Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 121 of 283 (649174)
01-21-2012 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by marc9000
01-20-2012 9:24 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
I pointed out in an earlier post that ID was the only scientific discipline that had to face an entrance exam ...
On the contrary. Creationism is the only idea that anyone's tried to get into science class without the usual entrance exam.
Hence the court case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 9:24 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 122 of 283 (649175)
01-21-2012 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by marc9000
01-20-2012 8:43 PM


Re: No real contradiction
marc9000 writes:
Thank you very much!
You're welcome.
marc9000 writes:
It’s logical that his chapter 3 would be good for science classes.
No. It would be "logical" for him to convince the experts in the relevant fields that he actually does have evidence. He hasn't managed to convince himself yet. When you consider that, his suggestion about discussing it in schools is rather strange. If I thought I had evidence for something that wasn't in the mainstream of science and (unlike Monton) I was personally convinced by that evidence, it wouldn't occur to me to try to get it into schools. I'd be presenting my evidence to other adults, specifically, those with the best understanding of the relevant fields.
If you look at the development of new ideas in science through the ages, their initial proponents don't try to shove them directly in the faces of school children. They are concerned with convincing their peers, and testing their hypotheses against further observations.
Incidentally, there are many atheists, including Monton and Dawkins, who consider "god" to be a potential scientific hypothesis. You may not know this, but the idea of an a priori exclusion of such ideas from science tends to be pushed more enthusiastically by some of your fellow theists than by us atheists. People like me don't currently include god in science for the same reason that we don't currently include planets made of solid gold in science. Lack of evidence, not through some philosophy of science that doesn't allow those things.

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

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 123 of 283 (649177)
01-21-2012 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by marc9000
01-20-2012 9:41 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
Hi Marc,
I see your beliefs as expressions of paranoia and ignorance rather than as conclusions from evidence and reason, but the track record of talking people out of such beliefs is poor and I won't try. Sense and reason turn out to be poor tools to talk people out of beliefs arrived at by other means. I would prefer that people not hold such beliefs, but I see little that can be done about it on an individual basis.
The key question is whether your views pose any real threat to science education, or more generally, to freedom from state imposed religion, and the answer is that I don't. People with views like yours are going to think what they think regardless, but the paranoia combined with a lack of coherence, reason and evidence will be readily apparent to everyone else.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 9:41 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 124 of 283 (649182)
01-21-2012 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by marc9000
01-20-2012 8:39 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
$15 Trillion in debt it the main reason.
If you are incapable of understanding where the debt came from then you are an idiot.
Edited by Theodoric, : word choice

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:39 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 125 of 283 (649183)
01-21-2012 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by marc9000
01-20-2012 9:24 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
I was working on Adequate's trolling. Often when I make a good point he trolls it.
Again we present Inigo Montoya

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 9:24 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 126 of 283 (649184)
01-21-2012 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by marc9000
01-20-2012 9:41 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
It tells atheists what is true. Just ask them.
Go ahead. Ask.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 9:41 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Theodoric, posted 01-22-2012 8:20 AM Theodoric has not replied

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


(5)
Message 127 of 283 (649241)
01-21-2012 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by marc9000
01-20-2012 8:36 PM


Re: That didn't take long!
marc9000 writes:
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.
I didn't tackle this statement earlier on because I couldn't make up my mind if marc was being facetious or serious. Then I remembered that one of the reasons we all continue to post here is to inform lurkers. So I decided to treat it seriously, just in case and point out the implications. Those with a science background will probably feel that this isn't necessary since the implications are obvious, but I think it needs to be dealt with for those without a science background.
So we take science from schools. What are these so-called religious equivalents that we are removing? We wouldn't be able to teach the physics behind a pendulum's swing, levers and pulleys, fluid dynamics, voltage, current, power, nuclear physics, inertia, gravity, electromagnetic radiation, prisms, lasers, basic chemical reactions, acids and bases, thermodynamics, the periodic table, solubility, types of chemical bonds and their characteristics, chemical structure and chemical properties, flight in birds, anatomy, cell structure and function, photosynthesis, reproduction, the seven life signs, plant biology, respiration. All of this and a hell of alot more would be forbidden.
I would love for someone to explain to me how teaching children about levers and pulleys or photosynthesis has any effect on religious beliefs or how it would be taught differently in a religious setting? If no-one can do that, then it stands to reason that the subjects are neutral about religion. What parts of the above require a religious-like belief which is a belief without any evidence? Or do they actually have supporting evidence which is the same whether seen through religious or non-religious glasses?
So kids leave school with no idea of anything about the world around them, how clouds and storms form, how bodies of water behave, how chemicals interact to form new and useful chemicals such as fertilisers for agriculture and drugs to treat disease, how to separate oil into it's component organic chemicals, how to move heavy loads more easily...the list is endless.
As Dr A says, we'd be back in caves, with much shorter life expectancy. If science education doesn't start in schools how will any child decide to take up science as a career? Do we expect every generation to reinvent the wheel?
If marc is so convinced that the "atheistic" agenda of scientists twists facts about the world around us he should refrain from ever consulting a doctor or taking antibiotics or any other drugs. He should have no power to his home which would be a cave since buildings require a bit of science if they're not to fall down, he wouldn't drive a car or ride a bicycle, use a telephone, watch television, buy groceries in the supermarket since all of these things ultimately derive from science done by these atheistic scientists.
Look at the alternatives. Why have I got this disease? God gave you it. How can I get rid of it? Pray to God to cure you. I need to move a load that's too heavy, how do I do it? Pray to God to make it lighter, just for a moment. Why doesn't this stone hover in midair? God doesn't want it to.
marc is free to throw all science away and live his life without it, but he is not free to impose this lunacy on anyone else. As a parent he would be able to remove his children from science class but he would not be able to remove science from other people's children.
It's a good job that none of the people involved in formulating the US constitution thought the same way as marc. If they had it would only have taken a few generations for the people it was written to protect to be unable to read the bloody thing.
Methinks that marc has let his paranoia override any sensible thought on the subject as his ideas demonstrate less common sense than God gave sawdust.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by marc9000, posted 01-20-2012 8:36 PM marc9000 has not replied

