Bobby Jindal, possible front runner of the GOP for the next presidential election, supports teaching Intelligent Design in public schools. Who was the last prominent GOP member that supported this idea? Oh yeah, Sarah Palin.
For those of you who don't know, Intelligent Design is just a semantic trick that actually translates to Creationism, a fundamentalist movement that believes in teaching inane things like the Earth is 6000 years old and that the dinosaurs never existed.
"Bobby Jindal, possible front runner for the next president, supports teaching Intelligent Design in public schools. Who was the last prominent GOP member that supported this idea? Oh yeah, Sarah Palin. For those of you who don't know, Intelligent Design is just a semantic trick that actually translates to Creationism, a fundamentalist movement that believes in teaching inane things like the Earth is 6000 years old and that the dinosaurs never existed. No wonder that guy on MSNBC said "Oh god..""
By front funner for President I assume you mean for the GOP nomination, because, you know, there's that Barack Obama guy already in the White House who's only in his first term and people seem to like him so far.
"By front funner for President I assume you mean for the GOP nomination, because, you know, there's that Barack Obama guy already in the White House who's only in his first term and people seem to like him so far."
Yeah that's what I meant, sorry for not clarifying.
"By front funner for President I assume you mean for the GOP nomination, because, you know, there's that Barack Obama guy already in the White House who's only in his first term and people seem to like him so far."
Yeah that's what I meant, sorry for not clarifying. "
I knew what you mean. I was just joshing you. Actually, though, it seems Mitt Romney is still the front runner according to a few polls released the past couple of weeks,
"Bobby Jindal, possible front runner of the GOP for the next presidential election, supports teaching Intelligent Design in public schools. Who was the last prominent GOP member that supported this idea? Oh yeah, Sarah Palin. For those of you who don't know, Intelligent Design is just a semantic trick that actually translates to Creationism, a fundamentalist movement that believes in teaching inane things like the Earth is 6000 years old and that the dinosaurs never existed. No wonder that guy on MSNBC said "Oh god..""
About that, it turns out it was some random producer. I thought it was Olbermann, others thought Matthews, but it was one of the producers.
But didn't I say this not that long ago? No matter, the only issue I take with Jindal is the bowing down to Rush "Oxycotin" Limbaugh and saying sorry. That's the only issue I take with him.
Please, how can father of Jesus Christ who lives in skies, create this universe? There is a god, but not the one in the bible. Fuck who actually supports this idea.
Sarah Palin supports the teaching of "Intelligent Design," Bobby Jindal supports the teaching of "Intelligent Design," etc. I think we are beginning to see a trend, here, folks. And a comically ironic one, at that.
"Sarah Palin supports the teaching of "Intelligent Design," Bobby Jindal supports the teaching of "Intelligent Design," etc. I think we are beginning to see a trend, here, folks. And a comically ironic one, at that."
"Sarah Palin supports the teaching of "Intelligent Design," Bobby Jindal supports the teaching of "Intelligent Design," etc. I think we are beginning to see a trend, here, folks. And a comically ironic one, at that."
Where's the "comic irony"?"
"Intelligent Design." The irony stems from the fact that Palin and Jindal are idiots, supporting a concept which boasts the term "intelligent" in its title. Ergo, comic irony.
And that's why science is not a democracy. Unfortunately, the curriculum for public schools is capable of being dictated by government."
Well since public education is funded by the government, they do have a case(whether it's a right or a wrong one)"
I'd say separation of church and state should have a higher priority than where the funding comes from. Also, the government should be secular like everything else.
Anyway, I was looking through the wiki database to see if I could come across a Supreme Court ruling that declared this legislation unconstitutional. Long story short: It took too long, I gave up. BUT, I stumbled across this little gem:
Sorry, but the juxtaposition of each of these rulings is...well, I think it's funny! =P
In a separate case ruling whether Intelligent Design was equivalent to Creationism or not (which is purely fundamental Christianity, thus religious), it was ruled that ID is indeed equivalent to Creationism. One of the defining proofs was a book regarding ID published by the governing body that had a document history where all instances of "Creationism" were simply replaced by "Intelligent Design". There was even one phrase in the final copy of the book that said something like "CreaIntelligent Designtionism" or something, quite a fatal typo. Thus ID is a religious movement and teaching it in public schools is indeed unconstitutional, if not also unbelievably stupid seeing how it's completely unsubstantiated and maliciously disingenuous.
"In a separate case ruling whether Intelligent Design was equivalent to Creationism or not (which is purely fundamental Christianity, thus religious), it was ruled that ID is indeed equivalent to Creationism. One of the defining proofs was a book regarding ID published by the governing body that had a document history where all instances of "Creationism" were simply replaced by "Intelligent Design". There was even one phrase in the final copy of the book that said something like "CreaIntelligent Designtionism" or something, quite a fatal typo. Thus ID is a religious movement and teaching it in public schools is indeed unconstitutional, if not also unbelievably stupid seeing how it's completely unsubstantiated and maliciously disingenuous. "
And that's why science is not a democracy. Unfortunately, the curriculum for public schools is capable of being dictated by government."
Well since public education is funded by the government, they do have a case(whether it's a right or a wrong one)"
I'd say separation of church and state should have a higher priority than where the funding comes from. Also, the government should be secular like everything else. "
I'm not disagreeing with you. I was simply talking about the case of the government(federalstate/local/etc.) deciding what goes into the curriculum of the public schoosl, whether it retains to math, english, history, etc. I firmly believe with you that any religious teachings should not be in public schools.
"In a separate case ruling whether Intelligent Design was equivalent to Creationism or not (which is purely fundamental Christianity, thus religious), it was ruled that ID is indeed equivalent to Creationism. One of the defining proofs was a book regarding ID published by the governing body that had a document history where all instances of "Creationism" were simply replaced by "Intelligent Design". There was even one phrase in the final copy of the book that said something like "CreaIntelligent Designtionism" or something, quite a fatal typo. Thus ID is a religious movement and teaching it in public schools is indeed unconstitutional, if not also unbelievably stupid seeing how it's completely unsubstantiated and maliciously disingenuous. "
And that's why science is not a democracy. Unfortunately, the curriculum for public schools is capable of being dictated by government."
Well since public education is funded by the government, they do have a case(whether it's a right or a wrong one)"
Of course, but that doesn't make it any less unfortunate.
BiggerBomb said:
"Anyway, I was looking through the wiki database to see if I could come across a Supreme Court ruling that declared this legislation unconstitutional. Long story short: It took too long, I gave up."
"Sarah Palin supports the teaching of "Intelligent Design," Bobby Jindal supports the teaching of "Intelligent Design," etc. I think we are beginning to see a trend, here, folks. And a comically ironic one, at that."
Where's the "comic irony"?"
"Intelligent Design." The irony stems from the fact that Palin and Jindal are idiots, supporting a concept which boasts the term "intelligent" in its title. Ergo, comic irony."
The irony is then personal. If you supported intelligent design, I would understand and fully agree with your statement.
"Anyway, I was looking through the wiki database to see if I could come across a Supreme Court ruling that declared this legislation unconstitutional. Long story short: It took too long, I gave up."
I spent about half an hour digging through wikipedia looking for the Supreme Court ruling that declared this unconstitutional. Unfortunately for my curiousity, I am lazy. So I stopped.
"Sarah Palin supports the teaching of "Intelligent Design," Bobby Jindal supports the teaching of "Intelligent Design," etc. I think we are beginning to see a trend, here, folks. And a comically ironic one, at that."
Where's the "comic irony"?"
"Intelligent Design." The irony stems from the fact that Palin and Jindal are idiots, supporting a concept which boasts the term "intelligent" in its title. Ergo, comic irony."
The irony is then personal. If you supported intelligent design, I would understand and fully agree with your statement."
No, the irony is objective. Intelligent Design is unsubstantiated and supported only by the unintelligent and/or those who are not acquainted with reality.
"Anyway, I was looking through the wiki database to see if I could come across a Supreme Court ruling that declared this legislation unconstitutional. Long story short: It took too long, I gave up."
...?I spent about half an hour digging through wikipedia looking for the Supreme Court ruling that declared this unconstitutional. Unfortunately for my curiousity, I am lazy. So I stopped.Your point?"
My point was that deciding whether a tomato is a fruit or vegetable is not up to the courts to decide. Science should not be legislated, which I would say is also the topic of this thread. An additional point was that I found the picture funny in a similar way that I found those suits funny.
"Anyway, I was looking through the wiki database to see if I could come across a Supreme Court ruling that declared this legislation unconstitutional. Long story short: It took too long, I gave up."
...?I spent about half an hour digging through wikipedia looking for the Supreme Court ruling that declared this unconstitutional. Unfortunately for my curiousity, I am lazy. So I stopped.Your point?"
My point was that deciding whether a tomato is a fruit or vegetable is not up to the courts to decide. Science should not be legislated, which I would say is also the topic of this thread. An additional point was that I found the picture funny in a similar way that I found those suits funny."
