From:	Jason Spaceman
Subject:	Tennessee: Theory of intelligent design enters Blount Co. high schools
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:49:33 -0500

From the article:
------------------------------------------------------------
BLOUNT COUNTY (WATE) -- If you have high schoolers in Blount County
and you haven't heard of intelligent design, you'll hear plenty about
it in the future. It's an alternative to teaching evolution.

Currently, biology text books in Blount County high schools include
several theories on evolution, but not the theory of intelligent
design.

However, the school board recently approved the theory for teachers to
introduce.

"Biology teachers in particular would be able to teach the
controversies perhaps within the evolutionary theory. That would be
the major thing," says board member Dr. Don McNelly.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Read it at http://www.wate.com/Global/story.asp?S=2836983

J. Spaceman

From:	Lt. Kizhe Catson
Subject:	Re: Tennessee: Theory of intelligent design enters Blount Co. highschools
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:35:05 -0500

From:	Bobby D. Bryant
Subject:	Re: Tennessee: Theory of intelligent design enters Blount Co. high schools
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 02:09:25 +0000 (UTC)

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Jason Spaceman wrote:

> From the article:
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> BLOUNT COUNTY (WATE) -- If you have high schoolers in Blount County
> and you haven't heard of intelligent design, you'll hear plenty about
> it in the future. It's an alternative to teaching evolution.
>
> Currently, biology text books in Blount County high schools include
> several theories on evolution,

Anyone got the list?

> but not the theory of intelligent design.
>
> However, the school board recently approved the theory for teachers to
> introduce.
>
> "Biology teachers in particular would be able to teach the
> controversies perhaps within the evolutionary theory. That would be
> the major thing," says board member Dr. Don McNelly.

What does ID have to do with the controversies within evolutionary theory?

I wonder whether Dr. Don understands ID any better than the lady on
the Dover school board.

--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

From:	Al Klein
Subject:	Re: Tennessee: Theory of intelligent design enters Blount Co. high schools
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:11:09 GMT

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 02:09:25 +0000 (UTC), bdbryant@mail.utexas.edu
(Bobby D. Bryant) said in alt.atheism:

>What does ID have to do with the controversies within evolutionary theory?

Nothing - unless you count all controversy about evolution as proving
that it's just a guess, and all controversy about ID as just nonsense
spouted by those who are anti-Christian.

Which is about the SOLE coherent ID claim.
--
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains
premature today."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net

From:	rokimoto at mail.uark.edu
Subject:	Re: Tennessee: Theory of intelligent design enters Blount Co. high schools
Date:	20 Jan 2005 18:21:59 -0800

Jason Spaceman wrote:
> From the article:
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> BLOUNT COUNTY (WATE) -- If you have high schoolers in Blount County
> and you haven't heard of intelligent design, you'll hear plenty about
> it in the future. It's an alternative to teaching evolution.
>
> Currently, biology text books in Blount County high schools include
> several theories on evolution, but not the theory of intelligent
> design.
>
> However, the school board recently approved the theory for teachers
to
> introduce.
>
> "Biology teachers in particular would be able to teach the
> controversies perhaps within the evolutionary theory. That would be
> the major thing," says board member Dr. Don McNelly.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Read it at http://www.wate.com/Global/story.asp?S=2836983
>
>
>
>
>
> J. Spaceman

This guy also claimed:

Quote:
Blount County officials hope to avoid that. "We haven't relied on any
religious background, any religious theory. It's secular and it says in
essence it's life that has been designed, has to have been designed,"
McNelly explains.
End Quote:

This shows a level of ignorance so great that it is amazing that this
guy can still breath without the help of a respirator. Ohio should
have told him two years ago that there was no such thing as a
scientific theory of ID. He is still claiming that ID is a theory in
another part of the article. Even the nutcases in Dover made sure that
they never called ID a theory in their short blurp or burp for ID.
Especially since their one sentence definition of theory included "well
tested." "Well tested" is something that ID has never been able to
claim. They can't even claim to have put forward any testable
scientific hypotheses, let alone, claim that they have tested them.

Just what does this guy claim that they are going to teach. This is
why I keep saying that if you want to teach ID put forward the lesson
plan. Demonstrate that there is something to teach before you claim to
be able to teach it. This guy obviously is clueless about what he can
teach about ID and still maintain some sembalance of credibility. You
don't see the scam artists at the Discovery Institute putting forward
anything to teach about ID so what does this guy think that he can
teach?

