Topic awaiting preservation: "Court rejects 'intelligent design' in science class" (Page 2 of 2)

As I suspected, I was hung up on the language.

I was treating disprovable as able to be disproven. In other words, demanding of a successful outcome of disprovability. Just as testable is demanding of a successful outcome of testing, collapsible means it can be successfully collapsed, and so on.

Perhaps it's because testable does not imply the outcome, but disprovable does. At least to my little head.

I don't understand why this is such a big issue. I guess only to my own mind the purpose of curriculum is clear:

Science class teaches The Scientific Method(tm).

I don't see any problem with a course established teaching man's pursuit of "Faith". Humianty's search for meaning is notable in itself and useful for one to have a 'full life'. Why not have an unbiased class that teaches major religious tenets and their impacts on human history?

Isn't that a "Theology Class"?

Maybe I'm missing something here..

--Petskull--

Petskull - my post from earlier in the thread seems to cover what you are missing

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

As a couple of people said, the big issue is that ID is being pushed as a scientific principle. It's not a matter of learning about religion - it's a matter of religion being pushed as science. It is important again to reiterate this: 'ID' is not the simple philosophical thought that 'God' is behind what we explain with science (as in: evolution happens because God made it so). It is a very specific ideology stating that the complexity of the universe *proves* scientifically that there must be a god.To state that you think god is the driving force behind evolution, and to state that god is a scientific certainty are two vastly different things, and unfortunately that point gets hopelessly lost on a great many people.

---

It is a big deal because the the religous groups are pushing their ideology into science classes around the country, and in many places we face a real danger of biblical creationsim being taught as science.

That is a very big problem.

Although this is a big issue ( I do not want to minimize the intelligent design in public school debate) but there is a bigger issue that this is a symptom of.

There are many groups in America that want this country to become a fundamentalist christian society. They wish just as many right to be removed from American society as fundamentalist muslims do in theirs.

This confrontation bubbles up to a confrontation over freedom, and at this time freedom is being attacked on many sides

* Terrorist exploiters, those who would use the threat of terrorism to institute measures that would create an American police state
* Fundamentalist Christians, those who use their religious beliefs as justification to institute an American theocracy
* True terrorists, those who would actively kill Americans

This ordering is very close to how I would rate these as problems to American society, although the first two are neck and neck, true terrorism is almost not a factor for me as the impact here is minimal ( if a dirty bomb goes of in Isreal then we have big problems on this front). I also don't want to minimize the affects of 9/11, but it is not something that should lead to the destruction of our society form internal forces.

So we have terrorist exploiters, this is our government, and in particular the executive branch. They have created the Patriot Act and are enguaging in illegal activities in order to fight their fake war. They spy on their own citizens, they have illegal prisons outside, they conduct torcher, all while outside of the system of checks and balances that we have in place. Our government was founded with a fear of the executive branch for exactly because of this type of concern.

Next, we have fundamentalist christians. This group is the intelligent design, anti-abortion, religion in schools group. They try and push the envelope to turn religious freedom (remember the pilgrims) and a secular society into a theocracy of religious persecution. They also support the current government (executive branch) and get support from it.

These two groups above seem to be almost working together to turn the United States into a Theocratic Police State. If we do not push back against them hard we will find more and more of our freedoms being removed. Once the law is passed that removes our freedoms it is very hard to get it repealed. People will live and die in these chains. This is why it is important to fight these trends before they become law, in this is why people get very excited about all of these things. It is important right now as I do not want to live any of my life as a slave.

Dan @ Code Town

OK, Petskull, I'll say it again for you --

They want to teach ID in a science class.

That is the part you are missing!!!!!

I don't kow why WM, but this is pretty much what I have been saying on various threads here for some time...not the first I am sure...and been chastized for so doing.

Regardless, the message is apt and accurate and a very real threat.

