 |
Orlando Sentinel – Academic freedom, evolution and Ben Stein’s Expelled movie –the Florida House may consider them all — These guys keep trying different tweaks. This one is the next one in the bag of tricks. These guys will be making a mistake if they push this idea too far. There are weirder topics lurking that could push for more exposure under an academic freedom umbrella that is too wide open.
A local state lawmaker who is pushing Florida to adopt an “academic freedom” law — one that would protect teachers who are critical of evolution — has invited members of the Florida House to a private screening of the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.
The controversial documentary, staring Ben Stein, is supported by the Discovery Institute, which advocates for Intelligent Design and has been pushing for academic freedom laws to protect those who share its views.
The invitation to see Expelled on Wednesday was sent to all members of the House by Rep. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla, according to his legislative aide.
 |
#17, coop
The URANTIA BOOK ?
What does a google show us? Well from the web site, …
The Urantia Book, first published by Urantia Foundation in 1955, claims to have been presented by celestial beings as a revelation to our planet, Urantia. Many who have read it accept this assertion.
But most people who know better don’t accept the bullshit.
#28, you bring up a good question. He actually did lose the money that the winners won; it was cut from his paycheck.
What bugs me is how much money did they pay him? Do cable networks have that much money to spend, to where they can deduct as much as $5000 per episode from a host of a single show?
#31 – bobbo,
Thanks for at least sending only symbolic rather than actual turds. Isn’t the usual custom to send them in plain brown bags … and set them on fire … and ring the doorbell? Hey wait!! Are we putting scatology on equal footing with religion? I’m all for that!
#30 – I love reading these types of threads.
I’ll just bet you do.
I can tell by the level of vitriol who (on both sides) are unthinking fanatics…
I don’t know what you call vitriol, but if you are of the opinion that this is mental masturbation between extremists, then you cannot possibly understand the issue.
If this were about people being allowed to believe whatever they like, I wouldn’t even bother to read the posts, let alone participate. Whatever BS hooky spooky gobblteygook creation myth anyone cares to believe is nothing I care about… until you threaten my children.
Creationists are waging an attack on my, and everyone else’s, children, as well as our freedom loving secular culture by using their pseudo science creationism BS as a way to wedge conservative Christian teaching into public schools.
It’s part of a long term strategy to subvert traditional American values re-educate children with their repressive dogma. The eventual goal is a population of automaton Xians who’ll walk the line like Aldous Huxley’s Alphas on a Soma bender and be friendly to the rise of a theocratic government.
These people may be crazy. Their plan may be flawed. Their success may be highly unlikely. But still, you don’t just stay silent when the very foundation of the American way of life, with justice and liberty for all, is under siege from a ruthless domestic enemy.
#34–Scott==I’ll meet you half way. YOU send me your mailing address, I’ll send you a paper bag filled with dog shit, YOU put it on fire – – – no, that doesn’t work. I’m willing to travel, but not to step on dog shit. Well, you are on your own.
#35 – “It’s part of a long term strategy to subvert traditional American values re-educate children with their repressive dogma.”
Shrill anti-religious spewing is part of traditional American values? I don’t think so.
Other than that, I agree that creationism shouldn’t be taught as science in public schools.
#30–patrick==how do you see vitriol on both “sides” of this issue? To equate both sides of this issue is to do just that==equate them. But fundie religious anti-science double speak is not the same thing as a dispassionate always questioning logical fact based objective quest for the reproduceable facts of the universe.
I suspect you are another dissembler along the line of the Discovery Institutute. Please post your private mailing address so I can send you a bag of dog shit, and a match for you to light it with.
#38 “is not the same thing as a dispassionate always questioning logical fact based objective quest for the reproduceable [sic] facts of the universe.”
I can see how sending someone a bag of excrement fits in here. ROFL
OhForTheLoveOf(evolutionary fact?)said,
“I don’t know what you call vitriol”
Please see #29 and #35. Thats a good example.
You don’t have to think, thats your option. I’d be nice if you could listen over a cup a coffee. 🙂
#37 – patrick,
Shrill anti-religious spewing is part of traditional American values? I don’t think so.
Actually, it’s called freedom of speech. It’s no different than the Jesus freak spewing hell-fire and damnation on the street corner.
#40 – Correct. However, his particular example isn’t part of traditional American values. No more than NAMBLA’s viewpoint… Even though it falls under the 1st amendment.
A burning bag of dog shit is not representative of the scientific method, nor is it shrieking. It is a very quiet symbolic exercise of free speech==except for the fire and the dog shit.
Too bad paper bags are a blight on the environment. Cripes!!!
#42 – Better paper than plastic… 😉
#37 – To put it in terms that you can understand – The Creationist is a home invader and the advocate for science is the law-abiding American enjoying his God-given right to own a firearm and defend his family against home invaders.
#26, Thinker,
Evolution is the philosophy of how those science relate together to answer the question of the origin of species. That is a philosophical question, or at least a question with philosophical implications.
Wrong. It doesn’t matter how you try to flavor this, it is not a philosophical question. It is a hard science question. The answers are not arrived at sipping expresso coffee over candle light.
It is, it is logical, therefore indisputable.
Again you’re wrong. Evolution is based upon evidence and repeatable experiments. It is not logical nor may it be treated as such. Logic requires arguments, science requires proof. Religion is philosophical which is why they can’t be trusted to honestly
Which probably is the reason why so many Philosophy PhDs flip burgers at Wendys.
#26
> The way evolution is represented
> on this forum, its clung to
> like a belief system
Indeed, we cling to evolution much like the theories of gravity and electricity. We cling to them because they have withstood the rigors of scientific proof. If someone “challenges” the theory of electricity by saying that electricity is in fact snot from a deity should we give that equal credence to the scientific theory? Should we allow the deity snot hypothesis to be taught in science classes? Should we stop teaching the theories of electricity because they are just “theories”?
If creationists have an actual scientific challenge, then provide it. They have yet to do so because they are wholly ignorant of how science works. Creationism is simply not science and thus should not be taught as science.
#45. Agree re evolution, other than some holes due to it being a young science and the Earth being large. There is one aspect that hasn’t been reproduced and I have honestly been curious if I would witness it in my lifetime.
That is, the creation of life from inorganic compounds, by man. It’s the one unproven aspect as it hasn’t been reproduced.
What if there is something more than science? What if there is something above science?
This is where the creationist is thinking.
I’m unaware of any direct proofs of Gravity, yet I accept it, I believe it, I can see its effects. I hold to physics, I even hold to biology, but I can’t say the same with Evolution. I come to different conclusions with the same evidence. Does that make me an idiot or someone who is thinking about the great questions of life?
#31 bobbo
ummm… ok, yes, in the case of creationism, sarcasm is really hard to spot. Why is that? Normally, sarcasm would stick out by being so over the top that the original theme becomes completely absurd.
This whole “creationism (or ID for that matter) is science” scheme is so absord in the first place, you can’t go over the top or beyond the absurdity of it’s original protagonists. Let’s face it, the whole concept is fuelling on so much stupidity, you just can’t be sarcastic about it. It just doesn’t leave any room on the dumb end of the spectrum. Maybe that’s why it works so well with so many people.
# 26 Thinker
let’s back off from evolution for a sec and look at some more commonly accessible science. Let’s say mathematics.
Would you claim that the fact that I think the four basic numerical operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication and division) and their results for arbitrary numbers are, in a sense, true and factual is a belief system? After all, there might be an ancient book that claims that, if you add two and two, you get five, or that actually you cannot add two and two because that’s something only some divine creature can do.
I doubt you do. I assume that you accept the fact that basic mathematics is a precise science. If you go further into higher mathematics, you may loose the understanding, but do you therefore question Goedels theorem?
Physics, the same thing. You won’t question Newton’s laws, I assume and I bet you’ve learned about them in school (for example the thing about the apple falling to the ground). Where’s your personal level of incompetence in physics? And why don’t you battle all theories that lie beyond it?
Now, clearly, evolution is beyond your personal competence horizon in biology (which is not per se bad, it requires quite some understanding of the underlying mechanisms). But why do you think you’ve got a better answer than those who’s competence is vastly greater than yours?
That’s the basic mechanism about creationism that I don’t get. Creationists say it themselves. They say “I cannot imagine that has evolved from simpler forms, therefore god must have created it”. Can you see what the subject in this sentence is? It’s the word “I”, pointing back to the person who speaks or writes this sentence. That’s where the limitation is. You could just as well formulate this sentence as “The evolutional path to a is beyond my biological competence, therefore God must have created it” and immediately, the flaw in the statement becomes perfectly obvious.
Good grief, get over it. Humans are not the center of the universe. There is no god out there caring for you. You have to sort out your life yourself, kicking and screaming won’t help.
pj
#48. NOWHERE in the theory of evolution does it say that MAN created organic life from inorganic compounds. May I recommend a little reading material? Specifically, The Origin Of the Species, by Charles Darwin.
#49. I’m glad that you can accept gravity, based on observation. There are proofs. It has been quantified, through repeated tests, and mathematics, that gravity does, in fact, exist. Google Sir Isaac Newton, or gravity, or Gravitational analysis. You have now started on the long journey towards wisdom and knowledge through science. As for something above science? And what is that? FAITH? Certainly not myth… oh, I’m sorry… Religion.
Science is a rigorous observation and testing process through which facts become known. Facts are not bound by our ideas of aesthetics (if you don’t like a fact, that doesn’t negate its validity).
Belief systems are opinions based on aesthetics. They ALWAYS change, and that change depends on the emotional/mental state of the believer. As a result, they require no testing, and usually, contain little or no facts.
# 49 Thinker
I even hold to biology, but I can’t say the same with Evolution. I come to different conclusions with the same evidence. Does that make me an idiot or someone who is thinking about the great questions of life?
it does make you someone who goes beyond his personal level of competence, blissfully ignoring a plethora of information available, and making claims about things that he doesn’t fully understand.
Sometimes, I’m actually pretty sad that Dawkins went on writing those atheist books because people like you seem to avoid anything he’s written like the plague.
Go read “The Selfish Gene”, “The Extended Phenotype” and “Climbing Mount Improbable” and then let’s talk again.
pj
#42 – patrick,
First, get your numbering correct so that I will know if you are really responding to me.
Second, are you honestly comparing atheism or even antitheism to NAMBLA??!!?
Saying god does not exist is not a crime. Saying religious induhviduals are delusional is not a crime. Having sex with children is a crime. I think you should keep these separate. Perhaps NAMBLA needs a blog rule similar to Godwin’s Law.
BTW, damn you’re delusional. Not only for believing in god over physics, you’re delusional for the connections and associations you make based on nothing.
#50–pj==in depth understanding when you say: “Normally, sarcasm would stick out by being so over the top that the original theme becomes completely absurd.==and hard to do with ID>” Yes, you say it well. Actually, I was not being sarcastic–just trying to report what the current thinking was–not my own thinking.
#48–patrick==do you have any doubts at all that this chemical process will be reproduced/artificially performed at some date in the ever nearing future?
It is often said that “Science/Darwin has nothing to say about how life started.” and that is simply wrong.
IF YOU DON’T THINK that life of course sprang naturally/unavoidably from inert materials, then what is your thesis?
And when you learn that the carbon in your body actually comes from the supernovae of a third generation star, what do you think?
Science, and especially Darwinism, has been called the warp and weave of science==meaning, it all intertwines and supports one another. If you squint real hard, and get real stupid, you can make a lame argument in a vacuum===and not much of one at that.
And here we agree to disagree. 🙂
Good night folks, and thanks for the discussion, and the references.
I’ve enjoyed it.
#53 – “Having sex with children is a crime.” Correct. Saying it’s a good thing isn’t however.
Which was my point and you chose to misunderstand it.
#48 – I’m glad you cleared that up for me. Nice dodge BTW instead of confronting that particular scientific problem.
#54. To answer. I honestly don’t know. So far there isn’t even a good understanding of the state of “life”. Maybe in a hundred years? I don’t think I’ll be around to see it.
Are you guys really serious? Do you really think, as was so famously (and Presidentially… hint, hint) said, that the “jury’s still out” on evolution?
News flash, religious Right:
Evolution is a FACT. It’s happening RIGHT NOW. EVERYWHERE. Adaptation by Environment. Natural Selection. Artificial Selection. Ever wonder why you can never use the same roach spray on subsequent generations of roaches? The answer: They have EVOLVED an immunity to that particular chemical. As you spray each generation with the same chemical, the immunity becomes stronger. After a while, that chemical ceases to function on those roaches. Try it. It’s a REPEATABLE test, and the results may astound you.
And guess what? It works on HUMANS also. We live longer lives than we once did. We are (naturally) immune to a much wider range of bacteria than we were in, say, the 1700s. Our children (by and large) are getting taller, stronger, and more intelligent with each passing generation. THAT, dear friends, is EVOLUTION AT WORK.
Everyone keeps talking about the “belief” in evolution. There is nothing to believe. It is a fact. Facts do not require belief. They stand on their own merits. The only truly theoretical parts of evolution have to do with backtracking the ancestors of homo sapiens sapiens. And more information is discovered every day. And all of this new information is subject to the same scientific method, i.e. observe, theoize, test, wash, rinse, repeat.
#57–patrick==silly post.
#48 – patrick,
That is, the creation of life from inorganic compounds, by man. It’s the one unproven aspect as it hasn’t been reproduced.
I wonder who has better odds at this, scientists with their test tubes and lots of equipment and experimentation or Christian Scientists with test tubes and prayer. At least the REAL scientists are trying.
Humor for the day: I always like to imagine what the reaction would be if I had the balls to walk into a Christian Science Reading Room and ask to be directed to the Christian Science Laboratory. I could explain that I wanted to be an impartial observer and see how they perform their tests.
It’d be fun. I just somehow never actually do it. If anyone else tries this, please let me know how it goes.
#49 – Thinker,
It probably makes you someone who has not read a lot about evolution. If you have and are still not convinced, …