|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
What we are asking for is peer reviewed scientific research papers, not books. You do understand the difference, don't you? How many peer reviewed scientific research papers would it take? ID has a few, but is deemed not enough by the scientific community. How many does the SETI Institute have? I’m sure it has some, but how many did it have when it won its court battle to become science? (uh-oh, maybe it didn't - Dr Adequate couldn't provide me with evidence of its existence) If the scientific community claims to have a criteria for something to become science, shouldn’t that criteria be precisely defined?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Nope, wrong again. Science is neutral on religion so it's hard to use it as a weapon against religion. Religion, on the other hand is used as a weapon against science by zealots. That's what Dover was about and its what these bills are about. The list of books that I provided you with in message #56 is clear proof that it can. You aren't worth any more of my time. ![]() Edited by marc9000, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Would you also like to teach the other chapters where he explains why the arguments in ch. 3 are insufficient to make him a theist, and why he considers atheism to be correct? No, students should be expected to make that decision for themselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
You can't seriously believe that theories become science by winning court cases. Slow Friday night? I was working on Adequate's trolling. Often when I make a good point he trolls it. I pointed out in an earlier post that ID was the only scientific discipline that had to face an entrance exam (court case). He called that "bizarre". So I asked him to specify any other scientific discipline that won a court case, and of course he melted down. It was fun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
A naturalistic worldview is the opposite of religion. It is practiced by imperfect humans, just as religion is.
Science relies on the scientific method, which requires that ideas be tested against real-world evidence. Ideas which do not measure up are discarded. Science does, but the imperfect humans that practice it rely on dogma, revelation, faith and belief just the same as religious people. They make just as questionable political decisions as anybody else. Seems like I remember you to be a conservative. Surely you should know how imperfect liberal evolutionists political opinions are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Hi Marc, What exactly is it that you fear Stephen Weinberg is going to do? Encourage the scientific community (often through education) to use its respected position to promote liberal political policies, like morally troubling medical experimentation, global warming hysteria, irresponsible government spending, and of course, downgrading religion in science classes. There's nothing in science that promotes financial responsibility. The book of Proverbs does, but what does it matter? If Genesis is false, Proverbs must be too, right? We're seeing that attitude in government today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
But science doesn't tell us what is true It tells atheists what is true. Just ask them. ![]() Goodnight.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
MESSAGE 119
nwr writes: marc9000 writes: I pointed out in an earlier post that ID was the only scientific discipline that had to face an entrance exam (court case). But that's total BS, and you ought to be smart enough to know that. Then you should be smart enough to specify the other scientific disciplines that had to face that entrance exam (court case), complete with dates and court case names. If you can’t, then my statement is 100% true. And I know you can't, so that's that. MESSAGE 120
PaulK writes: You've admitted that all the bills are inspired by a desire to distort science classes to favour uor religious beliefs. I haven’t admitted that at all, you build straw men. I’ve only said that religious people started and promoted the study of ID. Just like atheists started and promoted evolution. Atheists were prompted to do that because of the book Origin of Species. Religious people were prompted to what they did because of recent discoveries of the complexities of the simplest forms of life.
You can't come up with any other good arguments as to why ID belongs in science classes so it really does seem that that is all there is to it. Here’s one that hasn’t really fit into the barrage I’m facing, until now. The assertion that ID is completely religiously inspired is false. The truth is that ID began in the mid 1980’s, at exactly the same time that more and more complexity was being discovered in the simplest forms of life. Yet atheism was remaining in science, there was no open inquiry being conducted into how so much specified order, complexity and purposive results were present in the cell. In Behe’s words;
quote: The following is a part of what Bradley Monton puts forward in his book, the fine tuning argument.
quote: These things and more really began coming to light at exactly the same time ID began taking shape. More and more complexity is being discovered to this day, and yet the mantra goes on exactly the same in the enraged scientific community. It doesn’t matter how ordered it is, it fell together gradually, by happenstance processes. And that mindset closes more exploration than it opens.
It is your argument that is simplistic. Science isn't not inherently atheistic. Many believers accept the findings of science - including evolution. Some even write popular books promoting the compatibility of their brand of Christianity with science. It's quite odd that you don't seem to notice those books at all. I notice, I read Kenneth Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God about 5 years ago. He showed no knowledge of Christianity whatsoever.
It really seems that the only " patheism" in science that you are really worried about is science that contradicts the beliefs of your sect. I never used the word that you put in quotes. Just trying to mislead lurkers, aren't you?
As has already been pointed out, the way to correct a real violation of the First Amendment is no to mandate another violation, even more egregious than the first. The remedy is to stop the violation. All you would have to do is to show that evolution is not valid science or that there is no valid secular reason for teaching it in schools and it would be withdrawn. Not evolution, its definition is too slippery. It’s only change over time whenever its atheism and assumptions are questioned. Abiogenesis, the PAH world hypothesis would be something easier to expose for what it is, but it would still take millions of dollars and a court case. The money isn’t there. (yet)
Unfortunately for you, it's rather easier to spout crazy falsehoods on a website than it is to get a court to accepts them. The fact that you don't want to follow the correct course is a pretty clear sign that even you don't believe what you were saying. Or it’s the sign that I don’t have the money to haul abiogenesis into court, like the ACLU and scientific community did to ID at Dover. MESSAGE 123
Percy writes: Hi Marc,I see your beliefs as expressions of paranoia and ignorance rather than as conclusions from evidence and reason, but the track record of talking people out of such beliefs is poor and I won't try. I see evolutionists expressions of paranoia and ignorance of ID that way too. ![]() Sense and reason turn out to be poor tools to talk people out of beliefs arrived at by other means. I found that out, as Trixie continues to believe that science isn’t, and can’t, be used as a weapon against religion. It’s politically correct to state that it’s not, and it looks good on news reports, scientific papers, evolution forums, but that doesn’t stop it from being false.
I would prefer that people not hold such beliefs, but I see little that can be done about it on an individual basis. The key question is whether your views pose any real threat to science education, or more generally, to freedom from state imposed religion, and the answer is that I don't. I don’t either. My views could pose a threat to publicly established atheism, but not science education.
People with views like yours are going to think what they think regardless, but the paranoia combined with a lack of coherence, reason and evidence will be readily apparent to everyone else. As more and more complexity is discovered in biology, and the scientific community remains closed-minded, everyone else is going to increasingly question the political action of the scientific community. In the coming ID bills, there are going to be more and more questions about things like why the scientific community constantly demands more peer-reviewed papers from ID proponents, yet never specifies how many it would take for ID to become science. There’s going to be more and more questions about science’s failure to address new biological discoveries in an atheistic way. Mistakes that were made by ID proponents at Dover won’t be made again. Chances are, a jury, or multiple judges, will be involved next time. The scientific community’s current lofty political position is not guaranteed to stand forever. MESSAGE 127
Trixie writes: I didn't tackle this statement earlier on because I couldn't make up my mind if marc was being facetious or serious. Then I remembered that one of the reasons we all continue to post here is to inform lurkers. There could possibly be some lurkers who buy into the politically correct narrative gloss nonsense that science can’t be done without evolution, but that’s false.
quote: Francis Collins and the Overselling of Evolution | Evolution News
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
To repeat the question from the opening message;
I'd like this thread to discuss why the Dover trial hasn't put a stop to this nonsense and why anyone would think that children, just beginning their journey into science and it's methods, would possess the knowledge and critical thinking skills required to assess ID and evolution when supposedly educated adults are unable to, as is demonstrated in all it's awful clarity in the text of the Bill itself. It would also be of interest to determine if the ID crowd have made any advances which would render the Dover judgement outdated and wrong. I knew when I joined this thread in an attempt to answer the questions in the opening message, that my answers would be met with opposition. Yet no matter how much evolutionists disagree with the reasons people have for introducing ID bills, the reasons are what they are. Many people see the scientific community’s opposition to ID as a jealous guarding of the status quo, and there’s plenty of common sense evidence that makes that clear. The cartoon that I’ve been shown..what, three times in this thread, supposedly shows an orderly, well defined process that an idea must follow to be included in science education. The problem is, that process is governed by imperfect humans, and no, that’s not a projection of the fall from the Bible or anything like that, it’s a simple, secular fact that humans are imperfect, and I don’t’ think any serious evolutionist is going to point to any human organization that’s ever existed and claim that it’s perfect. Organizations are often ‘special interests’, and the scientific community is a special interest. I and many others don’t believe that defined process is evenly applied. For example, I’ve never been shown that the SETI Institute (considered science, and taught in science classes according to its website) has ever had to go through that line, or show any of its accomplishments as testable, repeatable, or observable. I and many others believe that recent discoveries of the complexities of the simplest forms of life are far more profound than the scientific community will admit, as they attempt to protect the status quo. Those discoveries are troubling to atheists, pure and simple. Claims by evolutionists that we’d all be living in caves without constant thought and application of evolution is blown out of proportion by a special interest, as common sense and verification by some non-politically correct scientists shows. Many actions by the scientific community, refusal to publicly re-evaluate fragmented hypothesis of naturalistic origins of life in light of recent scientific discoveries, and the arrogant behavior, the superior attitude that the scientific community and those who represent it often show towards non-scientists are what convince many people that the Dover decision — a decision made by ONE judge — deserves a second look. If that makes evolutionists angry, it doesn’t change the fact that that’s how things are. Science isn’t the only source of knowledge, and it doesn’t have special rights to make political decisions in the U.S. Thanks for the few good messages that there were, particularly from Percy and Bluegenes. This is my last message in this thread.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024