or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Kansas: It's BAAAAAACK!!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Kansas: It's BAAAAAACK!!! - Page 4

post #121 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

This statement is simply incorrect.

I believe it is correct. There is no scientific debate about whether evolution occurs. It is entirely a religious notion to reject it.

But I have to ask: Would you and Nick be opposed to a school board banning evolution from being taught? I mean, according to you two, if someone can't absolutely prove through mind-reading that the intent is religious, it's OK. Well, anyone can claim, as you say here, that they're not motivated by religion. What if a school board said "we think the evidence for evolution violates the umpteenth law of dynamothermotics" or whatever. I don't see why they couldn't ban evolution, according to Nick's logic. No one could ever prove it was anything but pure scientific concern. 'Reasonable person' be damned.
post #122 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell

There is no scientific debate about whether evolution occurs. It is entirely a religious notion to reject it.

We disagree. Of course...we probably need to get more precise about a statement like "evolution occurs". See this is where throwing around broad terms like "evolution" gets us into trouble. The word "evolution" encompasses a lot. It cover both the past, present and future. It covers small changes within a species (micro) and big changes such as the emergence of new species (macro).

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell

But I have to ask: Would you and Nick be opposed to a school board banning evolution from being taught?

I think I would be. I don't think it should be banned. But I think it needs to be taught honestly. Currently it is taught as indisputable fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell

What if a school board said "we think the evidence for evolution violates the umpteenth law of dynamothermotics" or whatever.

Well if such a thing were the case then there would be nothing to teach (from a scientific perspective). The theory would be dead, right? More precisely if the theory of evolution (as an explanatory model) violates another law (such as the laws of thermodynamics...which some contend that it does) then it would be severely damaged and continued adherence to it would be dogmatic, ideological and, dare I say it, religious in nature.
post #123 of 186
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

Actuall[y], what I did was provide the original verbiage that was used leading upto our current verbiage. This verbiage can possible help us to understand the current verbiage.

But the language of the drafting is not the language of the Constitution, and it is the language of the Constitution that is important in this matter. This is the point of a plain-text reading (which in literary analysis is called "The New Criticism" and fell out of favor about 50 years ago, giving way to the more contextual analysis that you're advocating)

Quote:
I still think it does say what it says, but we have a clearer idea of what the words meant (given that there are multiple definitions of this "establishment" issue) when they were written to help us parse (interpret, if you must) out the meaning.

I might argue that the addition of more words to that language does not make it clearer in the least. It requires that we engage in the interpretive act all over again. For instance, in Madison's language, he explicitly states that this is about citizens' rights and religion and the state. The senate and house altered that language specifically, adding in the phrase "an establishment of religion."

How does the language moving from what you have been arguing that it means to something that is much more vague help us out in this interpretive dance?

Quote:
I think you are twisting things bit.

I'm twisting EVERYTHING. That's my point. And, you know, what I do for a living. I'm a twister.

Quote:
The variation is not very wide mind you, and examining the original, previous text that led up to the current text helps us to know which meaning the authors were using in regard to the primary word in question here ("establishment").

But my point is that the language of Madison was changed dramatically and was made much, much more vague. How does watching the transformation of a statement from being about individual rights to practice religion to something about establishment make things clearer? If you want to clarify things, remove mud, don't add more.

But again: why was the sticker put on there at all? If all it does is state an empirical fact ("This is a black person. Many violent crimes are committed by black people") then why single out one seemingly random fact to highlight?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #124 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell

First, on your last paragraph, I've repeatedly stated that it's a tough call to say whether the sticker violates the establishment clause, and I've said I'm even inclined to agree that it does not. What I am saying is that it's ridiculous to claim this has nothing to do with religion. The public debate over evolution simply doesn't exist outside of religious beliefs.

It isn't ridiculous. The appeals court notes that the judge followed your line of reasoning and that it wasn't supported by the evidence they had which is part of why they sent it back for review. You claim the board reacted on religious concerns or with some sort of protest. The evidence shows that the board simply acted on their own to attempt to insure parties that their personal values would not be impuned by the school district even while the district was taking actions that some might have thought hostile to their values. Both courts found that it was a valid secular concern. The appeals court specifically noted that while the first judge made continual references to the board acting in response to parental concerns, the evidence did not support that fact. As for the public debate, most people would be happy if what evolution DOESN'T explain were simply noted. No one has to offer something competing or even something religious to note that it is good science education to show the flaws within a theory. However as you and others have noted, criticism of evolution is tantimount to religious indoctrination. This shouldn't be so skepticism is a part of science and expressing it in the areas where evolution fails to explain isn't religion.

