Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Behe Bit It (Michael Behe on "The Colbert Report")
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 121 of 152 (415121)
08-08-2007 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by ICANT
08-08-2007 10:24 AM


Re: Sorry, but not in this thread.
***remove duplicate post***
Edited by Percy, : Double post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by ICANT, posted 08-08-2007 10:24 AM ICANT has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 122 of 152 (415122)
08-08-2007 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by ICANT
08-08-2007 10:24 AM


Re: Sorry, but not in this thread.
Hi ICANT,
I understand the point you're making, and I believe I can reply to it in an on-topic manner.
You're saying that if ID cannot be taught because it is not a fact, then abiogenesis and the singularity of the Big Bang cannot be taught because they are not facts, either.
The answer is that neither abiogenesis not the singularity are taught as fact in any venue, not in public schools, not in colleges, not in graduate school, not anywhere. That's because they're not facts. They're scientific inferences drawn from scientific evidence. There's a strong scientific consensus around these inferences because of the strength of the evidence. You can call these inferences ideas or theories or hypotheses or whatever you like, but what is key is the strength of the evidence behind them. Ideas like the singularity and abiogenesis have a consensus of support behind them because of the strong evidence for them, though not as strong as for some other ideas, such as relativity.
What is taught in public school science class is mainstream science, i.e., that portion of science behind which there lies a strong consensus. I doubt that much time if any is given in most high school science curriculum to abiogenesis or the singularity, but to the extent that they are covered it is because they are part of mainstream scientific understanding.
The reason ID is not taught and should not be taught is that there is no scientific consensus behind it, and in fact the idea has been rejected outright by the scientific community. And despite the claims of evangelical Christianity that ID is science and not religion, its like the chocolate-faced boy denying he's been into the candy. The claim is transparently false.
As Discovery Institute spokesmen have from time to time forthrightly stated, it's time to go out and do some science.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by ICANT, posted 08-08-2007 10:24 AM ICANT has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 123 of 152 (415126)
08-08-2007 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by ICANT
08-08-2007 11:17 AM


The Brotherhood
You did not deny that a monopoly exists. But lets face the truth, either you are in the brotherhood or you are on the outside. To be in the brotherhood you are not allowed to speak against what the brotherhood believes to be the truth.
The brotherhood has entry requirements. I'm not aware that those who work at meeting the requirements are forbidden to enter. An example is the young earther who has earned a PhD in paleontology (with controversy , of course but he got it).
The problem is that you actually have to work very hard to meet the requirements. I am not a mathematician or a biologist but I can see for myself that Behe's arguments are wrong. Being able to support your arguments against intense criticism is one of the entry requirements. He put forward indefensible arguments and when they have been criticized he didn't defend them or change them.
You are certainly allowed to speak out against what the brotherhood believes. Behe is doing so isn't he? But to have what you say believed you have to be able to support it. If you are on the outside you will have to work much harder at it but good arguments do win out in the end, even over extreme, irrational stubborn opposition (the brotherhood is made of humans too).
Behe's arguments are ill founded. That is his problem; not the brotherhood.
(PS be back in a few days)
Maybe 1% would not make a controversy.
But if there is that much controversy I don't see how you could say there is NO controversy. I thought no controversy would mean everybody is in 100% agreement.
It maybe that "no" is misspeaking if some one is going to split hairs. There is however NO scientific controversy because Behe's ideas have been shown to be wrong and not answered by he or others. There is nothing left. His claims about IC are wrong and done with. He set them up as an evolutionary strawman in the first place so it is hard to imagine that he didn't know they were wrong. Given how he chose to promulgate them it appears that he did know when he started and he certainly knows now.
Neither does a lot of the notions and beliefs of a lot of other scientist (which becomes their religion) that are being taught in the science classroom as a fact of science.
Please start threads on these so they can be discussed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by ICANT, posted 08-08-2007 11:17 AM ICANT has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 124 of 152 (415131)
08-08-2007 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by ICANT
08-08-2007 11:17 AM


