Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Support for Louisiana repeal effort
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 76 of 108 (615534)
05-14-2011 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Taq
05-13-2011 12:08 PM


I agree. The citizens of Louisiana should be able to decide how their taxes are spent with relation to public schooling and what is taught in those public schools, as long as what is taught does not violate the Constitutional rights of the students. To be quite frank, I do not view removal of evolution from the science curriculum to be a violation of a student's Constitutional rights. Teaching creationism would be a violation, but that is a separate topic.
I agree in principle. Practice is a lot hairier.
To start with, the anti-evolution movement's only real goal is to prevent the teaching of evolution. Certainly, mileage will vary (considering the various other missions that creationists have assigned themselves), but the emphasis has always been on blocking the teaching of evolution rather then the impostion of teaching creationism. The 1980's laws (Arkansas and Louisiana) explicitly only required the teaching of creationism when evolution was being taught, but not when evolution was not. The creationist cause is not to establish the teaching of creationism, but rather to kill evolution (as offered by Paul Ellwanger, the author of the model bill that those Arkansas and Louisiana laws were based and presented as evidence in court: "... -- the idea of killing evolution instead of playing these debating games that we've been playing for nigh over a decade already.").
I do agree that a school board is free to determine what needs to be taught. The problem is in the decisions to not teach something. If there were some secular reason for not teaching evolution, then they might have something. But instead, their reasons for not teaching evolution have all been religious, which is a definite problem. And, yes, "creation science" was a deliberate deception intended to pretend that they had "scientific" reasons for not teaching evolution, but the courts have found that that's a lie. So they tried to use "intelligent design" as a further lie to sneak it by, but the courts now know that that is a lie as well.
The fundamental problem is that the only reasons that any state has for not teaching evolution are purely religious. And Epperson vs Arkansas (1968) established that religious reasons for not teaching evolution simply will not fly. That is why we have "creation science", a deliberate deception that attempted to circumvent Epperson vs Arkansas.
I really doubt that you can find "Genesis is wrong" in any science textbook, nor does any science teacher push that.
No, you won't, and case law is against the idea (Farnan v. Capistrano Unified School District). However, one thing that came out in testimony for the 1981 Arkansas law was the quandry that the teachers were being placed in. In testimony, one teacher was reduced to tears at the very thought that the law would require him to deliberately lie to his students. Another teacher charged with developing a creationist curriculum had to admit that she could not find anything suitable -- the so-called "public school" materials from the ICR were far too blatantly religious to eve be considered; the only possible source she found was a Reader's Digest article by Robert Genty about radio-genic halos, which has since been soundly refuted as creationist nonsense.
So here's the dilemma. A teacher cannot simply state that a religious belief is sheer nonsense. But if creationist claims are forced on that teacher to be presented, shouldn't that teacher at least examine those claims before the class? With all due respect (fully intended in the Woody Allen manner). If a teacher is forced by law to present complete nonsense, shouldn't that same teacher examine that complete nonsense?
It's been done, by Thwaites and Awbrey in their two-model classes at San Diego State University, before the campus Christian clubs protested to have them shut down. Direct examination of creationist nonsense is conclusive and irrefutable.
Small wonder that creationists raised on creationist nonsense flee their childhood religion in droves once they learn the truth. To all creationists present: thank you oh so much for your over-generous contributions to the growth and spread of atheism. Nobody contributes even remotely as much as you do!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Taq, posted 05-13-2011 12:08 PM Taq has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 77 of 108 (615665)
05-15-2011 2:37 PM