Ron Okimoto

From:	Al Klein
Subject:	Re: Tennessee: Theory of intelligent design enters Blount Co. high schools
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:13:36 GMT

On 20 Jan 2005 18:21:59 -0800, rokimoto@mail.uark.edu said in
alt.atheism:

>Just what does this guy claim that they are going to teach. This is
>why I keep saying that if you want to teach ID put forward the lesson
>plan. Demonstrate that there is something to teach before you claim to
>be able to teach it.

The ONLY thing they could put forward would be so blatantly religious
that even the Discovery Institute wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot
crucifix.
--
"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but
moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically
false, and at the least an error of faith."
- Catholic Church's decision against Galileo Galilei
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net

From:	David
Subject:	Re: Tennessee: Theory of intelligent design enters Blount Co. high schools
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:03:36 -0800

wrote in message
news:1106274119.160078.247960@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> This shows a level of ignorance so great that it is amazing that this
> guy can still breath without the help of a respirator. Ohio should
> have told him two years ago that there was no such thing as a
> scientific theory of ID. He is still claiming that ID is a theory in
> another part of the article. Even the nutcases in Dover made sure that
> they never called ID a theory in their short blurp or burp for ID.
> Especially since their one sentence definition of theory included "well
> tested." "Well tested" is something that ID has never been able to
> claim. They can't even claim to have put forward any testable
> scientific hypotheses, let alone, claim that they have tested them.

I interpretted the Dover statement presented by administrators as being
their response to something mandated by the School Board, but not supported
by either admins or teachers, and attempting to respect various cultural
perspectives without giving ID any scientific legitimacy.

My unsolicited $0.02 and worth about as much.

David

--
CaissaWas__SPAMHater__INTP@adelphia__ANTIV__.net without the block

From:	Bobby D. Bryant
Subject:	Re: Tennessee: Theory of intelligent design enters Blount Co. high schools
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 03:27:06 +0000 (UTC)

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, "David" wrote:

> wrote in message
> news:1106274119.160078.247960@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>> This shows a level of ignorance so great that it is amazing that this
>> guy can still breath without the help of a respirator. Ohio should
>> have told him two years ago that there was no such thing as a
>> scientific theory of ID. He is still claiming that ID is a theory in
>> another part of the article. Even the nutcases in Dover made sure that
>> they never called ID a theory in their short blurp or burp for ID.
>> Especially since their one sentence definition of theory included "well
>> tested." "Well tested" is something that ID has never been able to
>> claim. They can't even claim to have put forward any testable
>> scientific hypotheses, let alone, claim that they have tested them.
>
> I interpretted the Dover statement presented by administrators as being
> their response to something mandated by the School Board, but not supported
> by either admins or teachers, and attempting to respect various cultural
> perspectives without giving ID any scientific legitimacy.

Of the four paragraphs, two focused primarily on the state's standards
and the need to teach for the state's evaluations. I can't decide
whether they were invoking that as an excuse for whimping out on ID,
or just taking advantage of the opportunity to complain about another
hot-button issue in education.

Any news on who drafted the statement?

--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

From:	David
Subject:	Re: Tennessee: Theory of intelligent design enters Blount Co. high schools
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:11:14 -0800

"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote in message
news:cspsq9$g2f$1@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, "David" wrote:
>
>> wrote in message
>> news:1106274119.160078.247960@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> This shows a level of ignorance so great that it is amazing that this
>>> guy can still breath without the help of a respirator. Ohio should
>>> have told him two years ago that there was no such thing as a
>>> scientific theory of ID. He is still claiming that ID is a theory in
>>> another part of the article. Even the nutcases in Dover made sure that
>>> they never called ID a theory in their short blurp or burp for ID.
>>> Especially since their one sentence definition of theory included "well
>>> tested." "Well tested" is something that ID has never been able to
>>> claim. They can't even claim to have put forward any testable
>>> scientific hypotheses, let alone, claim that they have tested them.
>>
>> I interpretted the Dover statement presented by administrators as being
>> their response to something mandated by the School Board, but not
>> supported
>> by either admins or teachers, and attempting to respect various cultural
>> perspectives without giving ID any scientific legitimacy.
>
> Of the four paragraphs, two focused primarily on the state's standards
> and the need to teach for the state's evaluations. I can't decide
> whether they were invoking that as an excuse for whimping out on ID,
> or just taking advantage of the opportunity to complain about another
> hot-button issue in education.

