Alas, poor Ohio .... EvC related news

I think part of the problem is that this is the only theory in all of science where what we don't know yet is referred to as a "problem."In any other field these would be referred to as "frontiers." We don't know everything about cancer, for instance. But we don't try to tear down hospitals because of it. This is stuff we should be telling kids; not out of a misguided attempt to show ideological parity or even out of a guilty need to be honest about science - these areas are where the future research is going to be. It's not enough to dump what we know on kids; we have to show them what we expect some of them to find out one day.Maybe the ACLU isn't desperate to sweep stuff under the rug; maybe they're justifiably pissed that creationists will capitalize on any attempt to excite science-minded youngsters about frontiers in biology by styling them as admissions of ineptitude.

Of course it doesn't.At such time as a scientific explanation of abiogenesis is put forth, it will rely on chemical mechanisms that we can observe in the lab. "Abiogenesis" isn't a mechanism, or even a purported one. The mechanism will be some chemical process that we can replicate.What's untestable about that? What's unfalsifiable about chemistry that we can replicate in the lab?

Gosh, I guess I just assumed that any theory put forth as scientific thought would either adhere to scientific principles or be quickly and soundly deflated. So sue me, I guess.If and when a scientific model of abiogenesis is developed, by definition, it will be falsifiable, repeatable, and testable.Moreover if speculating about as-yet-undeveloped models torques you off so damn bad, why were you the first one to do it? You're the one who tried to tell us what the scientific model of abiogenesis would be like in the first place.

As cool as the ACLU is, be careful - a friend of mine signed up (so that he could be a "card-carrying member") and they totally dumped his name onto a bunch of fruity super-leftist mailing lists.He's kinda pissed about it. If there's one organization you would expect to recognize the right to privacy and to not have one's personal information bought and sold, you'd think it would be the ACLU.

Well, according to him, he very clearly deliniated that they weren't to do that, but they did anyway. I guess that was the point of my aside - maybe the messed up or whatever, but when it comes to the revenue generated by information sale, the ACLU - in this one case, at least - appears to be just as mercenary as the next group.I agree with your point, though. It seems like the ACLU can't get a break - if they try to prevent Christians from trampling on civil freedoms, they're anti-theist pinko baby-eaters toeing their secularist party line. But when they stand up for the rights of Christians, it's just a cynical ploy to curry favor with red-blooded Amuricans.Lord forbid the truth be countenanced - the ACLU tries to stand up for civil rights regardless of the beliefs of the wronged party.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-07-2004 02:52 AM

quote:

---

Amendment 14 (exerpt):
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

---

Yes, I'd say so. In the face of Amendment 14, how can you suggest that a state has the ability to circumvent Constitutionally protected rights?

The right to free excercise, which presumably includes the right not to be forced to excerise a religion not of your choosing. That would include being forced to attend religious services, training, or instruction.

Right. But when you come into my kid's science classroom, where he has to be, and distribute religious material as though it's fact, that's an infringment of his/hers - and my - freedom of religious expression.

The dictionary? The definition of "religion" is clear and well-defined. There's absolutely no ambiguity about what constitutes religion.You honestly think ID doesn't make reference to God? By all means, show me an ID theorist who believes that intelligent designer is anyone but a god. I'm genuinely curious.

I looked at the list under #3 and I didn't see where it included "theory." Evolution is neither a belief, a value, or a practice, and it's based on evidence, not on the views of a man.Why would a scientific model have a "spiritual leader"? Moreover, why would it be Darwin when Darwin's forumlation of evolution was wrong? No, it can't. Evolution is a theory, and like all theories, its acceptance is provisional and tentative. Tentative acceptance is by definition the opposite of devotion. So #4 doesn't apply either.I don't understand how you can say that evolutionists are "devoted" to the theory when we're ready, willing, and eager to toss it on the scrapheap in the face of disconfirming evidence. Hell, ask us and we'll even tell you what evidence to look for. How can that be described as "devotion" by anyone but an imbicile? You didn't do what I asked you to do. I asked you to show me any ID'ist who said "intelligent designer" and didn't mean God.Where does it mention God? Where it says "intelligent designer."This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-09-2004 11:51 PM

Why? Because it might not be unconstituional under a hypothetical amended constitution that does not currently exist?I don't see how that settles anything, and I don't see how you can honestly expect to support an argument by recourse to nonexistent amendments.

I accept that evolution is currently the most accurate explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. I don't believe in it, though. I'm sure it's wrong about some stuff. Well, it's certainly true that I'm not involved in scientific research or instruction of any kind. I do however provisonally accept the claims of science, like all scientists. With a Nobel Prize waiting for the guy who gives us a better model than evolution? I doubt I have to convince anyone.Had you not heard of the scientific principle of tentativity, or something? If you didn't know what I meant by that, why didn't you just ask instead of looking like an idiot? Just curious.

You responded to a post including the process for amending the constitution by saying "that settles the argument."The argument was the constitutionality of laws enforcing the teaching of ID/creationism.If you don't believe that the possibility of amending the constitution "settles the argument", then why did you say it did?

My first post in this thread was an immediate response to your first post in this thread.Exactly what in this thread do you think I've missed? If all you have to offer are one-line evasions, don't waste our time, ok?This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-10-2004 05:52 AM

I don't see how you would expect one piece of evidence to be disconfirming.So, from that perspective, it doesn't look like we're on the same page again. True or false - the theory that would replace evolution would be revolutionary, yes? And likely the source of much acclaim for its theorist?