NationStates Jolt Archive

(Note - I am not yet in the UN, and have no thingies to my name. I can't remember the word when someone else gives you authorisation or something and you need two of them to be able to raise proposals. But this is just an idea now)

If the UN can pass resolution #101 - The Right To Learn About Evolution under the guise of human rights, when clearly it is an all out assult on some religious beliefs, then it should permit a resolution to allow the right to teach "Intelligent Design" as well. (We have this theory in our country, but it isn't called that. We also know for a fact that in Pallatium evolution is a non-issue since it never happened.

ID (as some people call it) suggest that there is a guiding force to the development of sentient and non-sentient beings. That "evolutionary theory" doesn't explain various things (how human beings came to have opposable thumbs and how bats use radar to navigate and why Whiter Chickens are white) and ID does.

Evolution is nothing more than a theory. It has some evidence to back it up, but nothing conclusive. ID has some evidence to back it up, but equally has nothing conclusive.

So I suggest that ID be protected as well, under another resolution, so that it can not be banned by various nations. Or - if that is unacceptable - that the resolution protection the theory of evolution be repealed, as it is somewhat of an assult on the resolution that protects religious tolerance.

The "thingies" to which my esteemed collegue from Pallatium refers are endorsements from other UN member states in your region, and based on the proposal being suggested here, the people of Cluichstan sincerely hope that Pallatium does not receive any.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

Been tried. Failed miserably.

The delegate(s) of the Queendom of Pallatium should note that a significant majority of N.S.U.N. members are "liberal," and tend to oppose religiously-driven or otherwise faith- or morality-based resolutions. This is evident in past resolutions mandating the teaching of evolution and sexual education, affirming abortion rights, and affirming union rights of homosexuals, among others. While we certainly encourage Pallatium to push any reasonable legislation they feel appropriate, I am compelled to advise its government that it is unlikely to gain significant ground in the United Nations through conservative reformation.

Tşärls Lorĕns
Third Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

The "thingies" to which my esteemed collegue from Pallatium refers are endorsements from other UN member states in your region, and based on the proposal being suggested here, the people of Cluichstan sincerely hope that Pallatium does not receive any.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

That's the word I was looking for. Thank you!!!

The delegate(s) of the Queendom of Pallatium should note that a significant majority of N.S.U.N. members are "liberal," and tend to oppose religiously-driven or otherwise faith- or morality-based resolutions. This is evident in past resolutions mandating the teaching of evolution and sexual education, affirming abortion rights, and affirming union rights of homosexuals, among others. While we certainly encourage Pallatium to push any reasonable legislation they feel appropriate, I am compelled to advise its government that it is unlikely to gain significant ground in the United Nations through conservative reformation.

Tşärls Lorĕns
Third Alphin of the Socialist Republic of Xanthal

(smile) That is the first time I have ever been called a conservative. I am one of the most liberal Queens this country has had, and plan to stay that way. And Pallatium is a pretty liberal country as countries go.

But if people are going to be forced to accept that Evolution now has protection in UN law, despite the fact it is only a theory, then why can't it be argued that ID should gain the protection? Both are just theories with some evidential support.


And - by the by - we support everyone of the things listed in your post - abortion rights, gay rights, free education, union rights and so forth. We have no death penalty, we have very good protection for criminals in court.

No one could accuse us of being conservative or anything other than liberal. What I was suggesting was in a liberal vein (so to speak) - the right for everyone to have a voice. Even people who believe in ID.

But if Hack is right (and I have no doubt of the fact that he is!) then I give up hope of actual freedom of expression in UN law.

The "thingies" to which my esteemed collegue from Pallatium refers are endorsements from other UN member states in your region, and based on the proposal being suggested here, the people of Cluichstan sincerely hope that Pallatium does not receive any.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

(grin) From someone who wants to repeal the right to democracy in the UN, and someone who doesn't believe that the UN has any business ensuring women have the right to decide what happens to their bodies, I am of course surprised that you don't think everyone (even faith-based lunatics, as some people would describe them) should be heard.

Evolution didn't happen in Pallatium. We know this for a fact. It isn't a religious belief, or a faith-based initiative - it's an actual known fact - we have proof and everything. But that is not the point.


The point of my post is this :-

ID is just a theory, and yet it is shouted down by all the people who think that it is not believable or is part of religious dogma.
Evolution is just a theory, a theory with some evidence, but just a theory - not proven as fact yet. But the moment someone challanges it, they are shouted down as being a religious maniac who won't accept science.

I have no problem with scientific freedom - the more science the better. For humanity, for discoveries - for everything. Anyone who sets about restricting science on any basis (whether it be religious or other) is not someone I would consider a friend to my government or country.

But given that the UN believes in religious tolerance (one of its resolutions says so) there should at least be some discussion for protecting religious views. Unless of course the religious tolerance resolution already protects the right to teach ID (and other such theories) in school, in which case I have no real problem I suppose.

I am not going to pursue this - we are going to teach what we are going to teach (the theory of evolution, and the T2Theory) and we are going to accept that everyone else has the right to teach what everyone else can teach.

I am really not a conservative :}

Evolution is nothing more than a theory. It has some evidence to back it up, but nothing conclusive. ID has some evidence to back it up, but equally has nothing conclusive.
.

The people of Stealthmunchkania suggest the esteemed delegate from Pallatium looke up the definition of theory as it applies in a scientific context.

The people of Cluichstan do not wish to repeal a "right to democracy." We want to preserve the right of nations to choose their own forms of government, free of UN interference. Cluichstan itself is a libertarian democracy and believes this is the best form of government. However, that does not mean we have the right to impose democracy or any other form of government upon another nation and its people, as the resolution we have called upon all thoughtful nations to repeal, in fact, does.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

The people of Stealthmunchkania suggest the esteemed delegate from Pallatium looke up the definition of theory as it applies in a scientific context.

A theory is something that has been postulated by someone and is being investigated.

The people of Cluichstan do not wish to repeal a "right to democracy." We want to preserve the right of nations to choose their own forms of government, free of UN interference. Cluichstan itself is a libertarian democracy and believes this is the best form of government. However, that does not mean we have the right to impose democracy or any other form of government upon another nation and its people, as the resolution we have called upon all thoughtful nations to repeal, in fact, does.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

And I agree - it can be argued that forcing democracy on a nation is not true to the spirit of democracy. That democracy means having a choice, and forcing people to chose is not so wise.

But resolution #101 forces people to accept that something that might be entirely contrary to their religion has to be taught in their schools if someone wants to teach it. If you are not willing to force a governmental type on someone, then why are you so willing to force evolution on them?

The people of Cluichstan never said they were in favor of forcing the theory of evolution on anyone. Indeed, we do not want to force the teaching of any theory, including the theory of so-called "intelligent design."

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

Permitting the prevelance of nonsense under the guise of free speech, so as to allow religious mumbo-jumbo construed as science to be taught to our children or proclaimed as valid, is utterly ridiculous and has no right to gain support or protection.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Long live scientific Compadria!

While I agree with the position of my esteemed colleague, Mr. Otterby, I feel it important to note that this proposal does not simply "allow religious mumbo-jumbo construed as science to be taught to our children or proclaimed as valid" (italics added). It mandates it. For this very reason, this proposal, in the opinion of the people of Cluichstan, isn't even worthy of further discussion.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

A theory is something that has been postulated by someone and is being investigated.
Not in scientific terms. In science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." (Oxford English Dictionary). You are talking about a hypothesis, which does indeed mean what you say. Evolution is not a hypothesis, it is a scientific theory, and that puts it on the same level as gravity (also a 'theory').
"Intelligent Design" on the other hand is neither science nor a theory. It is a hypothesis, and as it is untestable, it is non-scientific.
Please at least take some time to familiarise yourself with a rudimentary understanding of the concepts which you are discussing, before parading your ignorance in front of the whole forum. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html is one of many, many resources available.

Woah!!

I have no desire to mandate the teaching of ID. Nowhere did I say I did. I said it should be protected in the same way evolution is protected by Resolution #101 - it means people can not be jailed and laws can not be written to prevent it being taught.

Neither do I have a desire to proclaim it as valid. Just to teach it as one of the possilibities that is out there.

I want to encourage debate and discussion, not just stick with rigid dogma to one point of view that can not be questioned at all.

Is that so wrong?

Not in scientific terms. In science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." (Oxford English Dictionary). You are talking about a hypothesis, which does indeed mean what you say. Evolution is not a hypothesis, it is a scientific theory, and that puts it on the same level as gravity (also a 'theory').
"Intelligent Design" on the other hand is neither science nor a theory. It is a hypothesis, and as it is untestable, it is non-scientific.
Please at least take some time to familiarise yourself with a rudimentary understanding of the concepts which you are discussing, before parading your ignorance in front of the whole forum. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html is one of many, many resources available.

(grin) What if I could (for example) demonstrate that the original population of Pallatium sprung fully grown from the earth, and has never undergone any type of evolution from animal upwards? How would that sit with your theory arguement then?

Then the people of Cluichstan would most likely provide a great market for whatever recreational drugs are being used in Pallatium.

(grin) What if I could (for example) demonstrate that the original population of Pallatium sprung fully grown from the earth, and has never undergone any type of evolution from animal upwards? How would that sit with your theory arguement then?
In which case you would still be incorrect in your usage of 'theory'. And the human population of Stealthmunchkania, as opposed to whatever species exists in Pallatium, has a strong fossil record to prove evolution.
Either way, "Intelligent Design" should absolutely not be protected by the UN. Its teaching in science classes is banned in Stealthmunchkania for the very simple reason that it simply is not science. And it is very, very wrong to want children to be taught non-science in a science class.

In which case you would still be incorrect in your usage of 'theory'. And the human population of Stealthmunchkania, as opposed to whatever species exists in Pallatium, has a strong fossil record to prove evolution.
Either way, "Intelligent Design" should absolutely not be protected by the UN. Its teaching in science classes is banned in Stealthmunchkania for the very simple reason that it simply is not science. And it is very, very wrong to want children to be taught non-science in a science class.

And by the same token evolution should not be taught in my classrooms because it is simply not true in Pallatium. And yet the UN requires it.

And by the same token evolution should not be taught in my classrooms because it is simply not true in Pallatium. And yet the UN requires it.
Then you should argue for the repeal of that legislation. What you shouldn't do is argue to place the additional requirement that every other state has to allow teaching of pseudo-science. One of the very few priorities that Stealthmunchkania places higher than even free speech is the education of our children, and we consider that children have a right to be taught science in science lessons.

Those that outrightly admit flaunting and breaking UN mandates should be kicked out of the UN now.

Those that outrightly admit flaunting and breaking UN mandates should be kicked out of the UN now.
No-one has done that, and in fact it is impossible to do so.

Then you should argue for the repeal of that legislation. What you shouldn't do is argue to place the additional requirement that every other state has to allow teaching of pseudo-science. One of the very few priorities that Stealthmunchkania places higher than even free speech is the education of our children, and we consider that children have a right to be taught science in science lessons.

My first post does actually argue for a repeal, but most everyone appears to have ignored that part in favour of telling me that while they are happy to believe in religious tolerence up to a point, they don't want it being taught to their kids :}

Further more no where was I requiring ID to be taught - I was just saying that people should not be banned from teaching it or put in jail for teaching it. And given that we believe evolution to be "pseudo-science" (as you so charmingly call it) you can imagine why we believe that either we should be permitted not to teach it, or we should let every other theory of creation have an equal say should people want to.


But - as I said - I am not going to pursue this. Quite honestly I just wanted to see what people thought of the idea - I was remarkably surprised that the UN - a body that apparently holds religious tolerance and lots of other tolerence in general - would require Theocratic governments to teach something they might not believe in, and just wanted to see what the rationale behind such a resolution was.

Thanks for all the comments and advice, and hopefully when I come to my next proposal I will get an equal amount of helpful advice :}

(Seriously - thanks. Even people who think I am a religious nutcase provided useful advice!)

No-one has done that, and in fact it is impossible to do so.
Besides, most of us who do that do it through loopholes in the resolutions which is perfectly legal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

OOC: For an example see my recent posts in the Ban Paritial Birth abortion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=447834) thread.

My first post does actually argue for a repeal, but most everyone appears to have ignored that part in favour of telling me that while they are happy to believe in religious tolerence up to a point, they don't want it being taught to their kids :}


You suggested that as a possible alternative if your proposal didn't go through.
Stealthmunchkania has no problem at all with its children being taught about religions. Our schools have lessons in the beliefs of over forty separate major religions. However, we teach those in religion classes, not science classes.

Further more no where was I requiring ID to be taught - I was just saying that people should not be banned from teaching it or put in jail for teaching it. And given that we believe evolution to be "pseudo-science" (as you so charmingly call it) you can imagine why we believe that either we should be permitted not to teach it, or we should let every other theory of creation have an equal say should people want to.

Stealthmunchkania supports absolutely your right to have whatever you want taught in the schools of your nation - you can have flat-earthism taught in your schools as science if you want, or the idea that the moon is made of green cheese. We would support the repeal of any measure that restricted these rights, and support any measure that says you have the right to teach these things (though no qualification from any institution teaching such things would be respected within Stealthmunchkania).
However, we would *not* support a proposal that forces us to allow the teaching of pseudo-science in *our* schools. The Stealthmunchkanian government keeps a tight control of the curricula of our schools, in order to assure the best possible education for our children, and will fight any proposal that prevents us doing that.
The solution to an infringement of your own rights is to fight for an end to that infringement, not to support an equal infringement of others'.

You suggested that as a possible alternative if your proposal didn't go through.
Stealthmunchkania has no problem at all with its children being taught about religions. Our schools have lessons in the beliefs of over forty separate major religions. However, we teach those in religion classes, not science classes.



Stealthmunchkania supports absolutely your right to have whatever you want taught in the schools of your nation - you can have flat-earthism taught in your schools as science if you want, or the idea that the moon is made of green cheese. We would support the repeal of any measure that restricted these rights, and support any measure that says you have the right to teach these things (though no qualification from any institution teaching such things would be respected within Stealthmunchkania).
However, we would *not* support a proposal that forces us to allow the teaching of pseudo-science in *our* schools. The Stealthmunchkanian government keeps a tight control of the curricula of our schools, in order to assure the best possible education for our children, and will fight any proposal that prevents us doing that.
The solution to an infringement of your own rights is to fight for an end to that infringement, not to support an equal infringement of others'.


Wow. You are a remarkably convincing person.

Whether I set about trying to repeal the requirement for evolution is another matter. Since it doesn't require it to be taught it's probably never going to be an issue, but something I maybe come back to in the future.

Wow. You are a remarkably convincing person.

Whether I set about trying to repeal the requirement for evolution is another matter. Since it doesn't require it to be taught it's probably never going to be an issue, but something I maybe come back to in the future.

(ooc) I'm glad you think so. I must say you seem far more civil and open to having your ideas challenged than most proponents of 'intelligent design' that I have known.

In the meantime, while that resolution is on the books, there are ways round it. For example, you could have a requirement that all your teachers are recognised priests of the national religion. Then you would have no teachers who wished to teach evolution. This would be entirely within the letter of the law, as I understand it.

(ooc) I'm glad you think so. I must say you seem far more civil and open to having your ideas challenged than most proponents of 'intelligent design' that I have known.

In the meantime, while that resolution is on the books, there are ways round it. For example, you could have a requirement that all your teachers are recognised priests of the national religion. Then you would have no teachers who wished to teach evolution. This would be entirely within the letter of the law, as I understand it.

(ooc) In real life I am SO not a proponent of ID. I can't stand it and would be happy if it were banned from every nation in the world. It's an attempt to bypass the religious dogma of creationism by watering it down in to what is laughably called science. I swear if I ever find my kids being taught it I will do my best to get the teacher rebuked, if not sacked.

(still ooc) However the nation I created to play really has no evolution, so I thought - eh - it was worth a try!

(back in character as Lily)
We don't ban it, but as no one believes it no one is going to teach it, so I am happy. Unless of course the resolution is amended to require it to be taught, and wow will you see a fight then (smirk)

We'd support a repeal of the current resolution, but would support a proposal urging nations to put only respected scientific theories in science lessons.

ID is most emphatically not a scientific theory, for the simple reason that it is a non-falsifiable hypothesis. There is no way to disprove it (because it is impossible to scientifically disprove or prove the existence of god, one can always say, even if something could have evolved naturally, that "god did it". In the same way, one can always refute the theory of gravity, saying "there's no force that automatically makes things fall towards each other, god just happens to always choose to make things fall" and there's no way to prove it wrong).

Science works by people postulating hypotheses which are consistent with our observations about the world, and then everyone should do their best to prove the hypothesis wrong. If it withstands that test, and seems to be the most likely explanation, we provisionally accept it - but always remember that it could still be proven wrong. No good scientist should ever really say something's been proven - at most the evidence is really good, and there's no evidence against.

So all the "evolution is only a theory" stuff is perfectly accurate, but perfectly meaningless. It's only a theory in the same way that gravity, the idea that the earth goes round the sun and the idea that we can see because light waves reflect off things into our eyes are theories. And intelligent design cannot be considered by science, because it cannot be proven wrong. That's not to say it must be wrong, just that it's way out of the bounds of what science is qualified to talk about. To include it in science lessons would only further dilute children's already generally poor knowledge of what science actually is and how it works.

(ooc) In real life I am SO not a proponent of ID. I can't stand it and would be happy if it were banned from every nation in the world. It's an attempt to bypass the religious dogma of creationism by watering it down in to what is laughably called science. I swear if I ever find my kids being taught it I will do my best to get the teacher rebuked, if not sacked.

(still ooc) However the nation I created to play really has no evolution, so I thought - eh - it was worth a try!

(ooc) Ah. That makes sense. Stealthmunchkania is politically exactly the same as my own views, with other aspects added to be awkward (we have a thermodynamic reverser because someone in another thread said that reversing thermodynamics was impossible, which of course it isn't in game mechanics - I was very impressed that you caught me out doing something I usually manage to avoid, mixing real-world and game facts).
I apologise for confusing ''you' and 'your character' - you manage to RP more successfully than most people on these forums, certainly including myself. I've been arguing with creationists on two other forums I frequent over the last few days, and so was less consciously aware that characters may espouse opinions their creators do not hold. Stupid mistake.

(back in character as Lily)
We don't ban it, but as no one believes it no one is going to teach it, so I am happy. Unless of course the resolution is amended to require it to be taught, and wow will you see a fight then (smirk)

Stealthmunchkania would probably fight it harder and nastier than yourselves, even though as a nation we ridicule creationists so much that most leave the country post haste.

(ooc) Ah. That makes sense. Stealthmunchkania is politically exactly the same as my own views, with other aspects added to be awkward (we have a thermodynamic reverser because someone in another thread said that reversing thermodynamics was impossible, which of course it isn't in game mechanics - I was very impressed that you caught me out doing something I usually manage to avoid, mixing real-world and game facts).
I apologise for confusing ''you' and 'your character' - you manage to RP more successfully than most people on these forums, certainly including myself. I've been arguing with creationists on two other forums I frequent over the last few days, and so was less consciously aware that characters may espouse opinions their creators do not hold. Stupid mistake.


(ooc) Don't worry about it. I am very good at arguing things I don't believe in - I do it a lot. Mostly on the basis that if I can think up something that might be used against me, I can probably think up something to counter it.


Stealthmunchkania would probably fight it harder and nastier than yourselves, even though as a nation we ridicule creationists so much that most leave the country post haste.

Hurray!!! (grin)

Goodness me. If I were of a more paranoid bent, I would suspect that certain UN member states are deliberately setting out to force Ecopoeia from this organisation.

There is a very good reason for promoting teaching of evolutionary theory: its postulates are soundly backed by the evidence we have at our disposal.

There is a very good reason for not promoting teaching of intelligent design: it is utter nonsense unsupported by the evidence we have at our disposal.

Yet again, a delegate is seeking to demean this organisation. I could weep.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

OOC: relieved to discover you're only 'playing', Pallatium!

Goodness me. If I were of a more paranoid bent, I would suspect that certain UN member states are deliberately setting out to force Ecopoeia from this organisation.

There is a very good reason for promoting teaching of evolutionary theory: its postulates are soundly backed by the evidence we have at our disposal.

There is a very good reason for not promoting teaching of intelligent design: it is utter nonsense unsupported by the evidence we have at our disposal.

Yet again, a delegate is seeking to demean this organisation. I could weep.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

OOC: relieved to discover you're only 'playing', Pallatium!

The thing is I could say exactly the same thing, just the other way round. We, in Pallatium, know for a fact that we were created by The Goddesses as we are now, and did not evolve from anything. How do we know this? Cause The Goddesses told us (they live in a secluded farm just outside of Serenity) and who are we to doubt their word when they are standing infront of us? The idea of evolution is - well we find it a tad silly and somewhat preposterous.

But we have no desire to ban it in other nations where it might actually have taken place - we do accept there are other view points than our own, even if we think they are just a lot of voodoo science.


Anyway - from the general feeling we are not going to be able to do this, which I guess kind of makes sense (in a democracy, such as the UN, the will of the majority is what matters, no matter how ill-conceived such a will might be). And since the Evolution Resolution doesn't require it to be taught, I have no real problem with that either.


(ooc) Playing's fun, isn't it :}

Not in scientific terms. In science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." (Oxford English Dictionary). You are talking about a hypothesis, which does indeed mean what you say. Evolution is not a hypothesis, it is a scientific theory, and that puts it on the same level as gravity (also a 'theory').
"Intelligent Design" on the other hand is neither science nor a theory. It is a hypothesis, and as it is untestable, it is non-scientific.
Please at least take some time to familiarise yourself with a rudimentary understanding of the concepts which you are discussing, before parading your ignorance in front of the whole forum. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html is one of many, many resources available.

***
OOC :
Actually, in terms of this realm, your entire argument here is invalid....

"Evolution" can be many things; and since both history and scientific development of a nationstate exists by the concept of that nationstate... And since development of planetary and special systems is self-determined; in the end Evolution may not, indeed, by an applicable theory. Including NationStates within realms where there is, or never was any "Evolution" of species.
***

OOC: Well, OOC you're correct, Tek. However, IC, their position is entirely consistent. Just like Ecopoeia doesn't acknowledge the existence of extraterrestrial nations; how would we know? We've always dismissed or rejected the space-based in-game issues.

OOC: Well, OOC you're correct, Tek. However, IC, their position is entirely consistent. Just like Ecopoeia doesn't acknowledge the existence of extraterrestrial nations; how would we know? We've always dismissed or rejected the space-based in-game issues.

OOC: it may be somewhat "Consistent" in a disconjoined illogical aspect... But, again, they are in fact dealing regularly with things they say do not exist.... And truthfully it's not that you "don't acknowledge" the existance of Extraterrestrial nations; you ignore extra-terrestrial nations... Since you are confronted with representatives of such nations whenever inside UN chambers...

According to my reading of the "Right to learn about Evolution" motion, nowhere does it outlaw the teaching of Intelligent Design, or any other alternative to evolution. If this is the case, why is this change in the law even necessary?

According to my reading of the "Right to learn about Evolution" motion, nowhere does it outlaw the teaching of Intelligent Design, or any other alternative to evolution. If this is the case, why is this change in the law even necessary?

It depends on your perspective I guess. While the Evolution Resolution doesn't outlaw any alternative theories, it doesn't protect them in the way it protects evolution. So a nation that doesn't believe or support Evolution can't outlaw it (because they would be in violation of the resolution), but a nation that doesn't believe or support ID can outlaw it (cause the resolution doesn't protect it)

Anyway - it's all moot, because I am really not going ahead with this. I was mostly just curious as to why only some science is protected, when other science is not based on purely subjective judgements about the quality of the science :}

According to my reading of the "Right to learn about Evolution" motion, nowhere does it outlaw the teaching of Intelligent Design, or any other alternative to evolution. If this is the case, why is this change in the law even necessary?

Because nations like Pallatium where evolution didn't happen might want to have control over what their teachers can and can't teach. Nations should be allowed to set curricula for their children's teaching...

I was mostly just curious as to why only some science is protected, when other science is not based on purely subjective judgements about the quality of the science :}

Once and for all: Intelligent design is NOT science.

Once and for all: Intelligent design is NOT science.

(ooc)'Intelligent Design' certainly isn't science in the real world, any more than the 'viridian fromage lunar hypothesis' but(ic) the honourable delegate from Pallatium has demonstrated that, at least within her borders, it is.

Once and for all: Intelligent design is NOT science.

That depends on your perspective. Did you miss the part where I explained that in Pallatium we didn't evolve from animals or fish, we sprung fully grown from the earth by the will of our Goddesses (and you can come and ask them yourselves if you don't believe me).

Further more a few thousand years ago (maybe more, maybe less) the best minds on the planet thought the world was flat, and used science (as understood at that time) to back up that view. Now we know they were wrong because we have learned more. The same applies to the motion of the planet around the sun - only one or two people said we moved and the sun stayed still and they were considered crackpots by the majority of scientists. Obviously the crackpots were right, but at the time they were wrong.

What if, in a thousand, two thousand years time our knowledge has advanced to actually show ID is science, and is actually true?

The knowledge of the world grows as we go along, and under the idea of Scientific Freedom, people should be free to explore what they want to. Surely if ID is as crap and unbelievable as most people claim it is, there is nothing to fear from people teaching it, as no one would believe it. Teach ID next to evolution and let the kids pick which one they believe.

And did I mention evolution didn't happen in Pallatium, or do I need to go through that part again?

According to my reading of the "Right to learn about Evolution" motion, nowhere does it outlaw the teaching of Intelligent Design, or any other alternative to evolution. If this is the case, why is this change in the law even necessary?

I don't think a law involving any universal origin theory should be in place.

With that regard, I would support any repeal of the Evolution resolution. As the law is of no importance.

\Sci"ence\, n. [F., fr. L. scientia, fr. sciens, -entis,
p. pr. of scire to know. Cf. {Conscience}, {Conscious},
{Nice}.]
1. Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained
truth of facts.

If we conceive God's sight or science, before the
creation, to be extended to all and every part of
the world, seeing everything as it is, . . . his
science or sight from all eternity lays no necessity
on anything to come to pass. --Hammond.

Shakespeare's deep and accurate science in mental
philosophy. --Coleridge.

2. Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been
systematized and formulated with reference to the
discovery of general truths or the operation of general
laws; knowledge classified and made available in work,
life, or the search for truth; comprehensive, profound, or
philosophical knowledge.

All this new science that men lere [teach].
--Chaucer.

Science is . . . a complement of cognitions, having,
in point of form, the character of logical
perfection, and in point of matter, the character of
real truth. --Sir W.
Hamilton.

3. Especially, such knowledge when it relates to the physical
world and its phenomena, the nature, constitution, and
forces of matter, the qualities and functions of living
tissues, etc.; -- called also {natural science}, and
{physical science}.

Voltaire hardly left a single corner of the field
entirely unexplored in science, poetry, history,
philosophy. --J. Morley.

4. Any branch or department of systematized knowledge
considered as a distinct field of investigation or object
of study; as, the science of astronomy, of chemistry, or
of mind.

Note: The ancients reckoned seven sciences, namely, grammar,
rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, music, geometry, and
astronomy; -- the first three being included in the
Trivium, the remaining four in the Quadrivium.

Good sense, which only is the gift of Heaven, And
though no science, fairly worth the seven.
--Pope.

5. Art, skill, or expertness, regarded as the result of
knowledge of laws and principles.

His science, coolness, and great strength. --G. A.
Lawrence.

Note: Science is applied or pure. Applied science is a
knowledge of facts, events, or phenomena, as explained,
accounted for, or produced, by means of powers, causes,
or laws. Pure science is the knowledge of these powers,
causes, or laws, considered apart, or as pure from all
applications. Both these terms have a similar and
special signification when applied to the science of
quantity; as, the applied and pure mathematics. Exact
science is knowledge so systematized that prediction
and verification, by measurement, experiment,
observation, etc., are possible. The mathematical and
physical sciences are called the exact sciences.

{Comparative sciences}, {Inductive sciences}. See under
{Comparative}, and {Inductive}.

Syn: Literature; art; knowledge.

Usage: {Science}, {Literature}, {Art}. Science is literally
knowledge, but more usually denotes a systematic and
orderly arrangement of knowledge. In a more
distinctive sense, science embraces those branches of
knowledge of which the subject-matter is either
ultimate principles, or facts as explained by
principles or laws thus arranged in natural order. The
term literature sometimes denotes all compositions not
embraced under science, but usually confined to the
belles-lettres. [See {Literature}.] Art is that which
depends on practice and skill in performance. ``In
science, scimus ut sciamus; in art, scimus ut
producamus. And, therefore, science and art may be
said to be investigations of truth; but one, science,
inquires for the sake of knowledge; the other, art,
for the sake of production; and hence science is more
concerned with the higher truths, art with the lower;
and science never is engaged, as art is, in productive
application. And the most perfect state of science,
therefore, will be the most high and accurate inquiry;
the perfection of art will be the most apt and
efficient system of rules; art always throwing itself
into the form of rules.'' --Karslake.


\Sci"ence\, v. t.
To cause to become versed in science; to make skilled; to
instruct. [R.] --Francis.




Biology Dictionary

Definition: The study of the material universe or physical reality in order to understand it. This is done by making observations and collecting data about natural events and conditions, then organizing and explaining them with hypotheses, theories, models, laws, and principles.
The organized body of knowledge about the material universe which can be verified or tested.
A particular branch of either the process of study or the body of knowledge, such as astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, and physics.


Glossary

Definition: a method of reaming about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.

1. Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained truth of facts.


Ok - for (hopefully) the last time.

Our goddesses (Bobbi, Alex and Charlie) live on the outskirts of the capital in a farm, and told The First Queen, and every Queen after her, how we were brought in to being.

This would be what I call faith/religion/etc. We have only their word for it, but since they are the three divine beings that created our country, I am willing to take their word over the word of EVERYONE else in the NationStates world. To do otherwise would be unimaginable.


However, before you think we are all religious nutcases who don't believe in science....

We have studied the history of Pallatium and find NO EVIDENCE of evolution. We have, however, found evidence of women who look exactly like buried as far back as time goes. No half-woman, half-animal, no mixed DNA - nothing. The female being in Pallatium is an entire species unto herself, and has no charactaristics in line with any other animal in my country. We have studied this a lot, with samples and chemicals and all the other assorted crap that goes along with a proper investigation.

This would be what I would call science - the "ascertained truth of facts" as you so helpfully put it.

So for us the idea of what most people find laughable is undeniable truth, and regardless of the scorn, insults and other assorted rubbish that is heaped upon us, we aren't changing our minds any time soon. In much the same way that you, Mr Dictionary, are not going to change your mind about evolution being a science when we find no evidence in Pallatium to back up that claim.

Will people just let this die now, or am I going to have to ask The Divine Trio to visit you in your beds at night? (smirk - it's not as nice as it sounds!)