Be sure to see the movie :'EXPELLED" , coming out 4-18-08 at Theatres (genesis, mythology)

[bigthirsty]

Originally Posted by CelticLady1

From everything I can gather, (from the movie's website, with it's trailers, etc.), Ben Stein is not advocating that intelligent design be taught, or studied, exclusively, and certainly not from a Christian viewpoint, (I believe he's Jewish). He does, however, believe that folks have a right to speak their mind on this subject, without being squelched, shut up, and shot down, particularly those in academic and scientific circles, (something to do with the First Amendment). I see no reason why both theories cannot be taught, and, apparently, neither does Ben Stein. Yes, some folks object because of their legitimate concern that that is the Christians' backdoor way of getting into the schools, but we're not talking about allowing specific religions, and their beliefs and practices. I certainly would not advocate teacher-led prayer in school, or forced Bible, Quran, or Torah reading, or teachings, either. However, these are apples and oranges types of arguments. We are merely talking about allowing both theories to be taught, without repercussions against the teachers, and professors, and to allow the students to come to their own conclusions. We're talking about the scientific community allowing their own to have a say about such things, without having to worry about losing their jobs, their careers. Can we not, as a society, agree to, and uphold the idea of, critical thinking? How can we urge this, if we insist on only one viewpoint, (whichever one it is), being taught, or studied?

I have a theory that says Scooby Doo is real and he created everything. I'd like that taught in school too.. and I don't want any repercussions.. nor do I want anybody questioning my theory even though there isn't any scientific evidence to back it up. Its my theory and I have the right to have it taught. I shouldn't be made fun of. People are not allowed to laugh at me. Teachers who teach this theory should have everyone be nice to them too. I call no "meanies". Like you said. We have a first amendment right to this. We have a right to put any theory out there in school and teach it. Again, please disregard the fact that my theory has nothing to do with science. Seriously.. don't even worry about it. You should have to listen to me and not say anything back to me.

Oh and that Flying Spaghetti Monster theory.. Total B.S. Scooby Doo eats Spaghetti. Theory Proven.

BigThirsty - 1
Flying Spaghetti Monter - 0

Ka.. Blammo.

P.S. I'd also like to carry this line of reasoning into work. I don't think companies should have a right to tell me what I can and can't say. If I say do this project that costs $30 million dollars even though it loses $50 million dollars.. they should just do it. I should be allowed to speak freely in the board room. Its my right..

BigThirsty - 2
Board Rooms - 0

Smoke on that Board Rooms..

[Nikk]

So long as your Scooby-doo has a 2000 year old book about him, that is the best seller every year. Hey if you get a following of 300,000, that would settle it for me. You can teach it in school. Maybe you could set-up a shrine in every major city for the faithfull to Scooby-doo.

Unfortunately pastafarian is just a squigilly painting done over the God image in the Sistene Chapel. It was a photoshop image of the 21st century. Maybe we should burn candle around our PC's or pour oil on our printers to venereate him!

[Cirbryn]

Originally Posted by Nikk

So long as your Scooby-doo has a 2000 year old book about him, that is the best seller every year. Hey if you get a following of 300,000, that would settle it for me. You can teach it in school. Maybe you could set-up a shrine in every major city for the faithfull to Scooby-doo.

I hadn't realized reality was such a popularity contest.

[bigthirsty]

Originally Posted by Nikk

So long as your Scooby-doo has a 2000 year old book about him

I have one. It is 2001 years old. Believe me. You won't need to run any scientific tests on it. Just trust me on it.

Originally Posted by Nikk

, that is the best seller every year.

It is a best seller on the El Chupacabra top 100. Every single year. I don't have the stats to back it up.. but its there. Just don't ask anymore questions about it. Its my right to have you listen to me. Also. Don't be mean in your posts anymore. I'm offended.

Originally Posted by Nikk

Hey if you get a following of 300,000, that would settle it for me.

Great. I have 350,000 so I should be good.

Originally Posted by Nikk

You can teach it in school. Maybe you could set-up a shrine in every major city for the faithfull to Scooby-doo.

Shrine is already built. Just need to replicate. Luckily it is mobile.

http://monsterblog.lzsportsource.com.../scoobydoo.jpg

Originally Posted by Nikk

Unfortunately pastafarian is just a squigilly painting done over the God image in the Sistene Chapel. It was a photoshop image of the 21st century. Maybe we should burn candle around our PC's or pour oil on our printers to venereate him!

Pastafarian is dead. Scooby ate him.

[KCfromNC]

Originally Posted by Cirbryn

I hadn't realized reality was such a popularity contest.

God's powerless unless he's got a mob of followers behind him, obviously.

[Lucidus]

Yeehaw, I want in on this! I want my theory taught in schools too. Here it is:

I created the world and everything on it. Now I didn't do this just out the goodness of heart. No sir! It was an investment and you all owe me rent. If you look under the ice at Anarctica you will see my trademark.

I think a rent of $1 per person on the planet per year is fair. All other species besides humans will be allowed to live rent free for the time being. If you are unhappy with this arrangement, please feel free to relocate to another planet.

Thanks.

[CelticLady1]

Originally Posted by bigthirsty

I have a theory that says Scooby Doo is real and he created everything. I'd like that taught in school too.. and I don't want any repercussions.. nor do I want anybody questioning my theory even though there isn't any scientific evidence to back it up. Its my theory and I have the right to have it taught. I shouldn't be made fun of. People are not allowed to laugh at me. Teachers who teach this theory should have everyone be nice to them too. I call no "meanies". Like you said. We have a first amendment right to this. We have a right to put any theory out there in school and teach it. Again, please disregard the fact that my theory has nothing to do with science. Seriously.. don't even worry about it. You should have to listen to me and not say anything back to me.

Oh and that Flying Spaghetti Monster theory.. Total B.S. Scooby Doo eats Spaghetti. Theory Proven.

BigThirsty - 1
Flying Spaghetti Monter - 0

Ka.. Blammo.

P.S. I'd also like to carry this line of reasoning into work. I don't think companies should have a right to tell me what I can and can't say. If I say do this project that costs $30 million dollars even though it loses $50 million dollars.. they should just do it. I should be allowed to speak freely in the board room. Its my right..

BigThirsty - 2
Board Rooms - 0

Smoke on that Board Rooms..

I don't recall suggesting that we use the Bible, the Torah, the Book of Mormon, and the Quran as our science text books. But, like it or not, the theory, (or, belief, if you will), of creation has been around for thousands of years; and the theory of evolution has been around since at least the 1800's, and, realistically, these are the two theories that we must deal with, (Scooby-Doo, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster notwithstanding).

People should not be told that they have to shut up, or they could lose their job, their tenure, their career, etc., on either side of the spectrum. There is nothing wrong with being challenged. In fact, that's the whole point; both theories should be challenged, questioned, tested, and compared. That can't happen if both of the two "popular" theories aren't presented in the classroom, the lab, the scientific conference, etc., and anyone who holds to the unpopular theory, (whichever one it may be, at the time), is told to sit in the closet.

Considering the fact that millions of people believe in creation, and millions more ascribe to pure evolution, (and, some don't have a problem with a mix of the two), I believe it behooves the academic and scientific communities to continue to address both of these issues, without serious repercussions against either side.

[Cirbryn]

Originally Posted by CelticLady1

I don't recall suggesting that we use the Bible, the Torah, the Book of Mormon, and the Quran as our science text books. But, like it or not, the theory, (or, belief, if you will), of creation has been around for thousands of years; and the theory of evolution has been around since at least the 1800's, and, realistically, these are the two theories that we must deal with, (Scooby-Doo, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster notwithstanding).

People should not be told that they have to shut up, or they could lose their job, their tenure, their career, etc., on either side of the spectrum. There is nothing wrong with being challenged. In fact, that's the whole point; both theories should be challenged, questioned, tested, and compared. That can't happen if both of the two "popular" theories aren't presented in the classroom, the lab, the scientific conference, etc., and anyone who holds to the unpopular theory, (whichever one it may be, at the time), is told to sit in the closet.

Considering the fact that millions of people believe in creation, and millions more ascribe to pure evolution, (and, some don't have a problem with a mix of the two), I believe it behooves the academic and scientific communities to continue to address both of these issues, without serious repercussions against either side.

Possibly the humor in some of the responses caused you to miss the point behind them. Reality is in fact not a popularity contest, nor does it matter how long a particular idea has been around. Appeals to popularity or seniority will get you nowhere. What matters in science (we are talking about presenting these ideas in science class, right?) is whether a particular theory provides explanations and predictions that are born out by the evidence. If it can’t do that then it isn’t science. If it isn’t science then it shouldn’t be taught in public science classrooms. You’re essentially arguing that we should teach actual science, and popular non-science, but not less popular non-science. That’s completely arbitrary. Teach actual science and leave it at that. Leave the non-science for the private schools and churches.

[bigthirsty]

Originally Posted by CelticLady1

People should not be told that they have to shut up, or they could lose their job, their tenure, their career, etc., on either side of the spectrum.
There is nothing wrong with being challenged. In fact, that's the whole point; both theories should be challenged, questioned, tested, and compared.

Yes!!! I totally agree! And the example that Ben Stein gives in the movie (Dr. Sternberg) got into trouble because he didn't allow others to do the peer review of the paper that has caused such an uproar! So yes I totally agree.. challenged, questioned, teested, compared.. I'm in 100% agreement.. I just call it a different term.. I call it "peer review".

The fact is any ID theories can't stand up in a "scientific" classroom and thus there is no "peer review". It can't stand the tests, laws etc that science provides hence it doesn't belong in a science class. Nobody is saying you can't write articles about it... people are saying you can't break the laws of physics in the name of "ID" and then call it science.

Thats the point.. If people want ID to be taught.. then teach it in a religion/philosophy class as thats where it belongs.

In the end.. ID... it is the sibilng, cousin.. whatever of biblical creation. You can say design and put intelligent in front of it but you can't take away its past. ID started out as biblical creationism.. they just slapped a fancy new name on it to do the whole "look over here.. not over here" move.

See.. and from that standpoint.. that pisses me off.

I don't always agree with one of the posters on this forum and his views or his sources. But you know what.. he frequently sources AiG. AiG has cajones to state exactly what they think. There is no guessing and I applaud them for that. Names like "Intelligent Design" and "The Discovery Institute" make people (maybe some out there who won't take the time to look things up) believe "hey.. know what.. Intelligent Design is science now"... which in my view.. is paralyzing in the long run.

[CelticLady1]

I guess I just don't get as excited as y'all do about the whole scenario. I don't have a problem with both evolution and creationism being taught, discussed, etc., in the classroom, the lab, the science conference, or wherever. I simply see no reason for folks to get their undies in such a bunch, frequently to the point of immense hostility, on either side of the aisle. That seems like an effort in futility. I don't see that any of us can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, exactly who, or what, started up the universe. That was a long time ago, and we weren't there! Everyone is putting in their own best guess, when it comes right down to it. Since no one can prove they're 100% right, why get so perturbed with entertaining different possibilities? But, hey, that's just me.