Tuesday, December 20, 2005

SCIENCE PROJECT

SOME CHRISTIANS, WHO WILL NOT BE HAPPY UNTIL THEY CAN 'SHARE' THEIR BELIEF WITH EVERYONE, RECENTLY TRIED IMPLANTING THEIR NOT-SO-SUBLIMINAL MESSAGE INTO SOME OF PENNSYLVANIA'S 9TH GRADE BIOLOGY CLASSES .
REALIZING THAT CREATIONISM AS SCIENCE WAS REJECTED BY THE SUPREME COURT NEARLY TWENTY YEARS AGO, THEY REPACKAGED THEIR PRODUCT INTO 'INTELLIGENT DESIGN.' WHO COULD BE AGAINST INTELLIGENCE OR DESIGN?
THEY ONLY WANTED TO ADD 60 SECONDS OF THEIR THEORY INTO THE SCIENCE CURRICULUM.
THE JUDGE, JOHN E. JONES III, REJECTED THEIR EFFORTS. HE SAID THAT INTELLIGENT DESIGN SHOULD ONLY BE ALLOWED IN A SCIENCE CLASS IF WE CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF SCIENCE AND INCLUDE THE SUPERNATURAL.
PERHAPS THEY'LL TRY TO WORK IT INTO MATH CLASSES NEXT.

10A.D. - 6B.C.= X
X=?

ONE LOAF OF BREAD = HOW MANY FISH?

METHUSELAH WAS 969 YEARS OLD. WHEN DID HE HAVE HIS MID-LIFE CRISIS?

NOAH WAS TOLD TO TAKE TWO, ( ONE MALE AND ONE FEMALE ) OF EACH SPECIES ABOARD THE ARK. SINCE THERE ARE ABOUT 1,500,000 SPECIES, HOW MANY LIVING THINGS WERE ON THE ARK?

22 comments:

Rue said...

I guess we have to keep in mind that the Bible was deliberately written in parables for effect and to glorify God and His creations. It wasn't meant to be taken as a scientific text.

Take a deep breath my dear and have a happy holiday!
*hug*

quicksand said...

OH. THOSE STORIES WERE JUST PARABLES.
I THOUGHT THEY WERE PROVEN FACTS.
:: whew ::

I'LL TAKE THAT HUG.

Al,Al everybodys pal said...

if god is the answer, what was the question?

quicksand said...

THE QUESTION IS, WHAT'S SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT?

CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAW REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION

Lesley said...

Hurray for Judge John E Jones III who is probably the only intelligently designed republican on the planet.

quicksand said...

JUDGE JONES HAD BETTER BE GETTING READY FOR THE LYNCHING.

AND, THE EXACT WORDS ARE:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

GOOD OLD FIRST AMENDMENT.

MTH said...

Intelligent design is not an aspect of science. This is accepted.
However, presenting the idea to high school students is NOT establishing religion in the classroom. When the idea is presented in the classroom alongside the the scientific theory of evolution (which is clearly not definitive in its own right)it will help to...GASP...teach kids to THINK about other possibilities. Intelligent Design may not be science, but it is RELEVANT.
We all understand we want church and state to be separated in public schools, but that doesn't mean that students and teachers have to pretend that religion doesn't exsist. And they won't be using the BIBLE as a text.
Let's not allow political correctness to pasturize the melting pot.

quicksand said...

MY DEAREST FAT GUY,
I RESPOND TO SOME OF YOUR VERY WORDS.

YOU:Intelligent design is not an aspect of science. This is accepted.

ME: THEN IT DOESN'T BELONG IN A SCIENCE CLASS. HOW ABOUT GYM CLASS, OR SHOP CLASS?

YOU: However, presenting the idea to high school students is NOT establishing religion in the classroom.

ME: WHY NOT BLACK MAGIC,VOODOO, REINCARNATION, AND OTHER BELIEFS?

YOU: When the idea is presented in the classroom alongside the the scientific theory of evolution (which is clearly not definitive in its own right)it will help to...GASP...teach kids to THINK about other possibilities.

ME:EVOLUTION, WHILE NOT YET ABSOLUTE, IS THE BEST THAT SCIENCE HAS TO OFFER. HAVE STUDENTS THINK ABOUT RELIGION IN A THEOLOGY CLASS, NOT A SCIENCE CLASS.
IS YOUR OBJECTIVE REALLY TO GET STUDENTS TO THINK?


YOU: Intelligent Design may not be science, but it is RELEVANT.

ME: RELEVANT TO WHO? NOT ME. MATH IS RELEVANT. CHEMISTRY IS RELEVANT. ANGELS AND HEAVEN IS NOT RELEVANT.


YOU:We all understand we want church and state to be separated in public schools,

ME: EXACTLY.

YOU: but that doesn't mean that students and teachers have to pretend that religion doesn't exsist.

ME: I'M NOT PRETENDING. IT EXISTS. HOWEVER, I DON'T WANT IT AT THE MOTOR VEHICLE OFFICE.

YOU:And they won't be using the BIBLE as a text.

ME: SCIENCE CLASS SHOULD HAVE A SCIENCE TEXT.

YOU:Let's not allow political correctness to pasturize the melting pot.

ME: YOUR USE OF THE TERM 'POLITICAL CORRECTNESS' IS TIRED.
I BELIEVE IN OUR CONSTITUTION. YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT?
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW NOT ALLOWING CHURCH TO BE PUT IN PUBLIC SCHOOL SCIENCE CLASSES WILL 'PASTURIZE THE MELTING POT.'
I AWAIT YOUR EXPLANATION.

Polyman2 said...

They all have their own hidden agendas when it comes to the Bible
and it's interpretation.
Why can't we all be good Christians and behave?

quicksand said...

I'D SETTLE FOR 'BEHAVE.'

MTH said...

Quicksand,
Once again, you are exaggerating the church aspect of this curricular conondrum. By your rational, students will be praying instead of experimenting. Intelligent Design is not meant to be theology. Intelligent design does not conform to one religion's ideology. It is meant as an objective still INCONCLUSIVE option to the current still INCONCLUSIVE theory of evolution.
From the website www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org ,
"The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion." See the site for more.
This idea that "this is not science so leave it out of the science class" is very limiting.
Trains are not math. Cleveland and San Diego are not math. Yet, put them all together in a word problem and throw in some speed and distance, and now you can apply math skills to figure out a solution. Using aspects of life not nessacerally related to the curriculum is oftentimes the best way to understand the very discipline a student is learning.
Until one theory is PROVEN over another, why is debate so feared? Intelligent design, even if state mandated is not to be presented as fact. Those that do present it as fact are irresponsible and should be disciplined as any teacher who misrepresents their curriculum should be. Our country has a history of taking action against those who misrepresent science or any other aspect of academia, and that tradition should continue within the scope of ID.
When there is a controversy such as this one and it is RELEVANT to a student's academic growth, it should be addressed in a classroom. Within the classroom, a student can be given the proper information to formulate their own opinion or hypothesis. By being presented with all of the information, a student can come to a logical conclusion.
Show me in the ID curriculum that is currently in place in Kansas, Quicksand, where the word "Angels" is used.
Fear of students walking out of a science class experiencing a rapture or discussing Angels and Heaven is hyperbole. And, remember Quicksand, Angels and heaven is a very narrow minded perspective of religion. Many and most religions do not subscribe to such beliefs.

MTH said...

P.S.
What does my tired cliche have to do with my awesome opinion? I didn't invent the phrase "Politically Correct", I just know it when I see it.
Don't hate, celebrate.
Don't hate, tolerate
Don't hate, master---oh, I forgot, this is a family blog.

MTH said...

P.P.S
If gym teachers and shop teachers were qualified to discuss the origins of the universe, in addition to "how to build a better bird house" and "how to bruise a nerd with a volleyball", I'd be all for it.

quicksand said...

HHMMMM...I SEE.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
INTELLIGENT DESIGNER.
WHO DESIGNED THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER?

'POLITICALLY CORRECT' IS STARTING TO SOUND LIKE 'POSTMODERN'. PEOPLE USE IT BUT WHAT ARE THEY SAYING?
EXPLAIN YOURSELF. WHY IS ADVOCATING THE FIRST ADMENDMENT PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE P.C.?

TRAINS AND CLEVELAND CAN BE USED IN WORD PROBLEMS, THEREFORE, INTELLIGENT DESIGN BELONGS IN SCIENCE CLASS? HOW ABOUT LOGIC?

THIS ISSUE DOES BELONG IN SCHOOL. STUDENTS IN GOVERNMENT CLASSES SHOULD LEARN AND DISCUSS THAT SOME PEOPLE WHO HAVE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ARE TRYING TO HAVE THEIR BELIEFS
PUT INTO THE SCIENCE CURRICULUM.

WHY USE THE WORD 'HATE'. PLEASE POINT OUT WHERE HATRED WAS DISCUSSED HERE.

MTH said...

Hate was only used because it ryhmes with celebrate, tolerate, etc. It was a rhyme of convienience

Polyman2 said...

ROBE SALESMAN:
"...and here's the latest in intellegent designer robes straight from Masada, notice the careful placement of tears and holes- you know it's all the rage!"

JESUS:
"Wow- a holy intellegent designer robe! You know. I really shouldn't-
but what the hell; I'll take it. It will probably be my last for a while..."

quicksand said...

THEY CALL IT 'FAITH' BECAUSE IT'S BASED ON FAITH.
WHEN SICK, ONE CAN GO TO A DOCTOR OR A FAITH HEALER.

NO HATE?
THAT'S GREAT!

SHELTONSFAMILY said...

People, should be able practice there beliefs openly.
However, on this issue, I must say that in my opinon, all viable, plausible, and optional solutions should be evaluated. Otherwise, you are limiting and minipulating the outcome. The result is not valid, because the test was not controlled proparly.
This is a scientific approach to a theologians debate. I do not remember anyone stating that only christian beliefs be analyzed. In my opinion, all options should be looked at, and of course this will bring on new thoughts, and unveil new discoveries, and again, above all it will force us to grow. To grow more like a tree, with many branches and leaves, (facets of knowledge), and less like a blade of grass, tightly intwined and one sided. Until, an absolute truth is known, then all plausible alternatives should be evaluated. As you would do with any other experiment.
Again, this is my opinion. And of course in my mind that makes it right. What do you think?

Thank you
Richard

http://sheltonsfamily.blogspot.com/
http://rmsheltonbook.blogspot.com/

quicksand said...

SHELTONS FAMILY,
I SAY ANYTHING THAT CAN STAND UP TO THE RIGORS OF SCIENTIFIC SCRUTINY CAN BE DISCUSSED IN A SCIENCE CLASS. READING TEA LEAVES WOULD BE FINE IF IT COULD MEET SCIENTIFIC CRITERIA. IF IT CAN'T, IT DOESN'T BELONG.

Jim said...

Bruce my main man! You have been spending so much time obsessing on the science curriculum that you have neglected your math.
Methuselah would have begun his midlife crisis at 484.5 years. (Math cannot determine its duration.)
Noah would have taken a grand total of 3,000,000 animals on the ark.

Anonymous said...

Enjoyed a lot! hockey techniques pants on her head Jasmine burn anal

Anonymous said...

You have an outstanding good and well structured site. I enjoyed browsing through it »