A question about intelligent design

If I teach science in Kansas, can I pick the deity that created the universe? Cuz I want that Deity to be me.
I would teach something like this "On the first day there was only the Great Omnipotent Rick. The Great Omnipotent One looked around the Universe and HE decided that HE would create a vast arena of life that would be pleasing to HIS eye..."
You think scrubbie and his fundie followers would approve?
I mean, I am saying that a supreme being set in motion and guided the Universe. It's just that being is ME!

spaghetti monster

The Flying Spaghetti Monster eats
competing deities like Great Omnipotent Rick
for breakfast. You looking for a holy war ????!!!!!
Well bring it on !!!! We're gonna have a food fight.

:-)

Your command is our pleasure!!! Of course!! You created the universe! You suspended time and space and laws of nature!! Oh Rick Most Masterful!!

that whole ID thing just confuses the hell out of me.

I mean, if you teach straight evolution (which I was personally taught 40 years ago) then any thinking person is going to wonder..."hey, where did those first chemicals come from for the big bang?"

Intelligent design has it's own presence, you don't need to teach it.

Then, you spend the rest of your life answering that question for yourself. It's called spiritual discovery/maturity.

It is such a non-issue I just don't get it.

I do not understand the fervor of people who hate evolution. There can be 1000 provable items that show evolution is true and they'll point to the only thing that questions its validity.
I know that part of their problem with evolution is that they believe everything in the Bible comes from God directly and they're afraid that if one thing is wrong then their whole world will come tumbling down.
I am always really quick to point out to them that they are already saying the Bible is mistaken (at most), or out of date (at the very least) when I point out the issue of slavery. The Bible condones it and modern society condemns it.
I think their whole attitude is silly so I am going for silly responses. It makes me feel better and it irritates them more.

as the "next guy" and I think Adam and Eve is hokum and I hope when I get to heaven I get to meet the committee who thought that one up because I have some choice words for them.

I remember being told, in 1974, by a delivery room nurse that I should not have pain medication to deliver my 10 lb baby boy (I am 5'6") because pain was Eve's punishment.

I DON'T EVEN LIKE APPLES!

out the many holes in current evolution theory, and noting the factoid that while science can not prove a lot it gives "actionable, useful best answer" to many questions, and then noting that many questions can never even be started on by Science because they can not be answered by Science (including creation), where the heck is subject matter for a day, much less a course, on "intelligent design"?

USA Today reports that proponents claim that all the vote did was allow kids to be skeptical of Darwin's ideas - and that the standards, broad guidelines that school districts use to write their own curricula, don't force school boards to change what they're doing, and likely won't affect what teachers in many large school districts teach.

But USA Today also reports that critics say the changes will encourage activists in small, rural districts to push for more overtly religious science lessons.

You are given a list of examples that there is some diety out there because the problems are "too hard" for science to answer. Of course, there are perfectly valid and detailed answers regarding exactly how those things came to be. A good example is the eye. Teachers would teach that it's too hard to ever figure out how the eye came to be (forget about cytochromes, energy, pineal mechanisms, and convergent evolution that's conquered the thing several times). It doesn't commit to Jehovah, Zeus, or Bob creating the eye.

be driven through - but they are still useful as we try to get better answers and to use the world around us.

Only a few questions, in my opinion, are structurally impossible for science to answer - the main one being creation (perhaps also Bell's 1964 question which to me appears to be impossible to answer - even with multiple universes I get no satisfaction from action at a distance - as they say - correlation is not causation :-) )

It isn't the only state doing this. :cry:

Thou vile demon . . .

I say you did create all of your awareness and what else is there really?

We're living on a stack of turtles:D