|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is ID a right wing conspiracy? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Thus while we both agree they should not be taught, I disagree with your assessment TE is not science. It certainly is as long as its belief in a deity is not discussed as a scientifically valid conclusion. How can theistic evolution, whose entire reason for seperation from plain evolution is that its adherants believe a deity started the process, possibly NOT discuss its belief in a deity?! Just teach plain evolution, don't mention God's existance or lack thereof, and leave the science classroom to pure science. TE is just as invalid as ID in the classroom becuase it requires the acknowledgement of a deity whose existance is as provable as that of magic fairies. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
possibly NOT discuss its belief in a deity?! As long as they separate their belief from knowledge then they may remain scientific. I'm sure you can understand this as there are many competing beliefs about how the universe began, without gods but other equally theoretical mechanisms. Occam's razor cuts them all. One might argue that Occam's cuts a diety, especially a specific diety, a little faster than the rest, but they are all theoretical and cut out. We have no evidence for anything that occured near or previous to what we currently consider the "big bang". Yes, their additional belief should not be taught in a science class, and on that we agree because it is speculative belief and nothing to do with scientific knowledge. However outside of the classroom they remain as scientific as an atheist who speculates on circularly repeating explosions within a multidimensional framework. That and deities not only have no evidence to support them (at this time) but we have no way of guessing what rules apply to them. Does my distinction make sense now? holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
As long as they separate their belief from knowledge then they may remain scientific. I'm sure you can understand this as there are many competing beliefs about how the universe began, without gods but other equally theoretical mechanisms. Occam's razor cuts them all. One might argue that Occam's cuts a diety, especially a specific diety, a little faster than the rest, but they are all theoretical and cut out. We have no evidence for anything that occured near or previous to what we currently consider the "big bang". Yes, their additional belief should not be taught in a science class, and on that we agree because it is speculative belief and nothing to do with scientific knowledge. However outside of the classroom they remain as scientific as an atheist who speculates on circularly repeating explosions within a multidimensional framework. That and deities not only have no evidence to support them (at this time) but we have no way of guessing what rules apply to them. Does my distinction make sense now? If a TE seperates his beliefs from the science and refers only to evolution itself as science without mentioning his faither... Than it's just plain evolution. Which IS science. I have no problem with that. But again, that would not be TE being taught in schools or representing itself as science. If TE presents itself as science, I have a problem. If ID presents itself as science, I have a problem. If a person who believes ID or TE teaches strict evolution, and does not add their personal beliefs into the picture, I have no problem. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5063 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Well Mick I just might be comming around to talk about some of the new "politics" that might be confusing US leaders.
Echoing similar comments from President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said "intelligent design" should be taught in public schools alongside evolution. I am becoming convinced that while not really a "right wing conspiracy" politics is getting the better of politicians.
quote: There really is *some* kind of "disconnect here. At least as much as any could be in any posting sequence between you and me. I have tried recently to indicate to Parasomonium that the word "tissue" causes this speech breach.
quote: To him? Well here we go. Now I would like to hear the tape"" of Dean. I think really that what is going on here is what Kant warned AGAINST in his transcendetal asthetic that one CAN NOT confound form and matter without error. Russell seems to have thought that Cantor"undermined" this work of Kant but I dont read that BUT DO FIND THIS POLITICS in its place. If Dean can be excluded from this criticism then I suppose your investigation into this "right wing" might gain substance. I just don't have all the information to judge as of yet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
brad writes: There really is *some* kind of "disconnect here. At least as much as any could be in any posting sequence between you and me. made me smile! Thanks for the link.
brad writes: I think really that what is going on here is what Kant warned AGAINST in his transcendetal asthetic that one CAN NOT confound form and matter without error. Okay, I guess we're all forced into doing that whenever we try to draw a line (for example) between what is just a lump of flesh and what is a human being....
