|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: One small step for science...maybe? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
So, I read an article today concerning Obama over
turning the Bush stem cell policy. I'm not so much interested in the fact that stem cell research is getting some government funding, finally! - Or that Obama overturned it. My interest is with Obamas support for science, and his direct mention of the removal of ideologies from science.
The Article; "Obama overturns Bush policy on Stem Cell This particular quote is of interest:
quote: Does anyone feel that ID, during this administration, will not be as influential or boisterous, at the very least in the publics eye, but at the most in our educational system? *PS. I miss Buz Edited by onifre, : No reason given. "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
onifre writes: Does anyone feel that ID, during this administration, will not be as influential or boisterous, at the very least in the publics eye, but at the most in our educational system? I certainly hope so. And, if this Stem Cell thing is anthing to go by, it seems like the US is headed in that direction. It will be interesting to see if Obama takes any sympathetic actions at all towards the ID movement after making such a bold statement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
Does anyone feel that ID, during this administration, will not be as influential or boisterous, at the very least in the publics eye, but at the most in our educational system? Not as influential. But even more boisterous. Now that their man isn't in charge, and now that there's someone who definitely doesn't agree with them, they're going to shout ever louder. Trouble is, it's all into the wind (I hope).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
But even more boisterous. Which media outlets do you feel will support them?
Trouble is, it's all into the wind (I hope).
I agree, but I don't even think they'll get the forum to do so. Not much sympathy for those guys(ID) outside of the far conservative right. Maybe Fox News?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
olivortex Member (Idle past 4808 days) Posts: 70 From: versailles, france Joined: |
Maybe hardcore anti-evolution theory patrols will give us a little less of that "Darwin------->Racism" bool, at least.
I love this particular part:
especially when it's inconvenient What's more, I simply love this new president's full name for the Middle-Eastern flavour of it: Barack HUSSEIN Obama! Here in france we're used to giving lessons to the US but these elections have given us the right to shut up, wait and see. I'm glad that he supports science, and i hope we'll see the results of his policy soon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AustinG Member (Idle past 5199 days) Posts: 36 Joined: |
quote: Don't get me wrong, I support stem cell research; however, do we as a society really want ideologies out of science? For instance, I don't want people to be injected and killed with fatal viruss in order to test vaccines. I'm sure you can think of worst examples of, shal we say, science without ideologies (Hitler's "science" expirements come to mind). My point is that some ideologies must be kept; I guess you would call it ethics. Hope you see my point. Perhaps there is a difference between ethics and ideologies. In that case forget everything I just said ; ).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Whateverman Junior Member (Idle past 5458 days) Posts: 6 From: MA, US Joined: |
I think it'd be impossible for ideology (and philosophy) to be completely absent from science. Simply put, scientists are people, and they (we) aren't going to be perfectly impartial. The best that can be hoped for is that it takes a back seat to the scientific method; that the search for "fact" overrides notions of what we want to find.
Education, on the other hand, is all about philosophy and ideology. One person's knowledge will be another's controversy (though I'm not suggestion education is completely subjective). In an indirect way, I'm suggesting that I expect ID to get more airplay, in part due to its appearance in scholastic circles. I don't necessarily think that ID in schools is a bad thing. Assuming nothing changes, I would simply object to the idea that it belongs in a science class. Edited by Whateverman, : Grammar
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I don't necessarily think that ID in schools is a bad thing. Assuming nothing changes, I would simply object to the idea that it belongs in a science class.
ID is religion lite, creationism with the serial numbers filed off in the hope of fooling school boards and legislators. It is a direct descendant of the creationism --> creation "science" --> "What do we do now?" problem as those previous attempts failed to fool the courts. If you look at it, the impetus for ID is not from scientific research, such as private industry or the universities. It is from a few scientists already committed to creationism, and from organizations such as the Discovery Institute, staffed more with lawyers and PR flacks than research scientists. And the Discovery Institute's whole approach was shown to be dishonest by their Wedge Document, when it leaked to the internet. Their goal is not to do better science, but as follows:We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. See anything remotely like the scientific method in there? No, you don't. Their goal is not to follow the data wherever it leads, but to end up with science as we know it eliminated, and a new science subservient to Christian and theistic masters in its place (sounds like they would favor a theocracy, eh?). So no, ID is not science. It is anti-science from its beginning, a deceitful Trojan horse aimed at the science classes first, and the general population afterwards. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I'm sure you can think of worst examples of, shal we say, science without ideologies (Hitler's "science" expirements come to mind). Isn't that science with extreme ideology? Enjoy by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
ID is religion lite, creationism with the serial numbers filed off in the hope of fooling school boards and legislators. It is a direct descendant of the creationism --> creation "science" --> "What do we do now?" problem as those previous attempts failed to fool the courts. That's where it started, for sure, however ID is not under their control. It's the old "be careful of what you wish" problem. What I see is a broadening of the creationist front, now that they have the option to move into ID and away from YEC. Denton comes to mind. Personally, I would like to see ID in a Philosophy of Science course - what would seem to be it's strong-point, but to teach it through logic first. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fallen Member (Idle past 3903 days) Posts: 38 Joined: |
ID is religion lite, creationism with the serial numbers filed off in the hope of fooling school boards and legislators. It is a direct descendant of the creationism --> creation "science" --> "What do we do now?" problem as those previous attempts failed to fool the courts.
So, I guess you would classify the ancient Stoics as "creationist lite" for arguing that nature indicates an intelligent designer? "Can any one in his senses imagine that this disposition of the stars, and this heaven so beautifully adorned, could ever have been formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms? Or what other nature, being destitute of intellect and reason, could possibly have produced these effects, which not only required reason to bring them about, but the very character of which could not be understood and appreciated without the most strenuous exertions of well-directed reason?" (Cicero, The Nature of the Gods, Book II, section XLIV)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
So, I guess you would classify the ancient Stoics as "creationist lite" for arguing that nature indicates an intelligent designer?
The ancient Stoics aren't trying to sneak a fundamentalist religion into high school science classes after it has repeatedly been excluded by the courts. IDers are. Just look at the Wedge Document, which was never intended to leak out to the internet, for their true goals. (Those goals are not the promotion of science, but the elimination of science as we know it. ID is certainly not science!) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
quote: Don't you think it is kind of weird that you are going back over 2000 years to find an example to attempt to generate a controversy. The Stoics were no different then most people in that time period. Practically everyone believed in the supernatural of one sort or the other. Maybe you haven't noticed, but science has come a long way since the first century BCE. I guess I do not understand why you bring up Stoicism and Cicero. Why should his believing in a creator matter to anything? You might look more into what Cicero believed. Here are a couple points from The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy Stoicism as Cicero understood it held that the gods existed and loved human beings.
Religion was useful because it helped to control human behavior and could be used as a tool for public policy; So your point in bringing up Cicero and the Stoics was???? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
So, I guess you would classify the ancient Stoics as "creationist lite" for arguing that nature indicates an intelligent designer? I would classify Cicero as a person of great intelligence during a time of great ignorance.
Cicero writes: Can any one in his senses imagine that this disposition of the stars, and this heaven so beautifully adorned, could ever have been formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms? Yes, and eventually Newton and Einstein did just that.
Or what other nature, being destitute of intellect and reason, could possibly have produced these effects, which not only required reason to bring them about, but the very character of which could not be understood and appreciated without the most strenuous exertions of well-directed reason?" No "nature destined of intellect and reason" required, just plane ole, non-intelligent gravitational forces. I understand Ciceros' argument from incredulity, but yours, in this day and age, seems a bit outdated. - Oni "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024