Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 179833 comments on the The Courier-Journal story from Feb 10, 2010, titled Bible study rules for public schools proposed. In it, The Courier-Journal reports that:

FRANKFORT, Ky. - The state would create rules for teaching about the Bible in public high schools under a bill filed Monday by three Democratic senators.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Courier-Journal.

“Justice Sweet”

Since: Jan 14

Mount Vernon

#124409 Feb 17, 2014
SistaNoneYa wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/reality-s...
Especially guised in the name of "entertainment."
(some laws just ought to be double reinforced--NO excuses!)
What about the laws of children on the internets "guised " as adults?

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#124411 Feb 17, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you know what I said is true. That is why you troll around the post
Troll around what? Noah? LOL! If you've said something (ANYTHING) that is true, you must have posted it somewhere else, because you've been pretty damned reluctant to come clean here.
Curious

Winter Garden, FL

#124412 Feb 17, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
Good Post!
I have concluded the Atheist wants to argue and insult the Faith Community. They are not in the least bit interested in what a Christian has to say. They have convinced themselves they know it all.
I would say By and large they are about as useless as a tiny spec of sludge on the bottom of a New Jersey scum swamp.
That is where the Mafia is said to bury their victims.
What i find interesting is that Atheists are willing to accept that Nothing creating something from nothing is not a delusional belief , or that nonlife ,nonintelligence and nonconciousness are capable of creating life consciousness and intelligence..
Legitimate question is to ask, How is this possible?
That is where they come unglued and begin throwing up smokescreens and excuses.
What are the probabilities of the Universe arising by chance?
"Any event with a probability of less than one chance in 10110, therefore, cannot occur by chance. Its probability becomes zero, at least in our known universe. Thus, the sequence of the ascending and then descending numbers of 100 components has a ZERO probability of happening by chance.

Some scientists have measured the chance of a replicating (defined as a repetition of an experiment under controlled conditions so that a specific result may be observed) molecule occurring by chance at 10450.

Frank Salisbury has calculated the probability of a typical DNA chain arising by chance to be 10600.(DNA is the basic building block of life, and it has a zero probability of occurring by chance).

Mike Stubbs has calculated the chance of insulin, an important protein hormone secreted by the pancreas, developing by chance at 3x10158. He states that even if there was a machine which could sort the amino acids that make up insulin into groups of 512 at a rate of one billion per second, it would take 1052 years to produce 1068 combinations, only one of which would be insulin. In other words, you could expect to get the insulin combination only once in 1052 years. Yet there are only 1018 seconds in a 30 billion year universe!

Other scientists have made some calculations of the probability of life originating by chance. Sir Fred Hoyle, one of the leading scientists of this age, has computed the number of chances necessary for even the simplest life imaginable to have evolved by chance to be one chance in 1040,000.(That is roughly comparable to the probability of rolling double sixes, 12 on two dice, 50,000 times in a row!)

Dr. Harold Morowitz, professor of Molecular Chemistry at Yale University, has concluded that the odds of life creating itself by chance are one in 10 followed by one billion zeroes! Yet any chance with less than one chance in 10 followed by 110 zeroes has NO CHANCE!
Curious

Winter Garden, FL

#124413 Feb 17, 2014
pusherman_ wrote:
<quoted text> Yes in my opinion atheism is a cult and religion. There you go, starting with that GAY- THEIST shyt first thing...you still never said where you saw my jim jones comment? why?
Atheists can and will deny that Atheism is not based on faith amd that theirs is not a religion.
The facts point otherwise.
They Believe there is no God or gods., but are unable to prove that to themselves or anyone else ..They are guided by their beliefs and faith.....
Because they have no basis for their faith and can not defend it , therefore their claim that their is not a religion.....

You are right and they are wrong ,Getting them to admit their illogical views is another matter.
The fool has said in his heart, There is no God.
That is what the fool has said ,not what he has been able to prove....
Curious

Winter Garden, FL

#124414 Feb 17, 2014
just here to lol wrote:
<quoted text>
...yeah, yeah, yeah. Jesus died for my sins, I still really haven't gotten over that...and thanks Christians for reminding me of that, yet again by the way.
I do feel somewhat guilty that I'm not more grateful to Jesus, but...I just wish he'd taken the trouble to ask me before he went a head with it...because, now I feel like I'm being billed for something that I didn't order.
...and that is the deal, isn't it, if your a Christian...your born already into debt to Jesus. And, it's a debt that you can only repay in full by dying....spooky, spooky, spooky....that's some deal you got yourselves into there....
that's like being ask to pay off a mortgage on a house that you already own.
You certainly have a problem comprehending the mission of Christ.
You will not receive a bill for your wrong doings , Christ paid the price for you and it is a Gift.
You can refuse the gift , as you obviously have.
And if you have lede a life such as Witchetty claims to have lead , where she has never done anything for which she need be ashamed , then you can deal with whatever consequences may arise.
Possibly ,Christ's sacrifice may not apply to you , as he did not come to call the SELF Righteous to repentance , only those who have the courage and moral rectitude to admit their wrongdoings.
Curious

Winter Garden, FL

#124415 Feb 17, 2014
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Only 22 killings?
Compared to your god, she's a rank amateur in the killing stakes.
Foolish One , Since you do not believe in the existence of God , how is it you accuse Him of killing anyone?
Methinks those mindaltering drugs that you ingest have wreaked havoc with your few remaining functional brain cells..........
Yikes,,,,,,,,
I know , You forgot to remember to forget that you believe there is no god or gods and are therefore not responsible for your aberrant logic..........
call freud and have him ANALyze you

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#124416 Feb 17, 2014
This pretty much answers Curious' repeated questions of non intelligent to intelligent and non living to living, which of course has been explained countless times yet the repeated questions continue.

ID proponents go to great pains to convince us of the astronomical improbability of genetically proceeding from A to B based on random mutation, where B is closely specified – for instance, in evolving from nothing much to flagella of a specific design. In this they are right, but they hide their major premise and draw the wrong conclusion.

I deal all 52 cards from a well-shuffled deck, recording each one. The probability of exactly that sequence of cards appearing was essentially zero ((52 factorial)-1, roughly 1 in 1068); it will almost certainly never happen again. But it did happen. One must be careful with this analogy, but it illustrates that "statistically impossible" things happen all the time if you don't demand to know what they will be beforehand. The corresponding process in evolutionary biology is not a molecular deal, not the chance assembly of zillions of atoms into a person or an eye, because that's not the way it works. Instead, we should think of the shuffle and deal as millions of chance mutations (culled by natural selection) leading to thousands of diverging branches. After many branchings, the probability of any previously specified twig appearing is essentially zero.

Consider a specific example. The probability of evolving from, say, a single cell to a kangaroo is essentially zero. It will never happen again; in the entire rest of the universe there is almost certainly nothing quite like our kangaroo. There are too many chance branches to something else. All those millions of chance branches (subjected to eproducibility testing) had to lead to a great many somethings, and one of them wound up being a funny-looking animal we've named the kangaroo. But (and this is the crucial point) there was never a plan, design, intent or necessity to produce a kangaroo. In principle, we can look backward and observe the steps that led to the kangaroo (analysis), but there was no kangaroo-ness in the beginning that guided evolution, only the potentiality to produce almost anything, as long as it was viable and competitively successful. ID proponents insist on running analysis the wrong way around as synthesis, with a predetermined outcome. That really does produce statistical impossibilities.

