Kansas ... AGAIN!

MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos Barely has the case in Dover been completed (except for the final decision) and we have another one ... Kind of says it all doesn't it? Can't play within the rules, change the rules?This is rather blatant admission that ID is NOT science if they have to change the definition to make it fit.Sheesh.

so when does the Kansas board come up for re-election?(not soon enough?)

---

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.

Welcome to the fray Wiseman. No "mr" needed, I'm just your average humble rebel american zen diest ... Yes, redefinition is part of the game plan. We saw that with Behe in the Dover trial, redefining science so that astrology was included http://EvC Forum: Dover science teachers refuse to read ID disclaimer
Page has gone | New ScientistWhat this displays is a certain level of {delusion\wishful thinking\insecurity} -- they want the certainty that comes from the scientific process, the cachet of demonstrated results, but they want it for their beliefs. Let's leave the ad hominems to others, and attack the messages. Dawkins gave 4 possibilities: ignorant, stupid, insane or malicious, and talked about another possiblity of tormented -- what I add as deluded -- so there are other possibilities.(And attacking them just lets them play the victim and declare a moral victory while they side-step the arguments.)

---

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.

Exactly. To me this means critiquing ID based on what it is rather than what it is not. Critiquing it on the basis of not being science is not enough as it doesn't show what it really is.It is philosophy, metaphysical philosophy. For a political purpose.

But that is again ignoring the middle argument -- and the elephant in the room -- that ID is a valid philosophy.There is no need to redefine science, just to position ID in the proper place, where it becomes virtually self-evident that it is not science per se (though it may make use of it) and certainly belongs more in a philosophy course than a science course.Of course if one were to start a course on the Philosophy of Intelligent Design I would also have to complain that they need to teach both sides of the design controversy ...

---

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.

Great. Even better -- they have been somewhat absent in the last 5 years ... Don't entirely disagree but don't agree either. The founding fathers came from a variety of backgrounds that included a general Judeo-Christian environment, but many of them were Deists and more liberal theists. They also were very familiar with the overburden of theology in the failed running of several colonies and the problems associated with them, based on Judeo-Christian values.There is also the influence of the native people on the founders. Have you seen anything on the Forgotten Founders (click) about the influence of the way the Iroquois Nation was run? And the founders didn't need a pledge at all, to say nothing about a phrase that was inserted into the pledge during the height of the McCarthy era.I think the pledge should be returned to it's original form with the full reading of the intent of the author. Google it. Let's assume for starters that all the laws of America become fully secularized, that no law remains on the books that is based on a religious value but only on purely secular values.(1) how can you "go further" than that?(2) how does this not fully recognize the equality of the people?(3) how does this prevent the practice of religion by anyone?Now, rather than assume that, which laws on the books today in america would that affect?Outside of the legal issue, if the society of america were "further secularized" what would this entail that is not already in american culture?Do you mean we would become more like the english? (They exported all their religious fanatics after all).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.

What you mean are the anti-theists. Like Dawkins perhaps.I wouldn't call him a secularist because he goes beyond that.Extremists of any ilk think they have the right to tell other people how to live.That is not secularism.This message has been edited by RAZD, 11*14*2005 07:03 PM

---

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.