|
United States7483 Posts
On February 23 2012 13:46 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 13:45 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On February 23 2012 13:43 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 13:40 Probulous wrote:On February 23 2012 13:37 Holophonist wrote:
Oh my gosh what is with you people?? I never said it wasn't about religion. Holy crap, I said it WAS about religion. Then it isn't about science then is it? Unless of course you are saying religion is scientific. Now anything that is based on suspending rational thought and believing (faith) cannot by definition be scientific can it. If it does not conform to rational analysis then it does not belong in a science class. Yes the ridiculous idea that a thing can be related to more than one thing. nuts, I know. Just because something is related to religion, doesn't mean it can't be mentioned in a classroom for goodness sake. Especially because it's not specific to any 1 religion, so the government wouldn't be endorsing any 1 religion over another, let alone making a law endorsing a specific religion. The court ruling was not that you can't mention intelligent design in a classroom, you are makign a case against a censorship that doesn't exist. There is a world of difference between something being allowed to be mentioned in a classroom, and something actively being taught. It's not related to a specific religion. How does it violate the constitution? Strictly speaking it could be about aliens, no?
Because it gives support to religious ideas that support the existence of an intelligent being over those that do not, and over atheism.
|
On February 23 2012 13:58 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 13:44 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 13:40 1Eris1 wrote:On February 23 2012 13:37 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 13:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 23 2012 13:17 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 12:55 DoubleReed wrote:On February 23 2012 12:36 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 11:48 BallinWitStalin wrote:On February 23 2012 11:26 Holophonist wrote:
[quote]
He clearly didn't read what I said because he seems to be trying to convince me of the validity of evolution. Did YOU read what I said? I don't have any problem with evolution in general. I have a problem with people believing that evolution disproves the existence of God.
If you want to try and get me on one sentence I threw out perhaps a bit rashly, fine. That's what internet people do. They find any hole or opportunity to rip somebody apart and go for it without paying attention to the bigger point. Do you really believe every single damn thing taught in a science class in this country is "science" in the strict sense of the word that you're applying to intelligent design? Get real! That's the same with any subject in school, honestly.
Personally, I wouldn't mind if intelligent design were taught in a different class in school, I would just like to see it taught in schools. But honestly it fits best in science class even if simply because it's dealing with things that are taught in science class!
Absolutely not ever, just.....just no. Again, as everyone here has been saying, intelligent design has no scientific basis. Therefore, it has no basis being taught in a science classroom. The only reason intelligent design deals with some of the same things evolution does is because they both provide "explanations" of the origin of human beings. That does not mean they should be taught in the same class. As everyone has stated, one is informed by science (and so belongs in a science class), whereas one is not in any way, shape or form informed by science, and has no place being taught in a science class as a theory comparable on the same level as evolution. I don't care if intelligent design is taught in schools. But if it is, it belongs in a religious studies class, as a religious explanation for the origin of human beings. Because that's what it is. The only reason it should even be discussed in a science class is to emphasize the fact that it is not scientific theory, and that there is no scientific evidence for it. Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom. I really don't understand the idea that you can't even talk about something that doesn't conform to the scientific method in science class. If it weren't a religion thing, I get the feeling you guys wouldn't feel this way, or at least wouldn't feel this strongly. The reason we feel strongly is because it is actually an issue in the US. If we didn't think this could actually happen, then we would probably be much more calm about it. But yea, it's a religion thing, and we have separation of church and state. So of course that makes us feel more strongly about it. Duh. If it were irreligious and wrong then we would still disagree, but there wouldn't also be the 1st amendment issue. It simply does not belong in the science class because it has nothing to do with the history of science (like say, the Plum Pudding Model) and has no scientific basis (like say, evolution). It doesn't grant you any understanding of anything. It's completely superfluous. Quite frankly, I think intelligent design is just so boring and mundane. Anyone could have come up with that. Evolution is a crazy idea that practically nobody thought of. It's revolutionary. It's totally absurd. And it's completely true. That's what makes science and mathematics so awesome. I don't think the idea of irreducible complexity is boring, mundane or something that anybody would think of it. I mean honestly I think a lot of people here don't understand what intelligent design even is. I think they have just such a strong aversion to anything related to religion at all, that they hate intelligent design. From wikipedia Intelligent design (ID) is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea". The leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,[n 1][3] and believe the designer to be the Christian God.[n It has everything to do with religion. Oh my gosh what is with you people?? I never said it wasn't about religion. Holy crap, I said it WAS about religion. Then by your very words it's unconstitutional. Maybe you should read up on what that means. The Supreme Court did and thats why they struck in down in 2005. edit: Doesn't matter if you find something "interesting" or not. If it's unconstitutional, it should not be in schools, because it gives a specific religion a leveling point above the rest. Feel free to read about it on your own time though. Good riddance. where in the constitution does it say you can't talk about something that is related to the generic idea of religion (not a specific religion) in a classroom? I'm really interested. First amendment: the supreme court ruled that any form of religious education in school is tantamount to government sponsorship of that religion, which inherently infringes on the right of people to have the freedom of their own religion, and the freedom from religion.
That applies precisely to a specific religion, not the idea of religion in general. There's nothing wrong with a World Religions course and social sciences related to things like that. There's a difference between religious education and education about religions.
|
On February 23 2012 13:53 Holophonist wrote:
Mainly it challenges the science that says complex organs can come about through anything except a specific design laid out by something knowing the end result.
Well that premise as a scientific theory has been debunked. For something to considered a theory it has to have internal logic and have some evidence to prove that it exists. In fact in scientific circles for something to go from a hypothesis to a theory requires a very large amount of evidence. That is why evolution is still called a theory. It does not produce the same result every time and is not 100% predictable and so cannot be called a law. So if you are trying to compare the theory of evolution to ID, ID must have a decent level of evidence. It does not. As Eris said, there is a plausible theory for people being abducted by aliens that has more evidence ("eye-witness acounts") than ID. Should that be in a science class?
Seriously, this is silly. All I want is an honorable mention that the theory exists and to lay out the basics behind it. And I still don't get why you think anything that's related to religion can't be mentioned in schools....
Don't misrepresent me. I said that religion does not belong in the science class. Nothing wrong with religious classes.
|
Haha I cant believe thats an actual issue in the states. I went to Catholic school here and they didnt even dare try to mention ID in science class. It has no factual evidence to support it, its mythology, how could you possibly even consider teaching it in science class?
|
On February 23 2012 14:02 Focuspants wrote:
Haha I cant believe thats an actual issue in the states. I went to Catholic school here and they didnt even dare try to mention ID in science class. It has no factual evidence to support it, its mythology, how could you possibly even consider teaching it in science class?
It's not a mythology, it's a modern adaptation of an out-dated philosophical argument.
|
United States7483 Posts
On February 23 2012 13:53 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 13:49 Probulous wrote:On February 23 2012 13:43 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 13:40 Probulous wrote:On February 23 2012 13:37 Holophonist wrote:
Oh my gosh what is with you people?? I never said it wasn't about religion. Holy crap, I said it WAS about religion. Then it isn't about science then is it? Unless of course you are saying religion is scientific. Now anything that is based on suspending rational thought and believing (faith) cannot by definition be scientific can it. If it does not conform to rational analysis then it does not belong in a science class. Yes the ridiculous idea that a thing can be related to more than one thing. nuts, I know. Just because something is related to religion, doesn't mean it can't be mentioned in a classroom for goodness sake. Especially because it's not specific to any 1 religion, so the government wouldn't be endorsing any 1 religion over another, let alone making a law endorsing a specific religion. So it's irrelevant then  What are you arguing? That ID is a decent theory available to explain the development of the earth? Well that sounds like it has nothing to do with religion and so can be debated on its logic. When you drill down to its core it is based on faith and so is a religious belief and therefore does not belong in a class that is supposed to teach children science. Sure you could teach them religion, or english or history or geography but why? It is a waste of time and the only reason I can see for this is to try and make the "theory" of ID seem more scientifically relevant. If it is not based on reason and the scientific method it does not belong in a science class. That goes for pottery as well as ID. Mainly it challenges the science that says complex organs can come about through anything except a specific design laid out by something knowing the end result. Seriously, this is silly. All I want is an honorable mention that the theory exists and to lay out the basics behind it. And I still don't get why you think anything that's related to religion can't be mentioned in schools....
For Petes sake, I've already explained why it ISN'T a theory. It's a hypothesis, and barely even qualifies as that (it's a piss poor one, generally a hypothesis requires some potential for testing). A Theory in the scientific sense requires rigorous (and I mean RIGOROUS) testing before it reaches that status.
|
United States7483 Posts
On February 23 2012 14:00 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 13:58 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 13:44 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 13:40 1Eris1 wrote:On February 23 2012 13:37 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 13:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 23 2012 13:17 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 12:55 DoubleReed wrote:On February 23 2012 12:36 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 11:48 BallinWitStalin wrote:
[quote]
Absolutely not ever, just.....just no. Again, as everyone here has been saying, intelligent design has no scientific basis. Therefore, it has no basis being taught in a science classroom. The only reason intelligent design deals with some of the same things evolution does is because they both provide "explanations" of the origin of human beings. That does not mean they should be taught in the same class. As everyone has stated, one is informed by science (and so belongs in a science class), whereas one is not in any way, shape or form informed by science, and has no place being taught in a science class as a theory comparable on the same level as evolution.
I don't care if intelligent design is taught in schools. But if it is, it belongs in a religious studies class, as a religious explanation for the origin of human beings. Because that's what it is. The only reason it should even be discussed in a science class is to emphasize the fact that it is not scientific theory, and that there is no scientific evidence for it.
Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom. I really don't understand the idea that you can't even talk about something that doesn't conform to the scientific method in science class. If it weren't a religion thing, I get the feeling you guys wouldn't feel this way, or at least wouldn't feel this strongly. The reason we feel strongly is because it is actually an issue in the US. If we didn't think this could actually happen, then we would probably be much more calm about it. But yea, it's a religion thing, and we have separation of church and state. So of course that makes us feel more strongly about it. Duh. If it were irreligious and wrong then we would still disagree, but there wouldn't also be the 1st amendment issue. It simply does not belong in the science class because it has nothing to do with the history of science (like say, the Plum Pudding Model) and has no scientific basis (like say, evolution). It doesn't grant you any understanding of anything. It's completely superfluous. Quite frankly, I think intelligent design is just so boring and mundane. Anyone could have come up with that. Evolution is a crazy idea that practically nobody thought of. It's revolutionary. It's totally absurd. And it's completely true. That's what makes science and mathematics so awesome. I don't think the idea of irreducible complexity is boring, mundane or something that anybody would think of it. I mean honestly I think a lot of people here don't understand what intelligent design even is. I think they have just such a strong aversion to anything related to religion at all, that they hate intelligent design. From wikipedia Intelligent design (ID) is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea". The leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,[n 1][3] and believe the designer to be the Christian God.[n It has everything to do with religion. Oh my gosh what is with you people?? I never said it wasn't about religion. Holy crap, I said it WAS about religion. Then by your very words it's unconstitutional. Maybe you should read up on what that means. The Supreme Court did and thats why they struck in down in 2005. edit: Doesn't matter if you find something "interesting" or not. If it's unconstitutional, it should not be in schools, because it gives a specific religion a leveling point above the rest. Feel free to read about it on your own time though. Good riddance. where in the constitution does it say you can't talk about something that is related to the generic idea of religion (not a specific religion) in a classroom? I'm really interested. First amendment: the supreme court ruled that any form of religious education in school is tantamount to government sponsorship of that religion, which inherently infringes on the right of people to have the freedom of their own religion, and the freedom from religion. That applies precisely to a specific religion, not the idea of religion in general. There's nothing wrong with a World Religions course and social sciences related to things like that. There's a difference between religious education and education about religions.
No, McCollum v. Board of Education established that any form of religious instruction in public schools of any sort is a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment.
|
On February 23 2012 14:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 14:02 Focuspants wrote:
Haha I cant believe thats an actual issue in the states. I went to Catholic school here and they didnt even dare try to mention ID in science class. It has no factual evidence to support it, its mythology, how could you possibly even consider teaching it in science class? It's not a mythology, it's a modern adaptation of an out-dated philosophical argument.
The Creation Story of Christianity from the Bible is mythology. Period.
|
On February 23 2012 14:08 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 14:02 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On February 23 2012 14:02 Focuspants wrote:
Haha I cant believe thats an actual issue in the states. I went to Catholic school here and they didnt even dare try to mention ID in science class. It has no factual evidence to support it, its mythology, how could you possibly even consider teaching it in science class? It's not a mythology, it's a modern adaptation of an out-dated philosophical argument. The Creation Story of Christianity from the Bible is mythology. Period.
I never said it wasn't.
|
On February 23 2012 13:53 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 13:49 Probulous wrote:On February 23 2012 13:43 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 13:40 Probulous wrote:On February 23 2012 13:37 Holophonist wrote:
Oh my gosh what is with you people?? I never said it wasn't about religion. Holy crap, I said it WAS about religion. Then it isn't about science then is it? Unless of course you are saying religion is scientific. Now anything that is based on suspending rational thought and believing (faith) cannot by definition be scientific can it. If it does not conform to rational analysis then it does not belong in a science class. Yes the ridiculous idea that a thing can be related to more than one thing. nuts, I know. Just because something is related to religion, doesn't mean it can't be mentioned in a classroom for goodness sake. Especially because it's not specific to any 1 religion, so the government wouldn't be endorsing any 1 religion over another, let alone making a law endorsing a specific religion. So it's irrelevant then What are you arguing? That ID is a decent theory available to explain the development of the earth? Well that sounds like it has nothing to do with religion and so can be debated on its logic. When you drill down to its core it is based on faith and so is a religious belief and therefore does not belong in a class that is supposed to teach children science. Sure you could teach them religion, or english or history or geography but why? It is a waste of time and the only reason I can see for this is to try and make the "theory" of ID seem more scientifically relevant. If it is not based on reason and the scientific method it does not belong in a science class. That goes for pottery as well as ID. Mainly it challenges the science that says complex organs can come about through anything except a specific design laid out by something knowing the end result. Seriously, this is silly. All I want is an honorable mention that the theory exists and to lay out the basics behind it. And I still don't get why you think anything that's related to religion can't be mentioned in schools....
What does this even mean? Stem cell research is already on the way toward producing complex organs... (A working liver is already up)
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your words but if we are able to create any and all complex organs do scientists suddenly qualify as gods?
|
On February 23 2012 14:08 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 14:00 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On February 23 2012 13:58 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 13:44 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 13:40 1Eris1 wrote:On February 23 2012 13:37 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 13:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 23 2012 13:17 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 12:55 DoubleReed wrote:On February 23 2012 12:36 Holophonist wrote:
[quote]
I really don't understand the idea that you can't even talk about something that doesn't conform to the scientific method in science class. If it weren't a religion thing, I get the feeling you guys wouldn't feel this way, or at least wouldn't feel this strongly. The reason we feel strongly is because it is actually an issue in the US. If we didn't think this could actually happen, then we would probably be much more calm about it. But yea, it's a religion thing, and we have separation of church and state. So of course that makes us feel more strongly about it. Duh. If it were irreligious and wrong then we would still disagree, but there wouldn't also be the 1st amendment issue. It simply does not belong in the science class because it has nothing to do with the history of science (like say, the Plum Pudding Model) and has no scientific basis (like say, evolution). It doesn't grant you any understanding of anything. It's completely superfluous. Quite frankly, I think intelligent design is just so boring and mundane. Anyone could have come up with that. Evolution is a crazy idea that practically nobody thought of. It's revolutionary. It's totally absurd. And it's completely true. That's what makes science and mathematics so awesome. I don't think the idea of irreducible complexity is boring, mundane or something that anybody would think of it. I mean honestly I think a lot of people here don't understand what intelligent design even is. I think they have just such a strong aversion to anything related to religion at all, that they hate intelligent design. From wikipedia Intelligent design (ID) is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea". The leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,[n 1][3] and believe the designer to be the Christian God.[n It has everything to do with religion. Oh my gosh what is with you people?? I never said it wasn't about religion. Holy crap, I said it WAS about religion. Then by your very words it's unconstitutional. Maybe you should read up on what that means. The Supreme Court did and thats why they struck in down in 2005. edit: Doesn't matter if you find something "interesting" or not. If it's unconstitutional, it should not be in schools, because it gives a specific religion a leveling point above the rest. Feel free to read about it on your own time though. Good riddance. where in the constitution does it say you can't talk about something that is related to the generic idea of religion (not a specific religion) in a classroom? I'm really interested. First amendment: the supreme court ruled that any form of religious education in school is tantamount to government sponsorship of that religion, which inherently infringes on the right of people to have the freedom of their own religion, and the freedom from religion. That applies precisely to a specific religion, not the idea of religion in general. There's nothing wrong with a World Religions course and social sciences related to things like that. There's a difference between religious education and education about religions. No, McCollum v. Board of Education established that any form of religious instruction in public schools of any sort is a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment.
How are religions studied in the social sciences in schools then?
Also, just because they ruled that teaching about world religions inherently infringes on the right of people to have the freedom of their own religion, and the freedom from religion doesn't mean it does.
I don't think anyone learning about the Greek pantheon of gods in their history class in middle school had their rights infringed upon, are you sure that's what they ruled? I was under the impression that it applied specifically towards "religious education" not "education about religions"
|
On February 23 2012 14:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 14:08 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 14:00 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On February 23 2012 13:58 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 13:44 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 13:40 1Eris1 wrote:On February 23 2012 13:37 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 13:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 23 2012 13:17 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 12:55 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
The reason we feel strongly is because it is actually an issue in the US. If we didn't think this could actually happen, then we would probably be much more calm about it.
But yea, it's a religion thing, and we have separation of church and state. So of course that makes us feel more strongly about it. Duh. If it were irreligious and wrong then we would still disagree, but there wouldn't also be the 1st amendment issue.
It simply does not belong in the science class because it has nothing to do with the history of science (like say, the Plum Pudding Model) and has no scientific basis (like say, evolution). It doesn't grant you any understanding of anything. It's completely superfluous.
Quite frankly, I think intelligent design is just so boring and mundane. Anyone could have come up with that. Evolution is a crazy idea that practically nobody thought of. It's revolutionary. It's totally absurd. And it's completely true. That's what makes science and mathematics so awesome. I don't think the idea of irreducible complexity is boring, mundane or something that anybody would think of it. I mean honestly I think a lot of people here don't understand what intelligent design even is. I think they have just such a strong aversion to anything related to religion at all, that they hate intelligent design. From wikipedia Intelligent design (ID) is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea". The leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,[n 1][3] and believe the designer to be the Christian God.[n It has everything to do with religion. Oh my gosh what is with you people?? I never said it wasn't about religion. Holy crap, I said it WAS about religion. Then by your very words it's unconstitutional. Maybe you should read up on what that means. The Supreme Court did and thats why they struck in down in 2005. edit: Doesn't matter if you find something "interesting" or not. If it's unconstitutional, it should not be in schools, because it gives a specific religion a leveling point above the rest. Feel free to read about it on your own time though. Good riddance. where in the constitution does it say you can't talk about something that is related to the generic idea of religion (not a specific religion) in a classroom? I'm really interested. First amendment: the supreme court ruled that any form of religious education in school is tantamount to government sponsorship of that religion, which inherently infringes on the right of people to have the freedom of their own religion, and the freedom from religion. That applies precisely to a specific religion, not the idea of religion in general. There's nothing wrong with a World Religions course and social sciences related to things like that. There's a difference between religious education and education about religions. No, McCollum v. Board of Education established that any form of religious instruction in public schools of any sort is a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment. How are religions studied in the social sciences in schools then? Also, just because they ruled that teaching about world religions inherently infringes on the right of people to have the freedom of their own religion, and the freedom from religion doesn't mean it does. I don't think anyone learning about the Greek pantheon of gods in their history class in middle school had their rights infringed upon, are you sure that's what they ruled?
You're allowed to learn about religions from a cultural and historical perspective, no problem.
History class? Religion is fine.
Science class? Religion is not fine.
|
United States7483 Posts
On February 23 2012 14:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 14:08 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 14:00 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On February 23 2012 13:58 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 13:44 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 13:40 1Eris1 wrote:On February 23 2012 13:37 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 13:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 23 2012 13:17 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 12:55 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
The reason we feel strongly is because it is actually an issue in the US. If we didn't think this could actually happen, then we would probably be much more calm about it.
But yea, it's a religion thing, and we have separation of church and state. So of course that makes us feel more strongly about it. Duh. If it were irreligious and wrong then we would still disagree, but there wouldn't also be the 1st amendment issue.
It simply does not belong in the science class because it has nothing to do with the history of science (like say, the Plum Pudding Model) and has no scientific basis (like say, evolution). It doesn't grant you any understanding of anything. It's completely superfluous.
Quite frankly, I think intelligent design is just so boring and mundane. Anyone could have come up with that. Evolution is a crazy idea that practically nobody thought of. It's revolutionary. It's totally absurd. And it's completely true. That's what makes science and mathematics so awesome. I don't think the idea of irreducible complexity is boring, mundane or something that anybody would think of it. I mean honestly I think a lot of people here don't understand what intelligent design even is. I think they have just such a strong aversion to anything related to religion at all, that they hate intelligent design. From wikipedia Intelligent design (ID) is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea". The leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,[n 1][3] and believe the designer to be the Christian God.[n It has everything to do with religion. Oh my gosh what is with you people?? I never said it wasn't about religion. Holy crap, I said it WAS about religion. Then by your very words it's unconstitutional. Maybe you should read up on what that means. The Supreme Court did and thats why they struck in down in 2005. edit: Doesn't matter if you find something "interesting" or not. If it's unconstitutional, it should not be in schools, because it gives a specific religion a leveling point above the rest. Feel free to read about it on your own time though. Good riddance. where in the constitution does it say you can't talk about something that is related to the generic idea of religion (not a specific religion) in a classroom? I'm really interested. First amendment: the supreme court ruled that any form of religious education in school is tantamount to government sponsorship of that religion, which inherently infringes on the right of people to have the freedom of their own religion, and the freedom from religion. That applies precisely to a specific religion, not the idea of religion in general. There's nothing wrong with a World Religions course and social sciences related to things like that. There's a difference between religious education and education about religions. No, McCollum v. Board of Education established that any form of religious instruction in public schools of any sort is a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment. How are religions studied in the social sciences in schools then? Also, just because they ruled that teaching about world religions inherently infringes on the right of people to have the freedom of their own religion, and the freedom from religion doesn't mean it does. I don't think anyone learning about the Greek pantheon of gods in their history class in middle school had their rights infringed upon, are you sure that's what they ruled? I was under the impression that it applied specifically towards "religious education" not "education about religions"
Teaching of the existence of religions is okay, and informing the students of the facets of a religion are okay, so long as you never come close to teaching the religion as fact. I may have misunderstood you previously.
|
On February 23 2012 11:32 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 11:30 aksfjh wrote:On February 23 2012 11:28 Jibba wrote:
How is Ahmedinejad in any way similar to a dictator? Gingrich is showcasing a fundamental lack of awareness and understanding. Isn't that what this primary is all about? What am I missing here? You can argue about whether Iran is a rational actor or not and we can have a discussion, but the crap they're saying now is flat out wrong and is incredibly reminiscent to the case against Iraq. They're painting Ahmedinejad as Saddam, which is ridiculous.
I'm confused. I thought Ahmendinejad was "re-elected" through rigged elections and voter intimidation. I also thought that he advocates wiping Israel completely off the map as a nation. I also thought that Iran's government is backing terrorist groups throughout the middle east. I also thought that their nuclear programs were in violation of the IAEA.
Are you saying that none of this is true, and Ahmendinejad is actually a really nice guy and great leader of a peaceful country?
|
On February 23 2012 14:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 14:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On February 23 2012 14:08 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 14:00 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On February 23 2012 13:58 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 13:44 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 13:40 1Eris1 wrote:On February 23 2012 13:37 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 13:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 23 2012 13:17 Holophonist wrote:
[quote]
I don't think the idea of irreducible complexity is boring, mundane or something that anybody would think of it. I mean honestly I think a lot of people here don't understand what intelligent design even is. I think they have just such a strong aversion to anything related to religion at all, that they hate intelligent design.
From wikipedia Intelligent design (ID) is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea". The leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,[n 1][3] and believe the designer to be the Christian God.[n It has everything to do with religion. Oh my gosh what is with you people?? I never said it wasn't about religion. Holy crap, I said it WAS about religion. Then by your very words it's unconstitutional. Maybe you should read up on what that means. The Supreme Court did and thats why they struck in down in 2005. edit: Doesn't matter if you find something "interesting" or not. If it's unconstitutional, it should not be in schools, because it gives a specific religion a leveling point above the rest. Feel free to read about it on your own time though. Good riddance. where in the constitution does it say you can't talk about something that is related to the generic idea of religion (not a specific religion) in a classroom? I'm really interested. First amendment: the supreme court ruled that any form of religious education in school is tantamount to government sponsorship of that religion, which inherently infringes on the right of people to have the freedom of their own religion, and the freedom from religion. That applies precisely to a specific religion, not the idea of religion in general. There's nothing wrong with a World Religions course and social sciences related to things like that. There's a difference between religious education and education about religions. No, McCollum v. Board of Education established that any form of religious instruction in public schools of any sort is a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment. How are religions studied in the social sciences in schools then? Also, just because they ruled that teaching about world religions inherently infringes on the right of people to have the freedom of their own religion, and the freedom from religion doesn't mean it does. I don't think anyone learning about the Greek pantheon of gods in their history class in middle school had their rights infringed upon, are you sure that's what they ruled? You're allowed to learn about religions from a cultural and historical perspective, no problem. History class? Religion is fine. Science class? Religion is not fine.
I'm aware of this, check nestled quotes o.O
On February 23 2012 14:18 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 14:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On February 23 2012 14:08 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 14:00 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On February 23 2012 13:58 Whitewing wrote:On February 23 2012 13:44 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 13:40 1Eris1 wrote:On February 23 2012 13:37 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 13:20 1Eris1 wrote:On February 23 2012 13:17 Holophonist wrote:
[quote]
I don't think the idea of irreducible complexity is boring, mundane or something that anybody would think of it. I mean honestly I think a lot of people here don't understand what intelligent design even is. I think they have just such a strong aversion to anything related to religion at all, that they hate intelligent design.
From wikipedia Intelligent design (ID) is the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea". The leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank,[n 1][3] and believe the designer to be the Christian God.[n It has everything to do with religion. Oh my gosh what is with you people?? I never said it wasn't about religion. Holy crap, I said it WAS about religion. Then by your very words it's unconstitutional. Maybe you should read up on what that means. The Supreme Court did and thats why they struck in down in 2005. edit: Doesn't matter if you find something "interesting" or not. If it's unconstitutional, it should not be in schools, because it gives a specific religion a leveling point above the rest. Feel free to read about it on your own time though. Good riddance. where in the constitution does it say you can't talk about something that is related to the generic idea of religion (not a specific religion) in a classroom? I'm really interested. First amendment: the supreme court ruled that any form of religious education in school is tantamount to government sponsorship of that religion, which inherently infringes on the right of people to have the freedom of their own religion, and the freedom from religion. That applies precisely to a specific religion, not the idea of religion in general. There's nothing wrong with a World Religions course and social sciences related to things like that. There's a difference between religious education and education about religions. No, McCollum v. Board of Education established that any form of religious instruction in public schools of any sort is a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment. How are religions studied in the social sciences in schools then? Also, just because they ruled that teaching about world religions inherently infringes on the right of people to have the freedom of their own religion, and the freedom from religion doesn't mean it does. I don't think anyone learning about the Greek pantheon of gods in their history class in middle school had their rights infringed upon, are you sure that's what they ruled? I was under the impression that it applied specifically towards "religious education" not "education about religions" Teaching of the existence of religions is okay, and informing the students of the facets of a religion are okay, so long as you never come close to teaching the religion as fact. I may have misunderstood you previously.
Ah ok, yea that's what I was getting at with the difference between religious education and education about religions in my first quote.
|
|
|
On February 23 2012 13:57 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 13:53 Nylan wrote:
One last and I'm out:
Would one of you kindly use SCIENCE, LOGIC, and EVIDENCE to back up the claims that ID is a scam and a conspiracy by the religious right? Or do I have to take it on faith? Don't tell me to look it up as the burden of proof is yours. The burden of proof always lies with the one trying to prove something is true. I don't need to disprove ID, because it has no proof whatsoever. Feel free to link me to some of its proof though
He asked for proof or evidence that it's a scam, which is a claim people were making. The burden of proof doesn't lie with people calling something a scam?
|
On February 23 2012 14:22 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 13:57 1Eris1 wrote:On February 23 2012 13:53 Nylan wrote:
One last and I'm out:
Would one of you kindly use SCIENCE, LOGIC, and EVIDENCE to back up the claims that ID is a scam and a conspiracy by the religious right? Or do I have to take it on faith? Don't tell me to look it up as the burden of proof is yours. The burden of proof always lies with the one trying to prove something is true. I don't need to disprove ID, because it has no proof whatsoever. Feel free to link me to some of its proof though He asked for proof or evidence that it's a scam, which is a claim people were making. The burden of proof doesn't lie with people calling something a scam?
Burden of proof is tricky, if you just question a belief you have no burden of proof.
The minute you posit a claim though, even if it's that the belief without any evidence isn't true, you've got burden of proof just as much as the individual who posits that it is true. You can argue it isn't true because of the reasons given and be completely immune though as long as you don't take the next step.
|
On February 23 2012 14:13 forgottendreams wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 13:53 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 13:49 Probulous wrote:On February 23 2012 13:43 Holophonist wrote:On February 23 2012 13:40 Probulous wrote:On February 23 2012 13:37 Holophonist wrote:
Oh my gosh what is with you people?? I never said it wasn't about religion. Holy crap, I said it WAS about religion. Then it isn't about science then is it? Unless of course you are saying religion is scientific. Now anything that is based on suspending rational thought and believing (faith) cannot by definition be scientific can it. If it does not conform to rational analysis then it does not belong in a science class. Yes the ridiculous idea that a thing can be related to more than one thing. nuts, I know. Just because something is related to religion, doesn't mean it can't be mentioned in a classroom for goodness sake. Especially because it's not specific to any 1 religion, so the government wouldn't be endorsing any 1 religion over another, let alone making a law endorsing a specific religion. So it's irrelevant then What are you arguing? That ID is a decent theory available to explain the development of the earth? Well that sounds like it has nothing to do with religion and so can be debated on its logic. When you drill down to its core it is based on faith and so is a religious belief and therefore does not belong in a class that is supposed to teach children science. Sure you could teach them religion, or english or history or geography but why? It is a waste of time and the only reason I can see for this is to try and make the "theory" of ID seem more scientifically relevant. If it is not based on reason and the scientific method it does not belong in a science class. That goes for pottery as well as ID. Mainly it challenges the science that says complex organs can come about through anything except a specific design laid out by something knowing the end result. Seriously, this is silly. All I want is an honorable mention that the theory exists and to lay out the basics behind it. And I still don't get why you think anything that's related to religion can't be mentioned in schools.... What does this even mean? Stem cell research is already on the way toward producing complex organs... (A working liver is already up) Maybe I'm misunderstanding your words but if we are able to create any and all complex organs do scientists suddenly qualify as gods?
If you're talking about humans creating something, that's intelligent design. Like I said, it's not specific to religion, and certainly not any 1 specific religion.
|
On February 23 2012 14:22 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 13:57 1Eris1 wrote:On February 23 2012 13:53 Nylan wrote:
One last and I'm out:
Would one of you kindly use SCIENCE, LOGIC, and EVIDENCE to back up the claims that ID is a scam and a conspiracy by the religious right? Or do I have to take it on faith? Don't tell me to look it up as the burden of proof is yours. The burden of proof always lies with the one trying to prove something is true. I don't need to disprove ID, because it has no proof whatsoever. Feel free to link me to some of its proof though He asked for proof or evidence that it's a scam, which is a claim people were making. The burden of proof doesn't lie with people calling something a scam?
I posted plenty of proof at the bottom of the previous page.
You could also do some research on your own time to see that there is no scientific alternative to evolution 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