Re: ID in Rhythm
ICANT writes:
But if there is that much controversy I don't see how you could say there is NO controversy. I thought no controversy would mean everybody is in 100% agreement.
You mean that unless there's unanimity then there must be controversy? How would that make any sense? Are you sure you're not thinking of disagreement?
You may be missing an important point. Keep in mind we're focusing on science. The point being made is that there is no *scientific* controversy. There are no arguments about ID taking place in scientific venues like college science departments or scientific journals or scientific conferences. The controversy is solely in the lay-public domain, and it is a direct result of evangelical Christian efforts promoting ID in education.
Even if there were a significant sub-element of scientists who accepted ID, the way they would promote their views would not be through creating controversy but by doing research. At the end of day, college science departments are not measuring how much controversy professors have generated, but how much research they've accomplished. Tenure review committees do not get together and say things like, "Well, Professor Smith didn't publish any papers this year, but he sure created a controversy when he staged that filibuster at the annual conference, I think we should grant him tenure."
Neither does a lot of the notions and beliefs of a lot of other scientist (which becomes their religion) that are being taught in the science classroom as a fact of science.
This is, once again, the "Oh yeah, well so are you!" defense. I wish you creationists would make up your mind. Is science religion or atheism? It can't be both.
Obviously science is not a religion. Pick up any science textbook or journal and you will find no references to God. Most scientists already have a religion anyway.
And science is obviously not atheistic, either. Science is just one of very, very many secular activities. You won't find any references to God in accounting textbooks, but you wouldn't call accounting atheistic, right?
Science is a way of studying and learning about the way the universe works. It is based on experiment and observation of the natural world. Its inferences can only be attacked by reference to the strength or weakness of the supporting evidence. If you want to defeat a scientific position then you must show the weaknesses and flaws in the evidence and analysis of the evidence. If you are successful in this then it means the evidence and analysis proved in the end insufficient to support the inferences. It doesn't mean the inference was religion.
ID, on the other hand, is clearly religion. Creationist and ID writings are full of Christian advocacy. There's no getting around it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by ICANT, posted 08-08-2007 11:17 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by ICANT, posted 08-08-2007 4:11 PM Percy has replied
 Message 151 by arachnophilia, posted 08-10-2007 2:25 AM Percy has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 125 of 152 (415147)
08-08-2007 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Hyroglyphx
08-07-2007 11:17 PM


Re: No problem at all
Look, Paul said, specifically, that Behe is a liar, yet provided NO evidence of said lies. I asked him at least three times to support his assertion. He couldn't. He just keeps saying that ID'ists are liars, blah, blah, blah. They're just mean-spirited talking points that he's erroneously fashioned in his mind.
Then he gives me some asinine example of the supposed "lies," and attempts to indict ALL of Intelligent Design with it. I then ever-so-gently reminded him of the monumental, demonstrable frauds associated with evolution...
And you were lying, remember?
So if you want examples of lies and fraud in ID, just take a good look in a mirror.
Stop trying to stack the deck against me and have your own side except some personal responsibility.
Funnee. Of course, it is "our side" which responsibly discovered that Piltdown Man, for example, was a fake, and responsibly went around telling everyone. The only reason you think Piltdown Man is a fake is because evolutionists told you --- and for once, you decided to trust them.
Meanwhile, your stupid vicious libel about Peppered Moths remains part of the stock-in-trade of creationist liars; and the ugly lies which you recite about Nebraska Man have endured a dozen times longer than "Nebraska Man" itself. When will you guys accept that you, too, have a responsibility to tell the truth? When will you get over your fixation with Genesis and read the Ninth COmmandment?
I'm not holding my breath.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-07-2007 11:17 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 126 of 152 (415160)
08-08-2007 2:22 PM


Behe Vivisected
For a great exposé of Behe's HIV claims from his latest book, The Edge of Evolution, see ERV & HIV versus Behe. Behe loses. over at Panda's Thumb.
--Percy

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 127 of 152 (415178)
08-08-2007 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Percy
08-08-2007 11:53 AM


