MERGED -> Bush endorses 'intelligent design' + Politicized Scholars...

[nbcrusader]

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.

 

[starsforu2]

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/national/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.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Irvine511]

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

you started it.

 

[Irvine511]

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 ...

 

[nbcrusader]

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]

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?

 

[pax]

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.

 

[Irvine511]

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]

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

 

[starsforu2]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

 

[pax]

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.

 

[nbcrusader]

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.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

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.

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.)

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.

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?

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.

 

[Irvine511]

I only question the use of the made-up terms. And you acknowledge that some of the terms used are designed to be inflammatory.

i'm geniunely perplexed.

please PM me if you'd like to continue this discussion, as here is not the place.

 

[nbcrusader]

They are not, however, welcome to force that belief on all children in a science class.

This is an interesting dilema that frequently pops up in FYM.

Exactly when does a subject matter turn from class material to "forced belief"?

 

[Se7en]

Exactly when does a subject matter turn from class material to "forced belief"?

the way the school system is currently set up, kids walk away with, if not "forced," then "strongly guided" beliefs as it is.
see: american history.

 

[u2bonogirl]

When are Christians allowed to be offended by being taught something completely contrary to what they believe?
It seems that other people receive more validation for their offence when they are taught anything to do with creationism, but Christians are shoved aside when they say something?
I'm not talking about teaching creationism, Im just talking about teachers saying that the big bang is not absolute. That microevolution is not absolute, and that we're not really sure that we came from monkeys.
When I was in class they never said that there was any other option. They taught that this was this and there was nothing else
rantover

 

[BVS]

When are Christians allowed to be offended by being taught something completely contrary to what they believe?

I guess when it actually happens...

But in all seriousness, theory has never meant absolute.

We teach what the scientific process can theorize or prove...

 

[nbcrusader]

the way the school system is currently set up, kids walk away with, if not "forced," then "strongly guided" beliefs as it is.
see: american history.

So, not matter the subject matter, children are forced, I mean, strongly guided by schools as to their beliefs?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

When are Christians allowed to be offended by being taught something completely contrary to what they believe?
It seems that other people receive more validation for their offence when they are taught anything to do with creationism, but Christians are shoved aside when they say something?
I'm not talking about teaching creationism, Im just talking about teachers saying that the big bang is not absolute. That microevolution is not absolute, and that we're not really sure that we came from monkeys.
When I was in class they never said that there was any other option. They taught that this was this and there was nothing else
rantover

Christians are free to be offended whenever they wish. They are not, however, free to decide that their right not to be offended supercedes the right of every child in the United States to receive a science education based on scientific knowledge not on religious speculation.

Edited to be nicer: But you all know what I was going to say re "microevolution" anyway.

 

[Se7en]

So, not matter the subject matter, children are forced, I mean, strongly guided by schools as to their beliefs?

i believe one could make an argument for it, however at a higher level - the state.

are schools not one of the most powerful agents of socialization?

 

[Irvine511]

When are Christians allowed to be offended by being taught something completely contrary to what they believe?
It seems that other people receive more validation for their offence when they are taught anything to do with creationism, but Christians are shoved aside when they say something?
I'm not talking about teaching creationism, Im just talking about teachers saying that the big bang is not absolute. That microevolution is not absolute, and that we're not really sure that we came from monkeys.
When I was in class they never said that there was any other option. They taught that this was this and there was nothing else
rantover

which is why these things are called *theories* ... but they have decades of research to back them up, as opposed to ideological conjecture used to fill in gaps between what can be verified or falsified.

 

[u2bonogirl]

I realize that they are called theories, but when they are presented as fact, whether they are called it by that name or not, its misleading.
Thats my point. Not that creationism should be taught as a science, but that what we do know is not solid fact and that there are still major gaps and questions.
None of my middle or high school science experience was like that. They told us that microevolution was what happened, that the big bang happened and how, and then left it at that. We had the little monkey chart that showed us gradually becoming human
Its just narrowminded and misleading
*sits and waits for the backlash of a christian using the word narrowminded to describe somebody else*

 

[namkcuR]

I realize that they are called theories, but when they are presented as fact, whether they are called it by that name or not, its misleading.
Thats my point. Not that creationism should be taught as a science, but that what we do know is not solid fact and that there are still major gaps and questions.
None of my middle or high school science experience was like that. They told us that microevolution was what happened, that the big bang happened and how, and then left it at that. We had the little monkey chart that showed us gradually becoming human
Its just narrowminded and misleading
*sits and waits for the backlash of a christian using the word narrowminded to describe somebody else*

If you know how hypocritical it is than why did you say it?

Evolution should be taught in schools, said schools should make it clear that it is a theory with a hell of a lot of scientific evidence behind but not neccessarily fact, and that there are other theories that won't be discussed or taught in public schools. Religion should be taught in religious schools and nowhere else. Keep it out of the public schools.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

They told us that microevolution was what happened

That's because microevolution is what happened. I deleted my reference to this in my previous post because I thought perhaps you'd just made a typo (ie you meant macroevolution not microevolution) and I didn't want to seem like a know-it-all. The fact is that microevolution does occur and there is observable scientific evidence of this, for example the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

 

[BVS]

I realize that they are called theories, but when they are presented as fact, whether they are called it by that name or not, its misleading.

Then your school system did a poor job. That's unfortunate, I didn't have that experience.

 

[randhail]

what happens when a student asks, what caused the big bang? Should the teacher pretend the question was never asked or have the student removed from school and sent off to a religious school for inquiring minds?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

what happens when a student asks, what caused the big bang? Should the teacher pretend the question was never asked or have the student removed from school and sent off to a religious school for inquiring minds?

lol, of course not! Science education should actively encourage intellectual curiosity, not punish students for asking questions. The 'big bang' theory does include an explanation of what caused the big bang but I honestly couldn't do justice to that explanation so I'm going to leave it to someone smarter than me to explain.