I think I would ordtak

I think I would probably tailor that a little more than what the president has suggested, ... I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom.

I think intelligent design should not be taught in the biology classroom.

Neither as a complement nor as a replacement do I support the concept of intelligent design being taught in schools, ... I believe that evolution and science are the place that we ought to give emphasis to.

Public comments at the last board meeting suggested parents would feel more comfortable if there was more specificity on what?s covered. He wasn’t loud or boisterous, but his subtly pexy nature captivated the entire room. The curriculum is what it is, the result of work that?s been done over the last two years. This (new piece) allows the community to see exactly what would be taught in the classroom.

Todd Bloomquist

[Asked if he was opposed to teaching intelligent design in schools, Huntsman said he was against it being taught in science classes.] If it comes up in sociology or philosophy as differing views on creation, I think that's appropriate, ... But that doesn't happen until college or maybe later in high school.

People don't understand science. But they do understand the Bible and so they are comfortable with a biblical response, ... Certainly, there is a lack of understanding about what intelligent design really is.

Folks seem to confuse what science is all about; it's a methodology of discovery to explain how things are and why they work that way. Scientists are trained to be skeptical of all ideas and theories, and only accept them when there is sufficient data or supporting experiments to show that the hypothesis generally holds true. Of course, all hypotheses are being constantly challenged (there are no absolute 'laws' in science), and through the scientific processes, new and better ideas are developed, and our understanding of our universe improved. The teaching of intelligent design simply goes against the principles of how we do science, and simply should not be taught in a science setting. ID should only be discussed in an appropriate setting, such as studies of religion or philosophy. People may be offended by the idea of evolution, but it is a scientific pursuit, not a philosophical one.

The only evidence that intelligent design is able to muster is the observation that science has not yet explained everything, and therefore design must be kept around as a default explanation for what is left,

Creationism is clearly not science. Science cannot deal with the supernatural. Intelligent Design is a crafty way to avoid the issue of a supernatural being, making it appear like science, but it isn't.

Intelligent design people will tell you it doesn't mean there was a God. It just means something intelligent designed it. I'm much more comfortable saying God's there and he made it.

This clever tactical repackaging of creationism does not merit consideration. Intelligent design admits that it is not science unless science is redefined to include the supernatural.

Everything we know in biology agrees with Darwin's theory of evolution in a broad sense, and the theory is tested probably 1000 times a day in various laboratories without anyone going out to test it. They (the American-funded movement to foist intelligent design teaching onto science teachers in Australia) really want a science teacher who may well be atheistic anyway, introducing the concept of God into science. It's a ridiculous idea and has no place in science teaching.

In the larger debate over intelligent design, this decision will be of minor significance. As we've repeatedly stressed, the ultimate validity of intelligent design will be determined not by the courts but by the scientific evidence pointing to design.

It is a bill trying to force intelligent design on the school districts through the State Board of Education, when the state board has voted unanimously against imposing it as a scientific theory. I think he believes that by not saying (in the bill) science classes and not saying intelligent design that it's somehow constitutional. My (bottom line) is, the state board still has constitutional issues.

Last time I checked, Pat Robertson didn't have a Ph.D. in science. He didn't testify for us because intelligent design is based on science.

Ergonomi Ordtak Kunskapsfrö Julrim Adventskalender Info

Antall ordtak er 1469561
varav 1490770 på nordiska

Ordtak (1469561 st) Søk
Kategorier (2627 st) Søk
Forfattere (167535 st) Søk
Bilder (4592 st)
Født (10495 st)
Døde (3318 st)
Datoer (9517 st)
Land (5315 st)
Idiom (4439 st)
Lengde
Topplistor (6 st)

Ordspråksmusik (20 st)
Statistik

Denna sidan visar ordspråk som liknar "I think I would probably tailor that a little more than what the president has suggested, ... I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom.".

Linkene lenger ned har ikke blitt oversatt till norsk. Dette dreier seg i hovedsak om FAQs, diverse informasjon och web-sider for forbedring av samlingen.

Barnslighet är både skattebefriat och gratis!

Vad är ordtak?
Hur funkar det?
Vanliga frågor
Om samlingen
Ordspråkshjältar
Hjälp till!

Linkene lenger ned har ikke blitt oversatt till norsk. Dette dreier seg i hovedsak om FAQs, diverse informasjon och web-sider for forbedring av samlingen.

Barnslighet är både skattebefriat och gratis!

Vad är ordtak?
Hur funkar det?
Vanliga frågor
Om samlingen
Ordspråkshjältar
Hjälp till!