Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8966 total)
54 online now:
jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 51 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,481 Year: 5,229/23,288 Month: 350/1,784 Week: 237/211 Day: 4/81 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16108
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 17 of 283 (648193)
01-13-2012 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Trixie
01-13-2012 4:42 AM


While it's relatively easy to pick this Bill apart, it's more difficult to understand why this continues to happen after the Dover trial, after all you'd think the ID crowd would want to hide their performance in court under a bushel.

I'd like this thread to discuss why the Dover trial hasn't put a stop to this nonsense ...

So basically you're wondering why creationists haven't learned.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Trixie, posted 01-13-2012 4:42 AM Trixie has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16108
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 25 of 283 (648458)
01-15-2012 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by marc9000
01-15-2012 8:46 PM


It continues to happen because a large percentage of the U.S. public believes the Dover decision was the wrong one, “hiding a performance” would have little or nothing to do with it. It could have happened by a poor performance by ID proponents ...

Well yes. But so long as they're handicapped by being cdesign proponentists, they're not going to turn in a good performance.

When children are just beginning their journey into science and its methods, they’re immediately told that the book of Genesis is wrong. If the subject of ID is brought up by a student, they can be told that “ID is a thin veil over creationism”, yet they’re NOT told that evolution is a thin veil over atheism. They may not have the critical thinking skills to realize that, and many of their parents feel that it’s important for that fact to be taught in schools.

Since no teaching qualifications or scientific knowledge are required to lie to children, parents can do that themselves.

Another question would be if the scientific community has made any advances concerning the origins of life which would render the Dover decision right.

If only there was a competition for "dumbest question of the year", you could enter that in their creationist section. What other purpose it could conceivably serve is unclear.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by marc9000, posted 01-15-2012 8:46 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16108
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 26 of 283 (648460)
01-15-2012 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by marc9000
01-15-2012 8:57 PM


If science/biology was clearly considered by everyone to be a far more important subject than other subjects like Math, history, government, languages etc., or if the U.S. constitution read differently, then the scientific community could make all the decisions about what is taught in science classes. But it’s not considered more important, the Constitution doesn’t give the scientific community special political rights ...

There's nothing "special" about it. Mathematicians do get to decide what's taught in math class. Maybe there are politicians involved somewhere, but they defer to the mathematicians, 'cos of the mathematicians knowing about math. Same with languages, no-one ever took a vote on the first person singular present tense of comer, they let the people who actually speak Spanish get on with it.

What is "special" is that in certain areas of the curriculum people who know nothing about the subject still want their unfounded opinions to be taught. Well, I don't see why we should make a special case for them, and the First Amendment makes it quite clear that, since they are motivated by being a bunch of ignorant religious zealots, they should not be a special case.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by marc9000, posted 01-15-2012 8:57 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16108
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 29 of 283 (648475)
01-15-2012 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dawn Bertot
01-15-2012 11:49 PM


And this is the exact point where you become irrational, unobjective, dishonest and completely illogical

You couldnt let the chips fall from any rational standpoint, because if you did, the design principle and the ToLO&P, would have already been established as science from any rational standpoint. Especially in the classroom

What you and others like yourself are good at, is keeping the real facts about reason, reality and what science really is, out of the discussion

You are also good at concealing these realities from simple minded people in the court process, then claiming victory

The only thing youve done is demonstrate, as Marc9000 has pointed out, is to allow an innacurate explanation of ID, to be presented

You are successful at deception and half truths

If the ID crowd had wanted to get Bertotism taught in schools, they could have tried. Instead they went with the formulation of ID produced by the guy who introduced the term ID into the discussion.

That isn't the fault of evolutionists, we don't control creationists with magic psychic powers. If you want them to try to get Bertotism taught in the classroom, try explaining it to them, see if they can make head or tail of it.

As they didn't do that, we scored a victory over the version of ID that cdesign proponentists actually put forward. It would be staggeringly irrational to blame us for the inadequacy of their formulation of ID, which I suppose explains why you do so.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-15-2012 11:49 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16108
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 37 of 283 (648572)
01-16-2012 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by caffeine
01-16-2012 7:09 AM


I've been trying to figure it out, but I'm stumped.

'Theory of Language Origin and Phonetics'?

Taste of Lemon Oil and Parsley'?

'Tales of Lop-Eaed Ollie and Patsy'?

"Tons of Lies, Obfuscation, and Propaganda".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by caffeine, posted 01-16-2012 7:09 AM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16108
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 45 of 283 (648719)
01-17-2012 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by marc9000
01-17-2012 8:00 PM


"Anti evolution" terminology, cartoons, arrogance, condescension. The scientific community's most effective tools to win in the courts.

