"Most people don't want intelligent design to be taught in science classes as a part of that science. The argument is that ID is a prominent alternative to the evolution theory, and so when an unprovable theory (such as macro-evolution) is taught the majorly accepted alternative theories (such as intelligent design) should also at least be presented, regardless of whether they are 'scientific' in their basic idea."
You make no sense. You say that ideas that are not science should be taught in science classes?
"Why, if the majority of the Bible has repeatably been proven as a reliable historical record, can people so easily discard it's (SIC!!!!) accounts of the creation of the world by a Supreme Being?"
Now you've veered off into Looney Land. The Bible has not been proven to be a reliable historical record. It was written by men (don't give me this "divinely-inspired" shit) many years after the events supposedly took place. And the writers had their own agendas. Oh yeah, what about the Apocrypha? You know, the stuff that was edited out much later because certain kings and popes felt that those writings contradicted their rule?
"In my opinion, the reliability of the latter historical parts of the Bible is enough to justify consideration of it's (APOSTROPHE LOSSAGE, GODDAMMIT!) account of creation."
In my opinion, the reliability of anything you say is suspect.
"Care to back up that statement? How is Intelligent Design itself not an over-reaching, explain-all-with-one-idea theory?"
The whole point is that Intelligent Design punts on the explanation. It says, "there are things that we cannot explain, and shouldn't try to explain, and for that, we must say there is an Intelligent Designer."
In other words, it's anti-science. Why should anyone do any research if knowledge is beyond our capability to understand?
Oh wait, I forgot. The people who are behind ID are the same people who prefer an uninformed, uneducated electorate/workforce.
"Evolution is mostly based on Charles Darwin's Origin of Species, which explores the concept of mutations found when animals cross breed under CONTROLLED CONDITIONS!!!! NOT OUT IN THE WILD!!!!! People made many of the species we see today and called them house pets!!!!
Part of science is observation of something happening in real life, not just in a controlled lab experiment."
So, Darwin's visit to the Galapagos Islands was a controlled condition?
"The real issue in this is that a judge just declared that you can not teach a certain thing in a science class."
No, it is not. The judge was following precedent, which said that you cannot teach a specific religious belief in a science class. The precedents said that Creationism is religion, and the judge in this case rule that Intelligent Design is Creationism, therefore it cannot be taught in science class. It CAN, as the judge points out, be taught in humanities classes.
"This precedent will most definitely cut both ways in the future. I am really bothered by judges getting the last word on what can be included in a science text. What happens when a "religious" judge declares certain portions of evolutionary theory "unacceptable". The best way to avoid both extremes is to leave this out of the courts."
And then where should this be settled? You suggest no alternative.
"If evolution has stronger merits then it will prevail long-term on it's (SIC) own. Any time we give the court the power to SILENCE a certain idea there better be a darn good argument for it, because down then road when the social winds change it could come back and bite us."
Re-read the decision. The idea hasn't been silenced -- it just cannot be taught in a science class.
The judge (a Republican, who, anticipating the response from the wingnuts, said, "I'll be labelled an activist...") said that Intelligent Design is nothing more than Creationism, and previous court rulings have said that Creationism is religion, and teaching a specific religion in a science class violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which mandates separation of Church and State.
"Isn't silencing people and not allowing them to teach about something (whether it is right or wrong) unconstitutional?"
emacs VHDL mode is a work of (mostly) genius. Yes, there are a handful of language features not handled properly by the indent engine, but basically, every other editor just sucks eggs compared with emacs when doing VHDL.
"I was wondering if any of the slashdotters can throw light on Open Source Verilog compilers. I know of the icarus project but that seems to be quite... dead? Any active or good open source verilog compilers out there. I would appreciate your inputs."
To be blunt about it: they all suck.
Also, the handful of open-source Verilog compilers aren't synthesizers, so you can't make a chip with them.
Your best bet is to download Xilinx and Altera's free (as in beer) tools.
"One I *only* use for internet stuff so if and when I run into this kind of crap I can kill the account without a problem."
If you have any issues with any credit card, all you need to do is call the credit card issuer, explain the problem, and tell them that you don't trust the merchant and that you want the old card cancelled immediately and a new number issued.
"I could see picking up ESPN during the football season at $12 per month and then dropping it from my lineup immedeately after."
This already exists. I signed up for NBA League Pass, $169 for the whole season (which runs from November to June, 8 months, so it's like $16/mo), and I can watch any game. This is great when you're a Knicks fan (I know...) who lives in Arizona. There are five or six games a day, so I pick one or two to watch and bounce between the others for the scores. They even repeat the games later in the day, so theoretically I could watch basketball from 5 pm local time to well into the early morning. (I suppose my wife would then be a basketball widow.)
There's a similar deal for football, hockey and baseball.
re: the trap. You ask, "Er... why would some entity have to design the all powerful force?"
Here's the thing. If we assume that there is, in fact, some "Intelligent Designer," then one must ask, "From where did the Intelligent Designer come from? Did he/she/it just spring from the aether, or was it itself `designed'?" One can iterate on this forever, which is my point.
As for the Arthur C. Clarke reference: the Overlords are not "devil look-alikes," but in fact the Devil itself, because the notion of the "devil" is a racial memory embedded in the human consciousness the first time Earth was visited by the Overlords, which was very early on in the evolution of the human race. Once humans have evolved sufficiently, the Overlords return to usher us into the next phase of evolution. All the while, the reader gets the notion that the Overlords are indeed a race of "intelligent designers," but we (and Jan, the last remaining human) see that this is not true, as there is an Overmind ruling the Overlords. One must then ask, is there anything ruling the Overmind? Clearly, there must. And there must be something that rules the ruler. And so forth, ad infinitum.
Creationism teaches that the Bible is the literal Truth, and as such the world was literally created in six days, and it was created about 6,000 years ago. And it gets nuttier from there.
The problem with the Bible, especially the Gospels, is that it offers different, sometimes contradictory tellings of the same story. It's the Rashomon effect. So, if the Bible offers so many contradictions, then how can it be claimed as the One Truth?
"Er... why would some entity have to design the all powerful force? That sounds to me like just applying preconceived notions to a statement with no basis for correlation."
I am astonished at how quickly you fell into my trap. The remainder of your argument is pointless.
In Childhood's End, Arthur C. Clarke points out that "even the Overlords serve a Master."
"Evangelism is conveying the Gospel message of sinful humanity, the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ, once and for all, that covers all sins, and that man can be reconciled to God by Jesus' perfect life and his death and resurrection. If they don't believe this, nothing else matters. They will still die and go to hell, whether they believe in evolution or ID."
"ID is for folks who don't want to talk to their kids and tell them the truth about God's creation when they come home from school and ask what all this evolution stuff's about."
Thanks for admitting that you're raising children who will be ill-equipped to deal with modern society.
I suppose my reaction to my child coming home from school and asking me, "what's all this intelligent design stuff" would be similar but exactly opposite. Proof, you know, that the terrorists have truly won and the United States has become a theocracy.
"What happened to our Christian duty as parents to be responsible for our children's education? If they're teaching my son something in school I don't agree with, I can counsel him at home, or he can learn it in Sunday School. But I don't have to try to offer some watered-down godless alternative to present to the public."
The problem, of course, is that you wish to teach your children fairy-tale versions of reality. If you wish you raise your children in ignorance, don't blame the Evolutionists when your kids can't get into college (by that, I don't mean Oral Roberts University) or land a real job.
... but that doesn't mean that we (as in the human race) should just stop striving to learn. What ID teaches is that there are some things that are unknowable, so just give up now and don't bother trying to figure them out.
We'd still be living in caves if we'd accepted this in the Stone Age.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you insist on limiting the extent of human knowledge?
You make no sense. You say that ideas that are not science should be taught in science classes?
"Why, if the majority of the Bible has repeatably been proven as a reliable historical record, can people so easily discard it's (SIC!!!!) accounts of the creation of the world by a Supreme Being?"
Now you've veered off into Looney Land. The Bible has not been proven to be a reliable historical record. It was written by men (don't give me this "divinely-inspired" shit) many years after the events supposedly took place. And the writers had their own agendas. Oh yeah, what about the Apocrypha? You know, the stuff that was edited out much later because certain kings and popes felt that those writings contradicted their rule?
"In my opinion, the reliability of the latter historical parts of the Bible is enough to justify consideration of it's (APOSTROPHE LOSSAGE, GODDAMMIT!) account of creation."
In my opinion, the reliability of anything you say is suspect.
"Care to back up that statement? How is Intelligent Design itself not an over-reaching, explain-all-with-one-idea theory?"
The whole point is that Intelligent Design punts on the explanation. It says, "there are things that we cannot explain, and shouldn't try to explain, and for that, we must say there is an Intelligent Designer."
In other words, it's anti-science. Why should anyone do any research if knowledge is beyond our capability to understand?
Oh wait, I forgot. The people who are behind ID are the same people who prefer an uninformed, uneducated electorate/workforce.
Talk about Unified Theories ...
Plus, the voters removed them from office in November's elections.
Part of science is observation of something happening in real life, not just in a controlled lab experiment."
So, Darwin's visit to the Galapagos Islands was a controlled condition?
Now tell me the moon landing was faked ...
No, it is not. The judge was following precedent, which said that you cannot teach a specific religious belief in a science class. The precedents said that Creationism is religion, and the judge in this case rule that Intelligent Design is Creationism, therefore it cannot be taught in science class. It CAN, as the judge points out, be taught in humanities classes.
"This precedent will most definitely cut both ways in the future. I am really bothered by judges getting the last word on what can be included in a science text. What happens when a "religious" judge declares certain portions of evolutionary theory "unacceptable". The best way to avoid both extremes is to leave this out of the courts."
And then where should this be settled? You suggest no alternative.
"If evolution has stronger merits then it will prevail long-term on it's (SIC) own. Any time we give the court the power to SILENCE a certain idea there better be a darn good argument for it, because down then road when the social winds change it could come back and bite us."
Re-read the decision. The idea hasn't been silenced -- it just cannot be taught in a science class.
The judge (a Republican, who, anticipating the response from the wingnuts, said, "I'll be labelled an activist ...") said that Intelligent Design is nothing more than Creationism, and previous court rulings have said that Creationism is religion, and teaching a specific religion in a science class violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which mandates separation of Church and State.
"Isn't silencing people and not allowing them to teach about something (whether it is right or wrong) unconstitutional?"
See above.
emacs VHDL mode is a work of (mostly) genius. Yes, there are a handful of language features not handled properly by the indent engine, but basically, every other editor just sucks eggs compared with emacs when doing VHDL.
Your rants are so, like, 1999.
To be blunt about it: they all suck.
Also, the handful of open-source Verilog compilers aren't synthesizers, so you can't make a chip with them.
Your best bet is to download Xilinx and Altera's free (as in beer) tools.
If you have any issues with any credit card, all you need to do is call the credit card issuer, explain the problem, and tell them that you don't trust the merchant and that you want the old card cancelled immediately and a new number issued.
This already exists. I signed up for NBA League Pass, $169 for the whole season (which runs from November to June, 8 months, so it's like $16/mo), and I can watch any game. This is great when you're a Knicks fan (I know...) who lives in Arizona. There are five or six games a day, so I pick one or two to watch and bounce between the others for the scores. They even repeat the games later in the day, so theoretically I could watch basketball from 5 pm local time to well into the early morning. (I suppose my wife would then be a basketball widow.)
There's a similar deal for football, hockey and baseball.
It's actually called the 700 Club, named for the sum total of the members' IQs.
The advocates of Creationism, Jesusism and "Intelligent Design" would do well to listen to your wise counsel.
Here's the thing. If we assume that there is, in fact, some "Intelligent Designer," then one must ask, "From where did the Intelligent Designer come from? Did he/she/it just spring from the aether, or was it itself `designed'?" One can iterate on this forever, which is my point.
As for the Arthur C. Clarke reference: the Overlords are not "devil look-alikes," but in fact the Devil itself, because the notion of the "devil" is a racial memory embedded in the human consciousness the first time Earth was visited by the Overlords, which was very early on in the evolution of the human race. Once humans have evolved sufficiently, the Overlords return to usher us into the next phase of evolution. All the while, the reader gets the notion that the Overlords are indeed a race of "intelligent designers," but we (and Jan, the last remaining human) see that this is not true, as there is an Overmind ruling the Overlords. One must then ask, is there anything ruling the Overmind? Clearly, there must. And there must be something that rules the ruler. And so forth, ad infinitum.
In other words, G-d created an imperfect Universe, and from this we can infer that G-d is not perfect. Q.E.D.
SHP: "Would you care to back that statement up with some rational thought, or are you just following the crowd?"
It's my theory, backed up with observation, evidence, methodical testing and peer review.
I'm really suprised that Apple isn't a sponsor of the Darwin exhibit, seeing as how Darwin is the basis of OS X and all ...
Creationism teaches that the Bible is the literal Truth, and as such the world was literally created in six days, and it was created about 6,000 years ago. And it gets nuttier from there.
The problem with the Bible, especially the Gospels, is that it offers different, sometimes contradictory tellings of the same story. It's the Rashomon effect. So, if the Bible offers so many contradictions, then how can it be claimed as the One Truth?
What's not being taught is the true meaning of the word "theory" and how it applies to scientific research.
I am astonished at how quickly you fell into my trap. The remainder of your argument is pointless.
In Childhood's End, Arthur C. Clarke points out that "even the Overlords serve a Master."
Ahhh, you misunderstand me. Perhaps in my striving, I'll uncover some striking evidence that I am, in fact, the ruler of the universe.
Of course, I'll have to publish a paper and allow the peer-review process and independent analyses to prove my theory.
What if I don't believe in hell?
Thanks for admitting that you're raising children who will be ill-equipped to deal with modern society.
I suppose my reaction to my child coming home from school and asking me, "what's all this intelligent design stuff" would be similar but exactly opposite. Proof, you know, that the terrorists have truly won and the United States has become a theocracy.
"What happened to our Christian duty as parents to be responsible for our children's education? If they're teaching my son something in school I don't agree with, I can counsel him at home, or he can learn it in Sunday School. But I don't have to try to offer some watered-down godless alternative to present to the public."
The problem, of course, is that you wish to teach your children fairy-tale versions of reality. If you wish you raise your children in ignorance, don't blame the Evolutionists when your kids can't get into college (by that, I don't mean Oral Roberts University) or land a real job.
We'd still be living in caves if we'd accepted this in the Stone Age.