Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (244830)	8/4/2005 1:05:33 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576346

Eric, there is a simple reason why people consider evolution and creationism to be mutually exclusive: the Book of Genesis. My feeling is that schools don't even need to teach "intelligent design," as long as they focus their lessons on evolution to the differentiation of species and the whole notion of "survival of the fittest." After all, even Darwin's work is called "The Origin of Species," not "The Origin of Life." "Genesis" (note the quotes) is best left to collegiate philosophy courses. High school kids already have enough to learn. Tenchusatsu

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (244830)	8/4/2005 2:44:11 PM
From: Alighieri	Respond to of 1576346

I do not share Bush's fundamental belief in ID nor should it be taught with equal stature You probably don't share his political debts or ambitions either...most "intelligently designed" creatures sees this for what it is. Al

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (244830)	8/4/2005 4:18:38 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576346

re:Bush Remarks Roil Debate on Teaching of Evolution I do not share Bush's fundamental belief in ID nor should it be taught with equal stature - I think it's wrong and when compared in the light of day in a class room setting I believe it's obviously not a factually supported idea - creationism has been updated into an attack against evolution and renamed ID. I think in many school districts that would be the case. However, there are some 20 states that are pushing to teach ID as a full fledge course. The key is in the presentation......esp. with adolescents. If it was taught to you as a real alternative and 'factually backed up' which really is a fudging of the facts, you would laugh your way through it. But with kids who have not begun to think formal operationally or like an adult, they will be sucked in. Have you listened to the kids called the Lost Boys coming out of the homes of polygamists in Utah? They had a very hard time discerning the truth from the lies. The only reason that most of them are out is because they got kicked out........they were misbehaving and proving to be competition for the older men when it came to the young girls. Otherwise, they would have had a hard time leaving....same with the girls that have escaped. The only reason they ran away is because of repeated raping by the older men in the community. Teaching ID will confuse many teens esp. in the states where they are pushing to have this course be taught as a regular item on the cirriculum. This is a scary time.........there are people who are pushing for the US to go backwards. I never thought that would happen in this country. From the article and what I read on their www.discovery.org web site - "if you look at their theological and scientific writings, you see that the movement is fundamentally anti-evolution." It still belongs historically before evolution and should be "taught" in the context of pre-evolution theory or as science history. Much like the flat earth idea's of other peoples - it's a part of history. Perhaps we're not connecting on the word teach - Bush is wrong to believe this should be taught along side evolution, I believe it should however be taught before evolution to contrast the development of evolution. I don't think so. You are thinking creationism..........which predated evolution. This is ID.....it came from creationisim but after evolution. Its not nearly as faithful to Genesis in the Bible and does acknowledge some science in its evaluation of how the planet was formed. That's why its a very deceiving. So perhaps my position is best stated as don't ban the theory from the class room - but don't elevate it to the same level. It's sure hard to defend an idea I don't believe in. <g> Truthfully, I would not have a problem if that was the way its being presented. But like I said above, some states are talking about it as if will be presented as a full fledged alternative. ted