# Four more states now trying to pollute education....



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

Four US states considering laws that challenge teaching of evolution | World news | guardian.co.uk


----------



## Morpheus83 (Oct 17, 2008)

Somebody tried to pull a similar stunt in my state (non-US) a few years back -- but those people called themselves the "Intelligent Design" movement. It had all the 'fancy' trappings and jargon ("critical thinking", "discussion", "debate", etc..) of modern education pedagogy -- but those people cribbed their 'philosophy' directly from flawed 'classic' teleological arguments  Nice try -- but no dice. Try harder


----------



## BooksandButterflies (Jul 26, 2012)

*I realize I'm in the minority here, but I think it would be great! We're not supposed to tell the kids what to think but HOW to think. Present both sides if you must, and present it clearly and objectively. And let them chose for themselves what they believe. Nuff said, I will not get on my soapbox.....*


----------



## Hurricane Matthew (Nov 9, 2012)

Well, this is useless... Isn't creationism mainly a religious thing anyway? Unless you're of a creationist-believing religion, then it has nothing to do with you. Even then... not even all Christians believe in creationism. My mom is a Christian and she says that God "creating" life on Earth is a metaphor for evolution; the authors just wrote it the way they did to have it make sense to the common man at the time. Evolution, however, is the single most important theory in life science. Biology, medicine and everything related to it just doesn't work without it as it explains so much. Creationism doesn't explain how anything works, so it's useless in science classes. Young earth creationism is also useless since it makes even more things nonsensical.


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

Morpheus83 said:


> Somebody tried to pull a similar stunt in my state (non-US) a few years back -- but those people called themselves the "Intelligent Design" movement. It had all the 'fancy' trappings and jargon ("critical thinking", "discussion", "debate", etc..) of modern education pedagogy -- but those people cribbed their 'philosophy' directly from flawed 'classic' teleological arguments  Nice try -- but no dice. Try harder


Lol yeah they already tried that stunt here before too and practically got laughed out of their courtcase. Now they're trying again but with this different spin on it.




[URL="http://personalitycafe.com/members/booksandbutterflies.html" said:


> *BooksandButterflies*[/URL]]*I realize I'm in the minority here, but I think it would be great! We're not supposed to tell the kids what to think but HOW to think. Present both sides if you must, and present it clearly and objectively. And let them chose for themselves what they believe. Nuff said, I will not get on my soapbox.....*


Supposed to tell them what to think when it is based on facts...which evolution is. There are no ''two sides'' of these ''controversies'' because there is no controversy, other than what creationists are making up and trying to pass off as science, which it's not, and then making a big controversy out of teaching kids science. It's going to harm the children's education. They can choose what they want to believe on their own, just don't spending taxpayers money on teaching them non-science in our science classrooms.


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

Missouri must be so proud.

Whoa, Missouri…you’re not going to let this one pass, are you? – Pharyngula


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

BooksandButterflies said:


> *I realize I'm in the minority here, but I think it would be great! We're not supposed to tell the kids what to think but HOW to think. Present both sides if you must, and present it clearly and objectively. And let them chose for themselves what they believe. Nuff said, I will not get on my soapbox.....*


The word how just scored points with me. "How" is flexible and "what" is static. How is also quantitative. The way we think is more important than just being able to sum up some facts. Any idiot can do that.


----------



## geekofalltrades (Feb 8, 2012)

Intelligent Design is a purely religious idea that no credible scientist, starting from a scientific perspective, can take seriously. Public tax dollars simply cannot go towards pushing these religious ideas in a country with separation of church and state. You want to teach that crap at your private school? Fine. I wish intelligent design "scientists" would get this through their thick fucking heads.


----------



## Fallen Nocturne (May 13, 2012)

Questioning Evolution is great. The scientific method in a nutshell, right there. Suggesting that Creationism comes anywhere near to a competing theory is just plain ridiculous. Intelligent Design is not scientific and it is not supported; it's just a thing that people decide to believe. You may as well be teaching Astrology as concrete fact. These states should be ashamed of themselves.


----------



## slender (Sep 28, 2012)

let me put it this way.
science is for science class.
history is for history class.
religion is for religion class.
CRITICAL THINKING (HOW TO THINK) is for CRITICAL THINKING (HOW TO THINK) class.
creationism DOES NOT BELONG in science class. it belongs in religion class.
my views on this subject.


----------



## ENFPdvd (Dec 30, 2012)

What does this have to do with MBTI?


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

ENFPdvd said:


> What does this have to do with MBTI?


Um, nothing....it's not meant to....

Not everything on this forum has to do with MBTI theory.....those are for the specific forums on this site mostly. This site is home of many other threads that aren't exactly related to personality type.

Many of us have come here for the personality type discussions to learn more about it, and then stuck around for reasons other than pure MBTI theory....such as the debate/science/education/sex n relationship/philosophy/books n movies/current trends forums.

Hope you decide to stick around....(and welcome! )


----------



## ENFPdvd (Dec 30, 2012)

Then why is it on here where people talk about personalities not politics.


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

Because people here do in fact talk about politics.....this site isn't dedicated soley to MBTI theory, it's a community of a lot of different people who happen to have a general understanding of the different personality types and who in fact also may enjoy talking about things other than just MBTI theory all the time.


----------



## ENFPdvd (Dec 30, 2012)

I was asking a question. No reason to attack me and be a butthole!


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

Where did I attack you? I was merely responding to your question and informing you that this site was about more than just MBTI type, even though that is it's main focus point....just that many of us choose to branch off and discuss other things. 

I never attacked you....and I prefer the term ''asshole'' over ''butthole'', but thanks.


----------



## ENFPdvd (Dec 30, 2012)

I prefer butthole due to my religious convictions. I deeply believe that creationism IS a science.....totally bullcrapping you. But I have gotten so used to censoring my language as a teacher at a Christian after school program. I am a Christian, but definitely a liberal Christian. I have no problem with creationism being taught in Social Studies. But it is NOT a science. I believe in Intelligent Design which for me means that God created evolution, but sadly many Christians just dismiss evolution because it's not what the Bible says. The Bible also says we should stone people. I don't feel the Bible is to be taken literally, but must be addressed from a socio-cultural point of view.


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

So creationism is or isn't a science? I know the answer, but you gave two different implications in your post so I'm curious as to where you actually stand on this now. (K, after rereading your post I think I understand that you don't actually believe it to be a science).


ps. Censorship is pointless....you are still saying what you wish to censor against, just using different words, but it is in fact stating the very same thing you are trying to censor, and by putting those same ideas/words/implications into the minds of your listeners you are in fact just saying the very thing you are trying not to say...it is merely a game of language, something which can't ever truly be censored so therefore there is no point in attempting to do so. Words are merely words, just a part of language that all means the same thing in which is implied by saying that which you say....censorship is pointless, no need to be ashamed of saying that which you are already saying to begin with. There is no inherent difference between ''butthole'' and ''asshole''; just as ''fuck you'' has the exact same meaning and implication as ''screw you''....they're just words, no need to feel ashamed for using them.


----------



## ENFPdvd (Dec 30, 2012)

I am not censoring other people. I choose to censor myself. How I choose to act should not offend you and if it does sucks to be you! And you are reading WAAAY into something to which one does not need to read into it. Creationism IS NOT science. It is social studies. I beleive that God propelled evolution into place.


----------



## TheProcrastinatingMaster (Jun 4, 2012)

BooksandButterflies said:


> *I realize I'm in the minority here, but I think it would be great! We're not supposed to tell the kids what to think but HOW to think. Present both sides if you must, and present it clearly and objectively. And let them chose for themselves what they believe. Nuff said, I will not get on my soapbox.....*


I agree, I'm also sick of these so called 'scientists' saying that it is 'gravity' keeping us on the Earth, I remain firmly convinced that the Earth is in fact, flat.

My evidence is a four thousand year old book of desert stories written by some bronze age farmers out in the ass end of nowhere.


----------



## BooksandButterflies (Jul 26, 2012)

ENFPdvd said:


> What does this have to do with MBTI?


*Hi ENFPdvd
Welcome to PerC! Yes, this is a place to discuss personality types, but we also talk about current events, relationships, music, all sorts of things. It's a lot of fun! hope you enjoy!*


----------



## fihe (Aug 30, 2012)

I think that students should be taught in their science classes whatever has been accepted by the scientific community. if that ever changes, then so should the science curriculum. after all, atoms were once thought to have a dense inner structure (Thomson's plum pudding model). but now we know that atoms are mostly made up of empty space, thanks to the gold foil experiment by Geiger and Marsden, which led to the Rutherford model, which now we know is not entirely accurate either.

but to my knowledge, there really is not much proof of intelligent design, so I don't see its acceptance by the scientific community anytime soon.


----------



## ENFPdvd (Dec 30, 2012)

There is a big difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design. Creationism is the literal interpretation of the Bible that the world was created in seven days and started with Adam and Eve. Intelligent Design is the idea that a greater power was involved in the development of the world in some way. I personally feel that there was a greater force because of laws of physics. Everything is has a cause and effect. What caused the gases to explode. And even more so the idea that something can't come from nothing. Where did the gases come from? Also things to head toward disorder and not order. However, I don't care if kids learn that or not. How they view the creation of the world, isn't an essential piece of knowledge they must learn in order to be a citizen prepared for the world?


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

Creationism and Intelligent Design are the same thing, just a slightly different spin....but they're both religious ideas that have no evidence to support them.

And just because we may not exactly know where these things came from, is no reason to just put it off as god did it. We may not yet know the origins of life, but we're getting closer to understanding it. And so far, there is zero evidence that some god did it. If we ever find any evidence for that idea, then it will be taken into consideration....scientists aren't rejecting the idea of a god out of spite, they're rejecting it because it has no scientific foundation and it isn't a logical explanation for anything.


----------



## ENFPdvd (Dec 30, 2012)

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but I don't agree. I do not see intelligent design and creationism as the same thing at all. In fact, saying so shows a lack of depth in your knowledge about either.


----------



## ENFPdvd (Dec 30, 2012)

I will add that I have not denied evolution. Simply named the force in propelling it foward.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

ENFPdvd said:


> I will add that I have not denied evolution. Simply named the force in propelling it foward.


Intelligent design still has no place in a science classroom because it does not hold up to the standards of the scientific method; it does, however, have a place in religious discussion in a religious studies classroom.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Fallen Nocturne said:


> Questioning Evolution is great. The scientific method in a nutshell, right there. Suggesting that Creationism comes anywhere near to a competing theory is just plain ridiculous. Intelligent Design is not scientific and it is not supported; it's just a thing that people decide to believe. You may as well be teaching Astrology as concrete fact. These states should be ashamed of themselves.


I think it should be told to all students that evolution is a theory, not a fact; however I am much more in agreement with @ENFPdvd that Intelligent Design holds more credibility that straight Creationism; straight Creationism has about as much place in a serious non-religious classroom as predictions that the world was going to end in 2012 according the Mayan calendar. 

There are plenty of people in the world who are non-religious who still have nutty beliefs; I was watching Wife Swap again the other night, the greatest sociological study done to man, and noting the way these nerds were flat out abusing their terrified children, preparing them for the 2012 "end of the world as we know it" by not allowing friends over for parties and teaching them to put on hazmat suits as quickly as possible; other people I'd like to lump in with this group include that deranged bitch who "empowered" her mentally disturbed son right into shooting her and a bunch of elementary school children because of her "prepper" paranoia.

There are a ton of lunatics who are in no way religious, and I don't see any reason why religious people specifically should be attacked for holding bizarre or unfounded beliefs. On the other hand, I think Intelligent Design holds enough credibility that it could at least be discussed in some class, if not a straight hard science class, then a social studies or humanities class. It is there also that it should be emphasized that evolution is a theory; a very credible one, but just a theory all the same.

I tend to believe that the most truly scientific people are agnostic, not atheist.


----------



## slender (Sep 28, 2012)

ENFPdvd said:


> That is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but I don't agree. I do not see intelligent design and creationism as the same thing at all. In fact, saying so shows a lack of depth in your knowledge about either.


*Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank. - wikipedia
same thing, different name. its like me calling you ENFPdvd over your real name. same thing, different names. also, it doesn't hold any water in the scientific community AT ALL. *What the Scientific Community Says about Evolution and Intelligent Design | American Civil Liberties Union so thus, its absolutely ridiculous to "teach the controversy" with intelligent design. if we do so, we might as well teach astrology AND astronomy. astrology has about the same merit as intelligent design, is recognized and believed by some, but absolutely disregarded by the scientific community.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Roland787 said:


> Creationism and Intelligent Design are the same thing, just a slightly different spin....but they're both religious ideas that have no evidence to support them.
> 
> And just because we may not exactly know where these things came from, is no reason to just put it off as god did it. We may not yet know the origins of life, but we're getting closer to understanding it. And so far, there is zero evidence that some god did it. If we ever find any evidence for that idea, then it will be taken into consideration....scientists aren't rejecting the idea of a god out of spite, they're rejecting it because it has no scientific foundation and it isn't a logical explanation for anything.


No, Creationism and Intelligent Design are NOT the same thing.

Creationism is literal, and Intelligent Design simply holds the belief that there is a consciousness or higher order to the universe, and this is something that most if not all spiritual people believe, as well as religious people. Intelligent Design could safely be taught to appeal to a number of spiritual and religious belief systems, from Taoists to Buddhists to New Agers to Liberal Christians. 

No, Creationism is NOT the same as Intelligent Design, because it leaves no room for the possibility of evolution, where as someone who believes in ID may support evolution, but believe that the Big Bang was not just a random event, and that the processes in the universe are not just random.

I have no idea why many groups of people over all continents of varying belief systems are less valid in a rough theory that maybe Big Bang and evolution weren't just random events.

It's more intelligent to believe that the world is random? No, that's a philosophical bias, and evolution is still just a theory, and ID leaves room for evolution as a theory, and for you to discredit that shows your own closed-mindedness.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Rinying said:


> *Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank. - wikipedia
> same thing, different name. its like me calling you ENFPdvd over your real name. same thing, different names. also, it doesn't hold any water in the scientific community AT ALL. *What the Scientific Community Says about Evolution and Intelligent Design | American Civil Liberties Union so thus, its absolutely ridiculous to "teach the controversy" with intelligent design. if we do so, we might as well teach astrology AND astronomy. astrology has about the same merit as intelligent design, is recognized and believed by some, but absolutely disregarded by the scientific community.


And The Big Five is more accepted by the American Psychiatric Association while MBTI and Jungian personality theory are eschewed. 

Personally, I think the Big Five is shallow crap, things that could easily be observed by a stranger, or a child over the age of twelve, and don't explain the WHYS...it just notes the behavior itself.


----------



## slender (Sep 28, 2012)

fourtines said:


> *I think it should be told to all students that evolution is a theory, not a fact;*


sigh.... this sums up how i feel about this sentence. i'm sorry, but evolution is one of the best *scientific theories *(ps, type that into google please) around.









> There are a ton of lunatics who are in no way religious, and I don't see any reason why religious people specifically should be attacked for holding bizarre or unfounded beliefs. On the other hand, I think Intelligent Design holds enough credibility that it could at least be discussed in some class, if not a straight hard science class, then a social studies or humanities class. It is there also that it should be emphasized that evolution is a theory; a very credible one, but just a theory all the same.


 yes, plenty of people hold insane or idiotic beliefs. i still believe in bloody mary for the simple fact, i heard about it and the evolutionary "somethings in the bush" reflex kicks in. i also agree creationism and IT should be taught in RELIGION class. not science class. 



> I tend to believe that the most truly scientific people are agnostic, not atheist.


the 2 are not mutually exclusive. read up on agnostic atheism.


----------



## slender (Sep 28, 2012)

fourtines said:


> And The Big Five is more accepted by the American Psychiatric Association while MBTI and Jungian personality theory are eschewed.
> 
> Personally, I think the Big Five is shallow crap, things that could easily be observed by a stranger, or a child over the age of twelve, and don't explain the WHYS...it just notes the behavior itself.


the big five attempts to provide a more in depth thing. RCUEI - Global 5 Type Descriptions is almost spot on actually on the key words. atheist/agnostic tendencies, unconcerned with public image, lower energy level, does not value tradition, avoidant... http://similarminds.com/global5/g5-jung.html . it does roughly the same as MBTI to my knowledge. just another letter.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Rinying said:


> sigh.... this sums up how i feel about this sentence. i'm sorry, but evolution is one of the best *scientific theories *(ps, type that into google please) around.
> View attachment 61188
> 
> yes, plenty of people hold insane or idiotic beliefs. i still believe in bloody mary for the simple fact, i heard about it and the evolutionary "somethings in the bush" reflex kicks in. i also agree creationism and IT should be taught in RELIGION class. not science class.
> ...


I know that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. However, hardcore evangelical atheists strike me as people who are a little too trusting of authority figures, no better than hardcore evangelical religious people, because the simple fact remains that you can't prove that there is NOT a higher order to the universe.

Did you know that ID and evolution aren't mutually exclusive either?

I think Jungian personality theory, astrology, and the belief in prophetic dreams or "women's intuition" are vastly more credible than your childish fear of Bloody Mary, though they cannot be proven by current scientific methods. One of my sisters is a scientist, and I am relieved to say that she is not so terrified of being wrong or living in a world still full of mystery and unexplainable or uncontrollable forces that she insists that anything not yet proven or understood is foolish. A real scientist is open to possibility, and furthermore, I think any truly intelligent person who thinks they've thought outside of the box should step a bit further outside of that box and realize that "the scientific method" is only one way of looking at the world, and there may be things which exist that are beyond its grasp.

A lot of people who are hardcore atheists strike me as people who are terrified of mystery and nature, who shudder with fear at the possibility that things exist that they can't control or explain. I've also noticed that a lot of these sorts of people also believe in things like world conspiracies or zombies, which strikes me as the height of absurdity and idiocy.

So I come into this thread not as a Christian saying that evolution isn't credible or shouldn't be taught, but as a thinking person who believes there is a lot to the universe we do not and cannot possibly know. I am not afraid to be wrong or ignorant, and I will smugly continue to think my belief in the supernatural is far saner than preparing for a zombie apocalypse.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Rinying said:


> the big five attempts to provide a more in depth thing. RCUEI - Global 5 Type Descriptions is almost spot on actually on the key words. atheist/agnostic tendencies, unconcerned with public image, lower energy level, does not value tradition, avoidant... http://similarminds.com/global5/g5-jung.html . it does roughly the same as MBTI to my knowledge. just another letter.


Point being, though, that the APA isn't acknowledging personality theory other than Big Five as being official, while I tend to think that Jungian function theory is far superior (and goes beyond MBTI and Big Five both) and you say you see them as about equal.

You're looking down on Intelligent Design and astrology, both based on patterns human beings see in the larger universe, even while belonging to a web site that is based on patterns human beings see in other people, that also is not accepted by authorities. 

Astrology is so in depth, mathematical and far out that most lay-people who criticize astrology don't even understand what they're criticizing.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

In the British curriculum we teach evolution in science lessons because it is a scientific theory, and creationism in religious education, because it's a religious belief. Evolution is taught as a scientific theory of how a species changes (uh, evolves...) and genes and whatever, without any kind of attached religious argument because that's not the point, it's taught scientifically, like the _theory _of gravity and other things.

Not sure why this is difficult to understand.


----------



## SuperDevastation (Jun 7, 2010)

How the hell is challenging evolution polluting education? And if a school doesn't want to teach evolution that's their choice, no one else's.


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

Because there is nothing that challenges evolution. Creationism/ID don't hold water.

And no it's not just the schools' choice. Maybe for a private school it's alright, but not for public schools. 

And the whole ''evolution is just a theory'' is getting old. Theory is pretty much the highest grade a scientific idea can become. A theory is an idea as a whole that explains how something works, and it is made up of a bunch of facts and evidence and data that backs it up, while finding nothing that goes against the ''theory''. Scientists agree now, evolution is a fact and a theory, just as gravity is just a ''theory''. 

There is no ''controversy'' for these schools to teach; the only controversy comes from the religious trying to push their unfalsifiable and unsupported beliefs that are based solely on faith....does not belong in science classroom; it only serves to harm the education these children get and they will go on not getting the proper education they need on one of the fundamental aspects of biology.


----------



## slender (Sep 28, 2012)

fourtines said:


> Point being, though, that the APA isn't acknowledging personality theory other than Big Five as being official, while I tend to think that Jungian function theory is far superior (and goes beyond MBTI and Big Five both) and you say you see them as about equal.


the big five is based on the same basic principles as MBTI, it just goes more in depth than MBTI. Big Five personality traits - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . 



> You're looking down on Intelligent Design and astrology, both based on patterns human beings see in the larger universe, even while belonging to a web site that is based on patterns human beings see in other people, that also is not accepted by authorities.


 for the very simple reason, its a science class. its what we know from the scientific theory that has been peer reviewed, and withstood a trial by fire. its what the scientific community has decided on via proof. there is NO proof for ID. there is no peer review for it. 



> Astrology is so in depth, mathematical and far out that most lay-people who criticize astrology don't even understand what they're criticizing.


 its horoscopes, right?



SuperDevastation said:


> How the hell is challenging evolution polluting education? And if a school doesn't want to teach evolution that's their choice, no one else's.


 because, NOTHING challenges evolution. no one in the scientific community accepts ID, barring the creation museums 2-4 crazy scientists.



fourtines said:


> I know that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. However, hardcore evangelical atheists strike me as people who are a little too trusting of authority figures, no better than hardcore evangelical religious people, because the simple fact remains that you can't prove that there is NOT a higher order to the universe.


 the burden of proof isn't on those to disprove the claim, its on those who MAKE the claim. 



> Did you know that ID and evolution aren't mutually exclusive either?


actually, they are. evolution relies on the fact that god doesn't interfere with genetics. now, abiogenesis vrs ID, may have some potential for contest, if ID had any evidence to back it up, but abiogenesis isn't evolution theory. 



> I think Jungian personality theory, astrology, and the belief in prophetic dreams or "women's intuition" are vastly more credible than your childish fear of Bloody Mary, though they cannot be proven by current scientific methods. One of my sisters is a scientist, and I am relieved to say that she is not so terrified of being wrong or living in a world still full of mystery and unexplainable or uncontrollable forces that she insists that anything not yet proven or understood is foolish. A real scientist is open to possibility, and furthermore, I think any truly intelligent person who thinks they've thought outside of the box should step a bit further outside of that box and realize that "the scientific method" is only one way of looking at the world, and there may be things which exist that are beyond its grasp.


 the reason why i don't say bloody Mary in the dark 3 times to my bathroom sink? there's nothing to gain by doing so. and yes, scientific method is just one way to look at the world, but its the most ACCURATE way to look at the world. its rarely if ever been wrong.



> A lot of people who are hardcore atheists strike me as people who are terrified of mystery and nature, who shudder with fear at the possibility that things exist that they can't control or explain. I've also noticed that a lot of these sorts of people also believe in things like world conspiracies or zombies, which strikes me as the height of absurdity and idiocy.


 most preppers are religious. just throwing this out. and christianity demands that you believe in rapture, or a day when jesus will RISE FROM THE DEAD (aka zombie) and attempt to fight the antichrist. not only that, but people have been predicting the end of days for a very very long time. 



> So I come into this thread not as a Christian saying that evolution isn't credible or shouldn't be taught, but as a thinking person who believes there is a lot to the universe we do not and cannot possibly know. I am not afraid to be wrong or ignorant, and I will smugly continue to think my belief in the supernatural is far saner than preparing for a zombie apocalypse.


 i came to this thread to strongly appose ID being taught in public schools, for the simple reason there is no evidence for it, it is not peer reviewed, and the scientific community does NOT believe its claims. also, zombies are BY DEFINITION supernatural.


----------



## ENFPdvd (Dec 30, 2012)

Anyone who doesn't see Intelligent Design and Creationism as different things does not know enough about the subject to be a viable part of the conversation. Also, I have NEVER said it belongs in the classroom. I said creationism may be able to be taught in social studies as it was a central belief of a culture and nothing more - just like one would teach mythology.


----------



## pneumoceptor (Aug 25, 2011)

Rinying said:


> interestingly, scientists have already dismissed this, (ID). can i get your opinion on this topic @_pneumoceptor_ ?


This is a long thread, so I only skimmed the last 20 or so comments to gauge what you all are 'discussing' . I don't think one can _prove_ the existence of God or the necessity of the existence of God ontologically. There are arguments to be made for and against, and none of them is scientifically verifiable, because we're talking about the existence of a being that is outside of the physical universe. You can't prove the existence of the supernatural by way of natural science. Different realms. As far as philosophical proofs, they always just seem like they go around in circles to me (both for and against).

Regarding ID, evolution, and Christianity, some of my personal views are summarized in a video I made last year:


----------



## SkyRunner (Jun 30, 2012)

Well, America's at it again. Anyone up for moving to a new country? I hear living in Europe can be nice. Perhaps Canada is you don't want to move too far away.

But in all seriousness, I wonder if other countries just laugh at the U.S. for focusing on utterly ridiculous things while our economy is crumpling around us and the poverty rate is increasing.


----------



## Fat Bozo (May 24, 2009)

SkyRunner said:


> Well, America's at it again. Anyone up for moving to a new country? I hear living in Europe can be nice. Perhaps Canada is you don't want to move too far away.
> 
> But in all seriousness, I wonder if other countries just laugh at the U.S. for focusing on utterly ridiculous things while our economy is crumpling around us and the poverty rate is increasing.


I don't give a crap what "other countries" laugh at.


----------



## SkyRunner (Jun 30, 2012)

Fat Bozo said:


> I don't give a crap what "other countries" laugh at.


Never said you had to. It was just a comment, don't be so sensitive about it.


----------



## TheProcrastinatingMaster (Jun 4, 2012)

SkyRunner said:


> Well, America's at it again. Anyone up for moving to a new country? I hear living in Europe can be nice. Perhaps Canada is you don't want to move too far away.
> 
> But in all seriousness, I wonder if other countries just laugh at the U.S. for focusing on utterly ridiculous things while our economy is crumpling around us and the poverty rate is increasing.


We laugh, we laugh. Come to Australia, beautiful this time of year:laughing:


----------



## Fat Bozo (May 24, 2009)

SkyRunner said:


> Never said you had to. It was just a comment, don't be so sensitive about it.


My comment was just a comment too. Not being sensitive. :tongue:


----------

