Dover trial on evolution in schools

[Abbey Normal]

I'm not sure if you understood what I said. Let me see if I understand what you just said. In your opinion, either teach all possible explanations, including totally baseless supposition, for things not 100% proven, or don't teach anything at all that isn't 100% proven. Is that what you're suggesting?

Considering that some 90% plus Americans believe in God, I wouldn't charcterize ID as being on the same level as just any other way-out theory. As I have said, ID does not need to be taught in science class- unless you are going to be teaching other unprovable theories on the origin of life. It's really simple: either stick to the scientifically provable, or stop complaining (not you personally) when something that is not provable is mentioned. I can't think of another way to restate this.

I think Luv and I have said a few times now that we don't understand what people are afraid of here. Do you seriously think that by mentioning ID in a couple of minutes in one class, that we are going "back to the stone age"? Surely you can see the hyperbole in that statement. Do you think that science cannot stand up to a mention like that? Is our scientific foundation that fragile that it will crumble?
I am left with my original theory- that people who fear the simple mention of ID are probably Christophobic, or perhaps in this case Religionophobic, since there is no particular religion or God being taught here.

 

[MissileMan]

Considering that some 90% plus Americans believe in God, I wouldn't charcterize ID as being on the same level as just any other way-out theory. As I have said, ID does not need to be taught in science class- unless you are going to be teaching other unprovable theories on the origin of life. It's really simple: either stick to the scientifically provable, or stop complaining (not you personally) when something that is not provable is mentioned. I can't think of another way to restate this.

I think Luv and I have said a few times now that we don't understand what people are afraid of here. Do you seriously think that by mentioning ID in a couple of minutes in one class, that we are going "back to the stone age"? Surely you can see the hyperbole in that statement. Do you think that science cannot stand up to a mention like that? Is our scientific foundation that fragile that it will crumble?
I am left with my original theory- that people who fear the simple mention of ID are probably Christophobic, or perhaps in this case Religionophobic, since there is no particular religion or God being taught here.

You might just as well teach Apollo dragging the sun across the sky in his chariot.

You have to be blind not to recognize the push to include ID as an attempt by the extreme religious right to get their foot back in the doors of public schools. They're not content to preach to a voluntary audience in their church. They want government-mandated, captive audiences of impressionable, maleable minds.

And as for the part I bolded and underlined...who do you think you're fooling?

 

[Abbey Normal]

You might just as well teach Apollo dragging the sun across the sky in his chariot.

You have to be blind not to recognize the push to include ID as an attempt by the extreme religious right to get their foot back in the doors of public schools. They're not content to preach to a voluntary audience in their church. They want government-mandated, captive audiences of impressionable, maleable minds.

And as for the part I bolded and underlined...who do you think you're fooling?

Well now, at least now we know exactly why it upsets you so much. I think I will go back to my Christophobic theory after all, to explain the irrational fear of ID. Unprovable, of course.

 

[Powerman]

Well now, at least now we know exactly why it upsets you so much. I think I will go back to my Christophobic theory after all, to explain the irrational fear of ID. Unprovable, of course.

Fear of ID? Let me make this clear once again. There is no FEAR of ID because everyone knows it's just silly. But level headed people know that it has no place in the classroom. It's not fear. It's a simple matter of not wanting bullshit tauhgt in school. When you grasp that concept you'll see things much clearer. Until then I'll have to assume you're brainwashed and are hopeless.

 

[MissileMan]

Well now, at least now we know exactly why it upsets you so much. I think I will go back to my Christophobic theory after all, to explain the irrational fear of ID. Unprovable, of course.

You're making assumptions with no basis in fact. I am neither upset nor afraid. My making arguments against the inclusion of mythology in science classes doesn't upset me, nor do your arguments to include it. And I learned a long time ago that there's no need to fear that which doesn't exist.

So, do you want to continue to debate the merits, or lack there of, of ID, or do you want to play an "unfounded labeling" game?

 

[Powerman]

You're making assumptions with no basis in fact. I am neither upset nor afraid. My making arguments against the inclusion of mythology in science classes doesn't upset me, nor do your arguments to include it. And I learned a long time ago that there's no need to fear that which doesn't exist.

So, do you want to continue to debate the merits, or lack there of, of ID, or do you want to play an "unfounded labeling" game?

It's funny how you and I have an odd way of saying different things but meaning the same. That's pretty much what I was thinking but said something different.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Fear of ID? Let me make this clear once again. There is no FEAR of ID because everyone knows it's just silly. But level headed people know that it has no place in the classroom. It's not fear. It's a simple matter of not wanting bullshit tauhgt in school. When you grasp that concept you'll see things much clearer. Until then I'll have to assume you're brainwashed and are hopeless.

You repeat yourself. You dont tell us why it would HURT to have it in the class, onlly that it doesnt belong there. Whats the big deal.?

Its like my next door neighbor. My son was playing basketball in our driveway, and the ball would go into the guys front lawn. My son would go get the ball. The guy came out and told him not to come on his lawn. My son came in and told me what was going on. I went out and asked him what was wrong with it, (everybody else on the block does it and his lawn is terrible, half dirt half grass anyways) and he kept repeating, because its my property and I dont want him on it. I kept asking, BUT WHAT HARM DOES IT CAUSE.?

Finally, he said, well, then how would you like it if I came onto your property? I smiled and said, "fine by me, in fact, I will go get you a chair, sit down and stay as long as you like"

Now again, what harm will it cause to have ID mentioned in science class? IF its so silly and everyone knows its not true?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You're making assumptions with no basis in fact. I am neither upset nor afraid. My making arguments against the inclusion of mythology in science classes doesn't upset me, nor do your arguments to include it. And I learned a long time ago that there's no need to fear that which doesn't exist.

So, do you want to continue to debate the merits, or lack there of, of ID, or do you want to play an "unfounded labeling" game?

We have presented merits of arguement, but PM has ignored them.

Im not making any assumptions. Its EASY to conclude you fear ID being mentioned in class because you guys argue against it so vehemently.

If there was a situation where something being done was "wrong" technically, but it didnt really bother me at all, I wouldnt spend alot of time arguing about it, I would say something once or twice, then leave it alone. If I continued arguing about it, then I have some fear of the situation to be as it is going.

Now, this pertains to others more than you, if it doesnt include you, it still includes them. Actions speak louder than words, and their actions of continually posting and even lamenting how they are beating their head against a wall to try to make us realize, "it doesnt belong in a science class" leads one to only one conclusion, there is a fear of it being included.

again you dodge the question, why fear it being "mentioned" in science class?
or, what harm will it do? Apparently someone thinks its harmful, they took it to court.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Well now, at least now we know exactly why it upsets you so much. I think I will go back to my Christophobic theory after all, to explain the irrational fear of ID. Unprovable, of course.

I'm afraid of ID like you're afraid of homosexuals.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm afraid of ID like you're afraid of homosexuals.

We propose not discussing the topic of homosexuality?

 

[Abbey Normal]

I'm afraid of ID like you're afraid of homosexuals.

That was the whole point of the Christophobic label, Clay. Libs constantly throw around the term homophobic when they don't like someone's objections to things like gay marriage or teaching homosexuality in school. If dislike, disdain, or moral objection to something = phobia on one side, it has to equal it on the other.

And to the other posts in the thread, I have stated repeatedly my arguments on ID in the classroom. If anyone doesn't understand them, or doesn't like them, it not through any fault of my writing. To say that we haven't explained or defended our views is disingenuous. There comes a point where it is not in anyone's interest to continually repeat oneself, and I choose not do so for the third or fourth time. LuvRP on his own has refuted every argument thrown out. On the other hand, the accusers here have yet to justify why it is ok to include in science class only those unprovable theories that you are comfortable with, and not others.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The "not including any unproven theories" concept is a good one.

If we followed that, which is the basis for the ID opponents arguements, then science would be way, way behind where it is now.

Then the ID opponents will proclaim, oh, then why dont we include ideas that a giant chicken pooped the world into existence.

Well, its quite simple, science has always dismissed totally ridiculous ideas. ID is not that, even though powerman wants us to believe so. HIS opinion does not reign supreme, though he would like us to think so.

The threshold should be established. The threshold will not include ONLY provable theories. The threshold WILL NOT INCLUDE crazy ideas only one or two ELVIS IS ALIVE believers will accept.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

That was the whole point of the Christophobic label, Clay. Libs constantly throw around the term homophobic when they don't like someone's objections to things like gay marriage or teaching homosexuality in school. If dislike, disdain, or moral objection to something = phobia on one side, it has to equal it on the other.

I know, I know. Playing along, hence the italics and the smilies...

 

[MissileMan]

It's funny how you and I have an odd way of saying different things but meaning the same. That's pretty much what I was thinking but said something different.

It's even funnier that I can say basically the same thing as you without the words "fucking", "idiot", "moron", etc.

 

[MissileMan]

again you dodge the question, why fear it being "mentioned" in science class?
or, what harm will it do? Apparently someone thinks its harmful, they took it to court.

As I've stated, I am not afraid of ID, I'm not afraid of ID being taught in schools, and I'm not afraid of religion. I am a secularist. I believe that religion should be kept out of government and public education. As I can see ID for what it really is, a back-handed attempt to get evangelical Christianity into public classrooms, I argue against it being added. It's as simple as that. You can make all the assumptions you care to, but that's all there is to it.

I have a question for you. Why are you willing to make an exception (proof wise) for the Christian version of ID, but not for any other proofless hypotheses?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

This court ruling will backfire on the evolutionists/Anti God gang.

Just like the Scopes trial wound up helping the evolutionists, even though they lost the trial, so too will Dover hurt evolutionists.

If they had left it alone, the local school board changed the science ciriculum to NOT INCLUDE ID to be mentioned. But by bringing it to trial, they will be helping to mobalize the people who think God should be discussed in schools, because the court brought up the old "seperation of church and state" which does not exist in the Constitution, by word or by concept. By pushing this too far, people will unite even more to oust and to nominate judges who believe (and there are many, and growing in numbers) that "seperation" clause is manufactured by the "living breathing document" supporters, and they are working on getting back to the fundamental strict interpetation, reading the Constitution as it was written, and if you want to change it for the changing times, then utilize the provisions provided within the said document to do so, and not by judicial fiat.

According to your logic, the right to a fair trial is not guaranteed in the Constitution, either. Go ahead, look through the COnstitution, see where it says anything about you having a right to a fair trial.


Even if you were right - and the Constitution does not imply a separation of Church and state, ID would STILL not be a science.

The judiciary has grown too powerful. The libs dont complain cuz they have had their way with it.

They sure had their way with it in 2000 when the majority Republican SC appointed Bush as President.

They only complain of an imbalance of power when a republilcan president gains that power. They really arent interested in a balance of power, but use that excuse (just like womens right, minorities equal rights, etc) to demonize any republican politician, while they NEVER even mention an imbalance that has been grabbed by the judiciary.

Which begs the question, what imbalance?

As for powerwoman stating that we dont want people to see both sides, well, me thinks the bong should be put down. Its him and his gang that doesnt want ID mentioned, and we arent talking about ID being discussed, taught, or anything but merely be MENTIONED as an alternative that SOME SCIENTISTS believe in.

Like 4 scientists believe in it. There are tens of thousands of biologists. We don't have time in class to mention the beliefs of every single one of them, sorry. Some physicsts, like 2 or 3, don't believe in Einstein's theories. THese folks are quacks whose theories have been repeatedly debunked.

Now that is not wanting to let people see both sides.

That's not true. Lamarck's theory is taught. THat's another side - and, unlike ID, its scientific.

Its a philosophical question, with many complex angles, and hence it deserves mention. Every subject has a philosophical angle to it, including science.

ID is not a philosophical angle on science, it isn't science.

Nobody on that side can say WHY it would be harmful to MENTION it in a science class, they can only say, "it doesnt belong there, its not science"

Teaching non-science as science is harmful. If you can't see why, then you're not too bright.

In the true tradition of Libertarianism/Repulicanism, the issue should be left up to local school boards.

If we left everything up to local government, black and white students would attend different schools by law.

But the lefties and the ACLU have been on a roll on the federal and state level judiciaries, so they want a blanket law via judicial fiat to eliminate any Christianity from schools all together.

So then you admit ID is a Christian thing? WELL THERE YOU GO. You want to impose your religious beliefs on others by teaching the religious theory of ID in science class as if it were science. Fortunately, we have the COnsitution to protect our children from nutcases like you.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Sorry to inform you, but your arguement is a straw man. Where did I say the ACLU didnt protect rights? I said, it was being done long before the ACLU showed up. .

So in other words, you made a pointless statement?

All of the cases I mentioned weren't from decades ago, they were in this millenium. Where do these God fearing people go when they want their right to practice their religion to be defended with no ACLU?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Double bingo. Its what we have been trying to explain to them, but they keep beating the same drum

You can go back to some of my posts and I claim I dont want ID taught as science, but then I explain how and why it should be included in a science discussion of origins of life and powerman just responds by saying "but it isnt science, why cant you understand that!"

Why shouldn't we teach kids about sculpting in science class, or painting, or creative writing? I mean, these things have nothing to do with science, but we should at least mention them, right/

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Either you stick to teaching only the scientifically provable, or you open the door to allowing unprovable theories you don't personally like. You can't have it both ways and have a credible argument.

Now you're getting the point. Only testable theories, like evolution, are scientific. UNtestable theories, like ID, are not.




I've always found it amusing that the very same people who claim evolution is untestable spend a considerable amount of time attempting to disprove it.



The scientifically minded, however, make no attempt to disprove ID, as it is untestable and therefore non-provable and non-disprovable.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Well, its quite simple, science has always dismissed totally ridiculous ideas.

LIke the ridiculous idea that time moves slower in gravitational fields or the idea that particles are really probability distributions. These are totally ridiculous ideas that have been rejected by science.