Quote:
And all this is to say that you believe the sticker is just fine. I find that truly shocking. We can disagree on the constitutionality of it, but I can't believe you think a political body should put false (evolution is not about origins), misleading (evolution does have factual components), and biased (everything should be critically considered, not just evolution) stickers on textbooks that you use in your classes.

As adults we continually encounter circumstances where people take actions we don't consider right. I've characterized the folks who believe the sticker will have any effect pro or con as deluded. However I encounter policies DAILY where I believe this to be true. People have the right to be wrong. Freedom is the freedom to make mistakes. I don't stop supporting rights even if I disagree with the parties, even if I think they are deluding themselves, even if I think their outcome is patently stupid. I can't say something like I suppose local control of schools, but only if you agree with me. i didn't say I agree with the sticker, but the process used to bring it about was correct. If the local school board wants to make a mistake with their local schools, they have the rightas long as it is constitutional.

Quote:
Again, let's get something straight here: I'm willing to believe the sticker is perfectly constitutional. That's a technical legal question. But it's a human, common-sense question to ask what is the motive behind this sticker, and it really couldn't be any more slam-dunk obvious to any reasonable person. They were catering to anti-evolution beliefs, and those beliefs are always religious in nature.

You can contend that the only possible motive is religious and that it is slam dunk obvious that those folks were being "catered" to by the board. I know as an educator, and you should to that if you antagonize someone, even if you are right, they aren't going to hear or learn about what you have to say. This sticker might be an attempt to say to the closed-minded people that the school will allow them to retain their closed-minded ways while teaching them about evolution. However the district in being proactive in reducing offense likely kept more minds open to the teaching of evolution.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #125 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

I can't figure out if you truly believe in what you're saying, or if you've simply grabbed onto what you think is a particularly clever way of playing dumb that you imagine you can defend by being stubbornly literal and inflexible.

You can't figure out that I won't change my mind because of your feeble attempt to guilt me into making a logical leap? I'm inflexible because I won't say that criticism of science = religious endorsement. I'm sorry but your approval and your guilt have no power over me.

Quote:
The very act of singling one thing out from among many other things carries meaning. It doesn't take "mind reading" to infer meaning from acts of singling things out, or acts of calling special attention to particular things, verbally or otherwise. This is a basic aspect of human language and communication.

It does take mind reading though to infer the exact OPPOSITE meaning from singling something out. If our school dress code points out that burkas are tolerated at school. I have singled something out and I am doing so to prevent offense. To move beyond that and claim I love muslims, or that I hate them, or that I want you to be one of them, or that the school is now a church of Islam are all logical leaps.

Quote:
The literal truth of the disclaimer stickers is only one layer of meaning. The particular singling out of evolution, with no mention of gravity or thermodynamics or quantum mechanics or anything else, also carries meaning. Pretending that this second layer of meaning doesn't exist, or must for some obscure reason be ignored in order to attain some special legalistic high level of objectivity, is absurd.

The court ruled that purposes of the sticker were promoting critical thinking (literal) and preventing offense (inferred) and that both had secular causes. I've not denied the existance of people and the ability of them to read whatever they want into the sticker. I've simply said it is not reasonable to believe the primary aim of the sticker was religious endorsement.

Quote:
It is literally true for every single human being that we make mistakes and that anything anyone of us says must be considered carefully. But if you singled out one particular student in your classroom, and constantly brought up day after day that this one student makes mistakes, and that others must carefully consider whatever this particular student says, there would be a clear and unmistakable impact of doing so. Your continual singling out of this one student would be taken to mean -- by standard principles of human communication, not by uncalled-for "mind reading" -- that the particular student was particularly error-prone and particularly untrustworthy.

Your mistake is a bad analogy. Mentioning, pointing out or even devoting an entire section to scientific critiques of prevailing theories is not religious endorsement. While it is true that the motives of some parties in desiring to hear or mention the critique is religious it is a clear leap to say that critique of one thing equal endorsement and advocation of another. If I criticize Bush it doesn't mean I support the terrorists or John Kerry. You certainly must understand that sort of analogy even if your bias won't allow you to apply it in this context.

Quote:
There are an infinite number of true things one could say at any given moment. Random historical facts, mathematically correct sums of randomly picked numbers, etc. Absent some strange mental illness or brain damage, none of us go about doing this on a regular basis. Picking one particular true thing to say out of all possible true things again carries meaning in and of itself. It is not an error in communication on the part of a receiver to imply meaning based on what the sender has chosen to communicate about, a meaning layered on top of the literal content of the message. To imply meaning from the sender's selective process is so basic to human communication that it can only be considered an error on the part of the sender to not account for the implications of his or her choices of particular messages to send.

Again I've not said that people can't imply meaning into the communication of the sticker. I've even said they can delude themselves into understandings that the sticker doesn't support in any fashion. That doesn't mean someone loses the right to do something though. That doesn't mean a court gets to grant a permanent injunction.

Quote:
That the disclaimer stickers might be literally true is not sufficient reason to place those stickers insider books. No one is printing up stickers that say "56 + 127 = 183" and sticking them in history or art books. Certainly no one is fighting passionate legal battles to do so, nor are they inspiring anyone to fund their legal fees to do so. It is completely proper on the receiving end of a message, and not "mind reading", to read meaning not only into a sender's selection of a message to send, but into the degree of effort required to deliver the message.

Bad analogy again. Mentioning evolution in science book is appropriate. Mentioning math in other subject books might not be. You say that no one is printing up stickers singling out a math problem. They are welcome to do so. If someone claims from that example you gave above that singling out the math problem means they love addition, hate subtraction, share a view with some other group, etc. I'll point out that the court still shouldn't be allowed to grant injunctions based off any of those logical leaps.

Quote:
Students who see those disclaimer stickers, not by "mind reading" or by any error on their part, will obviously go beyond the literal wording of the stickers and add layers of meaning based on the singling out of evolution and the special effort made to deliver the literal message contained on the stickers. That message clearly is that evolution in particular is particularly questionable. The slightest effort into examining motive for making the special effort to deliver that particular literally-true message adds a clear layer of religious intent to the meaning.

Rather than claiming that it is evolution is questionable, it is preferable to say that they are allowed to still question evolution. That meaning respects the rights and thoughts of the parties being taught. I find it very odd that all the analogies people bring up mention singling out people instead of a thought or ideal and then predicate the singling out for being wrong based on the feelings of the person being singled out. Evolution is an ideal. It has no feelings. Telling people that while they do have to learn it, the district will still respect them as individuals with their own thoughts and feelings is not harmful to evolution. If anything (inferred) it is more helpful to the teaching of evolution because when people feel like their rights are not being respected, they shut down their willingness to listen to you. I see all the board actions as attempts to modernize and improve the teaching of evolution. If the sticker has any secondary meaning, it is that while people must learn to mastery evolution, the district still respects them as humans and individuals.

Quote:
If you're going to continue to argue against the above case I've made, I simply cannot take you seriously. If I give you any credit at all for basic human intelligence -- and I do, I think you are an intelligent man -- I have to assume you're arguing for the sake of arguing, trying to win a point, trying to cling to something you don't want to give up, not that you're actually so blind and insensitive to the intent of these stickers nor really so devoted to the idea that applying basic principles of implied meaning in human communications somehow constitutes improper "mind reading" or "thought control" when done within the judicial system.

You don't have to take me seriously. You don't have to give me credit. You don't have to think me intelligent. My intellect is developed enough not to give in to guilt or need affirmation from others. In fact since the general consensus is formed from an average intellect, I've gotten quite used to not needing the endorsement of that general consensus or any sort of average intellect since it often cannot see or understand the reasoning of a superior intellect. Understand that I'm not saying I'm smarter than you. I'm simply saying that I don't need your guilt or endorsement to know that my reasoning, my unwillingness to make a logical leap can stand well on their own.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #126 of 186
Get some sleep Nick.
post #127 of 186
Its just slimy and deceitful really.

Here we have people, who everyone knows (including themselves) - that for religious purposes only and only religious purposes, want the thoery of Evolution to be overturned, yet go out of their way to deny any involvement with the religious purpose to achieve a positive spin for their argument.

No one, no one at all, is buying this shit dressed up as some sort of altruistic self sacrificial moral crusade in critical thinking. Infact critical thinking is the one area of their life in which they are utterly deviod. Because if one were to 'practise what one preaches' and critically think about their very own religion, its origins and development, one would - could only concur that the truth it brings is 100% spiritual, and has no bearing on the physical reality. In order to achieve the Creationist viewpoint, one must turn 180 degrees from the spiritual truth of the Bible, and become everything they despise. Liars, cheats, deceivers, spineless, pathetic, soulless entities, who will stop at nothing - no lie too big, no method too deceitful in order to trick people into agreeing with them. In effect, for all the talk about Satan and fall of man in the bible, they have become that very thing. Satanic fallen men.

As ever, the Creationist, infact ID'ers as they like to call themselves these days - a sign of slimyness and deceit in itself in denying the very thing they are fighting for, denying God, by avoiding - infact denying all mention of him in their arguments, infact, denying that Gods Creation has anything to do with human life, and dressing God up in some slimy argument for critical thinking, when - if this were the case, there would be a sticker on every Scientific theory ever devised, if not every book that wasn't the Bible, to remind the reader to think critically.

Some people need to grow some balls and a spine. Whatever the argument is against Evolution, people will always see you as simplistic cranky nutjobs - But maybe you'd get some respect for being honest and having integrity.

All the ID movement achieves, is convincing us that you are slimy, deceitful, conning, lying, simplistic cranky nutjobs. A far worse crime than being open and honest about your beliefs and intentions. And gives no glory to God or his message WHATSOEVER.
post #128 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell

Get some sleep Nick.

Don't I wish... one of those periodic bouts of insomnia...

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK

Its just slimy and deceitful really.

Here we have people, who everyone knows (including themselves) - that for religious purposes only and only religious purposes, want the thoery of Evolution to be overturned, yet go out of their way to deny any involvement with the religious purpose to achieve a positive spin for their argument.

No one, no one at all, is buying this shit dressed up as some sort of altruistic self sacrificial moral crusade in critical thinking. Infact critical thinking is the one area of their life in which they are utterly deviod. Because if one were to 'practise what one preaches' and critically think about their very own religion, its origins and development, one would - could only concur that the truth it brings is 100% spiritual, and has no bearing on the physical reality. In order to achieve the Creationist viewpoint, one must turn 180 degrees from the spiritual truth of the Bible, and become everything they despise. Liars, cheats, deceivers, spineless, pathetic, soulless entities, who will stop at nothing - no lie too big, no method too deceitful in order to trick people into agreeing with them. In effect, for all the talk about Satan and fall of man in the bible, they have become that very thing. Satanic fallen men.

As ever, the Creationist, infact ID'ers as they like to call themselves these days - a sign of slimyness and deceit in itself in denying the very thing they are fighting for, denying God, by avoiding - infact denying all mention of him in their arguments, infact, denying that Gods Creation has anything to do with human life, and dressing God up in some slimy argument for critical thinking, when - if this were the case, there would be a sticker on every Scientific theory ever devised, if not every book that wasn't the Bible, to remind the reader to think critically.

Some people need to grow some balls and a spine. Whatever the argument is against Evolution, people will always see you as simplistic cranky nutjobs - But maybe you'd get some respect for being honest and having integrity.

All the ID movement achieves, is convincing us that you are slimy, deceitful, conning, lying, simplistic cranky nutjobs. A far worse crime than being open and honest about your beliefs and intentions. And gives no glory to God or his message WHATSOEVER.


Cool MarkUK.... when reason and facts fail you... go for the demagoguery!

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #129 of 186
Guys, guys, guys: religion/no religion, it will soon be commonly accepted that you cannot reduce the DNA's algorithms and information to simple chemistry. Knowing the location of every atom on a Woodcrest chip wouldn't tell you a thing about the software that ran on it.

Information is essentially independent of what is carrying it, and in any event is not reducible to those substances that carry it. Evolution's simplistic excuse of 'oh it just happened that way' has become a barrier to thought.

If evolution could withstand this new criticism, there wouldn't be any need for it's proponents to make laws against asking questions.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #130 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz

Guys, guys, guys: religion/no religion, it will soon be commonly accepted that you cannot reduce the DNA's algorithms and information to simple chemistry. Knowing the location of every atom on a Woodcrest chip wouldn't tell you a thing about the software that ran on it.

Information is essentially independent of what is carrying it, and in any event is not reducible to those substances that carry it. Evolution's simplistic excuse of 'oh it just happened that way' has become a barrier to thought.

If evolution could withstand this new criticism, there wouldn't be any need for it's proponents to make laws against asking questions. Freud is dead, Marx is dead, and Darwin isn't looking too good either.

I wouldn't consider George Gilder sufficient proof for any theories.

But honestly don't understand the point of your post, dmz.

1) Evolution does not provide a simplistic excuse of "oh, it just happened that way", that would be more the religious argument.

2) As far as I know, proponents of evolution (which would be just about any rational, scientific mind) are not making laws against asking questions. Asking questions and being able to get independently verifiable answers is the nature of science... uh, not so with religion.

3) Freud and Marx certainly were not scientists. So what's your point.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #131 of 186
Darwin certainly doesn't look all that great. Fortunately, scientific research has since moved far beyond many of his original conclusions about evolution. But that doesn't stop those who dispute the validity of evolutionary science from bringing him up every chance they get.

It's like trying to invalidate Christianity on the basis of Jesus being a Jew.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #132 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by rageous

Darwin certainly doesn't look all that great. Fortunately, scientific research has since moved far beyond many of his original conclusions about evolution. But that doesn't stop those who dispute the validity of evolutionary science from bringing him up every chance they get.

It's like trying to invalidate Christianity on the basis of Jesus being a Jew.

yes but because they're slimy liars, they dont want you to know about all the work after Darwin, so they'll keep banging on about Darwin.
post #133 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz

Guys, guys, guys: religion/no religion, it will soon be commonly accepted that you cannot reduce the DNA's algorithms and information to simple chemistry. Knowing the location of every atom on a Woodcrest chip wouldn't tell you a thing about the software that ran on it.

Information is essentially independent of what is carrying it, and in any event is not reducible to those substances that carry it. Evolution's simplistic excuse of 'oh it just happened that way' has become a barrier to thought.

If evolution could withstand this new criticism, there wouldn't be any need for it's proponents to make laws against asking questions.

Oh My God, not another article that mentions a flagellum.
post #134 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz

Guys, guys, guys: religion/no religion, it will soon be commonly accepted that you cannot reduce the DNA's algorithms and information to simple chemistry. Knowing the location of every atom on a Woodcrest chip wouldn't tell you a thing about the software that ran on it.

Information is essentially independent of what is carrying it, and in any event is not reducible to those substances that carry it. Evolution's simplistic excuse of 'oh it just happened that way' has become a barrier to thought.

If evolution could withstand this new criticism, there wouldn't be any need for it's proponents to make laws against asking questions.

I disagree, especially on the computer chip. Computers are very well understood. The software is not within the processor, so naturally the atoms of the processor can't tell you all about the software. At any given instant, you only have a piece of the software and a limited amount of data within the processor. Knowing the location of every atom (and every other physical aspect) of the chip, we can discover exactly what was being done. Although, this would be extremely inefficient.

I'm not an expert on biology, evolution or DNA, but I suspect the opposite; that soon, or in the future, we will be able to discover that all of DNA's algorithms and information can be reduced to atoms, energy and chemical equations.

Information is independent of its medium, but if your intent is to see the information your going to have to discover what physically represents it (like the excited energy states of the various copper and gold atoms, as electricity passes over them).
post #135 of 186
Yeah. Science, which by it's very nature asks a question and then seeks to invalidate it's own question repeatedly until the answer becomes more apparent, is trying to stop people from asking questions.

ID is where openmindedness is at. The crux of IT'S argument is that little things are so complex we can't ever know how they work, so some guy in space must have made them. But we can't ever know how or why until after we die and go to His house and have Him tell us.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #136 of 186
I've said it before in other threads about this issue, but evolution and christian religion are IN NO WAY mutually exclusive. You can have both if you want, and the people on both sides who say you can't are extremely small minded.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #137 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by thuh Freak

...I suspect the opposite; that soon, or in the future, we will be able to discover that all of DNA's algorithms and information can be reduced to atoms, energy and chemical equations.

Well that's the thing, I think the members of the scientific community/general public, that hold with evolution, are hoping for the same thing. In the meantime though, nothing that we know of can be reduced in that way -- take the 7 layers in the OSI networking model -- it's always the opposite.


(At least we can be sure that this sort of conversation won't be happening in a public school any time soon.)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #138 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz

Well that's the thing, I think the members of the scientific community/general public, that hold with evolution, are hoping for the same thing. In the meantime though, nothing that we know of can be reduced in that way -- take the 7 layers in the OSI networking model -- it's always the opposite.


(At least we can be sure that this sort of conversation won't be happening in a public school any time soon.)

Which conversation is that? That nothing is truly knowable outside of the totalizing enlightenment of triune doctrine?

Go figure.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #139 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

Which conversation is that? That nothing is truly knowable outside of the totalizing enlightenment of triune doctrine?

Go figure.

Silly rabbit, Internet forums are for amicable adults!

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #140 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz

Silly rabbit, Internet forums are for amicable adults!

How is my question not amicable?

You've argued strenuously in the past that the triune god is the only way to resolve man's vexed relationship with the universe within which he finds himself.

You've further argued very strenuously that "materialism", as most definitely embodied by evolutionary theory, is a bankrupt ideology, "a snake that eats it's own tail", a bundle of inherent internal contradictions, which contradictions are, again, only satisfactorily resolved within a triune framework.

So when you talk about America's classrooms being "allowed" to "have a conversation" about the shortcomings of evolutionary theory it's pretty clear where you're coming from, and where you're coming from speaks directly to the earlier observation that beyond the hand waving your "concern" for "open debate" about "the merits of the science" are specious.

You've made it clear many times over that you don't give one whit for "the merits of the science" and that any "conversation" in our classrooms that didn't allow for the introduction of what are flatly mystical concepts that seek to overturn our entire notion of what constitutes "evidence" and "truth" would not meet your criteria for "open discussion".

Hence my earlier, entirely amicable remark, merely derived from what you have expressly insisted upon as the truth, and which I find to be an unlikely avenue for productive discussion in 6th grade science classes.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #141 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

HSo when you talk about America's classrooms being "allowed" to "have a conversation" about the shortcomings of evolutionary theory it's pretty clear where you're coming from, and where you're coming from speaks directly to the earlier observation that beyond the hand waving your "concern" for "open debate" about "the merits of the science" are specious.

No, it's not specious, I don't stump for ID, or think it's a solid philosophical system. Specious is misdirection to avoid answering a direct question.

The point is simple, it is fair to say that evolution, since the discovery of information systems in DNA, has a serious problem on it's hands: it's essentially in the position of reducing the information embedded in lifeforms to chemistry and biology -- which, logically, is bad practice.

But, instead of dealing with the problem head-on, 'it' has resorted to litigation -- which, historically speaking, is bad practice as well.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #142 of 186
I found this interesting. Well, no I found it pathetic. Science magazine (the original article is subscription only) studied belief in evolution around the world, and examined factors with belief or lack of belief. The study is summarized here: U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution. I don't see the fundamentalist Muslim countries there though. Maybe they reject evolution just like us! That'd be sweet!

Quote:
A comparison of peoples' views in 34 countries finds that the United States ranks near the bottom when it comes to public acceptance of evolution. Only Turkey ranked lower.

Among the factors contributing to America's low score are poor understanding of biology, especially genetics, the politicization of science and the literal interpretation of the Bible by a small but vocal group of American Christians, the researchers say.

post #143 of 186
Hmmm...smells like...yes...it is the ever effective and wonderful...Appeal to Popularity fallacy.
post #144 of 186
BR,

I would guess that the 'small but vocal group of Christians' is not that small. But, as some have pointed out, this is not about the bible. Which is good, as those folks have access to things that you and I do not, like Truth, Absolute Truth, and The Word of God. (caps are theirs, not mine)

By the way, you are very correct in saying that the "disclaimer sticky" on the books is a bit, a..dishonest. If they had any cojones at all it would have simply stated something like..

"Many members of our community do not believe that evolution is the correct explanation for the origin of mankind." But I assume that some damn lawyer helped them phrase it. Really makes you want to be a fly on the wall in their science classroom, doesn't it. Wonder what they really teach down there????

Paz
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem to lightly...it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Thomas Paine
Reply
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem to lightly...it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Thomas Paine
Reply
post #145 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

Hmmm...smells like...yes...it is the ever effective and wonderful...Appeal to Popularity fallacy.

That not fair, because I didn't claim "evolution must be true because it is popular." The fact is, it's quite unpopular in the US, as this study shows. Neither being popular in some parts of the world, nor unpopular in others, makes it true or false. Empirical evidence is what makes it true. And that makes it sad that as a country, we don't believe in it.
post #146 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell

That not fair, because I didn't claim "evolution must be true because it is popular." The fact is, it's quite unpopular in the US, as this study shows. Neither being popular in some parts of the world, nor unpopular in others, makes it true or false. Empirical evidence is what makes it true. And that makes it sad that as a country, we don't believe in it.

Why did Science magazine do this study? Why does it matter to them? Why does it matter to you? Why did you mention it here? If the fact is the fact...who gives a crap what % of what countries believe what?

Sorry, it still smells suspiciously like fallacious argumentation to me.
post #147 of 186
Why does it matter to Science Magazine whether people understand science? I personally can think of more important opinion issues, but I wouldn't say it's irrelevant, especially not to Science magazine.

And part of the reason it has come to matter to those of us on this side of the issue is that there has been a concerted, well-funded, and apparently successful effort to influence public opinion on your side of the issue.
post #148 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell

And part of the reason it has come to matter to those of us on this side of the issue is that there has been a concerted, well-funded, and apparently successful effort to influence public opinion on your side of the issue.

Don't pretend that "your side" doesn't have a propaganda engine. It sounds foolish.
post #149 of 186
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

Don't pretend that "your side" doesn't have a propaganda engine. It sounds foolish.

Science Magazine is a propaganda engine? Is Nature, too? Oh dear lord. Just think of all the propaganda engines university faculty all over the world are required to publish in just to keep their jobs! The Journal of Pre-Raphaelite Studies a propaganda engine! I'm beginning to be deeply concerned about my current submission to Victorian Periodicals Review....

Please, CC, tell me that the "propaganda engine" is "mainstream science."
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #150 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter

Science Magazine is a propaganda engine? Is Nature, too? Oh dear lord. Just think of all the propaganda engines university faculty all over the world are required to publish in just to keep their jobs! The Journal of Pre-Raphaelite Studies a propaganda engine! I'm beginning to be deeply concerned about my current submission to Victorian Periodicals Review....

Please, CC, tell me that the "propaganda engine" is "mainstream science."

Well, duh!

Didn't you get the memo? The enlightenment was a hoax designed to separate man from God.

Notions of "objective truth", "verifiable facts", "persuasive evidence", "logic" and "systematic investigation" are simply meaningless buzz phrases meant to keep us confused and intimidated.

Of course "the evidence" appears to support certain "theories". "Evidence" and "theories" (and "support" for that matter) are all part of a rigged game that uses "language" in an "agreed upon framework" comprised of "words" in "sequence" in order to appear to "make sense".

Errant nonsense, the lot of it. In fact, I don't know how I'm conveying anything but random glyphs even now.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #151 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK

yes but because they're slimy liars.

I think that's bordering on childish.
post #152 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Cuilla

Hmmm...smells like...yes...it is the ever effective and wonderful...Appeal to Popularity fallacy.

Any other scientific 'theories' we want to selectively disown while we're at it?

It just seems to me to be the most extraordinary coincidence that the one thing you don't want them to teach without caveats is the one thing that doesn't accord with one specific interpretation of one holy bookwhich happens to be your favourite.

As always, Chris, I apologise in advance for using a long sentence.

And it doesn't like an appeal to popularity, it looks like a frigging humiliation.
post #153 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter

Science Magazine is a propaganda engine? Is Nature, too?

I didn't say that.
post #154 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox

Well, duh!

Didn't you get the memo? The enlightenment was a hoax designed to separate man from God.

Notions of "objective truth", "verifiable facts", "persuasive evidence", "logic" and "systematic investigation" are simply meaningless buzz phrases meant to keep us confused and intimidated.

Of course "the evidence" appears to support certain "theories". "Evidence" and "theories" (and "support" for that matter) are all part of a rigged game that uses "language" in an "agreed upon framework" comprised of "words" in "sequence" in order to appear to "make sense".

Errant nonsense, the lot of it. In fact, I don't know how I'm conveying anything but random glyphs even now.

Your sarcasm is humorous but...well...it furthers the discussion very little.
post #155 of 186
Delete
post #156 of 186
Apologies accepted.
post #157 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

Huh? I was stating that MarcUK's posts were childish.

Oops. My bad. Blurry morning eyes turned "that's" into "it's". Please accept my apologies.
post #158 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

I think that's bordering on childish.

Doesn't it say in the holy book to behave like little children. Segovius told me to do it.

And for the topic - what isn't slimy about lying through your teeth, misrepresenting the evidence, denying point blank the thing you ARE advocating and making an appeal for critical thinking when such is the thing that is utterly devoid from the case you make.

Seems like the Slimers have redefined the meaning of Slimy aswell.

And then there are people like *** - who take an argument that confirms the theory of Evolution. I'm referring to Irriducible complexity and twist it so that it would appear to conflict the theory and prove it wrong. Despite the fact that I quite like dmz, this argument makes him appear a Moran, though I know he is capable of much better.

What sort of God are these people representing? What kind of God requires you to spend a large effort telling outright lies, requires that you take advantage of ignorant people, requires that you deny his presense in your argument, requires you to pretend to have noble objectives? Requires that you label every person who disagrees with you as being stupidly tricked by Satan?

What kind of God is that?

Why does this God require that you spend all your time trying to prove something false that has nothing to do with his existance? Why would a so-called profound belief in this God require you to divert so much attention away from walking the path with him, to spend so much time 'half-learning' about an irrelavent theory just so you might find a tiny hole you could try to ram a wedge in to trick ignorant people to accept your faith.

That kind of God is a bigger twat than most of his followers. Infact that isn't God at all. That is Satan Masquerading as God. Yet the biggest victims of Satanic deception are the ones who spend all their time trying to save us from him.

How the hell did a true belief in God ever come down to finding a hole in a Scientific theory. Does the best argument FOR the existance of God revolve around the fact, that a Scientific theory is not yet 100% complete?

Creationists, ID'ers, what have you - they're fake, fraud and have nothing to do with a belief in God. They are trying to make themselves feel not so stupid about themselves by fooling everyone else into being as stupid as them.

If they'd spend as much time formulating a sophisticated view of God as they're prepared to spend looking for holes, they'd soon wise up to the fact that they're Major League Assholes.
post #159 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcUK

Despite the fact that I quite like dmz, this argument makes him appear a Moran...


Hey Hey! Hey!!

My rumored connections to the Church of LDS are greatly exaggerated.









The possibility that data storage and retrieval systems -- which retrieve data sets with their own separate purpose -- could be formed by slow, gradual "mutations" is completely off the reservation. This is the end of evolution as we know it. The fallback position of infinite parallel universes is all that's left.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #160 of 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz

The possibility that data storage and retrieval systems -- which retrieve data sets with their own separate purpose -- could be formed by slow, gradual "mutations" is completely off the reservation. This is the end of evolution as we know it. The fallback position of infinite parallel universes is all that's left.

Stop insisting on forcing human concepts like "purpose" onto biological systems and the whole problem goes away. Yes, even atheist biologists use the word "purpose" when they talk about what various components of biological systems do, but they don't mean it with the kind of weight you're insisting that word carries.

It is no more the "purpose" of giraffe DNA to make more giraffes than it is the "purpose" of a cloud to water flowers. In the context of the complex systems in which those things are embedded, that's simply what those things end up doing -- there's no need to drag "purpose" into it. Shit happens. If you want to believe there's "just gotta be" more to it all than that, that's an issue of faith, not a failing of the science.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Kansas: It's BAAAAAACK!!!