The sickness has spread north too. Dobson has opened a lobbying office in Ottawa to support Harper the Reformer and just after the election campaign got underway here, another Amurican right-wing xian nutbar friend of Dumbya's came up and made a speech in support of Harper. He was quickly shut up by Harper's handlers. The last thing he wants if the 'help' of the likes of Donson. But the first thing he would do, should he gain office, is start courting him and his ilk again.

So, keep up the good fight.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Keep up the good fight?

This is a battle for the lives and minds of our children. We, the forces of reason and science, cannot afford to lose this war.

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

WS, we stand shoulder to shoulder on this one.

Pass the ammunition.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

I understand what they are trying to do. The point I am making is that this should be obvious even to the majority of Americans, even in Bible-belt land. And, thus, that to blatantly dismiss that fact is evidence of 'agenda-pushing' and intolerance.

What I mean by 'maybe I'm missing something' is that I don't understand why this is so difficult to explain to people who *don't* know it. It seems to me that if you give someone the simple text of my post and yet they persist in this pursuit of ID, they have a clear agenda that involves turning their back on blatant facts.

Every American should know enough about the Scientific Method to know that it and God are separate issues. It would be odd to learn about the Inquisition in a science classroom.

I guess what I don't get is why this is treated as something that needs to be *explained* rather than something that needs to be fought. It's clear that all involved understand what this would do to free will and believe it to be a Good Thing (tm). It seems to be the case that someone is pointing a gun at free thought and all we can do is ask 'what are you doing?'.

Maybe I'm not being clear. Why are we pretending the people involved with this movement don't understand? It's pretty clear they understand just fine. They just don't care.

quote:

---

There are many groups in America that want this country to become a fundamentalist christian society. They wish just as many right to be removed from American society as fundamentalist muslims do in theirs.

---

Wes's post is the answer to my rhetorical question- and the fact that we pretend not to notice the malice behind their campaign is unnecessary, I think.

--Petskull--

P.S. Thanks for summing that up for me, briggl. Under this rock the reception is terrible.

quote:

---

Every American should know enough about the Scientific Method to know that it and God are separate issues. It would be odd to learn about the Inquisition in a science classroom.

---

~sigh~

I have that dream from time to time as well


I definitely misunderstood your post. I agree with your sentiments 100%.

Unfortunately reality is far far different.

You have to understand that the average person is stupid.

The malicious people behind the movements prey on the weak minded fools who *don't* know any better.
There is an amazing amount of pure stupidity in the world. The masses who don't know better are being directed by the malignant fiends pushing their theocratic nonsense.




(Edited by DL-44 on 12-29-2005 18:09)

After a thorough preusal of your last post DL, I can find nothing in it with which to disagree.

One wonders too, how much stupidity is due to genetic influences and how much is wilful?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

You have to understand that the average person is stupid.

---

and the (assumedly) above-average are cynical conspiracy theorists?

Here's a few of my favorite quotes I find wonderfully appropriate-

"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today." --Isaac Asimov

"An age is called Dark, not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it." --James Michener

?The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.? --JFK

There was also a quote about an "uneducated democracy being the worst form of dictatorship", but I can't find it. I have come to see willful ignorance as treason. If you, out of your sheer laziness, corrupt the country I fought so damn hard for- you're as guilty as any terrorist.

-- Petskull --

Is this the quote you were looking for Petskull?

Ignorant participation is not democratic. - Thomas Jefferson

quote:

---

JKMabry said:

and the (assumedly) above-average are cynical conspiracy theorists?

---

While surely there are some very intelligent people who fall for far too many conspiracy theories, that does not aply to this situation whatsoever.

If anyone is in doubt about my statement (ie average person is stupid), try working retail for a while, or in customer service, a help desk, etc.

As for the latter part of my post....this situation and a countless horde of others in the public spotlight illuminate my point quite clearly.

quote:

---

If anyone is in doubt about my statement (ie average person is stupid), try working retail for a while, or in customer service, a help desk, etc.

---

Hell, all you have to do is talk to most of the people around you.

Right on the mark, DL. I agree 100%.

quote:

---

There was also a quote about an "uneducated democracy being the worst form of dictatorship", but I can't find it. I have come to see willful ignorance as treason. If you, out of your sheer laziness, corrupt the country I fought so damn hard for- you're as guilty as any terrorist.

-- Petskull --

---

I hear you, PS. I hear you. It sometimes turns my stomach.

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

quote:

---

briggl said:
Hell, all you have to do is talk to most of the people around you.

---

That is true often enough.

But you get the full impact when it's actually your job to talk to them, and the ones you have to talk to are the ones who can't figure things out!

My view of people was forged in my teenage years, with about 3-4 years worth of working in grocery stores, and tempered my early 20's with several years working in restaurants.

You *will* meet the dumbest people on earth working in a grocery store. But then you will realize, in time, that these are the 'regular people' you hear so much about!.
And you cry just a little...

Then one day you read that these same people "don't beleive" evolution. And you hear them talk about that country in the middle-east - you know, Islam? And you hear the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA on tv, saying that ID should be taught as an alternative to evolution!

And your head pops off one more time...

quote:

---

You *will* meet the dumbest people on earth working in a grocery store.

---

Which is precisely why I did NOT apply at Walmart. I held off and get a job at Dead Lobster... Fortunately, I'm not required to talk to customers. That's always a plus, since I'm kinda sociopathic in ways. I find that there is less drama in a resturaunt than in retail stores (or so it appears).

Wait, um... what were we talking about again? =)

quote:

---

InSiDeR said:
I find that there is less drama in a resturaunt than in retail stores (or so it appears)

---

Give it time

Though you will have less issues with stupid people if you are not dealing with the customers, there is generally *far* more drama in a restaurant...

And even in the kitchen, you will certainly deal, indirectly at least, with some exceptionally stupid people (I can't tell you how many times I sent a steak out medium-rare, as ordered, only to have the customer send it back with *his* interpretation of what medium-rare should be (usually what he wanted was medium...) asking for it to be cooked "properly" this time....).

Yah, I can empathize with that. Fella once ordered a new york from me, said burn it...I did...he sent it back...to be cooked some more...then he tipped me.

But the dumbest I ever ran into was the woman who ordered the salmon, cleaned the plate and then complained it tasted 'Fishy'.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Resturants arghhhh! The clicky fingers, the clicky fingers!
It's not just a case of "talking to the people." It's the listening to them that gets you.
I spent a long time working directly with people, resturants, bars, social work, to name a few and that was The Abyss
Nowadays, when the voices in my head are quieter and the unbearable urge to scream subsides, I work in gardens, no people, great.


(Edited by Tao on 01-02-2006 17:17)

Can there be a place for Creationism in schools? I know that a few of my friends right now are taking a lit. class in which they read about Creation and were to make connections between the Bible and other Creation stories. Would this be a proper place for discussion of other faiths, Bruce, or should something more formal be made?

I for one would have liked to learn about other faiths in public school earlier than Senior year of high school. The only instructions I had gotten previously were from my sunday school class which painted other religions in a horrible, Satanic light. Some can be, but when you start saying that the founders were in an opium enhanced stupor, that is going too far.

If different religions were *manditory* in high school, I think there would be more tolerance. I think Bruce had an excellent point that there is too much intolerance and I think it stems from indoctrination and ignorance. Not just between religions, but also from those who are not religious as well. If everyone is on the same page and taught from a neutral position other's basic beliefs, wouldn't we be able to get along better?

Oh, and NoJive, that story was great.

quote:

---

James02 said:

If different religions...

---

Again we come back to a very simple problem - what defines "different"? Different in relation to what?

And who decides which religions to include? You certainly couldn't include all of them. WHo would decide which *version* of each religion would be included? You could spend the whole school year simply hashing out the differences between the various christian sects.

Does the hebrew creation myth have a place among the other creation myths, in literature or mythology class? Certainly.
Does Creationism have a place in public school? Vey simply: no.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it has no place. The obvious problem is where it *is* placed. I would much like to see Creationism among many other religous creation theories to be taught objectively as a study of world culture, or even philosophy. But as we all know, it is essentially impossible to objectively teach anything religously oriented in a public school system.

quote:

---

Some can be, but when you start saying that the founders were in an opium enhanced stupor, that is going too far.

---

Let us not forget St. Elmo's fire. During the Spanish Inquisition the clergy used to consume ergot on rye to induce vivid religous hallucinations. Even today, many catholic priests in europe will still pick psilocybin mushrooms on early Sunday mornings for mass (they call it the golden drops of the lord or something). Drug induced rituals are not only limited to the peyote eating Native Americans you know... Knowledge is power, right?

quote:

---

consume ergot on rye to induce vivid religous hallucinations.

---

I think you've just explained Pat Robertson. What a piece of work that boy is.

See, being an optimistic person I like to think the best of people first. If I go into research of a religion thinking the founder was a druggie, I may not get the same information as I would going in a fresh slate.
(Although that is an eye-buldging story Insider)
Which is why I think that a brief teaching of the major world religions would be a good thing to teach in the classroom. It takes the religious debate to a neutral zone, and allows thought, not emotions, to govern learning.

Perhaps a learning in this manner would keep others from living in the dark and being bigotous towards people from other religions.

part of the problem is that you are very biased in your view on the use of drugs.

You have to understand that drugs of one kind or another have been a major part of the religious views of most cultures, at one time or another.

The difference between those who uses things that we now call drugs in their pursuit of other worldly intelligence, and those people who yo usee today as "druggies" is fairly significant.

Kinda tells you something about the thougth process that gave us the idea of communicating with god though, doesn't it?

InSiDeR: You meant St. Anthony's Fire.

.

(Edited by hyperbole on 01-12-2006 19:20)

Oh yea, St Elmo was that really bad movie =\. I'm kind of surprised with myself, oh well.

DL was the first part of your post directed to me or james? I'm not really sure. Either way I do have a bias so....

quote:

---

InSiDeR said:

DL was the first part of your post directed to me or james?

---

to james. should have stated that more clearly...

(Edited by DL-44 on 01-13-2006 02:31)

Yeah, it does put a different perspective on things. Although I like to have a clear head when I talk to God, oh well.

But I do understand the difference between druggies and those who use drugs for "religious purposes." Although there are many debatable facets to this statement, I feel that addiction of these drugs makes even religious figures druggies if they use it. Maybe the term isn't quite right for what I am using. But whatever the case, if the priest can't remember what he was saying in mass, why should we?

Anyway, I just think that going into a religious research with information such as this would somewhat skew what you call "normal people's" view of the religion. Don't you? Wouldn't you rather have a slightly less biased teacher than one completely ignorant one?

quote:

---

James02 said:

I feel that addiction of these drugs makes even religious figures druggies if they use it.

---

Of course.

What I refer to is the origin. Drugs in early history were believed by many cultures to be a means to reach a different spiritual level, and to communicate with gods and the like. There was no understanding of what was actually happening to the brain (This is very different from a modern christian minister who would perform his service high). This carries through to modern society in many ways, of course.
What I am saying is - take the view you have of modern "druggies" who think that their drugs have taken them to somoe religious level beyond the rest of us. Apply that thought to the evolution of our religious sensibilities as a species. It's a leap I don't expect you to take, but at least you can see where I'm going with it..

quote:

---

James02 said:

Anyway, I just think that going into a religious research with information such as this would somewhat skew what you call "normal people's" view of the religion. Don't you?

---

So....you are saying that knowledge causes bias...so we should stay ignorant?

quote:

---

DL-44 said:Drugs in early history were believed by many cultures to be a means to reach a different spiritual level, and to communicate with gods and the like.

---

And yet, based on recent anthro-pro-logical-vegetation-scientific-research, even Jesus and his disciples were ingesting large amounts of a THC paste, throughout their travels.

I doubt that that were ALL complacent participants, knowing FULL WELL, of what they were ingesting. I think the evidence has shown / will show, that they were all ignorant of such DRUG ingestion.

Jury is still out on this issue.

But it makes ONE wonder.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "