Pure, uneducated ignorance. Go religion!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Nobody around here is a bigger fan of science than me. And I am also a huge proponent of keeping God and/or religion out of classrooms. I'm also from Oklahoma, so I've been keeping up with this one. All that said, I actually read the bill. It has been discussed at length on a local forum. It doesn't exactly do what Mother Jones reported. Although it is certainly a stupid bill that may even serve no real purpose other than a political stunt.

In fact, there is explicit language that curriculum must be followed.

Essentially, (from how I and others read it, including at least one lawyer) what it does is it makes it illegal for a teacher to fail a student that ARGUES against Evolution or even Climate Change. And it intends to promote a healthy dialogue on skepticism, essentially. Which...for me, is not the worst thing in the world, even if I believe Evolution is 1,000% fact. Having students debating this openly might actually have the reverse effect that these morons want.

The bill also says that the skeptical arguments have to be grounded in science as well. So it's not exactly a "Jesus Horse" argument at all. Although dubious science for sure, this is essentially about Climate Change skeptics. So it's less about Evolution, from what I can see. It's more about Climate Change.

So anyway, if a student has a 20 question test and answers "I don't believe in Evolution" on 10 of them, they are gonna fail. Period. Whereas if they answered "I don't believe in Evolution" on 6 of them and still got the other 14 correct, it would be illegal to fail them just because of their stance on Evolution otherwise. They can certainly still fail them for not doing the proper work in the classroom.

So I suppose it is legal (in OK) to fail a student, as we speak, for simply arguing against Evolution or Climate Change, because I suppose it is at the teacher's discretion? That's the only way this bill serves any purpose. This bill would make that illegal but the student still has to use the science on the classwork if the student wants to pass.

So...that's the way I understand it.
 
Nobody around here is a bigger fan of science than me.

A bold statement, sir... a bold statement.

though I suppose "I'm a bigger fan of science than anybody else" would mean something much different
 
Nobody around here is a bigger fan of science than me. And I am also a huge proponent of keeping God and/or religion out of classrooms. I'm also from Oklahoma, so I've been keeping up with this one. All that said, I actually read the bill. It has been discussed at length on a local forum. It doesn't exactly do what Mother Jones reported. Although it is certainly a stupid bill that may even serve no real purpose other than a political stunt.

In fact, there is explicit language that curriculum must be followed.

Essentially, (from how I and others read it, including at least one lawyer) what it does is it makes it illegal for a teacher to fail a student that ARGUES against Evolution or even Climate Change. And it intends to promote a healthy dialogue on skepticism, essentially. Which...for me, is not the worst thing in the world, even if I believe Evolution is 1,000% fact. Having students debating this openly might actually have the reverse effect that these morons want.

The bill also says that the skeptical arguments have to be grounded in science as well. So it's not exactly a "Jesus Horse" argument at all. Although dubious science for sure, this is essentially about Climate Change skeptics. So it's less about Evolution, from what I can see. It's more about Climate Change.

So anyway, if a student has a 20 question test and answers "I don't believe in Evolution" on 10 of them, they are gonna fail. Period. Whereas if they answered "I don't believe in Evolution" on 6 of them and still got the other 14 correct, it would be illegal to fail them just because of their stance on Evolution otherwise. They can certainly still fail them for not doing the proper work in the classroom.

So I suppose it is legal (in OK) to fail a student, as we speak, for simply arguing against Evolution or Climate Change, because I suppose it is at the teacher's discretion? That's the only way this bill serves any purpose. This bill would make that illegal but the student still has to use the science on the classwork if the student wants to pass.

So...that's the way I understand it.

The fact that they're even trying to introduce this supposedly benign piece of legislature should be seen as more than a little suspect though. A healthy exchange in ideas already exists. It's the basis of modern science. I see this as a bit of a back door approach; something to fall back on when a student submits a paper on Intelligent Design (I hate myself a little bit more every time I use that term). "Oh, well it's based in science, you can't fail him". Actually, it's not science, but they'll fight nail and tooth to try and convince people that should know otherwise. It just seems to me like a first step; insert a seemingly innocent, though completely unneeded bit of legislation, and build upon that. Their wedge strategies are clearly documented
 
I'm no scientist, but doesn't science generally tend to work in paradigms? Scientists will continue to argue for one paradigm until another comes along that better explains the evidence, or provides a simpler explanation. Thus, people believed the celestial bodies revolved around the earth until it was found that it was much simpler to say that the earth revolves around the sun. We to this day can't say that for a fact, but it is a more fitting explanation for what we have observed.

Evolution is such a paradigm. It is not fact, as we can't say for sure, but it does explain fossil records, radiocarbon dating, diversity and relationships, and microevolution we have observed at the population level. So until a better explanation for all that comes along, we can accept it as if it were fact. Those who reject evolution must be willing to provide reasons more compelling than evolution. But the bottom line is, evolution is not fact, but it sounds about right given what we've observed. We believe it to be true, just as others may believe in creationism, but we can back up these beliefs. If creationists can scientifically explain themselves better than evolutionists, then I'm okay with it being taught in science classes. Otherwise, it has no place next to the more scientifically sound explanation.
 
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. You can never say for certain that something is fact, I suppose... in the same way, you can't say for sure that we'll wake up tomorrow morning and gravity will take the day off. There's always room to probe deeper, but when heaps of new, previously unknown phenomena are discovered and those too fit into and prove the theory, we can say that evolution is as close to a fact as anything we know.
Otherwise, you're implying absolute fact doesn't exist and we're only ever creating new paradigms to differently describe the world. The shifts, as it were, are not just different; they are always better. Think of it more as the tweaking of a lens to bring a subject better into focus
 
At the risk of sounding very, very ill-informed, a quick question for those who are more knowledgeable in scientific matters than I:

When people say there's an overwhelming mountain of evidence in favor of evolution, do they mean:

A) there's an overwhelming mountain of evidence to say that all life evolved from a single cell ;

or

B) there's an overwhelming mountain of evidence to say that all life has evolved to some extent?

Not sure if I'm communicating what I'm trying to ask sufficiently enough, but if anyone understands what I mean, thanks in advance!
 
Both, really. Despite the fact that something like less than a 10th of a percent of all living things ever become fossils (and then you still have to find them), there is still clear evidence in the geological record of life moving from simple bacteria to more complex forms. We know for the first 2 billion years, all there was living on Earth were bacteria.
And the evidence of the latter is so abundant and broad it might be more useful to answer specific questions.
 
Yeah, I know the second is undeniably proven, I was just unsure whether the first was. Learn something new every day. Thanks!
 
I'd like to hear both atheists' and religious folk's answers to this, though:

If evolution, in the sense that all things evolved from a single, simple cell, is true, can your (a) god coexist with that?
 
It blows my mind that for 2 billion years, life was happy to just be. Next to no progress, evolutionarily speaking; just existing.
 
I'd like to here both atheists' and religious folk's answers to this though:

If evolution, in the sense that all things evolved from a single simple cell, is true, can your (a) god coexist with that?

I'm more of an agnostic, so I'd say that, yes, a god could exist. But since the universe and all that's in it can exist without a one, it would be fairly pointless god. I don't believe the god of man's religions exists.
I like the idea that the quantum world is so strange to us, that maybe there is some possibility of something happening after death, but it seems very unlikely and I chalk that up to wishful thinking more than anything else. I more or less believe that we get one shot (which when you think about it, is fucking amazing! I mean, what are the chances of that?) and then the universe imposes it's vastness on us and we cease to be. It can be a scary thought, but all the more reason to enjoy life
 

I'm beginning to think that when you used to crash virtual helicopters into the the virtual buildings I was hiding in, you did it because you were angry with me for living in a state that thinks everything in the Bible happened literally.
 
I'm beginning to think that when you used to crash virtual helicopters into the the virtual buildings I was hiding in, you did it because you were angry with me for living in a state that thinks everything in the Bible happened literally.

I'm going to build a multiplayer map of Utah as soon as they implement that sort of thing.. then LOOK OUT
 
A bold statement, sir... a bold statement

Hey Indy, are you ever going to reply to anything I say to you? Or are you content being an ignoramus?

Because really, you come off as a complete chicken shit when anyone asks you anything difficult. And embarrassingly uninformed. Maybe stick to your fantastical threads where facts are malleable
 
The fact that they're even trying to introduce this supposedly benign piece of legislature should be seen as more than a little suspect though. A healthy exchange in ideas already exists. It's the basis of modern science. I see this as a bit of a back door approach; something to fall back on when a student submits a paper on Intelligent Design (I hate myself a little bit more every time I use that term). "Oh, well it's based in science, you can't fail him". Actually, it's not science, but they'll fight nail and tooth to try and convince people that should know otherwise. It just seems to me like a first step; insert a seemingly innocent, though completely unneeded bit of legislation, and build upon that. Their wedge strategies are clearly documented

You are correct. And the wording in the bill is so vague it could almost mean anything, including nothing at all. Once again, probably a political stunt.

If I could explain it easier, I would. It seems pretty convoluted. But then again, these are the same rural bastards that send Jim Inhoffe to the Senate every 6 years. What a fucking embarrassment.

Just please don't mistake me for defending that piece of shit legislation.
I'm just saying - I think there was a fair amount of sensationalism in how it was reported nationally.
 
I'd like to hear both atheists' and religious folk's answers to this, though:

If evolution, in the sense that all things evolved from a single, simple cell, is true, can your (a) god coexist with that?
I think part of the reason intelligent design is considered a strange alternative to creationism-as-science is that, with these scientific theories so overwhelmingly backed with evidence, intelligent design is creationism. If you do believe in God, you still have to belief in intelligent design because that's exactly what has happened.

I mean, I'm for all intents and purposes an atheist, and I've essentially refrained from posting in this thread because I can't figure out a way to question believers without sounding like a complete dick, but that would be my response. If you believe in God, you still should believe that he can coexist with the concept of evolution. You kind of have to.
 
Just please don't mistake me for defending that piece of shit legislation.
I'm just saying - I think there was a fair amount of sensationalism in how it was reported nationally.

oh, no, no. I didn't think that. I totally get where you're coming from
 
I'd like to hear both atheists' and religious folk's answers to this, though:

If evolution, in the sense that all things evolved from a single, simple cell, is true, can your (a) god coexist with that?

I accept we all evolved from a single, simple cell, yet I have trouble wrapping my mind around it. I just sounds so...I don't know...unfathomable? If that's the word? Not that I don't think it didn't happen, but whoa, really? Sounds odd and fascinating.

I believe God is behind it, because I believe there is something bigger than me out there. And I think it shows He has a lot of patience and strategy.
 
Hey Indy, are you ever going to reply to anything I say to you? Or are you content being an ignoramus?

Because really, you come off as a complete chicken shit when anyone asks you anything difficult. And embarrassingly uninformed. Maybe stick to your fantastical threads where facts are malleable

JT, come on. Drop the personal digs.
 
The fact that they're even trying to introduce this supposedly benign piece of legislature should be seen as more than a little suspect though. A healthy exchange in ideas already exists. It's the basis of modern science. I see this as a bit of a back door approach; something to fall back on when a student submits a paper on Intelligent Design (I hate myself a little bit more every time I use that term). "Oh, well it's based in science, you can't fail him". Actually, it's not science, but they'll fight nail and tooth to try and convince people that should know otherwise. It just seems to me like a first step; insert a seemingly innocent, though completely unneeded bit of legislation, and build upon that. Their wedge strategies are clearly documented

Exactly. Even if the headline is misleading, the fact that this even has to be up for debate and discussion in the first place is just bizarre. You want to talk about religious theories regarding how the world came to be and all that sort of thing? Fine, great. Go to church, then. That's what those buildings are there for.

BEAL's post summed up my thoughts perfectly.
 
See, I guess when I hear intelligent design, I think of God sitting around bored thinking, "I wonder what that dinosaur would look like with feathers."

That's not what I think of with God, some puppet master.

I see no reason to believe we weren't created with the ability to adapt. Maybe that clashes with the whole how old is the earth thing, but as u mentioned yesterday, I don't get too upset for not understanding a portion of the Bible that never mentions dates or timetables save for 7 days. Days to God, mind you, which are not exactly easy to calculate.

It's funny to see some in here awed by the idea that all life comes from a single cell. It's that same awe that makes me believe in God. The statistical probability is just insane for all of us and this to be here with no higher power.
 
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. You can never say for certain that something is fact, I suppose... in the same way, you can't say for sure that we'll wake up tomorrow morning and gravity will take the day off. There's always room to probe deeper, but when heaps of new, previously unknown phenomena are discovered and those too fit into and prove the theory, we can say that evolution is as close to a fact as anything we know.
Otherwise, you're implying absolute fact doesn't exist and we're only ever creating new paradigms to differently describe the world. The shifts, as it were, are not just different; they are always better. Think of it more as the tweaking of a lens to bring a subject better into focus

I agree. But if we ever do hit upon fact, would we recognize it as fact? I know that can go both ways, but I think there are very few things we can know for certain. And like you said, it's never a fact that we will wake up tomorrow or gravity will cease as a force. We can only trust that tomorrow will be much like today in those respects, that's all.

Personally, I don't find a distinction between teaching creationism as fact and teaching evolution as fact. By this, I'm just simply saying that both are teaching something we believe on faith as fact. We can trust that evolution is true, based on evidence, just as we trust that we will wake up tomorrow morning. I'm all for teaching evolution over creationism in schools, only because it has the greater amount of scientific evidence to support it, and so it's the model upon what most legitimate scientists in the field would base their conclusions. If you like the idea of a "tweaking of a lens," sure. But does absolute clarity exist, at least by limited human capacity?
 
The statistical probability is just insane for all of us and this to be here with no higher power.

Not to try and sway your opinion or anything (as if that was a likelihood), but what you're describing here is a posteriori (one often brought up by intelligent design proponents cdesign proponentsist creationists). Basically, you're (generally you) taking a conclusion (ie, Humans living today) and applying the statistical probability to it, when there was no goal or end game from the beginning. It's no different than taking a stack of playing cards, throwing them on the ground, then being amazed at the order you collect them back together in, because what were the chances that the cards would be in that order? There's a famous quote by someone whom I can't remember at the moment that went something like, upon seeing a certain licence plate on the road "Imagine that. Of all the licence plates I could've seen, I see that one".

Or even more relevant to you and me... In order for you to have been born - the exact you from the only exact sperm that could give rise to you - your conception had to have happened at that exact fraction of a second. Any more or less and you wouldn't have been born. It would have led to someone else. Highly unlikely and a very tangible and real statistic. Now, take that unlikelyhood and extend it backward (as this probability also applies to your parents and so on). By only going back (*looks at notes) 20 generations, you need to rely on over 1 million people copulating at the exact right time to eventually produce you. If any two of those people were off by a fraction of a second, you wouldn't exist. A statistical impossibility. But, you weren't the logical outcome. Someone had to have been born. So you can't apply probabilities that way
 
But see, to you there was no goal, to me there is one.

And regardless of outcome, the inciting incident is steeped in unlikelihood, and yet.
 
Back
Top Bottom