Tweet
I'm no fan of the DI, but fail to see why this is a judicial question. Over the long run, ID's place in our society will rise or fall based upon the merits of the arguments. I continue to be baffled by the science establishment's abject lack of confidence in their own arguments such that they have to do power plays by way of the judiciary.
-
Last edited by DanS; December 21, 2005, 00:03.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891 -
Let's see...the DI want public schools to teach that a religion is "science" and to teach this religion at taxpayer's expense to all children.
Like any religion or philosophy, it cannot be proven or disproven, so it has no place in a science class.
Comment
-
DanS continues his downward spiral.
So you have no objection with religious doctrines being forced into science classrooms or with tax money being used to promote this religious beliefs? You don't see how that could violate the establishment clause in the least? Hell, even a die-hard Bush appointee could see that.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
Look, schools are going to teach what they want to teach, in collaboration with elected school boards. But I really don't think that's a situation unfavorable to science, even when Darwinism's weaknesses are admitted, and even when ID is discussed at length.Originally posted by Zkribbler
Let's see...the DI want public schools to teach that a religion is "science" and to teach this religion at taxpayer's expense to all children.
Like any religion or philosophy, it cannot be proven or disproven, so it has no place in a science class.
Why are y'all so terrified of an idea that's nothing special, in the scheme of things? The best way to "fight" ID is to argue from the strengths of your argument, not to point to what some district court judge says.Last edited by DanS; December 21, 2005, 01:25.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
To teach "Intelligent Design" in the classroom is to violate the separation of church and state.Originally posted by DanS
I'm no fan of the DI, but fail to see why this is a judicial question. Over the long run, ID's place in our society will rise or fall based upon the merits of the arguments. I continue to be baffled by the science establishment's abject lack of confidence in their own arguments such that they have to do power plays by way of the judiciary.(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."Comment
-
I think they should teach "Intelligent design" to French automobile engineers, British plumbers and the IKEA R&D department.So get your Naomi Klein books and move it or I'll seriously bash your faces in! - Supercitizen to stupid students
Be kind to the nerdiest guy in school. He will be your boss when you've grown up!Comment
-
I really really like your avatar, Ollie.
Over the long run, ID's place in our society will rise or fall based upon the merits of the arguments.
This premise is valid only in a truly free field of debate - which isn't the case in your society. ( nor is it the case in ours )Comment
-
The problem with that idea is that there is no argument. Since creationsm is built on hypotheses that cannot be falsified either through empirical evidence or through logical reasoning, there's no way for an argument to take place (at least none elevated beyond the level of the playground's "is not!" "is so!").Originally posted by DanS
Over the long run, ID's place in our society will rise or fall based upon the merits of the arguments.
As an undergraduate, I was lucky enough to attend a debate between Biology Prof. Kenneth Miller (who testified in the Dover case) and a leading creationist (whose name escapes me). The debate was so highly-anticipated that it was actually held in Brown's hockey arena, which we filled. Miller was the very model of reason and debating acumen, but ultimately had to answer this assertion:
The universe is 6,000 years old, and all life is as God created it, 6,000 years ago. Any evidence we think we have to the contrary was put there by God to test our faith.
How on earth do you argue with a claim like that? Not contradict it, not dismiss it, but argue it?
"I have as much authority as the pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it." — George CarlinComment
-
An excellent ruling by a judge who may run for office one of these days.He's got the Midas touch.
But he touched it too much!
Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!Comment
-
Who was the most convincing?As an undergraduate, I was lucky enough to attend a debate between Biology Prof. Kenneth Miller (who testified in the Dover case) and a leading creationist (whose name escapes me). The debate was so highly-anticipated that it was actually held in Brown's hockey arena, which we filled. Miller was the very model of reason and debating acumen, but ultimately had to answer this assertion:
The universe is 6,000 years old, and all life is as God created it, 6,000 years ago. Any evidence we think we have to the contrary was put there by God to test our faith.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
I'd say Miller "convinced" those of us who were inclined to reject Biblical literalism, and his opponent "convinced" those who were inclined to accept it. In other words, everyone had their preconceived notions confirmed, because there was no debate.Originally posted by DanS
Who was the most convincing?"I have as much authority as the pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it." — George CarlinComment
-
Our system allows good ideas to rise to the top over time. Obviously, the system need not be perfect, because it is nowhere near perfect and still works acceptably well in this respect.Originally posted by Az
I really really like your avatar, Ollie.
Over the long run, ID's place in our society will rise or fall based upon the merits of the arguments.
This premise is valid only in a truly free field of debate - which isn't the case in your society. ( nor is it the case in ours )I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
So how would this disconnect be resolved over time in a society such as ours?Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
I'd say Miller "convinced" those of us who were inclined to reject Biblical literalism, and his opponent "convinced" those who were inclined to accept it. In other words, everyone had their preconceived notions confirmed, because there was no debate.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
A start would be teaching actual science in science class.Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
It's no good (from an evolutionary point of view) to have the physique of Tarzan if you have the sex drive of a philosopher. -- Michael Ruse
The Nedaverse I can accept, but not the Berzaverse. There can only be so many alternate realities. -- ElokComment
-
Our system allows good ideas to rise to the top over time. Obviously, the system need not be perfect, because it is nowhere near perfect and still works acceptably well in this respect.
The wide spread of things like ID, supersititiousness, astrology, and other crap like that, seems to contradict this claim.Comment
Comment