EVOLUTION WATCH: ACLU fights 1-minute statement

F*CK the ACLU .

<snip>

You are obviously too stupid to realize that this phrase is a contradiction in terms which negates everything that follows.

They real irony is that the parts of the bible they are so trying to defend from evolution are the parts they stole from those 'Godless Jews'

Only problem is that 'Intelligent Design' does not meet th definition of a scientific theiory. It makes no testable predictions, it is not based on observable phenomena, and it is not negatbel,

IE. it is a _myth_.

Evolutionary Theory offers no advantage in that regard because it, too, is not falsifiable. On first principles (if there are any), the prospects for survival consist of learning as much as we can about our environment and nature, and living in harmony with our surroundings. Whether this entails more knowledge of 'what fits' (evolution) or 'what is appropriate' (religion) quite likely does not amount to anything different. When arriving at this juncture in biology courses, many of the discussions will run into non-scientific channels. Now questions return to what are appropriate forms of non-scientific information to present in the context of a 'science' class. Is there any information that may be termed 'pure science' or is all information purported to be science mixed intrinsically with some that is 'non-science'? What is the difficulty when allowing a teacher to say 'some people believe Theory X' versus 'some people believe Theory W.' Can you say, for certain, that Theory X should or should not be taught, or were you going to claim that Theory W should or should not be taught? Even the issue w/r/t exposure to theories that some, or many, people regard as 'false.' What is the basic problem for you when a teacher mentions a theory and then also informs the class that the theory is in dispute? Wasn't this, instead, the 'scientific method' to offer exposure to our world of theories, and the efforts by scientists through history engaged in the activity of theorization? If we are to examine the meaning of 'anti-science' wouldn't this imply censorship or reduction of the world of theories (whether they are 'scientific' or 'non-scientific' to something manifestly inadequate and paltry? The notion that scientists would not examine 'non-scientific' theory is not sustained by what we may observe concerning the behavior of scientists in history.

Well, you could say it's a myth in the context of feedback for a course presentation, however their education would not be robust if students were never exposed to discussion of myth.

- regards - jb

Certainly, they should be exposed to a discussion of myth . . . in a mythology class. But theories discussed in a science class should meet the definition of a theory as described in the scientific method. Creationism and 'intelligent design' have no more place in a science class than 'faith healing' should have in med school.

Clearly you have no clue.

If you're not asking that question then you're not a scientist.

There are several senses for 'theory' and 'hypothesis'

Good.

Ah, the anti semite shows itself...

IOW - ACLU fights FOR The Constitution - and illegal use of a public (government) position to propagate religious fairy tales!

I.D. is NOT a theory - it's a religiously fanatical opinion ....... nothing