Re: ID in Rhythm
And science is obviously not atheistic, either. Science is just one of very, very many secular activities. You won't find any references to God in accounting textbooks, but you wouldn't call accounting atheistic, right?
I said some scientist have notions, and beliefs that have been injected or taught in science classrooms, and that these notion and beliefs had become their religion.
Religion=
A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people,
Religion - Wikipedia
I googled accountant, I got a lot of sites offering help to accountants, accounting firms, and schools teaching accounting.
Not one site pushing accounting or a set of beliefs.
I googled scientist, first hit I found:
The Scientist : home : WednesdaySpecial feature: How should scientists sell science?
How to sell science?
I googled atheist, I found:
American AtheistsThe Official Web Site of American Atheists, an educational organization for atheists.
Home - American Atheists - 26k - Cached - Similar pages
A site preaching atheism and bashing religion.
THE COURTHOUSE - American Atheists was founded as the result of the famous Supreme Court case which helped to end prayer and bible recitation in public schools. Initiated by the founder of the organization, Madalyn Murray O’Hair, this famous suit is a part of a long tradition in the legal battle for separation of state and church.
THE SCHOOLHOUSE - Do kids really need prayer? And should public school permit and encourage prayer or other religious rituals? Find out the American Atheists perspective on this important issue!
YOUTH AND FAMILY - American Atheists Education Site. Useful information for Atheists in school (K through grad school) and their families.
THE BONE PIT - Do religious accounts of creation make sense? Is scientific creationism real science? And does bible history withstand the test of evidence?
THE CHURCH - You’ll even find that here, but for a very special reason! What do religious holy books really have to say? Have you ever seriously examined the bible? Is it the revealed word of a deity? You may be surprised, so slip on in to the front pew!
THE PUBLIC SQUARE - Does religious doctrine and ceremony belong in government? Should religious graffiti decorate our coins? Should seasonal religious displays be erected on public property?
COMING OUT - Worried about telling your friends and family that you are an Atheist?
ISLAM AND THE KORAN
Sure looks like a religion to me.
I repeat again in case you missed it:
quote:
A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people,
NOTICE it does not say anything about a god of any sort.
You may be missing an important point. Keep in mind we're focusing on science. The point being made is that there is no *scientific* controversy.
If there is no controversy scientific or otherwise, why are we wasting so much time and bandwidth discussing it.
I always heard where there is a lot of smoke, there is bound to be a little fire.
So I guess Behe has stired up quite a controversy even though you say it is not a scientific one.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Percy, posted 08-08-2007 11:53 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Chiroptera, posted 08-08-2007 4:38 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 129 by Percy, posted 08-08-2007 4:52 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 130 by Rahvin, posted 08-08-2007 5:02 PM ICANT has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 152 (415180)
08-08-2007 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by ICANT
08-08-2007 4:11 PM


Re: ID in Rhythm
Religion=
A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people,
Religion - Wikipedia
Actually, the full quote from Wikipedia is:
A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law.
[Emphasis added.]
I mean, come on, if only common beliefs and practices is what makes a religion, then what isn't a religion?

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by ICANT, posted 08-08-2007 4:11 PM ICANT has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 129 of 152 (415181)
08-08-2007 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by ICANT
08-08-2007 4:11 PM


Re: ID in Rhythm
Hi ICANT,
It would be great if science is really religion, because then I could claim tax-free status for the website. Can I take your word for it that my application for tax-free status won't meet with any problems?
If you want to argue that science is a religion then I'll let you hash it out with creationists who claim science is atheistic. Get back to us after you guys work it out, okay?
You may be missing an important point. Keep in mind we're focusing on science. The point being made is that there is no *scientific* controversy.
If there is no controversy scientific or otherwise...
I said there was no *scientific* controversy. Where do you get "or otherwise?"
Of course there's a controversy. There was the whole hullabaloo down in Dover just a year and a half ago, there's Kansas always in the news as control of the state school board oscillates every other year between creationists and secularists, there's Ohio's state standards, there's the creationist museums, there's Behe's new book, and on and on and on. The controversy is why this website exists. Look at the top right of the page. See right underneath "EvC Forum" where it says "Discussion and Controversy"? I wrote that.
So of course there's a controversy. There's just no scientific controversy, and this is where the dishonesty of creationists like Behe becomes most evident as he makes his public case that there's a scientific controversy that he knows in his heart does not exist.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by ICANT, posted 08-08-2007 4:11 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by ICANT, posted 08-08-2007 5:54 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 133 by ICANT, posted 08-08-2007 6:52 PM Percy has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 130 of 152 (415183)
08-08-2007 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by ICANT
08-08-2007 4:11 PM


