Good on ya Blue, don't listen to the yankee lovers, they are probably fans of rap music.

I'm referring to what the article offers, I made a simple statement, something along the lines of "there's undertones of creationism", I'm still not really sure where I went wrong unless you didn't read the first article but did the second I linked and missed it, there's conservatives on the board who (according to the article) question Darwin's theory of evolution, it's not insane to think that they will keep pushing after making more headway with the smaller things. Are you actually saying that there's no chance they would? There's no chance they might get more like minded members on board?

What you are saying is just the uninformed ramblings of someone who can't accept that religious conservatives understand the value of science.

Neither of the articles you posted (I read both) have anything at all to do with evolution versus intelligent design. I gave you a quote from the LEADER of the conservatives who said he doesn't think that intelligent design belongs in science. The article weakly draws links between the two, but I can't find any articles at all that at any point intelligent design was on the table in the science curriculum. If you had read any of the articles I posted, you'd see they are actually moving in the opposite direction from that (by no longer requiring the teaching of contradictory evidence for evolution).

I have no idea why you are even still posting, because you've been shot down fairly thoroughly here.

Neither of the articles you posted (I read both) have anything at all to do with evolution versus intelligent design. I gave you a quote from the LEADER of the conservatives who said he doesn't think that intelligent design belongs in science. The article weakly draws links between the two, but I can't find any articles at all that at any point intelligent design was on the table in the science curriculum. If you had read any of the articles I posted, you'd see they are actually moving in the opposite direction from that (by no longer requiring the teaching of contradictory evidence for evolution).

Jesus dude, I made an off-cuff comment about a paragraph in an article and you've turned it into a giant debate, but, if we're going to keep going down this road could you answer the queries I had earlier? Do you really believe they won't push for it after attaining these smaller victories? Also do I really need to quote the paragraph from the first article mentioning the whole "have been locked in a debate" between again?

I turned it into a giant debate?

You created the thread, you spaz.

Also do I really need to quote the paragraph from the first article mentioning the whole "have been locked in a debate" between again?

You are still arguing based on a singular line in a singular article which is clearly ambiguous and misleading. Will you give it up already?

If a direct quote from the leader of the conservatives on the board can't persuade you that you have misread that line to suit your argument, then you must surely be a moron. It's pretty simple, you've said (implied in the thread title no less) that conservatives are moving closer to teaching intelligent design as a valid scientific theory. I gave you an article that says the board has moved further away from there, and that the most conservative (and God fearing) members don't even want it and you still can't drop the argument.

Do you really believe they won't push for it after attaining these smaller victories?

I think that they should be debating and making decisions based on what's tabled, don't you?

You are still arguing based on a singular line in a singular article which is clearly ambiguous and misleading. Will you give it up already?

I linked an article and said that "They don't come out and say it but there's undertones of creationism teaching and abandoning darwinism.". You said "Also, if you had read the article you'd know it is unrelated to creationism, even though the bloke quoted is a fundamentalist/creationist.". How can *the article* be unrelated to something it states within it?

If a direct quote from the leader of the conservatives on the board can't persuade you that you have misread that line to suit your argument, then you must surely be a moron. It's pretty simple, you've said (implied in the thread title no less) that conservatives are moving closer to teaching intelligent design as a valid scientific theory. I gave you an article that says the board has moved further away from there, and that the most conservative (and God fearing) members don't even want it and you still can't drop the argument.

In 2003 McLeroy led efforts by proponents of creationism and intelligent design to de-emphasize discussion of evolution in proposed new biology textbooks. He was one of only four board members who voted against biology textbooks that year that included a full account of evolution.

In before lolwikipeida

Edit:

I think that they should be debating and making decisions based on what's tabled, don't you?

I'd hope so, I'd hope it remains somewhat even in votes also.

last edited by Syco at 20:24:32 17/Mar/10

That was 7 years ago maybe he changed his mind.

That was 7 years ago maybe he changed his mind.

Maybe, but this storm in a teapot is over me making a comment about the article as presented, I'm just resorting to throwing out other quotes.

They don't come out and say it but there's undertones of creationism teaching and abandoning darwinism.

That was just his (the article writers) opinion wasn't it?

That was just his (the article writers) opinion wasn't it?

Yes, and that was all I was commenting on in my OP, the article.

The bias article based of the opinion of one bias/scared individual?

That was 7 years ago maybe he changed his mind.

I hear Jeffry Dahmer is a pretty nice bloke now.

Spoiler:
Yes, I'm aware he is dead

In 2003 McLeroy led efforts by proponents of creationism and intelligent design to de-emphasize discussion of evolution in proposed new biology textbooks. He was one of only four board members who voted against biology textbooks that year that included a full account of evolution.

I don't think you understand what that means, nor does wikipedia by the sounds of it.

Under the science curriculum standards recommended by a panel of science educators and tentatively adopted by the board, biology teachers and biology textbooks would no longer have to cover the "strengths and weaknesses" of Charles Darwin's theory that man evolved from lower forms of life.

Opponents of the requirement had warned that it would eventually open the door to the teaching of creationism in science classes. Board members who backed the rule insisted that was not their intention.

By the way, the citation on wikipedia is actually the same article i linked.