That goes right to my point. The professional administrators are caught
between the authority of the political school board and their clear
understanding that ID is not science, and particularly is not within the
scope of the science standards.

They went out of their way to say what a theory was, identified evolution as
being a scientific theory, and then did not describe ID as a theory.

David
--
CaissaWas__SPAMHater__INTP@adelphia__ANTIV__.net without the block

From:	Al Klein
Subject:	Re: Tennessee: Theory of intelligent design enters Blount Co. high schools
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 03:38:20 GMT

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:11:14 -0800, "David"
said in alt.atheism:

>That goes right to my point. The professional administrators are caught
>between the authority of the political school board and their clear
>understanding that ID is not science, and particularly is not within the
>scope of the science standards.

Most of them. Some school administrators ARE fundidiots.
--
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social
ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he
had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
-Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net

From:	David
Subject:	Re: Tennessee: Theory of intelligent design enters Blount Co. high schools
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 21:35:20 -0800

"Al Klein" wrote in message
news:5ki3v0d6n03fcjqimef86rntkk5nel4sb7@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:11:14 -0800, "David"
> said in alt.atheism:
>
>>That goes right to my point. The professional administrators are caught
>>between the authority of the political school board and their clear
>>understanding that ID is not science, and particularly is not within the
>>scope of the science standards.
>
> Most of them. Some school administrators ARE fundidiots.

I'm talking about the statement made in Dover, not a general comment about a
mixed class of individuals.

David

--
CaissaWas__SPAMHater__INTP@adelphia__ANTIV__.net without the block

From:	Bob
Subject:	Re: Tennessee: Theory of intelligent design enters Blount Co. high schools
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 03:43:39 GMT

On 20 Jan 2005 18:21:59 -0800, rokimoto@mail.uark.edu wrote:

>
>
>This shows a level of ignorance so great that it is amazing that this
>guy can still breath without the help of a respirator. Ohio should
>have told him two years ago that there was no such thing as a
>scientific theory of ID. He is still claiming that ID is a theory in
>another part of the article. Even the nutcases in Dover made sure that
>they never called ID a theory in their short blurp or burp for ID.
>Especially since their one sentence definition of theory included "well
>tested." "Well tested" is something that ID has never been able to
>claim. They can't even claim to have put forward any testable
>scientific hypotheses, let alone, claim that they have tested them.
>

jonathan witt of the discover institute wrote a letter this week to
the 'york daily record' about intelligent design. he admitted it says
nothing about how species originated, but said it should be taught.

how one teaches a 'theory' that says nothing was not addressed.

---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field

From:	Al Klein
Subject:	Re: Tennessee: Theory of intelligent design enters Blount Co. high schools
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:15:37 GMT

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 03:43:39 GMT, wf3h@ptd.net (Bob) said in
alt.atheism:

>jonathan witt of the discover institute wrote a letter this week to
>the 'york daily record' about intelligent design. he admitted it says
>nothing about how species originated, but said it should be taught.

>how one teaches a 'theory' that says nothing was not addressed.

Neither was how a theory that says nothing about how species
originated is an alternative to a theory that DOES say something about
how species originated. And ID *IS* being touted as, if nothing else,
an alternative to evolution.
--
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can
solve them."
-Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net

From:	raven1
Subject:	Re: Tennessee: Theory of intelligent design enters Blount Co. high schools
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 03:57:07 GMT

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:49:33 -0500, Jason Spaceman
wrote:

>From the article:
>------------------------------------------------------------
>BLOUNT COUNTY (WATE) -- If you have high schoolers in Blount County
>and you haven't heard of intelligent design, you'll hear plenty about
>it in the future. It's an alternative to teaching evolution.
>
>Currently, biology text books in Blount County high schools include
>several theories on evolution, but not the theory of intelligent
>design.
>
>However, the school board recently approved the theory for teachers to
>introduce.

Really? What is it? I'm dying to finally see it actually presented.

>
>"Biology teachers in particular would be able to teach the
>controversies perhaps within the evolutionary theory.

That would seem to leave out ID...

>That would be
>the major thing," says board member Dr. Don McNelly.

