Spitting science in the face

Status
Not open for further replies.
Elrohir said:
But whether or not it is scientific is one of the debates about it. ;) Assuming that it is not is like assuming welfare is the answer in a debate about social issues - it gives you the answer, but an answer based on unwarranted assumptions.
Tell you what: when evolution is presented as a biblical alternative to creationism in church, I'll agree that the notion of the free exchange of ideas (as you implicitly define it) has some merit. But I'm not holding my breath :p
 
Elrohir said:
Ahh, but what is to you a 'fricken random toilet flush' may be a 'frakken complicated random toiled flush' to me, and you must respect my viewpoint. ;)
It might be complicated for the very small minded but it makes perfect sense to me and the rest of the people that belive in the toilet.
 
pboily said:
Tell you what: when evolution is presented as a biblical alternative to creationism in church, I'll agree that the notion of the free exchange of ideas (as you implicitly define it) has some merit. But I'm not holding my breath :p

A church is a place to teach a religion. A school or university is a place to teach not only facts but different ideas for things that the facts can't explain.
 
Elrohir said:
A church is a place to teach a religion. A school or university is a place to teach not only facts but different ideas for things that the facts can't explain.
A science class is a place to teach things that science (allegedly) can't explain?

And this "school or university" that you're describing sounds an awful lot like a pub or a watering hole to me... of course, we probably get a better education from one of those... :beer:
 
But whether or not it is scientific is one of the debates about it.

Not every debate has two reasonable sides. For example, I can claim to be a Venusian. You can question this claim. We can then have a debate about whether or not I'm right.

Or you can tell me to shut the hell up and stop smoking the weed, and we can get back to the real world.

Now maybe you understand why the reaction to "intelligent design" as science from anyone who knows what they're talking about is a bit... harsh.
 
Elrohir said:
A church is a place to teach a religion. A school or university is a place to teach not only facts but different ideas for things that the facts can't explain.
Then why wouldn't a science class teach my toilet idea?
 
Elrohir said:
But whether or not it is scientific is one of the debates about it. ;) Assuming that it is not ...
ID is not science, nor does it use a scientific method to establish its conclusions. Those who believe in ID want it to have the same status as TOE in society and so they claim and debate how scientific it is. They are trying to add legitimacy to it. The discussion is one sided on the part of IDers.

ID is the result of the declining belief in a literal bible and 7 day creation. Once that was flushed out of American education, fundamental christians looked for a new way to inject god into science and thwart the rise of secularism. With ID you don't have to fight over the validity of Darwin, just say that god designed the whole thing. It is much easier to defend.

From an educational stand point the biggest problem with ID is that it doesn't involve any discussion or debate. It merely states a truth. Since there is no evidence or any unresolved issues, there is no need to discuss. Like multipication tables, all you have to do is memorize the conclusion that god designed it all. There is nothing to teach here. Religion class is the place for it.
 
Creationism or Intelligent design should be completely barred from public schools. If you want to learn about it then go to church on Sunday. This is not the United Christian States of America. We as a nation became a super power through the advancement of science and engineering not through religious doctrine. It pains me to see religious nuts who hold a degree in religious studies or theology attempting to worm there way into fields they have no clue about.
 
Elrohir said:
All he's saying is people should be exposed to different ideas! What's wrong with that? Whatever happened to the free exchange of ideas? :confused:
Would you feel the same about exposing them to holocaust-denial, or the teaching of racism?

What he is asking for is for lies to be treated the same as well-established science.
 
now I finally know why in Civ4 they changed the research tree, you no longer need to know every tech to advance...
remember in the civaddict video..there was a guy called George W. I am sure everytime he reached ToE in the tech tree, he freaked out and lost the game :lol:

unfortunately, he actually believes what he says :(
 
The Last Conformist said:
Would you feel the same about exposing them to holocaust-denial, or the teaching of racism?

What he is asking for is for lies to be treated the same as well-established science.

Certainly. They will learn about it someday, so why not at school? It wouldn't be that difficult in a discussion on the Holocaust to talk for a little bit about how some people deny that it happened, and why the facts counteract what they say. The same thing with racism.

No, I'm asking for alternate theories to be taught in conjunction with the more popular theories. ;)

Then why wouldn't a science class teach my toilet idea?

Because it doesn't make the least bit of sense to anyone, even you. :p Get me a couple PhD's agreeing with you, and then it would warrant further investigation, but with just you jokingly suggesting it then it doesn't have a place in the school system.
 
Of course students should learn about different perspectives. You wouldnt however teach Math in an English Lit class.

The place for ID and all other world creation myths is in a Comparative Religion class.
The place for cosmology and evolution is in a Science class.
 
joycem10 said:
Either that or we're all decended from the lost 13th tribe of Kobol.
vbraun said:
Heres an idea: Everything was created by a flush from a toilet.

It's new, it can't be disporoved, so lets teach it along with Theory of Evolution, and Intellectual Design!
I heard it was the flying spaghetti monster http://www.venganza.org/
Elrohir said:
"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas. The answer is yes."

All he's saying is people should be exposed to different ideas! What's wrong with that? Whatever happened to the free exchange of ideas? :confused:
No, what he is saying is: "I want my base to know that I want Intelligent Design taught in schools, but I don't want anyone to quote me on that."
 
Elrohir said:
Certainly. They will learn about it someday, so why not at school? It wouldn't be that difficult in a discussion on the Holocaust to talk for a little bit about how some people deny that it happened, and why the facts counteract what they say. The same thing with racism.
Nice evasion. Would you be happy with holocaust-denial being thought as a valid alternative to orthodox history on the subject?
No, I'm asking for alternate theories to be taught in conjunction with the more popular theories. ;)
Irrelevant. ID isn't a theory.
Because it doesn't make the least bit of sense to anyone, even you. :p Get me a couple PhD's agreeing with you, and then it would warrant further investigation, but with just you jokingly suggesting it then it doesn't have a place in the school system.
It makes as much sense as ID, ie none. ID isn't a theory of origins, it's epistomological nihilism married to wishful thinking, with a liberal sprinkling of outright lies.
 
I do not think Americans have a right to complain: it was their democracy that voted for a crusading religious nut-bar.

We had extensive and heated debates on how Americans were voting at the time when it was relevant. No point in discussing it now.
 
Elrohir said:
How come when Christians say "First gay marrige, then polygamy" we're exaggerating, but when you say "First America, then Canada" you're right on the money? :crazyeye:
So what's wrong with polygamy? :mischief:
 
Pontiuth Pilate said:
Why won't Bush shut up about something he knows nothing about?

Oh yeah. He's Bush.

Well,
You can't really blame Bush for keeping his loyal voters satisfied, I guess......
That's how politics work.
 
Elrohir said:
Bush said, and I quote

"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas. The answer is yes."

All he's saying is people should be exposed to different ideas! What's wrong with that? Whatever happened to the free exchange of ideas? :confused:

:confused: have you read the thread at all?
have you ever treid to find for yourself what the ToE says and what ID says?

I assume the answer to the two is no..... so I'll give you the answer:

ID is not a 'different school of thought'. ID is a fairy tale with nothing at all backing it up. It is less sensible than LOTR.

Bush is trying to hide his religious fundamentalist agenda behind a liberal concept, but what he really is trying to sneak in is religious indocrination in school.
 
Elrohir said:
A church is a place to teach a religion. A school or university is a place to teach not only facts but different ideas for things that the facts can't explain.

erhm, so why do you disagree with us?

There is NO ALTERNATIVE to the ToE - and ID is the least-worthy of all rreligious fundi tries to blow smoke.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom