MERGED -> Bush endorses 'intelligent design' + Politicized Scholars... - Page 15 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-23-2005, 10:00 AM   #211
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




precisely. i've written about the Left and it's victim mentality

the difference is, i'm having my civil rights violated.

those who claim persecution in the evolution "debate" are basically calling the failure of the state to endorse their religious beliefs as tantamount to persecution.

am i more persecuted than your average right wing politicized Christian?

absolutely.

are both groups guilty of claiming victim status as a political tool?

absolutely.

and you've played the part of victim in this forum every much as i have.

so, again, another case of the pot calling the kettle.
My only point is to suggest that you might find more sympathy for your claims of civil rights violations if you wouldn't mock other groups.

As for my "playing the part of victim" - I won't let myself be a victim. If anything, I point out the hypocracy when those seeking tolerance become intolerant.

Frankly, I don't think we need to let our discussion stoop to this level of playground taunting.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 10:01 AM   #212
Refugee
 
starsforu2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ashburn, VA (and permanently residing in u2bonogirls head!)
Posts: 2,070
Local Time: 09:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



you're incorrect.

ID is not an admission that science doesn't know everything -- any scientist will tell you that they know barely anything. what ID tries to do is cast doubt on the scientific method and lend scientific legitimicy to the supernatural -- which, by defintion, cannot be verified or falsified, thus failing the requisite criteria for inclusion in a science classroom.

anyone is free to discuss ID in a philosophy class, or a theory class, or a religion class. just not a science class because ID is emphatically NOT science, thus it merits no place in a science classroom. and science should not in any way have to tip-toe around fact in order not to offend any religion, Christian or otherwise.

you also don't understand what a theory is in science. gravity is a theory. plate tectonics is a theory. evolution is a theory. difference is, evolution might be the best, most coherent, most researched theory science has to offer; it links all of biology together. if you must insist on claiming that evolution is "just a theory" and therefore must be viewed with more skepticism than, say, the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, then consistency should demand that you call ID "not yet a theory."

you also underestimate the forces behind ID. they are avowdly Christian, and funded by heavily monied people who offer universities money so that their professors can work for them to "prove" ID.

article for you: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/na.../21evolve.html
The big Bang can't be verified, and yet it's taught in the classroom as theory. It's just as magical as creationism and for some of us, far more ludicrous.

My argument is from a very specific part of the debate. Origin of the Universe. I'm going to read more about the ID debate before weighing in further.

Evolution of the Species is not what I was intending to tackle in this debate, merely that if you're going to present unobserved theories (the big bang), then you might as well as place other equally unveriable (but popular) theories as well.

But, we might be able to solve this problem once and for all, if you'd just allow vouchers so that yokel Christians can take their kids out of public schools and just teach them how to not be scientists without being offended by the public school system.
__________________

__________________
starsforu2 is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 10:04 AM   #213
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 01:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by starsforu2
But, we might be able to solve this problem once and for all, if you'd just allow vouchers so that yokel Christians can take their kids out of public schools and just teach them how to not be scientists without being offended by the public school system.
Why should the tax-payer foot the bill if you (or any other parent) want to send your child to a school which teaches a particular religious belief? I'm of the opinion that the education budget should be spent on making high-quality education available to all children, not on indulging the religious beliefs of a particular group of parents.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 10:11 AM   #214
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 02:50 PM

I'd just like ask the ID people on which criteria we should admit subjects (or "theories" if you wisk) into science class? My apologies if this has been covered before but I don't remember reading about it.
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 10:17 AM   #215
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader

Frankly, I don't think we need to let our discussion stoop to this level of playground taunting.

you started it.

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 08-23-2005, 10:19 AM   #216
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by starsforu2


The big Bang can't be verified, and yet it's taught in the classroom as theory. It's just as magical as creationism and for some of us, far more ludicrous.

My argument is from a very specific part of the debate. Origin of the Universe. I'm going to read more about the ID debate before weighing in further.

Evolution of the Species is not what I was intending to tackle in this debate, merely that if you're going to present unobserved theories (the big bang), then you might as well as place other equally unveriable (but popular) theories as well.

But, we might be able to solve this problem once and for all, if you'd just allow vouchers so that yokel Christians can take their kids out of public schools and just teach them how to not be scientists without being offended by the public school system.


but there are competing *scientific* explanations for the origins of the universe that can be theorized and eventually tested and verified or falsified. to invoke the supernatural is simply not a part of science as it exist beyond science's boundaries. it's a moot point for scientific inquiry.

and the voucher subject is a whole other can of worms ...
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 08-23-2005, 10:20 AM   #217
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by DrTeeth
I'd just like ask the ID people on which criteria we should admit subjects (or "theories" if you wisk) into science class? My apologies if this has been covered before but I don't remember reading about it.
Conversly, what would it take for the Evolution people to admit a discussion of ID in the classroom?

A scientific method that could prove/disprove the existence of God (or Supreme Being)?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 10:23 AM   #218
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
but there are competing *scientific* explanations for the origins of the universe that can be theorized and eventually tested and verified or falsified. to invoke the supernatural is simply not a part of science as it exist beyond science's boundaries. it's a moot point for scientific inquiry.

and the voucher subject is a whole other can of worms ...
I guess this goes to my original question. What constitutes a "scientific" explanation?

And is it really scientific to exlude a possibility based on self-defined boundries?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 10:23 AM   #219
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 09:50 AM
The Big Bang is not just a "popular theory." You make it sound like science is as whimsical as the National Enquirer. Though some out there would like science to be able to fit various ideologies, the whole POINT of studying science is that is not MEANT to be ideological; it seeks to put the scientific process front and center and test theories with the same impartiality and thoroughness across the board.

ID CANNOT be scientifically tested. I believe in ID as a Christian, but I do NOT believe it should be taught in a science classroom.

FizzingWhizzbees is exactly right: if you want your children taught a particular religious doctrine and you want everything taught to be 100% compatible with it, don't make taxpayers foot the bill. Teach your children that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is responsible for creation if you like, but do it on your own dime and your own time.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 10:26 AM   #220
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


My only point is to suggest that you might find more sympathy for your claims of civil rights violations if you wouldn't mock other groups.

As for my "playing the part of victim" - I won't let myself be a victim. If anything, I point out the hypocracy when those seeking tolerance become intolerant.


in any event, you do play the victim. you've said, several times, in regards to posts by Melon, myself, and some others that point out the increasing theocratic nature of the GOP that this is inherently discriminatory language.

i've said it before and i'll say it again: you've misunderstood, to the point where it seems intentional. everyone goes to great lengths to distinguish between your average person sitting in a pew on Sunday and the Pat Robertsons of the world. it's your continual insistance that any language critical of the politicization of Christianity, or even words mean to further specifiy what these political groups are about (i.e., "Christianist") that conflates your average fundamentalist Christian (of which we know there are many kinds) with those who speak at Justice Sunday II.

i also don't see why, when the focus of the discrimination is like a laser (what else would you call a Constitutional Amdendment or the comparison of homosexual sex to bestiality?), i need to be delicate and respectful when under assault by a loud minority.

perhaps the Jews should simply have been nicer and less tight-fisted with their money in Weimar Gemany?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 08-23-2005, 10:28 AM   #221
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


I guess this goes to my original question. What constitutes a "scientific" explanation?

And is it really scientific to exlude a possibility based on self-defined boundries?


In the sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework describing the behaviour of a certain natural or social phenomenon (thus either originating from observable facts or supported by observable facts). (In contrast, a hypothesis is a statement which has not been tested yet). Theories are formulated, developed and evaluated according to the scientific method.

In physics, the term theory generally is taken to mean a mathematical framework derived from a small set of basic principles capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. An example would be "electromagnetic theory", which is usually taken to be synonymous with classical electromagnetism, the specific results of which can be derived from Maxwell's equations.

The term theoretical may be used to to describe a certain result that has been predicted by theory but has not yet been observed. For example, until recently, black holes were considered theoretical. It is not uncommon in the history of physics for theory to produce such predictions that are later confirmed by experiment, but failed predictions do occur. Conversely, at any time in the study of physics, there can also be confirmed experimental results which are not yet explained by theory.

For a given body of theory to be considered part of established knowledge, it is usually necessary for the theory to characterize a critical experiment, that is, an experimental result which cannot be predicted by any established theory.

Unfortunately, the usage of the term is muddled by cases such as string theory and "theories of everything," each probably better characterized at present as a bundle of competing hypotheses for a protoscience. A hypothesis, however, is still vastly more reliable than a conjecture, which is at best an untested guess consistent with selected data, and is often a belief based on non-repeatable experiments, anecdotes, popular opinion, "wisdom of the ancients," commercial motivation, or mysticism.

Other claims such as Intelligent Design and homeopathy are not scientific theories, but pseudoscience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 08-23-2005, 10:29 AM   #222
Refugee
 
starsforu2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ashburn, VA (and permanently residing in u2bonogirls head!)
Posts: 2,070
Local Time: 09:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees
[B]

I would be unhappy with a teacher claiming that "abortion kills a baby" because that is an expression of the teacher's own moral view and not based on the available evidence about abortion. The phrase "kills a baby" is an emotive one designed to evoke strong feelings in people whether they are pro-choice or anti-abortion.
I'm going to let the abortion analogy drop because it would seriously derail the discussion, except to say that you would care equally as much if a hot-button issue (for you) wasn't handled in a neutral fashion. And for many parents, a viable option for the creation of the universe is an Intelligent Designer of some sort.


Quote:
Evolution is supported by scientific evidence -- it may not be fact but it is a valid scentific theory based on the available evidence and it is a theory which has widespread support among scientists. Creationism or intelligent design have abolutely no evidential basis, they're not scientific theories but religious theories. I don't believe teachers should be expected to discuss religious theories in a science classroom.
Sadly I didn't confine my argument to the area that I thought I was. I was more interested in the origin of the Universe than the entire life cycle of it. And as I said in a previous post I need to read up more on the ID issue. I was basing this on my own experiences in school in which the origin of the universe was presented to you in such a way that it did not seem at all compatible with creationism.


Quote:
Can you clarify why you believe intelligent design or creationism to be a theory which it would be irresponsible not to discuss in a science classroom. I've always been of the opinion that only valid scientific theories should be taught as science and intelligent design and creationism do not meet the criteria for a valid scientific theory.
I can't defend ID because I haven't read through it's intent, but I never understood how the theory of the Big Bang was less wishful thinking than a creator is, therefore why not have both presented?


Quote:
If Mom and Dad want their religious beliefs taught in the science classroom then perhaps they ought to consider sending their children to a specifically religious school. Public schools should not endorse religion and to teach intelligent design or creationism is endorsing a religious belief.
vouchers or give me tax dollars back for funding public schools.

Quote:
I've tried asking this question in this thread before, but do you personally believe in intelligent design/creationism? Again, I'm asking because it seems it's very easy to advocate a religious belief being taught in schools when it's one with which you agree, but I suspect many people's opinion would be different if this were a thread about teaching a theory based on, for example, Islam or Judaism rather than on a religion which they claim adherence to.

I might have missed your question. I do believe in Creationism. The Bible has actually really little to say about it which leads me to believe that it's just not that important of an issue in terms of theology. Which is why I sort of stand out of the way of Evolution, but advocate creationism for explanation of the origin of the universe. And I can support that because I don't look at the term God, Creator or Heaven as being specific enough to endorse a religion. Nor does the idea of something greater than ourselves endorse Christ or Allah, or Zeus or whatever.
__________________
starsforu2 is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 10:40 AM   #223
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 09:50 AM
If you're talking about tax dollars to fund public schools, the idea of public funding for an excellent education system is a very, very old one, going back to Puritan New England. To give all schoolchildren equal access to opportunity, public schools that teach a well-founded, consistent curriculum are absolutely necessary. I do not want a generation of scientists that disregards evolution anymore than I'd want a generation of writers that never read Shakespeare or a generation of historians that are Holocaust deniers.

Pulling money AWAY from public education won't make education any better. It will not keep failing schools from failing; it won't guarantee the equal access to knowledge and opportunity on which our country's educational system was founded. The inequities in education today are probably the single greatest threat to the "American dream" today, and I will fight any measure to make public education weaker, poorer, or more ideologically influenced.

Our schoolchildren deserve an education that is intellectually rigorous and consistent with the best and latest knowledge in every field, including science.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 10:41 AM   #224
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
in any event, you do play the victim. you've said, several times, in regards to posts by Melon, myself, and some others that point out the increasing theocratic nature of the GOP that this is inherently discriminatory language.
I only question the use of the made-up terms. And you acknowledge that some of the terms used are designed to be inflammatory.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 10:45 AM   #225
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 01:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by starsforu2
I'm going to let the abortion analogy drop because it would seriously derail the discussion, except to say that you would care equally as much if a hot-button issue (for you) wasn't handled in a neutral fashion. And for many parents, a viable option for the creation of the universe is an Intelligent Designer of some sort.
My point is that I believe that science should be taught in a neutral fashion and this is why non-scientific beliefs such as intelligent design and creationism should be excluded. If parents believe in intelligent design or creationism they are welcome to teach that to their children. They are not, however, welcome to force that belief on all children in a science class.

Quote:
And as I said in a previous post I need to read up more on the ID issue. I was basing this on my own experiences in school in which the origin of the universe was presented to you in such a way that it did not seem at all compatible with creationism.
Once you've done your reading on intelligent design, perhaps you could answer my questions about why you deem it a valid scientific theory worthy of attention in a science class. And I don't believe that it is a teacher's responsibility to ensure that what they teach is compatible with creationism -- creationism (in its 'God created the world in seven days a few thousand years ago; Adam and Eve were the first humans' guise) is a specifically Christian theory and one which isn't even accepted by a majority of Christians. Why then should a teacher be accepted to ensure that their teaching of evolution is compatible with what most scientists would consider a completely crackpot theory? (Sorry, but a theory which seriously claims the world is only a few thousand years old is a crackpot theory in most people's estimation.)

Quote:
I can't defend ID because I haven't read through it's intent, but I never understood how the theory of the Big Bang was less wishful thinking than a creator is, therefore why not have both presented?
Because the big bang theory is supported by evidence -- it's not irrefutable, it could be proved wrong tomorrow, but it is a theory developed by science based on the available evidence. The idea that the universe was 'created' is based purely on religious faith -- there is no evidence for this belief and advocates of this belief don't even attempt to provide evidence to justify it, they just accept it is a matter of faith.

Quote:
vouchers or give me tax dollars back for funding public schools.
I outlined my objection to vouchers in the previous post. But the idea that tax-payers shouldn't have to fund something (ie public school teaching of evolution) with which they disagree is impractical -- do I get a tax refund because I don't like nuclear weapons? How about if I don't like Tony Blair?


Quote:
I might have missed your question. I do believe in Creationism.
You didn't miss my question -- I originally addressed it to Nbc so you probably wouldn't have seen it. But thanks for answering anyway.
__________________

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com