 |
 |
|
| Dipshits Hardiman and Agema Pushing the Bill in Michigan | ||
I’m sure the citizens of the state are proud that they are now in the same camp as the dummies in Louisiana who are passing a similar bill cited here.
Teachers shouldn’t be prevented from discussing alternative views of evolution, global warming and other controversial topics in their science classes, according to a bill backed by some local lawmakers.
But some evolution advocates say identical bills submitted in the state Senate and House are “Trojan horse legislation” intended to open the door to allow schools to teach intelligent design — a belief that life is the result of a creator — under the guise of academic freedom.
Gregory Forbes, a Grand Rapids Community College science professor, said there is nothing in the bills that demand teaching intelligent design with or in place of evolution.
But he said the lawmakers who sponsored the bills — including state Sen. Bill Hardiman, R-Grand Rapids, and Rep. Dave Agema, R-Grandville — previously backed bills promoting intelligent design, and a version of the bill appeared on the Web site of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle think tank that has supported similar attempts.
Postage stamp proves dinosaurs and men walked together on earth. Otherwise why would they put it on a stamp?
#26–Catshit==what other cause for a red shift is there? A vague “might be some other cause we don’t know” sounds like “gods breath” to me. When you have a competing theory, it will be test to see which theory accounts for the widest range of known/accepted facts and which theory has better predictive value.
You don’t even grasp the basic vocabulary. Welcome to the bag.
#29–CS==what happens if we substitute “most” for “each” in that poetical statement? Welcome to the bag.
There is absolutely no reason that equal parts of a science class should be spent learning religious theory. If I were to invent a new region that only I subscribed to and moved to whatever state teaches this nonsense, should they be forced to spend 1/9,938,444 of classroom time on my ideas? Absolutely not. If a parent is concerned about passing their religion on to their children, they can teach them at home. I also think that private schools should teach evolution through grade 12 as the kids going to them have no choice as to the content of their education. Every child in school should be educated on scientific consensus, their parents can lie to them afterwards if they want.
People are stupid.
Welcome to DVORAK.ORG/BLOG, where BELIEVERS are NOT welcome!
[Believers get just as much space to comment on Dvorak Uncensored as non-believers. – ed.]
“There is absolutely no reason that equal parts of a science class should be spent learning religious theory.”
I know Bobbo will go ballistic on me again but here goes. I think it is “OK” to talk about ID, alchemy, and anything else you like in schools and critique it openly and intelligently. As I stated above, I know a teacher who does talk about these ideas and equips her students to discuss them openly. She’s not teaching them religious dogma but helping her students understand the limits of non-scientific assertions and how that contrasts with standard scientific methodology. She also guides them towards a respectful debate.
Does she or I think that ID (or anything similar) is a credible scientific proposal? Nope.
Does she or I think that her students will be confronted with these types of issues in their life? Yup, so let’s prepare them.
Do I talk about these issues with my kids? You bet.
Are these sorts of issues better discussed in Social Studies? Well maybe, but a science teacher may be better equipped in some ways. Maybe it’s easier to do this kind of thing in Canada since we haven’t been polarized into weird us/them camps yet. đ
#35-QB,
There is no doubt that religion should be taught in school, but it should be taught in social studies not science. A science teacher is better prepared to disprove sudo-science, but religion does not belong in a science classroom because it is not science. Tell your kids whatever you want, but religion should not be institutionalized in schools.
I don’t know where you are in Canada, but where I a religion in school is always in the news.
Noel, it depends what you mean by “institutionalize”. For example, in my province we have a publicly funded Catholic school system. They teach religion there as part of the curriculum. They also must meet curriculum guidelines for science, math, etc.
I personally think any topic (including evolutionary theory) is open to debate in schools. Strangely enough, with this kind of hybrid system there is little or no debate around teaching unprovable notions in biology class. Maybe this is a cultural thing….
#35–QB–ballistic? Artillery science/math is far removed from evolutionary theory vs ID debate.
You are still making a “basic” mistake. There are classes ABOUT science and there are classes about the THEORY of science or the HISTORY of science where ID which is NOT SCIENCE can be addressed.
I indeed allowed for the notion that at the start and end of a class on science it would be approriate to mention ID as pure crap.–I mean, an alternative hypothesis that cannot be tested.
In fact, that is just what my own first year college science did. “If you are looking for a discussion of intelligent design, this class is not for you. Here we study what can be measured.”
So, ID was appropirated addressed. 15 seconds for it, 9 months for real science.
What do you think is “unprovable notions” in biology class? Following a tendon attaching to a muscle separate from its controlling nerves does not require a discussion of ID or even Darwin==that waits for the next dissection of a bird and you find all the same parts modified. ID has nothing to say, or the same thing it always says “ID made it that way” and you then spend a productive few weeks studying comparative anatomy.
Again, while eloquent, you provide multiple examples of how uninformed you are while donning the mask of “alternative theories.”
BTW–ID should be discussed “in school”, just not in a science class. This has been said many times, you still make the statement. Kinda like dogma?
Bobbo. OK, you’re quietly shouting in caps. LOL
Why is ID unprovable? Because of the scientific method. Let’s teach that in health class.
Oh, and you completely lost me on the dogma thing. But I gist of where you’re going…
#39–QB==shouting key words to draw your attention to them is not going ballistic.
ID is unprovable because its answer for everything is “Thats the way God made it.” Now, you may wish to quibble all the way around the block, but thats what it comes down to.
I suppose it would be provable if god came down and gave us another book, on live tv, taped, and moderated by a risen Tim Russert?
Teaching this in health class doesn’t make any sense to me–so on that certain level, you are right. Teaching ID anywhere but in a religion class is totally inappropriate.
I hope thats what you meant?
Ok maybe not ballistic. Kaffufled?
Actually you guys got me thinking. Maybe this is a interdisciplinary thing? Kids are smarter at an earlier age now – why wait until College to teach critical thinking and debating?
#42–QB==because then they’ll come home and challenge their bed time and call us fascists to boot?
WWJGTB?? (When would Jesus go to Bed?)
Did you catch a few shows on the critical thinking differences between apes, dogs, and kiddies?
Seems kiddies have an innate desire to follow instructions. Explains a lot, both good and bad.
bobbo,
Um OK. http://heresabunnywithapancakeonitshead.com/
#29 S. Scott, your quote of C.S. Lewis is an excellent example of how a flawed premise often results in an erroneous conclusion. His notion that “each particular thought is valueless if it is the result of irrational causes” is patently absurd, and probably devalues some of Lewis’ own work. Ideas aren’t valued according to their genesis, but their content. Rational people already know that.
#45
The absurdity or rationality of a premise does not hinge on your ability to get the point. Nor does your authority to make such a point hinge on your crass appeal to the authority of ‘rational people’. Man’s ability to reason cannot be explained by accidental causes.
“The appeal to authority is the weakest of all possible arguments” – St. Thomas Aquinas
#46, the quote you chose from St. Thomas Aquinas is actually quite ironic, since the primary argument for religion is the appeal to the ultimate authority of the Creator. And I agree that it’s the weakest of all arguments. When logic fails, the last resort is an appeal to authority, accompanied by the firm assertion that the authority really exists.
#46 & #47
Appealing to Thomas Aquinas as an authority (on appealing to authority) is very ironic.
I once spent an entire term studying Aquinas’ five proofs for the existence of God. I started the term as a life long believer – I finished skeptical at best. I personally haven’t found mainstream religions interesting since. Maybe the lesson is that one shouldn’t think about these things too much.
Buddhism is still endlessly fascinating though…
Another quote of C.S. Lewis’s ( my favorite concerning this issue) that may shed a little light on #29 S. Scott’s quote;
“If the solar system was brought about an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident and the whole evolution of man was also an accident. If so, then all our present thoughts are accidents. The accidental byproduct of the movement of atoms, this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for everybody else. But if their thoughts are merely accidents, why should we believe any of them? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents.”
From “God in the Dock”, C.S. Lewis chp. 4
#49
It is an engaging quote and those type of arguments are emotionally appealing. In the end I personally think that emotional appeal is religion’s strongest pull and why so many people consider themselves “believers”.
I have personally found thinking (or not thinking) to be more of an adventure than religious certainty ever was. And in the end, even if there is a God, I don’t think he’s going to change my life one iota so I may as well just get on with it.
—
As the pilgrim prayed beside the road, he was passed by the sick and the crippled and the poor. Seeing them, the pilgrim went down into deep prayer and cried,”‘Great God, how is it that a loving creator can see such things and yet do nothing about them?”
And out of the long silence, God said, “I did do something. I made you.”
#48 QB, Yessir, it’s funny how studying the work of theologians and the Bible doesn’t always have the intended effect. I’m reminded of the well-worn tagline from NBC’s Public Service Announcements… “The More You Know” đ
#46, S. Scott,
âThe appeal to authority is the weakest of all possible argumentsâ
– St. Thomas Aquinas
Nothing could be further from the truth. An authority is the ultimate answer. It doesn’t matter if that authority is a Supreme Court decision or the person who wrote the definitive book on a specific subject. To ignore these authorities is to make errors in your facts.
Gee I read this thread and come to the surprising conclusion that Aquinas and Lewis were both idiots.
Where did their vaunted reputations come from?
#31, Bobbo,
Catshit==what other cause for a red shift is there?
Gravitational pull? Certain dust particles or gases? A film on the lens? A colorblind observer? A cool star? I am not the one making the Doppler Claim as evidence that the universe is expanding. All I did was state that it requires some belief that there is not another answer.
The point is that you claim that science has no beliefs and I disagree. When you can PROVE the red shift or the number of atoms in a gram of water I will concede your point. When you can find that âmissing linkâ between man and apes then we don’t need to believe man’s decent. Or demonstrate the demise of the dinosaurs with other than circumstantial evidence and conjecture.
Science does not rely solely upon provable facts. Best case evidence is the usual case. That is why the field of science is always prepared to change when new evidence arises. Even though there may be proof to a 0.99 certainty, that last 0.01 probability is a belief.
It isn’t a question of a competing theory because you haven’t proven your point that there is no belief in science. I am not surprised as this is entirely consistent with your standard logical twists. Enjoy your purple monkeys.
#53, Bobbo,
Even Charles Manson, Socrates, Eugene Debs, Martin Luther,Guy Fawkes, and Cicero had their followers.
#54–Catshit==welcome to the Mr Mustard school of “I can’t think my way out of an open paper bag, because I believe it is closed.”
You say: “All I did was state that it requires some belief that there is not another answer.” /// Exactly WRONG. All (good) scientist are open to other and competing theories/explanations. No scientist “believes” one theory is dispositive and that no other theory should ever be considered.
You confuse “belief” with “working with the best current understanding we have, always ready to accept a better explanation.” I think I made this clear already, so yes, we are dealing with YOUR belief system a la Mr Mustard that “belief” as opposed to evidence is the driving force in all things. Some other thread is yammering about appeal to authority.
You know what appeal to Mustard is? Yes, guilt by association, but at the other end of credibility.
Catshit==what liberal arts program did you get? There is no link between apes and humans. We share a common descent. So, again I say you lack the basic vocabulary about which you argue. In other words, a glaring fool.
Focus and understand what you parroted at your Para 3, and one day you may get it.
I used to be a daily newspaper reporter in Western Michigan…it’s where Zonder Publishing prints all the bibles…no surprise there.
#56, Bobbo,
Nice post. You failed to address my points and you end up attacking Mustard. Oopps, MISTER Mustard to you.
You say: âAll I did was state that it requires some belief that there is not another answer.â /// Exactly WRONG. All (good) scientist are open to other and competing theories/explanations.
The difference between âbeliefâ and âknowingâ is the certainty. If you are open to another theory then it is impossible to âknowâ your point is 100% correct and thus requires some belief.
You confuse âbeliefâ with âworking with the best current understanding we have, always ready to accept a better explanation.â
Wrong. You are confusing blind acceptance with belief. â[T]he best current understandingâ does not even rise to the level of accepted science.
Catshit==what liberal arts program did you get? There is no link between apes and humans.
Bobbo, if brains were made of dynamite, you still couldn’t blow your own nose.
Except for gorillas and most humans, all true apes are agile climbers of trees.
… snip …
Until a handful of decades ago, humans were thought to be distinctly set apart from the other apes (even from the other great apes), so much so that many people still don’t think of the term “apes” to include humans at all. However, it is not considered accurate by many biologists to think of apes in a biological sense without considering humans to be included …
…snip …
Although the hominoid fossil record is far from complete, and the evidence is often fragmentary, there is enough to give a good outline of the evolutionary history of humans. The time of the split between humans and living apes used to be thought to have occurred 15 to 20 million years ago, or even up to 30 or 40 million years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apes
In addition to the great apes, the family Hominidae includes our species, Homo sapiens In the past, there also were other species of humans as well as hominids more similar to us than the chimpanzees and bonobos today.
…
It has been historically difficult for people to accept that we are in fact just another primate species with African origins and that we differ physically only in degree from some of the others. However, that is now beyond doubt. The similarities can be seen throughout our bodies. For instance, humans and the African apes all lack external tails and have hands with a thumb that is sufficiently separate from the other fingers to allow them to be opposable for precision grips.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/primate/prim_8.htm
Now is that enough or do I need to provide more SCIENCE based references to demonstrate you are just a fucking blowhard that likes to see your name on the âwebâ.
#58–Catshit, your response is so inadequate and contradictory that I am 100% positive even you know you have been spanked.
Having vanquished you on this, let me ask you a supervening question you actually may have some personal experience with, if not expertise?
Why do generally intelligent people have a hard time admitting they are wrong?
#59, Bobble Head
#58âCatshit, your response is so inadequate and contradictory that I am 100% positive even you know you have been spanked.
You have yet to show any errors I have made. You continually offer little more than trolling the threads to see your name. You’re a phony.
If I’m wrong on anything, please post some factual links demonstrating such.
Why do generally intelligent people have a hard time admitting they are wrong?
First, if you are thinking of yourself, erase the intelligent part of it. Secondly, if you are referring to Mustard, OFTLO, or myself, we are still right.