Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 91 of 283 (649133)
01-20-2012 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by bluegenes
01-19-2012 11:46 AM


Re: No real contradiction
He says he thinks there's some evidence. From memory, he says that it's not much, and not enough to stop him being an atheist. He doesn't see this in biology, but more in some things in cosmology.
It's quite common in science for people to think there's some evidence that seems to support a hypothesis, but not enough to convince them that its true. So he's not really contradicting himself.
Thank you very much! His biased source only quote mined — here is the complete paragraph;
quote:
This is a doctrine that I endorse, though I recognize that not all atheists will endorse it. The reason I endorse the doctrine is that (as I’ll explain in Chapter 3) I think that there is some evidence for an intelligent designer, and in fact, I think that there is some evidence that the intelligent designer is God. The arguments I’ll consider in chapter 3 make me less certain of my atheism than I would be had I never heard the arguments. The evidence isn’t enough to make me stop being an atheist, though. Many — perhaps most — atheists wouldn’t be happy with this; they would hold that the evidence simply isn’t there. I’ll take issue with those atheists in chapter 3.
It’s logical that his chapter 3 would be good for science classes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by bluegenes, posted 01-19-2012 11:46 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2012 8:49 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 99 by Trixie, posted 01-20-2012 8:54 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 122 by bluegenes, posted 01-21-2012 6:29 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 92 of 283 (649134)
01-20-2012 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by marc9000
01-20-2012 8:30 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
Because atheism and science exploration do the exact same thing, they assume one time dimension and three space dimensions, and that’s it. They fit all of reality into those two things, and that’s where the correlation is. Many philosophical questions, the endlessness of space, the existence of love / hate, many other things, logically suggest there could be more, much more, to all of reality. Science / atheists don’t simply work their way up to that possibility, they bypass it.
Well, of course none of this is true, but whatever the real reason is, science does actually work. While scientists (or, as you apparently prefer to call them, science/atheists) have come up with stuff like electricity and antibiotics and the silicon chip, theologians have done nothing but come up with a thousand different gods and a thousand excuses for killing each other over the difference.
If you are going to claim that science is inextricably bound up with atheism, then what I say is, let's have more atheism. Because apparently it works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:30 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 93 of 283 (649135)
01-20-2012 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by marc9000
01-20-2012 8:40 PM


Re: An aside
Nope, wrong again. Science is neutral on religion so it's hard to use it as a weapon against religion. Religion, on the other hand is used as a weapon against science by zealots. That's what Dover was about and its what these bills are about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:40 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:50 PM Trixie has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 94 of 283 (649136)
01-20-2012 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Taq
01-19-2012 2:33 PM


What we are asking for is peer reviewed scientific research papers, not books. You do understand the difference, don't you?
How many peer reviewed scientific research papers would it take? ID has a few, but is deemed not enough by the scientific community. How many does the SETI Institute have? I’m sure it has some, but how many did it have when it won its court battle to become science? (uh-oh, maybe it didn't - Dr Adequate couldn't provide me with evidence of its existence)
If the scientific community claims to have a criteria for something to become science, shouldn’t that criteria be precisely defined?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Taq, posted 01-19-2012 2:33 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2012 8:59 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 146 by Taq, posted 01-23-2012 1:44 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 95 of 283 (649137)
01-20-2012 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by marc9000
01-20-2012 8:43 PM


Re: No real contradiction
It’s logical that his chapter 3 would be good for science classes.
Would you also like to teach the other chapters where he explains why the arguments in ch. 3 are insufficient to make him a theist, and why he considers atheism to be correct?
Or do you consider that only his theistic arguments should be taught, the ones that he thinks aren't as good as his atheistic arguments?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:43 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:53 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 96 of 283 (649138)
01-20-2012 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Trixie
01-20-2012 8:45 PM


Re: An aside
Nope, wrong again. Science is neutral on religion so it's hard to use it as a weapon against religion. Religion, on the other hand is used as a weapon against science by zealots. That's what Dover was about and its what these bills are about.
The list of books that I provided you with in message #56 is clear proof that it can. You aren't worth any more of my time.
Edited by marc9000, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Trixie, posted 01-20-2012 8:45 PM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2012 9:06 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 106 by Trixie, posted 01-20-2012 9:16 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 97 of 283 (649139)
01-20-2012 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by marc9000
01-20-2012 8:40 PM


Re: An aside
Sorry if some religions can't stand up to the evidence.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:40 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 98 of 283 (649140)
01-20-2012 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Dr Adequate
01-20-2012 8:49 PM


Re: No real contradiction
Would you also like to teach the other chapters where he explains why the arguments in ch. 3 are insufficient to make him a theist, and why he considers atheism to be correct?
No, students should be expected to make that decision for themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2012 8:49 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2012 9:03 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(2)
Message 99 of 283 (649141)
01-20-2012 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by marc9000
01-20-2012 8:43 PM


Re: No real contradiction
Once more, with feeling, as soon as you bring in reference to religion or God, belief in God, non-belief in God you immediately step outside of science and into religion and we all know that religion cannot be taught in a science class. Your idea represents an attack on science by religion. Let's turn it round and demand that evolution must be taught in Sunday School and churches and religious education classes. How would you feel about that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:43 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 100 of 283 (649142)
01-20-2012 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by marc9000
01-20-2012 8:47 PM


How many peer reviewed scientific research papers would it take? ID has a few, but is deemed not enough by the scientific community. How many does the SETI Institute have? I’m sure it has some, but how many did it have when it won its court battle to become science? (uh-oh, maybe it didn't - Dr Adequate couldn't provide me with evidence of its existence)
I can't tell whether you're genuinely insane, or just an enormous troll.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:47 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 101 of 283 (649143)
01-20-2012 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by marc9000
01-20-2012 8:53 PM


Re: No real contradiction
No, students should be expected to make that decision for themselves.
That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:53 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 102 of 283 (649145)
01-20-2012 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by marc9000
01-20-2012 8:20 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
marc9000 writes:
I can’t find the court case that evolution won to become officially admitted as science.
You can't seriously believe that theories become science by winning court cases. Slow Friday night?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:20 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2012 9:08 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 107 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 9:24 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 103 of 283 (649146)
01-20-2012 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by marc9000
01-20-2012 8:50 PM


Re: An aside
The list of books that I provided you with in message #56 is clear proof that it can.
No, the existence of books written by atheists is not a proof that science can be used as a weapon against religion.
However, let's suppose that what you say is true. Well, so much the worse for religion. If science really proves that religion is crap, then I'll go with science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:50 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 104 of 283 (649147)
01-20-2012 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Percy
01-20-2012 9:06 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
You can't seriously believe that theories become science by winning court cases.
When you look at all the other things he apparently believes, it is difficult to set a limit on how stupid he could potentially be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Percy, posted 01-20-2012 9:06 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(4)
Message 105 of 283 (649148)
01-20-2012 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by marc9000
01-20-2012 8:36 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
Science is controlled by people with a naturalistic worldview. It’s equivalent to religion. Its establishment in public education makes it in violation of the First Amendment.
Sorry, no. Not even close.
A naturalistic worldview is the opposite of religion.
Religion relies on dogma, revelation, faith, belief and other similar non-empirical sources.
Science relies on the scientific method, which requires that ideas be tested against real-world evidence. Ideas which do not measure up are discarded.
This is the opposite of religion, in which apologetics is used to keep ideas alive in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:36 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 9:30 PM Coyote has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024