Intelligent design taught in our schools. Good or Bad

[RoyalOrleans]

Why do people take something SO SIMPLE and turn it into ****.

1. Public school is for academic learning. Period. Reading, writing, math, social studies, art, technology and science. Chemistry, Biology, and Anthropology are all rigorous fact based sciences and evolution is firmly grounded by these core sciences.

2. Religious organizations, (i.e. churches) are for faith based religious studies. Want to learn intelligent design, go there.

Somebody please explain to me why this is so hard for the current crop of Right Wing Wackos to understand?

They have the backing of the Christian Coalition and without them, the Right Wing ****suckers lose 80% of their support.

 

[Thermite Wielding Troll]

Hey, Cogito, show me how any of those sciences (Except anthropology, because it's welded to evolution's ass) support evolution.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Hey, Cogito, show me how any of those sciences (Except anthropology, because it's welded to evolution's ass) support evolution.

Hmm...

You're joking right? Am I to assume that you have never been to a large Museum of Natural History because if you had, you missed the boat completely.

Museums of Natural History utilize biology, zoology, chemistry, geology, and many other fact based sciences to identify and establish time lines and evolutionary connection in the world and universe based upon rock solid scientific investigation.

Have you ever heard of AMNH?

"The American Museum of Natural History, since its founding in 1869, has been one of the world's preeminent institutions for scientific and cultural research and education, with a commitment to engage the public in the wonder of discovery. The Museum is one of the largest natural history museums in the world. Renowned for its significant temporary and permanent exhibitions, adult and family education programs, and fundamental scientific research, the Museum is comprised of 23 interconnected buildings, housing 43 permanent exhibition halls, a wide array of research laboratories, teaching facilities, one of the Western hemisphere's largest natural history libraries, and a collection of 32 million specimens and cultural artifacts. With a scientific staff of more than 200, including more than 44 curators, the Museum supports research departments in the Division of Anthropology; the Division of Physical Sciences including Astrophysics and Earth and Planetary Sciences; Paleontology; Invertebrate Zoology; and Vertebrate Zoology.


The American Museum of Natural History was established in 1869 in a world very different from today's. Even by the late 19th century, we did not have a firm knowledge of many of Earth's land regions and oceans, the diversity of cultures outside of western societies, and the essential history and organization of life on Earth. Darwin's revolutionary Origin of Species had been published only ten years before. It would be 30 more years before the structure of the atom would be revealed and the laws of heredity disclosed, 40 years before Einstein would share his theories of relativity, and 132 years before the entire three billion nucleotides of the human genome would be mapped.

Over this period of spectacular scientific achievement, the Museum has played a leading role in exploration, discovery, and theoretical advances in the natural sciences. Central to these efforts has been the accumulation of one of the world's great Museum collections. In the 1870s, the Museum's quarters on Manhattan Square contained a mixed assortment that suggested rather inauspicious beginnings for the fledgling institution. These included a few thousand shells, beetles, and bird skins, 16 specimens of algae, a stuffed dodo and badger, one mummified crocodile, and a mammoth tooth-a far cry from the extraordinary 32 million specimens and artifacts under Museum stewardship today. The growth of these collections, and the research and publications they have inspired, derived from a formidable commitment to world exploration that continues to this day. The period encompassing the late 19th and early 20th centuries was a golden age of exploration for the Museum, highlighted by the Boas anthropological expeditions to study the indigenous cultures of Northwest America and Siberia, Barnum Brown's series of dramatic discoveries of dinosaurs from the American West, Roy Chapman Andrews's 1920s expeditions to the Gobi, and many more. This era of great discovery was the legacy of the next. Expeditions set out for many remote regions of the world, including the Congo Basin of Africa, central Asian deserts, and isolated islands of the Pacific. Among these, the Carl Akeley expeditions to Africa produced a comprehensive record of ecosystems that are showcased in the Akeley Hall of African Mammals, perhaps the greatest diorama representations of nature ever created.

This era of discovery pertained not only to field exploration. The Museum was a leader in forging new theories on the way we look at cultures, biological organisms, and indeed the very evolution of life. Highlights of this theoretical thrust include the emergence of modern anthropology between 1900 and 1940, first through the work of Franz Boas and later Margaret Mead, Boas's famous student who became a Museum curator. The 1940s also saw a refashioning of Darwinian evolutionary theory into a synthesis that embraced genetics, paleontology, ecology, and taxonomy. This confluence was largely due to a collaboration involving two Museum curators, Ernst Mayr and George Simpson, and the Columbia University geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky. In the 1970s and 1980s the Museum fostered vanguard approaches to deciphering the branching patterns of evolutionary relationships among organisms. The Museum's leadership in this area promoted a revolution in the field of systematics, the science that deals with the recognition of relationships among species and their arrangement in classifications, and these advances significantly transformed research areas that extend from paleontology to comparative molecular biology.

Today, science at the American Museum of Natural History thrives and expands on these earlier accomplishments. The work of scientific research, training, laboratory work, and collections management concern more than 200 scientific personnel, including more than 40 tenure-track curators. The museum's doctoral training program, which connects with five universities (Yale, Cornell, Columbia, and New York universities and the City University of New York), represents the largest and most diversified program of its kind offered by any unaffiliated museum. The collections and research assets are cultivated by continued exploration-over 100 expeditions and field projects annually. A critical resource for the scientific effort is the Museum's Library. With over 400,000 volumes, it is one of the great natural history libraries in the world.

These achievements notwithstanding, the Museum continues, as science advances, to be vigilant about its effectiveness. Perhaps no human enterprise can shock and enlighten us and change our sense of ourselves and the universe like scientific discovery. In the late 1990s the Museum established new programs and directions in order to enhance the quality and competitiveness of its scientific research, develop new multidisciplinary endeavors, and improve databasing, access, and care of the scientific collections and library holdings. "

Umm... You knew this right? I hope your joking, right?

Oh, one last little nail in your coffin lid...Long before George W. Bush and the religious whack jobs had their bullshit agenda, there was The Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History which has in it's collections, only about 124 million specimens and has every scientific pursuit represented in it's 200+ curators!

I should charge you $$$ for an education like this!

Lucky for you though...

"Admission to the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History is free and no tickets are required for entrance to the museum."

 

[phreakwars]

NICE POST C.E.S., HAVE SOME FREE REP !!​

​

( And next time charge him $5 for the lesson )​

GF:​

EDUCATING THE MASSES​

.​

.​

 

[ToriAllen]

Why would it be so difficult to teach the theory of evolution in schools and then add to the end of it, "Oh, yeah, and it is possible that all of this was set into motion( or designed) by a Divine Being"?

There is no need to teach the storybook accounts of each religion. Just an acknowledgement of the possibility of Science by Design should be enough.

I don't see a problem with that.

 

[Thermite Wielding Troll]

All you did was show me that the Museum of Natural History has collected lots of animal parts and caveman furnishings since 1869, and they claim to be studying how evolution ties in with the sciences. You have yet to actually show me how any of it actually ties in.

I'm still listening.

 

[Master_Jaffer]

True.... But I don't see the problem with teaching the Xtian version as long as it is coupled with other versions like Islam, Judeism, Hindu (one of my fav) and some others... I would guess that after a few years of this learning style, all versions, that people would realize that ALL of these religions have thier roots, one way or another, in Sumerian texts.... and since we have many of them and have translated most, we should learn our ROOTS... Learn what people had to say about god when GOD LIVED AMONG MAN! Those are the people that will give you insight into gods design... the ones who actually spoke to them/him.... It would all come out in the end...

Islam believes evolution... just not from apes.

It's more like Intelligent Design - Design Evolution/Adaptation.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

All you did was show me that the Museum of Natural History has collected lots of animal parts and caveman furnishings since 1869, and they claim to be studying how evolution ties in with the sciences. You have yet to actually show me how any of it actually ties in.

I'm still listening.

A wise old Samarian once said...

You can lead the jackass to water, but you can't make him drink.

If you cannot visit a Museum of Natural History yourself and use your own brain to make the connection, (I suggest you talk to a docent of even a curator if you can) then no amount of information I can share with you will end your ignorance. I gave you a direction, now go learn for yourself.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Islam believes evolution... just not from apes.

It's more like Intelligent Design - Design Evolution/Adaptation.

Hmm...

Based upon what scientific evidence and proof?

I can see it now...

The G.W. Bush Collection of Intelligent Design at the Smithsonian...

Excuse me while I go barf now...

 

[ToriAllen]

For the last time, evolution does not claim that humans evolved from apes! Evolution claims that we probably have a common ancestor. There is a difference.

 

[Thermite Wielding Troll]

I already know of all the bullshit they'd feed me. In fact, I probably know more of evolution than a lot of them. I was looking for you to actually present some so I could knock you down. But I see you prefer take the coward's way out. Maybe I should say it's the wise man's way out, seeing as it would be a losing battle for you?

 

[fullauto]

For the last time, evolution does not claim that humans evolved from apes! Evolution claims that we probably have a common ancestor. There is a difference.

Seond that!

 

[Gray~Gal]

I think we also have common ancestors. I dont know anything about evolving from apes or monkeys. I believe in science but also believe in God....So i am just a ignorant by stander in this argument cause i havent done my research. Just wanted to voice my opinion there.

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

I already know of all the bullshit they'd feed me. In fact, I probably know more of evolution than a lot of them. I was looking for you to actually present some so I could knock you down. But I see you prefer take the coward's way out. Maybe I should say it's the wise man's way out, seeing as it would be a losing battle for you?

There is a great difference between knowledge and wisdom. You do not yet understand this.

I am not a Ph.D. in any of those sciences so alas, I am unqualified to debate with you on this topic.

But...

May I suggest that you pick any of the people listed as contacts at either of these institutions, and give your best shot at them. I'm quite sure they would shred you up in 2 minutes or less.

I am many things but never a coward. You are an arrogant **** to infer such.

Seeing as how you have been trounced by me once before, it's really cute how you act like a little child with your claims about how you would destroy me. He He He. You're funny but you still deserve a trip to the Idiot Box for your unfounded personal attack.

Let me make a Sponsor's Wish. I wish you were king of the Idiot Box for a whole day!

Wonder if my wish will come true!

 

[phreakwars]

Seeing as how you have been trounced by me once before, it's really cute how you act like a little child with your claims about how you would destroy me. He He He. You're funny but you still deserve a trip to the Idiot Box for your unfounded personal attack.

Let me make a Sponsor's Wish. I wish you were king of the Idiot Box for a whole day!

Wonder if my wish will come true!

Your sponsored wish is our command.​

.​

OFF TO THE BOX FOR 24 HOURS HE GOES​

.
.

 

[Thermite Wielding Troll]

Alright, let me get this straight. You trounced me? How? You state sceince supports evolution, and I ask for science supporting this fact. You then tell me to go look it up. Damn, brilliant method of argument! you really showed me!

It's also quite suprising that you aren't qualified to debate in any area of science, but you are qualified to state what science supports.

What you mean is that you're willing to make assertions but too chicken-**** to back them up.

Am I supposed to stand in awe of the facts you post about the A.M.N.H.? The Catholic Church has been collecting pieces of the "true cross" for nearly 2,000 years and has 1.5 billion followers, yet neither one of us gives a **** about that. Why? Because we know they're full of ****.

You tell me I should take on the people listed as contacts? They'd take the same bullshit attitude you've displayed: "We have many displays of the obvious reality of Evolution, no need to mention facts. Talk to the hand." Get real.

