Judge rules evolution theory stickers unconstitutional

[Chris Cuilla]

Unsurprisingly a federal judge rules that suggesting kids think critically about the theory of evolution is unconsitutional:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144267,00.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6822028/

Oh well.

[BRussell]

I used to live in Cobb County. It was part of Newt Gingrich's district.

I thought this was funny:

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/textbookdisclaimers.jpg

[hardeeharhar]

yay swarthmore!

(that is all I got)

Edit: Oh wait, its just collin -- as far as I know he is a douche. More aptly: He failed to give students his advice in a timely or useful manner thus eroding their preparation for the Honors exams at Swarthmore. Granted said students took said crap until after the fact, but still...

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Unsurprisingly a federal judge rules that suggesting kids think critically about the theory of evolution is unconsitutional:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144267,00.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6822028/

Oh well.

The entire purpose of the ruling was that the legal system went out of its way to appease Christians on this issue. That is unconstitutional.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
The entire purpose of the ruling was that the legal system went out of its way to appease Christians on this issue. That is unconstitutional.

So it is the reason the stickers were put on...not the content of them?

So much the better.

[groverat]

You contribute logic and insight with every one of these threads. They add a great deal.

Also, is there any particular reason you post in AO instead of the Politics forum?

[trumptman]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
The entire purpose of the ruling was that the legal system went out of its way to appease Christians on this issue. That is unconstitutional.

What sort of odd reasoning is this? The right no longer matters because of who might take advantage of it?

Nick

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by groverat
You contribute logic and insight with every one of these threads. They add a great deal.

Also, is there any particular reason you post in AO instead of the Politics forum?

Sorry...if it should be in PO maybe someone can move it. Didn't mean to violate any rules of posting.

[Aquatic]

BRussell that's not real. Right?

[groverat]

No, that is not real. At least I sincerely hope it is not. ;)

It is not the sticker that was ruled un-Constitutional, it was the decision to put them in the book. The sticker places an extra-scientific burden on the theory of evolution and the motivation for this extra-scientific added burden is promotion of religious viewpoints, which the government is rightly forbidden from establishing.

That's why the Georgia judge ruled the way he did. And he was perfectly correct in doing so.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Aquatic
BRussell that's not real. Right? The first one is the actual sticker in question. The rest are parodies of it.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by groverat
It is not the sticker that was ruled un-Constitutional, it was the decision to put them in the book.

[ snip ]

That's why the Georgia judge ruled the way he did.

I'm not sure this is true. Here are a couple of statements from the Judge:

But the judge disagreed: "While evolution is subject to criticism, particularly with respect to the mechanism by which it occurred, the sticker misleads students regarding the significance and value of evolution in the scientific community."

And...

U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper ruled that labeling evolution a "theory" played on the popular definition of the word as a "hunch" and could confuse students.

These seem to be statements about the content of the stickers.

[groverat]

Yes, the content, which tells of the intent. The sticker promotes religious ideas. These things are tied together, but those who pretend that this is an outrage try to ignore the religious purpose of the sticker.

[Scott]

Of course I think the sticker is stupid but at the same time the judges ruling was rather flimsy.

"By adopting this specific language, even if at the direction of counsel, the Cobb County School Board appears to have sided with these religiously motivated individuals."

The sticker, he said, sends "a message that the school board agrees with the beliefs of Christian fundamentalists and creationists."

"The school board has effectively improperly entangled itself with religion by appearing to take a position," Cooper wrote. "Therefore, the sticker must be removed from all of the textbooks into which it has been placed."

The sticker at face value does not mention religion and therefor cannot establish a religion. So there's not violation.

Evolution has broad applications. Some have been proven to be fact and others have yet to be proven. Often in teaching science you take something as a fact and reprove it to be true. It's a great way to learn the scientific principal.

I don't think we need judges rewriting text books. All of these issue should be settled in the body of governments closest to the people.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by groverat
No, that is not real. At least I sincerely hope it is not. ;)

It is not the sticker that was ruled un-Constitutional, it was the decision to put them in the book. The sticker places an extra-scientific burden on the theory of evolution and the motivation for this extra-scientific added burden is promotion of religious viewpoints, which the government is rightly forbidden from establishing.

That's why the Georgia judge ruled the way he did. And he was perfectly correct in doing so.

Would you care to show how stating Evolution is a theory somehow "burdens" it?

If I put a sticker on you that said "Groverat-man" are you now burdened to prove what the sticker states?!?

Originally posted by groverat
Yes, the content, which tells of the intent. The sticker promotes religious ideas. These things are tied together, but those who pretend that this is an outrage try to ignore the religious purpose of the sticker.

How does the sticker promote a religious ideal? Nothing religious is mentioned. The purpose of the sticker is to remind students that people state evolution as fact when we don't even have a fully working theory of how it works.

Nick

[stupider...likeafox]

Originally posted by Scott

The sticker at face value does not mention religion and therefor cannot establish a religion. So there's not violation.

Evolution has broad applications. Some have been proven to be fact and others have yet to be proven. Often in teaching science you take something as a fact and reprove it to be true. It's a great way to learn the scientific principal.

I don't think we need judges rewriting text books. All of these issue should be settled in the body of governments closest to the people.

So judges should only care about 'face value' rather than actual impact and intent?

"Proven to be fact", "yet to be proven [as fact]", "take a fact and reprove it to be true"???? If it's such a "great way to learn the scientific principal" then why don't you (a man of science) appear to have any grasp of it at all.

Note: generally nitpicking about 'fact' and 'theory' and 'prove' is just that 'nitpicking' but since this entire debate revolves around the deliberate use of precise, esoteric terms in order to capitalise on their ambigous common meaning I don't feel it's out of place.

Which Judge rewrote which textbook? That's a soundbite in search of a reality that it matches.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
So judges should only care about 'face value' rather than actual impact and intent?

Now, this is where my problem starts. To an extent here we are discussing a freedom of expression/speech issue...and no where in the 1st amendment does it qualify this freedom based on the person's motives, intent or even the impact of the speech.

Now clearly freedom of speech is not absolute. There are restrictions (libel, slander, no shouting "fire!" in the crowded theater, etc.) However it seems that this wouldn't fit into those categories.

Mind you, I am not being naive or obtuse about the case...I understand the issues related to how the stickers came to be placed. But I am questions whether those issues are truly relevant here.

I suspect we haven't heard the last of this. There are (possibly) two more court levels to go...so we could get some different (judicial) opinions on it.

Oh, and finally...the theory vs. fact thing isn't just about semantics. Evolution, simply put, is NOT fact. There are certainly a collection of facts that may support the theory. But the idea itself is certainly not fact. Furthermore comparing the "theory" of evolution to, say, the "law" of gravity (as some have done) is patently unfair and incorrect. The law of gravity is a specific, narrow and testable proposition. The theory of evolution is a much broader "theory" that attempts to encompass some facts. There are certainly elements within the overall theory that are facts and could be considered laws...but the overall "theory" is a widely scoped one and unproven. And depending on what you mean by "evolution" it is arguably not falsifiable.

[dmz]

It is interesting that the judge basically said two things:

“By denigrating evolution, the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof, even though the sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories,” U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper said.

1. evolution is the state-sanctioned "neutral" theory

2. the state will not tolerate any questioning of state-sanctioned views, or more importantly, will not tolerate even the appearance of "denigrating" the state-sanctioned view.

And we now have the same government stating:

assistant district attorney Charles Erlich characterized the Christians’ preaching and signs bearing biblical quotes as “hateful, disgusting, despicable words,” and as “fighting words."

what's not to like?

[shetline]

Originally posted by trumptman
Would you care to show how stating Evolution is a theory somehow "burdens" it?
Look at joke stickers that BRussel posted. There's a damn good point there.

Despite the fact the 18th and 19th century scientists were fond of calling this and that the Law of This and the Law of That, it was, and is, all theory. Some of those so-called "Laws", such as Newton's "Law of Gravity" were less complete and accurate than the science that followed, such as Einstein's "Theory" of gravitation.

Where's the clamor to put stickers on physics text books saying that gravity is "just a theory"? That's an utterly true statement, so, by your convenient logic, there's no harm done, right? I'm sure somewhere you can find someone who doesn't even believe in gravity, so you might as well extend the sticker to mention that gravity is "controversial", so students should "keep an open mind". Telling student to "keep an open mind" is always a good thing, right?

Try this on for size: All of your students make mistakes from time to time, right? No one is perfect. An utterly true statement. So, how well do you think it would go over to pick on one or two students out of the whole classroom and make them wear signs around their necks that read:
"This student has been known to provide erroneous information and faulty analysis. Not everyone believes what he/she says. Anything he/she says should be considered carefully."

The "truth" of the stickers isn't the issue here. The value of telling students to think critically and keep an open mind isn't the issue here -- and you know it. It's the selective application of such warnings, clearly meant to single out and discredit evolution, not meant as good general advice. The clear intention of these stickers is to turn evolution into the kid with a stupid, embarrassing sign around his neck. You don't call that a "burden"?

[stupider...likeafox]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Furthermore comparing the "theory" of evolution to, say, the "law" of gravity (as some have done) is patently unfair and incorrect. The law of gravity is a specific, narrow and testable proposition.

Sigh.

You are aware, of course, that the "law" of gravity has been proved wrong, has been known to be incomplete for years (centuries?) and has been superceeded by more general "theories"?

Once again it comes down to the *fact* that you guys do not have a scooby doo about science. Furthermore, you are utterly ignorant about your state of ignorance and adamantly opposed to even considering the possibility that you are wrong.

[groverat]

trumptman:

Would you care to show how stating Evolution is a theory somehow "burdens" it?

The sticker is outside of the book's actual content, which removes its use of the word “theory” from the proper scientific context and moves it into the colloquial use of the word, which is different.

In a book full of theories (which is what a science book is), putting a sticker on the front associating a specific theory with the colloquial use places on it an extra-scientific burden in the student's mind.

How does the sticker promote a religious ideal? Nothing religious is mentioned. The purpose of the sticker is to remind students that people state evolution as fact when we don't even have a fully working theory of how it works.

I do not think people should play stupid when they are not stupid.

The only reason the sticker exists is to denigrate the theory of evolution in favor of a religious view. Since when do statements have to be explicit to have a message?
Further, do you honestly think these parents are all evolutionary science scholars who feel that the book misrepresents evolution? Honestly answer that please.

Here is the problem, and I would love for someone to tell me this statement is wrong in some way:
Parents are using either ignorance of science or religious evangelism as motivation to influence what is taught in science classrooms.

Do not be angry with this judge for seeing right through a transparent attempt at religious evangelism.


Chris Cuilla:

But I am questions whether those issues are truly relevant here.

Absolutely. We are talking about public schools, so this is of great importance.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Sigh.

You are aware, of course, that the "law" of gravity has been proved wrong, has been known to be incomplete for years (centuries?) and has been superceeded by more general "theories"?

I was using that as an example that has been offered to help bolster the argument for the "fact" of evolution. Wasn't really making a point about gravity itself. And...BTW...gravity, properly qualified, so far is not false.

Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Once again it comes down to the *fact* that you guys do not have a scooby doo about science.

"You guys"?

Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Furthermore, you are utterly ignorant about your state of ignorance and adamantly opposed to even considering the possibility that you are wrong.

I find it so humorous that this statement applies equally to those who espouse the evolutionary viewpoint as "fact"...as "proven"...as "unquestionable"...the lack of humility and intellectual (scientific?) skepticism in that position is astounding.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Now, this is where my problem starts. To an extent here we are discussing a freedom of expression/speech issue...and no where in the 1st amendment does it qualify this freedom based on the person's motives, intent or even the impact of the speech.

Now clearly freedom of speech is not absolute. There are restrictions (libel, slander, no shouting "fire!" in the crowded theater, etc.) However it seems that this wouldn't fit into those categories. I've noticed that this is the way conservatives have decided to frame these issues. "Judge Roy has a free speech right to put the 10 commandments in the courthouse." Or "we have a First Amendment right to put x, y, z religious symbols in our schools." That is exactly the opposite of what is really going on. This sticker was a gov't action. The gov't does not have a "free speech right" to do anything - they are the ones who are prohibited from restricting it. The point of the establishment clause is to stop the gov't from endorsing religion so that citizens will be free to practice it in their own lives.

I admit the sticker is a closer call, on constitutional grounds anyway, than some of the others. Read the judge's ruling (http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf); this school board has a long history of outrageous attempts to teach creationism and keep evolution out. This is just another in their long line of fallback positions, and they're getting further and further away from their real goal as it gets slapped down. This sticker isn't as blatant and extreme as some of their other actions.

It reminds me of the "moment of silence" issue. That was the fallback position of those who wanted prayer in schools. It sounds innocuous enough - "what could be wrong with kids being quiet in school?" But the record showed that the intent was clearly to encourage organized prayer in school, and so the Supreme Court said the law was unconstitutional. I think this is similar - it sounds innocuous - "all we're doing is encouraging critical thinking" - but it's crystal clear that the gov't is singling out evolution as a theory non grata, and they're doing so because of religious pressure.

[Harald]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I was using that as an example that has been offered to help bolster the argument for the "fact" of evolution. Wasn't really making a point about gravity itself. And...BTW...gravity, properly qualified, so far is not false.

No. Gravity is a theory, just like evolution.

You are wrong.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by BRussell
I've noticed that this is the way conservatives have decided to frame these issues. "Judge Roy has a free speech right to put the 10 commandments in the courthouse." Or "we have a First Amendment right to put x, y, z religious symbols in our schools."

I think this situation is less clear cut than the 10 commandments issue.

Originally posted by BRussell
That is exactly the opposite of what is really going on. This sticker was a gov't action. The gov't does not have a "free speech right" to do anything - they are the ones who are prohibited from restricting it. The point of the establishment clause is to stop the gov't from endorsing religion so that citizens will be free to practice it in their own lives.

This is a good point.

Originally posted by BRussell
I admit the sticker is a closer call, on constitutional grounds anyway, than some of the others. Read the judge's ruling (http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf);

Thanks for the link...I was trying to find that.

[dmz]

Originally posted by groverat
The only reason the sticker exists is to denigrate the theory of evolution in favor of a religious view. Since when do statements have to be explicit to have a message?



The government is now in the business of sanctioning official scientific positions. The judge ruled that since the intent was wrong, the exercise of an otherwise legal act, is illegal. The government has told those 2000 petition signers what they may or may not think before they will be allowed to participate on the school board. Decisions based on "correct" motivations will be permitted, but if your motivations are not "correct" you have no business in the school board's process.

The government, like Medieval Rome, is binding people's consciences.

And that is pure bullshit.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by trumptman
What sort of odd reasoning is this? The right no longer matters because of who might take advantage of it?

Nick

It gives political advantage to a religious group.

Secondly, political corruption is by definition giving advatages to individuals/groups through the political process. So yes, if the Right begins to give advantages to people who support it selectively then that is corruption and it is wrong. Politics is supposed to be for the good of all people, not just for those who support you.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Secondly, political corruption is by definition giving advatages to individuals/groups through the political process.

Isn't that what just happned to the evolution theorists?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by dmz
The government is now in the business of sanctioning official scientific positions. The way I see it, the government wanted to officially criticize a particular scientific position - with a warning sticker! - and this court said they couldn't. I can't believe you really want the government putting stickers on books it doesn't like.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by BRussell
The way I see it, the government wanted to officially criticize a particular scientific position - with a warning sticker! - and this court said they couldn't. I can't believe you really want the government putting stickers on books it doesn't like.

Earlier groverat said: "I do not think people should play stupid when they are not stupid."

I think this statement should also apply to those who would suggest that the theory of evolution is really no different than the theory of gravity (for example). First the theory of evolution is a highly controversial idea. Second (and more importantly), it is reported as "fact" and as having been "proven". Perhaps this is why it is being singled out? Because it is being singled out among scientific theories as "fact" and "proven".

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Earlier groverat said: "I do not think people should play stupid when they are not stupid."

I think this statement should also apply to those who would suggest that the theory of evolution is really no different than the theory of gravity (for example). First the theory of evolution is a highly controversial idea. Second (and more importantly), it is reported as "fact" and as having been "proven". Perhaps this is why it is being singled out? Because it is being singled out among scientific theories as "fact" and "proven". In my view, in order to take your position, you have to believe that there is a conspiracy among scientists, kind of like a faked moon landing but on an even greater scale, and that they are all pretending that biological evolution is valid when they secretly know it isn't. So therefore the Cobb County school board has to step in and assert the truth against this vast conspiracy.

It seems much more plausible to me that it simply is what it appears to be, but some religious people believe that it threatens their religious beliefs. The great irony in all this is that even the official positions of all of the Christian denominations that I've seen say it doesn't threaten them! These anti-evolution folks are not only up against science, but their own religions. Weird.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Isn't that what just happned to the evolution theorists?

Nope. For one the Judicial System should remain free from democratic (in this case the concept and not the party) politics (this is in accordance with the views of Reinquist etc on this issue). In most cases they are not elected so the judges have no direct (or even indirect) ties to the population. The group of elected school board members are responsible to the public in a direct sense and they gave political advantage to the christians who wanted this modification.

Secondly, I don't know why evolution theorist are being brought up. They weren't the ones who complained about the actions of the board. The parents of children complained that this action by the school board represented selected advantage to christians. The reason this was is unconstitutional is that it was a religious group that got the advantage. There is no religion that has evolution as a fundamental tenant.

[dmz]

Originally posted by BRussell
The way I see it, the government wanted to officially criticize a particular scientific position - with a warning sticker! - and this court said they couldn't. I can't believe you really want the government putting stickers on books it doesn't like.


This isn't the government, it is the descion of some 2000 people to direct (very minor directing) their children's education through participation in a local school board. This is not their governance acting, it is people coming together in a peaceful democratic process to make changes in the government. Their decsion was invalidated by the government at the final, Federal, level ONLY because their motivations were judged to be invalid --- motivations that are now officially forbidden to be used in the future. They are now second-class citizens, who may not paritcipate in Democracy at the school-board level.


They have bound the consciences of these people, and that is very disturbing.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by BRussell
In my view, in order to take your position, you have to believe that there is a conspiracy among scientists, kind of like a faked moon landing but on an even greater scale, and that they are all pretending that biological evolution is valid when they secretly know it isn't. So therefore the Cobb County school board has to step in and assert the truth against this vast conspiracy.

It seems much more plausible to me that it simply is what it appears to be, but some religious people believe that it threatens their religious beliefs. The great irony in all this is that even the official positions of all of the Christian denominations that I've seen say it doesn't threaten them! These anti-evolution folks are not only up against science, but their own religions. Weird.

Well, I certainly don't the belief of some vast scientific "conspiracy"...but my point is really that evolution is commonly (and often virulently) spoken about as "fact" and with the assumption that it has been "proven"...much more so than other theories (at least from what I have seen).

It seems to be considered stupid to inject any skepticism (let alone humility) into the debate.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Earlier groverat said: "I do not think people should play stupid when they are not stupid."

I think this statement should also apply to those who would suggest that the theory of evolution is really no different than the theory of gravity (for example). First the theory of evolution is a highly controversial idea. Second (and more importantly), it is reported as "fact" and as having been "proven". Perhaps this is why it is being singled out? Because it is being singled out among scientific theories as "fact" and "proven".

Who presents evolution as fact/been proven?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Who presents evolution as fact/been proven?

Well, I am not currently in any science classes (long since out of school)...but I'ev seen it in these forums...and here: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/13/2357223&tid=146&tid=103&tid=1

My assumption from the vast majority of postings I see is that someone is teaching these folks that there is really no reason to question evolution. It is fact. It has been proven. It's all over but the shouting.

Perhaps I am eroneously jumping to a conclusion there...but there are a LOT of people walking around that seem to be thinking this. Why is that? Are they stupid? Perhaps. Have they had this hammered into their heads without any critical skepticism encouraged/allowed? Possibly.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by dmz
This isn't the government, it is the descion of some 2000 people to direct (very minor directing) their children's education through participation in a local school board. This is not their governance acting, it is people coming together in a peaceful democratic process to make changes in the government. Their decsion was invalidated by the government at the final, Federal, level ONLY because their motivations were judged to be invalid --- motivations that are now officially forbidden to be used in the future. They are now second-class citizens, who may not paritcipate in Democracy at the school-board level.


They have bound the consciences of these people, and that is very disturbing.

No one said that they cannot participate in democracy. Their actions as a group through the school board counts as government.

Look at it this way: if the city council in Podunk, Alabama decided to put lables in all of the city-library copies of religious texts that stated that none of the information contained in this book has conclusive factual basis because some atheists propositioned the council -- your panties would be in a knot...

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well, I am not currently in any science classes (long since out of school)...but I'ev seen it in these forums...and here: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/13/2357223&tid=146&tid=103&tid=1

My assumption from the vast majority of postings I see is that someone is teaching these folks that there is really no reason to question evolution. It is fact. It has been proven. It's all over but the shouting.

Perhaps I am eroneously jumping to a conclusion there...but there are a LOT of people walking around that seem to be thinking this. Why is that? Are they stupid? Perhaps. Have they had this hammered into their heads without any critical skepticism encouraged/allowed? Possibly.

If we want to teach critical thinking, putting evolution up against creationism is hardly the way to do it (no where is it claimed in evolution that the truth is contained in a single text etc etc). Critical analysis of evolution would involve taking the theory as it was in say the 1920's and figuring out what it did not explain and show how that was fixed with added concepts etc.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I think this statement should also apply to those who would suggest that the theory of evolution is really no different than the theory of gravity (for example). First the theory of evolution is a highly controversial idea.
No. It isn't 'controversial'. It makes perfect sense. It's the best explanation there is. The only people who claim it to be 'controversial' appear to be conservative Christians.

Tum te tum.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Look at it this way: if the city council in Podunk, Alabama decided to put lables in all of the city-library copies of religious texts that stated that none of the information contained in this book has conclusive factual basis

Well, if that were a true statement, it would be fine. But it isn't entirely true. I can only speak (a bit) about the Bible...not other religious documents/texts/books. But there are growing archeological discoveries that validate certain statements in the Bible. Clearly this doesn't "prove the Bible". I don't claim that. But it does challenge the statement "none of the information contained in this book has conclusive factual basis"

So if the sticker was worded differently...say something like:

"This is religious text and not a scientific book. The material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

That might be okay.

The problem, as I see it, is that science seems to have become the "final word" on all truth and is not to be questioned. This seems like a decidedly non-intellectual and non-scientific attitude.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
No. It isn't 'controversial'. It makes perfect sense. It's the best explanation there is. The only people who claim it to be 'controversial' appear to be conservative Christians.

Tum te tum.

Thanks for validating my point in a post just before yours.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by shetline
Look at joke stickers that BRussel posted. There's a damn good point there.


So because something can be satirized, it means it is wrong? That must mean that just about everything is wrong then.

You can produce satire on just about anything.

Despite the fact the 18th and 19th century scientists were fond of calling this and that the Law of This and the Law of That, it was, and is, all theory. Some of those so-called "Laws", such as Newton's "Law of Gravity" were less complete and accurate than the science that followed, such as Einstein's "Theory" of gravitation.

Correct and imagine if we had a mindset that told students they could and should not question or keep an open mind regarding those less accurate theories. Imagine instead that we told them such theories were complete, totally accurate and were above reproach. Think about that for a minute or two.

Where's the clamor to put stickers on physics text books saying that gravity is "just a theory"? That's an utterly true statement, so, by your convenient logic, there's no harm done, right? I'm sure somewhere you can find someone who doesn't even believe in gravity, so you might as well extend the sticker to mention that gravity is "controversial", so students should "keep an open mind". Telling student to "keep an open mind" is always a good thing, right?

Gravity is a really good example because we don't claim to have a unified theory that includes how gravity works. We have mathematical models that predict the force, but we can't explain why the force exists. If a textbook claimed that we not only did we have an explanation for that force, but that it was a fact beyond question, then that book should probably be viewed with skepticism at this point in time. Pointing this out would also not be an endorsement of religion.

Try this on for size: All of your students make mistakes from time to time, right? No one is perfect. An utterly true statement. So, how well do you think it would go over to pick on one or two students out of the whole classroom and make them wear signs around their necks that read:

The problem with your reasoning here is that you treat all students equally whereas all scientific theories are not advanced along to the same degree of completeness and understanding.

Now if I were to read a textbook on childhood development and it were to point out the diffences in mental capabilities and understandings of children at different levels of age and development, that would be considered entirely appropriate. If it pointed out that most four year olds likely have no ability to abstract information and draw conclusions from it, whereas twelve year olds can, I don't consider that odd. Pointing out that gravity has a predictably mathematical constant to it, even though we do not understand the force associated while pointing out that we have no predictive ability with regard to evolution, is likewise appropriate as well.

The "truth" of the stickers isn't the issue here. The value of telling students to think critically and keep an open mind isn't the issue here -- and you know it. It's the selective application of such warnings, clearly meant to single out and discredit evolution, not meant as good general advice. The clear intention of these stickers is to turn evolution into the kid with a stupid, embarrassing sign around his neck. You don't call that a "burden"?

It's not an "OR" proposition. I am constantly amazed at this very flawed line of logical reasoning. If evolution were totally disproven on it's face tomorrow, it doesn't prove anything religiously. There are also loads of religious people who hold evolution is a naturalistic process put in place by God and that it is even proof of his existance.

The only burden faced by evolution is the incompleteness of its explanation. If it weren't such an incomplete theory, people couldn't question it so readily. If it had some predictive qualities, people would be more likely to treat it like chemistry, physics, or other fields.

Nick

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
If we want to teach critical thinking, putting evolution up against creationism is hardly the way to do it (no where is it claimed in evolution that the truth is contained in a single text etc etc). Critical analysis of evolution would involve taking the theory as it was in say the 1920's and figuring out what it did not explain and show how that was fixed with added concepts etc.

But that's the point about the sticker. It wasn't offering creation as an alternative. People are inferring this. Right? I mean all it really said was..."hey...think carefully about this."

Is everyone afraid that people might begin to question evolution?

[trumptman]

Originally posted by groverat
trumptman:

The sticker is outside of the book's actual content, which removes its use of the word “theory” from the proper scientific context and moves it into the colloquial use of the word, which is different.

In a book full of theories (which is what a science book is), putting a sticker on the front associating a specific theory with the colloquial use places on it an extra-scientific burden in the student's mind.

The only non-scientific, colloquial use of the word theory I can read or think of is one associated with say, police work. Are you claiming that students are going to think evolution the same as say, a murder mystery? Also by what reasoning would the word definition change when still applied in the same book and field? It's your assertion so please back it up.

You've restated your assertion about the burden but have not proven it. How does reading a sentence produce a burden?

I do not think people should play stupid when they are not stupid.

The only reason the sticker exists is to denigrate the theory of evolution in favor of a religious view. Since when do statements have to be explicit to have a message?
Further, do you honestly think these parents are all evolutionary science scholars who feel that the book misrepresents evolution? Honestly answer that please.


I think your "OR" reasoning is quite sad. Just because you question evolution does not mean you are religious, and likewise belief in evolution does not exempt you from religious beliefs. The intent of the parents that you raise is not justifiable grounds for running roughshod over rights.

Here is the problem, and I would love for someone to tell me this statement is wrong in some way:
Parents are using either ignorance of science or religious evangelism as motivation to influence what is taught in science classrooms.

Do not be angry with this judge for seeing right through a transparent attempt at religious evangelism.


It is wrong because pointing out the flaws in evolution does not require a motivation of intent of any sort. Good science requires questioning and continual rexamining of stated theories. Evolution is controversial not just because some people associate it with religious beliefs, but also because as fallible human beings, we often perform worst where the stakes are highest. We are talking about the beginning of ourselves and to the very nature of why we exist. The stake and risk of fraud there isn't just religious. There is prestige, research dollars, and lots of other factors to consider as well.

Absolutely. We are talking about public schools, so this is of great importance.

It is also of great importance to insure that students are taught to question and be open minded.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
It gives political advantage to a religious group.

Secondly, political corruption is by definition giving advatages to individuals/groups through the political process. So yes, if the Right begins to give advantages to people who support it selectively then that is corruption and it is wrong. Politics is supposed to be for the good of all people, not just for those who support you.

Prove the advantage. How does reading a sticker not associated with religiou give one an advantage?

Nick

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by trumptman
as fallible human beings, we often perform worst where the stakes are highest

Boy, I like that statement. Not certain it is true...but it seems like it might be. A good thing to consider (in general) regardless of the particular topic.

Thanks!

[dmz]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
No one said that they cannot participate in democracy. Their actions as a group through the school board counts as government.

Look at it this way: if the city council in Podunk, Alabama decided to put lables in all of the city-library copies of religious texts that stated that none of the information contained in this book has conclusive factual basis because some atheists propositioned the council -- your panties would be in a knot...

You are getting lost in the details here. Validity/nonvalidty of evolution is completly beside the point. This has little to do with the WHAT and everthing to do with the THAT. The judge said as much.

He is now in the business of binding the conconsiences of the these people. You may not participate in this instance if you do not have a "correct" motivation.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
Prove the advantage. How does reading a sticker not associated with religiou give one an advantage?

Nick Nick, I don't believe that, as a teacher, you would approve of the gov't putting stickers on books they deem politically incorrect. They certainly did their best to word it in as neutral a fashion as possible, encouraging "critical thinking" and all that, but just in principle, you can't like this. Tell me you don't.

[Scott]

It's the government that buys the books and educates the kids. If you're worried about a sticker why aren't you worried about everything else:???: Or maybe you are?

[dmz]

Brussel, if a group of scientists had done this it would be accepted.


Also, the "government" bought these books in the first place. This is the reaction of the more deeply entrenched Federal level of government dictating who may or may not direct their children's education based on "correct" motivations.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
But that's the point about the sticker. It wasn't offering creation as an alternative. People are inferring this. Right? I mean all it really said was..."hey...think carefully about this."

Is everyone afraid that people might begin to question evolution?

That inference is also based upon the facts of the case -- the who, what, where and why these stickers were added.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
Nick, I don't believe that, as a teacher, you would approve of the gov't putting stickers on books they deem politically incorrect. They certainly did their best to word it in as neutral a fashion as possible, encouraging "critical thinking" and all that, but just in principle, you can't like this. Tell me you don't.

There are stickers or even more specifically warnings on items all the time, especially in schools. Some specifically to warn of intent for example of racial epitaphs, foul language and other such things. I would rather have a sticker and let the two sides disagree than not have access to the content. (For example not being able to access say, Huck Finn.)

My class for instance recently underwent a lesson on various types of abuse from a rape prevention center. The types were physical, mental, neglect and sexual. We needed to have a signed permission slip affirming the parent's permission to receive this information.

Now on a day to day basis, this information attempting to allow the children to recognize abuse is probably much more important than knowing that say, evolution is a theory. Yet even in liberal California it requires parental permission.

Additionally you are talking about a sticker in an age where the cafeteria has to warn against peanur products, where schools have to send out notices informing that chemical products are being used outside to treat for various insects, etc.

You're living in the wronge age my friend.;) We live in the age of liability. Schools sticker, post about and warn about everything warrented or not.

Nick

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by trumptman
Prove the advantage. How does reading a sticker not associated with religiou give one an advantage?

Nick

What religious groups question on a public front evolution?

By saying that evolution (and not any other theory in the text) needs to be critically analyzed gives those arguing against evolution an advantage. Period.

Now the sticker I would have written given all that I said would have been this:

This textbook contains scientific theories about Biology. Many of the theories in this text have not been proven but have a great deal supporting evidence. As they have not been proven, please think critically and with an open mind about them.

(or some such)

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Now the sticker I would have written given all that I said would have been this:

This textbook contains scientific theories about Biology. Many of the theories in this text have not been proven but have a great deal supporting evidence. As they have not been proven, please think critically and with an open mind about them.

(or some such)

But of course you wouldn't be trying to say anything that might bias the reader.

;)

[trumptman]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
What religious groups question on a public front evolution?

By saying that evolution (and not any other theory in the text) needs to be critically analyzed gives those arguing against evolution an advantage. Period.

Now the sticker I would have written given all that I said would have been this:

This textbook contains scientific theories about Biology. Many of the theories in this text have not been proven but have a great deal supporting evidence. As they have not been proven, please think critically and with an open mind about them.

(or some such)

Are you saying that evolution or any other scientific theory need not be critically analyzed? Is that not the point of science?

You prove my point that where the stakes are highest, the likelyhood of fallibility is highest as well. Critically analyzing theories is a regular part of science. You seem to want it excused for the theories that might undermine your own worldview. That to me does appear to be an advantage that the sticker sought to work against and neutralize. You consider placing evolution on the same field as other scientific theories to be a disadvantage. However the reality is that it is just a theory. It could be discredited and replaced tomorrow. The fact that it might harm your worldview or make you uncomfortable really shouldn't be a consideration.

Nick

[giant]

:no: <- @ this whole thread.

Personally, the only reason I care about the morons who support this stuff is because the stupider evangelical fundamentalists and their offspring are, the more they would drag down the quality of life here, economically.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by dmz
You are getting lost in the details here. Validity/nonvalidty of evolution is completly beside the point. This has little to do with the WHAT and everthing to do with the THAT. The judge said as much.

He is now in the business of binding the conconsiences of the these people. You may not participate in this instance if you do not have a "correct" motivation.

You suggested that they cannot participate in the democracy -- that a group of people governing isn't a government.

Those suggestions are wrong.

Now, I think I have given enough reasons to suggest that since the Christians who argue publically that evolution is wrong gain an advantage by having government sponsored weakening of evolutionary theory that this more than anything makes this Judicial descision correct. The motivation is key to this analysis -- it wasn't scientists who think that the book presented too strong a declaration of evolutions truth who questioned it...

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
But of course you wouldn't be trying to say anything that might bias the reader.

;)

Its a fact.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by trumptman
Are you saying that evolution or any other scientific theory need not be critically analyzed? Is that not the point of science?

You prove my point that where the stakes are highest, the likelyhood of fallibility is highest as well. Critically analyzing theories is a regular part of science. You seem to want it excused for the theories that might undermine your own worldview. That to me does appear to be an advantage that the sticker sought to work against and neutralize. You consider placing evolution on the same field as other scientific theories to be a disadvantage. However the reality is that it is just a theory. It could be discredited and replaced tomorrow. The fact that it might harm your worldview or make you uncomfortable really shouldn't be a consideration.

Nick

psha... WHY NICK DID THEY FOCUS ON EVOLUTIONARY THEORY IN THE TEXTBOOK STICKERS? I expressly stated in my remake of the sticker that all theories should be approached critically... but that isn't what the real sticker said now is it?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by giant
:no: <- @ this whole thread.

Personally, the only reason I care about the morons who support this stuff is because the stupider evangelical fundamentalists and their offspring are, the more they would drag down the quality of life here, economically.

:\

Not entirely sure...but that might outside the boundaries of the spirit (if not the letter) of the posting rules here.

( of course I'm no expert...nor moderator )

:)

[giant]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
( of course I'm no expert...nor moderator )
Exactly, so post on topic.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Its a fact.

Didn't dispute that...only that the wording was designed to bias the statement in some fashion.

:)

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by giant
Exactly, so post on topic.

I will if you will refrain from inflamatory rhetoric.

( hey...we're all supposed to be having fun here aren't we? )

:D

[hardeeharhar]

How about this -- the theories presented in this text are those that are accepted by the scientific community because they are supported by the most evidence.

[giant]

sounds great

[giant]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I will if you will refrain from inflamatory rhetoric.
It's a fact that it's completely stupid to believe the world is 6000 years old, whether or not you find it inflammatory.

[giant]

It's also a fact that an ignorant and uneducated population is a less prosperous one.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by giant
It's a fact that it's completely stupid to believe the world is 6000 years old, whether or not you find it inflammatory.

Well, that may or may not be a "fact"...but that's not what you said (or supported). What you did say was:

"Personally, the only reason I care about the morons who support this stuff is because the stupider evangelical fundamentalists and their offspring are, the more they would drag down the quality of life here, economically."

That is what could be reasonably characterized as "inflamatory rhetoric".

[giant]

It's the truth. There is campaign to spread ignorance and it will hurt the country economically if too many people become completely ignorant and stupid, ie, believing that the world is 6000 years old.

[dmz]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
You suggested that they cannot participate in the democracy -- that a group of people governing isn't a government.

Those suggestions are wrong.

Now, I think I have given enough reasons to suggest that since the Christians who argue publically that evolution is wrong gain an advantage by having government sponsored weakening of evolutionary theory that this more than anything makes this Judicial descision correct. The motivation is key to this analysis -- it wasn't scientists who think that the book presented too strong a declaration of evolutions truth who questioned it...


No, you are wrong, and still lost in the details. There is a simple, legal process for people participate in directing the education of their children -- the school board. This was done.

The judge ruled that the motivations were "religious" and therefore not exceptable. The judge has barred anyone who uses Christianity to inform their "first principles" from bringing those "first principles" to a school board meeting, because Christian "first principles" are forbidden by law to effect the changes in the education of thier own children.

Very insidious.

[groverat]

Some forum guidelines (http://forums.appleinsider.com/guidelines.html) to keep in mind, fellas:

Ad-hominem attacks of forum members will not be tolerated. We understand that things get heated, but it helps to maintain a modicum of respect for the membership. Attack ideas, not people. Be open-minded and try to help foster meaningful discussion. Yes, meaningful discussion is possible if everyone respects each other.

Bad:
"Christians are stupid!"

Good:
"The idea of the Earth only being 10,000 years old is stupid!"

See the difference? Good. You don't have to a saint, but there are rules. And I will enforce them with the enforcing power of 1,000 wildebeests'. In heat. With rabies.

Love and kisses,

groverat

p.s. - Do not call out posts within the thread, click the little lightning bolt below it to report it to a moderator. Or private message/e-mail/AIM/smoke signal a moderator/administrator. Your "Hey meanie guy that's against the rules!" posts will only clog up the thread once the Lone Ranger rides in to clean up the mess and create unnecessary tension. Use the lull in time after an inappropriate post to work on your argument in a text editor (I like OpenOffice) to firm it up and make it impenetrable. Petty squabbling benefits no one except the Noid. Avoid the Noid.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by dmz
No, you are wrong, and still lost in the details. There is a simple, legal process for people participate in directing the education of their children -- the school board. This was done.

The judge ruled that the motivations were "religious" and therefore not exceptable. The judge has barred anyone who uses Christianity to inform their "first principles" from bringing those "first principles" to a school board meeting, because Christian "first principles" are forbidden by law to effect the changes in the education of thier own children.

Very insidious.

No he hasn't.

Edit: He has bared actions by the school board that would give advantage to a religious group.

[giant]

Originally posted by groverat
Bad:
"Christians are stupid!"

Good:
"The idea of the Earth only being 10,000 years old is stupid!"
Except that what we are talking about is the education of people. While the idea is stupid, what's worse is the push to have an education system designed to make stupid people.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by giant
It's the truth. There is campaign to spread ignorance and it will hurt the country economically if too many people become completely ignorant and stupid, ie, believing that the world is 6000 years old.

Wel I'm not quite sure what it means to "spread ignorance" or even to "become ignorant", since ignorance is:

1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or
knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.

It seems that once a person has knowledge/information/education...they are no longer "ignorant". Now...they can choose to ignore or not use the knowledge/information/education. This might be "stupid" or it might not be (depending on the perceived reliability/accuracy/usefulness of the knowledge/information/education).

Back on topic here...I don't happen to believe that the sticker in question in this discussion does anything to "spread ignorance" (or even stupidity). One might argue it encourages the intelligent and wise critical thinking that the scientific community cherishes so.

We can argue about whether the sticker was too specific (evolution theory)...and perhaps it was. I've suggested that the reason for that might be derived from the situation that exists in which evolution appears to be propagated as undeniable "fact" (whether officially, in text books, or unofficially by dimissing any skepticism or doubt as ignorant or stupid...thus quelling any debate at all.)

Anyway...my $0.02.

[giant]

WTF?

The education system these cults dream of would churn out ignorant young adults that know close to nothing about the world around them, ie, total and complete ignorance.

[Existence]

Welcome to the 20th century Georgia.

Originally posted by dmz
The government is now in the business of sanctioning official scientific positions. The judge ruled that since the intent was wrong, the exercise of an otherwise legal act, is illegal. The government has told those 2000 petition signers what they may or may not think before they will be allowed to participate on the school board. Decisions based on "correct" motivations will be permitted, but if your motivations are not "correct" you have no business in the school board's process.

The government, like Medieval Rome, is binding people's consciences.

And that is pure bullshit.

Oh no, they have to teach science in a science class! What will those liberals do next?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Existence
Oh no, they have to teach science in a science class! What will those liberals do next?

Of course they should...but whatever happened to that old liberal saw...how does it go..."Question authority"?

[giant]

It just boils down to a bunch of complaining because reality has demonstrated that the earth is round, billions of years old, etc.

[shetline]

Originally posted by trumptman
So because something can be satirized, it means it is wrong? That must mean that just about everything is wrong then.
Do you stand in front of a mirror when you practice being deliberately obtuse, just to see if you get the dull, blank expression right?

Let me spell it out: I thought that particular piece of satire made a specific good point about a specific issue. That has nothing to do with the validity or lack thereof of anything which can be satirized... and you know it.
Correct and imagine if we had a mindset that told students they could and should not question or keep an open mind regarding those less accurate theories. Imagine instead that we told them such theories were complete, totally accurate and were above reproach.
The parallel with how evolution is taught would be… ?
Think about that for a minute or two.
Somehow Einstein managed to come up with his theory of gravitation without someone having put any disclaimer stickers on his physics textbooks warning him to be especially careful about that terribly incomplete Newton stuff.

This is all about what gets singled out for special disclaimers -- and yes, the motivation behind the people out to place those special disclaimers has to be considered. Consider again my hypothetical example of students forced to wear "This student makes errors" signs, signs that only a willfully obtuse person could defend of the basis of their factual truth. You'd certainly have to consider the motivations of a teacher for picking on particular students made to wear these signs when such abuse was investigated.
Gravity is a really good example because we don't claim to have a unified theory that includes how gravity works. We have mathematical models that predict the force, but we can't explain why the force exists. If a textbook claimed that we not only did we have an explanation for that force, but that it was a fact beyond question, then that book should probably be viewed with skepticism at this point in time.
Please show me an example of any high school biology textbook that claims that evolution is completely understood and that all aspects of it are totally beyond question.
Pointing this out would also not be an endorsement of religion.
Perhaps, but since there's no parallel about any such thing needing to be pointed out about how evolution is taught, you have no point.

Are you going to claim that every time someone uses a phrase like "millions of years ago, during the age of the dinosaurs" that a long-winded disclaimer needs to be attached, or else this would be a shameless example of treating every aspect of evolutionary theory as incontrovertible fact? Are you also going to clamor for disclaimers about the incompleteness of gravitational theory to be placed next to every physics textbook question about how long it take for a rock to fall 50 meters?

The problem with your reasoning here is that you treat all students equally whereas all scientific theories are not advanced along to the same degree of completeness and understanding.
So it would be okay to hang disclaimer signs around the necks of particularly erroneous students?

I don't even buy the parallel that evolution is somehow like the slow student in a classroom of other scientific theories, but beyond that, there's a difference between recognizing a problem (that one student might not be as bright as most others) and the way you handle it (being helpful, or trying to shame the student).

The motivation to place these stickers on biology textbooks is to discredit the theory of evolution, first and foremost, not to improve the education of students.
It's not an "OR" proposition.
You seem to like saying this a lot today, whether it's particularly apropos or not.
The only burden faced by evolution is the incompleteness of its explanation. If it weren't such an incomplete theory, people couldn't question it so readily. If it had some predictive qualities, people would be more likely to treat it like chemistry, physics, or other fields.
Lots of theories are incomplete. Most are. You haven't shown any examples that when evolution is taught that there's any particularly egregious way that the teaching hides or disavows said incompleteness. So, again, what makes evolution so special that it needs to be called out with warning labels? When we talk about gravity in science textbooks, we generally treat it as a matter of fact, without disclaimers galore trying to hammer home the notion that gravity is incompletely understood.

Even if the motivation for placing such stickers wasn't religiously motivated (which largely it is) there's no good non-religious reason for the theory of evolution to receive any special disclaimer treatment either.

On your last point, if you don't think evolution has any testable predictive qualities, you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. (And please, spare me a weak comeback about "not predictive in the same way" or some other such BS that I might have to waste keystrokes knocking down.)

[dmz]

Originally posted by giant
WTF?

The education system these cults dream of would churn out ignorant young adults that know close to nothing about the world around them, ie, total and complete ignorance.

That is incorrect, Christian/Christian Home Schooled kids are on average consistently better educated than the public school children.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
psha... WHY NICK DID THEY FOCUS ON EVOLUTIONARY THEORY IN THE TEXTBOOK STICKERS? I expressly stated in my remake of the sticker that all theories should be approached critically... but that isn't what the real sticker said now is it?

As I stated, where there is the most at stake, there is the highest likelyhood of fallibility. The proponants of evolution often don't believe it just a theory. They think it a foundational tenent of their worldview. As a result, it becomes more than just a scientific theory to them. This bias obviously showed up in the science book where evolution was made out to be fact rather than just a theory. (Not even an especially testable theory or mathematical predictable theory)

The reality is that evolution is more than a theory to some. That is true for people who are not religious as well. They will defend it irrational and refuse to admit to some large holes in it. With any other scientific theory, this wouldn't be tolerated. Yet with evolution, this is the case. Why is that so? Because it has the highest stakes.

Nick

[giant]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Of course they should...but whatever happened to that old liberal saw...how does it go..."Question authority"?
Oh, the irony of someone who supports the teaching of creation pseudoscience saying 'question authority.'

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by trumptman
As I stated, where there is the most at stake, there is the highest likelyhood of fallibility. The proponants of evolution often don't believe it just a theory. They think it a foundational tenent of their worldview. As a result, it becomes more than just a scientific theory to them. This bias obviously showed up in the science book where evolution was made out to be fact rather than just a theory. (Not even an especially testable theory or mathematical predictable theory)

The reality is that evolution is more than a theory to some. That is true for people who are not religious as well. They will defend it irrational and refuse to admit to some large holes in it. With any other scientific theory, this wouldn't be tolerated. Yet with evolution, this is the case. Why is that so? Because it has the highest stakes.

Nick

No no no no no.... There is no reason to single out evolution -- in fact, we would make better scientists of all students if we treated all theories in a critical manner -- the first chapter of the best science texts for primary education should be on theories etc etc...

The reason why there is so much anger with evolution is that unlike most theories it directly challenges the story laid out in genesis. That is it. It really is that simple. There are those who believe that genesis is the god-given truth and there are those who don't. Those who don't don't all think evolution is the answer, but those who do hate evolution because it is science, has supporting evidence, and doesn't really require a suspension of intellect to understand and use...

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by dmz
That is incorrect, Christian/Christian Home Schooled kids are on average consistently better educated than the public school children.

Ah you are clearly not a scientist -- Control: non-christian home schooled children...

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by giant
Oh, the irony of someone who supports the teaching of creation pseudoscience saying 'question authority.'

Oh, the irony of a liberal "intellectual" that won't question anything.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
The reason why there is so much anger with evolution is that unlike most theories it directly challenges the story laid out in genesis.

And what (I think) trumptman is saying is that this is exactly the case for evolutionary theorists...only in reverse. Any challenge/questions/skepticism of the evolution theory is a challenge/question/skepticism about their (at least some) world view.

[giant]

Originally posted by dmz
That is incorrect, Christian/Christian Home Schooled kids are on average consistently better educated than the public school children.
:no:

But not because they are taught lies like that the earth is 6000 years old.

Most of my family did most of their schooling in christian schools, so don't try to push some BS about the benefits having anything to do with creation pseudoscience.

[giant]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Oh, the irony of a liberal "intellectual" that won't question anything.
:???:

WTF?

[giant]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
And what (I think) trumptman is saying is that this is exactly the case for evolutionary theorists...only in reverse. Any challenge/questions/skepticism of the evolution theory is a challenge/question/skepticism about their (at least some) world view.
No, the problem is that creation pseudoscience has no evidence to back it up.

[dmz]

Originally posted by giant
:no:

But not because they are taught lies like that the earth is 6000 years old.

Most of my family did most of their schooling in christian schools, so don't try to push some BS about the benefits having anything to do with creation pseudoscience.

You made the statement:

The education system these cults dream of would churn out ignorant young adults that know close to nothing about the world around them, ie, total and complete ignorance.

My statement stands, Christian schooled children do not show these qualities, and are actually better educated than the kids coming from public schools.

[dmz]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Ah you are clearly not a scientist -- Control: non-christian home schooled children...

That Christian schools/home schools are doing a much better job than the public schools is not arguable.

[giant]

Originally posted by dmz
My statement stands, Christian schooled children do not show these qualities, and are actually better educated than the kids coming from public schools.
Are you citing studies that focus on schools teaching creation pseudoscience instead of science?

[giant]

Originally posted by dmz
That Christian schools/home schools are doing a much better job than the public schools is not arguable.
But for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with creation pseudoscience. Find another argument because the one you are making is total BS and you know it.

[dmz]

giant, I understand that these arguments can get heated, but you have to admit that...

The education system these cults dream of would churn out ignorant young adults that know close to nothing about the world around them, ie, total and complete ignorance.

...wasn't a very responsible thing to say.

And no, I don't have any studies for you. But if you are going to stack up public schools as superior agianst private Christian schools, I guess you are free to do so. The fact that the Christians have done so well in teaching their children just adds insult to the injury of this judge's ruling, and the sort of thinking that spawned it.

[SpcMs]

Since everything in science is theory, maybe we should just warn children in general about how science works (and I believe most responsible science teachers do this) and what a scientific theory exactly is. And not single out the one thing that religious mmm... people are fighting this day and age (btw, they don't have a very good track record).
Next thing you know we'll have to explain to children that AIDS could actually possibly be a punishment by God for blacks and gays, because, hey, some scientists don't think there's conclusive proof that HIV leads to AIDS :\
Oh, and since many historic teachings later turned out to be false, you shouldn't trust anything we tell you about the past, please ask your parents.
Btw, there's a distinct chance we never landed on the moon, it was a giant governement conspiracy.
And so on.
So may i challange all here to publicly state you don't believe that some form of evolution (the general principle, not the specifics) is actually real. And if there aren't any takers, than why shouldn't we teach this to our children?

[giant]

Originally posted by dmz
But if you are going to stack up public schools as superior agianst private Christian schools, I guess you are free to do so.
This is irrelevant in a discussion of creation pseudoscience. We aren't talking about private vs. public education, we are talking about teaching creation pseudoscience vs. teaching empirical science. It's understandable that you want to try to play smoke and mirrors, but try not to anyway.

[giant]

Originally posted by SpcMs
Since everything in science is theory, maybe we should just warn children in general about how science works (and I believe most responsible science teachers do this) and what a scientific theory exactly is.
But then all the little childrens will know that the 'science' in creation [pseudo]'science' isn't really science.

[dmz]

Originally posted by giant
This is irrelevant in a discussion of creation pseudoscience. We aren't talking about private vs. public education, we are talking about teaching creation pseudoscience vs. teaching empirical science. It's understandable that you want to try to play smoke and mirrors, but try not to anyway.


I think you are employing the smoke and mirrors here, giant.

SAT Test Scores
Class of 2003

Verbal Math
National 507 519

Public 504 516

Religious 535 530

Independent 550 573

The "cults" seem to be doing just fine.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by SpcMs
Since everything in science is theory, maybe we should just warn children in general about how science works (and I believe most responsible science teachers do this) and what a scientific theory exactly is.

I think this is quite right. I don't know if this is happening or not to be honest. Still, something is happening that is resulting in the prevailing, common notion that evolution is an undeniable, irrefutable fact.

Originally posted by SpcMs
(btw, they don't have a very good track record).

Well, the scientific community has had some problems in the past too. For example...the scientific "truth" that seemed beyond all questioning, but turned out to be wrong (or at least non-universal) is Newtonian mechanics. It ruled
physics for over 200 years, but was superseded by quantum mechanics and relativity.

Another example is the idea that proteins carried genes. This too was "obvious", so obvious in fact that Avery's experiments that proved this idea wrong were not generally accepted for about 8 years.

There was a time when many not only didn't conceive of things invisible to the naked eye (bacteria, viruses, atomic particles) that they simply refused to accept their existence.

The reason that scientists are sometimes very wrong for so long is that the real answer seems so unreasonable that it doesn't get tested properly until something odd comes up to force the issue.

Are any of our current paradigms just as wrong? Who knows?

Originally posted by SpcMs
than why shouldn't we teach this to our children?

This issue wasn't about whether or not it should be taught.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by giant
This is irrelevant in a discussion of creation pseudoscience. We aren't talking about private vs. public education, we are talking about teaching creation pseudoscience vs. teaching empirical science. It's understandable that you want to try to play smoke and mirrors, but try not to anyway.

Actually, the discussion was about the legal decision about placing stickers on books that suggest that students should think critically about the theory of evolution.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by dmz
That Christian schools/home schools are doing a much better job than the public schools is not arguable.

It is however an irrelevent comparison.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
And what (I think) trumptman is saying is that this is exactly the case for evolutionary theorists...only in reverse. Any challenge/questions/skepticism of the evolution theory is a challenge/question/skepticism about their (at least some) world view.

But it isn't.

[giant]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Actually, the discussion was about the legal decision about placing stickers on books that suggest that students should think critically about the theory of evolution.
Oh, yeah. And the whole issue has absolutely nothing to do with creation pseudoscience.

like I said:
:no: <- @ this whole thread.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
But it isn't.

But for some it is about world view.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by giant
Oh, yeah. And the whole issue has absolutely nothing to do with creation pseudoscience.

like I said:
:no: <- @ this whole thread.

I didn't mean to imply that the questions of evolution or creationism are irrelevant...but there was a central question about the legal decision.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
But for some it is about world view.

But trumpt was making the argument that it is such an important thing because it is the world view of many people, but that isn't why it is important...

[trumptman]

Originally posted by shetline
Do you stand in front of a mirror when you practice being deliberately obtuse, just to see if you get the dull, blank expression right?


You do know that ad-homs are against the forums rules right?

Let me spell it out: I thought that particular piece of satire made a specific good point about a specific issue. That has nothing to do with the validity or lack thereof of anything which can be satirized... and you know it.

Actually all it did was poke a little fun by practicing some slippery-slope reasoning. If South Park shows PETA loving animals to the point of having sex and marrying with them, that really doesn't mean that PETA does such things. They are taking the small bit of truth in there and blowing it up larger for comic effect. This can be done with anything and isn't a reason to disregard good statements or reasoning. In fact satire is the weakest reason to disregard something because anyone can do it to anything.

The parallel with how evolution is taught would be… ?

The parallel is that evolution is seldom taught with any holes or disagreements evident. It is often presented as a comprehensive theory when it is not. Again the parallel is that we present gravity but we do not claim to know what causes the force of gravity. If a textbook claimed a comprehensive unified theory of gravity, you can bet you but the criticism of it would involve more than a sticker.

Somehow Einstein managed to come up with his theory of gravitation without someone having put any disclaimer stickers on his physics textbooks warning him to be especially careful about that terribly incomplete Newton stuff.

Yes, but Einstein nor did others ever feel his theory of gravitation was beyond reproach nor did they use it to anchor their worldview.

This is all about what gets singled out for special disclaimers -- and yes, the motivation behind the people out to place those special disclaimers has to be considered.

Why does of the person have to be considered when the result is still a desirable one? Should we claim that the motives of freedom and liberty are suspect because the founding fathers were fallible people who reflect the times in which they lived for example?

Consider again my hypothetical example of students forced to wear "This student makes errors" signs, signs that only a willfully obtuse person could defend of the basis of their factual truth. You'd certainly have to consider the motivations of a teacher for picking on particular students made to wear these signs when such abuse was investigated.

Your analogy falls short and I already explained why. I don't need to reconsider it to find it still flawed. All theories are not suffering from the same problems evolution toils under. We don't have people attempting, for example to explain why gravity works as a constant for a period of time and then seems to stop working at all for large periods of time.

Please show me an example of any high school biology textbook that claims that evolution is completely understood and that all aspects of it are totally beyond question.

I don't have a high school biology text in front of me, do you that shows have one that shows evolutionary claims and criticism as well?

Perhaps, but since there's no parallel about any such thing needing to be pointed out about how evolution is taught, you have no point.

Strange reasoning. I really don't know how to approach something so odd. If it isn't an endorsement of religion, then it isn't. I don't need parallel non-endorsements of religion. It either is an endorsement or not. Quantity does not matter.

Are you going to claim that every time someone uses a phrase like "millions of years ago, during the age of the dinosaurs" that a long-winded disclaimer needs to be attached, or else this would be a shameless example of treating every aspect of evolutionary theory as incontrovertible fact? Are you also going to clamor for disclaimers about the incompleteness of gravitational theory to be placed next to every physics textbook question about how long it take for a rock to fall 50 meters?

The age of the earth need not be tied to evolution. It is often used as circumstancial evidence since evolution itself has so little actually explaining and supporting it. Also again, this is both a slippery-slope and an attempt to discredit via intent (kill the messenger) instead of dealing with the matter at hand. You don't need to claim FUTURE disclaimers might be requested in an attempt to validate the faulty reasoning behind the ruling here. They can each be treated on their own merits. If a school board that claims rocks won't fall at a standard rate of motion, then the community will have the opportunity to vote them out next election.

So it would be okay to hang disclaimer signs around the necks of particularly erroneous students?

So it would be okay, to practice genocide? Please stop with your terrible analogy and strawmen.

I don't even buy the parallel that evolution is somehow like the slow student in a classroom of other scientific theories, but beyond that, there's a difference between recognizing a problem (that one student might not be as bright as most others) and the way you handle it (being helpful, or trying to shame the student).

You're not the only one who doesn't buy it. It is a crappy analogy that you keep pursuing. My mistake was in attempting to help you understand better through such a crappy analogy. But I'm such a glutton for punishment I guess I'll do it again. :lol:

Schools hang "labels" on students all the time. They may not be wearing them openly around their neck as they walk in the classroom, but labels like disadvantaged, gifted, resource specialist program, English learner, special needs, ADD/ADHD, etc. are put all over kids and have loads of programs created to insure each is treated individually.

I also "don't buy" your strange assertion that evolution is somehow "shamed" by the label.

You seem to like saying this a lot today, whether it's particularly apropos or not.

It is relevent considering people the number of people here who seem to believe that criticism of evolution or even pointing out evolution is a theory = religious endorsement. (the ruling judge included)

Lots of theories are incomplete. Most are. You haven't shown any examples that when evolution is taught that there's any particularly egregious way that the teaching hides or disavows said incompleteness. So, again, what makes evolution so special that it needs to be called out with warning labels? When we talk about gravity in science textbooks, we generally treat it as a matter of fact, without disclaimers galore trying to hammer home the notion that gravity is incompletely understood.

I don't have to show any examples. It doesn't even have to occur multiple times. It could occur in one book, at one time, in one community and they should have the right to label the book. Popularity or correctness doesn't need to be anecdotal or have large numbers. I've stated that evolution is likely to be singled out because of the unwillingness of the parties invested in it to subject it to the same rigors as other scientific assertions. Pointing out that it should be treated the same in not a religious endorsement.

Nick

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
But trumpt was making the argument that it is such an important thing because it is the world view of many people, but that isn't why it is important...

I'm not so sure.

[groverat]

Shetline:

That was unnecessary and doesn't add anything to the thread. Avoid in future.

Love you.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
The scientific method depends on evolution.

How do you figure that?

( I don't think anyone here has suggested that. )

[PeePeeSee]

Originally posted by dmz
The government is now in the business of sanctioning official scientific positions. The judge ruled that since the intent was wrong, the exercise of an otherwise legal act, is illegal. The government has told those 2000 petition signers what they may or may not think before they will be allowed to participate on the school board. Decisions based on "correct" motivations will be permitted, but if your motivations are not "correct" you have no business in the school board's process.

The government, like Medieval Rome, is binding people's consciences.

And that is pure bullshit.

Just because people did something in a legal manner to do something illegal doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the end result was illegal. It would be like saying since they all went the legal route and said black kids couldn't go to these schools anymore and the courts said they couldn't do that then the courts are imposing their own "agenda" upon these people who did everything "right" because it was legal. That just isn't right, going the right route to do something wrong is still wrong. The truth is that good people with good intentions can do bad things and even break the law.

Originally posted by dmz
This isn't the government, it is the descion of some 2000 people to direct (very minor directing) their children's education through participation in a local school board. This is not their governance acting, it is people coming together in a peaceful democratic process to make changes in the government. Their decsion was invalidated by the government at the final, Federal, level ONLY because their motivations were judged to be invalid --- motivations that are now officially forbidden to be used in the future. They are now second-class citizens, who may not paritcipate in Democracy at the school-board level.


They have bound the consciences of these people, and that is very disturbing.

Using Democracy to further your illegal agneda is still illegal. Any system can be manipulated - thank the good lord we have checks and balances eh?

Originally posted by dmz
Brussel, if a group of scientists had done this it would be accepted.


Also, the "government" bought these books in the first place. This is the reaction of the more deeply entrenched Federal level of government dictating who may or may not direct their children's education based on "correct" motivations.

Except for the fact that it was NOT a group of scientists - The reason? Well if I had to guess I would think that it is because scientists don't need to be explained to what theories are?


Originally posted by dmz
No, you are wrong, and still lost in the details. There is a simple, legal process for people participate in directing the education of their children -- the school board. This was done.

The judge ruled that the motivations were "religious" and therefore not exceptable. The judge has barred anyone who uses Christianity to inform their "first principles" from bringing those "first principles" to a school board meeting, because Christian "first principles" are forbidden by law to effect the changes in the education of thier own children.

Very insidious.

I don't think the judge cares at all if people read the bible and want to change their community for the better or even change laws - so far as that these people are not doing things that aren't necessary(like putting stickers in a book of theories stating that one of them and only one of them certainly is just a theory) and when the judge looks and can tell that it isn't necessary then you have to look at intent and it is pretty obvious as to what the intent is and what the inent is trying to achieve and in doing so is promoting a religious agenda.

Would you be ok if we put creationism in this book and then put a sticker on it that said something to the effect of - Readers of this material should know that this book contains articles on creationsim, something that isn't even a theory but is just based on a belief system passed down through 5,000 or so years of multi-cultural/linugual telephone.

[midwinter]

Ya'll are the same folks who condemned Socrates and excommunicated Gallileo, aren't ya'll? I think we ought to just slap a sticker on the front of those "science" books that says "It's tutles all the way down!"

[dmz]

No offense PeePeeSee, you're in over your head.

I would not supply hyperbole in the form of "what if" statements, but would try some punctuation.

[dmz]

Originally posted by midwinter
Ya'll are the same folks who condemned Socrates and excommunicated Gallileo, aren't ya'll? I think we ought to just slap a sticker on the front of those "science" books that says "It's tutles all the way down!"


There isn't anyway to keep the conversation within the last couple hundred [relevant] years or so, is there?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by dmz
There isn't anyway to keep the conversation within the last couple hundred [relevant] years or so, is there?

You're saying this is a different conversation?

[PeePeeSee]

Originally posted by dmz
No offense PeePeeSee, you're in over your head.

I would not supply hyperbole in the form of "what if" statements, but would try some punctuation.

That's it? That is your only reply? You tell me I am in over my head and reply to a personal comment and that is it? No offense but - who do you think you are?

That was one weak attempt at looking as if you could speak from authority.

Well I suppose not responding to anything specifically you kind of did reply in your own special way.

Thanks for proving me right.

oh yeah - and "but would try some punctuation" from the guy who said - The judge ruled that the motivations were "religious" and therefore not exceptable.

Yeah - congrats - you fail it at internet english professor.

[dmz]

Originally posted by PeePeeSee
That's it? That is your only reply? You tell me I am in over my head and reply to a personal comment and that is it? No offense but - who do you think you are?

That was one weak attempt at looking as if you could speak from authority.

Well I suppose not responding to anything specifically you kind of did reply in your own special way.

Thanks for proving me right.

PeePeeSee, you didn't say much more than "the judge was right". And you stated it very poorly. I don't mean to be offesive, but you need to build a case better.

[dmz]

Originally posted by midwinter
You're saying this is a different conversation?


It's a tired "argument" of guilt by association, where somehow I'm guilty of the same thinking as the vatican circa 1630. I guess I fail to see the connection.

Don't get me wrong, it's a pretty good smear, but I don't think smears will move the conversation forward. It's just not very constructive.

[PeePeeSee]

Originally posted by dmz
PeePeeSee, you didn't say much more than "the judge was right". And you stated it very poorly. I don't mean to be offesive, but you need to build a case better.

Then it should be oh so easy to tear me apart.

But yes I pretty much did say that the judge was right. That really goes a long way when it happens to be true.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by dmz
It's a tired "argument" of guilt by association, where somehow I'm guilty of the same thinking as the vatican circa 1630. I guess I fail to see the connection.

Don't get me wrong, it's a pretty good smear, but I don't think smears will move the conversation forward. It's just not very constructive.

Ok.

Listen:

It's not guilt by association. It is an opposition to science when it contradicts religious teaching. It is an opposition to Enlightenment when it contradicts religious teaching.

Here's a fun thought for you: when people like Charles Lyell started talking about geological stratification in the 1830s, religious people jumped all over him and those who "believed" his "theory" for decades. And now? Religious folks are out conducting archaeological digs to recover holy relics, using the very theories they considered heresy to manage them.

I think I understand, at least intellectually, the reaction of religious people to theories of evolution. And I think I understand their motivations. The process of Enlightenment has always been terrifying.

[dmz]

Originally posted by PeePeeSee
Then it should be oh so easy to tear me apart.

But yes I pretty much did say that the judge was right. That really goes a long way when it happens to be true.

Sure, but "why" the judge ruled that Christian 'first principles' were illegal motivation is the real question. He basically said that it wasn't the THAT is was the WHAT.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by dmz
Sure, but "why" the judge ruled that Christian 'first principles' were illegal motivation is the real question. He basically said that it wasn't the THAT is was the WHAT.

Haven't you changed that since the last page or so...

[dmz]

Originally posted by midwinter
Ok.

Listen:

It's not guilt by association. It is an opposition to science when it contradicts religious teaching. It is an opposition to Enlightenment when it contradicts religious teaching.

Here's a fun thought for you: when people like Charles Lyell started talking about geological stratification in the 1830s, religious people jumped all over him and those who "believed" his "theory" for decades. And now? Religious folks are out conducting archaeological digs to recover holy relics, using the very theories they considered heresy to manage them.

I think I understand, at least intellectually, the reaction of religious people to theories of evolution. And I think I understand their motivations. The process of Enlightenment has always been terrifying.


hmm.... I think James Hutton had dibs on this-- Siccar point and all.

At any rate, this has nothing to do with evolution. And quite frankly I have found that evolutionist WILL NOT speak about the massive problems that evolution has, but resort to jihad and fatwas to prop up their position. Make no mistake, like Islam with the Quran, there is no possibility of an intelligent and informed discussion concerning evolution with an evolutionist.

I will give you starlight and KAr dating -- but when it comes time to discuss evolution intelligently, it doesn't happen, and I don't believe it's really possible. A bit too much like sitting down with Osama Bin Laden and telling him that Mohammed was dead-ass wrong.

But, like I said this has nothing to do with evolution, per se.

In a country that can have GWB throw around terms like "freedom" willy nilly, but still support the freedom of pornographers, trying to deal with 'first principles' -- or presuppostions -- is bit tricky.

The judge ruled that the act of putting a warning sticker on a textbook was illegal ONLY because Christian 'first principles' were the origin of the act. At the same time we have [in Philadelphia]:

assistant district attorney Charles Erlich characterized the Christians’ preaching and signs bearing biblical quotes as “hateful, disgusting, despicable words,” and as “fighting words."

You see, in America, you can put warning sitckers on textbooks but you may not use Christian principles to do so.

The question now begged is:

From what sources are Americans allowed to take the principles that govern our life together and on what grounds are religious principles allowed or excluded?

[PeePeeSee]

Answer: Any place/inention that doesn't have to do with pushing religion onto people.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by dmz
hmm.... I think James Hutton had dibs on this-- Siccar point and all.

P'raps. I chose Lyell because it was he who most influenced Darwin.

At any rate, this has nothing to do with evolution.

Don't you find it curious, then, that Darwin and Lyell were bosom buddies and Lyell's theories about geology were incredibly influential on his thinking?

And quite frankly I have found that evolutionist WILL NOT speak about the massive problems that evolution has, but resort to jihad and fatwas to prop up their position. Make no mistake, like Islam with the Quran, there is no possibility of an intelligent and informed discussion concerning evolution with an evolutionist.

What, exactly, would that "intelligent" conversation look like?

I will give you starlight and KAr dating

You'd better, because they're mine. ;)

but when it comes time to discuss evolution intelligently, it doesn't happen, and I don't believe it's really possible. A bit too much like sitting down with Osama Bin Laden and telling him that Mohammed was dead-ass wrong.

I think I agree with you here.

But, like I said this has nothing to do with evolution, per se.

And I don't think evolution is the issue here, at all.

In a country that can have GWB throw around terms like "freedom" willy nilly, but still support the freedom of pornographers, trying to deal with 'first principles' -- or presuppostions -- is bit tricky.

I honestly don't follow you here.

The judge ruled that the act of putting a warning sticker on a textbook was illegal ONLY because Christian 'first principles' were the origin of the act.

I think we ought to put warning stickers on everything that contradicts religious teachings. Warning: this pair of blue jeans had its origins in an abomination. See Exodus; Leviticus

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by PeePeeSee
Answer: Any place/inention that doesn't have to do with pushing religion onto people.

The sticker wasn't doing that. No matter what anyone says. It wasn't...it's really that simple.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by midwinter
What, exactly, would that "intelligent" conversation look like?

It might start with an evolutionary theorist assuming that there are other possible explanations for the evidence they see.

It might include admissions that there have been no experiments demonstrating macro-evolution.

It might include admissions that the fossil record is lacking any direct evidence of intermediate forms. And that this might mean there were none.

It might start with an agreement that evolution is a theory that has not been proven (and BTW never can be) and has legitimate critics and skeptics.

[dmz]

I think Chris Cuilla is right on this one, evolution has so many drop outs, flaws, and contradictions, that the conversation needs to shif away from "science is sure to answer this in the future" to "hey, maybe some superintelligent being is responsible".

I just don't think it's possible. Not that evolutionists are "stupid", quite to the contrary, they know which side their bread is buttered on.

....on the Hutton thing, I didn't mean he didn't have anything to do with evolution, just that evolution, pre se didn't have anything to do with the ruling.

....on the "freedom" willy nilly reference, freedom is a very loaded term, in and of itself. The New Atlantis (http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/6/hart.htm) has a very good article on this.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
It might start with an evolutionary theorist assuming that there are no other possible explanations for the evidence they see.

It might include admissions that there have been no experiments demonstrating macro-evolution.

It might include admissions that the fossil record is lacking any direct evidence of intermediate forms. And that this might mean there were none.

It might start with an agreement that evolution is a theory that has not been proven (and BTW never can be) and has legitimate critics and skeptics.

OK. Good. Just for the sake of argument, I admit all of this.

Since we're using empiricism to attack evolutionary theory, we'll use empiricism to interrogate that attack.

Please provide for me an alternative to evolutionary theory that does not rely on spirits and other unseen creatures or intelligences acting upon the world to effect change. Please provide for me an alternative to evolutionary theory that describes how we wind up with both dinosaurs and humans and monkeys and flies and cats and paramecia and EVERYTHING that adheres to empirical standards of observation and proof.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by midwinter
Ok.

Listen:

It's not guilt by association. It is an opposition to science when it contradicts religious teaching. It is an opposition to Enlightenment when it contradicts religious teaching.

Here's a fun thought for you: when people like Charles Lyell started talking about geological stratification in the 1830s, religious people jumped all over him and those who "believed" his "theory" for decades. And now? Religious folks are out conducting archaeological digs to recover holy relics, using the very theories they considered heresy to manage them.

I think I understand, at least intellectually, the reaction of religious people to theories of evolution. And I think I understand their motivations. The process of Enlightenment has always been terrifying.

Yes and doctors once used leeches to get rid of bad blood and founding fathers once believed in freedom while owning slaves and denying women the right to vote.

Newsflash, people in the past didn't know as much as we do now. People in the future will likely think us morons in some manners as well.

From a future conversation:

"And so these people still believe in races... interesting."

"Well some of them believed in race, others didn't but still had to discuss it and deal with it because of the times they lived in."

"Why didn't they just tell all the people talking about race they were morons."

"Even the goverment used race, we all know it is antiquated thinking now, but they hadn't gotten that far back then."

Etc...

Nick

[dmz]

Originally posted by PeePeeSee
Answer: Any place/inention that doesn't have to do with pushing religion onto people.

But then you must define religion, as such. Then you must prove you possess a comprehensive system of truth that can validate your definition. Very, very tricky.

[dmz]

Originally posted by midwinter
OK. Good. Just for the sake of argument, I admit all of this.

Since we're using empiricism to attack evolutionary theory, we'll use empiricism to interrogate that attack.

Please provide for me an alternative to evolutionary theory that does not rely on spirits and other unseen creatures or intelligences acting upon the world to effect change. Please provide for me an alternative to evolutionary theory that describes how we wind up with both dinosaurs and humans and monkeys and flies and cats and paramecia and EVERYTHING that adheres to empirical standards of observation and proof.


...but Empiricism will only lead you back to your presuppositons. (Which is the Universe defined by the self-sufficient intellect -- which is where you start.)

[midwinter]

Originally posted by dmz
...but Empiricism will only lead you back to your presuppositons. (Which is the Universe defined by the self-sufficient intellect -- which is where you start.)

So will your methods. That's the bloody point. Now answer my question.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by trumptman
Newsflash, people in the past didn't know as much as we do now. People in the future will likely think us morons in some manners as well.

Newsflash: Sometimes arguments don't go away. Sometimes people in the present exhibit the same fears as people in the past with regard to new ideas. Sometimes, people in the present hold on to the same arguments/positions/beliefs as people in the past.

"And so these people still believe in races... interesting."

Pshaw. Everyone knows that race is just a subset of class, and therefore is not worth talking about.

[dmz]

Originally posted by midwinter
So will your methods. That's the bloody point. Now answer my question.



Ah, but I possess a comprehesive system of truth. Your system is not internally consisitent. In your system, you end up as whitecap on a sea of chaos. (And so does everyone else.) I can make definitive statements based on the self-Identifying 'Truth event' of Christ, your system lacks any reference point. Mysticism or gnostisism is your only real route.

More tomorow.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by dmz
Ah, but I possess a comprehesive system of truth. Your system is not internally consisitent. In your system, you end up as whitecap on a sea of chaos. (And so does everyone else.) I can make definitive statements based on the self-Identifying 'Truth event' of Christ, your system lacks any reference point. Mysticism or gnostisism is your only real route.

More tomorow.

So in other words, you can't provide me with an alternative that satisfies the empirical standards you've used to attack evolution.

[dmz]

Originally posted by midwinter
So in other words, you can't provide me with an alternative that satisfies the empirical standards you've used to attack evolution.

I would henoestly look at the failings of your own system of truth, before moving outward. Once you assume you have an intellect AS SUCH sufficient to intelligbly understand the nature of God, the universe, etc. you have cut out a pretty tall order.


anyway I came back for this, here is a quote that cracked me up from that The New Atlantis (http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/6/hart.htm) aritcle:


We are already, as it happens, a casually and chronically pornographic society. We dress young girls in clothes so scant and meretricious that honest harlots are all but bereft of any distinctive method for catching a lonely man’s eye. The popular songs and musical spectacles we allow our children to listen to and watch have transformed many of the classic divertissements of the bordello—sexualized gamines, frolicsome tribades, erotic spanking, Oedipal fantasy, very bad “exotic” dance—into the staples of light entertainment. The spectrum of wit explored by television comedy runs largely between the pre- and the post-coital.

goodnight

[midwinter]

Originally posted by dmz
I would henoestly look at the failings of your own system of truth, before moving outward. Once you assume you have an intellect AS SUCH sufficient to intelligbly understand the nature of God, the universe, etc. you have cut out a pretty tall order.

So in other words, logic and reason are just fine to attack logic and reason, but insufficient when your back's to the wall? Doesn't it strike you as odd that you would use what you consider a flawed system of reasoning against itself and that's all fine and dandy. But when asked to provide an alternative that satisfies those same requirements, you dodge the question and start talking about spirits and ghosts and voices in the head?

[shetline]

Originally posted by trumptman
You do know that ad-homs are against the forums rules right?
I didn't call you a name... exactly. I asked you a... hmmm... pointed question. That's it. :)

At any rate, I really honestly believed you were deliberately being obtuse as a tactic to bait people, and called you on it. If I was wrong, so be it, and I'll behave myself as our August Moderator requests.
Actually all it did was poke a little fun by practicing some slippery-slope reasoning... In fact satire is the weakest reason to disregard something because anyone can do it to anything.
The existence of satire was not the reason I was pointing out. Again, I have a hard time believe you don't realize that and aren't trying to bait people by saying such things. I'm fairly certain that you understand, without it having to be explained to you, that a piece of satire can contain and can point to a good line of reasoning, and that someone can suggest this idea without suggesting the the mere existence of that satire itself constitutes a reason.
The parallel is that evolution is seldom taught with any holes or disagreements evident.
I get the funny feeling that the only thing that would satisfy you would be a text on evolution that was riddled with that same kind of wording that was placed on these warning stickers.

The vast majority of practicing scientist, especially in the field of biology, think the evidence for evolution is quite strong enough that they aren't going to write a text on evolution that's filled with caveats and hemming and hawing as if they're teetering on the edge of terrible uncertainty. They have no good reason to write that way.
It is often presented as a comprehensive theory when it is not.
I'm left strongly suspecting that you're playing the creationists game that tries to pretend that evolution is somehow terribly flawed and incomplete if it doesn't cover everything from The Very Existence of the Universe, to the first living cell, right on up to the maple tree in your front yard and your Uncle Sidney, diagrammed with a complete family tree and a video tape of each birth.

I'd love to hear your definition of a "comprehensive theory", what presenting something as if it were such means, and what it really would have to be if it were such.
Again the parallel is that we present gravity but we do not claim to know what causes the force of gravity.
Actually, Einstein believed that gravity was caused by matter curving space. Of course, saying such leads to other questions like how does matter curve space, why does matter tend to follow that curvature, etc., but still, it does constitute a claim as to the cause of gravity -- a claim that has been tested and proved to stand up pretty well.
If a textbook claimed a comprehensive unified theory of gravity, you can bet you but the criticism of it would involve more than a sticker.
Unified field theory and the cause of gravity are not the same thing. Unified field theory is a way of trying to create a comprehensive structure that explains all known forces -- gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces -- in a unified manner.

You don't need to have a unified field theory to make a good first cut at an explanation for gravity.
Yes, but Einstein nor did others ever feel his theory of gravitation was beyond reproach nor did they use it to anchor their worldview.
So, show me some examples of how biology textbooks, by contrast, behave as if everything in the study of evolution is "beyond reproach". Hint: Merely stating the best-available science in a matter-of-fact way that isn't riddled with hemming and hawing about doubt and uncertainty is NOT the same thing as pretending to be "beyond reproach".
Why does of the person have to be considered when the result is still a desirable one?
What desirable result are you referring to? The stickers on the textbooks? If so, since I'm obviously disagreeing about this being at all a desirable outcome, the question doesn't make much rhetorical sense.

All theories are not suffering from the same problems evolution toils under. We don't have people attempting, for example to explain why gravity works as a constant for a period of time and then seems to stop working at all for large periods of time.
Oh, please, spell out how this analogy applies to evolution. I have an idea where you might be going, but it's so badly flawed I'll make you say it yourself if you still want to.
I don't have a high school biology text in front of me, do you that shows have one that shows evolutionary claims and criticism as well?
No, I mean show me a text book that is plainly lofty and dismissive of any potential criticism. Same hint as before, repeated: Merely stating the best-available science in a matter-of-fact way that isn't riddled with hemming and hawing about doubt and uncertainty is NOT the same thing as pretending to be "beyond reproach".
Also again, this is both a slippery-slope and an attempt to discredit via intent (kill the messenger) instead of dealing with the matter at hand. You don't need to claim FUTURE disclaimers might be requested in an attempt to validate the faulty reasoning behind the ruling here. They can each be treated on their own merits. If a school board that claims rocks won't fall at a standard rate of motion, then the community will have the opportunity to vote them out next election.
If, however, the judge believes that the Establishment Clause applies, you can't simply leave it up to the voters to vote out violators of Constitutional principles when the next election comes along. There are plenty of voters who would happily violate their neighbors rights, and the point of having a Constitutional government is so that even majorities don't always get their way.

The judge has to consider the motivations of the people demanding the stickers on the books -- the existence of a few scattered non-religiously motivated people who might push for the same stickers doesn't matter. The judge rightly takes into account the motivations of the very people pushing for the stickers, with these people acting in their roles as representatives of a government-sponsored institution, not as private citizens. Just like a judge looking at a criminal's rap sheet, this judge looked at the history of what these same groups organized against evolution had attempted to do in other ways, and can clearly see an agenda incompatible with the proper role of public school officials.

I've stated that evolution is likely to be singled out because of the unwillingness of the parties invested in it to subject it to the same rigors as other scientific assertions.
Where is this unwillingness? I haven't seen it. You claim it exists. Where is it? If we're applying typical creationist standards, "unwillingness" could mean, oh, "unwillingness" to find an empty planet somewhere and conduct a four-billion year experiment. Shameful, nasty, uncooperative scientists, refusing such reasonable criteria!

[MarcUK]

what we really need is a sticker that says.

"This book is the creation of the perverted Catholic Church, pillaging stories of the ancients sun-god mythology. It has been proven time and again to be of non-divine human origins, contradictory and in error. Literal belief of these words will seriously damage your health and mental stability"

and then a sticker

"The Jesus of this Bible never existed"

Ain't it a bit perverse for Creationist's to be going round calling the theory of Evolution false, when they depend on it to explain how all the species of the Earth came from the floating zoo?

Creation Science - Its just a theory. And a bit of a dumb one at that.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by shetline
I didn't call you a name... exactly. I asked you a... hmmm... pointed question. That's it. :)

At any rate, I really honestly believed you were deliberately being obtuse as a tactic to bait people, and called you on it. If I was wrong, so be it, and I'll behave myself as our August Moderator requests.


Good.

The existence of satire was not the reason I was pointing out. Again, I have a hard time believe you don't realize that and aren't trying to bait people by saying such things. I'm fairly certain that you understand, without it having to be explained to you, that a piece of satire can contain and can point to a good line of reasoning, and that someone can suggest this idea without suggesting the the mere existence of that satire itself constitutes a reason.

You claim satire can have a good line or reasoning and pointed at the example provided with the various stickers. I looked at them and so no line of reasoning even presented. The only thing that was done was taking the original wording and misapplying it in other contexts. You claim that good reasoning. Anyone else would call it strawman reasoning.

"I never had sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski."

"I never had sex with that horse, Mr. Ed."

It's pretty easy to do.

I get the funny feeling that the only thing that would satisfy you would be a text on evolution that was riddled with that same kind of wording that was placed on these warning stickers.

The vast majority of practicing scientist, especially in the field of biology, think the evidence for evolution is quite strong enough that they aren't going to write a text on evolution that's filled with caveats and hemming and hawing as if they're teetering on the edge of terrible uncertainty. They have no good reason to write that way.

Oh I personally could give a crap about the stickers. Heck kids could peel them off and likely face the same wrath as those who snip mattress tags. I'm just not fond of judges "finding" rights and laws that don't exist or acting with bias.

Also no one asked for hemming and hawing. Just admission of the holes as they are now. I mean something is only right until it isn't in science. One new fact comes along and suddenly the whole explanation has to be revised to fit it and that explanation can be very different than the prior explanation. Simple words like "evolution cannot currently explain...." within the text would be considered fine by me when writing about certain aspects of evolution.

I'm left strongly suspecting that you're playing the creationists game that tries to pretend that evolution is somehow terribly flawed and incomplete if it doesn't cover everything from The Very Existence of the Universe, to the first living cell, right on up to the maple tree in your front yard and your Uncle Sidney, diagrammed with a complete family tree and a video tape of each birth.

I'd love to hear your definition of a "comprehensive theory", what presenting something as if it were such means, and what it really would have to be if it were such.

Expecting a theory to work best when most simply applied is a very basic tenent of science. In other fields, we can conduct smaller experiments from which we can draw larger conclusions. I can create a vacuum in a tube and show a ball and feather dropping at the same rate for example. I can place various chemicals together and watch and record their reactions. I can even build small models that allow me to watch things like erosion, sedimentation, etc.

Evolution at this point has pretty much no predictive qualities. It explains about as well as looking at the horizon and claiming the earth is flat. No religious belief is necessary to know this.

Actually, Einstein believed that gravity was caused by matter curving space. Of course, saying such leads to other questions like how does matter curve space, why does matter tend to follow that curvature, etc., but still, it does constitute a claim as to the cause of gravity -- a claim that has been tested and proved to stand up pretty well.

Actually most of us would say that when you can't explain all the questions you just mentioned that it hasn't been fully answered yet. I've said all along that we under stand how gravity works, but not how it is caused. The deeper question, like how does matter curve space, is still the cause. Sorry if I was not quite nuanced enough on that.

Unified field theory and the cause of gravity are not the same thing. Unified field theory is a way of trying to create a comprehensive structure that explains all known forces -- gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces -- in a unified manner.

Let's not drag the thread too far off here, okay? The point is that we will need to know how matter causes space to curve before we will have a unified field theory since gravity is one of the forces that must be explained.

So, show me some examples of how biology textbooks, by contrast, behave as if everything in the study of evolution is "beyond reproach". Hint: Merely stating the best-available science in a matter-of-fact way that isn't riddled with hemming and hawing about doubt and uncertainty is NOT the same thing as pretending to be "beyond reproach".

Clue to you, I don't have to show you a book for it to be true. And again even if I did, you would likely claimit was mearly the exception attempting to prove the rule.

Here, for example are the California State Standards for Evolution at the 9-12 level. All Califonia textbooks must meet these standards to be purchased in the state.

Biology/Life Sciences

Evolution

7.

The frequency of an allele in a gene pool of a population depends on many factors and may be stable or unstable over time. As a basis for understanding this concept:

1. Students know why natural selection acts on the phenotype rather than the genotype of an organism.
2. Students know why alleles that are lethal in a homozygous individual may be carried in a heterozygote and thus maintained in a gene pool.
3. Students know new mutations are constantly being generated in a gene pool.
4. Students know variation within a species increases the likelihood that at least some members of a species will survive under changed environmental conditions.
5. * Students know the conditions for Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium in a population and why these conditions are not likely to appear in nature.
6. * Students know how to solve the Hardy-Weinberg equation to predict the frequency of genotypes in a population, given the frequency of phenotypes.

8.

Evolution is the result of genetic changes that occur in constantly changing environments. As a basis for understanding this concept:

1. Students know how natural selection determines the differential survival of groups of organisms.
2. Students know a great diversity of species increases the chance that at least some organisms survive major changes in the environment.
3. Students know the effects of genetic drift on the diversity of organisms in a population.
4. Students know reproductive or geographic isolation affects speciation.
5. Students know how to analyze fossil evidence with regard to biological diversity, episodic speciation, and mass extinction.
6. * Students know how to use comparative embryology, DNA or protein sequence comparisons, and other independent sources of data to create a branching diagram (cladogram) that shows probable evolutionary relationships.
7. * Students know how several independent molecular clocks, calibrated against each other and combined with evidence from the fossil record, can help to estimate how long ago various groups of organisms diverged evolutionarily from one another.

Now for example take the third one. That new mutations are constantly being generated in a gene pool. It presents the gradual approach to evolution and doesn't appear to allow much room for say, punctuated equilibrium.

Best I can do on the textbook matter so please don't ask for me to "show you the book" again. Even if I could for California, that doesn't mean it is the same for any other state, or that proof in California would be proof for any other state as well.

What desirable result are you referring to? The stickers on the textbooks? If so, since I'm obviously disagreeing about this being at all a desirable outcome, the question doesn't make much rhetorical sense.

It was your contention. I simply questioned it. You stated that whether the sticker was right or wrong was irrelevent because of the intentions of those seeking the sticker. I disagree. The road to hell is paved with good intentions as the saying goes. I care about the end result.

Oh, please, spell out how this analogy applies to evolution. I have an idea where you might be going, but it's so badly flawed I'll make you say it yourself if you still want to.

I really don't want this thread to become yet another "evolution discussion." Punctuated equlibrium should be sufficient to explain.

No, I mean show me a text book that is plainly lofty and dismissive of any potential criticism. Same hint as before, repeated: Merely stating the best-available science in a matter-of-fact way that isn't riddled with hemming and hawing about doubt and uncertainty is NOT the same thing as pretending to be "beyond reproach".

It doesn't have to "hem and haw." Claiming evolution is a gradual process when the fossil record appears to endorse large periods of equalibrium with large sudden changes for example is teaching bad science. Yet most schools probably teach it as gradual because it is easier to explain, understand and raises fewer questions from the students about evolution as a comprehensive theory.

BTW, pointing this out again, isn't an endorsement or religion, nor does it have to make one religious.

If, however, the judge believes that the Establishment Clause applies, you can't simply leave it up to the voters to vote out violators of Constitutional principles when the next election comes along. There are plenty of voters who would happily violate their neighbors rights, and the point of having a Constitutional government is so that even majorities don't always get their way.

The judge has to consider the motivations of the people demanding the stickers on the books -- the existence of a few scattered non-religiously motivated people who might push for the same stickers doesn't matter. The judge rightly takes into account the motivations of the very people pushing for the stickers, with these people acting in their roles as representatives of a government-sponsored institution, not as private citizens. Just like a judge looking at a criminal's rap sheet, this judge looked at the history of what these same groups organized against evolution had attempted to do in other ways, and can clearly see an agenda incompatible with the proper role of public school officials.


Nonsense. If someone supports laws against murder they may do so for whatever reason they desire. Their motivations do not become suspect simply because for some, their reasoning might be religious. Likewise no one would ever argue that because some religions teach murder is wrong, that laws against murder are an establishment of religion. That is why this legal ruling is so out of whack. It doesn't question the outcome, it questions the intent. Some people fought to free blacks because of religious convictions. Others fought to keep them enslaved because of their scientific convictions. (They thought them animals and less than human) Yet no one would argue that the outcome was suspect or an establishment or religion. The results are right or wrong. The thought intent does not need to be considered nor should it be a crime. That is truly dangerous thinking.

Where is this unwillingness? I haven't seen it. You claim it exists. Where is it? If we're applying typical creationist standards, "unwillingness" could mean, oh, "unwillingness" to find an empty planet somewhere and conduct a four-billion year experiment. Shameful, nasty, uncooperative scientists, refusing such reasonable criteria!

The unwillingness could be demonstrated in something as basic as admitting that haven't had much luck with self-organizing even under ideal circumstances. But again, let's try to keep this on topic. Non-religious stickers are not an establishment of religion because of the intent of the parent any more than receiving say food aid from the Red Cross is an establishment of religion.

Nick

[dmz]

Originally posted by midwinter
/......you dodge the question and start talking about spirits and ghosts and voices in the head?

Here we have the conflict in a nutshell, you have correctly described how the unregenerate mind views Christianity.

And as they say, never the twain shall meet.

[PeePeeSee]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
The sticker wasn't doing that. No matter what anyone says. It wasn't...it's really that simple.

Why would you need to put on a book of theories a sticker making sure everyone knows that one certain theory was just a theory?

It's obvious - the intent was strictly for religious reasons and nothing else.

[PeePeeSee]

Originally posted by dmz
But then you must define religion, as such. Then you must prove you possess a comprehensive system of truth that can validate your definition. Very, very tricky.


http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Well isn't that amazing - they seemed to be able to know what is and is not religion even then.

It's not that hard really as you would like it to be - Religions are based on belief systems - belief systems only work if you believe in them.

No matter how much you believe it or not the earth goes in a circle around the sun.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by midwinter
Newsflash: Sometimes arguments don't go away. Sometimes people in the present exhibit the same fears as people in the past with regard to new ideas. Sometimes, people in the present hold on to the same arguments/positions/beliefs as people in the past.

Pshaw. Everyone knows that race is just a subset of class, and therefore is not worth talking about.

But the point still holds, the fact that a certain group may have held a primative view in the past doesn't not discredit their present day concerns.

Now the reality is that regardless of intent, the sticker does not establish religion. Reading that a scientific theory is a scientific theory does not "burden" it either.

Lastly, and most importantly, claiming that a harmless outcome is somehow harmful because of the intent or thoughts of a person is not only wrong, it is profoundly dangerous thinking. I laugh when someone claims Barney will turn kids gay. I laugh just as hard when it is suggested a sticker will turn them scientifically ignorant.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by PeePeeSee
Why would you need to put on a book of theories a sticker making sure everyone knows that one certain theory was just a theory?

It's obvious - the intent was strictly for religious reasons and nothing else.

Based off the intent of this post, I think that you want to rape children and murder kittens.

I mean sure the words don't say that, nor do your actions, nor could even the conclusion be drawn from the entire statement. But I am sure that is your intent.

Innocent until guilty? Nope, guilty because of intent.

Nick

[PeePeeSee]

Originally posted by trumptman
Based off the intent of this post, I think that you want to rape children and murder kittens.

I mean sure the words don't say that, nor do your actions, nor could even the conclusion be drawn from the entire statement. But I am sure that is your intent.

Innocent until guilty? Nope, guilty because of intent.

Nick

That's fine and dandy but you forget a few things - You don't know me at all and you just made that up to be humerous and to try to prove a "point" but a judge doesn't do things that way, thank god.

Often intent is enough for a judge and for that matter law makers and police officers to make decisions.

Intent can be plenty for all of these people to make very important decisions and they do it all the time.

[dmz]

Originally posted by PeePeeSee
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Well isn't that amazing - they seemed to be able to know what is and is not religion even then.

It's not that hard really as you would like it to be - Religions are based on belief systems - belief systems only work if you believe in them.

No matter how much you believe it or not the earth goes in a circle around the sun.

I think you're going in circles, here.

Man is a religious creature, not a political creature. He begins with presuppositions, that are by their nature 'religious' due to the nature of the questions that those 'first principles' have to answer. The founding fathers were operating on a LONG history of the nature of reason, religion, and generally accepted a Divine source for the natural rights of men. The natural rights idea took centuries to gel. When they said 'religion', they weren't playing disingenous games, intending to divorce the divine origins of natural rights from daily life.

[shetline]

Originally posted by trumptman
You claim satire can have a good line or reasoning and pointed at the example provided with the various stickers. I looked at them and so no line of reasoning even presented.
I never said there was a line of reasoning literally presented. One has to read between the lines. But fine... you don't see anything, or the same thing, between the lines as I do. Is it so difficult to simply say that, rather than constructing some ridiculous generalized straw man about satire and bravely knocking it down, as if it had a thing to do with what I was saying?
Oh I personally could give a crap about the stickers. Heck kids could peel them off and likely face the same wrath as those who snip mattress tags. I'm just not fond of judges "finding" rights and laws that don't exist or acting with bias.
What on earth does kids peeling the stickers off have to do with anything? The intended message, "Don't trust this ungodly stuff!" is transmitted loudly and clearly by the general practice of applying the stickers selectively to biology textbooks that mention evolution.

The decision was more about limiting how people acting in a government-sponsored role can behave than it was about "finding rights", unless you want to interpret this as "finding the right" to be protected from government overstepping its bounds. In a society where so few members of the populace even understand the difference between democracy and liberty, where chanting "Freedom!" might as well be chanting "Go team!" for all the depth of meaning that it holds, I'm quite happy there are judges out there who take the Ninth Amendment seriously and who decide First Amendment issues expansively.
Also no one asked for hemming and hawing. Just admission of the holes as they are now.
What holes? You seem to be acting as if, for example, punctuated equilibrium is a hole, as if there's some terrible dilemma there that shakes the foundations of evolution, a flaw that must be disclaimed. Punctuated equilibrium is merely an interesting detail of how the broader principles of evolution play out, not a make-or-break problem for evolution.

I get the impression that you're hung up on the word "gradual". Tell me, if you receive a check every month or two, and put it in the bank, are you "gradually" acquiring money, or are you getting money in bursts? All depends on the time scale you want to apply.

Or maybe you've got something going like "Hah! How can this evolution stuff hold up if now you're saying things 'stop evolving' then start up again later? Where's the consistency!"

Is chemistry inconsistent because someone once said "hydrogen and oxygen make water", didn't mention the need for heat, and then you say, "Oh, come on! Make up your mind! Does this stuff make water or not? Oh, only some of the time? Under the right conditions? Pshaw! Come back when you've got this ridiculous chemistry thing worked out!"
I mean something is only right until it isn't in science.
Huh?
One new fact comes along and suddenly the whole explanation has to be revised to fit it and that explanation can be very different than the prior explanation.
That really doesn't happen that much. Some detail within a theory, like, oh, when Neanderthals went extinct swinging 20,000 years based on some new bit of evidence, hardly touches the overall theory of evolution. Einstein's relativity, as much as you might want to call it a "revolution" in physics, when applied to most day-to-day engineering problems is still so close to Newton's physics from 300 years ago that we still use and teach Newton's physics today.
Simple words like "evolution cannot currently explain...." within the text would be considered fine by me when writing about certain aspects of evolution.
To the same degree that physics textbooks list everything they can't explain, that chemistry textbooks list everything they can't explain?
Evolution at this point has pretty much no predictive qualities.
Totally wrong. Just because you can't create a laboratory experiment where you say "Watch how this thing evolves!" for anything more complicated than bacteria or viruses, doesn't mean there aren't testable predictions. One can predict what should be expected from new data, or re-analysis of old data. One can predict what will be found when examining the genomes of various living creatures and comparing them.

Darwin predicted that there must be some sort of mechanism of inheritance that was fairly robust, but subject to random change. He knew nothing about DNA. We discovered DNA a good portion of a century later, a mechanism for inheritance with exactly the characteristics Darwin had predicted.
It explains about as well as looking at the horizon and claiming the earth is flat. No religious belief is necessary to know this.
When you understand that the idea of a round earth doesn't totally overturn the idea of a flat earth, you'll understand science better.
Actually most of us would say that when you can't explain all the questions you just mentioned that it hasn't been fully answered yet.
Nothing is fully answered. That's the nature of all science, not just evolution. All answers lead to more questions -- unless of course you like to say "God did it!" and rest easy with a pat, simple, final answer.
Clue to you, I don't have to show you a book for it to be true.
No, you don't, but to make the case the evolution textbooks act all high and mighty as if they're beyond reproach, in a special way that requires disclaimer stickers, you do have to show examples. If you're happy quietly believing to yourself that evolution textbooks need disclaimers, and don't care to persuade anyone of that fact, you are correct that there's no evidence you need to present.
Now for example take the third one. That new mutations are constantly being generated in a gene pool. It presents the gradual approach to evolution and doesn't appear to allow much room for say, punctuated equilibrium.
Mutations being generated constantly has nothing to do with gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium. According to either mechanism mutations are constantly occurring. There is no unspoken favoritism towards gradualism that you seem to wish to believe is there. If you followed some of the study guide, you'd know that.
It was your contention. I simply questioned it. You stated that whether the sticker was right or wrong was irrelevent because of the intentions of those seeking the sticker. I disagree. The road to hell is paved with good intentions as the saying goes. I care about the end result.
I stated that the selectivity of the application of the sticker, and the motivation for that particular selectivity, was the issue. The road to unconstitutional behavior is paved with "good" intentions of religious zealots trying to "save" students from Satan's evil theory of evolution. I care about the end results too.
I really don't want this thread to become yet another "evolution discussion." Punctuated equlibrium should be sufficient to explain.
Yes, It's enough to explain that you don't know what you're talking about if you think punctuated equilibrium constitutes some terrible flaw or vexing unanswered question.
It doesn't have to "hem and haw." Claiming evolution is a gradual process when the fossil record appears to endorse large periods of equalibrium with large sudden changes for example is teaching bad science.
First of all, I disagree with your claim that such a claim is being made, a claim you appear to make based on a misunderstanding the relationship between mutations and evolution. Secondly, the stickers in question don't do a thing to address your concern. Here's the text of the sticker again:
"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
So, how would this sticker help a student deal with gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium? By putting him or her "on guard" that it's "only a theory"?
...let's try to keep this on topic. Non-religious stickers are not an establishment of religion because of the intent of the parent any more than receiving say food aid from the Red Cross is an establishment of religion.
Intent of a "parent" here isn't the issue, the intent of school board members, parents or not, acting as agents of the government is.

If the Red Cross, using government funding or assistance, started only distributing food aid to Christians, but denied food aid to Hindus or atheists, there'd be an establishment issue. If the Red Cross meals came wrapped in religious tracts, there'd be an establishment issue.

There is a selective bias being applied against certain textbooks, and that bias is religiously based, regardless of the hypothetical possibility that some organized group of non-religious fringe scientists might possibly have asked for the same kinds of stickers.

[hardeeharhar]

Man is not a religious creature. Religion requires the belief in a god. A child will not believe in a god unless he is told there is one.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by trumptman
But the point still holds, the fact that a certain group may have held a primative view in the past doesn't not discredit their present day concerns.

That wasn't my point. My point was that the religious response to evolution is part and parcel of the general religious rejection of all "enlightenment" when new information challenges religious doctrine. The people attacking Darwin since 1858 are the same people who attacked every major scientific advancement in the history of mankind. I was simply pointing out that enlightenment is terrifying and that it always has been, because it usually threatens firmly established worldviews and authorities.

Now the reality is that regardless of intent, the sticker does not establish religion. Reading that a scientific theory is a scientific theory does not "burden" it either.

No, the sticker doesn't technically violate the 1st Amendment. But why is there not a sticker for everything else that has holes in it? Why is there not a sticker on every psychology textbook that says "We think this is the way the brain works, but honestly a lot of this is best guess"? Why is there not a sticker on every geometry textbook that says "We think this is the way geometry works, but keep in mind that 'pi' is just a theory and that our understanding of it is at best imprecise"? What is there not a sticker on every American history textbook that says "This is just one version of American history, and therefore is a politically motivated book"?

Why single out science? Why? What makes evolution more controversial than anything else? And keep in mind, the anti-evolution people have decided to attack evolution using empiricism (just as DMZ has done in this thread). If they're going to do that, they will need to apply that newfound critical acumen everywhere they can lest they be myopic bullies.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by dmz
Man is a religious creature, not a political creature.

You seem to be assuming that religion and politics are different things. They're not, and the founding fathers knew this.

[dmz]

Originally posted by midwinter
You seem to be assuming that religion and politics are different things. They're not, and the founding fathers knew this.


I don't mean it in that way, I mean political as in 'order' or 'structure' -- that man's problem is not a lack of political ordering, or regulaiton, but moral.

[hardeeharhar]

Mankind doesn't have a problem.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by dmz
I don't mean it in that way, I mean political as in 'order' or 'structure' -- that man's problem is not a lack of political ordering, or regulaiton, but moral.

And again, I'm saying that there's no difference between these two things.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by midwinter
That wasn't my point. My point was that the religious response to evolution is part and parcel of the general religious rejection of all "enlightenment" when new information challenges religious doctrine. The people attacking Darwin since 1858 are the same people who attacked every major scientific advancement in the history of mankind. I was simply pointing out that enlightenment is terrifying and that it always has been, because it usually threatens firmly established worldviews and authorities.

I would have thought those people from 1858 would have died by now.:D I'm going on whatever health program they are using.

You see it as a rejection of all enlightenment by religious folks. However there are other parties that don't buy into evolution on from other areas as well. Lots of leftist thinking basically is supposed to ignore or denounce a genetic nature or presuppositions that come from it. There was a thread about that here not to long ago. I've teased and tangled with this a bit myself around here. If an Islamic country forces an arranged marriage of a woman who must then involuntarily give birth to ten children in that marriage while we allow voting, education, etc and produce no children, which is "fittest" from an evolutionary standpoint. We obviously know which we considered to be enlightned. Additionally much enlightenment thought flowed out of religious thinking, so it really isn't fair to condemn say, Martin Luther when his thinking later helped along say, Marx.

Additionally, there are people who are religious who believe in evolution. However there are people who believe evolution the stake in the ground for naturalism. Thus any attack on evolution becomes an attack on their entire worldview, and you can expect that they will fallibly defend even the weak or unexplainable aspects of evolution. Perhaps even to the harm of the theory being further refined. The attack doesn't even have to be to discredit evolution, but the point is that they treat it as more than a theory. They treat it as a central tenent to their belief system.

No, the sticker doesn't technically violate the 1st Amendment. But why is there not a sticker for everything else that has holes in it? Why is there not a sticker on every psychology textbook that says "We think this is the way the brain works, but honestly a lot of this is best guess"? Why is there not a sticker on every geometry textbook that says "We think this is the way geometry works, but keep in mind that 'pi' is just a theory and that our understanding of it is at best imprecise"? What is there not a sticker on every American history textbook that says "This is just one version of American history, and therefore is a politically motivated book"?

Well then technically, the ruling is shit. Bad outcomes are not okay because of good intentions. We are talking about an "establishment" of religion so thin, that merely defining what a theory is becomes a religious attack. Think hard on that for a minute Mid, do you really want such thinking in our law even if it something with which you happen to agree? If I point out that abortion stops a beating heart, does that become a hateful gender slur? If I mention that the prison population is a certain percentage black, does that become a racist diatribe?

This is why such thinking about intent is so dangerous. The words can no longer be free because we know the thinking behind them should not be. Forget yelling fire in a theater, what is your intent in viewing the movie? Perhaps you should be arrested before you walk into the lobby.

Also what makes you think the "sticker" arguments you mention don't happen right now? What also makes you think teacher's don't speak such disclaimers as you mentioned above as well regarding versions of history? Look into any state textbook adoption and you will see all the arguments you have just put forth. They are usually resolved at that level, but sometimes they still persist on. Sometimes additional books are added to address the concerns. Othertimes disclaimers or sort of sidebar discussions within the books themselves. These things do go on in other fields and evolution should not be above these discussions.

Why single out science? Why? What makes evolution more controversial than anything else? And keep in mind, the anti-evolution people have decided to attack evolution using empiricism (just as DMZ has done in this thread). If they're going to do that, they will need to apply that newfound critical acumen everywhere they can lest they be myopic bullies.

Science is not singled out by any measure. It was in this one particular case in part because someone took the district to court over said sticker. However the other books could all have stickers exactly as you mentioned above and we wouldn't know unless someone sued over it. In my class we read the story of Sadako (http://www.sadako.org/sadakostory.htm) Sasaki which would be seen by some as very sympathetic to the Japanese with regard to what actions were undertaken to end WWII. No one sued over it. I personally love the story. However I do know that displays that took similar positions at the Smithsonian were sued and altered for example.

So basically who gets singled out is based off who sued. Michael Newdow has repeatedly sued regarding religion and public events, from the pledge to the inaugural prayer. He is "singling out" issues by suing, same is everyone else. It is what you do in a country of laws. The pen makes might, not the sword.

Nick

[dmz]

Originally posted by midwinter
And again, I'm saying that there's no difference between these two things.


Well, whatever you do, don't tell the communists.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Man is not a religious creature. Religion requires the belief in a god. A child will not believe in a god unless he is told there is one. This is pretty off-topic, but are you sure about this? Why did the first religions come into being? Why is almost every culture religious in one way or another?

I think people are religious by nature. People try to explain things they don't understand, and a natural explanation is to assume that some type of human-like power makes things happen in the world. Child psychologists talk about chldrens' "animism" - how children believe that everything is guided by intelligent or at least motivated forces.

But that's only regarding God. I also think people have a natural inclination to make moral rules, to congregate together, and to think of the spiritual/infinite: all the elements of religion. It's overdetermined.

Children are obviously taught specific incarnations of religions that conform to the culture they happened to be raised in. But I think left alone, people would come up with their own religions every single time.

[Stoo]

Make no mistake, like Islam with the Quran, there is no possibility of an intelligent and informed discussion concerning evolution with an evolutionist.

To paraphrase: there are no rational Muslims or evolutionists. This is a poor generalisation about those who disagree with you.

It might include admissions that the fossil record is lacking any direct evidence of intermediate forms. And that this might mean there were none.

Everything is an intermediate form (except maybe the genus homo). Evolution itself doesn't have a destination.

It explains about as well as looking at the horizon and claiming the earth is flat.

Surely the existance of a horizon invalidates the flat Earth hypothesis, or is that not what you meant?

pillaging stories of the ancients sun-god mythology.

MarcUK, you're late. I thought this thread was missing a certain je ne sais quoi. ;)

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by BRussell
This is pretty off-topic, but are you sure about this? Why did the first religions come into being? Why is almost every culture religious in one way or another?

I think people are religious by nature. People try to explain things they don't understand, and a natural explanation is to assume that some type of human-like power makes things happen in the world. Child psychologists talk about chldrens' "animism" - how children believe that everything is guided by intelligent or at least motivated forces.

But that's only regarding God. I also think people have a natural inclination to make moral rules, to congregate together, and to think of the spiritual/infinite: all the elements of religion. It's overdetermined.

Children are obviously taught specific incarnations of religions that conform to the culture they happened to be raised in. But I think left alone, people would come up with their own religions every single time.

What did you do in your post? You went from curiosity to god. Adults also give life to things which are inanimate in their descriptions -- my colleague the other day said that the reaction she was working up didn't want to do such and such. I think what child psychologists are observing is an innate aspect of describing the world -- what we fall back upon when the language we are using fails to give us the proper vocabulary. I poked fun of the colleague and she didn't understand -- perhaps these psychologists are just failing to see what they see in the children in themselves...

The leap from curiosity to god is not an obvious one -- natural history tells us it occurred and so be it, but given a history free human population there is no guarantee that they will attempt to make things easier on themselves by assuming a god rather than saying that there is no answer known. Considerations of the "infinite," are reasonably new in terms of human populations; if we look at the structures of the polytheistic religions, Gods were simply humans with incredible powers (they were stuck on earth, there was no conception of infinite -- there was an afterlife however).

What I will give you is that people are innately curious, and attempt to explain things in some manner to themselves and possibly to others. Congregations of groups of people don't require conceptions of god -- we see social animals and do not suppose they have gods because we intuitively know it isn't necessary for power structures and social structures to exist.

Morality isn't religion, and any claim to the contrary is just a continuation of the lie that a-religious people cannot make moral (or more aptly ethical) decisions.

[dmz]

Originally posted by Stoo
To paraphrase: there are no rational Muslims or evolutionists. This is a poor generalisation about those who disagree with you.


no, no, (and no)

I think it is a case of being fickle. With Isam you easily take your life in your hands to publish critcism Quran, higher or otherwise.

[PeePeeSee]

Originally posted by trumptman
I would have thought those people from 1858 would have died by now.:D I'm going on whatever health program they are using.

Yeah, you would think that those people would have died out by now - so did I.


Originally posted by trumptman
Well then technically, the ruling is shit. Bad outcomes are not okay because of good intentions. We are talking about an "establishment" of religion so thin, that merely defining what a theory is becomes a religious attack. Think hard on that for a minute Mid, do you really want such thinking in our law even if it something with which you happen to agree? If I point out that abortion stops a beating heart, does that become a hateful gender slur? If I mention that the prison population is a certain percentage black, does that become a racist diatribe?

This is why such thinking about intent is so dangerous. The words can no longer be free because we know the thinking behind them should not be. Forget yelling fire in a theater, what is your intent in viewing the movie? Perhaps you should be arrested before you walk into the lobby.

No - the sticker itself isn't the point - the point is - INTENT of said act/sticker. The judge saw that the intent of these stickers were purely for religious reasons and nothing more. Walking into a lobby where someone could possibly scream fire and getting 2,000 people to sign a petition to get the school board to add in stickers to a book of theories that says that a certain theory which is one of controversy for the most part with religious types is a far cry from being the same thing. One is a possibility with no act and one is an act with intenet(motive). They aren't the same.

Originally posted by trumptman
Science is not singled out by any measure. It was in this one particular case in part because someone took the district to court over said sticker. However the other books could all have stickers exactly as you mentioned above and we wouldn't know unless someone sued over it. In my class we read the story of Sadako (http://www.sadako.org/sadakostory.htm) Sasaki which would be seen by some as very sympathetic to the Japanese with regard to what actions were undertaken to end WWII. No one sued over it. I personally love the story. However I do know that displays that took similar positions at the Smithsonian were sued and altered for example.

So basically who gets singled out is based off who sued. Michael Newdow has repeatedly sued regarding religion and public events, from the pledge to the inaugural prayer. He is "singling out" issues by suing, same is everyone else. It is what you do in a country of laws. The pen makes might, not the sword.

Nick

Yes all the other books may very well have stickers in them - but they might all be perfectly fine, we don't know anything at all about any kind of other sticker, they could be there for perfectly legit reasons such as factual errors - we can't deal with what if and maybe all we have is this case.

Science was singled out in this case by people with religious intent and the school board was wrong for doing so. They might be right in all the other cases but in this one they were wrong.

[shetline]

Originally posted by trumptman
Well then technically, the ruling is shit. Bad outcomes are not okay because of good intentions. We are talking about an "establishment" of religion so thin, that merely defining what a theory is becomes a religious attack. Think hard on that for a minute Mid, do you really want such thinking in our law even if it something with which you happen to agree? If I point out that abortion stops a beating heart, does that become a hateful gender slur? If I mention that the prison population is a certain percentage black, does that become a racist diatribe?

This is why such thinking about intent is so dangerous. The words can no longer be free because we know the thinking behind them should not be. Forget yelling fire in a theater, what is your intent in viewing the movie? Perhaps you should be arrested before you walk into the lobby.
It's funny how every example you give is of someone saying or doing something in the role of a private citizen.

What is it that you don't get about the difference between a ruling regarding what a school board member can do as a school board member, and what a private citizen can do as a private citizen?

You warn me about "slippery slope" reasoning, yet here you go doing the same, except there isn't much of a slope and there's a big fence in the middle of it.

If people want to buy their own private copies of school textbooks and put warning stickers on them, fine. If students or their parents want to put their own non-damaging, completely removable warning stickers on school books, and remove them at the end of the school year when it's time to turn the books back in, fine.

But public school teachers placing these particular warning labels, and only selectively doing so on texts dealing with evolution? School board members ordering this to be done? No. I'm not okay with that, and quite happy if this ruling produces a "chilling effect" on anyone acting in a government-sponsored role with such designs in mind.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
What did you do in your post? You went from curiosity to god. I'm not talking just about curiosity, though I agree that's the beginning of it. But I'm talking about a particular way of resolving that curiosity. You're right, it's not just 5-year-olds. Adults anthropomorphize all the time too. It's natural. We know ourselves best, and so we explain things in our own terms.

I suppose in one way, that's all religion is - the anthropomor... uh... phication of the world around us. Why does the sun rise? Because a God in a chariot pulls it out. How did people come into being? Because a God made us.

The way I see it, religion was really just early science, in that it was an attempt to explain things. As we've gotten better at science, religion has receded in importance. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Enlightenment that was at the foundation of the American revolution resulted in a government that separated itself from religion.

If that's true, then scientific knowledge is a pre-requisite for getting past religion, and so I'd argue that unless that knowledge is there, people will revert back to religion. I suppose I believe the opposite of what you seem to be saying. You're saying that religion is learned/culturally transmitted, and I'm saying that religion is really innate, and scientific knowledge is what is learned and culturally transmitted.

[Stoo]

I think it is a case of being fickle. With Isam you easily take your life in your hands to publish critcism Quran, higher or otherwise.

The existance of some who disagree vehemently does not preclude the existance of more reasonable people. To say that there is "no possibility of informed discussion" is a gross generalisation in both of these topics. (With such preconceptions, perhaps it isn't always the other party that impeds intelligent discussions :p).

[hardeeharhar]

Science isn't about knowledge -- its a conceptual approach to the world around us -- it has allowed humanity to say we don't know.

Our science rose as a foil to religion (and in some parts of the world in conjunction with it -- mostly asia), in that religion offered no means of predicting events which clearly were predictable. Aristotle gave western science the theory of the atom, which was completely outside of the sphere of anything religious (and indeed any aspect of the observable at the time). He reasoned it. That reasoning is the core of science and it is something religion is devoid of. Knowledge isn't necessary for reason to give us science.

Edit: And it is ok to disagree with me. There is no way to prove either of our conjectures...

[timmy o'tool]

In most science textbooks I have been exposed to the first chapter talks about the scientific method. If the teacher does a good job then the students will know that nothing in science is set in stone. We simply believe something based upon the evidence until new evidence comes to light then we alter our beliefs. Simply explaining this to the students makes the sticker somewhat unnecessary, unless you have a political/religious agenda. These agendas have no place in the classroom. From what I've read this may or may not be the reason the judge ruled the way he did, but for whatever reason the end result was right. Keep politics/religion out the classrooms (unless it is a class about religion or politics, of course)

[PeePeeSee]

http://img117.exs.cx/img117/4562/streeter2yw.gif

[midwinter]

Originally posted by dmz
Well, whatever you do, don't tell the communists.

You think Marx didn't understand that religion and politics are the same thing?

[dmz]

Originally posted by Stoo
The existance of some who disagree vehemently does not preclude the existance of more reasonable people. To say that there is "no possibility of informed discussion" is a gross generalisation in both of these topics. (With such preconceptions, perhaps it isn't always the other party that impeds intelligent discussions :p).


I'll change that 'no' to 'little' -- (but only if I can have a bodygaurd)


And also, Stoo in my experience you can't get too far in a discussion with an evolutionist before they start using words like "stupid", "fundie" and "the Spanish inquisition....."

wait!



http://www.leyland25.freeserve.co.uk/monty/spanish.gif

[dmz]

Originally posted by midwinter
You think Marx didn't understand that religion and politics are the same thing?


Political order to solve man's problems was really the main thrust of that sort of thinking -- that if you simply provided the right environment, you could achive a "workers paradise". In the end the moral problems wouldn't go away, and coupled with the very political order that was supposed to eliminate them, these factors succeeded in bringing down those sorts of political systems.

[Stoo]

and "the Spanish inquisition....."

Now I wasn't expecting that. :wow:

[shetline]

Don't force me to bring out...

http://www.johnlewis.com/jl_assets/Product/230136353.jpg

The soft cushions! Or <shudder> worse...

http://www.wrightupholstery.co.uk/gfx/front_pic.jpg

The comfy chair! :wow:

[MarcUK]

My chat last night with a Creationist.

"Marc, you know there are so many holes in the theory of evolution"

"Stupid Fundie, what is this the spanish Inquisition?"

"You'll burn in hell, your children are devils, you need exorcism, cast out Satan, you're blind, deceived by Satan, you're immoral, perverted, child molester, heretic, satanist, product of evil, love Jesus, you're in denial, dont fight the light, liberal!"

[Carson O'Genic]

Originally posted by dmz
This isn't the government, it is the descion of some 2000 people to direct (very minor directing) their children's education through participation in a local school board. This is not their governance acting, it is people coming together in a peaceful democratic process to make changes in the government. Their decsion was invalidated by the government at the final, Federal, level ONLY because their motivations were judged to be invalid --- motivations that are now officially forbidden to be used in the future. They are now second-class citizens, who may not paritcipate in Democracy at the school-board level.


They have bound the consciences of these people, and that is very disturbing.

You seem to easily forget that this is a Biology class. If in biology you can't teach what the consensus position of biologists is, then way teach it? Shall we have math without arabic numerals? How about art without the primary colors?

[dmz]

Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
You seem to easily forget that this is a Biology class. If in biology you can't teach what the consensus position of biologists is, then way teach it? Shall we have math without arabic numerals? How about art without the primary colors?


I think that parents should be able to work within the law to shape their children's eduation -- and these people did. They attempted to do this, and put a sticker on a textbook that would be legal, except for the fact that their consciences were not 'correct'.

This is the real issue.

(To equate the statement that evolution is an untested theory, to abandoning the primary colors is not an accurate analogy.)

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by dmz
I think that parents should be able to work within the law to shape their children's eduation -- and these people did. They attempted to do this, and put a sticker on a textbook that would be legal, except for the fact that their consciences were not 'correct'.

This is the real issue.

(To equate the statement that evolution is an untested theory, to abandoning the primary colors is not an accurate analogy.)

Parents should be allowed to shape their children's education and not the education of other children. If a parent wants to tell their child that evolution and only evolution is a crock of shit, they are free to do so, but I don't want those same parents telling my children that they should think critically about evolution in particular (biasing them against that theory especially). Parents have full access to their children throughout their development much more than the educational system; if parents really want to teach their children that evolution and its proponents are the spawn of satan, the home is the perfect place for doing so. Your argument is specious.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Parents should be allowed to shape their children's education and not the education of other children.

Perhaps we should all just home school then? Since we cannot all agree...perhaps that is the best approach.

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
but I don't want those same parents telling my children that they should think critically

That about says it all I think. :)

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
if parents really want to teach their children that evolution and its proponents are the spawn of satan,

Just so everyone is clear...the sticker was nowhere in the vicinity of this statement.

[dmz]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Parents should be allowed to shape their children's education and not the education of other children. If a parent wants to tell their child that evolution and only evolution is a crock of shit, they are free to do so, but I don't want those same parents telling my children that they should think critically about evolution in particular (biasing them against that theory especially). Parents have full access to their children throughout their development much more than the educational system; if parents really want to teach their children that evolution and its proponents are the spawn of satan, the home is the perfect place for doing so. Your argument is specious.

No, it's not specious, just unwanted.

The school board and other handles are there as a democratic process to shape the direction of each local school's direction. At the moment you can make contributions, but only with state-approved motivations.

[hardeeharhar]

Chris,

Come on. Parents almost always add to the curriculum that a school provides without having to resort to home schooling -- we teach children that all cultures should be respected, but their are children who are told by their parents that that isn't the case etc etc. Cultural conflict with curriculum is non-issue in our system because we expect, rationally, that parents have a greater influence on their children than a teacher. As far as what my children may or may not think critically about is not for me or you or anyone else to say but themselves. As far as my last statement is concerned, what do people who want these modifiers added tell their children about people who support evolution and the theory itself? Perhaps a bit of hyperbole was thrown in to make this (boring) discussion a little more lively, eh? English isn't the world's best language for artful expressions so it takes a lot to make it interesting.

So there :P.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by dmz
No, it's not specious, just unwanted.

The school board and other handles are there as a democratic process to shape the direction of each local school's direction. At the moment you can make contributions, but only with state-approved motivations.

Or rather state-approved legal logic.

Edit: I should also state that curriculum guidelines are laid out by school boards, but there is no way for the school board to micromanage what curriculum is actually taught. Teachers aren't automatons yet.

[Harald]

Originally posted by dmz

To equate the statement that evolution is an untested theory, to abandoning the primary colors is not an accurate analogy.

To state that evolution is an untested theory would also, of course, be wrong.

[dmz]

Originally posted by Harald
To state that evolution is an untested theory would also, of course, be wrong.


And that is a whole other thread, if not forum.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Mods-- since the thread starter is largely a "controversial" dude around here, can we get a disclaimer on every one of Chris Cuilla's posts, instructing us to "think critically" about what he has to say and reminding us that it's "only his opinion?" I think he would benefit from a first-hand experience of marginalization. :)

No problem here. Won't feel "marginalized" at all. Not that insecure.

:p


EDIT: Actually...that might elevate the level of debate that we sometimes see.

;)

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Mods-- since the thread starter is largely a "controversial" dude around here, can we get a disclaimer on every one of Chris Cuilla's posts, instructing us to "think critically" about what he has to say and reminding us that it's "only his opinion?" I think he would benefit from a first-hand experience of marginalization. :)

Oh...and if you are trying to draw some kind of parallel to the book sticker, it is a poor one (at best). This is a forum that (almost) everyone who participates knows and expects opinions to be expressed. We're all here shouting our opinions from our soap boxes. Sometimes things are logical and reasoned. Sometimes not. Sometimes there are real, live, actual facts. Sometimes not. A science book, by comparison, is considered (by many) to be a source of incontrovertible facts (rightly or wrongly). While we realize it should not be...that all of these things are "theories"...the reality is in the context and presentation. As I have said before (in this thread)...something out there (whether the books themselves or not) has an awful lot of people believing that evolution is an unquestionable, irrefutable, proven fact.

[MarcUK]

The Bible, by comparison, is considered (by many) to be a source of incontrovertible truth (rightly or wrongly). While we realize it should not be...that all of these things are pilfered from previous religious beliefs of sunworship...the reality is in the context and presentation. As I have said before (in this thread)...desperate need out there (whether the books themselves or not) has an awful lot of people believing that the bible is an unquestionable, irrefutable, proven fact.

:D

[hardeeharhar]

Thanks, MarcUK, I was going to do that.

Here we have the leaders of the fields of science telling us from on high that all theories should be understood to be theories -- testable, supportable, but often not provable.

And here we have the leaders of religious faith telling us from on high that everything in their little books should be taken as literal facts.

Which is more open minded, which is likely to lead to a greater understanding of the world?

[rageous]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
but I don't want those same parents telling my children that they should think critically


That about says it all I think. :)

What a halfassed attempt by you to completely take this out of context. Perhaps you should have finished the quote before utterly misrepresenting it? Allow me:

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
but I don't want those same parents telling my children that they should think critically about evolution in particular (biasing them against that theory especially).

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by rageous
What a halfassed attempt by you to completely take this out of context. Perhaps you should have finished the quote before utterly misrepresenting it? Allow me:

Missed the smiley huh?

( it's so much fun to so easily piss someone off when you're just joking )

[rageous]

And we all know it's completely acceptable to lie and misrepresent, so long as we do it with a smile on our face (or in our post).

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by rageous
And we all know it's completely acceptable to lie and misrepresent, so long as we do it with a smile on our face (or in our post).

Man I was JUST ribbing you. Anyone here can see your original post if they want to (right above mine). Give it a rest.

[rageous]

I didn't make the orignal post you chose to doctor.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by rageous
I didn't make the orignal post you chose to doctor.

Whatever...

:rolleyes:

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by rageous
And we all know it's completely acceptable to lie and misrepresent, so long as we do it with a smile on our face (or in our post).

Its only OK to lie and misrepresent, if you're doing it for the favour of God.

[rageous]

:lol: @ Marc

[hardeeharhar]

Yeah, I think Chris' mistrepresentation of my statement was pissy. But that is par for the course here (and it was an easy target that I was aware of while I wrote the statement).

In any event, thanks for the defense guys...

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by giant
:no: <- @ this whole thread.

Personally, the only reason I care about the morons who support this stuff is because the stupider evangelical fundamentalists and their offspring are, the more they would drag down the quality of life here, economically.

You know giant your post here is highly uncalled for.

I consider myself very liberal and yet it is quite a wonder for me to understand the almost "racist" nature of your statments as well as those of some others here.

I mean take your words "evangelical fundamentalists" and now pretend you are a backwards red neck and for you "evangelical fundamentalists" is your "N" word for African Americans reserved instead to ID those who do not buy completely into the theory of evolution.

Tell me such posts are not hate speech.

Fellowship

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by dmz
I think Chris Cuilla is right on this one, evolution has so many drop outs, flaws, and contradictions, that the conversation needs to shif away from "science is sure to answer this in the future" to "hey, maybe some superintelligent being is responsible".


NO WAY!! You can't do that ! :wow:

How dare you suggest something so whack!! ;) :lol:

Fellows

[rageous]

Originally posted by Fellowship
You know giant your post here is highly uncalled for.

I consider myself very liberal and yet it is quite a wonder for me to understand the almost "racist" nature of your statments as well as those of some others here.

racist (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=racist)?

no.

you could argue hate speech, but racist (or "almost" racist) is a word too often used and apparently totally misunderstood and wrongly applied these days.

[9secondko]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
The entire purpose of the ruling was that the legal system went out of its way to appease Christians on this issue. That is unconstitutional.

Actually, every school should be mandated to put such warning labels on anything to do with the theory of evolution. There are really only two origin models that have even a smack of science to them: Creation by design or evolution by chance and time.

Evolution is not science. It is merely theory. Whenever anything is challenged or even outright proven to be a lie in the supposed support for the theory ('Lucy', 'Piltdown Man', etc.. have all proven to be false. Lucy was a monkey and piltdown (dunno if spelling is correct) was concosted entirely out of a pigs tooth. there were a group of people in one arrea who hunched over. Later it was discovered that they had some epidemic called "rickets"?(apelling?). Anyway, there is still nothing even close to resembling a 'missing link'.

Evolution is still nothing more than a theory with zilch to back it up. Here we have a judge who will say anyone with an open mind had better only keep it open to evolution by endorsing a theory as something other than by forcing a non-threatining sticker to be removed-a sticker that encourages an OPEN MIND (isn't that something the evolutionsists try to do to make Christians look into evolution-The atheists cannot stand it when they are told to do the same, so they go to court to have such freedoms taken away. That same ruling logicaly should have proposed Creation teaching alongside Evolution teaching.

Consider the scientific method. We certainly to not see macroevolution taking place today (ie: one species changing into another completely different species-as this is what evolutionism purports, be it Darwinian, Steven Jay Goulds version, or otherwise). It cannot be observed in any way, shape, or form and therefore, it is not applicable to the scientific method. Therefore, it is not science, but a mere theory and a poor one at that. Zero scientific evidence supports it: Zero. Not the fossil record, not geology, not the scientific method, nothing. It is only a theory originated by some atheists a long time ago to try to explain the world without God in the picture. Charles Darwins grandfather was a staunch atheist and evolutionist and passed this on to him. Charles Darwin himself in 'Origin of the Species' talks about how impossible the human eye could have evolved and how it had to be designed-right before he devotes the next chapter fantacizing about how it COULD probably have happened. The fossil record shows support for biblical creation and even many other biblical events including a world-wide flood. In fact, it is interesting that the Bible has yet to be proven wrong in its archaelogical science. The Bible also told us the the earth revolves around the sun - something "science" was slow to catch up on.

Charles Darwins evolutionism has so many holes, the mainstream scientific community has rejected it, coming up with some face-saving line like "we know evolution happened, but we don't know how". Excuse me, but isn't evolution supposed to be the "HOW" of how the universe became and how you and I got here. That is the most circular reasoning in the world. What about the geolocial dating in our school texts? You ask how does one know why bones in such and such a strata belong to the Jurassic period or the Paleolithic era. You will be told, because they were found in such and such a strata and belong to such and such a creature. But then you ask "how do you know that such creature lived in the Paleolithic era? You are told, because their bones are found in such and such a strata. AAHHG! Circular reasoning again! This is because it is based on a theory where certain creatures had a chance, died out, changed to other kinds, died out, and so on, until you have us here today. Not science, but a theory and a weak one at that.

Consider even the gasses that supposedly caused a big kablooey that somehow life and good things came about because of it. How did the gasses get there? Where did the space come from. this all points to eternity past. The only teaching that addresses this is also the Bible. It says God created something from nothing. Not gasses or space, but nothing. Then the bible speaks of a world wide flood and many events and civilizations that are supported by fossil record and civilizaiton excavations. Eternity is so impossible to comprehend, especially eternity past, not to mention future, that many decide to turn the mind off. Evolutionism throws millions and billions and gazillions of years at it to make it seem somehow feasible. Great. Even though science is now showing the earth to be anywhere from 30,000 to 10,000 years old. But again, what about the intitial contents of the universe? What about the gas (I know, sounds odd) that supposedly caused the big bang? Where did that come from, and please odnt say millions of years, because that would mean that something existed before that. What? How? Can you prove it? The answers, if they will be true are: We dont know, we dont know and no.

Therfore, what is so wrong about a sticker that says in essence: "evolution is a theory and not fact. Keep an open mind?" The answer: Nothing. It is only a stab at religious freedom. Anything to do with religion, whether scienifically true or plausible is to be banished from the public, while equally offensive, less scientific, anti-god agenda'd evolutionism is thrown in everyone's face, even no longer to the point of encouraging an open mind, but court-ordering it to be viewed as fact. this is another tragic day for America.

[Bygimis Turug VIII]

Originally posted by 9secondko
[B]There are really only two origin models that have even a smack of science to them: Creation by design or evolution by chance and time.

Evolution by Chance and Time is a theory with very few (if any) supporters. A more mainstream theory explaining evolution is evolution through natural selection. There are many fine books on this theory I suggest reading up on it.

Evolution is not science. It is merely theory.

Theories are what science is made of so this makes very little sense. Gravity is a theory not science? No - it is a scientific theory.

Anyway, there is still nothing even close to resembling a 'missing link'.

On the contary there are thousands of links found in the fossel record, once a link is found it is no longer missing.

Evolution is still nothing more than a theory with zilch to back it up.

There is a large amount of supporting evidence of evolution by natural selection, and this is available in many quality peer reviewed journals.

That same ruling logicaly should have proposed Creation teaching alongside Evolution teaching.

Firstly Evolution by Natural Selection isn't a theory to explain the creation of life. That is a different area of Sceince. Christian Creationism is not a scientific theory at all - this is not a critism of it - there are many things that are not science and this is one of them. Why not teach Christian Creationism in a RELIGIOUS STUDIES lesson? Then you can have the kids look at a range of different religion creation stories?

It is only a theory originated by some atheists a long time ago to try to explain the world without God in the picture.

The theory of evolution by natural selection says nothing at all about the existance of god. It is perfectly possible to be Christian, Muslim, Hindu etc and be a scientist working in the field and using the theory for practical results.

Charles Darwins evolutionism has so many holes, the mainstream scientific community has rejected it

I am not sure what planet you come from if you think that the mainstream scientific community has rejected the theory of evolution by natural selection. No one else has a good hypothesis right now, let alone a fact backed theory.

coming up with some face-saving line like "we know evolution happened, but we don't know how". Excuse me, but isn't evolution supposed to be the "HOW" of how the universe became and how you and I got here.

Why, why, why try to comment about something you clearly know nothing about.

Evolution is NOT supposed to be the "HOW" of how the universe became. This statement alone is laughable! The origins of the universe are a matter studied by cosmologists and astronomers. Darwins theory is of the ORIGIN of SPECIES.

What about the gas (I know, sounds odd) that supposedly caused the big bang?

Gas starting the big bang? LOL! Its kind of sad actually, it seems you have been presented with a very false view of science and the developments of the last hundred years or so.

[dmz]

actually piltdown man was made from various bones as a deliberate fraud, IIRC nebraska man was constructed from a single pigs tooth

[groverat]

This focus on the popular frauds is textbook use of the straw man logical fallacy.

Not unexpected.

[dmz]

defintly off-topic, but I was just correcting another poster's post


Sadly, though, the number of antiquated/falsified/disproved evolutionary ideas found textbooks today is startling.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by dmz
defintly off-topic, but I was just correcting another poster's post


Sadly, though, the number of antiquated/falsified/disproved evolutionary ideas found textbooks today is startling.
Startle me. Let's see them.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Startle me. Let's see them.

I think he's referring to this piece of ancient Babylonian Astrotheological text that goes like this....

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters....."

[dmz]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Startle me. Let's see them.

This isn't up to much debate, evolutionary ideas of horse evolution, androgeny, etc are things that show up years after no one the evolution community believes them.

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v2i1e.htm

I don't have time for this, just goole it.

more later

[9secondko]

Originally posted by Bygimis Turug VIII
Evolution by Chance and Time is a theory with very few (if any) supporters. A more mainstream theory explaining evolution is evolution through natural selection. There are many fine books on this theory I suggest reading up on it.

-------------------------------------------------
Actually, I have. Much. And where does nature come from for natural selection? You guessed it. Chance and time. Natural selction is Darwinian Evolution. Thank you for proving my point. As a side thought, what in the world were people thinking when they came up with 'natural selection'? Do they really believe that nature is some sentient force that actually 'selects'. And anyway, natural selection is preceeded by chance and time. read up, ol' boy.
--------------------------------------------------

Theories are what science is made of so this makes very little sense. Gravity is a theory not science? No - it is a scientific theory.

--------------------------------------------------

Now this is where I lose faith in the education system. Science is not a theory. Science is proveable again and again. Look up the scientific method. Gravity is proveable. It is a LAW of science. Not a theory. We can prove gravity again and again. Please, if you are going to correct, then CORRECT. Don't display this hole in your scientific understanding.

--------------------------------------------------

On the contary there are thousands of links found in the fossel record, once a link is found it is no longer missing.

--------------------------------------------------

And yet you fail to name even one. Every single prospect has been found to be a fraud at worst and an accidental labeling at best. They still refer to the missing link as 'missing' in case you really did not know.

--------------------------------------------------

There is a large amount of supporting evidence of evolution by natural selection, and this is available in many quality peer reviewed journals.

--------------------------------------------------

I am familiar with a few science journals, although they are quite the chore to get through very much. Mostly, they contain thoughts, theories, hopes, and every now and then, a truly great scientific breakthrough. Evolution by natural selection is still held to by a minority of humanists-evolutionists (yet sincerely without any of the 'supporting evidence' you mention-unless you count the circuar reasoning of the daitng of Jurassic periods and suchz0, but the majority have actually had the integrity to admit wrong where the science was inaccurate. Therefor, Darwinian Evolution has largely been abandoned. See any Steven Jay Gould article for this.

--------------------------------------------------

Firstly Evolution by Natural Selection isn't a theory to explain the creation of life. That is a different area of Sceince. Christian Creationism is not a scientific theory at all - this is not a critism of it - there are many things that are not science and this is one of them. Why not teach Christian Creationism in a RELIGIOUS STUDIES lesson? Then you can have the kids look at a range of different religion creation stories?

--------------------------------------------------

The teaching of Creation by design is at least as scientific as the teaching of any form of evolution - especially natural selction (due to absolutely zero evidence to support it) Evolution is a theory that requires faith to believe in. There is no scientific proof, We do not see it happening to day and no part of the scientific method can be applied to it. That is why it is aptly titled a THEORY. If Creation should be relegated to religious only studies, then Evolution should be relgated to Atheist only studies. Neither belief system can be proven or even called science. They are thoeries. There is the creation model and the evolutionism model. There are scientific aspects that can be applied to each, such as archaeology, geology and paleontology. In each case, there is more evidence that supports the creation model. Evolutionists always jump the gun on any finding, only to have to admit fraud and/or innocent inaccuracy afterward. As far as Creatin as religion-only, this is where I really wonder if people like you care about the truth or only pet theories. If the Bible says God created, and science seems to back it up, then it should be seriously looked at in a scientific all-inclusive way. Not relegated to anything-but-the-school. Instead, we have evolution shoved down out throats without even a shred of true evidence (sure there is evidence-and it turned out to be lies-why do we trust this theory any more?), when it should be looked at at least as skeptically as the atheists look at Creation. God and science are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the Bible is so full of science, that the scientific community had to play catch up in the eras of Galileo and Columbus. That says a lot. In fact, to understand where the idea of seperating the Biblical account of creation or anything else for that matter is to look back at the founders of evolutionary theory. You will find that every early proponent launched into the matter with a very atheistic BIAS. It had nothing to do with science. They just wanted to expalian the possibility of an origin without the Creator. Science had nothing to do with it and still does not to this day. Think for yourself and stop letting the 'it's in a book, so it must be true' mentality rob you of rational thought. In fact, it is entirely possible to explain Creation by design without bringing the Bible into the equation at all.

natural Selection cannot be seperated from chance and time as chance and time are what supposedly created nature(matter and life) itself. One cannot say natural seleciton is true without explaining how nature got here. That is, in essence, trying to explain origins without explaining origins. It is only a diversion tactic at best to try to give the theory more time and credence while some try to figure out a better way to explain it.

-------------------------------------------------

The theory of evolution by natural selection says nothing at all about the existance of god. It is perfectly possible to be Christian, Muslim, Hindu etc and be a scientist working in the field and using the theory for practical results.

-------------------------------------------------
I did not say that evolution says anything about the existenc eof God. In fact that is the point of the theory-to leave God out.

As far as anyone working in the field for practical results goes- there is no such thing. It is only a thoery to try to explain one of lifes most important questions - Where did I come from? - while leaving God out of the picture. It is a theory that tries to tell us where we came from. No RESULTS are ever intended to come from it in any pracitcal way whatsoever other than to say - 'Cool! We came from monkeys then!' Of course, again, with evidence on hte lacking side.

-------------------------------------------------

I am not sure what planet you come from if you think that the mainstream scientific community has rejected the theory of evolution by natural selection. No one else has a good hypothesis right now, let alone a fact backed theory.
-------------------------------------------------

My freind, you simply do not know much aobut this. No one does have a fact-backed theory because one does not exist. Thank you for making my point again. This is precisely what I am saying: Evoluiton is not science, because there are NO facts. It is theory only, and not a very scientific one at that. However, the mainstream scientific community has indeed rejected Darwinian evolution (ie: survival of the fittest-which then, after 'millions and billions of years' becomes an entirely differnet species), because there are zero transitional forms. The main theory now (agian as you have stated, is NOT backed by any fact) is that species 'quantum-leaped' to an entirely new species in one generation. Of course this theory has no factual basis or missing links in the fossil record, but is sure tries to save face for the theory of evolution as a whole-since true scientists have had the integrity to note that there is no support for natural selection. For a statement from someone other than me about darwins theory being in crisis, please read the bottom of the page on this link:

http://www.allaboutscience.org/charles-darwin.htm

----------------------------------------------

Why, why, why try to comment about something you clearly know nothing about.

----------------------------------------------

And I presume you have my educational transcripts? In fact i have had to correct your response to my first post a few times already. Perhaps it is time to answer your own question for yourself. I have studied evolution and Creation for over 12 years now and that is why it is such a passion of mine. I love science, but I loathe false science and pet theories that are constantly pushed in peoples throats by lobbyists with an agenda. Evolution in every theoretical form thus far has either been exposed as fraud, had a black eye, or at best, just did not have any facts to back it up. It is an aheistic belief system. That is all. No science about it. Sure scientists study it and look into the ground and bones and all, but the scientific mehtod is NEVER applied and after all of that wasted funding, we still have no solid, factual answers from the evolutionists.

----------------------------------------------

Evolution is NOT supposed to be the "HOW" of how the universe became. This statement alone is laughable! The origins of the universe are a matter studied by cosmologists and astronomers. Darwins theory is of the ORIGIN of SPECIES.

----------------------------------------------

What is laughable is the constant inaccuracies in your post. The origin of species is the title of the book indeed. However, it does not limit its scope to after life had began. The theory of evolution is the 'HOW' the universe became. And in case it is difficult for you to put two and two together, all species are included in the universe. you cannot have species without universe. Charels Darwin did not invent the evolutionist theory, he only popularized it with his natural selection theory. Now that theory has been torn apart by lack of scientific evidence - zero to be precise.

----------------------------------------------

Gas starting the big bang? LOL! Its kind of sad actually, it seems you have been presented with a very false view of science and the developments of the last hundred years or so.

----------------------------------------------

Again, you startle me with how you post something you have no clue about. look up the big bang on google even and you will see referneces to the gases that supposedly formed the universe. Some web site think they even know what the gases consisted of. These gases are in your textbooks even. unless you have not studied it. If so, then you really should not be taking yourself seriously in this dicsussion. I have had to correct your 'corrections' too much already. I will save future time by telling you now to just search your stuff in google before posting.

Hmm, gases are explosive and that actually seemed to be a plausible theory - until you aske where the gasses came from. As far as the big bang not beign from gas- where are you coming from? It's in your school textbook for crying out loud. Yes I have been presented with a very false view of the eniter origin of life and matter, as have you - it is in the theory of evolutionism. Too bad judges are abusing their power and taking away freedom of speech to promote bad science.

[hardeeharhar]

9secondko,
you are just wrong. on every count.
Nature doesn't come from anywhere, we are observing a universe that has rules that are established -- speed of light being constant, plank's constant, etc etc. Established is a bad word, I should say, because it forces people to conceptualize a point in time where the rules weren't established -- my personal conception is that there isn't an origin of the Universe, it has always existed in some form or another.
You are right, the early conceptions of Darwinian evolution aren't accepted, but neither is the similarly old theory of heat conservation. Theories progress with understanding, much was built on the theories that assume heat conservation -- in fact all of thermodynamics was, and it would be stupid to assume that theories cannot or should not evolve (to use the most appropriate term) or they aren't science. What I can also tell you is that a theory of evolution didn't just pop out of Darwin's ass. He was simply the most widely distributed and read author of a now famous text. There are older theories and there are newer ones -- and each builds upon those before it.
Science is an attempt to describe the observable world with rational explanations. It requires that these explanations are rigorous enough that they can be used to predict things that should be observed and haven't been (this leads to the interesting conjecture that when we get a true theory of everything, we no longer can do science, we can do stamp collecting). Science is the process of reaching these explanations and performing experiments and observations that tests these explanations. Creationism does not make any testable predictions. It is therefore not a science. Evolutionary theory does make testable predictions: for instance, that species that share common physiological traits differ less in their protein sequences and regulation of those proteins than species with less physiological similarities. It also has been useful in determining the specific amino acids necessary for substrate recognition in related proteins. Without a concept of evolution, there would be no concept of related proteins, and without the concept of related proteins drug development against specific isoforms of enzymes would be like shooting Saturn without a concept of gravity. Basically, evolution is an incredibly useful theory that goes beyond the overly debated concept that one species turns into another like that.
Gravity: Einstein's Universal Gravitation Theory is a theory.
You shouldn't trust the internet to provide you with an accurate view of anything. If you want to research the big bang theory -- which btw, has nothing to do with evolution and is as unprovable as your story of genesis -- I would suggest finding a book or three written by the scientists who initially proposed the theory in the 1950's (edit: oops, the Priest who proposed the working model in the 1920's).

As far as God is concerned in all of this: he/she/it isn't. Science, as you said was not a means to get rid of a concept of god. Science was popularized in a time period in which God was conceived as some sort of clock maker that made the universe and let it go, so called deism. It was the Church which forcibly removed itself from that concept of God, and not the Scientist who began attacking religion.

[FormerLurker]

KO:
It's laughable that you would link to this "scientific" website (http://www.allaboutscience.org/common/aboutus.htm) and offer them as an example of "true scientists" who just happen to agree with you about Darwin.

[Bygimis Turug VIII]

Oops. I think I may have fed a troll, but I am not sure...

As a side thought, what in the world were people thinking when they came up with 'natural selection'? Do they really believe that nature is some sentient force that actually 'selects'.


Put a random mix of cats in a snow covered environment. Cats with white hair, and longer hair will do better - they will be more likely to survive long enough to breed. There children will be more likely to have longer, whiter hair. That is natural selection - there is no need for a sentient force, and it does not mean that white haired cats are in some way superior in a absolute sense.

Put the same cats in a hot, arid environment and different cats will prosper. Darwins theory was produced to try to explain why he found so many similar, but slightly different species.


Now this is where I lose faith in the education system. Science is not a theory. Science is proveable again and again. Look up the scientific method. Gravity is proveable. It is a LAW of science. Not a theory. We can prove gravity again and again. Please, if you are going to correct, then CORRECT. Don't display this hole in your scientific understanding.


You will find that my understanding of Hypothesis, Theory and Law is at good agrement with the scientific comunity.

(quoting)
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.
(finished quoting)


I am familiar with a few science journals, although they are quite the chore to get through very much.


No one said that science was easy.


Evolution by natural selection is still held to by a minority of humanists-evolutionists


Do you mean that the majority of humanists-evolutionists do not hold to evolution by natural selection? As I have never met a humanist-evolutionist I will have to take your word for it.


Therefor, Darwinian Evolution has largely been abandoned.


In red state USA maybe.


There is no scientific proof, We do not see it happening to day and no part of the scientific method can be applied to it. That is why it is aptly titled a THEORY.


See above for the scientific meaning of the word theory.


If Creation should be relegated to religious only studies, then Evolution should be relgated to Atheist only studies.


The vast majority of religious people have no problem with evolution, cosmology or science at all! The majority of people working in science world wide are not athiests!


Neither belief system can be proven or even called science. They are thoeries. There is the creation model and the evolutionism model.


Creationism is not a theory in a scientific sense, or even a testable hypothesis. It just says 'things are like this becomes someone just made them like that'. Good thing people didn't say that when investigating materials or we would no nothing of molecular science or the structure of atoms.

There are scientific aspects that can be applied to each, such as archaeology, geology and paleontology. In each case, there is more evidence that supports the creation model.

You think that Geology supports young earth creationism? Maybe in the same way that Geography suppoorts flat earthism.


Think for yourself and stop letting the 'it's in a book, so it must be true' mentality rob you of rational thought.


LOL - I prefer to find things out for myself - not read them in a book, even the bible. I have spent many hours in physics labs conducting experiments. That is what scientists do. If a experiment cannot be reproduced it is not accepted.

One cannot say natural seleciton is true without explaining how nature got here.[QUOTE]

Yes you can. Thats like saying that you can't use celstial mechanics to predict the motions of the planets without it explaining their creation. Natural selection explains the origin of species. There are other theories about the origin of life, in fact it is a very interesting area. The origin of planets and stars is again another field.

[QUOTE]That is, in essence, trying to explain origins without explaining origins.

Evolution does not try to explain the origin of life, only species. The theory works perfectly well if you want to think that God created the first spark of life, it would then explain how the first life evolved into different species.


I have studied evolution and Creation for over 12 years now and that is why it is such a passion of mine.

OMG you have studied evolution for 12 years but don't know what a scientific theory is! Where have you been studying?


The origin of species is the title of the book indeed. However, it does not limit its scope to after life had began. The theory of evolution is the 'HOW' the universe became.

You think that the origin of species desribes the begining of the Universe? You do realise that Darwin was not an physicist?


Again, you startle me with how you post something you have no clue about. look up the big bang on google even and you will see referneces to the gases that supposedly formed the universe.

Do you have any idea how dense the early universe was (according to standard model)? Much to dense to be called a Gas. I think you have been looking at simplified expanations to try to make it easier to understand. There are a range of theories involving quantum vacuum for instance.

Some web site think they even know what the gases consisted of. These gases are in your textbooks even. unless you have not studied it

Eventually gas would have formed, and calculations can be made as to likely components of the gas. Big Bang science is highly theoretical, and hard to put to the test, so I would not take the findings as gospel if I were you.

Hmm, gases are explosive and that actually seemed to be a plausible theory - until you aske where the gasses came from. As far as the big bang not beign from gas- where are you coming from? It's in your school textbook for crying out loud.

Many of the explainations given at school are simplifications of more complex underlying physics. For example defraction patterns from the famous twin slot experiment are studied at scholl, but the wave partical duality shown is not covered until a higher level. It is simpler to think about gases exploding outwards, but not particularly accurate. The main thing to remember about the theory is that the spacial dimensions are also expanding, it is not a big bang in an empty space, it is space appearing.

[9secondko]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
9secondko,

As far as God is concerned in all of this: he/she/it isn't. Science, as you said was not a means to get rid of a concept of god. Science was popularized in a time period in which God was conceived as some sort of clock maker that made the universe and let it go, so called deism. It was the Church which forcibly removed itself from that concept of God, and not the Scientist who began attacking religion.

No time at the moment to address every issue, but this last one is a misquote. I never said science was invented to get rid of God (and God is a He). I said the thoery of evolutionism was invented to explain origins while leaving God out. What you say about the majority of the Church world is true though. Sad but true. Few 'religious people' care for science and when they do, it is somewhat of a mockery. Not all, though. Science-true science is merely truth. Truth that can be seen, studied and proven. That is why I love it. And why I see no distinction from it and the Bible. The Bibles science is accurate. Of course we cannot see God with our eyes, but that does not mean He does not exist. There is much we cannot see, yet there is evidence to point out the truth of it. That is why I believe in Creation - because all of the evidence points to a designer. Science does not have to be seperated from God. If the Bibles science is accurate (which it is), then the Bible is somehting to pay attention to.

evolution, on the other hand, is at least as much a belief system as creation. Both have scientific means of research, but neither is proveable by the scientific method. That is why each is labeled a theory. But to say: 'evolution is true, we just don't know how it happened' is in essence a cop-out statement. It says basically: ' there is no facts to back this up - not even a credible theory, but, hey, at least it is not found in a religious book. Therefore, it must be more scientific'. By the way, the Bible is the ony religious book to have 100% accurate science and archaeology.

sure, there is micro-evolution, meaning simple adaptations. For example, I like to lift weights and box. My body has adapted to grow from 175 to 235 pounds and get bigger and stronger, but I am still a human. Likewise, someone is a cold climate will adapt (animals as well) and so will those in hot climates, etc. This does not have anything to do with evolution or the 'How' we got here. This is commonly known as 'macroevolution'. This says that a cell turned into a more complex creature and so on and so forth after 'millions and billions of years'. After more time, we came about. Simple adaptation and changing into completely different species (ie: apes to man, or lizards to birds) are totally different things.

[midwinter]

I think we ought to just take a magic marker to every page in all the science textbooks and put a big sticker on the front that says "Warning: everything in here is a theory and is therefore unproven. As you do not read this book, consider the alternative theory of "Intelligent Design," which argues that this shit is so complicated that it was either magic or aliens."

On the other hand, if religious folks are stupid enough to want to wander off the faith pasture and start eating the green, green grass of empirical science, I'm all for that, too:

Jesus is just a theory.
Moses is just a theory.
The flood is just a theory.
The creation is just a theory.
The resurrection is just a theory.

And we slap a big-assed sticker on the front of all bibles in religion classes around the country saying as much.

[dmz]

The Bible's internally-consistent system of truth is hardly a theory.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by dmz
The Bible's internally-consistent system of truth is hardly a theory.

haha. Internally consistent system of truth, huh? Is that why Adam gets created TWICE in Genesis?

Gen 1:26--Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."

Gen 2:7--then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

I say again: we need a sticker on the front of every bible used in every religion class in every school in America that says

Jesus is just a theory.
Moses is just a theory.
The flood is just a theory.
The creation is just a theory.
The resurrection is just a theory.

We could even add in something like this:

You might consider one of the alternative theories, such as that all this is made up and that people who believe it are utterly deluded.

[hardeeharhar]

KO,
The gender of God depends greatly on who you ask, in my religious training God doesn't have a gender because the concept doesn't suit an infinite entity. As for evolution not being science, I should add the completely valid caveat that all scientific theories can be disproven -- that is there are predictions made and/or evidence that completely does not support a given theory -- take my example of the theory of conservation of heat -- when people began to do adiabatic thermal presure-volume cycles, the outcome did not match the theory. In the case of evolution, one of the central arguments is that life has existed for a long time -- if some creationist can offer definitive proof that this cannot and was not the case, then the theory is blown out of the water. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory mostly because it can be disproven.

Creation is not a scientific theory because its supporters believe it cannot be disproven, at best, and it has been disproven at worst.

[dmz]

Originally posted by midwinter
haha. Internally consistent system of truth, huh? Is that why Adam gets created TWICE in Genesis?

Gen 1:26--Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."

Gen 2:7--then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

I say again: we need a sticker on the front of every bible used in every religion class in every school in America that says

Jesus is just a theory.
Moses is just a theory.
The flood is just a theory.
The creation is just a theory.
The resurrection is just a theory.

We could even add in something like this:

You might consider one of the alternative theories, such as that all this is made up and that people who believe it are utterly deluded.


Don't forget God asking Cain where his brother was. Doubtless, it's yet another lynch pin in the Bible's metaphysics.

Get real, midwinter the system of truth in the Bible is something post modernists only dream about.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by dmz
Don't forget God asking Cain where his brother was. Doubtless, it's yet another lynch pin in the Bible's metaphysics.

Get real, midwinter the system of truth in the Bible is something post modernists only dream about.

Only because its followers are deluded enough to believe that.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by dmz
Don't forget God asking Cain where his brother was. Doubtless, it's yet another lynch pin in the Bible's metaphysics.

Get real, midwinter the system of truth in the Bible is something post modernists only dream about.

Postmodernists don't dream about truth, really.

But don't change the subject.

We need that sticker.

[giant]

Originally posted by dmz
The Bible's internally-consistent system of truth is hardly a theory.
"internally-consistent?" Isn't that just a fancy way of saying delusional (http://answers.com/main/ntquery?s=delusional&gwp=8)?

[giant]

http://www.redxhosting.com/images/bible.jpg

Although I like midwinter's wording more.
Originally posted by midwinter
You might consider one of the alternative theories, such as that all this is made up and that people who believe it are utterly deluded.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by giant
http://www.redxhosting.com/images/bible.jpg

Although I like midwinter's wording more.

How clever and cute.

[dmz]

Stickers? Absolutly. Hell, I'd piss on a spark plug to get Bibles in the Classroom.

[giant]

No one said anything about Bibles in schools. Those stickers would be required for Bibles in churches. eye for an eye.

[dmz]

Originally posted by giant
"internally-consistent?" Isn't that just a fancy way of saying delusional (http://answers.com/main/ntquery?s=delusional&gwp=8)?

No, no, no. And no.


You guys need to 'fess up -- that everyone from Kierkegaard to Captian Crunch has tried to produce a system of truth without a 'truth event' and have not been able to make it work. You end up with chaos every single time. don't give me this crap about 'delusion' when chaos is just dandy.:p

[dmz]

Originally posted by giant
No one said anything about Bibles in schools. Those stickers would be required for Bibles in churches. eye for an eye.


hmmmm..... maybe when federal dollars and the NEA are involved and mandatory attendance makes state Churches the only choice for low- to mid-income parents.

[hardeeharhar]

Chaos?

Sometimes, dmz, I think you think you know more than you do.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by dmz
Stickers? Absolutly. Hell, I'd piss on a spark plug to get Bibles in the Classroom.

A fellow War Games fan?

;)

[giant]

:)

dmz's made me smile again.

[dmz]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
A fellow War Games fan?

;)


oh yes -- It drove me buying a Commodore 64! Lunar Lander baby!

[dmz]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Chaos?

Sometimes, dmz, I think you think you know more than you do.


Sometimes I do too. But seriously, look into the whole beyond reason crowd, it's a mess. And quite frankly, if we talk loud and long enough, pflamm with come into this forum and beat us up with a dog-eared copy of Critque of Pure Reason.

(Right now I know for sure it's beer thirty.)

[midwinter]

I'm off to hang out with my good friend Jack Daniels, but I wanted to point out that *I* did say that it should be required for Bibles in schools. There are religion classes taught all over the place.

But I like the idea that all Bibles ought to have that sticker.

[dmz]

That's John Daniels, midwinter.;)

[midwinter]

Originally posted by dmz
That's John Daniels, midwinter.;)

Heh. Normally it'd be my better friend Evan, but tonight it's Mr. Daniels.

I just hope he's gentle.

[SpcMs]

Originally posted by 9secondko
Even though science is now showing the earth to be anywhere from 30,000 to 10,000 years old.
Huh?????

I'm sorry, but that is so stupid on any level...

Oh, and if you gonna start discrediting every scientific method to date things or establish facts from the past, how can you ever come up with proof that anything in the bible is true???

If you can't grasp that the likelihood of some form of evolution is, like, waaaaaaaay, bigger than the likelihood of creationism, ...

At some point in the past we had mammoths. Today we don't. At some point in the past we didn't have mammals. Today we do. Now, which is the more likely explanation here, evolution (things evolve) or creationism (everything was created at one point and remained the same)???

:err:

[giant]

yeah, 9secondko, that quote just prompted me to read your post, and ... actually I'm speechless. I actually have serious questions, but they would come off as insults.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by 9secondko
What about the geolocial dating in our school texts? You ask how does one know why bones in such and such a strata belong to the Jurassic period or the Paleolithic era. You will be told, because they were found in such and such a strata and belong to such and such a creature. But then you ask "how do you know that such creature lived in the Paleolithic era? You are told, because their bones are found in such and such a strata. AAHHG! Circular reasoning again! This is because it is based on a theory where certain creatures had a chance, died out, changed to other kinds, died out, and so on, until you have us here today. Not science, but a theory and a weak one at that.

I feel that you are misunderstanding what is being told to you. We can date almost any fossil we want using a variety of methods. For simplicities sake we assume that the strata of earth that the fossil is found in was established in the same range of age as the fossilized animal died. This assumption (which can be confirmed by dating the other fossils) allows us to more quickly identify species that co-existed at a certain time without resorting to using the once rare isotope dating techniques.

So we use geological strata to make the task easier, but there are independent confirmations of those assumptions. Do you understand?

This is the one argument given by Creationist that reveals their desire to dupe the average citizen more than all the rest. There are no logical problems with the way the dating is preformed and strata are used, and yet they create this argument centered on the erroneous assumption that all of science is based upon a single data point. It is intellectual dishonesty carried by unwitting people as yourself KO, and it makes you dumber when you repeat it.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by SpcMs
creationism (everything was created at one point and remained the same)

I think this may be a fundamental mis-understanding about the creationist view. Any creationist, especially a biblical literalist (it seems to me anyway) would have to believe that microevolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution) (anagensis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anagenesis)) occurs...and in fact there seems to be plenty of evidence supporting this.

Where creationists primarily disagree is on two points:

1. evolution as an explantion of the origin of life (macroevolution ("]abiogenesis[/url]) (or the "big bang" for that matter), and,

2. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution)...that is new species emerging through an evolutionary process...speciation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation)

"Evolution" seems to be such a broad brush that, I think, this is where much of the "debate" (that's french for "bitching, acrimonious screaming at one another") comes from.

At the end of the day, in terms of the origins everything (life, universe, etc.) there are really only two choices...it either came about randomly (which would be the position of the macroevolutionists and big bang-ists) or it came about purposefully (implying that there is "something" with some "purpose" in the first place)...which is the position of the creationists and "intelligent design" folks. I don't really see any other options. And truth be told...neither one of these positions can be proven or disproven (though I suppose it is possible for macro evolution to be disproven at some point). We can all sit back and say..."boy all of the evidence we have sure looks a lot like X happened" (though much of that is even based on presuppositions...it is amazing how few people realize the presuppositions they bring to any issue)...and "based on the evidence we have I predict Y will happen"...but these prove nothing.

I'm amazed this thread is still limping along.

Goodnight all.

[hardeeharhar]

No one in their right mind says that evolution states where life came from. It simply isn't a theory of abiogenesis...

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
No one in their right mind says that evolution states where life came from. It simply isn't a theory of abiogenesis...

1. Then there are a lot of "laymen" out there not "in their right mind"...because they seem to think this.

2. Then creationists have only one primary dispute with the evolutionary theorists...macroevolution.

3. Then creationists will have a dispute with any theory of abiogenesis that doesn't involve a creator. Would that be the big bang theorists?

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
1. Then there are a lot of "laymen" out there not "in their right mind"...because they seem to think this.

2. Then creationists have only one primary dispute with the evolutionary theorists...macroevolution.

3. Then creationists will have a dispute with any theory of abiogenesis that doesn't involve a creator. Would that be the big bang theorists?

1. It is not the responsibility of the tenders of a theory to make sure everyone "out there" understands it. It is the education system's responsibility, and that is what is at fault here.

2. Yup, and the age of the universe (since by implication the universe is older than 6000 years).

3. Uh huh. That being said, big bang theorist admit that what they are doing will never be proven, but it gives them insight into the workings of the universe if they assume a non-deity origin as much as assuming a deity origin would provide them with no insight.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
1. It is not the responsibility of the tenders of a theory to make sure everyone "out there" understands it. It is the education system's responsibility, and that is what is at fault here.

And, amazingly, we circle back to square one.

How on earth did that happen.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
And, amazingly, we circle back to square one.

How on earth did that happen.

Easy. Start here (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49880&perpage=40&pagenumber=1)

[hardeeharhar]

A sticker does not constitute teaching a theory better, well, or at all...

[FormerLurker]

Science means "Satan" in Latin (http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1100/science.html)

[hardeeharhar]

Satire is a bitch.

[dmz]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
Science means "Satan" in Latin (http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1100/science.html)
Wow -- bigotry right here in Applesinder. Who woulda thunk it?

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by dmz
Wow -- bigotry right here in Applesinder. Who woulda thunk it?

It isn't bigotry -- it is satire.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
Science means "Satan" in Latin (http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news1100/science.html)

As Christians, we don't have silly stories or some bizarre mythology to explain the Truth. We know that Jesus is up in heaven, living on a cloud, sitting on a golden throne. If He rustles His silver robes, the Sahara gets a sand storm._ If He flicks a drop of perspiration off His furrowed brow, those little folks in Tokyo find themselves under 10 feet of water._ Secular scientists go crazy about a few little factories belching smoke, saying it causes acid rain and holes in the erogenous zone._ But I have news for you, if the Lord just lets out just one tiny pooty-poot, it is like 4,000 Mount St. Helen's blowing a dark hole straight through the sky.

[dmz]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
It isn't bigotry -- it is satire.


--go look up 'slur' in the dictionary.


How about a satire of Musilms cutting off heads and slicing throats as mainstream? Give me a break.