brad writes: If Dean can be excluded from this criticism then I suppose your investigation into this "right wing" might gain substance is howard dean right wing? he looks it to me, but I might mean "conservative" rather than right wing. maybe I just mean "american". thanks mick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5063 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
If you think that Dean's comments made before Frist are conservative then indeed you probably meant "american" in my judgement.
quote:quote from Face the Nation I had thought that Dean said something about Frist but I guess I mispoke as it appears he only called Bush "anti-science". If this is not in line with the facts I hope someone points it out. Dean is more obviously confusing form and matter as you and I dont disconnect on the "flesh" any tissue contains. I think Dean needs to be schooled in "Hume" a bit more. Maybe that is just me. I am not his advisor. This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-21-2005 11:54 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2523 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Quote: "...the first step in a more general attack on materialistic society and an attempt to replace that society with one based upon "conservative-Christan" moral norms."
As near as I can tell from the voting record of the red states, "Materialistic society" IS the conservative-Christian moral norm. Exxon makes 75 Billion dollars and gets a tax break while poor kids are shipped off to fetch more oil for the fat cats
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5063 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Well I guess I would have had to accept this if Daniel C. Dennett had not come out with an OPED piece in the NY Times Today.
"Show me the Science" THE NEW YORK TIMES section 4 page 11
needs subscribtion it shows ME that evos can not help themselves but "create" ID events by themselves. Yaro's new avatar is less an eye-sore than any relief this article succeeds in garnering one way or the other. Dennet is simply asking a poster on EVC to post in the Aquatic Ape thread etc rather than one dominated by Brazillian influence. This is not right but it, as an event, will move the right futher right,right? Why? Because it is plausible to replace a non-eliminatable teleology eliminating Aristotelian influence in the evident secular regime. Biology does not recognize the need but Dennet scripts potential academic use of Kant's
quote:p 265 Kant's Critique of Judgement published by Hafner Publishing Co. NY This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-28-2005 11:41 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Springer Inactive Member |
I've been wondering for a long time if evolutionists are, for the most part, left wing liberals who are just as arrogant and close minded in their thinking of the origin of life as they are politically. Any thoughts?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Clark Inactive Member |
George Will and Charles Krauthammer, two prominent conservative pundits, came out recently in support of evolution and against ID. President Bush's science advisor did the same. Several members of EvC are conservative and evolutionists.
OTOH, the only people that I'm aware of that support ID are right-wing Evangelical Christians.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I've been wondering for a long time if evolutionists are, for the most part, left wing liberals who are just as arrogant and close minded in their thinking of the origin of life as they are politically. No, evolutionists are those to hold the position that the theory of evolution is the best and most accurate explanation of the history and diversity of life on Earth - which happens to be the position supported by the evidence. I'm aware of many, many right-wing evolutionists. If you're referring to biologists, on the other hand, it is generally true that, like every academic community, they lean heavily left-wing. This probably has something to do with the right-wing generally dismissing the work of teachers, professors, librarians, and other academics for decades. No surprise then to see them poorly represented among educators.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3854 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: I would try to keep my politics and science separate. However, I've only enountered one possible left-wing Young-Earth Creationist in years of reading boards like this, and a lot of people that seem to like to argue against Creationism seem to lean more toward the left. I don't think there is a causal relationship there, but I suspect correlation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Well, Springer, I used to be a religious fundamentalist, and quite conservative politically (or at least a politically as a high school kid could be). Despite it all, I came to accept the theory of evolution.
By the way, my father was quite conservative when he was alive -- even a big contributor to the Republican Party. Yet he was also quite an adamant atheist -- unlike my (present) left-wing atheist self, he hated Christians. Funny, huh? By the way, you can show how open-minded you are by addressing some of the points that I brought up in a previous conversation. "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
It is my impression that intelligent knowledgable people tend to be politically near the center. The far right and far left are more prone to irrationality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
It is my impression that people tend to attribute "intelligence" to their own beliefs and opinons and "irrationality" to beliefs and opinions that they disagree with.
NOTE THE SMILEY!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024