Rick 'The Hair' Perry Supports Intelligent-Design in TX Schools

[Nbadan]

Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican who has made outreach to Christian conservatives a theme of his gubernatorial portfolio, thinks Texas public school students should be taught intelligent design along with evolutionary theory, his office said Thursday.

.......

Perry "supports the teaching of the theory of intelligent design," spokeswoman Kathy Walt said. "Texas schools teach the theory of evolution; intelligent design is a valid scientific theory, and he believes it should be taught as well."

She said elements of creationism are consistent with intelligent design and that teaching different theories is part of developing students' critical thinking skills.

Marvin Olasky, a University of Texas journalism professor who has written favorably on intelligent design, credited Perry with "advancing discussion of this issue. I find it refreshing that he's saying it. The issue is not going to go away."

Austin American Statesman (http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/01/6perry.html?COXnetJSessionIDbuild113=D26Yl1mrbrZly PGymYJDLNommqF3bcb0iBY4K1PSbJHqqCoWzGWi!-1865891230&UrAuth=%60N%60NUOcNZUbTTUWUXUWUZT)

I'd like to see that scientific proof.

:lmao

[Phenomanul]

No one wants to open up this can of worms again....


I think we all agree that we already know what camp we belong in.... and that no one crosses to the other side.... at least not yet.

[boutons_]

camp or no camp, keep this fantasy crap out of public schools

[SouthernFried]

Itelligent Design is just as valid a theory as the Big Bang. See no reason not to expose people to it.

Oh, and I'm an atheist btw.

[exstatic]

Itelligent Design is just as valid a theory as the Big Bang. See no reason not to expose people to it.

Oh, and I'm an atheist btw.

Man, they sold you on it.

Intelligent design is NOT scientific theory in any way shape or form. You cannot ever test it or prove it. It is an idea, based on the tenets of religion.

[SouthernFried]

I'm afraid you have no idea what intelligent design is. I believe you are the one thats actually been sold.

[boutons_]

Big Bang is astrophysical/mathemical theory based on the FUCKING MATTTER in the universe.

ID is "this shit is complicated. Somebody musta designed it"

No evidence,
no matter,
no value for explanation,
no value for prediction,
no testability,
thought terminated,
Praise The Lord.

[xrayzebra]

A 50 second video of evolution:

http://www.boardsmag.com/screeningroom/commercials/1959/

[xrayzebra]

camp or no camp, keep this fantasy crap out of public schools


Butons, here is a little video of your ancestors. Enjoy. The little one
sounds a whole lot like you.

http://www.discoverchimpanzees.org/behaviors/top.php?dir=Communication&topic=Tantrum

:elephant

[xrayzebra]

Wonder if these folks could give you some scientific proof, Dan? Seems there
may be just a few who would argue your point.


