Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
Thats awesome.... Indeed.

Yup

As I said to Tpt on MSN earlier....I'd take that class.

i object!!! it doesn't match the criteria of mythology.

It is either pseudoscience or standup comedy.

Object where it matters than.

i'd take it .....

A gleam of hope where I thought there was none left.

It's nice to see some intelligence in Kansas that doesn't relate to "design".

Hmm. Let's teach the mythology of the Qu'ran, too, while we're at it.

Oh, wait...

This entire thing is clearly just an ******* jab at people who believe in the theory of Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design should neither be taught as truth or mythology in school. If there were a course that explored both sides of the issue and had an unbiased approach and was proposed as a college course, I would support that.

WTF! This is an outrage!

What next? Teaching mathematic in a math class? Teaching grammar/writing in a writing class? Teaching history in a history class? This must stop before classes become TOO ACCURATE!

hahaha!

Okay that was awesome

Originally posted by FeceMan
Hmm. Let's teach the mythology of the Qu'ran, too, while we're at it.
Since intelligent design is supposedly non-specific as far as religion goes, wouldn't it basically be referring to the beliefs of Christians/Jews/Muslims alike? I thought the fact that it's not specifically a Christian theory was supposed to be it's merit as a theory and not a religious belief?

that makes it a judeochristian theory, still not taking into account other creation myths that still exist or have ever existed.

It does say "and other Religious Mythologies".

my problem it that the word Mythology conotates that i has some deep meaning or cultural significance. intelligent design doesn't have that. It's just a bunch of shit the southern baptist council threw together. the last time they tried being creative the came up with "menorah minestries" and "jew for jesus" in an attempt to convert my people (they set conversion agendas every year) who basically say "we're jews too so we can be antisemitic and demean you to get you to convert". that's not mythology, that's closer to phrenology.

I don't believe in intelligent design, except for the fact that Intelligent humans Design their lives everyday. Although I don't believe we can ever really know how the universe came into its current form, it is really arrogant of anyone to label other peoples views as mythological.

If you studied all the Mythologies people would see the correlation that has been included in the Bible stories.

Sounds like a stellar idea to me. On one side of the tracks it's taught as scientific theory, on the other side of the tracks...it's mythology.

Excellent.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Hmm. Let's teach the mythology of the Qu'ran, too, while we're at it.

Last time I checked, the Qu'ran wasn't taught as a science. Also, it doesn't qualify as mythology because I, as I understand it, it is a collection of laws or commandments, much like some books of the bible. Myths are by definition stories: narratives. Despite the negative connotations the word seems to have, however, mythology is not defined as something that is necessarily false: it's an appropriate term, even if Genesis is a literally true account of the creation of Earth. No matter how you spin it, though, creationism and intelligent design are based on religious stories (or mythology) as told in Genesis above real science. While scientific language might be used to defend them, they're religious theories, not scientific theories. Hence they belong in a class about religion, not a class about science.

They don't teach the "Great Man Theory" as a valid method of historical analysis in history classes because the experts have at length concluded that it's intrinsically flawed. The same is true of creationism and intelligent design in this case. If scientists at the university do begin taking them seriously, they will be taught as science. Until then, they're classified as religious mythology, the same as any other religious narrative.

HA! one more score for Scientology.

ive read the intelligent design book by rael who claims he was visited by aliens

On the 13th of December 1973, French journalist Rael was contacted by a visitor from another planet, and asked to establish an Embassy to welcome these people back to Earth.

The extra-terrestrial human being was a little over four feet tall, had long dark hair, almond shaped eyes, olive skin, and exuded harmony and humor. Rael recently described him by saying quite simply, "If he were to walk down a street in Japan, he would not even be noticed." In other words, they look like us, and we look like them. In fact, we were created "in their image" as explained in the Bible.

He told Rael that:

"We were the ones who designed all life on earth"
"You mistook us for gods"
"We were at the origin of your main religions"
"Now that you are mature enough to understand this,we would like to enter official contact through an embassy"

download free ebook
http://www.rael.org/download.php?view.1

... are you really that gullible?

and thats aimed at?

Originally posted by Deano
"If he were to walk down a street in Japan, he would not even be noticed."

Clearly Deano is rascist.




jk man

UPDATE: this class was cancelled.

Myths myths myths.............never ever changes...........only the names.

A wise move. As the saying goes, Keep your friends close; keep your enemies closer.

Originally posted by Zarathustra
Last time I checked, the Qu'ran wasn't taught as a science. Also, it doesn't qualify as mythology because I, as I understand it, it is a collection of laws or commandments, much like some books of the bible. Myths are by definition stories: narratives. Despite the negative connotations the word seems to have, however, mythology is not defined as something that is necessarily false: it's an appropriate term, even if Genesis is a literally true account of the creation of Earth. No matter how you spin it, though, creationism and intelligent design are based on religious stories (or mythology) as told in Genesis above real science. While scientific language might be used to defend them, they're religious theories, not scientific theories. Hence they belong in a class about religion, not a class about science.

They don't teach the "Great Man Theory" as a valid method of historical analysis in history classes because the experts have at length concluded that it's intrinsically flawed. The same is true of creationism and intelligent design in this case. If scientists at the university do begin taking them seriously, they will be taught as science. Until then, they're classified as religious mythology, the same as any other religious narrative.
We both know that what you wrote is not at all the purpose of the class.

Like I said, it's an ******* jab.

What about tolerance people? Shouldn't everyone be tolerant of other peoples opinions and views?

Originally posted by FeceMan
We both know that what you wrote is not at all the purpose of the class.

Like I said, it's an ******* jab.
It's a jab at people who try to sell religion as science. Inasmuch as religion is not science, it's completely valid.