From:	Bob
Subject:	Re: Tennessee: Theory of intelligent design enters Blount Co. high schools
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 03:41:54 GMT

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:49:33 -0500, Jason Spaceman
wrote:

>From the article:
>------------------------------------------------------------
>BLOUNT COUNTY (WATE) -- If you have high schoolers in Blount County
>and you haven't heard of intelligent design, you'll hear plenty about
>it in the future. It's an alternative to teaching evolution.
>
>Currently, biology text books in Blount County high schools include
>several theories on evolution, but not the theory of intelligent
>design.
>
>However, the school board recently approved the theory for teachers to
>introduce.
>
>"Biology teachers in particular would be able to teach the
>controversies perhaps within the evolutionary theory. That would be
>the major thing," says board member Dr. Don McNelly.
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>

what's amazing is that they assume 'design theory' is true because
'evolution is false'

another example of the non-science aspect of
astrology....ahem...creationism.

---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field

From:	Christopher A. Lee
Subject:	Re: Tennessee: Theory of intelligent design enters Blount Co. high schools
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 05:55:30 -0500

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 03:41:54 GMT, wf3h@ptd.net (Bob) wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:49:33 -0500, Jason Spaceman
> wrote:
>
>>From the article:
>>------------------------------------------------------------
>>BLOUNT COUNTY (WATE) -- If you have high schoolers in Blount County
>>and you haven't heard of intelligent design, you'll hear plenty about
>>it in the future. It's an alternative to teaching evolution.
>>
>>Currently, biology text books in Blount County high schools include
>>several theories on evolution, but not the theory of intelligent
>>design.
>>
>>However, the school board recently approved the theory for teachers to
>>introduce.
>>
>>"Biology teachers in particular would be able to teach the
>>controversies perhaps within the evolutionary theory. That would be
>>the major thing," says board member Dr. Don McNelly.
>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>what's amazing is that they assume 'design theory' is true because
>'evolution is false'

They also assumed the same thing about "special creation".

But then they aren't known for their brain power.

>
>another example of the non-science aspect of
>astrology....ahem...creationism.
>
>---------------------------
>to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
>and enter 'wf3h' in the field

From:	johac
Subject:	Re: Tennessee: Theory of intelligent design enters Blount Co. high schools
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:26:29 -0800

In article <5nn0v0d1ejmdbiqjpt8njsdtc2461e0ace@4ax.com>,
Jason Spaceman wrote:

> From the article:
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> BLOUNT COUNTY (WATE) -- If you have high schoolers in Blount County
> and you haven't heard of intelligent design, you'll hear plenty about
> it in the future. It's an alternative to teaching evolution.
>
> Currently, biology text books in Blount County high schools include
> several theories on evolution, but not the theory of intelligent
> design.
>
> However, the school board recently approved the theory for teachers to
> introduce.
>
> "Biology teachers in particular would be able to teach the
> controversies perhaps within the evolutionary theory. That would be
> the major thing," says board member Dr. Don McNelly.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Read it at http://www.wate.com/Global/story.asp?S=2836983

From article:

" The intelligent design theory says that human biology and evolution
are so complex it has to require the creative hand of an intelligent
force.

"Encouraging our teachers to teach the controversies with respect to
biological origin, within a secular content, not relying on anything
other than the research," McNelly says. "

What research supports ID? These people are ignorant, frauds, or likely
both.

>
>
>
>
>
> J. Spaceman
--
John Hachmann aa #1782

Intelligent Design has as much to do with science as reality
television has to do with reality. - Barry Lynn on CNN 12/25/04

From:	takarov2003 at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: Tennessee: Theory of intelligent design enters Blount Co. high schools
Date:	21 Jan 2005 07:17:08 -0800

johac wrote:
> In article <5nn0v0d1ejmdbiqjpt8njsdtc2461e0ace@4ax.com>,
> Jason Spaceman wrote:
>
> > From the article:
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > BLOUNT COUNTY (WATE) -- If you have high schoolers in Blount County
> > and you haven't heard of intelligent design, you'll hear plenty
about
> > it in the future. It's an alternative to teaching evolution.
> >
> > Currently, biology text books in Blount County high schools include
> > several theories on evolution, but not the theory of intelligent
> > design.
> >
> > However, the school board recently approved the theory for teachers
to
> > introduce.
> >
> > "Biology teachers in particular would be able to teach the
> > controversies perhaps within the evolutionary theory. That would be
> > the major thing," says board member Dr. Don McNelly.
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Read it at http://www.wate.com/Global/story.asp?S=2836983
>
> From article:
>
> " The intelligent design theory says that human biology and evolution

> are so complex it has to require the creative hand of an intelligent
> force.
>
> "Encouraging our teachers to teach the controversies with respect to
> biological origin, within a secular content, not relying on anything
> other than the research," McNelly says. "
>
> What research supports ID? These people are ignorant, frauds, or
likely
> both.
>
>
>

Intelligent Design is not a theory. It is a postulate. No proof is
sought after or required by its postulants. Stripping ID from its
religious roots and using their own agruments against them creates a
bigger problem than they seek to solve:

1) If the Intelligent Designer(s) is/are not a Supreme
Being, who designed him/her/them? Is it turtles all
the way down?

2) If the Intelligent Designer(s) _is_ a Supreme Being,
why is it easier to posit a universe in which there
is this SB than it is to posit a universe in which
things happened as a (simple?) progression of natural
processes?

3) If life is too complex to have 'just happened', how
is this SB not much too complex to have 'just happened'?

Oh, and let's not forget that the process we call evolution does not
make any particular assumptions concerning exactly how things got
started. Assume an Intellegent Designer, how does this in any way
impact what we currently know about evolution? If I have, I can
easily imagine a SB that wants to create systems that follow rules
(it's nice, orderly, and doesn't require constant tinkering), and wants
to be (un/pleasantly) surprised at the final outcome. Such a SB might
very well simply lay the groundwork and let things rip (this is not
currently testable).

The only conflict I see for ID/creation/ists is with those that want
their particular religious tract to be the final word on how things
happened and are still happening. That's not science, that's dogma,
and it does not belong in a public school's science curriculum.

From:	johac
Subject:	Re: Tennessee: Theory of intelligent design enters Blount Co. high schools
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 00:00:06 -0800

In article <1106320628.263058.178070@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
takarov2003@yahoo.com wrote:

> johac wrote:
> > In article <5nn0v0d1ejmdbiqjpt8njsdtc2461e0ace@4ax.com>,
> > Jason Spaceman wrote:
> >
> > > From the article:
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > BLOUNT COUNTY (WATE) -- If you have high schoolers in Blount County
> > > and you haven't heard of intelligent design, you'll hear plenty
> about
> > > it in the future. It's an alternative to teaching evolution.
> > >
> > > Currently, biology text books in Blount County high schools include
> > > several theories on evolution, but not the theory of intelligent
> > > design.
> > >
> > > However, the school board recently approved the theory for teachers
> to
> > > introduce.
> > >
> > > "Biology teachers in particular would be able to teach the
> > > controversies perhaps within the evolutionary theory. That would be
> > > the major thing," says board member Dr. Don McNelly.
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Read it at http://www.wate.com/Global/story.asp?S=2836983
> >
> > From article:
> >
> > " The intelligent design theory says that human biology and evolution
>
> > are so complex it has to require the creative hand of an intelligent
> > force.
> >
> > "Encouraging our teachers to teach the controversies with respect to
> > biological origin, within a secular content, not relying on anything
> > other than the research," McNelly says. "
> >
> > What research supports ID? These people are ignorant, frauds, or
> likely
> > both.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Intelligent Design is not a theory. It is a postulate. No proof is
> sought after or required by its postulants. Stripping ID from its
> religious roots and using their own agruments against them creates a
> bigger problem than they seek to solve:
>
> 1) If the Intelligent Designer(s) is/are not a Supreme
> Being, who designed him/her/them? Is it turtles all
> the way down?

Agreed.
>
> 2) If the Intelligent Designer(s) _is_ a Supreme Being,
> why is it easier to posit a universe in which there
> is this SB than it is to posit a universe in which
> things happened as a (simple?) progression of natural
> processes?

Agreed.

>
> 3) If life is too complex to have 'just happened', how
> is this SB not much too complex to have 'just happened'?

Agreed.

>
> Oh, and let's not forget that the process we call evolution does not
> make any particular assumptions concerning exactly how things got
> started. Assume an Intellegent Designer, how does this in any way
> impact what we currently know about evolution? If I have, I can
> easily imagine a SB that wants to create systems that follow rules
> (it's nice, orderly, and doesn't require constant tinkering), and wants
> to be (un/pleasantly) surprised at the final outcome. Such a SB might
> very well simply lay the groundwork and let things rip (this is not
> currently testable).

