|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
Dawn Bertot writes: Can I keep this as a signature? You are also good at concealing these realities from simple minded people in the court process, then claiming victory It's not our fault that one of the founders of ID could not even expose these "realities to simple minded people" in the court process. I mean, all it needs is one piece of evidence. Was he too "simple minded" to explain his "theory" to those "simple minded people"? It's not our fault that he sees astrology as "science". Even those "simple minded people" were way too intelligent to see astrology as "science". It says a lot about you, though. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : Changed sentence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
marc9000 writes:
quote: Huh? I thought we were talking about evolution. Evolution doesn't have anything to say about the origin of life and is compatible with any method you care to name. Life could have arisen chemically through abiogensis, supernaturally through god zap-poofing it into existence, extraterrestrially through panspermia or alien seeding, interdimensionally through a rift in space-time, so long as that life did not replicate perfectly from generation to generation, then evolution is satisfied.Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1052 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
ToLO&P I've been trying to figure it out, but I'm stumped. 'Theory of Language Origin and Phonetics'? Taste of Lemon Oil and Parsley'? 'Tales of Lop-Eaed Ollie and Patsy'?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
marc9000 writes: When children are just beginning their journey into science and its methods, they’re immediately told that the book of Genesis is wrong. If the subject of ID is brought up by a student, they can be told that ID is a thin veil over creationism, yet they’re NOT told that evolution is a thin veil over atheism. They may not have the critical thinking skills to realize that, and many of their parents feel that it’s important for that fact to be taught in schools. These are your personal fears and misapprehensions, not facts that have to be dealt with. Science classes should teach currently accepted views within science. Evolution is a currently accepted view within science. Encouraging school systems to include "scientific controversies" (that phrase is from the bill) in the curriculum seems like a good idea, but there is no scientific controversy about evolution within science. The controversy is social, political and religious, not scientific. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
marc9000 writes: If science/biology was clearly considered by everyone to be a far more important subject than other subjects like Math, history, government, languages etc., or if the U.S. constitution read differently, then the scientific community could make all the decisions about what is taught in science classes. But it’s not considered more important, the Constitution doesn’t give the scientific community special political rights, so therefore what is taught in science classes will continue to largely be a political matter. And new bills intended to challenge atheism in science classes will continue to be introduced. The scientific community needs to get used to it. Again, this is just a reflection of your own personal fears. Science can only take positions on phenomena for which there is evidence. It not only doesn't say there is no God, it can't say it. Of course if you want to claim something is true because God says it is true, and it happens to be something for which there is scientific evidence, then worlds clash. But "My interpretation of the Bible, the Word of God, is that this is so" is an impoverished argument against actual evidence. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
ToLO&P I've been trying to figure it out, but I'm stumped.
Theory of Law, Order and Purpose.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I've been trying to figure it out, but I'm stumped. 'Theory of Language Origin and Phonetics'? Taste of Lemon Oil and Parsley'? 'Tales of Lop-Eaed Ollie and Patsy'? "Tons of Lies, Obfuscation, and Propaganda".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
marc9000 writes:
That's one of the reasons. ....It could have happened by a poor performance by ID proponents,.... Most of the "poor performance" by the proponents involved things that happened outside of the court room. My impression gained from reading the transcript is that Behe did his best to avoid saying anything that would damage the defendant's case, but that ultimately, he had to own up to stuff he had said and done that were not helpful to the case, and his foot dragging looked a lot like lying. Additionally, principle witnesses for the defense were caught in egregious lies which damaged their credibility, but the fact of the matter is that the lies themselves were about quite condemning information regarding the purpose of the ID curriculum. Dawn Bertot has in the past suggested that he could have saved the trial by offering his own logic on why ID was science. Ignoring for now the fact that DB's logic is not rational, it is pretty clear to me that DB could not have overcome the problems with the damning story behind the text book, Behe's dissembling, the out of court statements by the defendant's admitting that their purpose for changing the science curriculum was not based in science, Behe's admission regarding astrology, the lack of scientific review of the material in the text book. There's more stuff, and for anyone interested on either side of the debate, I highly recommend the NOVA video Intelligent Design on Trial. Also, because of the Dover defendants' refusal to appeal their case, even if another court in a different jurisdiction were to receive a different result based on a different set of facts, that the new result would be utterly unhelpful to the Dover folks. They are stuck with their injunction. Edited by NoNukes, : Trail/Trial single/pluralUnder a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
You don’t think that ever happens now? Frankly, no. Biology teachers are spooked enough just teaching what little evolution they do teach. They, like anyone else, do not want to risk their job.
If science/biology was clearly considered by everyone to be a far more important subject than other subjects like Math, history, government, languages etc., or if the U.S. constitution read differently, then the scientific community could make all the decisions about what is taught in science classes. But it’s not considered more important, the Constitution doesn’t give the scientific community special political rights, so therefore what is taught in science classes will continue to largely be a political matter. The only thing the Constitution has to say with regard to public classrooms is that religious indoctrination can not be a part of the curriculum. This was spelled out in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) which is now called the Lemon test. It has 3 simple rules: 1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; 3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. Judge after judge has found that teaching creationism and ID in the science classroom fails the Lemon test. As to science curriculums being political, why does it need to be? Just teach the scientific consensus. Period. Why does it need to be more complicated than that?
And new bills intended to challenge atheism in science classes . . . This is about evolution, not atheism. What next? Are we not allowed to teach meteorology because it does not include Thor in the description of how lightning is produced? Is meteorology atheistic as well? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
You couldnt let the chips fall from any rational standpoint, because if you did, the design principle and the ToLO&P, would have already been established as science from any rational standpoint. Then you had better start citing peer reviewed papers where this is demonstrated. Perhaps this cartoon will help people understand what is really going on:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3
|
Trixie writes: Only 20 posts before the inevitable happens. Religion is brought into the equation, falsifying claims that ID has nothing to do with religion. So you wish that I’d never posted in your thread? You’d rather have had a 20, or 30, or 40 post love fest with like minded people? Your opening post gave me the impression that you’d genuinely like to better understand why ID bills concerning science education continue to be introduced, in spite of past court cases like Dover. Don’t you think there’s a chance you get that answer from someone of a like mind of those who introduce that type of bill? Most on these types of forums don’t of course, they just want to mock and ridicule, and call any non-atheist a flat earther. Are you different? We’ll soon find out. I’m not really involved in this thread to defend the ID position against the usual onslaught of evolutionist posters. I’m here to help answer the question you posed in the opening post, to explain to you why these types of ID bills keep coming up, and why, as I said, you need to get used to it. I personally, have never claimed that ID has nothing to do with religion. It has something to do with religion, to the same extent that evolution has something to do with atheism. It is claimed that evolution can be studied separate from atheism. Equally, ID can be studied separate from religion.
marc9000 writes: When children are just beginning their journey into science and its methods, they’re immediately told that the book of Genesis is wrong. If the subject of ID is brought up by a student, they can be told that ID is a thin veil over creationism, yet they’re NOT told that evolution is a thin veil over atheism. I think you've just made my point. Religion doesn't belong in a science class so ID does't get in the door. Yet opposition to religion is always in the door. Students ask questions that promote discussions about religion. It can’t be kept out.
I think you've also answered the question of why this is still going on after Dover - many proponents of ID just don't get what Dover was about. They understand perfectly what it was about. It’s about a double standard. Fragmented, partial hypothesis of how life naturalistically arose from non life is considered science because it’s atheist friendly, while the comparably fragmented, partial scientific challenges to Darwinism called ID is not atheist friendly, so it’s blocked by the courts.
marc, the whole pint of the wording of the current bill is so tha doesnt gt laelled as religon. Your comment has rather spoiled their party. The specifics of ID, as promoted by its leading proponents, aren’t religious. Mathematical improbability isn’t religious. Evidence of purpose v non-purpose, not religious. Defining and determining what testability actually is - not religious. Studying a greater range of biological possibilities is not religious. Such as predictions of certain patterns of technological evolution, notable among these being sudden emergence, convergence to local optima and extinction. [Dembski] New paths of exploration that that go completely unexplored by atheists.
As an off-topic aside, if evolution is a thin veil over atheism, how do you explain those people who accept evolution and believe in God? The scientific community has to have them, and as we see, atheists gleefully point to them whenever someone questions anything the scientific community is doing. Without them, evolution wouldn’t be able to get public funding, and be publicly established, since its main interest is to oppose religion. Most of them are phonies, some are genuine, with little understanding of Christianity. Others like the Catholic church leadership, make compromises to try to avoid costly legal battles with the scientific community. I have an example of a monetary challenge from science to Catholics back in 1968, but that’s getting too far off topic. Bottom line, any religious person who believes and promotes everything put forth by the scientific community concerning common descent and millions of years has to bend and shape their religion to a secondary realm, far behind the leader, which is atheism. So called Christian evolutionists like Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller are adored by the scientific community. To logically occupy both positions is impossible of course, they both have to flip flop back and forth to make it work. They call themselves Christians, then violate every single Christian principle by saying that God is not intelligent, whenever the scientific community demands it from them. Francis Collins for example, makes design arguments in cosmology and physics, then turns right around and dismisses them in the biological realm. When actual Christians question him and Miller on these types of things, they either do very brief dances, or ignore them completely. The scientific community never questions them of course, they love them, and assign them prestigious, financially rewarding positions. Then other top scientists like Steven Weinberg win nobel prizes and declare that one of science’s main objectives should be to weaken the hold of religion. Others like Stenger and Dawkins saturate the public realm with popular books like How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, and The God Delusion, while Miller and Collins wink and nod. As ID proponents note the rapidly declining morality in the U.S., and the staggering debt the U.S. is racking up, they see the beginnings of these things (a few decades ago) as logically corresponding to separation of church and state, including the beginnings of the teaching of atheism in science classes. Evolutionists scoff at these irrational fears, then shriek with fear that if things like mathematical improbability, distinctions of differences between design and non design etc are introduced in biology classes, that those biology classes will fill with religious rituals. Who do you really think has the most irrational fear? What is happening now is exactly the same thing that was happening 100 years ago, only in reverse. Back then, creationism/Christianity was the established paradigm in the philosophical area of science. Some people found Darwinism, a new way of exploration that was only a few decades old, to be profound. It was a challenge to, and was different from, the established paradigm. Over time, it was heavily promoted by atheists, and more and more people found it profound, and the established paradigm was overturned. Some of the overturning process was the result of court battles. Today, Darwinism is the established paradigm, with a we haven’t figured it out yet promissory note for origins of life. An increasing number of people today find the recently discovered complexities of the simplest forms of life to be profound, enough to wonder if random acts of purposelessness could possibly do the job. Atheists of course, insist that they can, no matter how orderly and complex it is. But atheists know that it’s less likely that increased complexity, purpose and order can fall together all by itself with no purposeful external guidance, and recent scientific questions of, as one example, the origin of the cilium leaves Darwinism with little to say, making atheists angry and defensive, similar to the anger and defense among religious people 100 years ago. Your link from the opening post labeled Missouri House Bill 1276 as an antievolution bill. Why did they do that? I’m constantly told that origins of life have nothing at all to do with evolution, and ID mainly seeks to address what current atheist science so far has been largely unable to, the origins of life. The fact is, using the word antievolution in this way is an emotional term, one of the many disingenuous methods the scientific community uses to shout down any challenges to its agenda. It’s similar to covering eyes, holding ears, and shouting RELIGION, RELIGION, anytime someone promoting ID says anything at all. The general public sees through this kind of BS to a far greater extent than the scientific community realizes. After all, their specialty is science, not analyzing the intelligence of other members of society that they arrogantly look down their noses upon. So just get used to ID bills being introduced in education at the state level for years to come. The scientific community / ACLU / George Soros have very impressive warchests. U.S. politics is far more corrupt and filled with big money special interests than it was 100 years ago. But as long as the general public has voting rights, things do have ways of coming around.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
"Anti evolution" terminology, cartoons, arrogance, condescension. The scientific community's most effective tools to win in the courts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
marc writes: They understand perfectly what it was about. It’s about a double standard. Fragmented, partial hypothesis of how life naturalistically arose from non life is considered science because it’s atheist friendly, while the comparably fragmented, partial scientific challenges to Darwinism called ID is not atheist friendly, so it’s blocked by the courts. Again you continue to misrepresent the facts. It has nothing to do with atheism; Christians also oppose teaching Creationism or Intelligent Design as though it were science.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
"Anti evolution" terminology, cartoons, arrogance, condescension. The scientific community's most effective tools to win in the courts.
The scientific community keeps winning because it brings facts and evidence to the courts, while IDers keep bringing religious belief thinly disguised to mimic scientific facts and evidence. "Cdesign Proponentsists" was the smoking gun at Dover. There was no way the IDers could explain away the change in their book from "creationists" to "design proponents" without changing any other parts of their book. Doesn't that really make it sound like the two are the same? (The court thought so.) "Cdesign Proponentsists" | National Center for Science EducationReligious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
"Anti evolution" terminology, cartoons, arrogance, condescension. The scientific community's most effective tools to win in the courts. Though strangely enough I don't remember any cartoons being put forward in evidence. For some reason they decided to discard this "most effective tool" in favor of the facts.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024