Re: ID in Rhythm
A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people,
You even left in the comma. Sloppy, ICANT. There was a lot more to that definition. Here's the whole thing, emphasis mine:
Wikipedia writes:
A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.
And here's a better one, from Dictionary.com, again with my emphasis added:
Dictionary.com writes:
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
You're right - it doesn't say anything about God. Many religions are animalistic, or naturalistic (meaning aspects of nature are worshipped without personification in a deity), and have no recognizable "God." But a religion typically includes "prayer, ritual, and religious law." And let's not forget the part about "esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." in the Dictionary.com definition.
Lying by omission is still lying, ICANT. A set of "notions and beliefs" is not a religion. If it were, then I suppose that I have many religions, and one of them is that ICANT likes to pick out bits of a definition and conveniently leave out the parts in front of his face that prove him wrong.
A site preaching atheism and bashing religion.
I didn't see anything about bashing religion in your quote from that website, ICANT. I saw genuine disagreement, and an honest examination of the actual words contained in "holy" books. Does disagreement now equate to bashing, ICANT?
If there is no controversy scientific or otherwise, why are we wasting so much time and bandwidth discussing it.
I always heard where there is a lot of smoke, there is bound to be a little fire.
So I guess Behe has stired up quite a controversy even though you say it is not a scientific one.
No one here has said there is no controversy - only that there is no SCIENTIFIC controversy, which has been pointed out to you several times. Among actual scientists and real peer-reviewed studies, there is zero controversy within science regarding ID. Its arguments are simply bunk, as has been shown over and over again, and NO ACTUAL RESEARCH is being done regarding ID - Behe and his ilk are running a PR campaign to sway the uneducated masses, and have nothing to do with science.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by ICANT, posted 08-08-2007 4:11 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by ICANT, posted 08-08-2007 6:45 PM Rahvin has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 131 of 152 (415193)
08-08-2007 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Percy
08-08-2007 4:52 PM


Re: ID in Rhythm
that he knows in his heart does not exist.
But knowing in his heart does not count. He has to know it in his head and accept the fact.
Most people know what they believe and it does not make any difference what you or I or anyone else says. Their mind is made up and you can not change it.
You can present a direct quote of someone from their web site and have people argue with you that that person did not say what you have copied from their web site.
The only reason I can come up with for that is that the information is not what they believe and they can not read it the way it was said.
Like I have said before I know very little about Behe, but if he is like most people he believes completely that what he is putting forth is the absolute truth.
Percy, you know what we all could be wrong about a lot of things.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Percy, posted 08-08-2007 4:52 PM Percy has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 132 of 152 (415200)
08-08-2007 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Rahvin
08-08-2007 5:02 PM


Re: ID in Rhythm
Hi Rahvin,
Easy on the english language.
ICANT writes:
A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people,
Rahvin writes:
You even left in the comma. Sloppy, ICANT. There was a lot more to that definition. Here's the whole thing, emphasis mine:
Wikipedia writes:
A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.
I left the comma because there was more to the definition and I was not trying to hide that fact.
The word after the comma is: OFTEN not, always, without fail,nor has to include...........
If you notice in the first part it says generaly a group, but not necessarly a group it could be one, therefore you could have many religions all by yourself.
Notice the last sentence and I will leave out a few words in this line as there are 3 things referenced.
The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communication stemming from shared conviction.
A set of "notions and beliefs" is not a religion.
I have a notion God created the heavens and the earth.
Because of my notion I have studied the Bible and have come to believe certain things. I have found like minded people and we fellowship together. I dare say everyone on this site will say that is a religion.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Rahvin, posted 08-08-2007 5:02 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Rahvin, posted 08-08-2007 8:39 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 133 of 152 (415202)
08-08-2007 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Percy
08-08-2007 4:52 PM


Re: ID in Rhythm
It would be great if science is really religion,
No you would not like to be classified as a religion because then science the religion would have to get out of the classroom.
I'll let you hash it out with creationists who claim science is atheistic.
Atheism IMHO is a religion full grown except for admitting it and petitioning the government for religious status.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Percy, posted 08-08-2007 4:52 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by nator, posted 08-09-2007 12:42 PM ICANT has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 134 of 152 (415221)
08-08-2007 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by ICANT
08-08-2007 6:45 PM


Re: ID in Rhythm
I have a notion God created the heavens and the earth.
Because of my notion I have studied the Bible and have come to believe certain things. I have found like minded people and we fellowship together. I dare say everyone on this site will say that is a religion.
Of course it is. But not because it's a belief a bunch of other people share. If that were the case, being a Republican or Democrat, being pro- or anti-choice, being a Nazi, a hippy, or a fan of a specific musical group would all be religions. Religions ALSO share other things, as mentioned in the definitions: a definition of the "cause" or "purpose" of the universe, rituals, rules of behavior and morality, worship, and others are typical practices of religions. Another, much larger trait shared by every religion I've ever heard of is the unfounded belief (ie, faith) in the supernatural, though the specific supernatural belief of course varies wildly.
Being an evolutionist is not a religion. Believing dinosaurs once roamed the Earth, or that the Earth orbits the Sun, or that the Theory of Gravity accurately models the attraction of bodies with mass are not religions, despite being "notions or beliefs held by a lot of people." Your half-definition falls short - which is why it was intentionally misleading of you to post only the part of the definition that matched what you were trying to say, and not the rest.
To tie this all back onto the topic of Behe before we spiral hopelessly off-topic:
Behe and his ID buddies share a common set of beliefs: that there was some intelligent designer who created or caused to be created all life on Earth (at the minimum). These beliefs have no actual validity - every argument their proponents put forth is defeated as unscientific at best and patently ridiculously uninformed and idiotic at worst. They are without scientific or evidenciary basis and are therefore taken "on faith." The "evidence" is then made to fit with the predetermined belief in a designer, as opposed to following the evidence to an unbiased conclusion. This is religious apologetics, not science. Furthermore, the IDists, while trying to propose non-specific language when describing their "designer," they invariably believe the designer to be the Judeo-Christian God (granted, not always, but in the vast, vast majority of cases).
The arguments put forth by Behe and other IDists are motivated by religious beliefs. Not just a set of ideas and values they all share, but actual religious beliefs, and this is all that actually constitutes their arguments. There is no science in any of them - not one bit. There has never been a single peer-reviewed paper published on ID. There is no research being conducted - only PR and flim-flam intended solely to sway the uninformed, and to counter occasional deconversions due to the crisis of faith evolution CAN (but does not always) cause.
The motivations and claims of ID are ALL religious in nature, and have literally jack and shit to do with science. Behe specifically avoids actual science - he only participates in public debates and his own books, which are venues where "sounding good" and appealing to the public's preconceived religious bias and/or ignorance can win over actual reason and science.
It's fine to believe in ID, or God, or Thor, or any other manner of belief. But these are NOT science. Apologetics try to SOUND like science - they use "sciency" words, and argue with or even use real science to try to prove their point. But the IDists are still no different than any other apologetics - they're trying to force the square peg of the evidence into the round hole of their preconceived conclusion, and it is NOT SCIENCE. As such, it does not belong in a science classroom.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by ICANT, posted 08-08-2007 6:45 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by ICANT, posted 08-08-2007 10:10 PM Rahvin has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 135 of 152 (415238)
08-08-2007 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Rahvin
08-08-2007 8:39 PM


Re: ID in Rhythm
it does not belong in a science classroom.
I have no problem with something that is not a fact of science not being alowed in a science classroom.
I know there are a lot of things that are taught in the science classroom by teachers that are not scientist that is not a fact of science. But is taught as if it was a proven tested scientific fact.
You say how do you know these thing really happen? Well being a pastor I have young people that are in the public school system and they come to me all the time with all kind of questions.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Rahvin, posted 08-08-2007 8:39 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by jar, posted 08-08-2007 10:20 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 137 by Percy, posted 08-09-2007 2:55 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 145 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-09-2007 4:52 PM ICANT has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024