Now I take a leap in inferring ID thoughts that are not so clearly or explicitly expressed. I suspect that the ID folks have quite a clear conception of what human beings ought to look like, i.e., pretty much as we do. Now, what was the likelihood of evolving from a single cell to precisely us? Essentially zero, because there were so many divergent possibilities. But millions of possibilities had to happen, did happen, and one of them developed intelligence. It is only with the (implicit) assumption that we – as we are – had to be the current endpoint of one evolutionary branch that statistical impossibility arises. Whether evolution to something with intelligence is a high-probability event or a low-probability event, we don't know. All we can say is that it did happen, but it might have happened quite differently or not at all. We, handsome brutes that we are, just lucked out.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#124417 Feb 17, 2014
Curious wrote:
<quoted text>
That is where the Mafia is said to bury their victims.
What i find interesting is that Atheists are willing to accept that Nothing creating something from nothing is not a delusional belief , or that nonlife ,nonintelligence and nonconciousness are capable of creating life consciousness and intelligence..
Legitimate question is to ask, How is this possible?
That is where they come unglued and begin throwing up smokescreens and excuses.
What are the probabilities of the Universe arising by chance?
"Any event with a probability of less than one chance in 10110, therefore, cannot occur by chance. Its probability becomes zero, at least in our known universe. Thus, the sequence of the ascending and then descending numbers of 100 components has a ZERO probability of happening by chance.
Some scientists have measured the chance of a replicating (defined as a repetition of an experiment under controlled conditions so that a specific result may be observed) molecule occurring by chance at 10450.
Frank Salisbury has calculated the probability of a typical DNA chain arising by chance to be 10600.(DNA is the basic building block of life, and it has a zero probability of occurring by chance).
Mike Stubbs has calculated the chance of insulin, an important protein hormone secreted by the pancreas, developing by chance at 3x10158. He states that even if there was a machine which could sort the amino acids that make up insulin into groups of 512 at a rate of one billion per second, it would take 1052 years to produce 1068 combinations, only one of which would be insulin. In other words, you could expect to get the insulin combination only once in 1052 years. Yet there are only 1018 seconds in a 30 billion year universe!
Other scientists have made some calculations of the probability of life originating by chance. Sir Fred Hoyle, one of the leading scientists of this age, has computed the number of chances necessary for even the simplest life imaginable to have evolved by chance to be one chance in 1040,000.(That is roughly comparable to the probability of rolling double sixes, 12 on two dice, 50,000 times in a row!)
Dr. Harold Morowitz, professor of Molecular Chemistry at Yale University, has concluded that the odds of life creating itself by chance are one in 10 followed by one billion zeroes! Yet any chance with less than one chance in 10 followed by 110 zeroes has NO CHANCE!
Blah blah BS quote from a creationist liar blog blah more 8261BS blah. You keep gumming that "something from nothing" like an old dog with its favorite ratty plush toy.
Hoyle was an astronomer, not a biologist. In 1983, Horowitz testified at "McLean v. Arkansas" (nicknamed "Scopes II") that creationism has no scientific basis and so should not be taught as science in public schools. He reaffirmed this in a 2005 article “Intelligent Design Has No Place in the Science Curriculum.” Morowitz's calculation (which has been frequently and fraudulently hijacked by the Liars for Jesus) is for a system in thermodynamic equilibrium - a condition which has never existed on Earth, nor would exist in any location Horowitz himself believes extraterrestrial life might emerge.

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#124418 Feb 17, 2014
There will never be an end to this debate, because the Creationist will continue to argue their points from the religious and faith/belief in God side; while everyone else will argue from the logical/reasonable, and most plausible Scientific side.
Curious

Winter Garden, FL

#124419 Feb 17, 2014
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
When non-believers build thousands of places where they can congregate. When non-believers go from door to door trying to convert people to their non-belief. When non- believers go to foreign countries to try and convert the locals to their non- belief. When non-believers fight wars in the name of atheism. Etc, etc...
Then tell me that non-believers talk constantly about gods.
Now, go back to muttering at the ceiling fan and dreaming about talking snakes and donkeys.
That is exactly what they are attempting to do , fortunately ,since Atheists believe in nothing , the movement is already floundering like a bag of rocks in quicksand.
They want to build a church based on Christian tradition ,but are leaving out God.
That is like saying you are going to bake a cake ,heat the Oven ,grease the pan amd put it in the oven without adding the fllour....In the end you do not end up with a cake , you get a burned pan and a disastrous result....

By Bob Smietana

A new kind of godless missionary may be coming soon to a city near you. Organizers of the Sunday Assembly, a London gathering of atheists hope to start 30 new godless congregations during their “40 Dates and 40 Nights: The Roadshow” tour of the U.S., the U.K, Canada, and Australia.
Among the planned stops are Atlanta, Phoenix, Grand Rapids, Los Angeles, with dates in Dallas and Nashville still in the planning stages.
It’s essentially a missionary tour for atheists.
The Assembly got its start in January 2013, when a group of nonbelievers began meeting in a former church in London. By June, organizers say, the church-like services were drawing more than 600 people weekly, leading Salon to call it atheism’s first megachurch.
During their services, they sing, have a few moments of meditation, and listen to a secular version of a sermon, according to the Guardian.
The group sing along is part of the Assembly’s appeal, according to the Daily Beast.
A recent service of the Assembly featured a sing-along version of Bon Jovi’s “Living on a Prayer.” Organizers say the idea for the assembly was inspired by the sense of community found at a Christmas-carol service, where everyone joined it.
----------
And now

After a schism, a question: Can atheist churches last?
By Katie Engelhart, special to CNN

LONDON (CNN)- The Sunday Assembly was riding high.

The world’s most voguish - though not its only - atheist church opened last year in London, to global attention and abundant acclaim.

So popular was the premise, so bright the promise, that soon the Sunday Assembly was ready to franchise, branching out into cities such as New York, Dublin and Melbourne.

“It’s a way to scale goodness,” declared Sanderson Jones, a standup comic and co-founder of The Sunday Assembly, which calls itself a “godless congregation.”

But nearly as quickly as the Assembly spread, it split, with New York City emerging as organized atheism’s Avignon.

In October, three former members of Sunday Assembly NYC announced the formation of a breakaway group called Godless Revival.

“The Sunday Assembly,” wrote Godless Revival founder Lee Moore in a scathing blog post,“has a problem with atheism.”

Moore alleges that, among other things, Jones advised the NYC group to “boycott the word atheism” and “not to have speakers from the atheist community.” It also wanted the New York branch to host Assembly services in a churchlike setting, instead of the Manhattan dive bar where it was launched.
Anonymous

Mckee, KY

#124420 Feb 17, 2014
I don't think there should be a problem with teaching the Bible in school if they would teach it as the great Doctor Robert Miller taught it to his students at Eastern Kentucky University when I was there in the late 1990s or in the manner that it's presented in the Oxford Classics Paperback Edition ( http://www.abebooks.com/Bible-Authorized-King... ), and I even think that teaching it in high school or even to advanced Middle School Students could prove to be a great aid in correcting all the problems that its religion creates in our society.

First, teach them that it was assembled from a hodge podge of earlier myths and legends and given a Hebraic propaganda spin, then move into the Wellhausen and Source Hypothesis that basically show that The Bible started out as a novel as described by Yale University Professor Harold Bloom in the Introduction and Notes to the "Book of J" ( http://www.amazon.com/The-Book-J-Harold-Bloom... ) then reassembled, edited, and redacted over a period of roughly 1,250 years by various authors and scribes and finally placed in its final form under the order of Constantine for purely earthly, political reasons to serve the purpose of keeping the rich in power and the poor in line.

Professor Robert Beckford presents an excellent way of teaching The Bible in schools in his documentary for the BBC "Who Wrote The Bible ( http://youtu.be/SCXlFWBcxBo ).
Curious

Winter Garden, FL

#124421 Feb 17, 2014
stuck in a lodi wrote:
This pretty much answers Curious' repeated questions of non intelligent to intelligent and non living to living, which of course has been explained countless times yet the repeated questions continue.
ID proponents go to great pains to convince us of the astronomical improbability of genetically proceeding from A to B based on random mutation, where B is closely specified – for instance, in evolving from nothing much to flagella of a specific design. In this they are right, but they hide their major premise and draw the wrong conclusion.
I deal all 52 cards from a well-shuffled deck, recording each one. The probability of exactly that sequence of cards appearing was essentially zero ((52 factorial)-1, roughly 1 in 1068); it will almost certainly never happen again. But it did happen. One must be careful with this analogy, but it illustrates that "statistically impossible" things happen all the time if you don't demand to know what they will be beforehand. The corresponding process in evolutionary biology is not a molecular deal, not the chance assembly of zillions of atoms into a person or an eye, because that's not the way it works. Instead, we should think of the shuffle and deal as millions of chance mutations (culled by natural selection) leading to thousands of diverging branches. After many branchings, the probability of any previously specified twig appearing is essentially zero.

Now I take a leap in inferring ID thoughts that are not so clearly or explicitly expressed. I suspect that the ID folks have quite a clear conception of what human beings ought to look like, i.e., pretty much as we do. Now, what was the likelihood of evolving from a single cell to precisely us? Essentially zero, because there were so many divergent possibilities. But millions of possibilities had to happen, did happen, and one of them developed intelligence. It is only with the (implicit) assumption that we – as we are – had to be the current endpoint of one evolutionary branch that statistical impossibility arises. Whether evolution to something with intelligence is a high-probability event or a low-probability event, we don't know. All we can say is that it did happen, but it might have happened quite differently or not at all. We, handsome brutes that we are, just lucked out.
You've posted a number of excuses ...Explain how it is possible for a single cell to come into existence by natural or accidental means ?
You say that millions of possibilities HAD to happen , DID happen and one of them developed intelligence. Give me some facts or basis for your beliefs...

The questions still arise , Hoew did the nonliving attain life , the nonintelligent attain intelligence and the nonconscious attain consciousness.
Those properties are heretofore unknown to that which is nonliving,nonintelligent and nonconscious and they had no way off developing that which they know nothing about.
In effect ,Atheists are forced to believe that somehow ,the nonliving,nonintelligent and nonconscious matter is able to create that which for all intents and purposes it does not have the ability or werewithal to do.
And we , who are alive,conscious and intelligent are unable to duplicate that which the nonliving, nonconscious and nonintelligent was able to accomplish.
That is pure gibberish and nonsense . Your arguments are without logic or foundation , but ,you have no choice but to pursue that faulty course, as dismal and unrealistic as it is.

Known Fact

Orlando, FL

#124422 Feb 17, 2014
The_Real_Ed_Hieronymus wrote:
I don't think there should be a problem with teaching the Bible in school if they would teach it as the great Doctor Robert Miller taught it to his students at Eastern Kentucky University when I was there in the late 1990s or in the manner that it's presented in the Oxford Classics Paperback Edition ( http://www.abebooks.com/Bible-Authorized-King... ), and I even think that teaching it in high school or even to advanced Middle School Students could prove to be a great aid in correcting all the problems that its religion creates in our society.
First, teach them that it was assembled from a hodge podge of earlier myths and legends and given a Hebraic propaganda spin, then move into the Wellhausen and Source Hypothesis that basically show that The Bible started out as a novel as described by Yale University Professor Harold Bloom in the Introduction and Notes to the "Book of J" ( http://www.amazon.com/The-Book-J-Harold-Bloom... ) then reassembled, edited, and redacted over a period of roughly 1,250 years by various authors and scribes and finally placed in its final form under the order of Constantine for purely earthly, political reasons to serve the purpose of keeping the rich in power and the poor in line.
Professor Robert Beckford presents an excellent way of teaching The Bible in schools in his documentary for the BBC "Who Wrote The Bible ( http://youtu.be/SCXlFWBcxBo ).
You know so little about the Bible as well as your colleagues that you have no idea if the Bible should be taught in Public School or not.
Known Fact

Orlando, FL

#124423 Feb 17, 2014
Science has to correct themselves as late as yesterday so how can anyone depend on anything they claim to have happened exactly 14 million years ago.
Curious

Winter Garden, FL

#124424 Feb 17, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Blah blah BS quote from a creationist liar blog blah more 8261BS blah. You keep gumming that "something from nothing" like an old dog with its favorite ratty plush toy.
Hoyle was an astronomer, not a biologist. In 1983, Horowitz testified at "McLean v. Arkansas" (nicknamed "Scopes II") that creationism has no scientific basis and so should not be taught as science in public schools. He reaffirmed this in a 2005 article “Intelligent Design Has No Place in the Science Curriculum.” Morowitz's calculation (which has been frequently and fraudulently hijacked by the Liars for Jesus) is for a system in thermodynamic equilibrium - a condition which has never existed on Earth, nor would exist in any location Horowitz himself believes extraterrestrial life might emerge.
Hey kumquat ,you no ignore me no more....
The calculation was made by Harold Morowitz himself , so if you have a problem with that ,then address him. he is the author ,I merely quoted.

Something from nothing or ,if there was something before the BB ,what was it?
Energy ,matter , in what state of being?
The problem that Atheists face is that they have locked themself into a room where the only way out is through the door of absurdity and they don't like to be called on their illogical and absurd beliefs...... Too bad , you made the choice.........
your cackling and compost are begining to irk me , I may have to exterminate you like a bad bug or IGNORE YOU.
That may be hard to do . You always respond to what I post , that, in spite of your false claim that you will ignore me.....
See below;
Albert Einstein, theoretical physicist
The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation… His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.

Stephen Hawking, theoretical physicist
The laws of science… contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron… The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.

Sir Fred Hoyle, astrophysicist
A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are noblind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#124425 Feb 17, 2014
It's been explained to you THOROUGHLY. It's not my problem you fail to comprehend~ How about you give me some facts, instead of "goddidit", "god of the gaps" must be the answer for you, because your limited intelligence refuses to grasp any logical or plausible explanation. But of course, you are allowed double standards, I guess due to your ignorance.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#124426 Feb 17, 2014
Curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Foolish One , Since you do not believe in the existence of God , how is it you accuse Him of killing anyone?
Methinks those mindaltering drugs that you ingest have wreaked havoc with your few remaining functional brain cells..........
Yikes,,,,,,,,
I know , You forgot to remember to forget that you believe there is no god or gods and are therefore not responsible for your aberrant logic..........
call freud and have him ANALyze you
You got one bit right - I don't believe in the existence of yours or indeed, anyone else's gods.

Try looking beyond the end of your nose oh enlightened one....

The point I made which was clearly too difficult for you to comprehend was to highlight the hypocrisy of the believer.

The poster I replied to was taking issue with a number of killings.

Yet that same poster believes his god has killed millions.

Since: Apr 08

Cambridge, UK

#124427 Feb 17, 2014
Curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey kumquat ,you no ignore me no more....
The calculation was made by Harold Morowitz himself , so if you have a problem with that ,then address him. he is the author ,I merely quoted.
Something from nothing or ,if there was something before the BB ,what was it?
Energy ,matter , in what state of being?
The problem that Atheists face is that they have locked themself into a room where the only way out is through the door of absurdity and they don't like to be called on their illogical and absurd beliefs...... Too bad , you made the choice.........
your cackling and compost are begining to irk me , I may have to exterminate you like a bad bug or IGNORE YOU.
That may be hard to do . You always respond to what I post , that, in spite of your false claim that you will ignore me.....
See below;
Albert Einstein, theoretical physicist
The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation… His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
Stephen Hawking, theoretical physicist
The laws of science… contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron… The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.
Sir Fred Hoyle, astrophysicist
A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are noblind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.
The universe is as it is and not how you want it to be.

Since: Sep 13

United States of America

#124428 Feb 17, 2014
You're constantly asking for facts, we've delivered. I've yet to see you produce anything factual. ID proposes nothing more than that life and its diversity were the product of an intelligence with power to manipulate matter and energy!
What a stretch! but to accept it would introduce into science a lethal dose of ad hoc subjectivity and trash any hope of coherence and rigor. There is nothing more basic to science than the interaction of matter and energy. If that can be manipulated by an external intelligence, then the rules disappear, the game is over and we are back, not to Square One, but somewhere off in Alice's Wonderland.

What scientist in his or her right mind – or team of scientists – would invest decades of time and billions of dollars building scientific instruments that sprawl over miles of countryside in order to measure precisely the interaction of matter and energy – if they believed that "an intelligence" has a reputation for manipulating such outcomes at will? Clearly, the scientists, engineers, project directors, politicians and national assemblies wouldn't consider making such investments if any of them seriously believed that the experimental results were not determined by "fixed laws operating without exception."

Lets say we have 2 biologist , one is a mainstream university researcher and the other an ID proponent. The researcher goes into his lab to tackle a new problem... He says to himself "Boy, I really want to solve this problem, and I'll work as long and as hard as it takes."In fact, everyone wants Bob to solve the problem: his dog, his 9-year old kid, his wife, his department chairman, his funding agency and the public who will benefit. They're all on board and pulling in the same direction.

When Sam goes into the lab he says, "Gee, what should I do? When I fail at problems that's good because I can rack up more points for "the intelligence," but it's bad because ID skeptics will say I'm failing on purpose." Poor Sam is permanently uncertain about how hard to try. He's caught in a conflict of interest vortex he can't get out of.

Question: Which guy would you want on your cancer research team? I mean, your cancer.

Proponents want to inject ID into science education. Science education is where we get our research scientists from. Research scientists are the folks who will cure cancer..., if it is cured. Do we want to give control of the teaching of science – any control – to folks who have a vested interest in not solving problems? The ID lobby will cry, "Foul! We're not talking about those problems!" But I'm afraid they are. Cancer is genetics gone wild. Genetics is the home turf of ID. There are many other diseases that are genetic in origin, including sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, type 1 diabetes, leukemia, Down syndrome, hemophilia A, and countless others. Some of the most exciting prospects for future cures involve manipulating genetic information. The last thing we want to do is instill in our young people a propensity to regard genetics as a domain of necessary mystery and not open to robust scientific investigation. If you are beginning to get a queasy feeling about all this, you will know why "ID scientist" is an oxymoron.
It is time to call the thing by its right name. ID is not science, it conflicts with science quite fundamentally, can hobble or destroy the teaching of science, and is in fact the thin end of a wedge that is intended to pry religion into public education.
Anonymous

Mckee, KY

#124429 Feb 17, 2014
Known Fact wrote:
<quoted text>
You know so little about the Bible as well as your colleagues that you have no idea if the Bible should be taught in Public School or not.
I know everything about The Bible. It's exactly as I described it. It steals it's stories from Sumerian mythology and the fact that it's just a pyramid scheme designed to keep those in power in power and the poor in line by promising them eternal life from the Egyptian Slave Religion ( and serves as the origin of at least two more Cults derived from them Islam and Mormonism ), and that's all anyone needs to know about the Bible.

It promotes two counterfeit political faiths that of Judaism and Christianity and is hardly of any worth as toilet paper, certainly not even in the Sear's Roebuck Catalog's league, and much less so as something anyone should build their lives around.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Barbourville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Can people really take Shamanic Journey's? 59 min The Specialist 10
Rebecca's cat. 1 hr The Specialist 4
Word game (Dec '10) 1 hr The Specialist 275
Free phone location for Thursday 1 hr The Specialist 12
John's women 1 hr Amber 13
law at the hospital 1 hr Funny 7
Crave Booth 2 hr Notademocrat 11

Barbourville Jobs

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages