Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 61 of 283 (648850)
01-18-2012 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by marc9000
01-18-2012 9:16 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by marc9000, posted 01-18-2012 9:16 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:25 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(7)
Message 62 of 283 (648854)
01-18-2012 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by marc9000
01-18-2012 9:31 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by marc9000, posted 01-18-2012 9:31 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 63 of 283 (648868)
01-19-2012 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by marc9000
01-18-2012 9:16 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
quote:
Why is it that if ONE person refers to religious people’s involvement in ID, then all of ID is about religion, yet if an evolutionary leader/biologist like Dawkins says evolution is about atheism, it’s only one person’s opinion? Dawkins never gives anything away, does he?
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:
I never intended to imply that the scientific community had it perfectly right a hundred years ago, but I suppose I did, so I’ll clarify. I actually feel that change over time, changes within kinds etc. did and does have a place in science. The scales have tipped from one extreme to the other — too much religion 100 years ago, too much atheism today.
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:
But what about the atheists who see it as an issue of atheism versus religion? The Noble prize winners who say science has a responsibility to weaken religion? That doesn’t bother you at all?
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:
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.
If Monton has some good arguments you could use them here instead of your crazy conspiracy theories. See how they stand up.
quote:
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. 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. And that an often bent court system that’s evolved to something far beyond the founders wildest nightmares isn’t getting it done.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by marc9000, posted 01-18-2012 9:16 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:36 PM PaulK has replied

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


(1)
Message 64 of 283 (648870)
01-19-2012 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by marc9000
01-18-2012 9:16 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by marc9000, posted 01-18-2012 9:16 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:30 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 65 of 283 (648873)
01-19-2012 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by marc9000
01-18-2012 9:16 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
marc9000 writes:
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.
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.
Do you equate Democrats, evolution and atheism somehow? Aren't a lot of Democrats also Christians?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by marc9000, posted 01-18-2012 9:16 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Trixie, posted 01-19-2012 4:55 AM Pressie has not replied
 Message 88 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:39 PM Pressie has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3705 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(2)
Message 66 of 283 (648874)
01-19-2012 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by marc9000
01-18-2012 9:16 PM


An aside
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by marc9000, posted 01-18-2012 9:16 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:40 PM Trixie has replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3705 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 67 of 283 (648875)
01-19-2012 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Pressie
01-19-2012 4:10 AM


Re: That didn't take long!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Pressie, posted 01-19-2012 4:10 AM Pressie has not replied

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


Message 68 of 283 (648876)
01-19-2012 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by marc9000
01-18-2012 9:16 PM


The Political Process
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by marc9000, posted 01-18-2012 9:16 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 69 of 283 (648886)
01-19-2012 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Dr Adequate
01-18-2012 9:50 PM


already covered
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:
Finally we looked at the availability of funding and support for ID research.
Message 149: As for funding, try this little piece of news:
Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker
quote:
The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.
"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.
"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.
There's your funding, available and ready to be used ... nobody applied to use it to actually do something scientific with it.
Opportunity not taken, so it's not the fault of secular science that ID has not done any real science yet, it is the failure of the ID people to do science.
There are a lot of evangelical colleges and places that could also provide funding, but it seems ID can't convince religious schools either (from the same article):
quote:
The only university where intelligent design has gained a major institutional foothold is a seminary. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., created a Center for Science and Theology for William A. Dembski, a leading proponent of intelligent design, after he left Baylor, a Baptist university in Texas, amid protests by faculty members opposed to teaching it.
Intelligent design and Mr. Dembski, a philosopher and mathematician, should have been a good fit for Baylor, which says its mission is "advancing the frontiers of knowledge while cultivating a Christian world view." But Baylor, like many evangelical universities, has many scholars who see no contradiction in believing in God and evolution.
This was discussed on ID Failing--at Christian Institutions. If ID can't convince religious schools that it's science, how can you expect secular universities to do so?
Grant money available from ID friendly institutions not used. Not one proposal was submitted for evaluation.
Claim (5) is thereby invalidated.
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, : moreclrty

we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-18-2012 9:50 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 70 of 283 (648909)
01-19-2012 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by marc9000
01-18-2012 9:16 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
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:
This is a doctrine that I endorse, though I realize that not all atheists will endorse it. The reason that I endorse the doctrine is that (as I’ll explain in Chapter 3) I think there is some evidence for an intelligent designer, and in fact, I think there is some evidence that the intelligent designer is God
Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design, p. 38
Source

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by marc9000, posted 01-18-2012 9:16 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by hooah212002, posted 01-19-2012 11:07 AM Theodoric has not replied

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


Message 71 of 283 (648911)
01-19-2012 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Theodoric
01-19-2012 10:56 AM


Re: That didn't take long!
"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Theodoric, posted 01-19-2012 10:56 AM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by bluegenes, posted 01-19-2012 11:46 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 72 of 283 (648916)
01-19-2012 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by hooah212002
01-19-2012 11:07 AM


No real contradiction
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by hooah212002, posted 01-19-2012 11:07 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Theodoric, posted 01-19-2012 11:48 AM bluegenes has replied
 Message 91 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:43 PM bluegenes has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 73 of 283 (648918)
01-19-2012 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by bluegenes
01-19-2012 11:46 AM


Re: No real contradiction
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by bluegenes, posted 01-19-2012 11:46 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by bluegenes, posted 01-19-2012 12:08 PM Theodoric has not replied
 Message 78 by NoNukes, posted 01-19-2012 1:39 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 74 of 283 (648924)
01-19-2012 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Theodoric
01-19-2012 11:48 AM


Re: No real contradiction
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Theodoric, posted 01-19-2012 11:48 AM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-19-2012 12:14 PM bluegenes has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 283 (648927)
01-19-2012 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by bluegenes
01-19-2012 12:08 PM


Re: No real contradiction
(Agnostic-I don't know. Atheist-I don't believe)
What if you don't know what you believe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by bluegenes, posted 01-19-2012 12:08 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by bluegenes, posted 01-19-2012 12:24 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024