Public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted
that Darwin’s theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The
public has been assured, most recently by spokespersons for PBS’s Evolution series, that
“all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution” as does “virtually every
reputable scientist in the world.”
The following scientists dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction
to the second. There is scientific dissent to Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.
www.discovery.org
A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM
DARWINISM
(scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position)
E ARE SKEPTICAL OF
CLAIMS FOR THE ABILITY
OF RANDOM MUTATION
AND NATURAL SELECTION
TO ACCOUNT FOR THE
COMPLEXITY OF LIFE.
CAREFUL EXAMINATION
OF THE EVIDENCE FOR
DARWINIAN THEORY
SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED.”
“W PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T., American Chemical
Society member • Lawrence H. Johnston, Emeritus
Prof. of Physics, U. of Idaho • Scott Minnich, Prof., Dept
of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochemistry, U.
of Idaho • David A. DeWitt, PhD Neuroscience-Case
Western U. • Theodor Liss, PhD Chemistry-M.I.T. •
Braxton Alfred, Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology, U. of
British Columbia • Walter Bradley, Prof. Emeritus of
Mechanical Engineering, Texas A & M • Paul D. Brown,
Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies, Trinity Western
(Canada) • Marvin Fritzler, Prof. of Biochemistry &
Molecular Biology, U. of Calgary, Medical School •
Theodore Saito, Project Manager, Lawrence
Livermore Laboratories • Muzaffar Iqbal, PhD
Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan, Center for Theology
and the Natural Sciences • S.William Pelletier,
Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry, U. of
Georgia • Keith Delaplane, Prof. of Entomology, U. of
Georgia • Ken Smith, Prof. of Mathematics, Central
Michigan U. • Clarence Fouche, Prof. of Biology,
Virginia Intermont College • Thomas Milner, Asst. Prof.
of Biomedical Engineering, U. of Texas, Austin • Brian
J.Miller, PhD Physics-Duke U. • Paul Nesselroade,
Assoc. Prof. of Psychology, Simpson College • Donald
F. Calbreath, Prof. of Chemistry, Whitworth College
Henry F. Schaefer, Nobel Nominee, Director of Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry, U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth, Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology, Yale Grad.
School• Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry, NAS member • Frank Tipler, Prof. of Mathematical Physics, Tulane U. • Robert Kaita, Plasma Physics Lab, Princeton • Michael
Behe, Prof. of Biological Science, Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn, PhD Biochemistry-U. of Illinois • Tony Mega, Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry, Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus
of Biology, San Francisco State • Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath • Daniel Kuebler, Asst. Prof. of Biology, Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David
Keller, Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry, U. of New Mexico • James Keesling, Prof. of Mathematics, U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch, PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert
Newman, PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval, Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry, U. of Colorado • Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College • William A. Dembski, PhD
Mathematics-U. of Chicago • George Lebo, Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy, U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish, PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener, Prof. of
Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering, U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks, Prof. of Signal & Image Processing, U. of Washington • Carl Poppe, Senior Fellow, Lawrence Livermore
Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universität München • Gregory Shearer, Postdoc. Researcher Internal Medicine, U. C. Davis • Joseph Atkinson,
William P. Purcell, PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton
• Wesley Allen, Prof. of Computational Quantum
Chemistry, U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko, Asst. Prof.,
Kansas Medical Center, U. of Kansas • Chris Grace,
Assoc. Prof. of Psychology, Biola U. • Wolfgang Smith,
Prof. Emeritus of Mathematics-Oregon State •
Rosalind Picard, Assoc. Prof. Computer Science,
M.I.T. • Garrick Little, Senior Scientist, Li-Cor • John
L. Omdahl, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular
Biology, U. of New Mexico • Martin Poenie, Assoc.
Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Biology, U.
of Texas, Austin • Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of
Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Georgia •
Hugh Nutley, Prof. Emeritus of Physics &
Engineering, Seattle Pacific U. • David Berlinski, PhD
Philosophy-Princeton, Mathematician, Author • Neil
Broom, Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials
Engineering, U. of Auckland • John Bloom, Assoc.
Prof., Physics, Biola U. • James Graham, Professional
Geologist, Sr. Program Manager, National
Environmental Consulting Firm • John Baumgardner,
Technical Staff, Theoretical Division, Los Alamos
National Laboratory • Fred Skiff, Prof. of Physics, U.
of Iowa • Paul Kuld, Assoc. Prof., Biological Science,
Biola U. • Yongsoon Park, Senior Research Scientist,
St. Luke’s Hospital, Kansas City • Moorad Alexanian, Prof. of Physics, U. of North Carolina, Wilmington • Donald Ewert, Director of Research Administration, Wistar Institute • Joseph
W. Francis, Assoc. Prof. of Biology, Cedarville U. • Thomas Saleska, Prof. of Biology, Concordia U. • Ralph W. Seelke, Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences, U. of Wisconsin,
Superior • James G. Harman, Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry, Texas Tech U. • Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U. of Stockholm •
Raymond G. Bohlin, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas • Fazale R. Rana, PhD Chemistry-Ohio U. • Michael Atchison, Prof. of Biochemistry, U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School •
William S. Harris, Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences, U. of Missouri • Rebecca W. Keller, Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, U. of New Mexico • Terry Morrison, PhD Chemistry-Syracuse
U. • Robert F. DeHaan, PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago • Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki U. of Technology • Bruce Evans, Assoc. Prof.
of Biology, Huntington College • Jim Gibson, PhD Biology-Loma Linda U. • David Ness, PhD Anthropology-Temple U. • Bijan Nemati, PhD Physics, Senior Engineer, Jet Propulsion
Lab (NASA) • Edward T. Peltzer, Senior Research Specialist, Monterey Bay Research Institute • Stan E. Lennard, Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery, U. of Washington • Rafe Payne, Prof.
& Chair, Dept. of Biological Sciences, Biola U. • Phillip Savage, Prof. of Chemical Engineering, U. of Michigan • Pattle Pun, Prof. of Biology, Wheaton College • Jed Macosko, Postdoc.
Researcher Molecular Biology, U.C. Berkeley • Daniel Dix, Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics, U. of South Carolina • Ed Karlow, Chair, Dept. of Physics, LaSierra U. • James Harbrecht,
Clinical Assoc. Prof., U. of Kansas Medical Center • Robert W. Smith, Prof. of Chemistry, U. of Nebraska • Robert DiSilvestro, PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M • David Prentice, Prof.,
Dept. of Life Sciences, Indiana State U. • Walt Stangl, Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics, Biola U. • Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U.C. Berkeley • James Tour, Chao Prof.
of Chemistry, Rice U. • Todd Watson, Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry, Texas A & M • Robert Waltzer, Assoc. Prof. of Biology, Belhaven College • Vincente Villa, Prof. of
Biology, Southwestern U. • James Tumlin, Assoc. Prof. of Medicine, Emory U. • Charles Thaxton, PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U. • Stephen C. Meyer, PhD Philosophy of
Science-Cambridge • Paul Nelson, PhD Philosophy of Biology-U. of Chicago • Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute

[xrayzebra]

I invite all to read the following, link provided, I would post but it is six pages
long. But I will post the last paragraph which I think is relevant.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=526





Some opponents of intelligent design, however, aren’t interested in debating the evidence. They prefer to pretend that the intellectual work of scientists like Dean Kenyon revolve around Edwards vs. Aguillard. The theory of intelligent design owes much to law, but the laws it concerns itself with are the laws of nature. The second half of the 20th century revealed that they are exquisitely fine-tuned for life. It also revealed that while life needs a finely tuned set of physical constants, it apparently also needs something that only intelligence can provide—information. Critics of intelligent design could do with more of it.

[xrayzebra]

One more post and I quit for the day.

Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher about Evolution

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?

VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?

ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?

DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?

MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution -- even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

Copyright 2001 Jonathan Wells. All rights reserved. International copyright secured.
File Date: 1.31.02




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This data file may be reproduced in its entirety for non-commercial use.


I have a question for all you Darwin fans. Why is it that it bothers you
so much that an opposing view would be taught in schools? Why do
you put out so much garbage that ID has no basis in fact?

Could it be that you are in the same crowd as the "world is flat" bunch?

I have stated it once and will state it again, Darwin was a single person
who had an idea that a bunch of people gobbed onto. If you do a
little research with an open mind you will find no real basis for his so
called observations. Where has anything evolved in the past few
hundred years. huh? Even just a tiny, teenie, little bit. Huh? Cant
find any? strange isn't it, not even a centimeter of change.

[xrayzebra]

Copyright 2001 Jonathan Wells.


who's going to believe the backup Texans runningback?

That makes his questions invalid?

[ChumpDumper]

Where has anything evolved in the past few
hundred years. huh? Even just a tiny, teenie, little bit. Huh? Cant
find any? strange isn't it, not even a centimeter of change.Seems to me there is some evidence with antimicrobal resistant bacteria. Is there a creationist theory for those?

[boutons_]

"INTELLIGENT DESIGN is NOT an 'opposing view' of evolution"

ID seeks to destroy all of science by redefining a new "something" (can't call it science) that is in opposition to traditional science and posits super-natural explanations for natural phenomena.

and yes, "fucking shit man", ID is aggressively anti-science.

[xrayzebra]

and for the last fucking time


INTELLIGENT DESIGN is NOT an 'opposing view' of evolution

it's simply a statement that "GOD DID IT"

fucking shit man

Did you see my post about the "other scientist". They may have
"opposing view" twerp. Seems as though they may have a little bit
more credentials than you do.

[xrayzebra]

Seems to me there is some evidence with antimicrobal resistant bacteria. Is there a creationist theory for those?

I don't know right off hand. Neither do you. But I do have enough sense
to know there is more than one opinion. Seems as though you don't.
So been closed minded, might want to practice that with your mouth.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know right off hand. Neither do you. But I do have enough sense
to know there is more than one opinion. Seems as though you don't.
So been closed minded, might want to practice that with your mouth.What are you talking about? This is a legit question. Resistant bacteria are very real and there is an evolutionary explanaiton for them. I'm certainly willing to hear the creationist argument if there is one.

As far as I can remember, this is my first post about the creationism issue. Unless you can find others that prove I'm so closed-minded about it, I suggest you slow your roll.

[SouthernFried]

Here is an easier to understand article on what "Intelligent Design" really is.

I am an atheist, and am not looking for God supporting theories. Intelligent Design is a theory outside that of Religions or Gods. So, keep an open mind when reading.

I don't totally subscribe to it...but, I don't totally subscribe to the "Nothing-Bang-Everything" theory either. However, they are both worth investigation and discussion.

This is easy an easy to read Newspaper Article. Doesn't really get into the meat tho, till page 2.

I'd be interested to hear what others think of it after reading this.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=8f7f51f2-a196-4677-9399-46f4f17b5b61

[danyel]

Some thoughts on the article

- IDs Origin isnt a twisted way to get Creationism into the classrooms. Yet it has been twisted and used by religious groups in their effort to include an alternative theory to evolution that involves some sort of supreme being into classrooms after they failed to include creationism in science classes.

- The only evidence ID shows is the absence of evidence or the evolution theory inability to explain some things. But neither of those constitutes evidence by itself.

Some questions to IDs supporters

- Why do IDs supporters refer to Evolutionism as Darwinism? no one refers to relativity as Einstenism...

- Does ID reject the idea that we descend from apes? does it refute the idea that evolution is a natural process?

[Phenomanul]

Sigh.... my first post was correct. And yet the people that so passionately argued in favor of 'evolution' (above) never once brought up a legit scientific experiment to the table....

I'm not going to try and convince anyone, as that was never the intent; but please, quit the childish insults (ahem... boutons, elpimpo4cc). I would hand you the nobel prize myself if that approach ever led to anything productive.....


:rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes

[exstatic]

ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?


How can something be millions of years old when they earth is only supposedly a few thousand?

[xrayzebra]

How can something be millions of years old when they earth is only supposedly a few thousand?

How come people that support evolution don't want an opposing view?
How do you know that somewhere they may agree with each other?

Could it be, just could it be, that they are not sure of what they say?

[boutons_]

"never once brought up a legit scientific experiment to the table...."

WTF?
the biological world is an ongoing experiment.

The evidence FOR evolution is overwhelming. Evolution has strong powers of explanation and prediction.

I read a article in the past few months about experiments with the popular fruit fly showing that thru ONLY 50 generations, genetic differentiations/adaptations were visisble in two different control groups.

Now extrapolate to 1000s and 1000s of generations going back millions of years with huge variations in environmental stress and variations ....

and why don't IDers/creationist set up experiments to prove super-natural design and intervention?

[xrayzebra]

"never once brought up a legit scientific experiment to the table...."

WTF?
the biological world is an ongoing experiment.

The evidence FOR evolution is overwhelming. Evolution has strong powers of explanation and prediction.

I read a article in the past few months about experiments with the popular fruit fly showing that thru ONLY 50 generations, genetic differentiations/adaptations were visisble in two different control groups.

Now extrapolate to 1000s and 1000s of generations going back millions of years with huge variations in environmental stress and variations ....

and why don't IDers/creationist set up experiments to prove super-natural design and intervention?

They have! Look them up.

[Phenomanul]

"never once brought up a legit scientific experiment to the table...."

WTF?
the biological world is an ongoing experiment.

The evidence FOR evolution is overwhelming. Evolution has strong powers of explanation and prediction.

I read a article in the past few months about experiments with the popular fruit fly showing that thru ONLY 50 generations, genetic differentiations/adaptations were visisble in two different control groups.

Now extrapolate to 1000s and 1000s of generations going back millions of years with huge variations in environmental stress and variations ....

and why don't IDers/creationist set up experiments to prove super-natural design and intervention?

"the biological world is an ongoing experiment. " And yet when IDers make the same assertion we are bashed... Double standard if I ever saw one.

Try looking up other experiments with said fruit flies.. Some that span even more 'generations' show than in the end... despite several phenotypic alterations... the fruit fly was still in fact... a fruit fly. Look up the last serious attempt by Dobzhansky with Drosophila (a butterfly). It is to his credit that he admitted failure, something the "establishment" conveniently ignores.

A species's, stored genetic content is so vast and varied, that changes can in fact occur. And given the need, an animal will adapt in order to survive.

Adaptation does not prove evolution, though many confuse the two mechanisms all the time.

Should we be considered a different species when compared to the indigenous Amazonian pygmies or when compared to several secluded tribes in Africa???? NO NO and a resounding NO!!! If a fossilized pygmy was found 10 feet below my fossilized remains would someone else then deduce that the pygmy was my ancestor??? Somehow anthropologists make such claims without a complimentary forensic case to back up said assessments.

Anyways, despite the obvious isolationism of the gene pool (in the case of the Amazonian pygmies, or other African tribes etc...), the fact of the matter is that they are still human. I tried explaining to CBF that if I fathered a child with say someone from a remote (and isolated) Korean village, that the child would be genetically more 'robust' than if that same mother conceived a child from someone else in that village. Why??? Because the 'hybridization' of our genes would re-establish some of the genetic richness that was lost over several generations of a broader form of genetic 'inbreeding' (i.e. pool inbreeding from lack of options).

Canines are a perfect example of that very same phenomena. In fact, all members of the genus Canis (wolves, dogs, jackals, coyotes, foxes, dingoes) are interfertile... that is... all species of the genus Canis can interbreed. All of them are only varieties of the same kind of organism in disregard of how 'speciation' is attempting 'to sell them' to deceive the fringe biologist (your typical high-schooler)...

Time after time I have seen that 'varieties' have been deliberately confounded with 'species' to sell the tale of Evolution, and the same can be said for thousands and thousands of other organisms.

[boutons_]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/logoprinter.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/)
January 11, 2006
California Parents File Suit Over Origins of Life Course

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=LAURIE%20GOODSTEIN&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=LAURIE%20GOODSTEIN&inline=nyt-per)
A group of parents are suing their small California (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/california/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) school district to force it to cancel a four-week high school elective on intelligent design, creationism and evolution that it is offering as a philosophy course.

The course at Frazier Mountain High School in Lebec, which serves a rural area north of Los Angeles, was proposed by a special education teacher last month and approved by the board of trustees in an emergency meeting on New Year's Day. The 11 parents are seeking a temporary restraining order to stop the course, which is being held during the session that ends on Feb. 3.

Last month, a Federal District Court in Pennsylvania ruled that it was unconstitutional to teach intelligent design in a public school science class because it promoted a particular religious belief. After the ruling, people on both sides of the debate suggested that it might be constitutionally permissible to examine intelligent design in a philosophy, comparative religion or social studies class.

But the parents, represented by lawyers with Americans United for Separation of Church and State, contend that the teacher is advocating intelligent design and "young earth creationism" and is not examining those ideas in a neutral way alongside evolution.

Intelligent design posits that biological life is so complex that it must have been designed by an intelligent force. Young earth creationism holds to the biblical account of the origins of life and the belief that the earth is 6,000 years old.

In their suit, the parents said the syllabus originally listed 24 videos to be shown to students, with 23 "produced or distributed by religious organizations and assume a pro-creationist, anti-evolution stance." They said the syllabus listed two evolution experts who would speak to the class. One was a local parent and scientist who said he had already refused the speaking invitation and was now suing the district; the other was Francis H. C. Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, who died in 2004.

A course description distributed to students and parents said, "This class will take a close look at evolution as a theory and will discuss the scientific, biological and biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin's philosophy is not rock solid."

( "not rock solid" so that is the ID/creationist attack? Their objective is not only to disprove revolutionary theory but to destroy all of science by redefining science so it include their cultish beliefs in the super-natural. They are free to teach super-natural stuff in religious/Sunday schools, but not in public schools.)

The school principal referred inquiries to the superintendent, John W. Wright, who was in Washington and did not respond to an interview request.

But Mr. Wright said in a letter on Jan. 6 in response to a complaint from Americans United, "Our legal advisers have pointed out that they are unaware of any court or California statute which has forbidden public schools to explore cultural phenomena, including history, religion or creation myths."

Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, said, "This is apparently the next wave of efforts to bring creationism to schools, and that's why we want to dry it up immediately."

( whether evoluationary theory is/not rock solid is a question for professional scientists in standard scientific debate, not for dumbshit highschool students. )

The school district, with 1,425 students, serves several towns in a mountain area where many students are home schooled. The special education teacher, who is married to the pastor of the local Assemblies of God church, amended her syllabus and the course title, from Philosophy of Intelligent Design to Philosophy of Design after parents complained. The course was approved by the trustees in a 3-to-2 vote, despite testimony from science and math teachers that it would undermine the science curriculum. The parents who brought the lawsuit said 13 students were enrolled in the class.

Kitty Jo Nelson, a trustee, said the community was split.

"If we had to describe this in one word," Ms. Nelson said, "it would be 'controversial.' "




Copyright 2006 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html)The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)

[spurster]

How come people that support evolution don't want an opposing view?
Science is not a democracy with minority rights. Science is based on performance, with the winner having more evidence to support it and to refute the losers.

ID's main evidence seems to be holes in the current state of the genetic theory of biology (evolution is not a theory by itself, but is part of the genetic theory). Of course, there are holes in theories. What do you think research scientists work on? Science is not complete, inerrant "truth" coming from a holy book.

As for Rick Perry, he is a joke, but that seems to fit with the kind of people we like to elect.

[Phenomanul]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/logoprinter.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/)
January 11, 2006
California Parents File Suit Over Origins of Life Course

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=LAURIE%20GOODSTEIN&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=LAURIE%20GOODSTEIN&inline=nyt-per)
A group of parents are suing their small California (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/national/usstatesterritoriesandpossessions/california/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) school district to force it to cancel a four-week high school elective on intelligent design, creationism and evolution that it is offering as a philosophy course.

The course at Frazier Mountain High School in Lebec, which serves a rural area north of Los Angeles, was proposed by a special education teacher last month and approved by the board of trustees in an emergency meeting on New Year's Day. The 11 parents are seeking a temporary restraining order to stop the course, which is being held during the session that ends on Feb. 3.

Last month, a Federal District Court in Pennsylvania ruled that it was unconstitutional to teach intelligent design in a public school science class because it promoted a particular religious belief. After the ruling, people on both sides of the debate suggested that it might be constitutionally permissible to examine intelligent design in a philosophy, comparative religion or social studies class.

But the parents, represented by lawyers with Americans United for Separation of Church and State, contend that the teacher is advocating intelligent design and "young earth creationism" and is not examining those ideas in a neutral way alongside evolution.

Intelligent design posits that biological life is so complex that it must have been designed by an intelligent force. Young earth creationism holds to the biblical account of the origins of life and the belief that the earth is 6,000 years old.

In their suit, the parents said the syllabus originally listed 24 videos to be shown to students, with 23 "produced or distributed by religious organizations and assume a pro-creationist, anti-evolution stance." They said the syllabus listed two evolution experts who would speak to the class. One was a local parent and scientist who said he had already refused the speaking invitation and was now suing the district; the other was Francis H. C. Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, who died in 2004.

A course description distributed to students and parents said, "This class will take a close look at evolution as a theory and will discuss the scientific, biological and biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin's philosophy is not rock solid."

( "not rock solid" so that is the ID/creationist attack? Their objective is not only to disprove revolutionary theory but to destroy all of science by redefining science so it include their cultish beliefs in the super-natural. They are free to teach super-natural stuff in religious/Sunday schools, but not in public schools.)

The school principal referred inquiries to the superintendent, John W. Wright, who was in Washington and did not respond to an interview request.

But Mr. Wright said in a letter on Jan. 6 in response to a complaint from Americans United, "Our legal advisers have pointed out that they are unaware of any court or California statute which has forbidden public schools to explore cultural phenomena, including history, religion or creation myths."

Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, said, "This is apparently the next wave of efforts to bring creationism to schools, and that's why we want to dry it up immediately."

( whether evoluationary theory is/not rock solid is a question for professional scientists in standard scientific debate, not for dumbshit highschool students. )

The school district, with 1,425 students, serves several towns in a mountain area where many students are home schooled. The special education teacher, who is married to the pastor of the local Assemblies of God church, amended her syllabus and the course title, from Philosophy of Intelligent Design to Philosophy of Design after parents complained. The course was approved by the trustees in a 3-to-2 vote, despite testimony from science and math teachers that it would undermine the science curriculum. The parents who brought the lawsuit said 13 students were enrolled in the class.

Kitty Jo Nelson, a trustee, said the community was split.

"If we had to describe this in one word," Ms. Nelson said, "it would be 'controversial.' "




Copyright 2006 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html)The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)



Keep on fishing boutons.... just who are you trying to sway???

[Phenomanul]

Science is not a democracy with minority rights. Science is based on performance, with the winner having more evidence to support it and to refute the losers.

ID's main evidence seems to be holes in the current state of the genetic theory of biology (evolution is not a theory by itself, but is part of the genetic theory). Of course, there are holes in theories. What do you think research scientists work on? Science is not complete, inerrant "truth" coming from a holy book.

As for Rick Perry, he is a joke, but that seems to fit with the kind of people we like to elect.


ID proposes that 'evolutionary principles' don't explain everything that is observed today. Many people scoff at "irreducible complexity" without understanding its inherent implications. But for life to arise and give way to 'evolution,' a step which had to occur at somepoint; mathematical probability beyond comprehension would have to be superceded. This improbability solidly negates any attempt for life, more specifically, DNA and proteins, to be formed out of nothingness.

This is more than just a 'hole', this is a gaping flaw. Anyways, I'm still waiting for someone to post definitive experimental data that proves evolution.

[Yonivore]

Go Hair!

[Blake]

Finally this ass is gone.

Lol if he ends up as POTUS.

[Blake]

More ID nutjob politicians trying to give a college a hard time:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/14/lawmakers-question-ball-state-ban-on-intelligent-design-course/6444311/

[angrydude]

The answer to this is so obvious.

Intelligent Design shouldn't be taught as science.

It should be taught as "this is what some people in America believe."

And then move on.

[Nbadan]

har, har...

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5552/14614335074_a9589efcba.jpg

[boutons_deux]

It should be taught as "this is what some people in America believe."

it, and other beliefs, shouldn't be taught at all.

[boutons_deux]

Rick Perry And How The Press Loves To Treat GOP Campaign Losers Like Winners

Thirty months after flaming out on the Republican primary campaign trail, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, whose aborted 2012 run logged a fifth-place finish in Iowa and a sixth-place showing in New Hampshire before being suspended, is suddenly enjoying a Beltway media resurgence. With the issue of America's border security and the influx of unaccompanied children generating headlines, Perry has been out front criticizing President Obama, and the governor's performance is earning raves.

"People love his ass" is what "one Republican operative close to Perry" told (http://www.buzzfeed.com/katenocera/republicans-are-super-excited-rick-perry-is-back) Buzzfeed (anonymously). On TheMcLaughlin Group this weekend, so many panelists sang Perry's praise ("shrewd," "winning," "absolutely terrific") that host John McLaughlin announced (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/07/13/McLaughlin-Group-Rick-Perrys-Handling-of-Border-Crisis-Bolsters-2016-Bid-Chances), "a star is born."

Time has been in full swoon mode lately, touting (http://time.com/2902474/rick-perry-president-2016/) Perry as "swaggering," "handsome and folksy," and insisting he's "refreshed his message, retooled his workout routine and retrained his sights toward the national stage." Meanwhile CNN's Peter Hamby claimed (http://time.com/2902474/rick-perry-president-2016/) Perry is "completely underrated" as a 2016 contender. Why? Because "other than Chris Christie, it's hard to think of another Republican candidate with the kind of charm and personal affability, and frankly just good political skills, that Rick Perry has."

Keep in mind, Perry recently compared (http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/In-S-F-Rick-Perry-compares-homosexuality-to-5546544.php) gays to alcoholics (and then acknowledged (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/rick-perry-i-stepped-right-it-comments-about-gays-n135836) he "stepped right in it"), and suggested that the Obama White House might somehow be "in on (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/perry-obama-border-ulterior-motive)" the wave of immigrant refugees crossing the U.S. border. He also became something an punch line last week when this sourpuss photo (https://twitter.com/dougmillsnyt/statuses/487001037929070594) of his meeting with Obama lit up Twitter:

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/uploader/image/2014/07/15/perry-tweet-20140709.jpg


Perry's soft press shouldn't surprise close observers of the Beltway press corps. It's part of a larger media double standard where Republican campaign trail losers now routinely get treated like winners. (Think: John McCain (http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/04/03/mccain-lost-but-the-media-treat-him-like-a-winn/148900), Sarah Palin, and Mitt Romney (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2014/mar/21/mitt-romney-returns-again-sunday-show-lineup/)). The trend also extends to Republican policy failures, like thediscredited architects (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/15/sunday-shows-turn-to-discredited-iraq-war-archi/199735) of the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq, who have been welcomed back onto the airwaves to pontificate about Iraq, despite the fact they got almost everything wrong (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/1222/Iraq-war-Predictions-made-and-results) about the invasion eleven years ago.

And no, the same courtesy is not extended to Democrats. John Kerry did not camp out on the Sunday talk shows after losing to President Bush in 2004 and become a sort of permanent, television White House critic, the way McCain did after getting trounced by Obama in 2008.

But wait, Hillary Clinton lost in 2008 and she's treated as a serious contender, so why shouldn't Perry be?

First, Clinton collected nearly 2,000 primary delegates during her run, whereas Perry earned exactly zero.

Second, Clinton enjoys an enormous lead (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-2016-hillary-clinton-has-commanding-lead-over-democrats-gop-race-wide-open/2014/01/29/188bb3f4-8904-11e3-833c-33098f9e5267_story.html) in Democratic nomination polling if she chooses to run. Perry barely even registers among GOP voters.

Last month the Texas Republican Party held a straw vote and among possible 2016 hopefuls, the Texas governor finished a distant fourth (http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2014/06/texas-gops-presidential-straw-poll-votes-being-tallied.html/), among Texas Republicans. Outside of Texas, his support remains even thinner. A recent WMUR Granite State poll (http://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/research_publications/gsp2014_summer_primary071014.pdf) from New Hampshire had Perry winning a barely-there two percent of Republican support for the 2016 GOP primary.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/15/rick-perry-and-how-the-press-loves-to-treat-gop/200102

[pgardn]

har, har...

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5552/14614335074_a9589efcba.jpg

Swaggering, handsome AND folksy.
I see it.