Though strangely enough I don't remember any cartoons being put forward in evidence. For some reason they decided to discard this "most effective tool" in favor of the facts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by marc9000, posted 01-17-2012 8:00 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16108
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 47 of 283 (648721)
01-17-2012 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by marc9000
01-17-2012 7:55 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
That was a special report from the alternate universe in marc9000's head. And now back to the real world for the weather.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by marc9000, posted 01-17-2012 7:55 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16108
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 58 of 283 (648844)
01-18-2012 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by marc9000
01-18-2012 9:28 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
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.

The farce of the Dover trial had Michael Behe “testifying” about the data you require. He didn’t testify, he was grilled, by the best lawyers money can buy.

He did, in fact testify. Testifying in answer to questions asked by lawyers is in fact the normal way of testifying in a court of law. I'm not sure that there's actually any other way to do so.

On December 29, 1968, 2600 scientists, including four Nobel laureates, published a petition in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Catholic magazine ‘Commonweal’ urging Catholics to withhold contributions from collection plates. Their problem? – the Pope’s stance on birth control. The scientific community can’t make as much money on abortions and birth control if the Pope is getting in its way.

By what magical process does "the scientific community" "make money on abortions and birth control"?

You really seem to like and respect evolution, how are you with its history? Have you ever heard of Thomas Huxley, Julian Huxley, Aldous Huxley, Theodosius Dobzhansky, and Ernst Mayr? These people developed modern evolutionary thought, it was their extension of Darwin’s work into a complete atheist worldview that has led us to leading evolutionists who wrote the following books;

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

The novelist Aldous Huxley "developed modern evolutionary thought"? The Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky developed "a complete atheist world view"? The political journalist Christopher Hitchens was a "leading evolutionist"?

Why do you talk about things you don't know anything about?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by marc9000, posted 01-18-2012 9:28 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 01-19-2012 8:18 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 81 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:20 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16108
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 59 of 283 (648847)
01-18-2012 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by marc9000
01-18-2012 9:16 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
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?

Well, he certainly never said that, that's why you had to make it up.


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

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16108
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 responded

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

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16108
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 yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16108
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 82 of 283 (649124)
01-20-2012 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by marc9000
01-20-2012 8:20 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
I can’t find the court case that evolution won to become officially admitted as science. Could you reference it for me please? I’d like to see that one, the one when the PAH World Hypothesis became science, and I’d like to see the one for the SETI institute also. It would be interesting to see the credentials and backgrounds of the judges and lawyers in those three cases, and compare them to those from the Dover case. It would be even more interesting to know the dates when they occurred, and most of all, it would be interesting to know just how many peer-reviewed papers they submitted to succeed in their victories.

That was bizarrer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:20 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16108
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 85 of 283 (649127)
01-20-2012 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by marc9000
01-20-2012 8:25 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
Do you believe he was talking about weakening the hold of religion within scientific studies, or within society as a whole? The way it’s phrased tells me, and many others in the general population, that he was referring to society as a whole. That's where my fear is, and considering the fact that the world has never had a free, successful atheistic society, I don't think the fear is irrational.

The world has plenty of 'em, though that's by-the-by.

Now, perhaps you could get back to being wrong about events in Missouri.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:25 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16108
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 92 of 283 (649134)
01-20-2012 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by marc9000
01-20-2012 8:30 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
Because atheism and science exploration do the exact same thing, they assume one time dimension and three space dimensions, and that’s it. They fit all of reality into those two things, and that’s where the correlation is. Many philosophical questions, the endlessness of space, the existence of love / hate, many other things, logically suggest there could be more, much more, to all of reality. Science / atheists don’t simply work their way up to that possibility, they bypass it.

Well, of course none of this is true, but whatever the real reason is, science does actually work. While scientists (or, as you apparently prefer to call them, science/atheists) have come up with stuff like electricity and antibiotics and the silicon chip, theologians have done nothing but come up with a thousand different gods and a thousand excuses for killing each other over the difference.

If you are going to claim that science is inextricably bound up with atheism, then what I say is, let's have more atheism. Because apparently it works.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:30 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16108
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 95 of 283 (649137)
01-20-2012 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by marc9000
01-20-2012 8:43 PM


Re: No real contradiction
It’s logical that his chapter 3 would be good for science classes.

Would you also like to teach the other chapters where he explains why the arguments in ch. 3 are insufficient to make him a theist, and why he considers atheism to be correct?

Or do you consider that only his theistic arguments should be taught, the ones that he thinks aren't as good as his atheistic arguments?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:43 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:53 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020