Yay for Kansas!

**momoffuzzyfaces** · 11-10-2005, 12:40 PM

First let me say, I respect and love all of you, no matter what your opinion on this or any other subject.

I can see where some do not want to be "subjected to religious teachings" (though I will disagree that intelligent design is religious teacing)
HOWEVER: we should not be "subjected to the teaching of evolution" either. Some of us think it's just a bunch of hoo haa. Shouldn't we have the same rights as you? not to be subjected to something WE don't agree with or want to be subjected too?

**smokey the elder** · 11-10-2005, 12:45 PM

Hmm..maybe we shouldn't be "subjected to" teaching of mathematics, chemistry, physics...

A lot of those concepts are abstract, too.

**JenBKR** · 11-10-2005, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by smokey the elder

Hmm..maybe we shouldn't be "subjected to" teaching of mathematics, chemistry, physics...

A lot of those concepts are abstract, too.

But we are talking about where we came from - the biggest question in most of our minds. I think that's a little different...

**momoffuzzyfaces** · 11-10-2005, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by smokey the elder

Hmm..maybe we shouldn't be "subjected to" teaching of mathematics, chemistry, physics...

A lot of those concepts are abstract, too.

Hey, that would be fine with me! I was subjected to advanced math!!!!! It was horrible!!! I still have nightmares about it!!!!

**Edwina's Secretary** · 11-10-2005, 01:05 PM

The teaching of intelligent design does not violate the first amendment for one very simple reason; it doesn't promote one particular religion, which is what the first amendment defends against.

Sorry LH...you are wrong here. It promotes A RELIGION specifically that is the concept of a creator. It does not belong in a public school any more than astrology does. It does not meet the definition of a science.

My issue hre is not the concept but whether it is appropriate for the government to be endorsing a religious tenet. Leave that to Iran.

So we will agree to disagree.

**catland** · 11-10-2005, 01:27 PM

Yes - lets ban the teaching of evolution! And while we're at it, lets get rid of some of those other pesky so-called "science" courses like chemistry and physics. Molecules? Atoms? Quarks? If I can't see them with my own eyes, then I'm not going to believe them. I for one never need the Heisenberg principle or the second law of Thermodynamics in my daily life.

However, a theology course that did compare and contrast and search for common themes on the various world creation myths would be a most facinating class. There does seem to be an overwheming desire for us to understand where we come from.

**momoffuzzyfaces** · 11-10-2005, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by catland

Yes - lets ban the teaching of evolution! And while we're at it, lets get rid of some of those other pesky so-called "science" courses like chemistry and physics. Molecules? Atoms? Quarks? If I can't see them with my own eyes, then I'm not going to believe them. I for one never need the Heisenberg principle or the second law of Thermodynamics in my daily life.

However, a theology course that did compare and contrast and search for common themes on the various world creation myths would be a most facinating class. There does seem to be an overwheming desire for us to understand where we come from.

Evolution is only a theory, not an exact science so shouldn't be taucht as such. I never ever took a chemestry class (not even in college) and don't feel a bit deprived !!!

Sure we need to know where we came from. How else will we know where we are going? or when we get there?

**JenBKR** · 11-10-2005, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by catland

Molecules? Atoms? Quarks? If I can't see them with my own eyes, then I'm not going to believe them.

Hmm, that's kinda what I say to people who don't believe in God...

**lbaker** · 11-10-2005, 02:42 PM

I posted something a few weeks ago about the theory of "Intelligent Falling" that disputed the "theory" of gravity. "Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down." I believe this too was being debated in Kansas.

**Barbara** · 11-10-2005, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by smokey the elder

Hmm..maybe we shouldn't be "subjected to" teaching of mathematics, chemistry, physics...

A lot of those concepts are abstract, too.

I'm afraid you will easily win with that proposal

I always hate when people can easily say "Oh I always HATED math".

**JenBKR** · 11-10-2005, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by momoffuzzyfaces

First let me say, I respect and love all of you, no matter what your opinion on this or any other subject.

I can see where some do not want to be "subjected to religious teachings" (though I will disagree that intelligent design is religious teacing)
HOWEVER: we should not be "subjected to the teaching of evolution" either. Some of us think it's just a bunch of hoo haa. Shouldn't we have the same rights as you? not to be subjected to something WE don't agree with or want to be subjected too?

I totally agree with all of this. I really don't want to make any enemies here

I think we can agree to disagree on this one.