marc9000 writes:
And the big money will be on the evolution side. Some of it will be public money, while the creationist money will be all private.
Theodoric writes:
Evidence to back this assertion please.
Trae writes:
Theodoric has asked for you to support this claim. I’d be surprised if you could. You realize in these suits that the plaintiffs are suing the government and the religious organizations pushing these challenges are also well founded? Where do you think all this evo money is coming from?
dwise1 writes:
What public money? Please be specific. What public money?
quote:
Federal investment in research and education is essential if the United States is to remain a global leader in the biological sciences. The National Science Foundation (NSF), the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Department of Energy Office of Science, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) are among the federal agencies that fund intramural (e.g. government scientists) and extramural (e.g. university scientists) biological research, as well as programs that recruit and train the next generation of scientists.
Science Policy & Advocacy Services | AIBS
This is from the website of the first organization that was mentioned in the link in this thread’s opening message. Federal investment in research and education , and a listing of government agencies such as the EPA being among the federal agencies that fund intramural.biological research always seem to be instrumental in all these various agencies that take sides in naturalism v religion political battles. It’s easy to see how public money could be used by them for their political battles, and it’s difficult to see where any ID or religious organization would get any public funding, since separation of church and state, would obviously prohibit all, or 99% of it. My question is, why am I challenged on this? Why do several of you find that objectionable? Don’t you believe that it’s only an innocent, scientific interest that seeks to overturn challenges from religious special interests? What would be wrong with using public money for it? Should it only be special interest atheist money? It would have to be one or the other. If religious special interests are opposed, it would have to be either with public money, or private anti religious money.
Coyote writes:
Science is done by scientists, and is not subject to the popular vote of the public. It is evidence that counts in science. To quote a famous voice from the past, "The public be damned."
This is partially incorrect. The beliefs of everyone in the general public don't matter to science.
If a person is studying chemistry, he should have an interest in the origin of the elements, as well as the laws that govern chemical reactions. If he’s studying English, a basic would be to study the origins of the language. The curiosity of origins are present in science/evolution, they can’t be kept out. Evolutionists always publicly claim that the origins of life don’t matter to evolution, while they’ve been privately trying really hard to find proof and theories about how life originated in an evolutionary type of gradualism, with almost no success for 150 years now.
All humans, including children in science classes, are curious creatures. It’s not possible to teach them evolution, and expect them to have no interest, ask no questions, about origins. As I mentioned in one of my past discussions here, I looked at a 9th grade biology textbook, and it said that little progress has been made thus far concerning life from non-life through naturalistic processes, but it was only a matter of time before it’s found. That’s not science, that’s atheism. Many people in Louisiana, (and the entire U.S) understand that.
Atheism is not a religion, and it will not be a religion in spite of thousands of repetitions of this old canard by creationists.
It is organized like religion, it has unchangeable beliefs like religion, and it seeks political benefits like religion can. It has every social danger that the founders feared that any religion would have.
dwise1 writes:
Please, do this for me. Tell me how religion could possibly be integrated into science. Seriously, tell me how. Tell me how science is possibly to work if it were to incorporate supernaturalistic hypotheses. Seriously, explain it to me, in detail. A hypothesis needs to be testable, so how are we supposed to test a supernaturalistic hypothesis? I am damned serious here, brother! Because incorporating religion into science requires us to work with supernaturalistic hypotheses, so if we cannot possibly deal with (ie, test) supernaturalistic hypotheses, then how could we possibly ever incorporate religion into science? Serious question. Absolutely demands an answer. Nobody has yet offered one. Can you?
I can, How about a ‘great debate’ on it? If you can’t or don’t want to for any reason, maybe somebody else will, I don’t care who, as long as it's just one, and not an angry gang of 10 or 15. I’ve looked at the basics of how the Louisiana law originated, and the reasons for it. It was passed in 1980 by a State Senator named Bill Keith. From the Wikipedia description;
quote:
Keith's act required that scientific evidence for creation-science, the view of abrupt appearance of organisms in the fossil records, whenever related material on evolution was presented in classes. A panel of seven creation-scientists, appointed by the governor, would advise local school districts on the appropriate curriculum. The act did not specifically require or allow instruction in any religious doctrine.
Great debate? Are you really serious? Do you really want detail?

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-15-2011 3:14 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 79 by jar, posted 05-15-2011 3:15 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 81 by dwise1, posted 05-15-2011 7:19 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 82 by dwise1, posted 05-16-2011 4:57 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 83 by Taq, posted 05-16-2011 5:43 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 78 of 108 (615669)
05-15-2011 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by marc9000
05-15-2011 2:37 PM


It’s easy to see how public money could be used by them for their political battles ...
"Could be used"? Can you produce a case where we can substitute "is being used"?
What would be wrong with using public money for it?
I'd suppose that if a body used public funds to (for example) pay for a pro-evolution advertising campaign, that would exceed their remit. On the other hand, I guess it's OK for them to issue public statements to be picked up by the press or read by policy makers, which costs virtually nothing.
Would you seriously not see a problem with the former?
It would have to be one or the other. If religious special interests are opposed, it would have to be either with public money, or private anti religious money.
Or private pro-religious money, since many religious people are in favor of the First Amendment. 'Cos many religious people are not mind-bogglingly stupid.
In the challenge to creationist laws in Arkansas (McClean v. Arkansas), the plaintiffs included:
* Reverend William McLean, a United Methodist minister.
* Bishop Kenneth Hick, of the Arkansas Conferences of the United Methodist Church
* The Right Reverend Herbert A. Donovan of the Episcopal Diocese of Arkansas
* The Most Reverend Andrew Joseph McDonald, Catholic Bishop of Little Rock
* Bishop Frederick C. James of the African Methodist Episcopal Church or Arkansas
* The Reverend Nathan Porter
* The Reverend George W. Gunn, minister of the Pulaski Heights Presbyterian Church in Little Rock
* Dr. Richard B. Hardie, Jr., minister of the Westover Hills Presbyterian Church in Little Rock
* The Reverend Earl B. Carter, minister of the United Methodist Church and program director of the North Arkansas Conference of the United Methodist Church
* The Reverend George Panner, minister of the United Methodist Church and program director of the Little Rock Conference of the United Methodist church.
* Dr. John P. Miles, minister of St. James United Methodist Church in Little Rock and vice-chair of Americans United for Separation of Church and State in Arkansas.
* Rev. Jerry Canada, minister of the United Methodist Church and editor of The Arkansas Methodist
It is organized like religion ...
Before I answer that, I'd like to talk it over with my minister at the First Reformed Not-Church of Not-God, who will tell me how to interpret the canonical texts of the Not-Bible in the light of the decrees of the Not-Pope.
It has every social danger that the founders feared that any religion would have.
Which is why atheism is treated as a religion for First Amendment purposes. But the same is not true of science, which is actually something different.
Evolutionists always publicly claim that the origins of life don’t matter to evolution, while they’ve been privately trying really hard to find proof and theories about how life originated in an evolutionary type of gradualism, with almost no success for 150 years now.
You are a funny little man. Pray tell us, how did you come to know what evolutionists have been doing "privately"? Have you bugged their secret laboratories?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by marc9000, posted 05-15-2011 2:37 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 79 of 108 (615670)
05-15-2011 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by marc9000
05-15-2011 2:37 PM


There are no Creation Scientists and can never be any Creation Scientists.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by marc9000, posted 05-15-2011 2:37 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 80 of 108 (615673)
05-15-2011 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Tram law
05-11-2011 7:03 PM


Re: Evidence
Message 26
Tram writes:
That's why religion is needed/ in schools.And children need to be taught what's right and wrong. Not the so called morality of science.
Message 54
Tram writes:
Actually I fully believe that religion should be kept out of schools because of how divisive the nature of religion is.
Which is it there, buddy?
Edited by hooah212002, : fixed linked to message for first quote.

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Tram law, posted 05-11-2011 7:03 PM Tram law has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 81 of 108 (615693)
05-15-2011 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by marc9000
05-15-2011 2:37 PM


dwise1 writes:
Please, do this for me. Tell me how religion could possibly be integrated into science. Seriously, tell me how. Tell me how science is possibly to work if it were to incorporate supernaturalistic hypotheses. Seriously, explain it to me, in detail. A hypothesis needs to be testable, so how are we supposed to test a supernaturalistic hypothesis? I am damned serious here, brother! Because incorporating religion into science requires us to work with supernaturalistic hypotheses, so if we cannot possibly deal with (ie, test) supernaturalistic hypotheses, then how could we possibly ever incorporate religion into science? Serious question. Absolutely demands an answer. Nobody has yet offered one. Can you?
I can, How about a ‘great debate’ on it? If you can’t or don’t want to for any reason, maybe somebody else will, I don’t care who, as long as it's just one, and not an angry gang of 10 or 15. I’ve looked at the basics of how the Louisiana law originated, and the reasons for it.
The 1980 Louisiana law has nothing to do with my question, so that "rabbit trail" (AKA "red herring") you just tossed out will have to be picked up later (don't worry; In 1981 I virtually cut my teeth on its sister Arkansas law, both of them having been based on a model bill written by respiratory therapist Paul Ellwanger whose stated purpose, admitted as evidence in court, was "... the idea of killing evolution instead of playing these debating games that we've been playing for nigh over a decade already."; the court decisions on both the Arkansas and Louisiana laws exposed them for being based on narrowly sectarian religious beliefs, which further exposes the hypocrisy of your Wikipedia quote)
There's no need for any new thread, because there's an existing thread in which I asked the same question. After more than 200 replies, no creationist has ever provided an answer. Now you claim to have that answer that nobody else ever had. Good. Present it.
That existing thread is So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY); I will bump it to the top just especially for you personally. Be sure to read its OP, its Message 1, which explains briefly how the scientific method works and why trying to incorporate supernaturalistic hypotheses cannot possibly work.
You have taken the affirmative, that they can work. OK, Lucy! 'Splain!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by marc9000, posted 05-15-2011 2:37 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 82 of 108 (615773)
05-16-2011 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by marc9000
05-15-2011 2:37 PM


chorus writes:
What public money?
quote:
Federal investment in research and education is essential if the United States is to remain a global leader in the biological sciences. The National Science Foundation (NSF), the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Department of Energy Office of Science, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) are among the federal agencies that fund intramural (e.g. government scientists) and extramural (e.g. university scientists) biological research, as well as programs that recruit and train the next generation of scientists.
Yes. Funding for scientific research and training going to those doing scientific research and training. And, not explicitly stated, not to purveyors of pseudo-science and religious shams.
What is your problem with that? If you want scientific funding to go to creationists and IDists, then they need to become accepted as doing scientific research and training. And the only way they are going to be able to accomplish that is if they were to actually do scientific research and training. Spending all their efforts deceiving the general public and pushing to get laws passed that magically turn them into scientists and get their nonsense taught in schools is not the way. They need to actually do the work and develop a positive reputation within the scientific community. Which is something that they have consistently refused to even try to do in over 3 decades.
This is from the website of the first organization that was mentioned in the link in this thread’s opening message. Federal investment in research and education , and a listing of government agencies such as the EPA being among the federal agencies that fund intramural.biological research always seem to be instrumental in all these various agencies that take sides in naturalism v religion political battles.
What political battles? You mean where creationists keep trying to destroy science education? By getting politicians who are religiously motivated themselves and ignorant of science to pass antievolution and other laws that inversely impact science education and the conducting of scientific research? Who's on the attack there? The creationists and other religious ideologues.
And who's opposing them? The big scientific institutions? No, not really. Most scientists are only marginally aware of creationists and for the most part think that they're just caricatures, that no real person could actually believe such total nonsense nor could be so completely oblivious to the blatantly obvious facts of science. No, it is just a small number of scientists and educators and non-scientists who have had encounters with creationists and recognize them for the threat that they are to science education. And the vast majority of these people are volunteers, which makes their funding about as private as you can get. Some, as in the NCSE, are able to work on this full time; their funding is through private donations, memberships, and grants from, I'm sure, private endowments and trusts. And since the lawyers involved with them are for the plaintiffs in the court cases, I'm sure that most of them are working pro bono.
Again, the question to you is what public money?
It’s easy to see how public money could be used by them for their political battles, and it’s difficult to see where any ID or religious organization would get any public funding, since separation of church and state, would obviously prohibit all, or 99% of it.
And just what makes you think that religious organizations should receive public funds to support their religious activities? Of course separation prohibits that, as well it should and must!
My question is, why am I challenged on this? Why do several of you find that objectionable? Don’t you believe that it’s only an innocent, scientific interest that seeks to overturn challenges from religious special interests? What would be wrong with using public money for it? Should it only be special interest atheist money? It would have to be one or the other. If religious special interests are opposed, it would have to be either with public money, or private anti religious money.
Dude! What kind of a paranoid rant is that? And public funds are being used to oppose religious special interest attacks? And what does atheism have to do with any of it? This isn't a case of atheism vs religion. Rather, it's a case of freedom loving Americans representing a broad spectrum of beliefs, including Christians and Jews, trying to protect those freedoms and society from attacks by a narrowly-sectarian Christian extremists. And you can bet that those Christians and Jews and people of other faiths put money down for their cause of preserving the American Way, very little of that money is "anti-religious".
If a person is studying chemistry, he should have an interest in the origin of the elements, as well as the laws that govern chemical reactions. If he’s studying English, a basic would be to study the origins of the language.
The origin of elements does get covered, though more likely in more advanced classes, such as nuclear physics and astrophysics. And as for the English student, if he progresses far enough, he will undoubtedly study some linguistics.
Yes, I know, you are advocating that religious indoctrination be injected into their subjects. Nonsensical idea. In what possible way could religion augment the study of science? If anything, it would hamper it, since teaching scientific "answers" out of religion would be nothing more than goddiddit which answers nothing at all and, by offerring the mere appearance of being an answer, would stifle the curiosity to delve deeper to find the real answer. No, religion has nothing to offer the study of science.
Even in the humanities, religious indoctrination would smother the students' minds. In the humanities, one learns to view issues from different perspectives and to consider other ways of thinking; that runs completely counter to religious indoctrination -- it has even been argued that the humanities pose a far greater threat to Christian fundamentalism than science does. The English student will benefit greatly from learning about the stories of the Bible, along with the stories from other systems of mythology, but would gain nothing from learning linguistics from a literalistic "Tower of Babel" story -- it does not even begin to account for actual linguistical data.
And please don't forget to enlighten us with your answer to how the scientific method can successfully encorporate supernaturalistic explanations. I've already bumped that topic to the top for you, though it inevitable must sink the longer you wait.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by marc9000, posted 05-15-2011 2:37 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 83 of 108 (615776)
05-16-2011 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by marc9000
05-15-2011 2:37 PM


This is from the website of the first organization that was mentioned in the link in this thread’s opening message. Federal investment in research and education , and a listing of government agencies such as the EPA being among the federal agencies that fund intramural.biological research always seem to be instrumental in all these various agencies that take sides in naturalism v religion political battles.
The EPA is looking to fund scientific research in order to determine how pollution effects ecosystems. ID/Creationists are looking to push religion into science class. Gee, I wonder why the EPA funds scientific research instead of foundations that are more interested in pushing a religious agenda?
ID/creationists are not getting money from the EPA because they are not interested in doing science. In fact, ID/creationists are more interested in doing away with science. It is really that simple.
If a person is studying chemistry, he should have an interest in the origin of the elements, as well as the laws that govern chemical reactions.
You mean those naturalistic theories that push the atheistic dogma that chemicals combine through naturalistic means? Shouldn't we stop teaching this atheistic drivel until someone is allowed to teach that supernatural fairies glue atoms together? Where is the money funding these positions?
It is organized like religion, it has unchangeable beliefs like religion, and it seeks political benefits like religion can. It has every social danger that the founders feared that any religion would have.
Projection much?
I have seen herds of kittens that are more well organized than atheists. Also, atheism has no unchangeable beliefs. At it's foundation, atheism is a shared DISbelief. Atheism is defined as a LACK OF BELIEF.
From the Wikipedia description;
Keith's act required that scientific evidence for creation-science, the view of abrupt appearance of organisms in the fossil records, whenever related material on evolution was presented in classes. A panel of seven creation-scientists, appointed by the governor, would advise local school districts on the appropriate curriculum. The act did not specifically require or allow instruction in any religious doctrine.
Lightning appears abruptly. Do we also need to present Zeus science whenever naturalistic origins for lightning are discussed? Do we have to present a supernaturalistic explanation for every single natural phenomena? If not, why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by marc9000, posted 05-15-2011 2:37 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 84 of 108 (615791)
05-16-2011 8:30 PM


Dr Adequate writes:
In the challenge to creationist laws in Arkansas (McClean v. Arkansas), the plaintiffs included:
* Reverend William McLean, a United Methodist minister.
* Bishop Kenneth Hick, of the Arkansas Conferences of the United Methodist Church
* The Right Reverend Herbert A. Donovan of the Episcopal Diocese of Arkansas
* The Most Reverend Andrew Joseph McDonald, Catholic Bishop of Little Rock
* Bishop Frederick C. James of the African Methodist Episcopal Church or Arkansas
* The Reverend Nathan Porter
* The Reverend George W. Gunn, minister of the Pulaski Heights Presbyterian Church in Little Rock
* Dr. Richard B. Hardie, Jr., minister of the Westover Hills Presbyterian Church in Little Rock
* The Reverend Earl B. Carter, minister of the United Methodist Church and program director of the North Arkansas Conference of the United Methodist Church
* The Reverend George Panner, minister of the United Methodist Church and program director of the Little Rock Conference of the United Methodist church.
* Dr. John P. Miles, minister of St. James United Methodist Church in Little Rock and vice-chair of Americans United for Separation of Church and State in Arkansas.
* Rev. Jerry Canada, minister of the United Methodist Church and editor of The Arkansas Methodist
Were there any atheist plantiffs, or did they all take a vacation when they found enough "Christians" to carry their water for them? The ACLU can do some amazing things, can't it?
You are a funny little man. Pray tell us, how did you come to know what evolutionists have been doing "privately"? Have you bugged their secret laboratories?
No, I had it explained to me in another discussion here, a year or so ago. I was told that "different people/scientists" in different wings/laBORatories of the universities are doing abiogenesis research. It doesn't make the headlines, get near the detail in science books that evolution does. (obviously because it can't meet the criteria to be considered science, that is set for ID)
dwise1 writes:
The 1980 Louisiana law has nothing to do with my question, so that "rabbit trail" (AKA "red herring") you just tossed out will have to be picked up later
Then your question was OFF TOPIC. This thread is about the Louisiana law. To pertain to this thread, your question, how religion could possibly be integrated into science would apply to your beliefs about how the Louisiana law attempted to do that. As you secretly know, the Louisiana law doesn’t do that, NO law in recent U.S. history attempts to do that. That's the reason you fled from the one on one challenge. All the evolutionist questions about attempts to teach religion in science classes are straw man arguments. While there may be a few unknown religious extremists who desire it to some degree, it will never see the light of day in the U.S. The Louisiana law was intended to balance the atheism that’s present in today’s science education, nothing more.
(don't worry; In 1981 I virtually cut my teeth on its sister Arkansas law, both of them having been based on a model bill written by respiratory therapist Paul Ellwanger whose stated purpose, admitted as evidence in court, was "... the idea of killing evolution instead of playing these debating games that we've been playing for nigh over a decade already."; the court decisions on both the Arkansas and Louisiana laws exposed them for being based on narrowly sectarian religious beliefs, which further exposes the hypocrisy of your Wikipedia quote)
That’s how clever attorneys work. They condemn something on a far removed thing they claim it’s based on, not what it actually says, or is intended to do. Yet evolution is never criticized for being based on the 19th century imaginations of not only Darwin, but Charles Lyell, Alfred Wallace, Herbert Spencer and Thomas Huxley. None of them knew anything about the simplest forms of life.
That existing thread is "So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work?"
That has nothing to do with the Louisiana law, which is the topic of this thread. So you try to bait me at a 4 year old, 16 page long thread that has nothing to do with this thread, then accuse ME of trying to send YOU down a rabbit trail? Evolution/atheist forums are interesting places.
Yes. Funding for scientific research and training going to those doing scientific research and training. And, not explicitly stated, not to purveyors of pseudo-science and religious shams.
What is your problem with that?
Also not explicitly stated, funding for political actions, as well as atheistic pseudo-science, like abiogenesis, and claims that Genesis is mythology.
What political battles?
The initiation, and attempted repeals, of laws like the Louisiana law. It's what this thread is about, you know.
And who's opposing them? The big scientific institutions? No, not really. Most scientists are only marginally aware of creationists and for the most part think that they're just caricatures, that no real person could actually believe such total nonsense nor could be so completely oblivious to the blatantly obvious facts of science.
Like naturalistic processes of life from non-life?
And just what makes you think that religious organizations should receive public funds to support their religious activities?
I never said that. My problem is with atheist organizations that receive public funds to support their big government, anti religious agendas.
Yes, I know, you are advocating that religious indoctrination be injected into their subjects.
No, I'm advocating that atheist indoctrination removed from their subjects. Since that's not possible, the next best thing is balance.
Even in the humanities, religious indoctrination would smother the students' minds. In the humanities, one learns to view issues from different perspectives and to consider other ways of thinking;
Like when a science book declares that life naturalistically arose from non-life, and we're going to find out how someday? That kind of different perspectives and other ways of thinking?
Taq writes:
The EPA is looking to fund scientific research in order to determine how pollution effects ecosystems.
So they can turn up the ~license, regulate, restrict, and prohibit~ agenda that delights atheists and liberals.
Gee, I wonder why the EPA funds scientific research instead of foundations that are more interested in pushing a religious agenda?
Because the EPA wants to be God. If it's going to make commands to all the peasants about how to take care of IT'S Earth, it doesn't need the real God getting in its way.
marc9000 writes:
It is organized like religion, it has unchangeable beliefs like religion, and it seeks political benefits like religion can. It has every social danger that the founders feared that any religion would have.
Projection much?
No, just aware of what's going on in today's society.
quote:
Darwin’s Dangerous Idea / Daniel Dennett - 1995
The End of Faith/ Sam Harris - 2004
The God Delusion/ Richard Dawkins - 2006
Letter to a Christian Nation/ Sam Harris - 2006
The Atheist Universe / David Mills - 2006
Breaking the Spell/ Daniel Dennett - 2006
Everything you know about God is wrong/ Russ Kick - 2007
The Quotable Atheist / Jack Huberman - 2007
The Atheist Bible / Joan Konner - 2007
Nothing - Something to Believe / Lalli Nica - 2007
The Portable Atheist / Christopher Hitchens - 2007
God is Not Great / Christopher Hitchens - 2007
God - the failed hypothesis - How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist / Victor Stenger - 2007
50 Reasons People Give For Believing in God/ Guy Harrison — 2008
Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists / Barker/Dawkins — 2008
Lightning appears abruptly. Do we also need to present Zeus science whenever naturalistic origins for lightning are discussed? Do we have to present a supernaturalistic explanation for every single natural phenomena? If not, why not?
Only the ones science can't explain, yet presents its atheist opinions on. Like science textbooks do about life from non-life.

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Coyote, posted 05-16-2011 10:05 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2011 10:24 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 88 by ZenMonkey, posted 05-17-2011 12:39 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 89 by bluescat48, posted 05-17-2011 1:11 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 93 by dwise1, posted 05-17-2011 3:02 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 94 by Taq, posted 05-17-2011 3:29 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 95 by dwise1, posted 05-17-2011 9:20 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 85 of 108 (615795)
05-16-2011 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by marc9000
05-16-2011 8:30 PM


Balance?
The Louisiana law was intended to balance the atheism that’s present in today’s science education, nothing more.
Balance atheism with what? What is the opposite, or balance, for atheism if it is not theism--or belief in deities? Theism is the province of religion.
...and claims that Genesis is mythology.
Genesis is mythology.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by marc9000, posted 05-16-2011 8:30 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 86 of 108 (615798)
05-16-2011 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by marc9000
05-16-2011 8:30 PM


Were there any atheist plantiffs, or did they all take a vacation when they found enough "Christians" to carry their water for them? The ACLU can do some amazing things, can't it?
Yeah, it can even convince religious people to be in favor of freedom of religion. Will wonders never cease! That's like persuading people with guns to be in favor of the Second Amendment.
No, I had it explained to me in another discussion here, a year or so ago.
And the person who explained this ... how did he know what evolutionists are doing "privately"?
Or did he, perhaps, have access to their publications?
It doesn't make the headlines, get near the detail in science books that evolution does. (obviously because it can't meet the criteria to be considered science, that is set for ID)
The word "obviously" is no substitute for evidence, reasoning, or telling the truth for once in your misbegotten life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by marc9000, posted 05-16-2011 8:30 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 108 (615799)
05-16-2011 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by marc9000
05-12-2011 9:27 PM


marc9000 writes:
Some of it will be public money, while the creationist money will be all private.
That's almost certain to be wrong.
I'm sure some of the money defending the legislation will be Louisiana tax payers' money. If Louisiana loses, the state may even have to pay attorney fees.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by marc9000, posted 05-12-2011 9:27 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4510 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 88 of 108 (615804)
05-17-2011 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by marc9000
05-16-2011 8:30 PM


marc9000 writes:
Were there any atheist plantiffs, or did they all take a vacation when they found enough "Christians" to carry their water for them? The ACLU can do some amazing things, can't it?
So if there are atheists among those protesting this attempt to sabotage science, then it's an atheist conspiracy, and if there aren't any atheists, it's an atheist conspiracy?
I see.
marc9000 writes:
I was told that "different people/scientists" in different wings/laBORatories of the universities are doing abiogenesis research. It doesn't make the headlines, get near the detail in science books that evolution does. (obviously because it can't meet the criteria to be considered science, that is set for ID)
So research scientists are doing ongoing research, and somehow this hasn't made headlines? Shocking.
Must be an atheist conspiracy.
marc9000 writes:
dwise1 writes:
(don't worry; In 1981 I virtually cut my teeth on its sister Arkansas law, both of them having been based on a model bill written by respiratory therapist Paul Ellwanger whose stated purpose, admitted as evidence in court, was "... the idea of killing evolution instead of playing these debating games that we've been playing for nigh over a decade already."; the court decisions on both the Arkansas and Louisiana laws exposed them for being based on narrowly sectarian religious beliefs, which further exposes the hypocrisy of your Wikipedia quote)
That’s how clever attorneys work. They condemn something on a far removed thing they claim it’s based on, not what it actually says, or is intended to do.
So attorneys got a judge to agree that religiously-based attempts to inject non-science into public schools were religiously-based? Must be - wait for it - an atheist conspiracy.
marc9000 writes:
Yet evolution is never criticized for being based on the 19th century imaginations of not only Darwin, but Charles Lyell, Alfred Wallace, Herbert Spencer and Thomas Huxley. None of them knew anything about the simplest forms of life.
Modern biological science is based on the work of 19th century scientists in about the same way that modern physics is based on the 19th century work of James Clerk Maxwell, Michael Faraday, and Hans Christian ‘rsted. Many interesting insights and discoveries laying a foundation for further developments. There have been people doing science in both fields since the 19th century, I believe.
marc9000 writes:
dwise1 writes:
And just what makes you think that religious organizations should receive public funds to support their religious activities?
I never said that. My problem is with atheist organizations that receive public funds to support their big government, anti religious agendas.
And who would that be again?
You seem to have this idea that anything that's not explicitly religious is somehow atheistic. Are you also against atheist calculus classes, atheist English classes, and atheist drivers ed?
quote:
Darwin’s Dangerous Idea / Daniel Dennett - 1995
The End of Faith/ Sam Harris - 2004
The God Delusion/ Richard Dawkins - 2006
Letter to a Christian Nation/ Sam Harris - 2006
The Atheist Universe / David Mills - 2006
Breaking the Spell/ Daniel Dennett - 2006
Everything you know about God is wrong/ Russ Kick - 2007
The Quotable Atheist / Jack Huberman - 2007
The Atheist Bible / Joan Konner - 2007
Nothing - Something to Believe / Lalli Nica - 2007
The Portable Atheist / Christopher Hitchens - 2007
God is Not Great / Christopher Hitchens - 2007
God - the failed hypothesis - How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist / Victor Stenger - 2007
50 Reasons People Give For Believing in God/ Guy Harrison — 2008
Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists / Barker/Dawkins — 2008
Well, those are some interesting books. What does that have to do with anything?
There's quite a bit more nonsense in your post, but that's enough for me for a while.
Does it ever occur to you that the reason that you get ROFLpiled every time you post something here is that it takes about 10 to 15 people to cover all the things that you get wrong?

Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by marc9000, posted 05-16-2011 8:30 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 89 of 108 (615805)
05-17-2011 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by marc9000
05-16-2011 8:30 PM


I never said that. My problem is with atheist organizations that receive public funds to support their big government, anti religious agendas.
like what?

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by marc9000, posted 05-16-2011 8:30 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Granny Magda, posted 05-17-2011 2:10 AM bluescat48 has not replied
 Message 91 by Rahvin, posted 05-17-2011 2:52 AM bluescat48 has not replied
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-17-2011 4:46 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 90 of 108 (615806)
05-17-2011 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by bluescat48
05-17-2011 1:11 AM


Hi Bluescat,
marc9000 writes:
My problem is with atheist organizations that receive public funds to support their big government, anti religious agendas.
Well, you know, like that vehement evolutionist Coyote and his big government agenda. Why the man's practically a communist!
Either that or Marc is having trouble keeping his conspiracy theories straight.
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by bluescat48, posted 05-17-2011 1:11 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024