|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
marc9000 writes: But thank you for that exceptionally clear and detailed post. It does tend to liven up an otherwise boring thread when everyone agrees on everything, doesn't it? Why do you suppose we get messages like 40, 45, 47, 48, and 54? Evolution is in the drivers seat in the courts, why the anger? That was a straightforward complement, Marc, not sarcasm or whatever you thought it was. Your message was very helpful in giving us a clear understanding of how you view things. Many of your arguments seem based upon irrational fears, but you did cite some accurate supporting facts. The NAS is dominated by atheists and agnostics, but there are only around 1600 of them in a total population of scientists in the US of around 300,000. I'm sure their influence is disproportionate to their numbers, but none of the evidence or rationale for evolution is based upon atheism. No scientific textbooks or courses or papers on evolution touch on either religion or atheism. Scientists concerned about science education are in favor of keeping both out of science class. Scientists who oppose religion probably do so because of fundamentalist efforts to teach religious views in science classes. If fundamentalists could be content teaching children their views in Sunday school they'd receive much less attention from scientists. Evolution is just as atheistic or religious as knitting or automobile repair or any other field of science, in other words, not at all. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22500 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Hi Marc,
I don't think there's anything helpful I can say about what appear to me as paranoid fantasies about improper atheistic influences, so I won't try. I don't want to appear like I'm ignoring them, so I'll just acknowledge them. But I can respond more meaningfully to simple issues of fact, like this:
If you believe that ID is nothing but religion, you simply don’t know enough about it. Good books have been written about it by Behe and Dembski. I believe ID is not science because of the almost complete lack of any scientific research about it. Popular press books do not qualify, though I've read books by both Behe and Dembski. And I believe it is religion because the people promoting it do so for religious reasons, like you who oppose evolution because you think it is antireligious and atheistic. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: But that isn't what happens is it ? You claimed that the motivation for getting ID into science classes was religious in nature. You claimed to speak for others not just yourself. And let's be honest your other reasons are simply indefensible conspiracy theories. The situation is simple. Science is in conflict with your religion. Therefore you demand special privileges for your religion in violation of the U.S. Constitution and good education. And you wonder why people oppose you ?
quote: So you think that science should seek a religious balance, rather than actually following it's own principles - and the evidence ? THat is certainly an odd attitude.
quote: It certainly bothers me less than you do ! Whatever they really said - and you've enough of a record of making false accusations that no honest person should trust you on this - I find it hard to believe that it could be more worrying than a group of hatemongers setting out to destroy the protections of the U.S. constitution and sabotage science education.
quote: If Monton has some good arguments you could use them here instead of your crazy conspiracy theories. See how they stand up.
quote: In other words you think that science should be placed under political control to prevent it reaching conclusions you don't like - while those on your side should be able to override the Constitution to impose their will on the people. This is a recipe for tyranny.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a non-profit organization enacted and sanctioned by the United States federal government. According to a 1998 report in the journal Nature, a recent survey found that 93% of NAS members are either atheists or agnostics. The biologists in the National Academy of Sciences were found to possess the lowest rate of belief of all the science disciplines, with only 5.5% believing in God. [...] In addition to the 93% figure above, I believe there are other figures that show that members of the National Academy of Sciences and other scientific groups including college professors vote for Democrats about 90% of the time. So, what relationship are you suggesting? Is it that being good at science makes one atheistic and liberal, or does being atheistic and liberal make one good at science, or what? Why is it that the people with the best grasp of how the universe works overwhelmingly don't see the hand of a creator in it? Is it because they're smarter than theists, or just better informed, or what? And is there some reason why theists and conservatives are bad at grasping reality --- or is it the other way round, and only people with a poor grasp on reality join the religious right? They are your figures, so let's hear your explanation. Why is there a correlation between scientific excellence and atheism?
I think it might be time for you to consider the fact that the scientific community is made up of humans like all the rest of us, and shouldn’t be given a free pass to make important social decisions without going through the political process like anyone else has to. I think it might be time for you to consider the fact that the crackpot community is made up of humans rather inferior to the rest of us by virtue of being nuts, and shouldn’t be given a free pass to make important decisions about science without going through the scientific process like anyone else has to. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
marc9000 writes: Sorry marc9000, if I disrupt this thread, but this is the second time I noticed something like this about the Democrats. Is there anything wrong or is it illegal to vote for the Democrats? Is it anti-American to vote for the Democrats? Don't around 50% of Americans normally vote Democrat? What is your problem with people voting for them? As I understand it, the Democrats in a lot of the Southern states are more conservative than the Republicans from New England, for example. In addition to the 93% figure above, I believe there are other figures that show that members of the National Academy of Sciences and other scientific groups including college professors vote for Democrats about 90% of the time. Do you equate Democrats, evolution and atheism somehow? Aren't a lot of Democrats also Christians?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3733 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined:
|
In your reply to Percy you said
marc9000 writes: I think it might be time for you to consider the fact that the scientific community is made up of humans like all the rest of us, and shouldn’t be given a free pass to make important social decisions without going through the political process like anyone else has to. Can you demonstrate the political process that mathematics, geography, home economics, English literature, languages, history or any other subject goes through that you think should also apply to science? Or is the case more that you want to put constraints on science that don't apply to the aforementioned subjects? Science doesn't make social decisions, rather the politicians make social decisions based on the information at hand, some of which may include scientific information. Statistical calculations are used to analyse data and can demonstrate social trends which assist politicians in formulating social policy. Would you then claim that statistics and statisticians make social policy? Is Analysis of Variance Republican or Democratic? Is the Student's t-test atheistic or religious? Germ theory explains alot about infectious diseases without any inclusion of God and gives us the means to tackle epidemics, but it doesn't mean that epidemiologists make the decisions about control measures. However some people claim that any disease is caused by God as punishment for sin. That doesn't make germ theory or epidemiologists either atheistic or Democratic. If anyone can express what I'm trying to say in less strangulated terms, please feel free to do so. It's morning and I've only had one coffee so far
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3733 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
Hi, Pressie. I don't think your post disrupts this thread. Rather it demonstrates that ID and the argument for it's inclusion in the science curriculum is not based on science as these bills claim, but is politically and religiously motivated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I think it might be time for you to consider the fact that the scientific community is made up of humans like all the rest of us, and shouldn’t be given a free pass to make important social decisions without going through the political process like anyone else has to. Just because politicians can meddle doesn't necessarily mean they should do so. Take this Andrew Koenig chap. He has a B.A. in Business Administration from Lindenwood University, which he attended on an athletics scholarship, he has worked as a life insurance salesman, in real estate redevelopment, and as co-owner of a paint company. And if he knows anything whatsoever about biology, he has shown absolutely no sign of it. So in all conscience what ought he to have to do with the conclusions of scientists concerning science? Just because he's capable of sticking his nose in, why should he? What can he possibly have to add to centuries of observation and experiment? What can he think he has to offer? His profound knowledge of how to sell life insurance? It is tolerable that politicians should vote on things like property taxes because (a) someone has to and (b) even a Republican probably knows what a tax is, what property is, and what a property tax is. But when it comes to the science curriculum then, by contrast, (a) it is not necessary for politicians to do anything with the results of scientists except rubber stamp them and (b) they are not competent to do anything else. So we should do a deal. Koenig can stop telling biologists how to do their jobs, and they won't run his paint company. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Dr Adequate,
It’s not been admitted as science yet. All the data, all the lab work, all the numbers amassed by those interested in abiogenesis was done AFTER it was admitted as science. When it was first admitted as science, it had nothing. ID is the only thing that has been required to pass an entrance exam before being admitted as science. That was ... bizarre. Delusional is holding on to concepts that have been falsified. This is a part of marc9000's (extensive) atheist conspiracy theory, and it has been voiced before: it was his main claim in abiogenesis. I dealt with this claim on that thread and showed that this just was not true (see Message 249 for my summary post on that thread). The "entrance exam" for all sciences has been the same: do the science.
Message 55 marc9000: Have you ever heard of Bradley Monton? He claims to be an atheist, and wrote a book on why ID should be in science classes. Here is the book at amazon, with a few brief reviews if you care to check it out. Now we’ll see if I get a barrage of replies to this message, calling Monton a phony. Then we can refer to some of Jar’s statements about Christianity, and further explore double standards. Monton ("a philosopher of science" and "Monton also gives a lucid account of the debate surrounding the inclusion of intelligent design in public schools and presents reason why students' science education could benefit from a careful consideration of the arguments for and against it.") is not the first one to say that ID could be science, is not the first one to say that any falsifiable hypothesis can be investigated via the scientific method, and not the first one to say that introducing this concept in a science class can lead to a discussion of what is valid science and what is not. It would be interesting to have Monton prepare a class lesson/s on ID and then see how the IDCists like it. The main problem is that IDologists have not done the science, even though they have HAD the opportunity (from my summary linked above):
quote: Opportunities missed to actually have some science funded. Opportunities missed to teach ID in institutions friendly to the idea and - because they are private religious institutions - where it is legal. Of course once you place yourself in science to follow ID you need to accept the results of science for well evidenced facts ... like the age of the earth and evolution, and this is a hurdle for those that cling to YECetisms. Enjoy. Edited by Zen Deist, : clrty Edited by Zen Deist, : moreclrtyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Have you ever heard of Bradley Monton? He claims to be an atheist, and wrote a book on why ID should be in science classes.
Not an atheist
quote:Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design, p. 38 Source Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
"I'm an atheist, but I believe god created the universe"....What the fuck? Erm...no you're not. Sounds to me like him and S.E. Cupp would make great friends. They could talk about how great god and religion are, all the while discussing their lack of belief in either...????
Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion. Joseph Campbell
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
hooah212002 writes: "I'm an atheist, but I believe god created the universe".... He says he thinks there's some evidence. From memory, he says that it's not much, and not enough to stop him being an atheist. He doesn't see this in biology, but more in some things in cosmology. It's quite common in science for people to think there's some evidence that seems to support a hypothesis, but not enough to convince them that its true. So he's not really contradicting himself. His position about education seems silly. Normally, you need a lot of evidence for something before it's likely to be taught at school level. From his point of view, he should be arguing that scientists should be discussing I.D. amongst themselves. But many of them do or have done, and found it sorely lacking in substance. Real scientists are only interested in convincing their peers of new ideas at the first stage. It is political and religious minds that often take the indoctrination approach to education. A good sociologist of science would be able to tell that the Discovery Institute is not motivated by science from its behaviour, which doesn't fit the pattern of groups of scientists with a new hypothesis/theory at all. Genuine new theories in science don't enter the education system at the school level. If well supported they would start at college and work downwards.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
He says he thinks there's some evidence. Which makes him not an atheist. An atheist believes there is no evidence. He is agnostic at best.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Theodoric writes: Which makes him not an atheist. An atheist believes there is no evidence. He is agnostic at best. It goes without saying that he's agnostic, but if he doesn't actually believe in any gods he would have to be an atheist as well, surely. The two aren't mutually exclusive. (Agnostic-I don't know. Atheist-I don't believe).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
(Agnostic-I don't know. Atheist-I don't believe) What if you don't know what you believe?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024