Re: Article: Bush Remarks On 'Intelligent Design' Theory Fuel Debate


Snit wrote:
> "Nasht0n" <na@xxxxxxx> stated in post
> To1Ie.69526$Ph4.2163030@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 8/3/05 3:55 AM:
>
> > ed wrote:
> >
> >> In news:BF15B252.2774A%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> >> Snit <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> typed:
> >>
> >>> http://snipurl.com/goki
> >>>
> >>> -----
> >>> President Bush invigorated proponents of teaching alternatives to
> >>> evolution in public schools with remarks saying that schoolchildren
> >>> should be taught about "intelligent design,"... Bush told Texas
> >>> newspaper reporters ... that he believes that intelligent design
> >>> should be taught alongside evolution as competing theories.
> >>> -----
> >>>
> >>> On one hand Bush says he wants "no child left behind" and on the
> >>> other he says he wants to see religion taught in science classes -
> >>> effectively leaving all child behind.
> >>>
> >>> Then again, this is the same administration that encourages schools
> >>> to teach to each students ability and test each student against grade
> >>> level.
> >>>
> >>> Grrrr....
> >>
> >>
> >> teaching religion does not leave kids behind in the sciences- some
> >> absolutely brilliant scientific minds were true believers. what's important
> >> is how it's taught- what causes kids to be left behind is not having
> >> critical thinking skills- and that is not mutually independant of faith.
> >
> > Well said.
> > Evolutionary theory is a wonderful piece of work, but it's just a
> > theory, and one full of conceptual and logical flaws.

evolution is basically accepted as fact, it's the details that
scientists debate.

> When you say it is "just a theory" you toss in the straw man that when
> something is "just a theory" it is not well established. In science, when
> something reaches the level of theory it is well established and accepted -

way oversimplified. for example, when did lamarck's theories on
evolution become well established and accepted?

> such as the Newton's theory of gravity,

that would be newton's laws of gravity, which has a theory about the
cause. =D

> Einstein's theory of relativity, the
> theory of tectonic plates,

plate tectonics are observable.

> the theory of electricity,

theory of electricity?!?


> > It also keeps anthropologists very busy looking for elusive transitional
> > fossils and trying to scramble to logically explain the Cambrian
> > explosion by means of evolutionary theory.
> >
> > Lamarck's theories, disguised as science, ought to be finally put to rest.
>
> I look forward to your support.

lamarck's theories on the mode of eveolution is pretty much not
accepted at all...

.