Texas School Board Rejects Intelligent Design »
Posted by: Neophile 1 year ago778 Comments Report this Story
Should "intelligent design" -- the cousin of creationism -- be taught in science classes in Texas alongside evolution? A solid majority of the State Board of Education, which will rewrite the science curriculum for public schools next year, is against the idea, even though several members say they are creationists.
Read Full Story at dallasnews.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 778
-
0%
joeblowe1 year ago
How about that, there's enough common sense and intelligence in even a ONE STAR state to realize that it's a bad idea to teach idiocy in a science class. Gives me a glimmer of hope that this country may YET find a way to maintain a decent level of education amongst the masses.
Reply-
0%
tkyrchncs1 year ago
God does us all favors, I suppose. Most of us don't want religious fanatics infecting the normal kids.
Reply -
0%
dunkirk1 year ago
ANd I would assume that is one reason YOUR kids wont be behind any scientific breakthrus.
Reply -
0%
toph19731 year ago
Yeah, more faith to believe this than that Adam came from dirt and Eve came from one of adams ribs. Then they all went happily to church riding a Jesus velociraptor. Don't ride it too far though or you may fall off the flat earth, that is the center of the Universe. Now that takes blind, unquestioning faith to believe something as absolutely absurd as that.
Reply -
0%
XXanyoneXX1 year ago
Have you ever read anything about evolution from a scientist who endorses it? Do I even need to ask that question?
There is ample evidence to show that evolution happens. Scientific discoveries (fossils, genes, mutations) over the past 150 or so years have fallen right in line with the model of evolution Darwin had originally theorized. Genes hadn't even been discovered when Darwin came up with his idea! He merely stated that the tiny modifications to a species are passed on to later generations. The discovery of genes not only showed how us how THIS happened, but also showed how the modifications occurred!
I was a young-earth Creationist for 25 years before I looked at the available evidence. I quickly realized that the available evidence clearly points to evolution. It doesn't take faith to believe evolution, just evidence. There's a treasure trove of evidence out there for you to look into - all you have to do is be honest with yourself.
Reply-
0%
NickWilliamson1 year ago
You seem a very intellignet person. Just keep in mind that truth depends on one's perspective. Death-Rove may have a point--from how he sees it. Evolution is a theory, and by definition, a theory cannot be proved. You are correct; the evidence supports the theory--but you never know; a better theory might come along. One never "believes in" a theory; one trusts the evidence. Just because the evidence looks good for Darwin, don't give up the search. There might actually be an intelligent design in there somewhere.
Reply
-
-
0%
weston1631 year ago
-
0%
disraeli1 year ago
Are these the only two possibilities that exist?
Why these two?
Why not call TheGoracle a Luddite instead?
I would expect that even private schools must maintain a curricula that passes state muster, which at it's simplest would mean things taught in science are really science, things taught in math are really math. Education serves to further many ends, but a proper education should be geared to reducing ignorance, not fostering it. That role is reserved for television.
Reply-
0%
JackofallChems1 year ago
Why not just throw both 'hypotheses' out of science class and stick to what's actually provable? Is it really so hard to admit that macroevolution is a crock that has about as much substance, after all of the data is honestly considered instead of used to hype secular humanistic hedonism, as the notion that sentient, biped machines roam among us disguised as cars or airplanes? If you think this is hyperbole or a religion-based rant, you haven't been paying attention to the shady games being played in academia and the NEA under a lame and rather transparent lip-service to 'science'. Kids these days should be spared the unsupportable gibberish and allowed to actually get an education.
Reply
-
-
0%
tkyrchncs1 year ago
What, weston, you think people should be allowed to teach children anything they wish? Even things clearly not in the interest of the child?
Reply-
0%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year ago
that's called parenting.
for good or ill, the last I checked people had a right to teach their kids whatever they want, personally or thru hired proxies.
they question of 'allowed' also does not sit well, considering control and authority was the main issue with religious oppression thruout history
personally I think its less important to teach kids where or how they came from what, then it is to teach them how to act once they got here, ie, teaching them morality, ethical behavior, social responsibility and empathy.
and no, 'God' is not necessary to teach them those things.
Reply -
0%
weston1631 year ago
"What, weston, you think people should be allowed to teach children anything they wish? Even things clearly not in the interest of the child?"
Well for your information God tells us to raise up a child in the way he should go. We are to guide them in the early years teach them right from wrong which is in the Bible. If we teach a child evil then that child will be evil, sometimes they overcome the evil obstacle anyway (God helps them) Say a child raised by a druggy or alcoholic that beats his family, some children can still find God and get out of that. But you sir I am not sure what you are implying? Are you saying that we should raise a child in witchcraft, atheism, homosexuality, and evolutionism, not teach them right from wrong, if it feel good do it, no standards? Is that what your are saying?
Reply
-
-
-
0%
jerryskid11 year ago
We are finally taking science back from the radical right. Unintelligent Design?
Reply -
0%
jdhatl1 year ago
I don't believe in God and my vote counts. What matters is life here on Earth. Christianity is a form of moral procrastination
Reply -
-
0%
beetsc11 year ago
Darth-Rove....I guess it says something about you that you would pick a screen name combining two of the most evil men from fiction and real life. Excellent choice. Are your spelling errors a result of your fine private education, or a weak attempt to be humorous? And please, don't use Yiddish expressions in your diatribes. We Jews have enough problems without people thinking you might be one of us.
Reply -
0%
XXanyoneXX1 year ago
DARTH-ROVE: their is no such thing as an athiest on a death bed.
There is no such thing as a newborn theist. Mom, dad, and a whole bunch of people must first tell you the invisible man is real before you believe it.
Reply -
0%
XXanyoneXX1 year ago
DARTH-ROVE: their is no such thing as an athiest on a death bed.
That's as silly as saying that there's no such thing as someone who doesn't believe in Santa Claus on Christmans Eve.
Reply -
0%
XXanyoneXX1 year ago
DARTH-ROVE: their is no such thing as an athiest on a death bed.
I take it you've done some research to arrive at this conclusion? How many atheists have you surveyed before their deathbed and while on it? Have you read any studies conducted on this psychological phenomonon you claim occurs? Have any been conducted? Or is this something else you take on FAITH? (it's more important when typed in all caps!)
Reply -
0%
XXanyoneXX1 year ago
DARTH-ROVE: their is no such thing as an athiest on a death bed.
Not to be a grammar nazi, but you really need to make sure you have correct grammar before you start complaining about someone else's. It's "there", not "their", in this case. Did you attend PUBLIK SCHROOL as well?
Reply -
0%
archeojoel1 year ago
You better make sure you spell check every post. And I know there IS such a thing as an atheist (again check your spelling hypocrite)on a death bed. Just cause you're too weak to stick to your convictions in the face of your own certain mortality and so rely on the crutch of religion to think, feel, and decide for you doesn't mean the rest of the world is necessarily as weak.
Reply -
-
-
0%
Coatl1 year ago
From the article:
" -Creationism and intelligent design don't belong in our science classes,- said Board of Education Chairman Don McLeroy, who described himself as a creationist. -Anything taught in science has to have consensus in the science community รข;; and intelligent design does not.- "
Everybody is free to have an opinion about this issue, but teaching your children something that it's not even a scientific hypothesis and compare it with a scientific hypothesis as if both were equally probable is pretty dangerous. Not only to your children but to your entire nation. If you want the US to be on top of the scientific research as it was before, then you got to be careful about what you're teaching to your children.
Reply