But I have decided to send the following message via their reference question form:

It appears to me that the Theory of Evolution has no evidence of a working mechanism by which new forms of life can emerge, nor has it provided even a conceptually viable mechanism. I also believe much of the evidence for evolution is assumption, and not wholly based on fact. What information can you provide to help me understand Evolution better?

Let's see if they reply

 

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Alright, let me get this straight. You trounced me?

Yes.

How?

Go back and re-read the post. Eventually you'll figure it out.

You state sceince supports evolution, and I ask for science supporting this fact. You then tell me to go look it up. Damn, brilliant method of argument! you really showed me!

Nice try oh slow one. I stated "Chemistry, Biology, and Anthropology are all rigorous fact based sciences and evolution is firmly grounded by these core sciences."

To which you boldly stated "Hey, Cogito, show me how any of those sciences (Except anthropology, because it's welded to evolution's ass) support evolution."

So I offered, "Museums of Natural History utilize biology, zoology, chemistry, geology, and many other fact based sciences to identify and establish time lines and evolutionary connection in the world and universe based upon rock solid scientific investigation."

This is not science fiction. It's fact which is supported by the tons of research conducted in the area of Natural History and well documented in the great museums I cited to you.

It's also quite suprising that you aren't qualified to debate in any area of science, but you are qualified to state what science supports.

Yes, this is true. Too bad you cannot see this. As a layman, I can evaluate the information presented at Natural History Museums and formulate rational conclusions which happen to be in line with the evidence presented.

To put it into terms you might understand, I cannot truly design and build a modern scientific based car, but I can identify and operate one, and am confident I could adequately state to you how one works and how to operate it.

What you mean is that you're willing to make assertions but too chicken-**** to back them up.

No, what it means is that I know how to evaluate information presented to me by experts in their respective fields, and to formulate my own conclusions based upon this information.

You obviously are just shooting off your mouth here because if you actually would have read any of my posts, you would find that I always can back up what I say. Just like I have on this topic with you.

You never asked me to debate evolutionary thought with you; quite the contrary, you asked about the use and support of science to aid in the validation of evolutionary theory, and I gave it to you!

Am I supposed to stand in awe of the facts you post about the A.M.N.H.? The Catholic Church has been collecting pieces of the "true cross" for nearly 2,000 years and has 1.5 billion followers, yet neither one of us gives a **** about that. Why? Because we know they're full of ****.

You asked about science. I gave you massive examples. Whether or not you "stand in awe" makes absolutely no difference to the fact that the true sciences I mentioned, support evolutional theories and respected institutions and scholars further this association. I'm sorry the truth hurts you so much. You'll get over it.

You tell me I should take on the people listed as contacts? They'd take the same bullshit attitude you've displayed: "We have many displays of the obvious reality of Evolution, no need to mention facts. Talk to the hand." Get real.

The only piss poor attitude I see here is yours. You are not open to facts whatsoever and I doubt any scholar would find you a respectful pupil.

But I have decided to send the following message via their reference question form:

Hey, sounds great. Good Luck!

It appears to me that the Theory of Evolution has no evidence of a working mechanism by which new forms of life can emerge, nor has it provided even a conceptually viable mechanism. I also believe much of the evidence for evolution is assumption, and not wholly based on fact. What information can you provide to help me understand Evolution better?

Well, it's abrasive yet somehow appropriate for your apparent level of communication, but perhaps somebody will help you out.

Let's see if they reply

I'm holding my breath...

 

[Msixty]

Your sponsored wish is our command.
.
OFF TO THE BOX FOR 24 HOURS HE GOES​

.
.

simply amazing, we have the only know phreak in a lamp

 

[phreakwars]

simply amazing, we have the only know phreak in a lamp

And for $12 you can rub my **** and make a wish too.
.
.

 

[Msixty]

And for $12 you can rub my **** and make a wish too.
.
.

i think i just saw vortex pull out a $20