Who Here is a Christian? bLinD fAiTh rEbeLs :) - Page 9 - 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 01-05-2006, 07:25 PM   #121
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 12:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by got2k9s
Again, I say:

It's not even allowed to be MENTIONED.

It can't be disproven, yet, it is not even allowed to be SAID in a public school classroom in the U.S.
Not even 30 seconds of one biology class in the whole school year can be used to utter words in its general direction . . .
Again, I ask:

Why does it need to be mentioned? There are things to be taught by schools, there are things to be taught by the church, and there are things to be taught by parents etc...
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-05-2006, 07:27 PM   #122
The Fly
 
got2k9s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: at a place called Vertigo
Posts: 184
Local Time: 01:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon

Science, first off, is NOT a democracy. You cannot form an interest group and suddenly decide you have a scientific theory.
I think you have the order wrong on this one.

Quote:
"Intelligent design" is merely a hypothesis created by people with ideological aims--to put fundamentalist Christian religion into public schools.
This is a completely 'unfair' statement. (I put ' around the word unfair because I don't particularly like it, but it seems to fit, here.)

First of all, there is a very negative vibe associated with common current usage of the word 'fundamentalist.' Defined as "returning to the fundamentals" is fine, but the fanatical spin is not fair.

You can NOT say that all people who believe that, even CREATIONISM, not just ID, should be even so much as **discussed** in public schools is a fundamentalist Christian, indignant about their religion.


Quote:
I just take issue when people get so arrogant as to think that their "blind faith" supercedes others' rights to have different faiths or the lack thereof.
How is it any more arrogant than when people think their beliefs in evolution or alternative explanations re: origins supercedes others' rights to have different beliefs?

What I typically hear in the argument is overwhelming support for *ADDING* 'Creationism' or 'ID' to the classroom discussion, which it/they is/are not allowed to be discussed, today.

AND, I think we are also forgetting to distinguish, in some of these conversations, between high school and college courses, as there IS no "religion" class in public high schools in the U.S.
__________________

__________________
got2k9s is offline  
Old 01-05-2006, 07:32 PM   #123
The Fly
 
got2k9s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: at a place called Vertigo
Posts: 184
Local Time: 01:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Again, I ask:

Why does it need to be mentioned? There are things to be taught by schools, there are things to be taught by the church, and there are things to be taught by parents etc...
Because to completely ignore it is idiotic, considering the staggering amount of people who believe it v. evolution.

And again, as discussed before, there are elements in/of the belief if/of evolution that do not necessarily contradict even Creationism, and I use the word to take it one step farther than "ID."
__________________
got2k9s is offline  
Old 01-05-2006, 07:47 PM   #124
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 12:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by got2k9s


Because to completely ignore it is idiotic, considering the staggering amount of people who believe it v. evolution.
No to teach it in school would be idiotic. School is for teaching TANGIBLE subjects. Unless maybe philosophy at the college level.


Quote:
Originally posted by got2k9s

And again, as discussed before, there are elements in/of the belief if/of evolution that do not necessarily contradict even Creationism, and I use the word to take it one step farther than "ID."
I agree, but it doesn't belong in a science class because, like you said, it can't be proven.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-05-2006, 07:50 PM   #125
The Fly
 
got2k9s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: at a place called Vertigo
Posts: 184
Local Time: 01:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

No to teach it in school would be idiotic. School is for teaching TANGIBLE subjects.

I couldn't disagree more.
Even those who don't go to college need to learn how to THINK.
And I don't mean in a 'brainwashing' way - - but learn how to think and REASON.

You can't achieve that as well without 'less than tangible' subjects.
__________________
got2k9s is offline  
Old 01-05-2006, 07:53 PM   #126
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 12:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by got2k9s



I couldn't disagree more.
Even those who don't go to college need to learn how to THINK.
And I don't mean in a 'brainwashing' way - - but learn how to think and REASON.

You can't achieve that as well without 'less than tangible' subjects.
Name one untangible subject you were taught in school.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-05-2006, 07:54 PM   #127
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by got2k9s
First of all, there is a very negative vibe associated with common current usage of the word 'fundamentalist.' Defined as "returning to the fundamentals" is fine, but the fanatical spin is not fair.

You can NOT say that all people who believe that, even CREATIONISM, not just ID, should be even so much as **discussed** in public schools is a fundamentalist Christian, indignant about their religion.
I don't care if fanatics believe it or otherwise reasonable people believe it. Scientific theory is not determined by how "popular" a hypothesis is. Imagine the chaos if we started determining mathematical formulas on popular consensus, rather than on factual data?

Quote:
How is it any more arrogant than when people think their beliefs in evolution or alternative explanations re: origins supercedes others' rights to have different beliefs?

What I typically hear in the argument is overwhelming support for *ADDING* 'Creationism' or 'ID' to the classroom discussion, which it/they is/are not allowed to be discussed, today.

AND, I think we are also forgetting to distinguish, in some of these conversations, between high school and college courses, as there IS no "religion" class in public high schools in the U.S.
It doesn't matter anyway, because fundamentalist Christians would object to the secular manner in which religion is treated in university settings. I happen to have been a research assistant for a Religious Studies department for a year when I was in college.

Again, science is not determined by BELIEF. That is for the proper realm of PHILOSOPHY or RELIGION, and there are studies in those fields accordingly. Science is determined by FACT and OBSERVATION over long periods of time and by multiple, highly educated professionals. It is not the job of science to be popular. It is only supposed to be factual, just as math is only supposed to be factual. I don't care if 90% of America believed in ID; it will NEVER be science. As such, it has no place in a science curriculum.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-05-2006, 07:58 PM   #128
The Fly
 
got2k9s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: at a place called Vertigo
Posts: 184
Local Time: 01:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Name one untangible subject you were taught in school.
Revisionist history.
__________________
got2k9s is offline  
Old 01-05-2006, 08:01 PM   #129
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 12:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by got2k9s


Revisionist history.
Wow you are showing a problem to prove your point?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-05-2006, 08:11 PM   #130
The Fly
 
got2k9s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: at a place called Vertigo
Posts: 184
Local Time: 01:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon

I don't care if fanatics believe it or otherwise reasonable people believe it. Scientific theory is not determined by how "popular" a hypothesis is. Imagine the chaos if we started determining mathematical formulas on popular consensus, rather than on factual data?
Who said anything about talking about it, even as a 'theory?'
I said DISCUSSING it in school. Even THAT is not allowed.
(Again, high school v. college/university)


Quote:
It doesn't matter anyway, because fundamentalist Christians would object to the secular manner in which religion is treated in university settings.
Again, with the "fundamentalists."

I am a Christian and I believe the Bible, yes. Decide for yourself if that makes me 'a fundamentalist' or not, but it seems to be a very narrow (and prejudicial) pigeonhole of supporters of the idea of ID/Creationism's place in school . . . but anyway, I took philosophy and religion courses at university. I didn't object to them or the way ideas and alternate ideas were presented or discussed.

I would think that anyone interested in believing in something would know not only why they believe it but also why they don't believe everything else that opposes it. That's the intellectual way of going about it.

Quote:
Science is determined by FACT and OBSERVATION over long periods of time and by multiple, highly educated professionals.
Let's not confuse 'education' with 'intelligence.'

And, so, the earliest scientists were not really scientists, because they had no predecessors or no long periods of time with which to have theorized and analyzed and hypothesized?
I think that's an unfair judgment.
To say what you did is to say that Science is almost not a living thing . . . or at least that scientists are not really scientists until a determinable period of time has passed.

So, anyone tesing out a new theory or idea is just a well-educated plebian?

All right, friends, I am outta here for now.

Have a good night . . . or morning, depending on where you are.
__________________
got2k9s is offline  
Old 01-05-2006, 08:12 PM   #131
The Fly
 
got2k9s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: at a place called Vertigo
Posts: 184
Local Time: 01:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Wow you are showing a problem to prove your point?
No, I'm answering your question.


G'night all, seriously this time.
__________________
got2k9s is offline  
Old 01-05-2006, 08:18 PM   #132
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 12:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by got2k9s

No, I'm answering your question.

Um no, because even if bias is placed on the history, it's still tangible...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-05-2006, 08:21 PM   #133
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by got2k9s


Well if ANYTHING is circular in my reasoning, it's that designer = God is automatically assumed (believed?) just like for you, designer = God is automatically dismissed.

Why is it easier for you to believe in ALIENS than a supernatural God?
Because life on other planets would be entirely consistent with a "life emerged through natural processes" argument. I do not think that the existence of aliens has been scientifically proven, but I do think that their existence could be proved by evidence.

You are the one that raised the issue of God. The mere fact that you bring God and a supernatural being into the discussion shows that what you think to be intelligent design is not science.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-05-2006, 08:24 PM   #134
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:01 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by got2k9s
Again, I say:

It's not even allowed to be MENTIONED.

It can't be disproven, yet, it is not even allowed to be SAID in a public school classroom in the U.S.
Not even 30 seconds of one biology class in the whole school year can be used to utter words in its general direction . . .
Read some Popper, falsifiability is the criteria for scientific theory.

You admit that it cannot be disproven.

Inability to disprove means that it isn't falsifiable.

Falsifiability is a prerequisite for scientific theory.

Therefore it is not a scientific theory and has no place in the science classroom other than illustrating the difference between scientific theory and pseudoscience.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-05-2006, 08:29 PM   #135
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:01 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by got2k9s

Who said anything about talking about it, even as a 'theory?'
I said DISCUSSING it in school. Even THAT is not allowed.
(Again, high school v. college/university)
Considering existing high school curriculum standards, there is likely not room for ID. But no one says that learning and discussion ends outside of the classroom. Like-minded groups can meet at churches or their own homes to discuss whatever you'd like. The U.S. is already behind many nations in terms of the quality of math and science education, and we should be spending more time honing our skills on universally-accepted scientific and mathematic principles, rather than delving into what is deemed by the scientific community to be religious-based pseudoscience. Talk about ID in a scientific career, and you'll be as jeered at as a Holocaust denier at a bar mitzvah. There may be many people who do not like that, but that's the way it is.

Quote:
Again, with the "fundamentalists."

I am a Christian and I believe the Bible, yes. Decide for yourself if that makes me 'a fundamentalist' or not, but it seems to be a very narrow (and prejudicial) pigeonhole of supporters of the idea of ID/Creationism's place in school . . . but anyway, I took philosophy and religion courses at university. I didn't object to them or the way ideas and alternate ideas were presented or discussed.

I would think that anyone interested in believing in something would know not only why they believe it but also why they don't believe everything else that opposes it. That's the intellectual way of going about it.
But that's not the role of science. Likewise, there are many conservative rural regions of the country that would love any excuse to completely trash science education, in favor of turning it into a pseudoscientific theology class. Religious studies courses at the university level have been successful probably because most universities are run by far more competant people than at the local school level. Any old yokel with zero qualifications can be on a local school board, which is often why I think our public educational system is a mess.

Frankly, I do not object to the idea of secular philosophy / religion courses, but I flat out do not trust our existing public school system to run them with the same integrity as the public universities.

Quote:
Let's not confuse 'education' with 'intelligence.'
Our president is certainly living proof of that.

Quote:
And, so, the earliest scientists were not really scientists, because they had no predecessors or no long periods of time with which to have theorized and analyzed and hypothesized?
I think that's an unfair judgment.
To say what you did is to say that Science is almost not a living thing . . . or at least that scientists are not really scientists until a determinable period of time has passed.
Science *is* a living thing, and it is living as we speak. Read detailed scientific publications and you'll see modifications to existing scientific theory all the time. Most of these are of little concern to generalized high school science courses, so that may be why science seems so "stagnant."

Quote:
So, anyone tesing out a new theory or idea is just a well-educated plebian?
ID is a hypothesis, not a scientific theory. And science welcomes truthful and verifiable scientific data to any hypothesis. Unfortunately, ID has not passed any of this muster at all. If it is to be taken seriously someday, then it will have to prove itself. Science does not have to accept ID, just because a mob of people scream loudly.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon 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 01:01 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