A Victory...
-
John Carson wrote:
The fact that it is an obligation that is, for the most part, imposed on biology teachers against their will might have something to do with it.
I had no idea teaching biology was a form of slavery. Shocking! I suppose we should all be on the look out for being shanghaied and forced to teach biology. :laugh: Of course, the notion that there might just be biology teachers that in fact might want to introduce alternative POVs but are forced not to because of the state never occured to you. As long as the state forces them to teach your POV is all that matters, I suppose. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Darth Stanious wrote:
I had no idea teaching biology was a form of slavery.
My point, which should have been plain enough, was that forcing people to teach a particular religious point of view is not plausibly defended as the "free exercise of religion". "Freedom", surprisingly enough, involves an absence of compulsion. Lest this argument be misconstrued, let me say that I don't believe biology classes are the place to be exercising religion, free or otherwise. They are the place to be passing on the best current understandings of science.
Darth Stanious wrote:
Of course, the notion that there might just be biology teachers that in fact might want to introduce alternative POVs but are forced not to because of the state never occured to you.
It did occur to me. It is not a very subtle or profound point. Biology classes are not the place for the promotion of ideas that have essentially no support in the scientific community. That is simply unprofessional behaviour.
Darth Stanious wrote:
As long as the state forces them to teach your POV is all that matters, I suppose.
I defer to the superior expertise of the scientists. I take my POV on scientific matters from them. Moreover, I do this on rational grounds, not as an act of faith. Let me quote from a post I made some time ago.
Suppose we have two football teams. You know that one comprises players who were recruited by talent scouts who searched the nation looking for the best young players. You know they train five times a week. You know they are coached by someone who recently coached a team that won the Super Bowl. The other team, by contrast, is a make-up team drawn from the members of the local pub. They don't train at all, merely showing up on the day. The coach is one of the bar staff, who has never had coaching success in any serious football competition. They played last week and you haven't heard the result. Is it "faith" that you are almost certain that the first team won --- and indeed thrashed the pub team? No, it is simply an understanding of the ingredients that go into playing good football. Consider the case of science. Entry into the scientific profession occurs via a screening process (exams etc.) that identifies intelligent young people. Claims are subject to a process of peer review. To be credible, results must be reproducible (in
-
:laugh:
You already know my standpoint on healthcare and education. Healthier and smarter population yields good benefits for the national economy.
However, I am not a foreigner to the idea of tax breaks for those who wish to seek private healthcare and/or education. Having rules and regulations on healthcare, public and private alike, is a good thing. Receiving healthcare shouldn't be some sort of russian roulette! Along the same line of thought, I want to protect education, public and private alike, from degradation of quality. I don't want kids to be taught fairy tales as if they are potential truths. That kind of teaching belongs in bible school or something similar. It should be opt-in, not opt-out.
Darth Stanious wrote:
get in line and do as you're told!
The only line there should be, is the one for the unemployed. And that line should be very short. Low or high taxes, a society won't work if a large portion of it is on welfare (for whatever reason). I will give the evil eye to the next idiot I talk to who has turned down jobs because they don't want to work, or because they didn't like the offered job. Bloodsuckers. :mad: I bust my ass off every day, only to hear about people who are "content" with living on welfare. And this god damn government isn't doing anything about it, eventhough there <i>are</i> jobs. Talk about maintaining the base... Income taxes could be cut by a third if it weren't for these fucking losers. Crap. Now I'm all worked up, and will probably not sleep until way too late. :mad:
It seems that the majority of the people don't want to feed the lazy, so hopefully the turnout of next year's election will tighten the screws a little for the lazy fuckers, and perhaps give me some peace of mind!
-- Pictures[^] from my Japan trip.Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Talk about maintaining the base... Income taxes could be cut by a third if it weren't for these f***ing losers. Crap. Now I'm all worked up, and will probably not sleep until way too late.
Damn, dude, you were even starting to scare me... :laugh: Deep breaths, deep breaths... To me the key point is that it simply is not possible for any economy to be taxed into prosperity. Prosperity comes from a growing economy, and a growing economy comes from low taxes. In a prosperous, growing economy the poor have more opportunity to provide for themselves as they best see fit, and those who simply cannot provide for themselves are more likely to be cared for by the inherent generosity of a society with strongly held, grass roots, moral sentiments. All of that translates into a society in which both free market capitalism, private ownership, and religious sentiments are not only tolerated but encouraged and respected by the political system. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
John Carson wrote:
You have got it quite wrong...
No, you have it quite wrong. 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 by some sort of all knowing hand of all powerful secular authority. If any given community decides that it wants its children taught voodoo as a form of science that should be the end of the argument. I wouldn't send my kids to school there, but I would also not expect the federal government to impose my belief systems upon them any more than I would want it to impose theirs on me. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
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 by some sort of all knowing hand of all powerful secular authority.
What should be taught as science is that which the scientific community recognises as science. Anything else is a fraud. 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:
From my understanding, that was not possible. The case was brought by some parents and there was no negotiated settlement with the parents. They wanted a permanent stay on the teaching of ID, not temporary respite that could end with the next election.
Any judge has full power to throw out any case for any reason. Obviously, these people could seek other legal avenues with other judges, but that would not change the essential situation. The issues was settled, over, moot. The evil christians had been defeated, justice had been served, the republic was safe. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Darth Stanious wrote:
Any judge has full power to throw out any case for any reason.
Only in the same sense as that in which any individual has full power to murder someone else. Judges do not have legal authority to "throw out any case for any reason". 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
-
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 by some sort of all knowing hand of all powerful secular authority.
What should be taught as science is that which the scientific community recognises as science. Anything else is a fraud. 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:
What should be taught as science is that which the scientific community recognises as science. Anything else is a fraud.
I agree absolutely. I would present that very argument as loudly and forcefully as I could to those I share my community with, even those pushing for voodoo, and I would not send my children to any school that taught otherwise. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Darth Stanious wrote:
Any judge has full power to throw out any case for any reason.
Only in the same sense as that in which any individual has full power to murder someone else. Judges do not have legal authority to "throw out any case for any reason". 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
The entire point of being a judge is to determine the legal merits of the case being presented to them. EDIT - and if those merits are not considered sufficient they can damn sure throw them out. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 19:38 Tuesday 20th December, 2005
-
Darth Stanious wrote:
I had no idea teaching biology was a form of slavery.
My point, which should have been plain enough, was that forcing people to teach a particular religious point of view is not plausibly defended as the "free exercise of religion". "Freedom", surprisingly enough, involves an absence of compulsion. Lest this argument be misconstrued, let me say that I don't believe biology classes are the place to be exercising religion, free or otherwise. They are the place to be passing on the best current understandings of science.
Darth Stanious wrote:
Of course, the notion that there might just be biology teachers that in fact might want to introduce alternative POVs but are forced not to because of the state never occured to you.
It did occur to me. It is not a very subtle or profound point. Biology classes are not the place for the promotion of ideas that have essentially no support in the scientific community. That is simply unprofessional behaviour.
Darth Stanious wrote:
As long as the state forces them to teach your POV is all that matters, I suppose.
I defer to the superior expertise of the scientists. I take my POV on scientific matters from them. Moreover, I do this on rational grounds, not as an act of faith. Let me quote from a post I made some time ago.
Suppose we have two football teams. You know that one comprises players who were recruited by talent scouts who searched the nation looking for the best young players. You know they train five times a week. You know they are coached by someone who recently coached a team that won the Super Bowl. The other team, by contrast, is a make-up team drawn from the members of the local pub. They don't train at all, merely showing up on the day. The coach is one of the bar staff, who has never had coaching success in any serious football competition. They played last week and you haven't heard the result. Is it "faith" that you are almost certain that the first team won --- and indeed thrashed the pub team? No, it is simply an understanding of the ingredients that go into playing good football. Consider the case of science. Entry into the scientific profession occurs via a screening process (exams etc.) that identifies intelligent young people. Claims are subject to a process of peer review. To be credible, results must be reproducible (in
AGain, all I can do is repeat that I agree with all of that. But it offends my Jeffersonian sentiments for the state to involve itself with the promotion of what are essentially personally held moral or intellectual views. The state should trust that the people will ultimately make the proper decisions, and if they are adament that they do not wish to be compelled to accept a 'rational' view of reality, than what purpose is served by the state forcing it upon them in the public schools against their will? "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
John Carson wrote:
You have got it quite wrong...
No, you have it quite wrong. 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 by some sort of all knowing hand of all powerful secular authority. If any given community decides that it wants its children taught voodoo as a form of science that should be the end of the argument. I wouldn't send my kids to school there, but I would also not expect the federal government to impose my belief systems upon them any more than I would want it to impose theirs on me. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
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.
-
AGain, all I can do is repeat that I agree with all of that. But it offends my Jeffersonian sentiments for the state to involve itself with the promotion of what are essentially personally held moral or intellectual views. The state should trust that the people will ultimately make the proper decisions, and if they are adament that they do not wish to be compelled to accept a 'rational' view of reality, than what purpose is served by the state forcing it upon them in the public schools against their will? "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Darth Stanious wrote:
AGain, all I can do is repeat that I agree with all of that. But it offends my Jeffersonian sentiments for the state to involve itself with the promotion of what are essentially personally held moral or intellectual views.
Those opposing the teaching of ID in science classes have consistently maintained that they don't object to it in religion classes. The state is not promoting anything except the maintenance of professionalism in the teaching of science.
Darth Stanious wrote:
The state should trust that the people will ultimately make the proper decisions, and if they are adament that they do not wish to be compelled to accept a 'rational' view of reality, than what purpose is served by the state forcing it upon them in the public schools against their will?
Better educated children. Indeed, it is on the basis that children have been properly educated in rational decision making processes that we can have some small measure of confidence that, as adults, they will indeed make "proper decisions". 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
-
Thank you God :) Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton
Chris Austin wrote:
Thank you God
Don't you mean, thank you, Intelligent Designer? :)
-
The entire point of being a judge is to determine the legal merits of the case being presented to them. EDIT - and if those merits are not considered sufficient they can damn sure throw them out. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 19:38 Tuesday 20th December, 2005
Darth Stanious wrote:
The entire point of being a judge is to determine the legal merits of the case being presented to them. EDIT - and if those merits are not considered sufficient they can damn sure throw them out.
Indeed, and the legal merits of a case are a matter of law, not one of unfettered discretion. Federal Judge John Jones says he'll rule by early January on whether the requirement violates the constitutional separation of church and state. Eric Rothschild, attorney for the 11 parents who challenged the board's policy, says the court case remains important, despite the election. "Other state and local school boards are watching this, some with a very strong intention to teach intelligent design." http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2005-11-09-pennsylvania-intelligent-design_x.htm[^] Even the winning board wanted the case to go ahead: While all of the Dover CARES candidates said while campaigning that they oppose the mention of intelligent design in science classes, they said last night they want to see how a federal judge rules on the case before guaranteeing a repeal of ousted board members' intelligent design policy. Judge John E. Jones III is expected to issue a ruling on the case by the end of the year, about the same time the candidates would be taking office. Rehm and CARES candidates Dapp, Reinking and Judy McIlvaine have said they would not appeal if the district loses the case. But as a board, "we would all have to meet and decide what we would do as a team," Dapp said. "Our first step is to hear what the judge says." http://www.yorkdispatch.com/local/ci_3198408[^] So both parties to the dispute wanted the case to continue. Hardly unreasonable of the judge to hand down his verdict then, was it? 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
-
espeir wrote:
As in natural selection being the sole driving force force between interspecial evolution
what does "force force between interspecial evolution" mean ?
espeir wrote:
but it is also subject to challenge
well of course it is. but nobody has yet come up with anything better.
espeir wrote:
Scientists should be logical and open-minded...not the baffoons they have devolved into.
WTF ? you slander millions of people based on their profession ? that's just over-the-top ridiculous.
espeir wrote:
The first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
you're right. i was thinking of the first part of the sentence. nonetheless...
espeir wrote:
That means every time the courts prohibit school prayer (for example), they are ignoring what the constitution explicitly states.
if a school requires prayer, it infringes on the religion of anyone who doesn't practice the school's favored religion both by requiring students who don't belong to that religion to participate and by forcing taxpayers to pay for the practice of a religion they may not belong to. you want to pray in school? go to a religious school. simple as that.
espeir wrote:
ad-hominem against Christians.
utter nonsense. that in no way insults Christians. it insults the liars who claim ID is not a front for Bible-based Creationism when it's plainly obvious, from the IDist's own words, that ID is Creationism doctored up to make it past the legal hurdles that it couldn't clear otherwise. ID is a fraud.
espeir wrote:
Ad hominem
statement of fact. the claim that there is some kind of conspiracy of scientists trying to keep down new theories is a staple IDist talking point. don't want to be accused of using them? don't use them.
espeir wrote:
I provided evidence, making your claim an ad hominem against me
nonsense. again, statement of fact. "The concept of fair and open discouse does not apply to evolutionary biologists" literally makes no sense, and can only be seen as
Chris Losinger wrote:
frankly, i don't believe you, since you've spent the majority of your past three posts slagging "current evolutionary theory".
Funny, I've been reading this and thinking 'Chris has missed the point'. It was obvious to me from the start that this guy probably believes in evolution, and he gives examples where people who challenge current thinking about evolution without suggesting anything like ID ( just that perhaps it happened a little differently to how we think now ), being ridiculed. 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. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
First, when you quote the establishment clause could you please quote the entire thing - "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - that part is just as important.
jasontg wrote:
What exactly is your point?
The point is should the power to force us to pay taxes be construed as the power to coerce standards of behavior from us? First, the government takes our money away from us, and than says that because it took our money that therefore we can't have prayer in shcool. Thats actually pretty damned incredible. If we were not forced to pay taxes would it be ok to have prayers in school? If so, why isn't that an argument not to force us to pay taxes rather than allowing for state sanctioned defintions of religious practice? "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Darth Stanious wrote:
If we were not forced to pay taxes would it be ok to have prayers in school?
Gosh, sounds like a good reason to dodge tax to me... To be honest, I don't see the big deal. Who cares if there is prayer in school ? Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
Actually this is yet another perfect example of how the left has managed to defeat the concept of separation of church and state in order to use the state to promote its own overtly anti-religious agenda. It is the Secularist, not the religious, who are successfully using the state to force their moral world view upon all of us. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
I wonder how many have actually read the consitution? http://www.law.cornell.edu[^] Article III Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. and Bill of Rights Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "Simplicity is more complicated than you think. But it’s well worth it” (Ron Jeffries)
-
This is exactly the type of attitude that scientists should not have. No good scientist is an absolutist. But yes...Newton was wrong. His theories are an approximation of a more accurate (but not necessarily "true") theory developed by Einstein. This is not an improvement, but a correction. Einstein's theories superscede Newton's. You obviously know very little about the subject to make such a statement. Secondly, science also demands reproducibility. Evolutionary theory cannot provide that any more than ID and is therefor unverified. It is certainly not "fact" and should never be treated as such. Remember when a cold fusion reaction was created in the 80's? Remember how it fell apart when it was proven irreproducable? It's amazing hos modern scientists have completely brushed aside this concept when it comes to evolution. Thirdly, the constitution never states or implies a separation of church and state. In fact, it state that congress shall not keep its citizens from praciticing religion, which it now frequently does via the courts. Fourthly, ID does not even violate the fabricated "separations clause" because it does not endorse any particular religion. Fifthly, it IS fanatical behavior because ANY challenge to current evolutionary theory is immediately attacked. The concept of fair and open discouse does not apply to evolutionary biologists. I remember reading a book a decade ago that simply challenged whether humans evolved on open plains (suggesting they had evolved in swamps) and the author was ridiculed in the scientific community for challenging the status quo, even though her evidence was quite compelling. Modern biologists need to take a clue from physicists and realize that their understanding of the world is anything but absolute. I swear the way they're behaving reminds me of the Christian reaction to evolution over a century ago.
If Newton was wrong, then why does this apple keep falling on my head. Einstein's theories improve the accuracy of Newton's equations. Saying Newton is wrong is being a little absolutist isn't it?
espeir wrote:
You obviously know very little about the subject to make such a statement.
lol. Riiight. The point with it all is that evolution proposes a framework which can be tested. I personally don't care if we evolved or if we arose from the belly button of Purusa. What I do care about is that whoever puts forward their theory must also put forward a means to test and validate that theory. I gave up following the ID debate because there never seemed to be any actual proposals for verification or theories on how to search for evidence. The "debate" just seemed to be a bunch of kindergarden kids calling each other names. cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
frankly, i don't believe you, since you've spent the majority of your past three posts slagging "current evolutionary theory".
Funny, I've been reading this and thinking 'Chris has missed the point'. It was obvious to me from the start that this guy probably believes in evolution, and he gives examples where people who challenge current thinking about evolution without suggesting anything like ID ( just that perhaps it happened a little differently to how we think now ), being ridiculed. 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. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
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.
but he's completely wrong on that point. and that's why my very first question to him was to get his definition of evolution. evolution, the theory, has a gigantic amount of evidence to back it up; everything from genetics to paleontology, morphology, psychology, developmental biology, virology, and epidemiology all support evolution - (and the timeframe required for evolution to have happened, according to models and the fossil record is supported by astronomy, physics and geology). there's no evidence for anything else. yes, there is still work to be done. and yes, the time scales required make direct observation difficult. but the direct observation is more than made up for by the rest of the evidence. so, to say, as he did, "Evolutionary theory cannot provide that any more than ID and is therefor unverified." shows either a total lack of knowledge about what "evolutionary theory" comprises (which is why I asked), or to simply not care (which is why I think he doesn't actually believe). i know you don't think evolution happened. and i know you think believing it did is a matter of faith. and i know arguing the issue with you is pointless. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
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.
but he's completely wrong on that point. and that's why my very first question to him was to get his definition of evolution. evolution, the theory, has a gigantic amount of evidence to back it up; everything from genetics to paleontology, morphology, psychology, developmental biology, virology, and epidemiology all support evolution - (and the timeframe required for evolution to have happened, according to models and the fossil record is supported by astronomy, physics and geology). there's no evidence for anything else. yes, there is still work to be done. and yes, the time scales required make direct observation difficult. but the direct observation is more than made up for by the rest of the evidence. so, to say, as he did, "Evolutionary theory cannot provide that any more than ID and is therefor unverified." shows either a total lack of knowledge about what "evolutionary theory" comprises (which is why I asked), or to simply not care (which is why I think he doesn't actually believe). i know you don't think evolution happened. and i know you think believing it did is a matter of faith. and i know arguing the issue with you is pointless. Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
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++
-
Jared Parsons wrote:
Just because it was decided democratically doesn't make it correct, legal or constitutional.
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). What the judge should have said was "Gee, looks like you guys already settled the issue, guess I can take the day off" rather than "Wow! Another opportunity to crush a few more religious cockroaches with my mighty secular gavel" (which made me very sad) "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot." -- modified at 18:26 Tuesday 20th December, 2005
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/
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
frankly, i don't believe you, since you've spent the majority of your past three posts slagging "current evolutionary theory".
Funny, I've been reading this and thinking 'Chris has missed the point'. It was obvious to me from the start that this guy probably believes in evolution, and he gives examples where people who challenge current thinking about evolution without suggesting anything like ID ( just that perhaps it happened a little differently to how we think now ), being ridiculed. 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. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
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
-
...for rational thinking and science. A defeat of stupidity. Finally a sound decision for the future of the U.S. and it's population. A court in the US has ruled against the teaching in schools of the theory of "intelligent design" alongside Darwinian evolution. Article[^]. The CNN article (here[^]) is even better. It highlights the lies, deceit and deception used by the religious advocates in order to try and ram this crap into the educational system. Not very Christian behaviour, I may add...tsk tsk...
thealj wrote:
A Victory...for rational thinking and science.
I sometimes wish all of the ID proponents would simultaneously get an appendicitis. :laugh: I'm not wishing anything fatal on them, just enough to give them a wake up call, and provide some ironic humour for the rest of us :laugh: :laugh::laugh: