Teachers take a stand against anti-evolution teaching order

[Whaleboy]

No, the creator (or user).

Well in the first place you're being essentialist which is fallacious in my opinion if you claim to say there is no absolute whereupon an essense can correspond. If you hold relativism, you must conclude existentialism, which means the subjective assigns the purpose.

Of course it need not originate in God. People are pretty good at having intentions on their own.

Yes but that's not morality. I do agree with you, but since we're discussing a definition, not whether or not we agree with it... the whole question of intent as an open one, and is really a case of Kant vs. the Utilitarians/consequentialists, but in both cases God isn't needed.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Well in the first place you're being essentialist which is fallacious in my opinion if you claim to say there is no absolute whereupon an essense can correspond. If you hold relativism, you must conclude existentialism, which means the subjective assigns the purpose.

No, purpose/intent isn't subjective. It's simple to demonstrate that someone has a particular intent.

[Whaleboy]

But in a subjective context . Consider a table... it's only a table in a given context.

Consider this example. Say you have a car. You take off the doors... it's still a car. You take off the rims, it's still a car. You keep taking bits off until it's a pile of parts, and then little lumps of metal on the ground. At what point did it stop becoming a car? That question is at the heart of existentialism vs. essentialism, and the context.

[Boris Godunov]

Define the word "purpose" in the context of this debate, please. I think people are confused over its meaning, as the word has several definitions.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Trees aren't intelligent beings. They're no more capable of having intent than a rock.

What does intent or intelligence have to do with a purpose? A knife doesn't have to be intelligent to be for cutting.


An apple's purpose is to plant the tree's seed. Like your eyes are for seeing, or your legs for walking.

[Straybow]

INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT SCIENCE. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT BIOLOGY. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT AN ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

At least they admit that being an "accepted scientific theory" is more important than the facts.

[Whaleboy]

Define the word "purpose" in the context of this debate, please. I think people are confused over its meaning, as the word has several definitions.

Well I'll leave that to him, I have it as a function of essense.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Straybow

INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT SCIENCE. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT BIOLOGY. INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT AN ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

At least they admit that being an "accepted scientific theory" is more important than the facts.

And what facts do you mean? How about the fact that there isn't a shred of objective evidence to support ID?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd
What does intent or intelligence have to do with a purpose? A knife doesn't have to be intelligent to be for cutting.

The user of the knife, or the creator of the knife, does.

An apple's purpose is to plant the tree's seed. Like your eyes are for seeing, or your legs for walking.

(Ignoring the fact that humans plant apple trees) an apple has no purpose. The functionality that resulted in the genes that cause apple trees to produce apples being selected by natural selection is planting the tree's seed.

[Whaleboy]

The user of the knife, or the creator of the knife, does.

Yes but how is that different to a beholder in all but predication? That's the difference between essence and purpose.

(Ignoring the fact that humans plant apple trees) an apple has no purpose. The functionality that resulted in the genes that cause apple trees to produce apples being selected by natural selection is planting the tree's seed.

See aforementioned pwnage.

[Berzerker]

WB

As opposed to conservatives?

Both liberals and conservatives use the schools to push their ideologies. I've already said that a couple times...

I would prefer racist parents to have no influence on the education system. Ditto holocaust deniers and creationists (as much as it is attempted it cannot be equated to evolution in this respect). Certain ideas are simply better in the context of being taught to children in society.

It doesn't matter what you prefer.

Well I see this as a problem that simply isn't the case in the EU, the UK specifically

Both have higher taxes, and both have higher out of wedlock births with a welfare state than without.

ceebs -

If this is truely happening (Some form of evidence perhaps?) then it could be caused by many things, by a greater rate of inclusion of disadvantaged students bringing the averages down.

If you went to school 25-45 years ago, you don't need "evidence", you already know what is obvious. The
evidence I've already supplied which you apparently missed was the difference between SF public schools and rural Maryland 25-30 years ago.


Theben

This is pure BS. The same can be said of 'conservative- controlled' areas (whatever that means, there are plenty of each found in population and power in most areas of the country). Welfare doesn't "promote" out of wedlock births, and as someone pointed out the 'liberal' states have lower OOW pregnancy and abortion rates.

And you think what I said is pure BS because welfare promotes out of wedlock births in more conservative areas? I suggest you guys actually do some research and compare out of wedlock births before and after welfare before making "pure BS" proclamations.

Sex education plays a big role there (another evil liberal idea).

And now schools are providing grade schoolers with sex education. Great idea there... So, have out of wedlock births gone down because of sex education?

[quote]And women were forced into the workforce by the combination of declining wage earnings and increasing costs of living. I know plenty of people who try to do the 1 breadwinner option, so someone can stay home with the kids. It's not a matter of ideology, it's one of money.[quote]

Taxes aren't money? Sheesh! It becomes a matter of ideology when liberals want to tax the hell out of people.

And I don't see an influx of women rushing back home after the Bush, or Reagan, tax 'cuts', so maybe increased taxes didn't account for too much, eh?

Bush and Reagan were fiscally very liberal, neither vetoed a budget, neither vetoed big spending bills. Reagan even resided over the biggest increase in the payroll tax. You don't compare Reagan or Bush to Clinton, you compare the last 35 years of increased taxes with the first half of the century when most people didn't even pay an income tax.

Oerdin

I have to agree with Theben. The liberal parts of the country have lower out of wedlock birth rates, lower divorce rates, lower welfare rates, and lower rates of sexually transmited diseases. Also the liberal states tend to have superior education systems compared to conservative states.

You don't compare the effects of a welfare state on liberal and conservative parts of the country, you compare out of wedlock birthrates before and after the creation of a welfare state.

Women have joined the work force mainly because the cost of living has gone up but wages have stagnated for most job fields. It has nothing to do with conservative or liberal.

Taxes aren't a cost of living? The cost of doing business is not a cost of living? I've read that out of wedlock birthrate among blacks was ~single digit in the first half of the century, now its ~%70. The rate among whites was single digit but has started to climb too, around
%35 now. What changed? A welfare state is one change...

[Whaleboy]

Both liberals and conservatives use the schools to push their ideologies. I've already said that a couple times...

Yes but one has a better place than another in such things, furthermore the conflict is a peculiarly US-centric phenomenon.

It doesn't matter what you prefer.

Meaningless.

And you think what I said is pure BS because welfare promotes out of wedlock births in more conservative areas? I suggest you guys actually do some research and compare out of wedlock births before and after welfare before making "pure BS" proclamations.

I think the BS proclaimation is that such things can be divided so nearly along liberal and conservative lines, concepts themselves that are only vaguely defined.

And now schools are providing grade schoolers with sex education. Great idea there... So, have out of wedlock births gone down because of sex education?

What about marital rape?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Trees aren't intelligent beings. They're no more capable of having intent than a rock.

Trees aren't intelligent but birds are smart enough to know which fruit they like and which ones they don't. Guess which seeds get spread far and wide when the bird craps out the seed?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
AH & LC,

With that path, eventually you would end up with a god.

By that logic, an infinite spatial extent of the universe would be proof of God's existance ...

Actually, it's highly ironic that you should take an infinite past as implying a God when, in pre-thermodynamics days, it was so often advanced as removing the need for a Creator.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Trees aren't intelligent but birds are smart enough to know which fruit they like and which ones they don't. Guess which seeds get spread far and wide when the bird craps out the seed?

(Ignoring that I don't think birds are necessarily intelligent actors) that doesn't disprove my point that purpose and intent require intelligent actors. It says that the specifics of my example were incorrect because the principle I was demonstrating holds.