A Victory...
-
Christian Graus wrote:
based entirely on the inability to test/reproduce it
Stephen Hawkins can't reproduce a black hole either, but that does not invalidate any of his theories. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Darth Stanious wrote:
Stephen Hawkins can't reproduce a black hole either, but that does not invalidate any of his theories.
Hey, I'm not arguing. I just commented because I think Chris misunderstood the original poster. I don't think he or I said that evolution is invalidated by the inability to test it, in fact I thought I went to lengths to say otherwise. But that's what I took his comment to mean. Then, he's become strangely silent, maybe I should shut up as well... Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
Don't get me wrong - I'm totally opposed to prayer in school, as is virtually everyone else I know, christian or otherwise. All I'm argueing is the basis for its exclusion. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
OK - what's the kerfuffle about then ? Who is actually pushing for something as pointless as prayer in schools ? Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
Darth Stanious wrote:
The government has no more vested interested in the overt promotion of science than it does any other set of philosophical principles. What does and does not get taught as science should not be imposed from on high
Apparently the founding fathers felt they had a vested interest in the promotion of science in at least one area and possibly in many areas: U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Obviously I was referring to the promotion of science as a state sanctioned philosophical framework promoted in state controlled schools. What you cite proves my point. They wanted science promoted as a free market, intellectual property issue, not as a state sanctioned belief system presented as an alternative to competitvie philosophical frameworks. If they had desired otherwise, they would clearly have said so in this very paragraph. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Darth Stanious wrote:
But it does mean that it had, thankfully, already been defeated without any need what so ever for further government invovlment. The people had risen up and defeated it, the system had worked precisely the way Jefferson had envisioned (which I was very happy about).
This is still a flawed argument. If they had voted to legalize slavery again should the judge have stepped back and said "Gee, looks like you guys have already settled the issue, now back to your chains"?. Fuck no. Just because a group of religuous conservatives take over the board of education and get the majority on a ruling does not make it right. Nor does it mean the government should stay out of the issue. If the decision violates the constitution the government has not just the right but the responsibility to get involved. Jared Parsons jaredp@beanseed.org http://spaces.msn.com/members/jaredp/
Jared Parsons wrote:
This is still a flawed argument. If they had voted to legalize slavery again should the judge have stepped back and said "Gee, looks like you guys have already settled the issue, now back to your chains"?. f*** no.
No, because the 13th amendment to the constitution overtly outlaws slavery, so it cannot be reinstated by any amount of voting (well, not without repealing the 13th amendment, which isn't likely thanks to our modern capitalistic economy)
Jared Parsons wrote:
If the decision violates the constitution the government has not just the right but the responsibility to get involved.
But the only thing being violated is an interpretation of the constitution. "Separaton of church and state" is a very controversial interpretation based loosely on secondary documentation from Jefferson and Madison and not the constitution itself. The very people who wrote the first amendment flagrantly violated modern interpretaions of it. I repeat that the concept of separation of church and state does not mean that the state therefore is empowered to promote some other philsophcial system which overtly contradicts religion. If you want to amend the constitution to make science the only legal beleif system we are allowed to publically profess, than by all means be my guest. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Jared Parsons wrote:
This is still a flawed argument. If they had voted to legalize slavery again should the judge have stepped back and said "Gee, looks like you guys have already settled the issue, now back to your chains"?. f*** no.
No, because the 13th amendment to the constitution overtly outlaws slavery, so it cannot be reinstated by any amount of voting (well, not without repealing the 13th amendment, which isn't likely thanks to our modern capitalistic economy)
Jared Parsons wrote:
If the decision violates the constitution the government has not just the right but the responsibility to get involved.
But the only thing being violated is an interpretation of the constitution. "Separaton of church and state" is a very controversial interpretation based loosely on secondary documentation from Jefferson and Madison and not the constitution itself. The very people who wrote the first amendment flagrantly violated modern interpretaions of it. I repeat that the concept of separation of church and state does not mean that the state therefore is empowered to promote some other philsophcial system which overtly contradicts religion. If you want to amend the constitution to make science the only legal beleif system we are allowed to publically profess, than by all means be my guest. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Darth Stanious wrote:
No, because the 13th amendment to the constitution overtly outlaws slavery, so it cannot be reinstated by any amount of voting (well, not without repealing the 13th amendment, which isn't likely thanks to our modern capitalistic economy)
The 1rst Amendment blocks the passing of laws that establish religion. This is a backdoor attempt at creationism and as such is also a violation of the constitution to pass a law to allow and mandate such teachings.
Darth Stanious wrote:
But the only thing being violated is an interpretation of the constitution. "Separaton of church and state" is a very controversial interpretation based loosely on secondary documentation from Jefferson and Madison and not the constitution itself.
While the separation clause is not as verbatum as some people make it out to be it's also not nearly so loose as you make it out to be. The 1rst Amendment clearly states congress shall pass no laws that establish religion. That's irrespective of Jefferson's letter and precedent. Jared Parsons jaredp@beanseed.org http://spaces.msn.com/members/jaredp/
-
OK - what's the kerfuffle about then ? Who is actually pushing for something as pointless as prayer in schools ? Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Christian Graus wrote:
Who is actually pushing for something as pointless as prayer in schools ?
No one I know. But it remains an important philosophical issue. The constitution demands that the congress not establish a national religion but equally strongly says the federal government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. Through out most of American history school prayer was interpreted as a free exercise of religion to be decided at the local level. It has only been since about the 1940's that it was viewed as an "establishment of religion" and prohibited by the fedeal government. My basic POV is that neither religion nor the federal government should be in the schools, but honestly I feel more threatened by the power of the state forcing a single philsophy via the schools than I do by an occasional local school board authroizing an "official" prayer or two. Anyway, I've got to go to bed. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Darth Stanious wrote:
No, because the 13th amendment to the constitution overtly outlaws slavery, so it cannot be reinstated by any amount of voting (well, not without repealing the 13th amendment, which isn't likely thanks to our modern capitalistic economy)
The 1rst Amendment blocks the passing of laws that establish religion. This is a backdoor attempt at creationism and as such is also a violation of the constitution to pass a law to allow and mandate such teachings.
Darth Stanious wrote:
But the only thing being violated is an interpretation of the constitution. "Separaton of church and state" is a very controversial interpretation based loosely on secondary documentation from Jefferson and Madison and not the constitution itself.
While the separation clause is not as verbatum as some people make it out to be it's also not nearly so loose as you make it out to be. The 1rst Amendment clearly states congress shall pass no laws that establish religion. That's irrespective of Jefferson's letter and precedent. Jared Parsons jaredp@beanseed.org http://spaces.msn.com/members/jaredp/
Jared Parsons wrote:
The 1rst Amendment clearly states congress shall pass no laws that establish religion. That's irrespective of Jefferson's letter and precedent.
But some local school in Pennsylvania wanting to have some short note referring to a text with an alternative POV that doesn't even mention religion hardly equates to congress establishing a religion. If the federal government sent you a letter tomorrow ordering you to give money to your local Baptist church that would be the establishment of a state religion. Any notion to the contrary is a gross exageration of the obvious intent of the amendment. I will continue to insist that such gross exagerations are rendered specifically to achieve just the opposite result - to in fact promote a state sanctioned secular belief system intended specifically to marginalize religious beliefs. And since we are forced by the government to finance the schools where that belief system is promulgated, it is the secularist who are most certainly in violation of the spirit of the first amendment to a far greater and more dangerous extent than is any religion. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Who is actually pushing for something as pointless as prayer in schools ?
No one I know. But it remains an important philosophical issue. The constitution demands that the congress not establish a national religion but equally strongly says the federal government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. Through out most of American history school prayer was interpreted as a free exercise of religion to be decided at the local level. It has only been since about the 1940's that it was viewed as an "establishment of religion" and prohibited by the fedeal government. My basic POV is that neither religion nor the federal government should be in the schools, but honestly I feel more threatened by the power of the state forcing a single philsophy via the schools than I do by an occasional local school board authroizing an "official" prayer or two. Anyway, I've got to go to bed. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Darth Stanious wrote:
The constitution demands that the congress not establish a national religion
And yet I would imagine that in the minds of most people who wrote it, it would have seemed pretty much normal that everyone believed in the same God, roughly, and just argued about the details. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
Jared Parsons wrote:
The 1rst Amendment clearly states congress shall pass no laws that establish religion. That's irrespective of Jefferson's letter and precedent.
But some local school in Pennsylvania wanting to have some short note referring to a text with an alternative POV that doesn't even mention religion hardly equates to congress establishing a religion. If the federal government sent you a letter tomorrow ordering you to give money to your local Baptist church that would be the establishment of a state religion. Any notion to the contrary is a gross exageration of the obvious intent of the amendment. I will continue to insist that such gross exagerations are rendered specifically to achieve just the opposite result - to in fact promote a state sanctioned secular belief system intended specifically to marginalize religious beliefs. And since we are forced by the government to finance the schools where that belief system is promulgated, it is the secularist who are most certainly in violation of the spirit of the first amendment to a far greater and more dangerous extent than is any religion. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Darth Stanious wrote:
promote a state sanctioned secular belief system intended specifically to marginalize religious beliefs. And since we are forced by the government to finance the schools where that belief system is promulgated, it is the secularist who are most certainly in violation of the spirit of the first amendment to a far greater and more dangerous extent than is any religion
Thank, you, Lord, for the secularists, for, without them, we would be subject to the dictatorship of evil Stanious and his devil spawn Potatohead, er, Punkinhead.
-
Again, I agree compeletly, those are all very valid reasons for not teaching religious concepts in a science class. But the point remains that you are still saying the the government has a vested interest in the active promotion of concepts that are inherently anti-religious (ie interpretatioins of reality not based upon religious beliefs). Those are issues that should be worked out amoung us - we the people - without any agency of the federal government intervening to influence one POV rather than another. Why should a Christian be forced by the state to pay taxes for children to learn concepts which are opposed to their religious convictions? It works both ways. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 17:05 Tuesday 20th December, 2005
Darth Stanious wrote:
Again, I agree compeletly, those are all very valid reasons for not teaching religious concepts in a science class. But the point remains that you are still saying the the government has a vested interest in the active promotion of concepts that are inherently anti-religious (ie interpretatioins of reality not based upon religious beliefs).
But science is not pro- or anti-religious. If someone wants to go through life exposed to nothing that contradicts their religious beliefs, they would pretty much have to attend a religious school, or be home schooled, or have no education at all.
Darth Stanious wrote:
Why should a Christian be forced by the state to pay taxes for children to learn concepts which are opposed to their religious convictions? It works both ways.
Make science an elective. Give tax credits for home schooling (don't we already do this?). I don't know. If someone truly thinks that science is useless, let them skip it -- I suppose the world needs more artists and poets, and McDonalds is always hiring.
-
vincent.reynolds wrote:
Hmmm.I seem to recall reading something about a big fight to keep "God" out of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Guess who won? The word "God" appears only in the introduction to the Declaration. Certainly the founding fathers would have expected anyone holding office to have religious beliefs, and to wear them proudly. But they certainly would not have wanted a Quaker President to make or encourage policy that would treat Quakers more favorably than Baptists, Catholics, Deists, or atheists. Or that would favor Christians, and discriminate against Muslims, for instance.
Big fight? That's a new one. I like your lack of a reference. I notice that you are leaving out the congressional prayer that began with those same founding fathers. And actually the whole point of the first amendment is to keep the government out of religion (not the other way around). Hence the "separation of church and state" comment by Jefferson.
vincent.reynolds wrote:
Ahh, so you're in favor of religious segregation. You do realize that is exactly what would happen if the dominant community religion were taught in public schools, don't you?
Really? I thought schools might just improve. After all...how do public schools compare to private schools that do teach religion. Besides, how is that different from a minority religion (atheism) segregating theists?
vincent.reynolds wrote:
As for your common, but nonetheless ridiculous, assertion that atheism is a religion, I refer you here.
Calling an idea "common" (when it is very rarely cited in these discussions) does not diminish the fact that it is a belief structure. Citing random internet links with rainbow backgrounds does not support your notion that it is not an idea either. Now stop shoving your religion down others' throats.
espeir wrote:
Big fight? That's a new one. I like your lack of a reference. I notice that you are leaving out the congressional prayer that began with those same founding fathers. And actually the whole point of the first amendment is to keep the government out of religion (not the other way around). Hence the "separation of church and state" comment by Jefferson.
I first read this in history class about 30 years ago. I'll find references in my library if I have the time. It's not important. You're dodging the point that the word "God" does not only appears in the introduction to the Declaration of Independence, and does not appear at all in the Constitution. Why, if the founding fathers' only aim was to keep the government out of religion, would they not bring their religion explicitly into these important documents? That's a rhetorical question, as most of them gave reasons for this omission. I'll cite references if you like, but I can't imagine at this point that anything would change your mind.
espeir wrote:
Really? I thought schools might just improve. After all...how do public schools compare to private schools that do teach religion. Besides, how is that different from a minority religion (atheism) segregating theists?
I have to think that public school science programs kick ass all over Amish science programs. Actually, public schools aren't allowed to be as strict in qualifying teachers as private schools, both secular and religious. I imagine that has much more to do with any disparity -- if there even is one ("I like your lack of a reference," I believe the man said) -- than whether or not religion is taught. As for segregating theists: atheism is not a religion, theists are not segregated, and you're an idiot. Show me evidence to the contrary on any of those points.
espeir wrote:
Calling an idea "common" (when it is very rarely cited in these discussions) does not diminish the fact that it is a belief structure. Citing random internet links with rainbow backgrounds does not support your notion that it is not an idea either. Now stop shoving your religion down others' throats.
Take your head out of this thread (or wherever your head happens to be), and look around. You will see people -- usually Christians, usually creationists -- asserting all over the place that atheism is a religion. That would seem to constitute co
-
Darth Stanious wrote:
The constitution demands that the congress not establish a national religion
And yet I would imagine that in the minds of most people who wrote it, it would have seemed pretty much normal that everyone believed in the same God, roughly, and just argued about the details. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
Christian Graus wrote:
nd just argued about the details.
Rather violently at times, unfortunately.
-
Well, I'll point out first that you are completely wrong on all points. First of all, Newtonian physics is not "wrong". Newtonian physics is quite correct, in fact. It just so happens that Einstein's theory is an improvement upon Newton's theories. Secondly, science is designed to be challenged by rational thinking. Postulating the existence of some "higher intelligence" that directs "intelligent design" is not science, not scientific, not rational and not intelligent. Scientific theories are subjected to tests and experiment and peer review - that is what dignifies them from religion. Challenging science by inventing some wonderful sounding story about super-smart intelligent beings is repugnant. You can never falsify or prove the existence of such a "designer". Therefore ID is absolute rubbish. Indeed, ID is an infringement upon the constitution. It violates separation of church and state. Make no mistake about that. This is not fanatical behaviour upon the part of any scientists. This is the scientific community rejecting bunk theories and garbage in order to preserve the central aspects of what science is. Challenging science with religious mysticism will get you nowhere.
thealj wrote:
the existence of some "higher intelligence" that directs "intelligent design" is not science, not scientific, not rational and not intelligent
Millions and millions of people believe in God. They can't all be wrong, can they? Therefore, God exists and therefore so does intelligent design!
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Who is actually pushing for something as pointless as prayer in schools ?
No one I know. But it remains an important philosophical issue. The constitution demands that the congress not establish a national religion but equally strongly says the federal government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. Through out most of American history school prayer was interpreted as a free exercise of religion to be decided at the local level. It has only been since about the 1940's that it was viewed as an "establishment of religion" and prohibited by the fedeal government. My basic POV is that neither religion nor the federal government should be in the schools, but honestly I feel more threatened by the power of the state forcing a single philsophy via the schools than I do by an occasional local school board authroizing an "official" prayer or two. Anyway, I've got to go to bed. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Granted, being a non-american, I don't claim to know how the school system is based in America, so this is based on what I've picked up from your last couple of posts. However, as I think I read it from your posts, then the Government (state?) is in control of public schools I take it. Your argument is that by them having control of schools they are in effect "opposing" the free exercising of religion - is this correct? If not - then please ignore all the following gibberish :D I fail to see it your argument fully. If "free exersising" of religion was to take place in the public space, for instance aka prayer in school, all other religions would have to be supported to. That means prayers to other dieties - Muslim prayers, for instance, and it has to be neither mandatory nor placed in "shcool time". Otherwise, it would be limiting the people who doesn't practice said religion and their rights to exersise their religon. I however take it that there are also private schools in America, which I'd suspect there are also Christian driven private schools where prayer is a part of every day. The only way I see it that a Government can ensure the freedom to practice one persons own religon freely in public/governmental space, for instance institutions such as schools, is to ensure that no other religon is practiced. Otherwise, it would open up for a hornests nest of accusations of favoritisme. The latter argument you bring forth, that the state shouldn't be involved in the school, but that presents a totally different line of discussion which points towards economical and political alongside for instance government inclusion in medical facilities, childcare etc. --------------------------- 127.0.0.1 - Sweet 127.0.0.1
-
Christian Graus wrote:
His point was not that ID is correct, or even tenable, but that evolution is a theory that by it's nature is not scientific in that it cannot be reproduced, and that any sort of discussion on evolution, rational or not, is being stifled and this is bad.
The idea that science requires things to be reproducible (in these sense of being able to rewind history and show evolution happening all over again) is simply wrong. Science requires that hypotheses have empirical implications that can be tested. The more novel, surprising and wide-ranging are the empirical implications, the greater confidence one can have in the hypothesis if those implications are confirmed. Evolution is discussed and debated every day by scientists and has been subject to modification from day one. Darwin knew nothing about genetics and hence what is called "Darwinian" evolution differs significantly from what Darwin himself wrote. Scientists aren't spending their time regurgitating the texbooks of one hundred years ago. They are in the laboratory, out in the field and poring over the explanations of themselves and others in a restless, never-ending quest for a more accurate and more complete understanding. What is going on in this debate is that people with a prior commitment to a super-natural explanation of origins are pretending to have scientific reasons for their views. They routinely propose ideas that the overwhelming majority of scientists consider to be without merit but these ideas of Creationists/IDers are unaffected by criticism because they are maintained as a matter of faith. Scientists find it offensive that people are pretending to do science when they are really doing something else and hence routinely violating the rules of science. Far from criticisms of evolution being stifled, they are being artificially injected into a scientific context by external forces. If the issue of origins was treated in the same way as any other scientific issue, Creationism would be regarded as a failed hypothesis of only historical interest and ID wouldn't be discussed at all unless as an example (for the purposes of contrast) of a non-scientific explanation. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote:
Evolution is discussed and debated every day by scientists
Human reasoning is inherently flawed. Therefore, there is no reasonable way to challenge a proposition. Look at it this way: Ask scientists what caused the Big Bang. Regardless of their answer, ask how they know this. Continue process until the scientist admits he doesn't know the answer to one of your questions. Therefore Intelligent Design must be the answer - there is no other explanation.
-
John Carson wrote:
Evolution is discussed and debated every day by scientists
Human reasoning is inherently flawed. Therefore, there is no reasonable way to challenge a proposition. Look at it this way: Ask scientists what caused the Big Bang. Regardless of their answer, ask how they know this. Continue process until the scientist admits he doesn't know the answer to one of your questions. Therefore Intelligent Design must be the answer - there is no other explanation.
Andy MacAngus wrote:
Therefore Intelligent Design must be the answer - there is no other explanation
10 presumably the Designer is too complex to have arisen naturally 20 so, who designed the Designer ? 30 GOTO 10 40 Victory for ID Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Christian Graus wrote:
based entirely on the inability to test/reproduce it
Stephen Hawkins can't reproduce a black hole either, but that does not invalidate any of his theories. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
A very good point. I do somehow think many people don't appreciate the difference between an established fact, a theory and a hypothesis though. By the very nature of science, any theory can be found to be incomplete at a later date (or even in rare cases incorrect, but the whole methodology should prevent this happening. That's what hypotheses are for). The more evidence there is to back up a theory, the less likely it becomes that a fatal flaw will be discovered in it, unless of course key evidence is found to be based on fatally flawed assumptions or methods. Anna :rose: Currently working mostly on: Visual Lint :cool: Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
there's no evidence for anything else.
I don't think anyone was suggesting otherwise. It just seems to me that his claim of evolution as 'unscientific' was based entirely on the inability to test/reproduce it. Obviously, this is completely unviable, but I didn't read his comments as suggesting that this means it can't be true. It's just the nature of the theory.
Chris Losinger wrote:
"Evolutionary theory cannot provide that any more than ID and is therefor unverified."
No - he's right. Neither theory can provide the ability to run a test that proves it is true. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
John Carson wrote:
Evolution is discussed and debated every day by scientists
Human reasoning is inherently flawed. Therefore, there is no reasonable way to challenge a proposition. Look at it this way: Ask scientists what caused the Big Bang. Regardless of their answer, ask how they know this. Continue process until the scientist admits he doesn't know the answer to one of your questions. Therefore Intelligent Design must be the answer - there is no other explanation.
So you believe that if I don't know how something happened therefore there is a supernatural power behind this? Could be useful in IT - "Sir, I don't know why your computer crashed, therefore there must be an alien intelligence who made that happen" :laugh:
Tiefe Wasser sind nicht still Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
John Carson wrote:
Evolution is discussed and debated every day by scientists
Human reasoning is inherently flawed. Therefore, there is no reasonable way to challenge a proposition. Look at it this way: Ask scientists what caused the Big Bang. Regardless of their answer, ask how they know this. Continue process until the scientist admits he doesn't know the answer to one of your questions. Therefore Intelligent Design must be the answer - there is no other explanation.
Andy MacAngus wrote:
Human reasoning is inherently flawed.
And what is your proof/authority for that unfounded assertion?
Andy MacAngus wrote:
Look at it this way: Ask scientists what caused the Big Bang. Regardless of their answer, ask how they know this. Continue process until the scientist admits he doesn't know the answer to one of your questions. Therefore Intelligent Design must be the answer - there is no other explanation.
Your reasoning certainly is flawed. The absence of a causal explanation for something only proves that the cause is not (yet) understood. It in no way implys or requires the existence of an external intelligent agent. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke