Johnny Coli Posted August 10, 2005 Posted August 10, 2005 Nah, your post didn't offend me at all. I was just in one of my argumentative moods this afternoon, and I figured you were just being glib out of frustration. I think we are 100% in agreement on this evolution/ID in schools issue, as well as on religion in general (I'm an agnostic who believes in the strict separation of church and state, and I suspect you're the same?). As far as your scientific production, I don't know you and can't comment on that. But personally, I see nothing wrong with putting Bills talk ahead of science... 404356[/snapback] I'm probably agnostic as well, but I was brought up catholic and it haunts me to this day.
finknottle Posted August 10, 2005 Posted August 10, 2005 So, I take it as accepted, proven scientific fact that we have descended from a lightning strike in the primordial soup. I guess that's settled. Boy, aren't we an arrogant species. 403838[/snapback] It is ironic that conservatives frequently embrace this view while at the same time decrying liberal relativism. It would be interesting to see what they would defend as scientific fact, since by applying only logic, nothing about the real world is actually a provable fact.
Ghost of BiB Posted August 10, 2005 Posted August 10, 2005 I do not dissagree with your premise that we have the knowledge to affect change. But we also have the technology to right some wrongs, as well. Than why have we never, in our history, done it?
finknottle Posted August 11, 2005 Posted August 11, 2005 In some posts in this thread (and others), I've detected hints of strong atheistic beliefs. Whether or not they've been made with tongue in cheek, keep in mind that atheists cannot stand on any intellectual higher ground than the religious ID'ers since they're only applying the same unscientific thought process to come to their beliefs. Until God can be scientifically proven to NOT exist (impossible, IMO), atheists have no greater authority on any debate outside that of philosophy. 404098[/snapback] My missing dog is the semi-intelligent designer; he created life in the premordial soup by passing wind in it 4 billion years ago. I've detected hints in some posters who seem to believe that this chap God exists and is the IDer, or he doesn't exist and there is no IDer. I find this exclusion of my theory arrogent, and until you guys can prove me wrong you have no greater authority in your arguments than I do.
OGTEleven Posted August 11, 2005 Posted August 11, 2005 I'm probably agnostic as well, but I was brought up catholic and it haunts me to this day. 404358[/snapback] If you went to St. Mary's instead of St. Edward's you'd be fine.
finknottle Posted August 11, 2005 Posted August 11, 2005 As a practicing Catholic I have to weigh in on this debate: I love the "God of Gaps" theory. Once upon a time, we didn't know what lightning was - so we assigned causality to God. In fact, God was used to explain everything that science couldn't. If you showed a caveman a TV roday, you know what they would say? "It's a miracle!" Slowly but surely as scientific accumen has decreased the "It was God" explanation has slowly shriveled to a few small gaps here and there. Eventually, it'll all be science. : I still can't believe this is even a debate. 404291[/snapback] It is a thought-provoking coincidence that as we enter an age in which even the brightest among us can no longer fully understand the physics of the myriad everyday devices that surround us - a television, wireless communications, refrigeration, an operating system, catscans, modern medicines - that american society is increasingly turning to religion.
OGTEleven Posted August 11, 2005 Posted August 11, 2005 I dissagree. Evolution and the Scientific Method are clearly under assault here. They hit first. The others are hitting back. They're wrong for doing it, and they're doing it improperly, but they're hitting back just the same. As long as it is done in a philosophy class, and not taught as "science". Agreed. How exactly is teaching evolution fostering atheism? There were atheists before Darwin, there are atheists now. 404346[/snapback] Well, I'll start with a simple example. You see a lot of cars driving around with fishes on the back right? You know, Jesus fishes. Some might look at that as free expression, others might see it as preachy or elitist. Whatever. Now you see a lot of cars driving around with fishes that have feet and the word "Darwin" embedded in them. Clearly this is a shot back at religious fishes. Why would the people with the Darwin fish thingies use them if they didn't think that Darwin somehow refutes Jesus and/or God altogether? It is like battling a Knicks bumper sticker with a Greenpeace bumper sticker. It's dumb. And it's coming from a crowd professing to be ever so brilliant. Maybe they are being taught improperly. Maybe some people are taken aback by that and are fighting back in a stupid way.
Ghost of BiB Posted August 11, 2005 Posted August 11, 2005 It is ironic that conservatives frequently embrace this view while at the same time decrying liberal relativism. It would be interesting to see what they would defend as scientific fact, since by applying only logic, nothing about the real world is actually a provable fact. 404362[/snapback] No, but polarization is the sign of the times. Things are just going to get worse. Being right AT THE TIME is what is important, at least in one's own mind, or maybe institutional. All this scientific process has degenerated into delving into what someone else has done, taking their work and progress and running the same up another couple notches. Hard to find independant thought, anywhere. We're regressing, scietifically - not advancing. Yes, it's philosophical, I guess...but so many of the intellectual, scientific folk are competing to either build on or dispute someone elses theories and precepts, that they have lost site many times of what might be new. I'm sure they call it advancement, but it's often old work under a new name. People with money don't give new money to something new, unless they are very wealthy, eccentric and altruistic.
Johnny Coli Posted August 11, 2005 Posted August 11, 2005 Than why have we never, in our history, done it? 404363[/snapback] Politicians, man! Let the scientists run this country and you'll all be as happy as highly evolved clams.
Johnny Coli Posted August 11, 2005 Posted August 11, 2005 If you went to St. Mary's instead of St. Edward's you'd be fine. 404370[/snapback] "went" is a bit non-descriptive in my case
finknottle Posted August 11, 2005 Posted August 11, 2005 Point 2: I'm not defending the teaching of ID. I'm saying that it is being advocated out of defense, not offense. The best scenario is to remove the anti-God overtones to today's education (whether intended or not). I don't see why this would be fought, but it is fought, thus the irrational defense mechanism developed. I don't think presenting the ideas of God vs. no-God are that objectionable really (at the right age), but to know that teaching evolution is producing atheism, although it shouldn't, and to do nothing about it is either folly or malicious. 404334[/snapback] What if, after you remove anti-God overtones, people who learn about evolution still decide against God? I assume you would be ok with people deciding such matters based on what their life experience? What if, even without biases, people found evolution a personally convincing circumstantial argument against God? It reminds me of when a political party, lagging in the poles, complains that the topics covered in the news is to blame for people leaving for the other party.
erynthered Posted August 11, 2005 Posted August 11, 2005 Evolution or Intelligent Design? 404387[/snapback] Thats like one of those High School Yearbook pictures. How'd you get Tom's so fast?
finknottle Posted August 11, 2005 Posted August 11, 2005 Nope...Liberal Arts education. All I'm trying to say is that there is a scientific process for answering questions about the natural world. ID does not follow that process, therefore ID should not be included in a science class. 404337[/snapback] My pet peeve it this: ID research, as best as I can determine, is dedicated to identifying gaps in how well evolution matches the fossil record. This does nothing to advance its own explanation, but what the heck... the real problem to me is that they advance several arguments that seem to make sense to the scientific non-expert, but which are clearly wrong to the expert. The classic example is their argument that the universe hasn't been around long enough to try all of the experiments which lead to man, therefore someone has been directing it. Even though this argument is easily disposed of, and its fallacy recognized by the academic IDers, it is consistently repeated in new textbooks. A real science which recognizes its own occasional error tries to discourage the misconception, not willfully propogate it.
OGTEleven Posted August 11, 2005 Posted August 11, 2005 What if, after you remove anti-God overtones, people who learn about evolution still decide against God? I assume you would be ok with people deciding such matters based on what their life experience? What if, even without biases, people found evolution a personally convincing circumstantial argument against God? Fine. It reminds me of when a political party, lagging in the poles, complains that the topics covered in the news is to blame for people leaving for the other party. 404382[/snapback] I hope I never lag in the pole.
Ghost of BiB Posted August 11, 2005 Posted August 11, 2005 Some day we're all gonna die. Everyone of us. Can't avoid it, it happens. When it's over, it can be either all there is, or maybe it's something more? I prefer to think there is something more, and if you want to espound that we have disproved that through science, I guess you're going to have to die and rot. I'll take my chances that we're not the greatest thing in the entire universe, maybe there are things we don't know, much less understand, and that there might just be construction contracts we didn't get to bid on. Doesn't mean "God", in Man's terminology. But, if some of you want to belive you are all the all powerful, more power to you.
Ghost of BiB Posted August 11, 2005 Posted August 11, 2005 Politicians, man! Let the scientists run this country and you'll all be as happy as highly evolved clams. 404379[/snapback] Scientists are narrowly focused guys who do things because they can, not because they should.
Mickey Posted August 11, 2005 Posted August 11, 2005 Than why have we never, in our history, done it? 404363[/snapback] Polio was a wrong, we righted it.
Mickey Posted August 11, 2005 Posted August 11, 2005 My pet peeve it this: ID research, as best as I can determine, is dedicated to identifying gaps in how well evolution matches the fossil record. This does nothing to advance its own explanation, but what the heck... the real problem to me is that they advance several arguments that seem to make sense to the scientific non-expert, but which are clearly wrong to the expert. The classic example is their argument that the universe hasn't been around long enough to try all of the experiments which lead to man, therefore someone has been directing it. Even though this argument is easily disposed of, and its fallacy recognized by the academic IDers, it is consistently repeated in new textbooks. A real science which recognizes its own occasional error tries to discourage the misconception, not willfully propogate it. 404390[/snapback] Their argument essentially is, "your theory isn't perfect therefore, mine must be right."
Mickey Posted August 11, 2005 Posted August 11, 2005 Scientists are narrowly focused guys who do things because they can, not because they should. 404420[/snapback] I think that is a really broad generalization.
Recommended Posts