Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8975 total)
33 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 30 visitors)
Newest Member: dad
Post Volume: Total: 875,808 Year: 7,556/23,288 Month: 115/1,347 Week: 132/342 Day: 2/27 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   2/3rds of Americans want creationism taught.
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 171 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 166 of 180 (239927)
09-02-2005 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Phat
09-02-2005 3:22 AM


Re: Sorry to speculate and sound arrogant, but..
You honestly sound like a true unbeliever! You appear to have no knowledge of God, or having experienced a fragment of the power thereof....

You'd be quite surprised. My strong feelings regarding public school education stem from the fact that no religion has the right to force its views on those who do not follow it, and thus religious belief has no place in public school. Public education should only include those subjects which are secular and, in the case of science, have observable and experimental evidence to back them up.

In other words, keep religion in church and at the home, where it belongs. Public schools, as a place where children of all faiths and no faiths are instructed, is not the place for religious teachings of any sort, regardless of how the majority feels.

The seperation of church and state was devised expressly so that a minority religion could never be persecuted by a majority religion with the support of the state.

But what do you define as dogma? Lets concentrate..FIRSTLY...on this word, "dogma." I have actually never met anyone who fervantly feels a relational connection with pink unicorns, magic fairies or flying monsters of any chef! I have read about such people in psychological writings, but there are not too many around. You honestly have not actually prayed with or met any fervant Christians who fervantly knew that they had a relational connection with God? We both need to get out more!

Don't be dense. I also believe I have felt God's presence, and of course I have met others who feel the same way. I am a firm believer in God.

I brought up fairies and unicorns because, to those who are not Christian, Christian beliefs have just as much evidenciary support as magic invisible unicorns or the Giant Flying Spaggheti Monster. I'm not saying that God doesn't exist, only that Christians have no right to teach Biblical Creation or even Inteeligent Design in a public school setting in science class of all places. These things are philosophy ans theology, not science! Leave them where they belong, and everybody will get along just fine.


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Phat, posted 09-02-2005 3:22 AM Phat has not yet responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3415 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 167 of 180 (239932)
09-02-2005 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by CK
09-01-2005 7:35 PM


Re: Way off topic and science in a non-science forum

Off Topic. Please do not reply to this message

You guys complain that ID is off-topic for science because of the concept of a Designer, maintaining that only "physical" areas are acceptable for science.

I call BS on that. You can't define physical any longer based on purely classical principles.

If something is real, it is part of reality whether it was called physical or spiritual, natural or super-natural.

That's where you guys make a mistake. You assume science cannot deal with the spiritual, but in fact, all spiritual traditions I am aware of believe there are spiritual laws and that the spiritual is closely connected and intertwined with the physical. So per science, the "spiritual" is physical, and the supernatural is natural. It's just a distinct part of reality, a sector of reality, and in fact, QM seems to even deal with what were formerly known as spiritual principles. One aspect of the "spiritual" is invisibility to the naked eye, but somehow connection to energy. Another aspect is connection to consciousness.

So it is improper to criticize theories as unscientific simply because they overlap with religion or spiritual traditions.

It is unscientific in fact to assert an outdated paradigm of what science is based on a false definition of physical reality, which no one here thus far seems capable of providing anyway.

This message has been edited by AdminJar, 09-02-2005 10:58 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by CK, posted 09-01-2005 7:35 PM CK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Yaro, posted 09-02-2005 11:54 AM randman has not yet responded

Yaro
Member (Idle past 5012 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 168 of 180 (239937)
09-02-2005 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by randman
09-02-2005 11:47 AM


Re: Way off topic and science in a non-science forum
Open a thread about the nature of physical reality, I would be happy to respond there. Admin Jar has labeld this Off Topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by randman, posted 09-02-2005 11:47 AM randman has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 169 of 180 (240356)
09-04-2005 9:03 AM


Why not both?
I think both forms of design theory should be taught.

Teach the problems with the intelligent design concept and show the flaws in the reasoning and the major holes in its evidence.

This will let students decide between the intelligent design concept and the silly design concept.

There is obviously much more evidence for SD than there is for ID: all those little things that evo's keep bringing up as poor examples of intelligence in design are just proof that Silly Design was in operation.

One doesn't need to show intelligence to posit that a designer was involved, as many objects of human design show strong evidence for silly design practices, and we know that they were designed.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Nuggin, posted 09-05-2005 8:04 PM RAZD has responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1009 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 170 of 180 (240693)
09-05-2005 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by RAZD
09-04-2005 9:03 AM


Re: Why not both?
If we start teaching ID, then I want my IP theory taught in school as well.

Here it is in short: IP Intelligent Pusher
We are kept from flying off into space not by some invisible force "gravity" for which there is no proof, but instead by the downward pressure exherted on us by the Intelligent Pusher.

Why do birds, bugs, bats and balloons fly? Don't have an answer for that, but we suspect it has something to do with the letter b.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by RAZD, posted 09-04-2005 9:03 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by RAZD, posted 09-05-2005 9:30 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 171 of 180 (240720)
09-05-2005 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Nuggin
09-05-2005 8:04 PM


Re: Why not both?
you'll have to take that up with Son Goku and CaveDiver ... :D

there are real problem with design theory and a lot of controversy between different ID proponents, and I think that schools and media need to be made aware of the controversy. both sides need to be provided.

I'm working on a new post to better describe the controversy and demonstrate how SD answers some of the questions raised, but I'll be away a couple of days.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Nuggin, posted 09-05-2005 8:04 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

mikehager
Member (Idle past 4983 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 172 of 180 (240854)
09-06-2005 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by randman
09-01-2005 3:15 PM


Re: Let's vote on the facts?
I replied to this message once before and have waited some time for an answer. To recap, you claimed that Behe was doing science in support of ID. I countered that he seemed to be doing nothing but writing for the popular, non-scientific, press. I asked for an example of an experiment (experimentation being how science is done) from any source that Behe is doing or has done recently.

I would like to ask again that you respond or withdraw your claim that Behe is doing science in support of ID.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by randman, posted 09-01-2005 3:15 PM randman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by AdminJar, posted 09-06-2005 4:13 PM mikehager has responded
 Message 174 by DrJones*, posted 09-06-2005 4:13 PM mikehager has not yet responded
 Message 175 by nwr, posted 09-06-2005 4:14 PM mikehager has not yet responded

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 173 of 180 (240857)
09-06-2005 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by mikehager
09-06-2005 4:06 PM


randman is gone
I was finally decided that randman was totally incapable of supporting his assertions or even understanding sources he used as support. He's outta here. His return is not likely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by mikehager, posted 09-06-2005 4:06 PM mikehager has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by mikehager, posted 09-06-2005 4:20 PM AdminJar has not yet responded

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2096
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 174 of 180 (240858)
09-06-2005 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by mikehager
09-06-2005 4:06 PM


you won't get a reply anytime soon
randman has been permanently booted.


If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by mikehager, posted 09-06-2005 4:06 PM mikehager has not yet responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5610
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 175 of 180 (240861)
09-06-2005 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by mikehager
09-06-2005 4:06 PM


Re: Let's vote on the facts?
I would like to ask again that you respond or withdraw your claim that Behe is doing science in support of ID.

I doubt that randman will be responding any time soon. See Message 80

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by mikehager, posted 09-06-2005 4:06 PM mikehager has not yet responded

mikehager
Member (Idle past 4983 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 176 of 180 (240863)
09-06-2005 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by AdminJar
09-06-2005 4:13 PM


Re: randman is gone
Well, all I can say is "oops'. Go out of town for a few days and miss all the good stuff...

Thanks for the information.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by AdminJar, posted 09-06-2005 4:13 PM AdminJar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Wounded King, posted 09-06-2005 7:09 PM mikehager has not yet responded

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2611 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 177 of 180 (240903)
09-06-2005 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by mikehager
09-06-2005 4:20 PM


Behe has ben published lately with ID motivated research
With Reference to the Behe and Snoke (2004) paper, I'm not sure why you couldn't find it. It has been in print for some time now, in fact there was a paper critiquing Behe and Snoke and proposing a model more in line with the current literature published just last month in Protein Science (Lynch, 2005), along with a response from Behe and Snoke.

TTFN,

WK

This message has been edited by Wounded King, 09-07-2005 02:35 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by mikehager, posted 09-06-2005 4:20 PM mikehager has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by AdminNosy, posted 09-06-2005 7:33 PM Wounded King has responded

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 178 of 180 (240919)
09-06-2005 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Wounded King
09-06-2005 7:09 PM


Re: randman is gone
Just what does your post have to do with the subtitle on it? Could you watch those a bit?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Wounded King, posted 09-06-2005 7:09 PM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Wounded King, posted 09-07-2005 2:39 AM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2611 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 179 of 180 (240952)
09-07-2005 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by AdminNosy
09-06-2005 7:33 PM


Redundant subtitles.
Well it was Randman to whom the initial request for the information on the Behe and Snoke paper was addressed and I was posting this since he is obviously unable to answer for himself and Mike was asking him to..

respond or withdraw your claim that Behe is doing science in support of ID.

So I posted with material relevant to that claim because, 'Randman is gone'.

But I've changed the subtitle anyway, always glad to oblige.

TTFN,

WK

P.S. what does your post have to do with the subtitle on it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by AdminNosy, posted 09-06-2005 7:33 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

AdminBen
Inactive Member


Message 180 of 180 (247691)
09-30-2005 2:25 PM


Thread copied to the 2/3rds of Americans want creationism taught. thread in the In The News forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020