his/her
education), then why not permit the parents to decide where they believe
that money would provide the best education?
Post by DH
By our present system, because Timmy is born to a rich family, he is allowed
a better education via the private school.
As opposed to your proposal, in which every child is assured an equally
poor education.
Post by DH
All children deserve an equal education regardless of anything. No family
should have the ability to give their child an advantage because they are
able to afford it.
So the government should be empowered to remove decisions about a
child's education from the parents?

Michael Chance
DH
2004-02-18 12:43:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Chance
Post by DH
There should not be private
education. What would happen to the public school system if all of-age
citizens had to go to public schools?
Then you would have a violation of the First Amendment, which states
that the federal government (and, through the Fourteenth Amendment, the
states) can make no law regulating the free exercise of religion. Your
plan would outlaw not only those fundamentalist Christian school which
you so fear, but also Islamic schools, Hindu schools, Jewish schools,
Quaker schools, Amish and Mennonite schools.
You would also have the ability for the state to not just to provide
education for everyone, but have exclusive control over what is taught
and how it is taught. We've seen how well that worked in 1930s Germany
and under the Soviet Union.
Post by DH
Now throw into the equation that that
they had their choice of schools. I strongly suspect that the rich would
make damn certain that the school that Timmy was attending, would be
adequate to say the least.
But if the funding for that child's education came from the same source
(that is, all children received the same amount of funding for his/her
education), then why not permit the parents to decide where they believe
that money would provide the best education?
Post by DH
By our present system, because Timmy is born to a rich family, he is allowed
a better education via the private school.
As opposed to your proposal, in which every child is assured an equally
poor education.
Post by DH
All children deserve an equal education regardless of anything. No family
should have the ability to give their child an advantage because they are
able to afford it.
So the government should be empowered to remove decisions about a
child's education from the parents?
Michael Chance
Tisk Tisk Tisk! What does religion have to do with this discussion? Who
said that I was afraid of fundamentalist Christian schools? A poor counter
at best.

Dave H.
Jerry A. Pipes
2004-02-18 12:50:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by DH
Post by Jerry A. Pipes
I used to think that. Then I read this: http://tinyurl.com/5t2g.
Unbelievable! I would argue the opposite. There should not be private
education.
Are you suggesting that private schools be outlawed?
Post by DH
What would happen to the public school system if all of-age
citizens had to go to public schools?
I don't know. What do you think would happen?
Post by DH
Now throw into the equation that that they had their choice of schools.
I strongly suspect that the rich would make damn certain that the
school that Timmy was attending, would be adequate to say the least.
Yes, how dare these parents try to obtain the best education for their
children! What are they thinking?
Post by DH
By our present system, because Timmy is born to a rich family, he
is allowed a better education via the private school.
What? You mean life is... unfair? Oh dear God -- someone alert the
authorities!
Post by DH
All children deserve an equal education regardless of anything.
No family should have the ability to give their child an advantage
because they are able to afford it.
How can one argue with this?
Are you serious?
DH
2004-02-18 13:46:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry A. Pipes
Post by DH
Post by Jerry A. Pipes
I used to think that. Then I read this: http://tinyurl.com/5t2g.
Unbelievable! I would argue the opposite. There should not be private
education.
Are you suggesting that private schools be outlawed?
Post by DH
What would happen to the public school system if all of-age
citizens had to go to public schools?
I don't know. What do you think would happen?
Post by DH
Now throw into the equation that that they had their choice of schools.
I strongly suspect that the rich would make damn certain that the
school that Timmy was attending, would be adequate to say the least.
Yes, how dare these parents try to obtain the best education for their
children! What are they thinking?
Post by DH
By our present system, because Timmy is born to a rich family, he
is allowed a better education via the private school.
What? You mean life is... unfair? Oh dear God -- someone alert the
authorities!
Post by DH
All children deserve an equal education regardless of anything.
No family should have the ability to give their child an advantage
because they are able to afford it.
How can one argue with this?
Are you serious?
Yes, I am serious. All children should have the same opportunity for a
quality education. No one can argue against this. Should the poor ghetto
child be punished just because he was born into a poor family? Obviously
no. Should that child have the same educational opportunity as George W.
Bush? Again, the obvious answer is yes.

The tough part is how to achieve this. Our present system is not working.
Statistics will prove this fact. Bussing was a gallant effort to combat
this inequality. Something needs to be done.

Dave H.
Jerry A. Pipes
2004-02-18 20:05:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by DH
Post by Jerry A. Pipes
Are you serious?
Yes, I am serious. All children should have the same opportunity
for a quality education. No one can argue against this.
I can, if it requires compelling one group to work for the benefit of
another group. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it certainly sounds like that
is what you are proposing.
Post by DH
Should the poor ghetto child be punished just because he was
born into a poor family? Obviously no. Should that child have
the same educational opportunity as George W. Bush? Again,
the obvious answer is yes.
The answer is yes, if he can afford it. No one *owes* the proverbial "poor
ghetto child" an education.
Post by DH
The tough part is how to achieve this. Our present system is not working.
Statistics will prove this fact. Bussing was a gallant effort to combat
this inequality. Something needs to be done.
I agree. You start by dismantling the Department of Education and
privatizing all schools. Allow the competition within the free market to
make the necessary improvements.
Michael Chance
2004-02-19 11:34:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by DH
Post by DH
All children deserve an equal education regardless of anything.
All children should have the same opportunity for a
quality education.
Please note that these are not the same thing. The first restricts all
children to the same level of quality, whether that be good or bad. The
second leaves open the possibility that either the child or the parents
may choose (probably ill-advisedly) to not take advantage of the
opportunity.
Post by DH
Should the poor ghetto
child be punished just because he was born into a poor family? Obviously
no. Should that child have the same educational opportunity as George W.
Bush? Again, the obvious answer is yes.
And how would you handle the situation where the child or his/her
parents choose to not take advantage of having the same opportunity that
Bush (or Al Gore, Jr., or Lacy Clay) have? High quality public schools
and individual teachers and administrators (yes, there are some) have to
deal with students who don't want to learn, or parents that prefer to
see the schools as just glorified child care everyday. How would your
proposed system change that?
Post by DH
Bussing was a gallant effort to combat this inequality.
No, bussing is a failed attempt at implementing a flawed hypothesis.
Initially, it was thought that by simply sending black children to
schools that were previously predominantly white would provide them with
a better education. What the proponents failed to take into
consideration was that also meant that an equal number of white children
would have to be bussed to the poor quality, previously predominantly
black schools. Since the bussing plans started immediately, without
much time to implement any improvement programs to the poor performing
schools, it shouldn't have surprised anyone when the parents of the
white children balked, and voted with their feet to move to different
school districts where they could insure that their children would
continue to receive a quality education. Then, the "purpose" of the
bussing program shifted to be one of insuring "diversity" instead of
improving educational quality. However, since most of the white
students had already fled the system, this was also an unachieveable
goal. Now, bussing programs are holding on because they are a public
sector jobs program with union backing.
Post by DH
Something needs to be done.
Agreed. In the meantime, however, parents of children caught in failing
public schools have to be given a means to opt out, whether that is the
choice to send their child to a magnet school or a charter school (which
are public schools, despite everything that their opponents claim), or
to be able to use the same amount of tax dollars to send their child to
the school of their choice. If the number of children leaving the
public school system is large enough to begin closing the worst public
schools and laying off the worst teachers and administrators, then that
sounds like a good thing to me.

Michael Chance
Michael Chance
2004-02-18 11:30:41 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@posting.google.com>, Lomax47
@hotmail.com says...
Post by Terry Lomax
The religious aspects of intelligent design are yet another violation
of separation of church and state.
Nice try, except that (at the federal level), there is so such thing as
"separation of church and state". It's nowhere in the Constitution, and
wasn't used in Supreme Court decisions until the mid-20th Century.

The phrase was used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a Baptist
minister, assuring him that the federal government was prohibited from
outlawing or regulating the Baptist denomination by the First Amendment.
It was never intended to suggest that religion was to be banished from
the public square or the realm of government.
Post by Terry Lomax
The Bush administration
wants to give huge taxpayer handouts to private religious schools
("vouchers").
Then you clearly don't understand how vouchers work.
Post by Terry Lomax
Religious fanatics also get involved politically,
supporting US wars because they condone the genocide of Moslems, and
the Zionist wars fufill their prophecy of "The Jews are God's chosen
people who are supposed to control Israel/Palestine".
As opposed to religious fanatics who would attempt to impose Islam as
the only approved religion (like in Iran or Saudi Arabia) or who are
attempting to impose Hinduism as the state religion and outlaw
everything else (like in India), or secular humanists who are attempting
to eliminate religion from the U. S.? Or are "religious fanatics" OK
when they promote liberal politicians and policies from the pulpit, but
not conservative ones?
Post by Terry Lomax
Post by Terry Lomax
The linked KC Star article quotes plenty of solid arguments against
intelligent design and against its _forced_ teaching.
And I can post a list of articles that support intelligent design.
Incidentally, many of the arguments against intelligent design sound
very similar to the ones used against Darwin's theory of evolution - by
the majority of the scientific community - until the early 20th Century.

Personally, I find that neither theory - evolution or intellegent design
- is 100% correct. And as long as they stick to the scientific
arguments, I don't see the harm in presenting both theories. I do see
the harm in government-controlled education labeling *any* well-
researched theory as "crackpot", just because the "scientific
establishment" happens to dislike where the research originates or what
the conclusions might be - which is exactly what happened to Darwin for
decades.

Michael Chance
jt august
2004-02-22 20:01:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Chance
The phrase was used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a Baptist
minister, assuring him that the federal government was prohibited from
outlawing or regulating the Baptist denomination by the First Amendment.
It was never intended to suggest that religion was to be banished from
the public square or the realm of government.
Thank you. This is a concept that has been lost in our court system.
The ACLU has had a field day of imposing a form of aethism on us in the
name of the so-called "seperation of church and state." By forcing the
govenrment to no even acknowlege God, they are turning our government
into an aethistic body. Aethism is a faith, and chosen disbelief in any
supreme being. Until this eathism is defined as a religious belief,
this will sadly continue to encroach on our ways of life for all
americans.

jt

jt august
2004-02-22 19:48:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Chance
So, tell me: What's the harm in presenting both theories, evolution and
intelligent design, with the arguments for and against each?
Well, for one thing, the theory of intelligent design (specifically,
juedo-christian creationism) depends of theological belief, so that one
who does not subscribe to such faiths would be forced to learn such
beliefs as fact.

Evolution is the path existance has taken, and I don't see evolution as
being in conflict with crationism. Evolution, rather, is God's tool for
doing what he has done. The bible teaches that God created the earth in
seven days. But God is infinite in all scopes, including the dimention
we perceive as time. Mathematics has proven that you can not accuartely
split infinities. So that means that for an infinite being, a day does
not have to remain a constant and/or equal interval. The bible says
that God rested on the seventh day. I believe that in God's
perspective, it is still his seventh day. God laid forth the evolution
of the planet, of the galaxies, of all existance. Faith in God for
those of us who embrace it explains the motivations. Evolution is
merely man's attempt to understand what God did and how he did it.

Evolution is a trackable science. Creationism is a faith. The two are
not in conflict with each other, but our constitution provides that no
one can force their beliefs on another person. To teach creationism
along side evolution is to treat a faith as a fact. Passions of the
heart are not proven facts, but beliefs.

jt
jt august
2004-02-22 19:38:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Terry Lomax
This article is over a month old, but some people might have missed
news of the bill by the religious right to force creationism (under
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/7665979.htm
One of the bill's supporters was on the St. Louis CBS affiliate KMOV
Channel 4 last night. What a lunatic! Ever notice how fanatical
Bible-thumping women are usually hideously ugly? Anyone who's seen a
picture of Brenda Warner knows what I'm talking about.
I heard about this. JC Corcoran has seen that lady, and he notes that
she seems to have an abnormal drive to want to be on TV, and so takes
stands on bizarre things just to get attention.
Loading...