posted 10-20-2005 03:19 AM            

quote:

---

It's time to get the Bible back in public schools. And not through the back door of creationism disguised as Intelligent Design

---

posted 10-20-2005 08:43 AM            

quote:

---

"Intelligent design is certainly not the dominant view of the scientific community," Professor Behe testified in Federal District Court, "but I am very pleased with the progress we are making."

---

Might as well be what he said.

posted 10-20-2005 04:48 PM            

quote:

---

America is a Bible-soaked nation, from the Puritans to Abraham Lincoln to Martin Luther King Jr. Without a basic grasp of the Bible, it is impossible to understand the well springs of our country and the basis of Western civilization.

---

This is just so much nonsensical bullsh!t that it is one of the big reasons I don't read National Review.

quote:

---

So, Bible education is legal, but is it necessary? Well, only if you want to be educated.

---

Oh for crying out loud.

quote:

---

By one count, there are 1,300 biblical references in Shakespeare's plays, working out to an average of 40 per play. Bible literacy will lead to a deeper understanding of authors from Herman Melville to Charles Dickens, from William Faulkner to Toni Morrison. The Bible has inspired the world's greatest poets, painters and composers, some of its most influential reformers, and the founding of a great nation (ours).

---

And to this I respond is with a big fat, "So f---ing what?" I could really care less.

My problem is that here is some bozo who is worried about kids reading the Bible while Americans are some of the most scientifically illterate people in an industrialized country.

Seriously, what is more important, knowing these,

quote:

---

Two-thirds of teens couldn't correctly identify, given four options, a quotation from the Sermon on the Mount. They didn't know what happened on the road to Damascus. About ten percent think Moses was one of the Twelve Apostles.

---

Or being able to tell exactly what banning dihydrogen monoxide would entail.

And finally I find it amusing that a conservative of all people is arguing that it is the public schools who are supposed to inculcate morals and good behavior in the youth of this country. What happened to the responsibility of parents and individuals. Lowry has turned the very notion of being a conservative on its head with an outright endorsement for government sanctioned teaching of morals...well so long as they are morals he approves of.

Pathetic.

quote:

---

Astrology is just as legitimate as ID?! That should be their advertising slogan.

---

Actually, one could argue that Intelligent Design is astrology.

posted 10-25-2005 12:42 PM            

quote:

---

Because the scientific community is a monolith, impenetrable and often hostile to new theories, intelligent design proponents have to turn to the public schools to recruit support, a witness said Monday...
A sociology professor from the University of Warwick in England, Fuller said, "How do you expect any minority view to get a toe hold in science? You basically get new recruits."...

In often rapid-fire delivery that at times taxed the court reporter's stenographic skills, Fuller said intelligent design is a scientific theory that should be taught in school.

But during cross-examination, he said intelligent design — the idea that the complexity of life requires a designer — is "too young" to have developed rigorous testable formulas and sits on the fringe of science.

He suggested that perhaps scientists should have an "affirmative action" plan to help emerging ideas compete against the "dominant paradigms" of mainstream science.

---

There you go. An "affirmative action" plan for fringe theories. Who cares about data, experiments, predictions, and coherent thoeretical underpinnings.

Dembski made a similar claim as well,

quote:

---

Why should ID supporters allow the Darwinian establishment to indoctrinate students at the high school level, only to divert some of the brightest to becoming supporters of a mechanistic account of evolution, when by presenting ID at the high school level some of these same students would go on to careers trying to develop ID as a positive research program? If ID is going to succeed as a research program, it will need workers, and these are best recruited at a young age.

---

In other words, "We don't like your indoctrination so we want ours included as well." Again, to Hell with the data, predictions, etc. Lets rely instead on propaganda techniques and superstition.

This very notion turns the concept of science on its head.

Update: Also, one reason for the AA program for ID and other fringe ideas is so that these fringe ideas can gain new recruits to do new research. Apparently because the current crop of fringe idea pushers can't hack it and need help. So the argument for letting ID into schools is:

"Teach ID because we are too stupid to provide the evidence, and maybe the next generation will be able to do what we can't."

Compelling stuff.

------------------
Steve
"In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a "Satan", but this man is as close to "the real McCoy" as they come."
--Jamey Lee West
steve_v@steveverdon.com
Deinonychus antirrhopus

posted 10-25-2005 01:54 PM            

quote:

---

"Teach ID because we are too stupid to provide the evidence, and maybe the next generation will be able to do what we can't."

---

Eggs - zackley. Combine that with "we're pleased with the progress we're making" and the scope of the whole ugly picture begins to emerge.

Forking talibanical propagandist ideologues.