Since I see no evidence for a supreme being or the supernatural and no
evidence that either had anything to do with evolution, or any other
natural phenomenon that we know of today, I have no problem with the
universe and life arising also by natural means, even though we may not
understand all of the steps involved yet.

>
> The only conflict I see for ID/creation/ists is with those that want
> their particular religious tract to be the final word on how things
> happened and are still happening. That's not science, that's dogma,
> and it does not belong in a public school's science curriculum.

Exactly. There is nothing scientific about ID or creationism. It may be
taught in the churches, in the home, in private religious schools, but
not in the public school classroom.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782

Intelligent Design has as much to do with science as reality
television has to do with reality. - Barry Lynn on CNN 12/25/04

From:	takarov2003 at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: Tennessee: Theory of intelligent design enters Blount Co. high schools
Date:	22 Jan 2005 07:21:51 -0800

johac wrote:
> In article <1106320628.263058.178070@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> takarov2003@yahoo.com wrote:
>

> >
> > Oh, and let's not forget that the process we call evolution
> > does not make any particular assumptions concerning exactly
> > how things got started. Assume an Intellegent Designer, how
> > does this in any way impact what we currently know about
> > evolution? If I have, I can easily imagine a SB that wants
> > to create systems that follow rules (it's nice, orderly, and
> > doesn't require constant tinkering), and wants to be
> > (un/pleasantly) surprised at the final outcome. Such a SB
> > might very well simply lay the groundwork and let things
> > rip (this is not currently testable).
>
> Since I see no evidence for a supreme being or the supernatural
> and no vidence that either had anything to do with evolution,
> or any other natural phenomenon that we know of today, I have
> no problem with the universe and life arising also by natural
> means, even though we may not understand all of the steps
> involved yet.
>

I have no problem with that either. Or with the idea that we may never
understand all the steps involved.

> >
> > The only conflict I see for ID/creation/ists is with
> > those that want their particular religious tract to be
> > the final word on how things happened and are still
> > happening. That's not science, that's dogma, and it
> > does not belong in a public school's science curriculum.
>
> Exactly. There is nothing scientific about ID or creationism.
> It may be taught in the churches, in the home, in private
> religious schools, but not in the public school classroom.

I have no problem with it being dealt with in comparative cultural or
social studies or even a mythological venue. Just don't teach it in
the public schools as _science_. If ID is to be dealt with as
_scientific fact_ (or even as they want to discuss _scientific
theory_), the various religious groups have plenty of openings to teach
their viewpoint on their own time and in their facilities. Imagine how
they'd skwawk if somebody started insisting that they teach current
evolutionary theory and microbiology from the pulpit?

From:	johac
Subject:	Re: Tennessee: Theory of intelligent design enters Blount Co. high schools
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:32:39 -0800

In article <1106407311.726405.194000@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
takarov2003@yahoo.com wrote:

> johac wrote:
> > In article <1106320628.263058.178070@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> > takarov2003@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
>
>
>
> > >
> > > Oh, and let's not forget that the process we call evolution
> > > does not make any particular assumptions concerning exactly
> > > how things got started. Assume an Intellegent Designer, how
> > > does this in any way impact what we currently know about
> > > evolution? If I have, I can easily imagine a SB that wants
> > > to create systems that follow rules (it's nice, orderly, and
> > > doesn't require constant tinkering), and wants to be
> > > (un/pleasantly) surprised at the final outcome. Such a SB
> > > might very well simply lay the groundwork and let things
> > > rip (this is not currently testable).
> >
> > Since I see no evidence for a supreme being or the supernatural
> > and no vidence that either had anything to do with evolution,
> > or any other natural phenomenon that we know of today, I have
> > no problem with the universe and life arising also by natural
> > means, even though we may not understand all of the steps
> > involved yet.
> >
>
> I have no problem with that either. Or with the idea that we may never
> understand all the steps involved.
>
> > >
> > > The only conflict I see for ID/creation/ists is with
> > > those that want their particular religious tract to be
> > > the final word on how things happened and are still
> > > happening. That's not science, that's dogma, and it
> > > does not belong in a public school's science curriculum.
> >
> > Exactly. There is nothing scientific about ID or creationism.
> > It may be taught in the churches, in the home, in private
> > religious schools, but not in the public school classroom.
>
> I have no problem with it being dealt with in comparative cultural or
> social studies or even a mythological venue.

I always thought that another place to mention it might be in history
class when discussing scientific advances during the 19th century.
Evolution and Darwin certainly should be discussed there, which might be
a time to bring up the religious reaction to Darwin's work.

>Just don't teach it in
> the public schools as _science_. If ID is to be dealt with as
> _scientific fact_ (or even as they want to discuss _scientific
> theory_), the various religious groups have plenty of openings to teach
> their viewpoint on their own time and in their facilities. Imagine how
> they'd skwawk if somebody started insisting that they teach current
> evolutionary theory and microbiology from the pulpit?

I'm not a theist, I don't attend church, but I would like to see someone
suggest it sometime. The howls of protest would be so loud that the
would register of the Richter scale.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782

Intelligent Design has as much to do with science as reality
television has to do with reality. - Barry Lynn on CNN 12/25/04

From:	Al Klein
Subject:	Re: Tennessee: Theory of intelligent design enters Blount Co. high schools
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:21:08 GMT

On 21 Jan 2005 07:17:08 -0800, takarov2003@yahoo.com said in
alt.atheism:

>Intelligent Design is not a theory. It is a postulate.

"human biology and evolution are so complex it has to require the
creative hand of an intelligent force" is merely a bald assertion.

>2) If the Intelligent Designer(s) _is_ a Supreme Being

That brings in religion, which proponents of ID claim it isn't, so
that's a disallowable state.

>Oh, and let's not forget that the process we call evolution does not
>make any particular assumptions concerning exactly how things got
>started. Assume an Intellegent Designer, how does this in any way
>impact what we currently know about evolution?

It doesn't, at all. Unless you include the Big Bang, abiogenesis and
anything else that contradicts the bible, as part of "the theory of
evolution", which ID proponents do.
--
"I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their
numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion,
only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
-A. Einstein (Letter to Edgar Meyer, Jan. 2, 1915)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net

From:	takarov2003 at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: Tennessee: Theory of intelligent design enters Blount Co. high schools
Date:	21 Jan 2005 17:50:19 -0800

Al Klein wrote:
> On 21 Jan 2005 07:17:08 -0800, takarov2003@yahoo.com said in
> alt.atheism:
>
> >Intelligent Design is not a theory. It is a postulate.
>
> "human biology and evolution are so complex it has to require the
> creative hand of an intelligent force" is merely a bald assertion.

I was using the term postulate from their (ID-ers) point of view, not
mine. They may call it a theory, but they use it like a postulate.

>
> >2) If the Intelligent Designer(s) _is_ a Supreme Being
>
> That brings in religion, which proponents of ID claim it isn't, so
> that's a disallowable state.

The point I made at the end of my post.

>
> >Oh, and let's not forget that the process we call evolution does not
> >make any particular assumptions concerning exactly how things got
> >started. Assume an Intellegent Designer, how does this in any way
> >impact what we currently know about evolution?
>
> It doesn't, at all. Unless you include the Big Bang, abiogenesis and
> anything else that contradicts the bible, as part of "the theory of
> evolution", which ID proponents do.

exactly one of my points.

> --
> "I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His
children for their
> numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held
responsible; in my opinion,
> only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
> -A. Einstein (Letter to Edgar Meyer, Jan. 2, 1915)
> (random sig, produced by SigChanger)
> rukbat at verizon dot net

From:	jwk
Subject:	Re: Tennessee: Theory of intelligent design enters Blount Co. high schools
Date:	21 Jan 2005 08:00:11 -0800

takarov2003@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> Intelligent Design is not a theory. It is a postulate. No proof is
> sought after or required by its postulants. Stripping ID from its
> religious roots and using their own agruments against them creates a
> bigger problem than they seek to solve:
>
> 1) If the Intelligent Designer(s) is/are not a Supreme
> Being, who designed him/her/them? Is it turtles all
> the way down?
>
> 2) If the Intelligent Designer(s) _is_ a Supreme Being,
> why is it easier to posit a universe in which there
> is this SB than it is to posit a universe in which
> things happened as a (simple?) progression of natural
> processes?
>
> 3) If life is too complex to have 'just happened', how
> is this SB not much too complex to have 'just happened'?
>
> Oh, and let's not forget that the process we call evolution does not
> make any particular assumptions concerning exactly how things got
> started. Assume an Intellegent Designer, how does this in any way
> impact what we currently know about evolution? If I have, I can
> easily imagine a SB that wants to create systems that follow rules
> (it's nice, orderly, and doesn't require constant tinkering), and
wants
> to be (un/pleasantly) surprised at the final outcome. Such a SB
might
> very well simply lay the groundwork and let things rip