*Facepalm*
Sorry, I completely skipped over the part in your post where you said "that picture." I thought you were commenting on the words.
"They really shouldn't teach any origin of life classes in schools, the evidence for evolution is pretty sketchy, and you can't prove a god exists, so dude, why bother. Teach shit we know."
Actually evolution is the strongest theory in science right now, it has never failed any tests, and would ensure our students don't fail any future tests.
Sadly indeed. That Jindal guy is getting more unfavorable each passing day.
BiggerBomb said:
"Anyway, I was looking through the wiki database to see if I could come across a Supreme Court ruling that declared this legislation unconstitutional. Long story short: It took too long, I gave up. BUT, I stumbled across this little gem:
Sorry, but the juxtaposition of each of these rulings is...well, I think it's funny! =P"
I did laugh at that. Haha. I can't believe that first one. Nice juxtaposition.
I think if they're going to teach evolution they should teach Intelligent Design too, and let the kids make up their minds. Otherwise, they shouldn't teach either one. For every "debatable" subject they teach in school, the opposite side should be shown as well.
"I think if they're going to teach evolution they should teach Intelligent Design too, and let the kids make up their minds. Otherwise, they shouldn't teach either one. For every "debatable" subject they teach in school, the opposite side should be shown as well."
Why should the anti-science be taught in science classes?
That's extremely insulting... I and a lot of others believe in intelligent design. You obviously don't, but I don't come on a Video Game site, and start saying that Atheism is BS, and that it's garbage, and that those people are retards, so fuck off, and learn to respect others opinions. You can make an argument, but don't insult other people, by saying that everything they believe in is garbage....
"I think if they're going to teach evolution they should teach Intelligent Design too, and let the kids make up their minds. Otherwise, they shouldn't teach either one. For every "debatable" subject they teach in school, the opposite side should be shown as well."
I'm perfectly happy with it being taught in a Religious Studies class, but it doesn't belong in science, it can not be tested, thus cannot be considered a scientific theory.
"I think if they're going to teach evolution they should teach Intelligent Design too, and let the kids make up their minds. Otherwise, they shouldn't teach either one. For every "debatable" subject they teach in school, the opposite side should be shown as well."
That's extremely insulting... I and a lot of others believe in intelligent design. You obviously don't, but I don't come on a Video Game site, and start saying that Atheism is BS, and that it's garbage, and that those people are retards, so fuck off, and learn to respect others opinions.You can make an argument, but don't insult other people, by saying that everything they believe in is garbage...."
Science = backed up by...uh, what's that called? Oh yeah, proof. Religion = backed up by...nothing.
Now, I believe Kamasama's exhibit will suffice:
Kamasama said:
"BiG_Weasel said:
"I think if they're going to teach evolution they should teach Intelligent Design too, and let the kids make up their minds. Otherwise, they shouldn't teach either one. For every "debatable" subject they teach in school, the opposite side should be shown as well."
Dumbass. God, why would you support this dumbass? Did you see his speech? even republicans thought it was weak. Yeah, it is obvious, his being Young and super ethnic is what is getting him his push, to show others that the republicans are not the party of the rich white fat man, I mean look at Rush Limbaugh, oh wait.....
Yeah, it is obvious, his being Young and super ethnic is what is getting him his push
lol, that sounds awfully familiar. "
Barack Obama is liked because he's an incredibly intelligent individual, a brilliant politician, and more importantly, a moral man. Bobby Jindal is both an idiotic individual and an incompetent politician. He was chosen by his collegues because of his youth and ethnic background, insofar as being a member of a cultural minority in America. This is a perfect example of the Neo-Con's failure, yet again, to understand the will of the people.
That's extremely insulting... I and a lot of others believe in intelligent design. You obviously don't, but I don't come on a Video Game site, and start saying that Atheism is BS, and that it's garbage, and that those people are retards, so fuck off, and learn to respect others opinions.You can make an argument, but don't insult other people, by saying that everything they believe in is garbage...."
Opinions are respected if they are substantiated or logical. Intelligent Design is legally equivalent to Creationism, and thus neither. Radical fundamentalism that can be laughed at by 4 year olds deserves no respect, and science has absolutely nothing to do with belief. You can not believe in the planet Mars, that doesn't mean it's not there. ID/Creationism can never substantiate its claims, and most of its points sound farcical by most intelligent people's standards.
Kamasama said:
"BiG_Weasel said:
"I think if they're going to teach evolution they should teach Intelligent Design too, and let the kids make up their minds. Otherwise, they shouldn't teach either one. For every "debatable" subject they teach in school, the opposite side should be shown as well."
Log in to comment