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


Message 128 of 283 (649267)
01-21-2012 9:41 PM


MESSAGE 119
nwr writes:
marc9000 writes:
I pointed out in an earlier post that ID was the only scientific discipline that had to face an entrance exam (court case).
But that's total BS, and you ought to be smart enough to know that.
Then you should be smart enough to specify the other scientific disciplines that had to face that entrance exam (court case), complete with dates and court case names. If you can’t, then my statement is 100% true. And I know you can't, so that's that.
MESSAGE 120
PaulK writes:
You've admitted that all the bills are inspired by a desire to distort science classes to favour uor religious beliefs.
I haven’t admitted that at all, you build straw men. I’ve only said that religious people started and promoted the study of ID. Just like atheists started and promoted evolution. Atheists were prompted to do that because of the book Origin of Species. Religious people were prompted to what they did because of recent discoveries of the complexities of the simplest forms of life.
You can't come up with any other good arguments as to why ID belongs in science classes so it really does seem that that is all there is to it.
Here’s one that hasn’t really fit into the barrage I’m facing, until now. The assertion that ID is completely religiously inspired is false. The truth is that ID began in the mid 1980’s, at exactly the same time that more and more complexity was being discovered in the simplest forms of life. Yet atheism was remaining in science, there was no open inquiry being conducted into how so much specified order, complexity and purposive results were present in the cell. In Behe’s words;
quote:
As biochemists have begun to examine apparently simple structures like cilia and flagella, they have discovered staggering complexity, with dozens or even hundreds of precisely tailored parts. It is very likely that many of the parts we have not considered here are required for any cilium to function in a cell. As the number of required parts increases, the difficulty of gradually putting the system together skyrockets, and the likelihood of indirect scenarios plummets.
The following is a part of what Bradley Monton puts forward in his book, the fine tuning argument.
quote:
The actual mass of the neutron is 938 MeV. It the mass of the neutron were increased by just 1.4 MeV, then (as a result of some complicated physics) hydrogen couldn’t be converted into helium, and life couldn’t exist. If it were decreased by 0.8 MeV, then protons would be converted into neutrons. All neutrons..life couldn’t exist.
These things and more really began coming to light at exactly the same time ID began taking shape. More and more complexity is being discovered to this day, and yet the mantra goes on exactly the same in the enraged scientific community. It doesn’t matter how ordered it is, it fell together gradually, by happenstance processes. And that mindset closes more exploration than it opens.
It is your argument that is simplistic. Science isn't not inherently atheistic. Many believers accept the findings of science - including evolution. Some even write popular books promoting the compatibility of their brand of Christianity with science. It's quite odd that you don't seem to notice those books at all.
I notice, I read Kenneth Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God about 5 years ago. He showed no knowledge of Christianity whatsoever.
It really seems that the only " patheism" in science that you are really worried about is science that contradicts the beliefs of your sect.
I never used the word that you put in quotes. Just trying to mislead lurkers, aren't you?
As has already been pointed out, the way to correct a real violation of the First Amendment is no to mandate another violation, even more egregious than the first. The remedy is to stop the violation. All you would have to do is to show that evolution is not valid science or that there is no valid secular reason for teaching it in schools and it would be withdrawn.
Not evolution, its definition is too slippery. It’s only change over time whenever its atheism and assumptions are questioned. Abiogenesis, the PAH world hypothesis would be something easier to expose for what it is, but it would still take millions of dollars and a court case. The money isn’t there. (yet)
Unfortunately for you, it's rather easier to spout crazy falsehoods on a website than it is to get a court to accepts them. The fact that you don't want to follow the correct course is a pretty clear sign that even you don't believe what you were saying.
Or it’s the sign that I don’t have the money to haul abiogenesis into court, like the ACLU and scientific community did to ID at Dover.
MESSAGE 123
Percy writes:
Hi Marc,
I see your beliefs as expressions of paranoia and ignorance rather than as conclusions from evidence and reason, but the track record of talking people out of such beliefs is poor and I won't try.
I see evolutionists expressions of paranoia and ignorance of ID that way too.
Sense and reason turn out to be poor tools to talk people out of beliefs arrived at by other means.
I found that out, as Trixie continues to believe that science isn’t, and can’t, be used as a weapon against religion. It’s politically correct to state that it’s not, and it looks good on news reports, scientific papers, evolution forums, but that doesn’t stop it from being false.
I would prefer that people not hold such beliefs, but I see little that can be done about it on an individual basis.
The key question is whether your views pose any real threat to science education, or more generally, to freedom from state imposed religion, and the answer is that I don't.
I don’t either. My views could pose a threat to publicly established atheism, but not science education.
People with views like yours are going to think what they think regardless, but the paranoia combined with a lack of coherence, reason and evidence will be readily apparent to everyone else.
As more and more complexity is discovered in biology, and the scientific community remains closed-minded, everyone else is going to increasingly question the political action of the scientific community. In the coming ID bills, there are going to be more and more questions about things like why the scientific community constantly demands more peer-reviewed papers from ID proponents, yet never specifies how many it would take for ID to become science. There’s going to be more and more questions about science’s failure to address new biological discoveries in an atheistic way. Mistakes that were made by ID proponents at Dover won’t be made again. Chances are, a jury, or multiple judges, will be involved next time. The scientific community’s current lofty political position is not guaranteed to stand forever.
MESSAGE 127
Trixie writes:
I didn't tackle this statement earlier on because I couldn't make up my mind if marc was being facetious or serious. Then I remembered that one of the reasons we all continue to post here is to inform lurkers.
There could possibly be some lurkers who buy into the politically correct narrative gloss nonsense that science can’t be done without evolution, but that’s false.
quote:
As National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell has written, the hyping of neo-Darwinism's importance to science goes well beyond reality:
I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. ... Darwinian evolution -- whatever its other virtues -- does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. ... the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones for tangible breakthroughs.
(Philip Skell, "Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology," The Scientist (August 29, 2005).)
In another essay, Dr. Skell added that he had
queried biologists working in areas where one might have thought the Darwinian paradigm could guide research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I learned that the theory had provided no discernible guidance in choosing the experimental designs but was brought in, after the breakthrough discoveries, as an interesting narrative gloss.
(Philip Skell, Politics and the Life Sciences, Vol. 27(2):47-49 (October 9, 2008).
Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne likewise admitted in Nature that "if truth be told, evolution hasn't yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say."
When testifying before the Texas State Board of Education this past March, Dr. Ray Bohlin said the following when asked about the utility of evolution for biological research. He answered:
I'd be willing to say that virtually 90, 95% of all molecular and cell biology, which is where my Ph.D. is in, does not require evolution whatsoever.
Similarly, Don Ewert, who holds a Ph.D. in microbiology and has been a biology researcher for over 30 years (including 20 years at the Wistar Institute), was asked to "address the notion that very little in biology is testable except for in the light of evolution." Ewert answered:
If you look at scientific textbooks and ask the question, if the theory of evolution were not in that textbook, what material would not make sense? And I would say that very little, if any, would not make sense. In fact, I think that anybody who learned the material apart from Darwin in those textbooks could go on to be successful scientists, veterinarians, and medical doctors. ... I would say that there is very little that you cannot fully understand apart from the theory of evolution.
Clearly evolution is important to some research, but Collins' claim that "[t]rying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics" says more about Collins' hardline devotion to neo-Darwinism than it says about modern evolutionary biology itself. Fortunately, there remain highly credible scientists who do not feel the need to uphold Darwinism as the alpha and omega of biology.
Francis Collins and the Overselling of Evolution | Evolution News

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-21-2012 10:07 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 130 by PaulK, posted 01-22-2012 3:32 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 131 by Trixie, posted 01-22-2012 5:49 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 133 by Percy, posted 01-22-2012 8:34 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 134 by Percy, posted 01-22-2012 1:57 PM marc9000 has not replied

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


(1)
Message 129 of 283 (649269)
01-21-2012 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by marc9000
01-21-2012 9:41 PM


Then you should be smart enough to specify the other scientific disciplines that had to face that entrance exam (court case), complete with dates and court case names.
Name me another "scientific discipline" that isn't really a scientific discipline but is just a bunch of absurd religiously-inspired crap that people tried to force into schools without a shred of substantiating evidence let alone anything approaching a scientific consensus, in violation of the establishment clause.
Really, your whining is absurd. It's like a cannibal serial killer saying: "But why isn't anyone else in this town not on trial for being a cannibal serial killer. Why have I been singled out?"
Well, because he's the only cannibal serial killer in town, that's why.
Here’s one that hasn’t really fit into the barrage I’m facing, until now. The assertion that ID is completely religiously inspired is false. The truth is that ID began in the mid 1980’s, at exactly the same time that more and more complexity was being discovered in the simplest forms of life.
The truth is that ID began when judges decided that "creation science" was a bunch of malarkey, and was created by the simple (not to say lazy) expedient of taking a book on "creation science" and changing "creationists" to "design proponents", "creationism" to "intelligent design" and "creator" to "designer".
These things and more really began coming to light at exactly the same time ID began taking shape. More and more complexity is being discovered to this day, and yet the mantra goes on exactly the same in the enraged scientific community. It doesn’t matter how ordered it is, it fell together gradually, by happenstance processes. And that mindset closes more exploration than it opens.
N.B: not an actual quote.
I found that out, as Trixie continues to believe that science isn’t, and can’t, be used as a weapon against religion. It’s politically correct to state that it’s not, and it looks good on news reports, scientific papers, evolution forums, but that doesn’t stop it from being false.
Then so much the worse for religion.
Mistakes that were made by ID proponents at Dover won’t be made again.
They're going to stop being ID proponents?
There could possibly be some lurkers who buy into the politically correct narrative gloss nonsense that science can’t be done without evolution, but that’s false.
I think doing evolutionary biology might be a little harder.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by marc9000, posted 01-21-2012 9:41 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 130 of 283 (649280)
01-22-2012 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by marc9000
01-21-2012 9:41 PM


I am mainly going to reply to the parts addressing my post.
quote:
Then you should be smart enough to specify the other scientific disciplines that had to face that entrance exam (court case), complete with dates and court case names. If you can’t, then my statement is 100% true. And I know you can't, so that's that.
Of course we don't have to agree with your falsehood. ID only faced a legal challenge because dishonest religiously motivated people - ignoring their own legal advisors in favour of a religiously motivated legal organisation - decepided to force ID into schools. No real science has done that.
quote:
I haven’t admitted that at all, you build straw men. I’ve only said that religious people started and promoted the study of ID. Just like atheists started and promoted evolution. Atheists were prompted to do that because of the book Origin of Species. Religious people were prompted to what they did because of recent discoveries of the complexities of the simplest forms of life.
Then why all the argument about religion? Why do you keep going on about evolution supporting and being supported by atheists? You make it absolutely clear that the religios issue is central to you, and your objections to evolution are rooted in your religios beliefs.
quote:
Here’s one that hasn’t really fit into the barrage I’m facing, until now. The assertion that ID is completely religiously inspired is false. The truth is that ID began in the mid 1980’s, at exactly the same time that more and more complexity was being discovered in the simplest forms of life. Yet atheism was remaining in science, there was no open inquiry being conducted into how so much specified order, complexity and purposive results were present in the cell. In Behe’s words;
That would be the same Behe who now accepts common descent over millions of years ?
But his quote does not support you, since it neither gives dates for the discoveries, nor does it support your assertion that there was no "open enquiry"
And of course, you ignore the evidence in the Dover case. As we know the ID textbook involved started life as a creationist textbook. However, while it was being written, the teaching of creationism in schools was found to be unconstitutional and the term "intelligent design" was used as a direct substitution for "creation" - even retaining the same definition.
quote:
These things and more really began coming to light at exactly the same time ID began taking shape. More and more complexity is being discovered to this day, and yet the mantra goes on exactly the same in the enraged scientific community. It doesn’t matter how ordered it is, it fell together gradually, by happenstance processes. And that mindset closes more exploration than it opens.
Obviously cosmological studies have Virtually no effect on biology at all, so fine tuning arguments don't make any difference to the teaching of evolution. And I don't see that jumping to the conclusion of a designer opens up more possibilities than it closes down.
quote:
I notice, I read Kenneth Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God about 5 years ago. He showed no knowledge of Christianity whatsoever.
Which only tells us that you have a very limited view of Christianity,
quote:
I never used the word that you put in quotes. Just trying to mislead lurkers, aren't you?
Nope, it's nothing more than an obvious typo. I suppose that you have to pretend that everyone else is as bad as you, but the constant stream of false accusations you rely on becomes very wearing.
quote:
Not evolution, its definition is too slippery. It’s only change over time whenever its atheism and assumptions are questioned. Abiogenesis, the PAH world hypothesis would be something easier to expose for what it is, but it would still take millions of dollars and a court case. The money isn’t there. (yet)
Rubbish. You could go after the actual content of textbooks easily enough. Why not the age of the Earth since you seem to object to that? It'd be easy to find textbooks saying that the earth is billions of years old or that the dinosaurs lived tens of millions of years ago. In fact you would HAVE it go after the actual content of textbooks. If the PAH world hypothesis isn't in actual texts used in schools any attack on it would be a stupid irrelevance.
And why the money worries? The Thomas More Law Center took the Dover case for free, and there are plenty of other "Christian" organisations that would like to influence the curriculum. If you had a good case, the money seems to be there. But apparently your side prefers political sneaking around to an honest challenge in the courts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by marc9000, posted 01-21-2012 9:41 PM marc9000 has not replied

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


(7)
Message 131 of 283 (649281)
01-22-2012 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by marc9000
01-21-2012 9:41 PM


marc9000 writes:
Trixie writes:
I didn't tackle this statement earlier on because I couldn't make up my mind if marc was being facetious or serious. Then I remembered that one of the reasons we all continue to post here is to inform lurkers.
There could possibly be some lurkers who buy into the politically correct narrative gloss nonsense that science can’t be done without evolution, but that’s false.
I was replying specifically to the comment, made by you which demonstrates that you are the one who introduced the idea that science as a whole violates the constitution. You made this allegation, not me, when you said
marc9000 writes:
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.
Now, where in that statement do you specify that only certain science violates the constitution when taught in public schools? Hint - you don't, you say "science". You now state that this very allegation you made is false and you provide a lengthy refutation to demonstrate why you yourself are wrong. Worse you dishonestly ascribe this allegation to me.
I've come across alot of bizzarre debating styles in my time at EvC, courtesy of religious fundamentalists, but self-refutation is a new one to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by marc9000, posted 01-21-2012 9:41 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 132 of 283 (649285)
01-22-2012 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Theodoric
01-21-2012 10:12 AM


Bump for Marc9000
me writes:
marc9000 writes:
It tells atheists what is true. Just ask them.
Go ahead. Ask.
Are you going to ask?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Theodoric, posted 01-21-2012 10:12 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(3)
Message 133 of 283 (649288)
01-22-2012 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by marc9000
01-21-2012 9:41 PM


marc9000 writes:
Percy writes:
Hi Marc,
I see your beliefs as expressions of paranoia and ignorance rather than as conclusions from evidence and reason, but the track record of talking people out of such beliefs is poor and I won't try.
I see evolutionists expressions of paranoia and ignorance of ID that way too.
That's your response, "Oh yeah? Well, so are you!"
Marc, when we say science education is threatened by fundamentalist efforts to teach religion in science class it is because of the very real fundamentalist efforts to teach religion in science class, such as the Dover Board of Education's efforts or the Missouri bill that is the subject of this thread.
But the threats you see at the hands of atheism and science are fantasies of your own mind. No one is proposing bills to teach evolution in evangelical Sunday schools.
You can call science a religion before a church full of fundamentalists and get them shouting hallelujahs at how outrageous it is, but in the cold light of day in public forum the charge looks pretty foolish because it is a fact that the vast majority of activities in people's lives, including fundamentalists, is secular and makes no acknowledgement of religion.
If you'd like to understand what an atheistic threat to religion really looks like then I think you should study the former Soviet Union.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by marc9000, posted 01-21-2012 9:41 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(7)
Message 134 of 283 (649326)
01-22-2012 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by marc9000
01-21-2012 9:41 PM


How Many Peer-Reviewed Papers Does Science Require
Hi Marc,
Because you keep asking this question, I think it's time to answer it:
marc9000 writes:
...the scientific community constantly demands more peer-reviewed papers from ID proponents, yet never specifies how many it would take for ID to become science.
You've asked the wrong question. The number of papers has nothing to do with whether a new idea becomes accepted in science. The criteria is how persuasive is the evidence and argument from the papers, whatever be their number.
In the case of the accelerating expansion of the universe, something that was completely unanticipated and unexpected, the number of primary papers necessary to convince the scientific community was probably 2 because the evidence presented was from two teams using different approaches but reaching the same result, and the control over sources of error in both papers was exemplary.
In the case of Einstein's theory of general relativity published in 1916, I don't know how many papers it took, but it was a couple more decades before general relativity became a widely accepted idea within science.
So it could be a couple papers, it could be a lot of papers. The criteria is, "Whatever it takes to create a consensus within science."
This cartoon has been posted here at EvC a couple times recently (click to enlarge):
Though it's a cartoon, and though we can quibble about the specifics, its list of steps for becoming part of a public school science curriculum does give a pretty good idea of what's involved. The first four steps are the prerequisite for becoming accepted science:
  1. Publish
  2. Defend
  3. Confirm
  4. Earn Consensus
But there's a huge amount of science in that consensus, so the next three steps outline the steps carried out by school systems for whittling down this huge body of science into what's most important for each grade:
  1. Teacher Recommendations
  2. Government Review
  3. Science Standards
ID asserts prejudice by scientists and petitions legislatures and boards of education for the right to skip the first 4 steps required to become part of the scientific consensus. They want to waltz right into science classrooms by government fiat instead of scientific research. But anything that hasn't passed through the first 4 steps is not science, and so has no right to be in science class.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by marc9000, posted 01-21-2012 9:41 PM marc9000 has not replied

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


Message 135 of 283 (649352)
01-22-2012 6:30 PM


summary
To repeat the question from the opening message;
I'd like this thread to discuss why the Dover trial hasn't put a stop to this nonsense and why anyone would think that children, just beginning their journey into science and it's methods, would possess the knowledge and critical thinking skills required to assess ID and evolution when supposedly educated adults are unable to, as is demonstrated in all it's awful clarity in the text of the Bill itself. It would also be of interest to determine if the ID crowd have made any advances which would render the Dover judgement outdated and wrong.
I knew when I joined this thread in an attempt to answer the questions in the opening message, that my answers would be met with opposition. Yet no matter how much evolutionists disagree with the reasons people have for introducing ID bills, the reasons are what they are.
Many people see the scientific community’s opposition to ID as a jealous guarding of the status quo, and there’s plenty of common sense evidence that makes that clear. The cartoon that I’ve been shown..what, three times in this thread, supposedly shows an orderly, well defined process that an idea must follow to be included in science education. The problem is, that process is governed by imperfect humans, and no, that’s not a projection of the fall from the Bible or anything like that, it’s a simple, secular fact that humans are imperfect, and I don’t’ think any serious evolutionist is going to point to any human organization that’s ever existed and claim that it’s perfect. Organizations are often ‘special interests’, and the scientific community is a special interest.
I and many others don’t believe that defined process is evenly applied. For example, I’ve never been shown that the SETI Institute (considered science, and taught in science classes according to its website) has ever had to go through that line, or show any of its accomplishments as testable, repeatable, or observable.
I and many others believe that recent discoveries of the complexities of the simplest forms of life are far more profound than the scientific community will admit, as they attempt to protect the status quo. Those discoveries are troubling to atheists, pure and simple. Claims by evolutionists that we’d all be living in caves without constant thought and application of evolution is blown out of proportion by a special interest, as common sense and verification by some non-politically correct scientists shows. Many actions by the scientific community, refusal to publicly re-evaluate fragmented hypothesis of naturalistic origins of life in light of recent scientific discoveries, and the arrogant behavior, the superior attitude that the scientific community and those who represent it often show towards non-scientists are what convince many people that the Dover decision — a decision made by ONE judge — deserves a second look. If that makes evolutionists angry, it doesn’t change the fact that that’s how things are. Science isn’t the only source of knowledge, and it doesn’t have special rights to make political decisions in the U.S.
Thanks for the few good messages that there were, particularly from Percy and Bluegenes. This is my last message in this thread.

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by jar, posted 01-22-2012 7:02 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 137 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-22-2012 7:39 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 138 by Coyote, posted 01-22-2012 7:40 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 139 by subbie, posted 01-22-2012 8:14 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 140 by Percy, posted 01-22-2012 9:38 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 141 by PaulK, posted 01-23-2012 2:12 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 142 by Pressie, posted 01-23-2012 5:28 AM marc9000 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024