The problem is that *their bible says that *their SB created all the
animals himself. If your theory was taught in school, they would still
be bitching.

jwk

From:	Al Klein
Subject:	Re: Tennessee: Theory of intelligent design enters Blount Co. high schools
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:22:09 GMT

On 21 Jan 2005 08:00:11 -0800, "jwk" said in
alt.atheism:

>The problem is that *their bible says that *their SB created all the
>animals himself. If your theory was taught in school, they would still
>be bitching.

If ANY particular sect's "theory" were taught in school there'd be
bitching - by other sects.
--
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can
solve them."
-Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net

From:	Al Klein
Subject:	Re: Tennessee: Theory of intelligent design enters Blount Co. high schools
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:17:31 GMT

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:26:29 -0800, johac said in
alt.atheism:

>" The intelligent design theory says that human biology and evolution
>are so complex it has to require the creative hand of an intelligent
>force.

Begging the question of what created the "intelligent force".

Tsk, tsk, tsk! No mention of "always existing", now - that's
religion.
--
The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the
one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected.
-- H. L. Mencken
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net

From:	johac
Subject:	Re: Tennessee: Theory of intelligent design enters Blount Co. high schools
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:44:51 -0800

In article <1ba3v052jd4ab8pqstdo39bnt2ic0qipm4@4ax.com>,
Al Klein wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:26:29 -0800, johac said in
> alt.atheism:
>
> >" The intelligent design theory says that human biology and evolution
> >are so complex it has to require the creative hand of an intelligent
> >force.
>
> Begging the question of what created the "intelligent force".
>
> Tsk, tsk, tsk! No mention of "always existing", now - that's
> religion.

That's there whole point. They put a Groucho Marx mask on their god and
call him an 'intelligent designer'. No one is supposed to notice.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782

Intelligent Design has as much to do with science as reality
television has to do with reality. - Barry Lynn on CNN 12/25/04

From:	Al Klein
Subject:	Re: Tennessee: Theory of intelligent design enters Blount Co. high schools
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:43:33 GMT

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:44:51 -0800, johac said in
alt.atheism:

>In article <1ba3v052jd4ab8pqstdo39bnt2ic0qipm4@4ax.com>,
> Al Klein wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:26:29 -0800, johac said in
>> alt.atheism:
>>
>> >" The intelligent design theory says that human biology and evolution
>> >are so complex it has to require the creative hand of an intelligent
>> >force.
>>
>> Begging the question of what created the "intelligent force".
>>
>> Tsk, tsk, tsk! No mention of "always existing", now - that's
>> religion.
>
>That's there whole point. They put a Groucho Marx mask on their god and
>call him an 'intelligent designer'. No one is supposed to notice.

You must be talking about UToD - the Unintelligent Theory of Design.
--
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding
the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."
- Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net

From:	johac
Subject:	Re: Tennessee: Theory of intelligent design enters Blount Co. high schools
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:35:38 -0800

In article <3nl5v0hisi2rdtvqdn7kvdpnramuf7hat3@4ax.com>,
Al Klein wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:44:51 -0800, johac said in
> alt.atheism:
>
> >In article <1ba3v052jd4ab8pqstdo39bnt2ic0qipm4@4ax.com>,
> > Al Klein wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:26:29 -0800, johac said in
> >> alt.atheism:
> >>
> >> >" The intelligent design theory says that human biology and evolution
> >> >are so complex it has to require the creative hand of an intelligent
> >> >force.
> >>
> >> Begging the question of what created the "intelligent force".
> >>
> >> Tsk, tsk, tsk! No mention of "always existing", now - that's
> >> religion.
> >
> >That's there whole point. They put a Groucho Marx mask on their god and
> >call him an 'intelligent designer'. No one is supposed to notice.
>
> You must be talking about UToD - the Unintelligent Theory of Design.

I think that when people give examples of oxymorons like "military
intelligence" and "jumbo shrimp", they should include "intelligent
design" and "creation science".
--
John Hachmann aa #1782

Intelligent Design has as much to do with science as reality
television has to do with reality. - Barry Lynn on CNN 12/25/04