Mickey Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 The democratic candidates for the Dover Pa. school board, in a clean sweep, ousted the republican incumbents who had been forcing intelligent design/creationism into science classes resulting in a lawsuit and tons of unwanted publicity. The democratic candidates, all pro-evolution, have stated that intelligent desing/creationism will in fact be taught in school, just not in science class. It will be part of an elective course on comparative religions. Intelligent Design Proponents Ousted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 The democratic candidates, all pro-evolution, have stated that intelligent desing/creationism will in fact be taught in school, just not in science class. It will be part of an elective course on comparative religions. 498524[/snapback] The term "pro-evolution" strikes me as funny for some reason. I barely pay attention to this intelligent design crap, but it seems like if the theory of evolution is taught correctly, this takes care of itself. Evolution is a theory, but it's the best theory we have that explains how life on this planet developed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 9, 2005 Author Share Posted November 9, 2005 The term "pro-evolution" strikes me as funny for some reason. I barely pay attention to this intelligent design crap, but it seems like if the theory of evolution is taught correctly, this takes care of itself. Evolution is a theory, but it's the best theory we have that explains how life on this planet developed. 498541[/snapback] A big part of the controversey is that misuse of the word "theory". What it means in science and what it means in general conversation are two entirely different things. In the Dover trial, even the intelligent desing advocates had to admit that the ID/creationists have conflated the scientific and general uses of the word "theory". "Theory", in general usage, refers to something conjectural, something uncertain, something postulated, an unverified concept. Not so in science where it refers to a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge, etc. The frequent taling point you hear from creationists is that "evolution is theory not fact" as if the two were opposites, which they are if you use the unscientific definition of theory. Using that definition, no scientist would call evolution a "theory" but that is clearly not what they mean when they use the word. In that miasma, you really do have people who are pro and anti evolution. Kind of like being pro or anti-gravity. Silly but that is precisely what is going on and now it is back in Kansas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 A big part of the controversey is that misuse of the word "theory". What it means in science and what it means in general conversation are two entirely different things. In the Dover trial, even the intelligent desing advocates had to admit that the ID/creationists have conflated the scientific and general uses of the word "theory". "Theory", in general usage, refers to something conjectural, something uncertain, something postulated, an unverified concept. Not so in science where it refers to a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge, etc. The frequent taling point you hear from creationists is that "evolution is theory not fact" as if the two were opposites, which they are if you use the unscientific definition of theory. Using that definition, no scientist would call evolution a "theory" but that is clearly not what they mean when they use the word. In that miasma, you really do have people who are pro and anti evolution. Kind of like being pro or anti-gravity. Silly but that is precisely what is going on and now it is back in Kansas. 498603[/snapback] Quite correct. In fact, one could say that any scientific principle except a law would be a "theory"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 In that miasma, you really do have people who are pro and anti evolution. Kind of like being pro or anti-gravity. Silly but that is precisely what is going on and now it is back in Kansas. 498603[/snapback] I see you read The Onion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 In that miasma, you really do have people who are pro and anti evolution. Kind of like being pro or anti-gravity. 498603[/snapback] Perfect analogy from my point of view... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 Perfect analogy from my point of view... 499029[/snapback] Not entirely. Being pro- or anti-evolution is more like being pro- or anti- the Gravity Gnome theory of gravity in which billions of microscopic little gravity gnomes hold you down on the surface of the earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kane Posted November 10, 2005 Share Posted November 10, 2005 I'll bet that Maxwell's Demon could kick the Gravity Gnome's butt any day of the week (unless the gnome was aided by Schroedinger's Cat of course.) http://www.auburn.edu/~smith01/notes/maxdem.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 10, 2005 Author Share Posted November 10, 2005 I'll bet that Maxwell's Demon could kick the Gravity Gnome's butt any day of the week (unless the gnome was aided by Schroedinger's Cat of course.) http://www.auburn.edu/~smith01/notes/maxdem.htm 499336[/snapback] Anybody seen that damn cat? It was here a minute ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 Reason returns to Dover; Pat Robertson has another mouth seizure Yay Pat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 11, 2005 Author Share Posted November 11, 2005 Reason returns to Dover; Pat Robertson has another mouth seizure Yay Pat! 500039[/snapback] Can I point out what a complete ^#^#%^@# wad Pat Robertson is or is that "christian bashing"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 Can I point out what a complete ^#^#%^@# wad Pat Robertson is or is that "christian bashing"? 500056[/snapback] No, I think your practice probably needs to pick up a bit. You have entirely too much time on your hands to think about stuff outside your lane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 I'll bet that Maxwell's Demon could kick the Gravity Gnome's butt any day of the week (unless the gnome was aided by Schroedinger's Cat of course.) http://www.auburn.edu/~smith01/notes/maxdem.htm 499336[/snapback] Gravity Gnomes, plural. A single gravity gnome does not explain gravity. Geez, don't you know ANYTHING about modern physics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 Reason returns to Dover; Pat Robertson has another mouth seizure Yay Pat! 500039[/snapback] But...but...but..."intelligent design" isn't a religious issue! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 11, 2005 Author Share Posted November 11, 2005 No, I think your practice probably needs to pick up a bit. You have entirely too much time on your hands to think about stuff outside your lane. 500063[/snapback] Settled a huge case last week so I'm coasting, resting on my laurels and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 11, 2005 Author Share Posted November 11, 2005 But...but...but..."intelligent design" isn't a religious issue! 500086[/snapback] The whole trial in Dover, that is all those ID guys kept saying over and over and over. Michael Behe, the ID "scientist" was adamant about it no matter how much evidence there was to the contrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 But...but...but..."intelligent design" isn't a religious issue! 500086[/snapback] Bingo. Say hello to the fundamentalist behind the curtain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 The whole trial in Dover, that is all those ID guys kept saying over and over and over. Michael Behe, the ID "scientist" was adamant about it no matter how much evidence there was to the contrary. 500096[/snapback] Early on, everyone was wondering why real scientists didn't want to debate these nuts. One reason was actually taking the time to defend evolution against creationism would legitimise it. Another is scientists would be debating using actual facts, and creationists wouldn't. When the drone from conservatives, fundamentalists, etc. got loud enough, and when it looked like some idiots in Kansas would actually put it in the curriculum, they chose to respond. Scientists quickly found out what they had known all along...that you can't debate with a nut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 11, 2005 Author Share Posted November 11, 2005 Early on, everyone was wondering why real scientists didn't want to debate these nuts. One reason was actually taking the time to defend evolution against creationism would legitimise it. Another is scientists would be debating using actual facts, and creationists wouldn't. When the drone from conservatives, fundamentalists, etc. got loud enough, and when it looked like some idiots in Kansas would actually put it in the curriculum, they chose to respond. Scientists quickly found out what they had known all along...that you can't debate with a nut. 500335[/snapback] If they respond, it creates the look of a "controversey" which feeds into the "teach the controversey" argument they are trying to use. All that "Bush is stupid" talk really never had much to support it beyond his inability to speak well off the cuff or even from a good script. However, the one area I would argue that really does support the idea that he is not very bright is his apparent position on teaching creationism in schools. It almost has to be a position born of ignorance. Just about every christian I have spoken to, who certainly sympathize with the ID advocates, still realize that it isn't science and doesn't belong in a science class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 If they respond, it creates the look of a "controversey" which feeds into the "teach the controversey" argument they are trying to use. All that "Bush is stupid" talk really never had much to support it beyond his inability to speak well off the cuff or even from a good script. However, the one area I would argue that really does support the idea that he is not very bright is his apparent position on teaching creationism in schools. It almost has to be a position born of ignorance. Just about every christian I have spoken to, who certainly sympathize with the ID advocates, still realize that it isn't science and doesn't belong in a science class. 500427[/snapback] OR... he flat doesn't care. His position may be based purely on a political calculus, in which the possibility that science gets bastardized for a few years in some local school districts doesn't effect him at all, nor does his standing in the academic community, whereas shoring up his supporters does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts