• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ohio Approves Intelligent Design for Schools

From the article:
After six hours of testimony, the board voted 13-5 in favor of "Critical Analysis of Evolution," an optional set of lessons for schools to use in teaching science for a new graduation test.
..... .....
At issue is 22 pages out of more than 500 that schools can use to teach new science standards approved last year for all grades. No student will be tested on intelligent design, said board president Jennifer Sheets.
Click to expand...
Board President Jennifer Sheets is seriously naive.

Inertia and incompetence alone will tend to slip ID questions into tests. Just a little sneakiness guarantee that some dippy little high school student will sonner or later get nailed with some ID questions.

A good teacher could use this as an opportunity to poke major holes in the ID agenda. A bad teacher could easily brainwash an entire classroom.
 
Does this mean that they are going to allow evolution to be taught in religious education classes?:(
 
In Ohio of all places. I didn't think that was a big fundamentalist state.
 
corplinx said:
In Ohio of all places. I didn't think that was a big fundamentalist state.
Click to expand...

Not the entire state, but the governor is a radical Republican and the legislature is dominated by fundies. A few weeks ago, they passed a "defense of marriage" act that is one of the strictest in the nation. Hopefully governor Taft and his fundie followers are shown the door in November, but I'm not holding my breath.
 
wollery said:
Does this mean that they are going to allow evolution to be taught in religious education classes?:(
Click to expand...
This kind of idiocy is trickling into Minnesota. When I have to get in front of some school board this is what I'm going to tell those in favor of ID.

"I'm going to join your church and demand to teach evolution in sunday school."
 
fishbob said:

A good teacher could use this as an opportunity to poke major holes in the ID agenda. A bad teacher could easily brainwash an entire classroom.
Click to expand...
Or as your opponents on this issue would say:

A bad teacher could use this as an opportunity to poke major holes in the ID agenda. A good teacher could easily teach an entire classroom The Truth. :D


It's enough to p*iss-off the Pope when those *&*^&^ Xians and /or Theists stop turning the other cheek. :p
 
Doesn't it stand to reason that any lesson about ID would eventually lead to discussions about who or what the 'D' is? This would have to encompass all possibilities including your generic "aliens;" mice (by that I mean, of course, the extrusion into our universe of pan-dimensional hyperintelligent beings); the Pak (aka the Ringworld Engineers); the Starchild; Horton the Elephant; etc. In other words, "God" would have to take a number and hope to become one of many nominees for the title of "Mr. D." I don't think the IDiots have thought this through very well. Wait, what am I thinking, I just used the word "reason" when talking about people who want schools to teach ID.
 
Gee, I wonder if they will allow equal time for my class lesson, "Unintelligent Design." The idea behind UD is that there was a designer of some sort, but far from being wise, he was a fool, a bumbler or a sadist. Or perhaps all three. Consider the evidence:

The vast majority of our DNA is useless, but we replicate it anyway and pass it along. That's evidence of a wasteful designer.

Some of that DNA is used to encode proteins that have never been discovered to have any useful purpose. In addition, there are certain internal body structures that have no useful purpose. That's evidence of poor planning.

We know for a fact that conduction of impulses through synapses and gap junctions is not the best way to send signals. That's evidence of inefficiency.

When people are injured, they suffer intolerable agony. Surely a competent designer could engineer a less unpleasant response to injury. When people age, they are programmed to lose functionality that leads to loss of liberty and loss of enjoyment of life. Surely a competent designer could plan for failure modes that would prevent things like this, or that would "fail safe."

Various breakdowns in the human body result from simple causes, some of which should have been anticipated by any reasonable and competent designer.

There are plenty of other examples, but I trust the point has been made. If we are going to posit the existence of a designer, then we have ample evidence that shows that the designer is NOT intelligent, but rather is cruel, careless or not very smart.
 
Brown said:

The vast majority of our DNA is useless, but we replicate it anyway and pass it along.
Click to expand...
Is this statement still general consensus? At what level of confidence?


Some of that DNA is used to encode proteins that have never been discovered to have any useful purpose. In addition, there are certain internal body structures that have no useful purpose.
Click to expand...
Hmm. Brown doesn't know - or even microbiologists don't know - and question closed?


We know for a fact that conduction of impulses through synapses and gap junctions is not the best way to send signals.
Click to expand...
Are you a gravid female? And "know"?


When people are injured, they suffer intolerable agony. Surely a competent designer could engineer a less unpleasant response to injury. When people age, they are programmed to lose functionality that leads to loss of liberty and loss of enjoyment of life. Surely a competent designer could plan for failure modes that would prevent things like this, or that would "fail safe."

Various breakdowns in the human body result from simple causes, some of which should have been anticipated by any reasonable and competent designer.
Click to expand...
Seems odd from an anthropomorphic view doesn't it?


There are plenty of other examples, but I trust the point has been made. If we are going to posit the existence of a designer, then we have ample evidence that shows that the designer is NOT intelligent, but rather is cruel, careless or not very smart.
Click to expand...
That does it for some "thinkers" anyway. Ever wonder why the first generation of 'em doesn't have lots of offspring to imbue with this proven philosophy? Geometric progression & a few generations ... should be a bunch of 'em. Where are all those people? Still in Europe? Only the dummies showed up here?
 
Test the teachers...

The real issue here is that the teachers are the ones who really control it. I wonder how many science teachers are truly qualified to teach science (i.e. a science degree and not just a class or two in college). If a teacher is a true believer then they will already be undermining evolution, even if it's only throwing in a few 'so they say' and 'allegedlies' here and there. Ensuring proper testing and certifications for science teachers is the bigger picture, and often the teacher's unions are the ones opposed to that.
 
Brown said:
Gee, I wonder if they will allow equal time for my class lesson, "Unintelligent Design." The idea behind UD is that there was a designer of some sort, but far from being wise, he was a fool, a bumbler or a sadist. Or perhaps all three.
Click to expand...

Sounds a bit like Gnosticism to me.

It's interesting that "intelligent design" is mostly proposed by people who wouldn't know intelligence if it gave them a lap dance. Not surprising, as they don't know what evolution is, either.
 
I apologize for the people in my state who have passed this stupid crap and made the news. Ohio is moving backwards in time. You won't believe this, but I see more houses with a NASCAR flag outside than with a US flag.
 
Or as your opponents on this issue would say:

A bad teacher could use this as an opportunity to poke major holes in the ID agenda. A good teacher could easily teach an entire classroom The Truth.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but my opponents on this issue would be nincompoops.

I wonder if there are enough good teachers that can look at this situation as an opportunity, not as a defeat.

Take advantage by laying out the evidence for ID in a clear and easily digested way, then critically evaluate the evidence and stand back to see what the students learn.

Probably no worse results than the "teach the test answers, no child left behind" method currently in use.
 
fishbob said:

Yeah, but my opponents on this issue would be nincompoops.
Click to expand...

I see you are Bright. In Hal's Pals too, I hope.


BTW, get with the program; I thought you bunch prefer to say "f*cking retards" instead of "nincompoops".
 
corplinx said:
In Ohio of all places. I didn't think that was a big fundamentalist state.
Click to expand...
Obviously, you've never been there.

Wasn't Ohio the epicenter of book burnings and bannings years ago?

Go to Cincinnatti some time, you may be in for a shock.
 
hammegk said:

Is this statement still general consensus? At what level of confidence?
Click to expand...

Enough confidence that it was covered in my high school genetics class. Not only are there certain codes which produce proteins we have seen no use for; there are certain combinations of "nucleotides" (not only in human DNA, either) which produce no proteins at all. This useless code is called, officially, "nonsense code". DNA is loaded with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom