Kerry,

Given the fact Louisiana is not only one of the poorest but least educated states in the Union (Only a quarter of its population above 25 graduated from college). I am not surprised at all that they would pass a law like this. Most people are poor because they have no clue about how to get ahead, and no appreciation for education. So why would they have an appreciation for books that require you to put forth more effort and brainpower than the Bible.

Yah I know, call me a liberal elitist.

I wonder if this law would let me bring in supplemental material to a Sunday school class...especially when they start talking about Genesis? After all, if Bible thumpers want to start associating it with science, I'd say that gives me a back door to argue they are teaching science in Bible school and thus "relevant supplemental material" is allowed.

"I wonder if this law would let me bring in supplemental material to a Sunday school class"

Since the state has no control over Sunday school classes, that would be a "no."

"...especially when they start talking about Genesis? After all, if Bible thumpers want to start associating it with science, I'd say that gives me a back door to argue they are teaching science in Bible school and thus "relevant supplemental material" is allowed.""

Again, the state cannot say word one about what is taught in Sunday school. Your "back door" appears to actually be a chimney--for your silly argument to go up in smoke.

By the way, Bobby Jindal has a bachelor's with honors in Biology and Public Policy from Brown University, and a master's in Political Science from Oxford--just in case you were about to pull that "dumb old Louisiana hick" line on him.

"So why would they have an appreciation for books that require you to put forth more effort and brainpower than the Bible."

Considering that you can't even understand the things you pull out of the Bible, I would think you should have a greater respect for the effort and brainpower it takes to understand it.

I suppose Tony Robbins books are more challenging?

"Given the fact Louisiana is not only one of the poorest but least educated states in the Union (Only a quarter of its population above 25 graduated from college)."

Don't worry. Now that they finally have a Republican governor, things will get better quickly. Breaking the Democrat stranglehold on the state is only the first great thing he did. There is much more to come.

"(Only a quarter of its population above 25 graduated from college)."

Actually, this is kind of amusing. Do you really not know people over 25 who have not YET graduated from college? Many, many people work first in order to PAY for college, or stay a bit later, in order to WORK their way through.

"Most people are poor because they have no clue about how to get ahead,"

So, just how rich ARE you?

Oh I suspect Bobby is quite smart, its the population that elected him and rubber stamps his ideas that I am worried about.

Oh and as far as the Bible, since everyone walking the face of the Earth just about has a different interpretation of the Bible, and another person waiting in the wings to tell them they are wrong...your argument that I don't know much about the Bible...holds very little water with me.

Yah a Republican governor solves everything....whatever. Considering the state has been largely conservative since the beginning of time, and yet hasn't managed to come close to the education level and wealth of states like New Jersey and Massachusetts...tells me that Bobby isn't going to do much for them.

News for you Kerry, but most people these days get their degrees in their early twenties. In fact there is a word for those who don't...."non-traditional". Which means in English, that they are the exception, and not the rule.

I don't have a problem with alternative views being taught. I don't think the students will benefit if this takes their time away from science.

On evolution it is a theory, but has strong evidential support. More importantly it is useful in understanding central concepts in science.

On cloning - I'm not really sure if there is a deabte about the actually mechanics of what goes on in cloning but if you're referring to some ethical aspect I'd say that's an important and interesting subject for consideration, but science isn't about ethics and that should be taken in a class outside the science lab. I'd say if anyone wants to do a degree in science it should always be taught.

Finally on global warming it shouldn't be taught as fact. There are legitimate scientist questions about global warming and it would be bizarre to teach this without reference to counter points of view - and that should be taught in science class.

"Yah a Republican governor solves everything....whatever. Considering the state has been largely conservative since the beginning of time, and yet hasn't managed to come close to the education level and wealth of states like New Jersey and Massachusetts...tells me that Bobby isn't going to do much for them."

Excuse me...what? The state of Louisiana didn't send a Republican to the Senate from 1868 to 1999. Democrats have run that state for all time--there were no Republican governors, either, from 1877 to 1980. Corrupt Democrat politics is endemic to Louisiana. Have you ever heard of Huey Long's political machine?

You do have a point, though. The political corruption among Massachusetts and New Jersey Democrats certainly has been less burdensome to the people than that of the Louisiana Democrats.

Brit said: "I don't have a problem with alternative views being taught. I don't think the students will benefit if this takes their time away from science."

I totally agree, not in the science classroom, but definetly in comparative religion classes.

Science is taught in science classroom, not religious beliefs on how everything came to exist - that's not science, it's creationism.

"Oh I suspect Bobby is quite smart, its the population that elected him and rubber stamps his ideas that I am worried about."

Um, I know you guys think I'm not good with logic, but let me see if I have this one right.

If Jindal is "quite smart," then wouldn't the "population that elected him," regardless of their own intelligence level, be "rubber stamping" HIS "smart" ideas?

And what is the problem with that? Don't you want smart ideas to become law?

This is on topic and is very funny, check out the full story.

Evidence for Intelligent Design:

Penne Rigate will spontaneously insert itself into Rigatoni (order pasta) under liquid to gas transition conditions of H2O to create the previously unobserved species Noodleous doubleous. The estimated probability of this spontaneous generation event is too low to be explained by thermodynamics and therefore apparently represents intelligent design.

Read more at:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2831,Origin-of-the-Novel-Species-Noodleous-doubleous-Evidence-for-Intelligent-Design,Thomas-D-Schneider-PhD---Frederick-MD

"Science is taught in science classroom, not religious beliefs on how everything came to exist - that's not science, it's creationism."

This is an interesting notion of science. If "science" admits of no challenges, it is unlikely to ever come to true conclusions. Scientific advancement, in fact, is built on trial and error, on re-framing of old paradigms to fit new data, and an elastic notion of negotiability.

Without a willingness to re-test even the most basic claims of science, there is none. For then science itself becomes myth, rumor, and dogma.

If scientific claims are true, then facts are invigorated by challenge. If they are false, then information is improved by the addition of new facts. The notion of an untouchable, unchallengeable, and unchangeable set of scientific truths isn't really science at all.

This, in fact, is the problem of evolutionism. Note, I don't say "evolution," because "evolution" is merely a posited theory in anthropology and biology. The problem is with the "ism" that "defenders" of evolution appropriate unto themselves, by behaving as though their theory is theology.

A scientific theory is subject to question. Science embraces challenge. Should there come a time when some smart young thing in university (or, these days, in elementary school) discovers a flaw in the logical or scientific design of the theory, a real scientist would allow for that flaw to be examined, tested, re-tested, and even--as needed--to re-frame the entire paradigm.

Why should you be afraid of that, SSE? It's how REAL science is done.

"This is an interesting notion of science. If "science" admits of no challenges, it is unlikely to ever come to true conclusions."

Kerry,

Please go inform yourself on how science works before you embarrass yourself with another post.

Creationism is not a theory, it is not falsifiable there is no SCIENTIFIC way to test it.

Evolution is falsifiable, there are loads of ways to test it, and it has been tested time and time again.

Evolution is a scientific theory similar to how gravity is theory. Theory, yes, scientifically speaking but generally speaking, gravity is fact. Evolution is fact, there is little dispute for this in the scientific community. Any form of creationism should be taught in comparative religion classes, there is no room for non-scientific matters in the science classroom.

Again, just so you understand.

Creationism is not science therefore; there is no bias when it is not included in curriculum for a science class. It should be taught, yes, but only in a comparative religion classroom. If creationists want to show us how they can set up ways to test creationism, show how it can be falsifiable and experiment with results, then the scientific community can review it (just like they do with all theories) and make a sound SCIENTIFIC decision based on data.

This is how all theories are tested in science, if creationism can’t be put through this normal method THEN IT IS NOT SCIENCE.

Sorry, this is just how it works, and it’s right. Hopefully you’re clear on that now.

More information to make you more learn'd:

Evolution is just a theory!

Yes it is, like Einstein's theory of special relativity. By theory, scientists mean an explanation backed by evidence. What creationists mean is that evolution is just a hypothesis, unsupported by evidence - which it is not. Evolution is a fact as well a theory.

There are serious problems with the theory of evolution

Would you jump off a skyscraper on the basis that the clash between general relativity and quantum theory means there are serious problems with our theory of gravity? It makes no more sense to question the reality of evolution because scientists are still debating about some of its finer aspects than it does to question the existence of gravity for the same reason. There are still plenty of details to fill in but, as surely as dropped objects fall, life has and continues to evolve.

This question makes me want to smash my head into a wall everytime it is asked:

If we all evolved from apes, why are there still apes around in this world?

Chihuahuas, great Danes and every other type of dog were bred from wolves, but there are still wolves in the world. And what breeders do deliberately can happen naturally: when a species splits into separate populations that cannot interbreed, these populations can evolve in very different ways. The emergence of a new species does not necessarily mean the disappearance of the old one, although in fact the apes we evolved from are long extinct – chimpanzees and gorillas are our cousins, not our ancestors.

For those of you interested in finding out more:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=top1_head_Evolution:

one last excerpt:

Creationists do at least all believe in a creator. But who is it: God, Allah, Yahweh, Brahma, Zeus, Olorun, aliens or a giant hermaphrodite?

Those who have studied our planet and the life on it, however, have come to very clear conclusions: the Earth is around 4 billion years old and all the life on it gradually evolved from much simpler forms. There is no evidence of any kind of outside intervention, and no need to invoke it to explain what is known. Yes, there are many debates among biologists, geologists and cosmologists over the finer details, but these will be resolved sooner or later by new discoveries or experiments. Reality is the ultimate arbiter.

By contrast, there is no way to resolve the often vast differences between the numerous forms of creationism. Anyone can come up with their own version of creationism (and many do). How do you convince the followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for instance, that his noodle is not the real creator?

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13688-evolution-myths-creationism-is-a-coherent-alternative-to-evolution.html

"Creationism is not a theory, it is not falsifiable there is no SCIENTIFIC way to test it."

Ah, but there is also no way to test macroevolution. And no one is suggesting that we teach (well, that Louisiana teach) creationism. Questioning the validity of the theory of evolution doesn't make one a "creationist."

"Evolution is falsifiable, there are loads of ways to test it, and it has been tested time and time again."

Only in the micro sense.

"Evolution is a scientific theory similar to how gravity is theory. Theory, yes, scientifically speaking but generally speaking, gravity is fact."

Scientifically speaking, before Galileo, the Ptolemeic universe was fact.

"Evolution is fact, there is little dispute for this in the scientific community."

Then why not allow for questions?

"Any form of creationism should be taught in comparative religion classes, there is no room for non-scientific matters in the science classroom."

Again, questioning evolution does not make one a "creationist."

Again, Kerry....

You're ignoring what I've noted above; follow scientific method and no one will argue.

Questioning evolution is fine, but if you want a different "idea" to be taught it would need to be a scietifically valid theory it needs to be put through that rigorous testing. No other theory is viable or has been since "On the origin of the Species" was published and reviewed near the middle of the 19th century. Darwin was revolutionary.

You can wish (or pray) all you want, there is no other viable theory. I'm very sorry.

Evolution is fact.

Then why not allow for questions?

....because you're not interested in "questions"...and the "questions" you will come up with do not affect the theory of evolution and attempt to further creationism. That's a great tactic that IDers love to fall back on when one explains that ID is not "science."

"We're only asking questions...why won't you let us ask questions?"

...because you're not interested in the science in any manner. You're interested in getting rid of the science that gets in the way of your creationism and every excuse of "just wanting to ask questions" is just that....an excuse....and quite a transparent one when looking at it from the outside.

Can't indoctrinate the People to your path if they're learning another path....must destroy the other path.

If we all evolved from apes, why are there still apes around in this world?

I love that one....my ignorant father uses this one a lot. You go far enough back on the generic "ape" and "man" arms of the evolutionary tree and you'll find that we have a common ancestor. You go back 4 million years to Australopithecus and then look at its ancestors and you're gonna find the common ancestor between "ape" and "man".

No one is asking for the teaching of creationism. But there are legitimate questions about evolution that cannot currently be asked. Any useful theory will not only tolerate such questions but will also be strengthened--even if eventually changed--by such challenges.

I'm also interested in how y'all feel about allowing in supplemental material on the other issues: cloning and global warming.

I think the point here is that public school science teachers aren't learned scientists generally, or professors of science (or, many times, even holders of degrees in actual Science.) They ought not to be allowed to restrict scientific inquiry merely because it is convenient to restrict information in a way that not only favors the prevailing paradigm (which is fine), but which disallows all other information.

This law should be good for both "sides." Rather than restricting teachers to the "approved" curriculum (which isn't, by the way, approved by scientists, but by legislators and bureaucrats), let them bring in more up to date, more interesting research and information, cutting edge research, and alternative explanations.

There is no SCIENTIFIC "alternative explanation"....there is creationism.

As stated numerous times....question evolution all you want.....but question it SCIENTIFICALLY.

Comment on some unknown supplemental information on "cloning".....like what? I cannot comment on that which is not presented. Ethics? Bioethics? The process?

GWT......teach the science and nothing but the science. True science, based on the actual data and not the computer-generated data. Real trends, not computer-model trends. Teach about the Arctic oscillation, the north Atlantic oscillation and every other natural trend. Take the politics out of the science and stop teaching the doom-gloom unscientific crap.

You do that and you'll not need a supplemental.

I just spent a loooong weekend in Iowa with science-ignorant people....man, they were scientifically dumb. They had no clue, just like much of America, that the ozone hole doesn't exist right now (only exists in the Antarctic spring (Sept to Dec.)....they even thought there was one in North America and one over Africa........no, there isn't one over the Arctic.....ther eis ONE seasonal hole.

Evolution is fact.

That was wierd...lets try that again.

Evolution is fact.

SSE,

Actually there is a more appropriate way to put this. Evolutionary theory is the theory that best matches the evidence scientists have uncovered. No other theory as you correctly point out comes even close.

What Kerry fails to fathom in her little statement about the Ptolemeic universe, is that creationism is even farther off than Ptolemy was as far as theories go. In fact we have tests today that prove it is wrong. One of central factors in Christian belief is that man is somehow separate from the rest of creation. Yet, all you have to do is compare the genetics of humans to all other creatures on Earth, and you will discover we are related to all other animals, and we are related quite closely to a few...those few strangely enough are apes. Now of course some uneducated religious moron will say, sure their genetics is similar to ours, because they look somewhat like us, compared to say a whale. Yet making a judgment based on external appearances only shows how idiotic these people are. I've noted on this board before the example of the Grey Wolf and Tasmanian wolf...animals that look relatively similar on the outside, and yet internally the Grey Wolf has more in common with whales than it does the Tasmanian devil. But some Bible thumping moron with his 10 seconds of scientific analysis (about the equivalent of what creationists spent) wouldn't know that...because he is...well...a moron.

er that should have been the Tasmanian wolf...not devil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thylacine

"Evolution is fact." SSE,

Actually there is a more appropriate way to put this. Evolutionary theory is the theory that best matches the evidence scientists have uncovered. No other theory as you correctly point out comes even close.

ahm,

I explained my reasons for saying this. I explained how certain theories generally are accepted as facts. What you explained is basically repeating what I said in my post(s) before that statement. I don't understand the point of reiterating this, sorry.

But there are legitimate questions about evolution that cannot currently be asked.

Bull crap. You basically want to dump this stuff on kids when they are young, impressionable, and unable to call on an expert to help them distinguish between what is correct and what is bullshit.

I don't think you want a true public forum with the likes of Dawkins, et al. they would tear creationists a new one in a heart beat, especially if you threw out some of these supposed questions, that have been refuted a million times.

SSE,

Because I think to be honest we need to distinguish between Evolution being fact, and evolution being the best explanation for the facts.

Kerry,

This is by no means a caving toward your position, because creationism and intelligent design theory (creationism badly repackaged), fail miserably compared to evolution, once you start examining them as "scientific theories" versus tools to attack evolution.

ahm,

1. You just said ID was a theory. Please explain how you came to this conclusion. 2. You seem to keep ignoring what I had first said concerning scientific method, time and time again tested theories that GENERALLY SPEAKING can be considered factual.

If you're going to post on here and correct me after I've already explained why I said it was a fact and then again ignore those statements and then, on top of that call ID a theory... Well, I have no way to respond from that. These statements/errors sort of make the whole thread look stupid.

ahm,

upon a second reading I think I understand what you were trying to say regarding ID Theory. you're stated in the context of those who push that agenda. I apologize for the confusion. I still defend my evolution is fact statement though. :)

The day ID becomes a real theory is the same day scientists will discover the moon is made of cheese.

"One of central factors in Christian belief is that man is somehow separate from the rest of creation. Yet, all you have to do is compare the genetics of humans to all other creatures on Earth, and you will discover we are related to all other animals, and we are related quite closely to a few...those few strangely enough are apes."

I will not speak specifically of what might be called "scientific creationism," but there is nothing about the facts you cite to trouble Biblically-based origin theory.

The Bible quite clearly states that God made man from the dust of the ground--not some unique element not previously present. God made man in his IMAGE and LIKENESS. That does not mean that man's genetic material is not shared with that of the rest of God's created universe--in fact, it would be ridiculous to think otherwise.

"But some Bible thumping moron with his 10 seconds of scientific analysis (about the equivalent of what creationists spent) wouldn't know that...because he is...well...a moron."

Well, of course he is. You conveniently made him up.

"er that should have been the Tasmanian wolf...not devil."

By the way, just out of curiosity, what exactly IS a tasmanian devil?

But there are legitimate questions about evolution that cannot currently be asked.

"I don't think you want a true public forum with the likes of Dawkins, et al."

Actually, I would be fine with Dawkins, if he would stick to his field--zoology--and stay out of theology, in which he has no expertise.

However, I would ask that you re-examine the history of science before you decide to write evolution into the stone tablets of history. There have been a great many scientific ideas that turned out to be false--many after very long periods of time when they were believed to be true.

I simply think it is wrong to teach children what we believe to be "true" as science, without the caveat that we should always keep asking ourselves whether those things actually ARE true--in every case, at every time, in any situation.

Actually, I would be fine with Dawkins, if he would stick to his field--zoology--and stay out of theology, in which he has no expertise.

That's all well and good, if creationists had kept their nose out of science, plus tried to pass of their "theories" as real science. But since they didn't I think Dawkins has every right to express his opinion about the existence of God, and the factualness (or lack their of) of creationist theories.

Don't pick a fight if you can't stand getting hurt.

I simply think it is wrong to teach children what we believe to be "true" as science, without the caveat that we should always keep asking ourselves whether those things actually ARE true--in every case, at every time, in any situation.

Scientist do this every day of every week of, of every year. But this isn't really what you want to do. You want to say that evolution is wrong...and keep throwing out old arguments that have been disproven again and again as proof.

Anyone hear that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics? Creationists have been spouting this for years, and the answer to their criticism is out there. But creationists keeping spouting the same bullshit, because they know some poor dumb sap, that has been programmed to distrust science will still believe them.

In fact the only part of evolution that can't be demonstrated 100% to be true are macro changes, but not because macro changes don't happen, but because the laws of physics, and the limitations of the human lifespan don't allow us too.

But that said there is way more evidence for macro evolution, than there is for most Bible stories. I'm still waiting for that explanation of where the 30 foot column of water from Noah's flood disappeared to.

That should have been 30 thousand foot column of water.

"But this isn't really what you want to do."

Well, I can't speak for Bobby Jindal, or the Discovery Institute, or anyone else. But I can speak for me. And that IS what I really want to do.

"You want to say that evolution is wrong."

No, I don't. I want the right to ASK whether there are problems with it. I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm saying it COULD be wrong.

"Anyone hear that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics? Creationists have been spouting this for years, and the answer to their criticism is out there. But creationists keeping spouting the same bullshit, because they know some poor dumb sap, that has been programmed to distrust science will still believe them."

Just for kicks, why don't you tell us what that answer is?

"In fact the only part of evolution that can't be demonstrated 100% to be true are macro changes, but not because macro changes don't happen, but because the laws of physics, and the limitations of the human lifespan don't allow us too."

Which is precisely the point. It's not certain whether this portion of the theory is right or not. Let's not even bother with God. Isn't it reasonable to wonder whether some OTHER process was at work--one we haven't thought of yet, just the way no one had thought about it the way Darwin did at the time he did?

I just don't believe that we can ever take current science as truth with a capital T, because the history of science indicates that false beliefs are unrecognizable without a paradigm shift. And in order to have a paradigm shift, you can't have closed off inquiry about the current state of knowledge or even its direction.

What about steady-state theory? For 20 years, there were two competing cosmological theories. Had we picked one and made it the "truth" taught and unquestionable, who would have preserved the "Big Bang" theory until the discovery of background radiation?

You can't just say, "That's it. Science says so." Because "science" doesn't speak consistently over time.

I will not speak specifically of what might be called "scientific creationism," but there is nothing about the facts you cite to trouble Biblically-based origin theory.

While I'd agree that nothing he said troubles Biblical creationism simply because it's a baseless and blind belief, I'd really love to hear all aboout this scientific creationism thingy you speak of. Ain't nothing scientific about creationism...ain't nothin' scientific about blind belief.

The Bible quite clearly states that God made man from the dust of the ground--not some unique element not previously present.

So if I scientifically analyze some dust from the ground, it's chemical composition should match that of man, eh?

I simply think it is wrong to teach children what we believe to be "true" as science, without the caveat that we should always keep asking ourselves whether those things actually ARE true--in every case, at every time, in any situation.

...and yet I bet you have no problem with the State teaching children that your God made man from dust from the ground.

Your agenda is very plainly transparent.

No, I don't. I want the right to ASK whether there are problems with it. I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm saying it COULD be wrong.

...and I'm saying that your creationism not only COULD be wrong, but is...as there's not a single shred of evidence to back it up other than people believing it so en masse....a complete ad numeram fallacy.....can I say that without going to hell?

Kerry,

So your advocating we bring into the class room, two alternatives (creationism and ID) that have even less proof to back them up? That's kind of like hoping two wrongs will make a right.

The Bible quite clearly states that God made man from the dust of the ground--not some unique element not previously present.

So if I scientifically analyze some dust from the ground, it's chemical composition should match that of man, eh?

Last time I checked humans weren't bricks. We're 70% water, and dust isn't composed of 70% water no matter how slice it. Once you have to fall back on God waving his magic wand to explain the unexplainable...

The problem as I see it can be viewed on this thread and viewed on that piece of legislation in Louisiana is the problem of not understanding science. Science is amazing, the processes of how science investigates matters of this world is incomparable. Science never under any circumstances, labels any theory or idea as 100% correct.

To think that we need alternate explanations or need to have other ideas expressed in opposition to current highly regarded theories is GREAT! The only problem is that it needs to be done USING science and scientific method. If you want to poke hole in evolutionary theory- GO AHEAD but show us how using the same methods scientists use. Give us data, give us peer reviewed papers give us SCIENCE. Don’t try to poke hole in a theory because it upsets your religious beliefs. So what if this legislation isn’t asking to teach creationism: it doesn’t have to, it’s opening the door to allow teachers to violate the core principles of science.

And give us a theory that fits the evidence better than evolution. Neither IE or creationism do that.

"To think that we need alternate explanations or need to have other ideas expressed in opposition to current highly regarded theories is GREAT! The only problem is that it needs to be done USING science and scientific method. If you want to poke hole in evolutionary theory- GO AHEAD but show us how using the same methods scientists use. Give us data, give us peer reviewed papers give us SCIENCE."

I totally agree.

I'd also say that teaching in high school should be about teaching the basics first - that is normally what the conventional positions of science are. I think Kerry's view that these things should be taught in school will mean missing out on the basics. Some of these things are much better suited to university if someone wants to take them up there.

I used to hang around with quite a few guys doing physics at uni and they said that they'd had stuff torn down as they learned more on a number of occasions not because it was wrong but because it had been a model that was imprecise and as they learned the next level up new models came in for more precise situations.

Brit, I don't know how school works across the big Pond, but in HS here, science classes teach "the basics" of each science and the uni teaches the same sciences in a more comprehensive manner.....I think they're doing exactly what you think they should be. They're more of an introductory class to the broad field.

Thusly, they'll spend a few days on evolution and some comparative anatomy dissections in a biology class but won't get into memorizing and understanding the minutiae of the Krebs cycle or the synaptonemal complex.

Physics will be simple Newtonian physics stuff about mass-velocity-momentum-force with a little electrical thrown in...and not calculating the force applied by the earth's magnetic field on my ass sitting in this chair.

Sarge, I'd argue alongside you on the side of science any day. You're just as passionate, if not more regarding it's defense.

With that being said, I think brit has similar ideas and I also would be a proud ally of his in defense of science.

With that being said, from your last post Kerry, I don't think you're being too unreasonable, and you seem to respect science, I just don't like the looks of this legislation.

damnit, I said "with that being said" twice. It looks stupid.

For most of us these days, high school is about preparing us for college, and one thing I know in college, is that creationism and ID will not fly, because they are bullshit and won't get you a job doing anything remotely related to biology, genetics, or medicine.

Industry knows what "knowledge" is going to make them money, and they will not coddle society one instant. But unfortunately school boards, governments, etc are sometimes forced to because they are elected bodies.

Sarge,

Oh and regards to your snide little comment about breast cancer and fitness. I know quite about about evolution, and in particular the whole point of life, and that is to create more life. I wasn't even talking about diseases that affect people in their older years, because these are disease like you correct point out that naturally occur after man has accomplished the one mission his body was truly designed for, to procreate. Everything after that is gravy.

What I was talking about is the fact that man has for much of the modern era has been combating diseases that would normally have killed off half the population before they ever had a chance to breed and die only of old age. We have no idea what affect allowing those that would have died in ages past from Typhoid, Measels, the Plague, Polio, survive is doing to the hardiness of man's genetic code as a whole. And we have no way of knowing whether the same people who would have died of these diseases are the same ones most prone to cancers, and other illnesses later in life.

All we do know for certain is that we are already monkeying with nature's design, by introducing modern medicine, which helps the weak to survive. What affect that will have, nobody knows, but its a bit late for Kerry to be crying about the ethics of playing God.

Boy that post was a bit rough even for my quick and dirty style...hope you can read it.

Anyone that says:

Did you know that nature has been doing this every day for the last 4 billion years? There's a word for it. EVOLUTION. The animals/people with the bad traits (ie mutations) get weeded out, and those with the good ones live on to procreate.

...with reference to a breast cancer gene...

is biologically dumb as a friggin post!!!

Breast cancer occurs for the huge vast majority AFTER a woman has already passed on her genes.........so natural selection and evolution are irrelevant concerning breast cancer genes.

Maybe you need to study population biology, genetics, and epidemiology before you say stupid things about breast cancer genes and evolution........and, btw, besides the mandatory genetic screening for breast cancer genes that only exists in a liberal fascist world, the only way society maintains the lowest breast cancer gene rate is to maximize genetic variability. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with it you falsely smug summabitch!!!

Sarge,

Get a grip dude. I wasn't talking about breast cancer, I was talking about Kerry's problem with us playing God with genetic screening before birth, and correctly pointing out that we have been playing God long before now, and if she had a moral objection she or her ancestors should have raised it long ago, when we started creating cures for diseases that would under normal circumstances kill a sizable portion of the world's population.

Anybody with a brain knows that the reason the human population has swelled from 1 billion to 6.5 billion in a century is because of us playing GOD!

I also find a bit of hypocrisy on Kerry's part when she has absolutely no problem defying God's will when it comes to saving people from viruses and bacteria God created to kill us (who else created them?), and yet she thinks we are going to hell by preventing a life from coming into the world via genetic screening.

The charts don't line. We have been bringing far more people into the world than God ever intended, so she should be happy, assuming God is happy about us defying his will.

"I also find a bit of hypocrisy on Kerry's part when she has absolutely no problem defying God's will when it comes to saving people from viruses and bacteria God created to kill us (who else created them?)..."

I'm not sure that God "intended" bacteria to kill us. I don't think we are capable of knowing what God intends for His every creation. But we can be pretty sure He didn't intend for US to autonomously kill each OTHER.

This is weird. Most of the time, theists and non-theists agree that murder is wrong--but we disagree on whether embryos (or whatever) are "persons." You seem to be have a difficult time ceding the field on "intentional killing is wrong."

"and yet she thinks we are going to hell by preventing a life from coming into the world via genetic screening..."

No, not "we." And the Hell part comes in when someone deliberately allows life to be created with the express intention of destroying it. That's not a right we have.

"The charts don't line. We have been bringing far more people into the world than God ever intended..."

How in the world can you possibly know how many people "God ever intended" to bring into the world? (There's a strong argument that the originally intended number was "2," but I really doubt that's your threshhold.)

Since you don't know anything about God's "intentions," and that would be the operative concept here, I don't know how you can come to any conclusion on that issue."

Kerry,

News flash, the population of man-kind grew at a snails pace for thousands of years until the beginning of the last century, which means that 5 billion people who would have never lived otherwise are now alive, because we stopped bugs and viruses that God created from killing them. If God didn't intend for them to kill us, what did? He's responsible for his creation, he is full aware of what its capable of. Unless you are admitting that evolution - the uncaring, and unthinking process exists, you can only conclude one thing. God unleashed bacteria and viruses on us, and he did it knowing full well what they would do to us.

You also have to conclude he intended them to sicken and kill us, or he wouldn't have unleashed them. Which means if you are preventing his creation from doing what it was designed to do, you are going against his wishes.

I would truly prefer not to mess with this, but you started it:

"News flash, the population of man-kind grew at a snails pace for thousands of years until the beginning of the last century, which means that 5 billion people who would have never lived otherwise are now alive, because we stopped bugs and viruses that God created from killing them."

Maybe God intended for them to be discovered and stopped. There's no way for us to know, since He didn't address it in His Word.

"If God didn't intend for them to kill us, what did? He's responsible for his creation, he is full aware of what its capable of."

Ah, but Sin has entered the world, and mankind has free will as to what to do with it. Perhaps it is our choices that cause death through bugs and viruses. Different choices = different outcomes. Again, this is all speculation, and I'm not sure on what grounds you speculate about God, being admittedly unwilling to accept Him as an active agent of creation.

"Unless you are admitting that evolution - the uncaring, and unthinking process exists..."

That's an interesting assumption. Why can't God direct evolution? Why can't it have a purpose?

"you can only conclude one thing."

Now, there you are wrong. I can conclude many things.

"God unleashed bacteria and viruses on us, and he did it knowing full well what they would do to us."

I didn't know you were so devout. A Calvinist, are you? Two-see-in-the-spirit Baptist?

"You also have to conclude he intended them to sicken and kill us, or he wouldn't have unleashed them."

I don't have to conclude that. God's creational intentions are not really within my sphere of expertise.

"Which means if you are preventing his creation from doing what it was designed to do, you are going against his wishes."

Not necessarily. If you believe in an omnipotent God, it is impossible to permanently frustrate His will. Perhaps an individual fails to do it, but eventually, His plan will be accomplished.

And since we only know "what it was designed to do" (a concept you reject to begin with) by assumption, and assumptions (particularly about God) are not very reliable, we don't really know if we are "preventing" something He hasn't already addressed in His Word.

I would truly prefer not to mess with this, but you started it:

"News flash, the population of man-kind grew at a snails pace for thousands of years until the beginning of the last century, which means that 5 billion people who would have never lived otherwise are now alive, because we stopped bugs and viruses that God created from killing them."

Maybe God intended for them to be discovered and stopped. There's no way for us to know, since He didn't address it in His Word.

"If God didn't intend for them to kill us, what did? He's responsible for his creation, he is full aware of what its capable of."

Ah, but Sin has entered the world, and mankind has free will as to what to do with it. Perhaps it is our choices that cause death through bugs and viruses. Different choices = different outcomes. Again, this is all speculation, and I'm not sure on what grounds you speculate about God, being admittedly unwilling to accept Him as an active agent of creation.

Kerry,

What a load of "I don't have a clue so I will make something up". God made viruses so we would discover cures for them? What is he a damn sadist now?

And as far as sin being the reason. I am sure that will go over well with all the babies and young children that have been killed by all manner of diseases, and yet didn't have a sin to their name.

You want to know what I like about science? At least they have the honesty to say "we don't know", and "we need to spend more time doing research" to find a plausible explanation. Where as religious people generally just make up lame ass answers, and excuses for God. Like the always used, but totally useless "God works in mysterious ways".

Fortunately science knows exactly what bacteria, and viruses are, and how new ones keep popping up. Instead of making up BS answers about sin, and godly tests, we look at viruses for what they are, unthinking, and uncaring organism that are doing what every other organism on Earth has been designed to do....procreate. It just happens that they have a nasty habit of injuring or killing other organism to get the job done. If these were truly a test from God, or a product of ours sins, I seriously doubt God would allow us to come up with a drug to circumvent his punishment. Especially since there are viruses all over the freaking planet attacking all manner of creatures...creatures that you could hardly argue are sinning up such a storm as to deserve continual punishment from God. Of course there are homosexual monkeys. So maybe we missed a few homosexual cows frolicking in the brush in Wales, and God decided to inflict them with mad cow.

Shit...forgot that ahmanrah has no concept of continuity of thought....there is only his thought....and then his thought.....and anything he's commenting to be damned.

That's called having a grip.

Very clearly, the "this" you were referring to nature "doing every day for 4 billion years" that you ignorantly called "evolution" was "screening for breast cancer genes."

Just when you thought you had something to say.....

"And as far as sin being the reason. I am sure that will go over well with all the babies and young children that have been killed by all manner of diseases, and yet didn't have a sin to their name."

Again, you fail to understand the consequences of sin and death. Sin entered the world, and now it has effects. That means "sin" as a failure of perfection--mutation, disease, accident, problem, imperfections of all sort. It has nothing to do with an individual act of sin on the part of anyone.

And I really don't know why you want to go this direction, since you don't believe in God as an active cause to begin with. You are trying to fight in my arena, and you didn't bring a weapon--or an outfit.

In this fight, you're rhetorically naked. Go home and stick to what you know.

Kerry,

You brought to fight to the science classroom, where theology doesn't belong. I am merely pointing out that science provides rational explanations for the existence of viruses and bacteria, while you have to come up with cheese explanations.

Sarge,

At this point I have no clue what you are trying to say, other than you have a fixation with breast cancer.