quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

How about this: talk about "intelligent design" as part of religious education, in the context of religious beliefs, and in comparison to other religions. Then, later, the kids can study the American religious right in politics class. But it has no place in science class: it's not science, it's belief.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SilverMark

p.s. not really a reply to you Firm, I think that was just were I couldn't keep My mouth shut...and boy, did I mispell and use tense incorrectly...as a long standing member of the "spelling Nazi's" as Fat would refer to Me I apologize.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Oh go on then, knock yourself out. Teach the whole doctrine of ID as if it were scientific fact, thus playing into the hands of a few political nutters, however? Not in a million years.

• Darwin classified himself as a Theist when he wrote Origin of Species.
• Einstein dictum quoted above suggests some conceptualization of forces beyond our ken.
• Heisenberg, when asked if he believed in a personal God, had this to say:
  

  quote:
  
  He was once asked by Pauli if he believed in a personal God. This was his reply: "Can you, or anyone else, reach the central order of things, or events, whose existence seems beyond doubt, as directly as you can reach the soul of another human being? I am using the term 'soul' quite deliberately so as not to be misunderstood. If you would put the question like that, the answer is yes."

• Max Plank: "No matter where and how far we look, nowhere do we find contradiction between religion and science".

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

How about this: talk about "intelligent design" as part of religious education, in the context of religious beliefs, and in comparison to other religions. Then, later, the kids can study the American religious right in politics class. But it has no place in science class: it's not science, it's belief.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

How about this: talk about "intelligent design" as part of religious education, in the context of religious beliefs, and in comparison to other religions. Then, later, the kids can study the American religious right in politics class. But it has no place in science class: it's not science, it's belief.

Science is a belief system as well.

Firm

quote:

Science is a belief system as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112


However, there is no denying that many have a most dogmatic reliance on "science" as the guiding force in their lives, expressing a most fundamentalist fervor and insistence on the absolute "rightness" of their worldview.

• Why should Darwin's proposition of a "First Cause" not be included in a scientific discussion of evolution? 
• If Darwin himself contemplated the possibility of an intelligence not unlike our own as the impetus of evolution, upon what reasoned, logical, and presumably "scientific" basis do you dismiss said possibility? 
• How many of the leading scientific minds of the last 200 years rejected religion as "superstition"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Abstinence only ed is bad for young people's health and most of the curriculum's contain blatant lies.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/24/nation/na-abstinence24
http://mediamatters.org/items/200412080002

Creationism and opting out of "offensive" instruction result in poorly educated people. Especially in the sciences and even more especially in the bio sciences. You may have noticed that the bio sciences are a big growth industry now so allowing the US to produce badly educated people is bad for teh future of the economy.

Spousal benefits include such things as being listed on life insurance, receiving medical insurance and receiving survivors benefits. Why is it a good thing to deny these things to same sex couple but not a good thing to deny them to opposite sex couples?

So yes all those positions are extreme and in all cases bad for minors or for people other than the true believer. I'm fine if an adult wants to reject science, reason and doesn't want to be in a same sex relationship. However I'm of the firm belief that that right ends at their own nose. Tood bad you don't.

Look at the question and answer again, she said she would not fund "EXPLICIT SEX ED".

How do you explain the success of kids that are home schooled or in parochial schools (regardless of which faith)?

Notice that even the Dem on that questionaire answered NO to the question, as it is already in their state constitution, therefore nothing is stopping folks from creating legal contracts, which could include power of attorney, and or other benefits,...  It is not the executives position to overturn the constitution it is to uphold it.

Sorry that you feel that the government is the best place to make decisions on what is best for responsible parents and which beliefs they wish to teach their kids.

I for one want less government interference in my life.  I see both extreme sides of the political spectrum trying to tell me how to live, or how much money I am able to earn and spend.  They can all piss off.  How's that for a blunt answer?

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112


However, there is no denying that many have a most dogmatic reliance on "science" as the guiding force in their lives, expressing a most fundamentalist fervor and insistence on the absolute "rightness" of their worldview.

Of course you know this to be nonsense, inquiry is not belief and can never be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112


However, there is no denying that many have a most dogmatic reliance on "science" as the guiding force in their lives, expressing a most fundamentalist fervor and insistence on the absolute "rightness" of their worldview.

Of course you know this to be nonsense, inquiry is not belief and can never be.

Inquiry is not belief.  Your dogged insistence on "science," however, most definitely is belief. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Again, not an answer to the question....to any of the questions, in fact.

• Why should Darwin's proposition of a "First Cause" not be included in a scientific discussion of evolution? 
  
• If Darwin himself contemplated the possibility of an intelligence not unlike our own as the impetus of evolution, upon what reasoned, logical, and presumably "scientific" basis do you dismiss said possibility? 
  
• How many of the leading scientific minds of the last 200 years rejected religion as "superstition"?

Do you have answers for any of these questions?

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Again, not an answer to the question....to any of the questions, in fact.

• Why should Darwin's proposition of a "First Cause" not be included in a scientific discussion of evolution? 
  
• If Darwin himself contemplated the possibility of an intelligence not unlike our own as the impetus of evolution, upon what reasoned, logical, and presumably "scientific" basis do you dismiss said possibility? 
  
• How many of the leading scientific minds of the last 200 years rejected religion as "superstition"?

Do you have answers for any of these questions?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Because your question is sophistry, more than genuine enquiry, and you know that very well.

quote:

Second science can make no claims on the supernatural, positive or negative. Science is about what can be observed, measured and repeated. The supernatural is none of those and so science cannot deal with it.