NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "Right to Learn about Evolution"

Noting that The UN supports the idea of religious tolerance ("Religious Tolerance" resolution),

Also noting that many religious doctrines do not accept Evolution as scientific theory,

Further noting that many citizens, and nations, within the UN do not want evolution taught to their children,

and

Noting that theocracys, and religious schools, may want to ban non-doctrinal teachings in their classrooms in line with their religious beliefs,

Requires "Right To Learn About Evolution" be repealed


If the entire UN appears to want national sovereignty, they can have it with both barrels.

Although the people of Cluichstan don't get the "both barrels" metaphor, we would gladly support a repeal of the resolution in question.

The Black New World does not recognise a definition of religious tolerance that includes the right to stop people learning about subjects outside of the dominant religion.

We do not consider it oppression because you can't repress ideas that don't suit you.

And, between you and me, we really don't care about National Sovereignty either.

We will not be supporting this repeal.

Giordano,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

i think it's joke! lol: ;)

Although the people of Cluichstan don't get the "both barrels" metaphor, we would gladly support a repeal of the resolution in question.

Forgive me - the metaphor comes from a time when it was the custom for two women to be joined in marriage to use a combination of their last names to form a new last name (for example Mary Marsh and Susan Jones would be Mary and Susan Marsh-Jones - a double-barrelled last name). While this a few people, others thought it was too formal and trite, and that picking one new name would be better (Mary and Susan Taylor for example). Consequently the phrase "both barrels" came to mean an overblown, or over done way of expressing something. And it is still permissible for the Keeper of The Register to ask "Do you want it with both barrels or singularly?"

I will try to avoid local metaphors in future :}

with both barrels

Etymology: based on the idea of shooting with a gun that has two barrels (= tubes from which bullets are shot)
It's a double-barreled shotgun metaphor. Twice as much power as a single shot, i.e overkill.

Repeal "Right to Learn about Evolution"

Noting that The UN supports the idea of religious tolerance ("Religious Tolerance" resolution),

Also noting that many religious doctrines do not accept Evolution as scientific theory,

Further noting that many citizens, and nations, within the UN do not want evolution taught to their children,

and

Noting that theocracys, and religious schools, may want to ban non-doctrinal teachings in their classrooms in line with their religious beliefs,

Requires "Right To Learn About Evolution" be repealed

NOTING that resolution 102 (?) does not force nations to teach evolution

NOTING that resolution 102 merely protects teachers that do teach evolution from persecution by the state

NOTING that the theory of evolution is not contradictory to the theory of intelligent design

NOTING that evolution as a continual process is distinct from the evolution from monkey's/single celled organisms

NOTING that evolution as a continual process is currently necessary to explain observations of changes both within species on this planet as well within our own populations (there are signs and examples of evolution taking place within the human race)

NOTING that the theory of evolution from monkey's/single celled organisms is an extrapolation of data we've collected regarding evolution we observe today

NOTING that theory of evolution is a scientific theory proven by scientific methods while Intelligent Design is a religious theory proven by theological 'belief' arguments

NOTING the extreme difficulty to properly educate students to a satisfactory level in many fields of biological sciences by International Standards

NOTING that theological beliefs do not suffice in replacing the theory of evolution

BELIEVING that one cannot understand the world until one has seen all view points and their arguments and deciding for one's self.

BELIEVING Science class is for Scientific theories

BELIEVING that religious classes and churches are for Religious theories

BELIEVING the two should not mix nor dictate what the other can teach and therefore religious arguments should not be used to determine a scientific curriculum

ACKNOWLEDGING that Intelligent Design is not the only Religious theory that exists, for not all religious share the same theory

NOTING that the same arguments apply to other religious theories

NOTING that science has not produced a widely accepted theory to replace Evolution

The delegate from Aberdeen hereby
REFUSES to endorse this proposal and
ENCOURAGES other nations to do the same.

Oh - and I don't give a damn about NatSov

NOTING that resolution 102 (?) does not force nations to teach evolution

NOTING that resolution 102 merely protects teachers that do teach evolution from persecution by the state

NOTING that the theory of evolution is not contradictory to the theory of intelligent design

NOTING that evolution as a continual process is distinct from the evolution from monkey's/single celled organisms

NOTING that evolution as a continual process is currently necessary to explain observations of changes both within species on this planet as well within our own populations (there are signs and examples of evolution taking place within the human race)

NOTING that the theory of evolution from monkey's/single celled organisms is an extrapolation of data we've collected regarding evolution we observe today

NOTING that theory of evolution is a scientific theory proven by scientific methods while Intelligent Design is a religious theory proven by theological 'belief' arguments

NOTING the extreme difficulty to properly educate students to a satisfactory level in many fields of biological sciences by International Standards

NOTING that theological beliefs do not suffice in replacing the theory of evolution

BELIEVING that one cannot understand the world until one has seen all view points and their arguments and deciding for one's self.

BELIEVING Science class is for Scientific theories

BELIEVING that religious classes and churches are for Religious theories

BELIEVING the two should not mix nor dictate what the other can teach and therefore religious arguments should not be used to determine a scientific curriculum

ACKNOWLEDGING that Intelligent Design is not the only Religious theory that exists, for not all religious share the same theory

NOTING that the same arguments apply to other religious theories

NOTING that science has not produced a widely accepted theory to replace Evolution

The delegate from Aberdeen hereby
REFUSES to endorse this proposal and
ENCOURAGES other nations to do the same.

Repeal forced teaching of Evolution is a parody!

Repeal forced teaching of Evolution is a parody!

If it is, I never get them until I'm knee deep in them anyways

If it isn't, I've just made one hell of an argument against it.

If it is, I never get them until I'm knee deep in them anyways

If it isn't, I've just made one hell of an argument against it.
I'll drink to that.

Giordano,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

NOTING that resolution 102 (?) does not force nations to teach evolution


But it does force them to accept that they can't ban it, or prevent people from teaching it.


NOTING that resolution 102 merely protects teachers that do teach evolution from persecution by the state


We want them stopped - fired from their jobs and not permitted to teach anyone anything for fear of going to jail or being exiled.


NOTING that the theory of evolution is not contradictory to the theory of intelligent design


I didn't say it was. I just said some religions find it to be nonsense and against their most ingrained beliefs.


NOTING that evolution as a continual process is distinct from the evolution from monkey's/single celled organisms


In some nations that might be the case. In others, it might not. Further more, some religious doctrine says it is nonsense and tantamount to herasey.


NOTING that evolution as a continual process is currently necessary to explain observations of changes both within species on this planet as well within our own populations (there are signs and examples of evolution taking place within the human race)


It is against religious doctrine and the will of the people to permit it to be taught, so why should we let it?


NOTING that the theory of evolution from monkey's/single celled organisms is an extrapolation of data we've collected regarding evolution we observe today


Again - it's against religious doctrine, our traditions and the will of the people.


NOTING that theory of evolution is a scientific theory proven by scientific methods while Intelligent Design is a religious theory proven by theological 'belief' arguments


Again - we don't care. It is against our religion to teach it, and we are required to accept it.


NOTING the extreme difficulty to properly educate students to a satisfactory level in many fields of biological sciences by International Standards


Our students are educated fine, thank you. You worry about yours and we will worry about ours.


NOTING that theological beliefs do not suffice in replacing the theory of evolution


WHY? They are the core of some nations - everything that makes that nation what it is. Just cause you decide to be all moral and high and mighty and think you know better doesn't make you right - just a heretic.


BELIEVING that one cannot understand the world until one has seen all view points and their arguments and deciding for one's self.


And believing that being asked to teach our children something that goes against everything we believe will ultimately destroy their faith and their mortal souls.


BELIEVING Science class is for Scientific theories


And that mumbo-jumbo-voodo-science doesn't belong in them at all.


BELIEVING that religious classes and churches are for Religious theories


That much I hold to.


BELIEVING the two should not mix nor dictate what the other can teach and therefore religious arguments should not be used to determine a scientific curriculum


Why not? You are asking us to let our children be taught herasey.


ACKNOWLEDGING that Intelligent Design is not the only Religious theory that exists, for not all religious share the same theory


I am not saying they do. But we have our religion, and we should not be required to teach something that is contradictory to it.


NOTING that the same arguments apply to other religious theories


Ditto


NOTING that science has not produced a widely accepted theory to replace Evolution


So? Just cause no one can think of anything better doesn't mean it is good enough to contradict the words of our Goddesses.


The delegate from Aberdeen hereby
REFUSES to endorse this proposal and
ENCOURAGES other nations to do the same.

You are asking us to commit herasy and damn our mortal souls to hell. I think that that is a bad thing.

Surely it will be the teachers who are the heretics, and not the government? If a teacher wishes to teach evolution and risk being called a heretic, surely that is their own lookout, but you do not have the right to suppress information or opinion, and doing so would be a breach of freedom of speech.

Our students are educated fine, thank you. You worry about yours and we will worry about ours.

Believing that part of our purpose is to help all humanity. Those that punish their citizens for knowledge are those that I deem unacceptable. I shall not endorse the allowance of punishing people for anything that falls outside of Freedom of Conscious.

If your religious doctrine does not allow you to discover and make guesses about the world around us, and to marvel at the amazingly complex world that has been created or merely exists around us, I pity you. Knowledge gives us power over the world around us, ignorance to mere frustration.

Your students will not be considered educated if you continue to endorse their ignorance. Your nation will not be able to advance through the world. If science is a heresy, than your religion does not allow progress.

Religious tolerance means that we do not persecute people because they follow a different religion than us. Religious tolerance does not mean we allow you to presecute other religions or beliefs because your religion says its ok. I will not allow your nation or your religion use religious tolerance to defend your persecution of your citizens.

If you don't think your students need to learn evolution, don't make it part of the curriculum. But I will not endorse or welcome the punishment of citizens because they taught beyond the curriculum.

NOTING that the theory of evolution from monkey's/single celled organisms is an extrapolation of data we've collected regarding evolution we observe today

<nitpick>Evolution from monkeys is not such an extrapolation... we share common ancestry with them but they are not our ancestors.</nitpick>

That aside... we concur.

Surely it will be the teachers who are the heretics, and not the government? If a teacher wishes to teach evolution and risk being called a heretic, surely that is their own lookout, but you do not have the right to suppress information or opinion, and doing so would be a breach of freedom of speech.

But do you not agree we should have the right to protect our children from the words of heretics? Should we not be able to stop the teachers teaching stuff we know to be false?

And why should ever let opinion be taught as fact to children, as you seem to think we should?

You are asking us to commit herasy and damn our mortal souls to hell. I think that that is a bad thing.

OOC: This is so going in the greatest quotes thread...:D

Believing that part of our purpose is to help all humanity. Those that punish their citizens for knowledge are those that I deem unacceptable. I shall not endorse the allowance of punishing people for anything that falls outside of Freedom of Conscious.


How about lies? How about teaching opinion as fact?


If your religious doctrine does not allow you to discover and make guesses about the world around us, and to marvel at the amazingly complex world that has been created or merely exists around us, I pity you. Knowledge gives us power over the world around us, ignorance to mere frustration.


And if I were to tell your our religious doctrine is guided by the Divine Three who live just outside Serenity? That we don't guess, we know?


Your students will not be considered educated if you continue to endorse their ignorance. Your nation will not be able to advance through the world. If science is a heresy, than your religion does not allow progress.


Again - it's not ignorance when what they are taught is true. And science is not heresy (and thank you for the spelling!) - just parts of it.


Religious tolerance means that we do not persecute people because they follow a different religion than us. Religious tolerance does not mean we allow you to presecute other religions or beliefs because your religion says its ok. I will not allow your nation or your religion use religious tolerance to defend your persecution of your citizens.


Why not? Nations do it for other reasons with a smile and a huge pat on the head from the UN.


If you don't think your students need to learn evolution, don't make it part of the curriculum. But I will not endorse or welcome the punishment of citizens because they taught beyond the curriculum.

They are teaching opinion, and what is considered heresy in this country. What if someone was teaching them to be racist or homophobic? Would we be permitted to punish them then?

But do you not agree we should have the right to protect our children from the words of heretics? Should we not be able to stop the teachers teaching stuff we know to be false?

And why should ever let opinion be taught as fact to children, as you seem to think we should?
Prove evolution false and I shall shut up.

As for "Teaching opinion as fact", you must realise that 99% of what is taught in all schools is opinion. I mean, you can't PROVE that it is not correct to spell the word "opinion" as "opinyan", and it is arrogant of you to teach such "facts" in schools. By your own argument, we should ban the teaching of language skills in schools, for they are simply the opinions of everyone in the universe that happens to speak that language.

And for future reference, in the eyes of science a commonly accepted (among scientists) theory is considered fact until such time it is proven false. If you want it the other way around, look to mathematics.

How about lies? How about teaching opinion as fact?

And religion is fact? Religion is merely taking what we believe, has been inscribed in texts that we follow, and has been stated by people we look up to (whether they be religious leaders or family upbringing or something else) and put such faith and belief into it that we believe it to be true. However, there is nothing beyond belief to justify our claims. We did not see those that wrote the texts and hear what they had to say, we did not meet the deity they spoke to and wrote the texts on that deity's behalf (obviously, I'm making assumptions, but similar arguments can be extrapolated for any religion). Religion is nothing more than an opinion - and an opinion that is held dear by those people.

Evolution we have evidence of. We have performed countless experiments and have come to the conclusion that for our purposes, the theory works. As such, to call it a lie would be rather extreme. To call evolution a "law" would be a lie, for science never recognizes it as anything beyond a theory. The idea that they only recognize things as theories these days is in acknowledgement that no matter how hard we try, we may never know the true source of this entire world, we may not be able to discover exactly how this world is held together. But that said, that is irrelevant.

You cannot perfect the issue of teaching "opinions" as "facts". If we were mandating this, humanities would be practically incapable of operating. Ever listened to a humanities teacher, as they peeled apart the thousands of layers to a book? Ever wondered "what if the author wasn't attempting that?" These are opinions held by those teachers as to the various levels of reading, but they are opinions taught as facts. We teach opinions as facts all the time. Heck, tomorrow we could discover that all our mathematical theories are wrong because 1+1 != 2 but rather 2.105916. Knowledge is a belief, an opinion. However, it is an opinion upon which we can all agree upon, and upon which our society can function and work at a level where chaos does not exist. We can communicate with one another, and we can logically find answers that are close enough to the right answer that any margin of error we have is irrelevant.

The one language that all religions understand right now is science - and that's because science answers the questions that are emtombed in our natural curiosity. Religion says "because God made it that way". Science uses its interlinked system to answer questions in its own manner. If science is heresy, then that's because curiosity is forbidden.

And if I were to tell your our religious doctrine is guided by the Divine Three who live just outside Serenity? That we don't guess, we know?

Again - it's not ignorance when what they are taught is true. And science is not heresy (and thank you for the spelling!) - just parts of it.

An opinion, not a fact. You know because someone told you so - but how well can you trust rumors of other types. Yet you trust what comes from the prophets mouth above what we can prove in a laboratory? You think that word of mouth is above what your eyes can show you? The theory of evolution isn't just some idea made by a crack head in a run down room. It's a theory that has not only been theorized, but we have tested to the level that our observations show what we want to see to be true.

You are teaching a truth to us that we do not believe in.

Why not? Nations do it for other reasons with a smile and a huge pat on the head from the UN.

We don't oppress you. We don't arrest you. We don't exile you. We might say that a few of your beliefs are too extreme (generally speaking, when it means they persecute someone else for their own beliefs), but until then, you are welcome to practice your religion as much as you want. If your CITIZENS want to practice their religion and remove their kids from classrooms where theory of evolution is taught, I shall not stop them. But I shall not allow your government to punish your citizens for teaching that belief. I shall not prevent your government from not testing it nor making it a part of their curriculum (and therefore, enabling parents who's students are in classes of those teachers who teach theory of evolution to withdraw their child), but the choice shall be with the parents, not the government.

They are teaching opinion, and what is considered heresy in this country. What if someone was teaching them to be racist or homophobic? Would we be permitted to punish them then?

Yes. Freedom of Conscious lets you punish them then, and I've stated that freedom of conscious is the basis upon which I allow limitations.

Conscience...

Prove evolution false and I shall shut up.

On a rather humorous note, the "scientific papers" endorsing Intelligent design (er....paper as there has only been one) basically bases their argument on "evolution is false, so intelligent design must be the answer" as if there are only two possible answers. This is part of the reason why intelligent design fails. Scientific process basically operates under the belief that unless we can prove that the theory is wrong (which evolution has gotten past a LONG time ago), the only way you can de-seat a theory is to make a better one. Evolution has only been proven (perhaps under various modified forms), but you can't really do anything but evolve the theory at this point.

And for future reference, in the eyes of science a commonly accepted (among scientists) theory is considered fact until such time it is proven false. If you want it the other way around, look to mathematics.

"Fact", perhaps, "law", not. Science acknowledges that the theory might not be accurate or complete by calling it a theory. It is a fact insofar as theories can be used to prove other theories, but that doesn't mean they consider it 100% true, just true in terms of it can be used to extend our knowledge.

OOC: This is so going in the greatest quotes thread...:D
OOC: Shhhh. It's a secret.

<nitpick>Evolution from monkeys is not such an extrapolation... we share common ancestry with them but they are not our ancestors.</nitpick>

That aside... we concur.


Our closest evolutionary cousins are chimps and bonobos

Sorry if we are out of topic, it was for us the occasion to speak about our beloved National animal:fluffle:

"Fact", perhaps, "law", not. Science acknowledges that the theory might not be accurate or complete by calling it a theory. It is a fact insofar as theories can be used to prove other theories, but that doesn't mean they consider it 100% true, just true in terms of it can be used to extend our knowledge.
If I had meant "law" I would have said "law". By considered "fact" I mean that it would be used as evidence for a prediction or answer to a question.

How about lies? How about teaching opinion as fact?

And if I were to tell your our religious doctrine is guided by the Divine Three who live just outside Serenity? That we don't guess, we know?

Again - it's not ignorance when what they are taught is true. And science is not heresy (and thank you for the spelling!) - just parts of it.

They are teaching opinion, and what is considered heresy in this country. What if someone was teaching them to be racist or homophobic? Would we be permitted to punish them then?

OOC: I'm so glad this topic came up. I haven't had a chance to really exercise the Reformentian contempt for those who place themselves in opposition to clearly sound scientific principles... goody.

IC: We have been instructed to deliver a prepared statement directly from Supreme Councillor Joashim, Reformentian Ministry of Scientific Advancement, which was delivered on this day to the Reformentian UN delegation for presentation to the United Nations after the Supreme Councillor was briefed on the arguments being presented to this body by the representative from Pallatium:

"How about lies? How about teaching opinion as fact?"

With those words the representative from Pallatium demonstrated that they clearly have no understanding of even the most basic scientific principles.

First, scientific theories are never taught as "fact" except in the sense that they are the closest thing to a fact that we are able to establish with the current available evidence.

Second, to teach Evolutionary Theory is to teach one of the most solidly evidentially established ideas in the history of science. That evolutionary mechanisms result in the gradual alteration of a species' genetic makeup over time is every bit as conclusively demonstrated as the existence of gravitational attraction. The theory of evolution is supported not just by a single line of evidence, but by multiple, converging lines of evidence from widely varying scientific disciplines which are all mutually coroborative of each other. Paleontology, Genetics, Biology, Ecology, Comparative Anatomy, Biochemistry, Biogeography... every one of them provides overwhelming evidence of the accuracy of the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory goes light years beyond mere "opinion".

That said, the representative from Pallatium may claim that their divinely inspired objections to evolutionary theory are most certainly correct due to the nature of their source all they like while attempting to undermine the basis for the bulk of all modern scientific progress in the biological sciences... their unsupported claims will be given no more weight by us than if they were to claim that their pet cat created the entire universe last Thursday and that they know this for a fact despite all evidence to the contrary because their all-powerful kitty told them so and is infallible... both claims being equally verifiable.

We will not stand idly by while some daft nation attempts to weaken science standards based on nothing more than an appeal to some kind of unsubstantiated holy epiphany.

So ends the statement.

OOC: This is so going in the greatest quotes thread...:D

I am honnoured :}

And religion is fact? Religion is merely taking what we believe, has been inscribed in texts that we follow, and has been stated by people we look up to (whether they be religious leaders or family upbringing or something else) and put such faith and belief into it that we believe it to be true. However, there is nothing beyond belief to justify our claims. We did not see those that wrote the texts and hear what they had to say, we did not meet the deity they spoke to and wrote the texts on that deity's behalf (obviously, I'm making assumptions, but similar arguments can be extrapolated for any religion). Religion is nothing more than an opinion - and an opinion that is held dear by those people.


(smile) To those who believe religion is undeniable. And to those who have their goddesses - the Three Divine Beings themselves, living outside their capital city, religion is more than an abstract concept. It is undeniable, unarguable fact.


Evolution we have evidence of. We have performed countless experiments and have come to the conclusion that for our purposes, the theory works. As such, to call it a lie would be rather extreme. To call evolution a "law" would be a lie, for science never recognizes it as anything beyond a theory. The idea that they only recognize things as theories these days is in acknowledgement that no matter how hard we try, we may never know the true source of this entire world, we may not be able to discover exactly how this world is held together. But that said, that is irrelevant.


I could show the recorded history of my nation, I could introduce to our Goddesses, but that is not the point. The fact is we have a set of religious beliefs, and you, and this resolution, is asking us to go against them because you (and it) think you know better than we do about our history and origins. And you are asking us to teach our children things that we then refute in their religious classes later. All in all it is a confusing time to be a child in our nation.

If people want to learn about it - let them look on the web. We should not be forced to teach it in schools. And whether this resolution says it forces it or not, it forces us to accept it in our nation against our will.


You cannot perfect the issue of teaching "opinions" as "facts". If we were mandating this, humanities would be practically incapable of operating. Ever listened to a humanities teacher, as they peeled apart the thousands of layers to a book? Ever wondered "what if the author wasn't attempting that?" These are opinions held by those teachers as to the various levels of reading, but they are opinions taught as facts. We teach opinions as facts all the time. Heck, tomorrow we could discover that all our mathematical theories are wrong because 1+1 != 2 but rather 2.105916. Knowledge is a belief, an opinion. However, it is an opinion upon which we can all agree upon, and upon which our society can function and work at a level where chaos does not exist. We can communicate with one another, and we can logically find answers that are close enough to the right answer that any margin of error we have is irrelevant.


So all science is just opinion? And so why should one set of opinions, one set of science, be protected and put upon high above the others?


The one language that all religions understand right now is science - and that's because science answers the questions that are emtombed in our natural curiosity. Religion says "because God made it that way". Science uses its interlinked system to answer questions in its own manner. If science is heresy, then that's because curiosity is forbidden.


People can be curious. And we will tell them when they are. But we should decide what we tell our children. Not you.


An opinion, not a fact. You know because someone told you so - but how well can you trust rumors of other types. Yet you trust what comes from the prophets mouth above what we can prove in a laboratory? You think that word of mouth is above what your eyes can show you? The theory of evolution isn't just some idea made by a crack head in a run down room. It's a theory that has not only been theorized, but we have tested to the level that our observations show what we want to see to be true.


Ah. I see your problem. The Three Divine Beings are not prophets. They are our Goddesses. The actual beings who created our world, and all the animals and people within. I know - I sound like a religious zealot. But trust me on this - they are who they say they are.

So we are willing to take what they say on trust, since they are who they are, and further more all our science has proven what they say right within our borders. I don't deny evolution, I am just saying it's not what happened here, and we should not be required to lie to our children about our origins.


You are teaching a truth to us that we do not believe in.


And you are teaching to us a truth we do not believe in.


We don't oppress you. We don't arrest you. We don't exile you. We might say that a few of your beliefs are too extreme (generally speaking, when it means they persecute someone else for their own beliefs), but until then, you are welcome to practice your religion as much as you want. If your CITIZENS want to practice their religion and remove their kids from classrooms where theory of evolution is taught, I shall not stop them. But I shall not allow your government to punish your citizens for teaching that belief. I shall not prevent your government from not testing it nor making it a part of their curriculum (and therefore, enabling parents who's students are in classes of those teachers who teach theory of evolution to withdraw their child), but the choice shall be with the parents, not the government.


I would argue that in some nations teachers who try to teach creationism are punished in some way - fired, sacked, kicked out.. etc

And - just out of curiousity - if I can withdraw children from the class, can I just say "yes you can teach evolution, but no one is permitted to attend that class?" Would that be covered.



Yes. Freedom of Conscious lets you punish them then, and I've stated that freedom of conscious is the basis upon which I allow limitations.

We (okay - I) believe it is wrong to teach our children something that will a) confuse them as to the truth and b) teach them something that most of the population think is a lie.

Prove evolution false and I shall shut up.


(ooc - you do remember that people can make up their nations in this game, right?)


Il Vana (The Calling)

The histories tell us that, in the beginning, we were called forth from the earth by the Three Goddesses (Bobbi, Charlie and Alex). While numbers are not exact, the population at this time was around 500,000 people spread throughout the country.

Before we were called The Goddesses decided who their First Queen would be. While some historians debate the truth of the period, it is widely accepted that Queen Amy (The First Queen, and mother of the Triarch) was one of the most widely respected and loved queens of our history. She instituted a lot of the laws and systems that are in place now, and is credited as being the founder of Pallatium Democracy. When she died she was suceeded by Queen Rachel, who carried on her tradition in creating the government. Between them Queen Amy and Queen Rachel established the idea of an indepented judiciary and the laws to ensure fairness in all trials. They are jointly referred to as The Mothers Of Justice. Further queens followed their role, but the histories do not class them as significant.

Historical records tell us that Il Vana is a period that lasted for around five hundred years, and was considered as coming to an end when the nation came out of its infancy.


(from the official histories of Pallatium)

As a matter of historical fact, absolute fact and pretty much fact beyond fact - the population of Pallatium did not evolve. Ergo evolution is false in Pallatium.

So shut up already :}


As for "Teaching opinion as fact", you must realise that 99% of what is taught in all schools is opinion. I mean, you can't PROVE that it is not correct to spell the word "opinion" as "opinyan", and it is arrogant of you to teach such "facts" in schools. By your own argument, we should ban the teaching of language skills in schools, for they are simply the opinions of everyone in the universe that happens to speak that language.

And for future reference, in the eyes of science a commonly accepted (among scientists) theory is considered fact until such time it is proven false. If you want it the other way around, look to mathematics.

So again - all of science is opinion, its just when the mob agrees on something it is considered fact. To hell with belief, to hell with individuality - mob rule in all things.

OOC: I'm so glad this topic came up. I haven't had a chance to really exercise the Reformentian contempt for those who place themselves in opposition to clearly sound scientific principles... goody.


(ooc) Fun, isn't it? (I have to admit, of all the debates I have had recently, this is one of the most entertaining)


IC: We have been instructed to deliver a prepared statement directly from Supreme Councillor Joashim, Reformentian Ministry of Scientific Advancement, which was delivered on this day to the Reformentian UN delegation for presentation to the United Nations after the Supreme Councillor was briefed on the arguments being presented to this body by the representative from Pallatium:


One guy saying something he believes. Why should I listen to him exactly? Or her exactly?)


Originally Posted by Supreme Councillor Joashim
"How about lies? How about teaching opinion as fact?"

With those words the representative from Pallatium demonstrated that they clearly have no understanding of even the most basic scientific principles.


You would be surprised at what we know and don't know.


First, scientific theories are never taught as "fact" except in the sense that they are the closest thing to a fact that we are able to establish with the current available evidence.


Ok. How about teaching lies as "the closest thing to a fact" then? (smirk - sorry)


Second, to teach Evolutionary Theory is to teach one of the most solidly evidentially established ideas in the history of science. That evolutionary mechanisms result in the gradual alteration of a species' genetic makeup over time is every bit as conclusively demonstrated as the existence of gravitational attraction. The theory of evolution is supported not just by a single line of evidence, but by multiple, converging lines of evidence from widely varying scientific disciplines which are all mutually coroborative of each other. Paleontology, Genetics, Biology, Ecology, Comparative Anatomy, Biochemistry, Biogeography... every one of them provides overwhelming evidence of the accuracy of the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory goes light years beyond mere "opinion".


Read the history of Pallatium and then revisit this statement.


That said, the representative from Pallatium may claim that their divinely inspired objections to evolutionary theory are most certainly correct due to the nature of their source all they like while attempting to undermine the basis for the bulk of all modern scientific progress in the biological sciences... their unsupported claims will be given no more weight by us than if they were to claim that their pet cat created the entire universe last Thursday and that they know this for a fact despite all evidence to the contrary because their all-powerful kitty told them so and is infallible... both claims being equally verifiable.


Come talk to our Goddesses and then revisit this statement. Further more sarcasm doesn't become you. And even further more we are not attempting to undermine all biological science - we are just attempting to correct the blind flaws (that some might call a case of religious zealotism) in following a single theory when there is living evidence that it is not complete, and in some nations a complete lie.


We will not stand idly by while some daft nation attempts to weaken science standards based on nothing more than an appeal to some kind of unsubstantiated holy epiphany.


Ok - you should really talk to The Divine Three, but you also need to re-read what I am proposing.

I am NOT proposing a blanket UN wide ban on teaching evolution. I would never consider it my position to do that - to impose my will on another nation? What kind of crazed lunatic do you think I am?

I am requiring the resolution be repealed because it requires my nation to accept the teaching of something it considers wrong. I am not requiring you, or anyone else, to ban it. I just want the right to do it in my nation.

And seriously - it would behove you to speak with more respect of The Three. Would you want me to start insulting which ever divine beings you chose to put your faith in?



So ends the statement.[/QUOTE]

(smile) To those who believe religion is undeniable. And to those who have their goddesses - the Three Divine Beings themselves, living outside their capital city, religion is more than an abstract concept. It is undeniable, unarguable fact.

Yes, and many scientists fall under the same spell in believing their own work to be so undeniable that it is fact. If you wish to be called a hypocrite, keep debating that point with me. Your "fact" has no place above mine.

If people want to learn about it - let them look on the web. We should not be forced to teach it in schools. And whether this resolution says it forces it or not, it forces us to accept it in our nation against our will.

It forces you to accept that this science exists as a theory, yes. It does not force you to teach it. If a teacher wishes to show something that's beyond the standard curriculum, I will not condone nor permit punishing them for doing so.

So all science is just opinion? And so why should one set of opinions, one set of science, be protected and put upon high above the others?

If you have science class, teach science. If you have religious class, teach religion. It is your nation's choice what opinions are to be considered part of the official curriculum. It is the teacher's right to disagree with that opinion, and to teach that disagreement to his/her pupils.

People can be curious. And we will tell them when they are. But we should decide what we tell our children. Not you.

I don't tell you what you can teach to your children. I am just telling you that you cannot prevent other human beings from teaching your children differently than what you teach them. If your way is so right, then your children will be able to determine for themselves which of the two theories is correct.

Ah. I see your problem. The Three Divine Beings are not prophets. They are our Goddesses. The actual beings who created our world, and all the animals and people within. I know - I sound like a religious zealot. But trust me on this - they are who they say they are.

*sighs* You missed my point. Have you met the Three Divine Beings? That was my point

So we are willing to take what they say on trust, since they are who they are, and further more all our science has proven what they say right within our borders. I don't deny evolution, I am just saying it's not what happened here, and we should not be required to lie to our children about our origins.

Evolution as a theory of origin is merely a theory based upon extrapolation rather than evidence. This is not what we are protecting. We are protecting the continuing evolutionary process being taught, as it helps in so many fields (many of which were listed by the Supreme Councilor from Reformatia). That said, I again suggest that you let your kids know both theories. If you have taught them well, they will be able to decide correctly for themselves what the true origin of the species was.

And you are teaching to us a truth we do not believe in.

You don't believe in science? I find that hard to believe, but I shall accept your argument. So why is it different? You stated your "truth" as fact, as undeniable and undisputable fact. You give no arguments beyond your own belief. My position is defended by things that can be tested, and if my truth is wrong, its because my understanding of the results is wrong. But wait, that was my argument of why Science is only THEORIES. We discredit ourselves if we claim it to be anything beyond theories. I am not claiming it to be fact. I'm stating that your statement is no more provable than mine.

I would argue that in some nations teachers who try to teach creationism are punished in some way - fired, sacked, kicked out.. etc

That's a failing of a lack of resolutions. I do not consider a bad standard to be reason to remove a good one.

And - just out of curiousity - if I can withdraw children from the class, can I just say "yes you can teach evolution, but no one is permitted to attend that class?" Would that be covered.

OOC: good loophole, but I think you'll find you have more problems than you have successes. A teacher could bring forth his/her opinions on evolution every time that creationism is brought up. As such, if no one is allowed to attend, that teacher could pretty much kill both theories at the same time.....and not have to work. As an actual loophole, it works. From a practical point of view, you are hurting your education system more than you're helping it.

We (okay - I) believe it is wrong to teach our children something that will a) confuse them as to the truth and b) teach them something that most of the population think is a lie.

Congratulations, but I believe it is better to teach the lie, and the reasons why it is a lie. If you tell your students "here's what some nations believe - blahblahblah - here's why it is not true", that is perfectly acceptable by this resolution. If you can prove it to your citizens as they are brought up, then you don't need to force your beliefs down their throats. Teach them how to analyze the problem, and explain why it is wrong.

To fail this is to be afraid of the problem.

Ok - ladies, gentlemen and other assorted beings - this is my attempt to correct a few apparent misunderstandings.


If the resolution "Teaching Evolution" was just an assult on national sovereignty, I would not mind. The UN is here to defend the rights of those who can't defend themselves, and to improve the conditions of everyone, everywhere. I truly believe that, and have always believed it, and (most likely) will always believe it. I care about my national sovereignty, but not to the degree that others do.

But "Teaching Evolution" is also a HUGE assult on religious sovereignty (for want of a better phrase), which I consider to be WAY beyond the scope of the UN. From your various comments, I get the idea that you find my religion backward and living in the dark ages. Which is fine - you are all entitled to your opinions (this is a democracy after all).

However it is my religion, and one my people are happy with. If they weren't, history has shown they have a way of showing their displeasure that makes a point.

No one is happy that their children can be taught something that violates the basic precepts of our religion - that we were created, full grown, by the will of Our Goddesses (Alex, Bobbi and Charlie). No science has disproven this (using techniques I think you will approve of), and our records going back to the dawn of time show this as well.

And even if they didn't, it is what we believe - it is our faith - the core of our society.

Other nations have this faith too - they believe they were created by their beings, in one way or another, and that they did not evolve. Whether they are right or wrong is not the point - it is their faith, and they should be entitled to that belief. If the UN is supposed to embrace the idea of religious tolerance, then it should not be permitted for one religion to tell another that they are stupid, backward, wrong or dumb.

I am not asking for Evolution to be banned in the UN. That would be something I would never do, and never comprehend doing. I am asking for my religion to be respected in my nation.

I can accept the violations of national sovereignty, but not the assult on religious tolerance. And thus I ask the resolution be repealed.

(ooc - you do remember that people can make up their nations in this game, right?)

OOC: Generally speaking, defying science outright is frowned upon and might get you considered a wanker or godmodder. Stating that evolution is false in your nation would likely fall under that category. You can make up your history, religion, etc....but scientific theory is not necessarily welcome from an RP sense.

(from the official histories of Pallatium)

As a matter of historical fact, absolute fact and pretty much fact beyond fact - the population of Pallatium did not evolve. Ergo evolution is false in Pallatium.

So shut up already :}

Um.....scientific disproves are used to disprove science. Religious dogma is generally given a WTF?

So again - all of science is opinion, its just when the mob agrees on something it is considered fact. To hell with belief, to hell with individuality - mob rule in all things.

That is scientific principle, in a nutshell, yes.

OOC: Generally speaking, defying science outright is frowned upon and might get you considered a wanker or godmodder. Stating that evolution is false in your nation would likely fall under that category. You can make up your history, religion, etc....but scientific theory is not necessarily welcome from an RP sense.


(ooc, again) I know. But my arguement would be if you can have aliens in this game, and fantasy creatures in this game, and faster-than-light drives in this game, why not a nation brought forth by a goddess?


Um.....scientific disproves are used to disprove science. Religious dogma is generally given a WTF?


(ooc) And if I were me, I would generally agree. But I am Queen Lily, so I don't.


That is scientific principle, in a nutshell, yes.

(ooc) (grin) Democracy rules! (possibly a tad sarcastic)

I think you are COMPLETELY misunderstanding my arguments. I am not talking about origin of the species. I'm talking about evolutionary process. If evolutionary process is an affront to your religion, then yes, your religion is backwards beyond comprehension and at that point, education of your students to a level that is internationally acceptable.

We are not forcing you to teach evolution. In fact, the resolution SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT. We are telling you that you can't persecute teachers if they taught evolution. If you have an issue with that and want to persecute people for having beliefs that contradict yours, then I SHALL NOT HELP YOU and I will actively campaign to oppose any move you take in that direction.

Now, just for clarification.

CLARIFIES it is not the intention of this proposal to enforce a curriculum upon nations which have varied cultural and societal tastes. Specifically a nation may decide to not include evolutionary theory in the classroom because a lack of interest by teachers and/or students. This will not be interpreted by the UN as evidence of suppression. Suppression is defined as written laws preventing the teaching of evolutionary theory or punishing those who teach it.

You are not being religiously oppressed

(ooc, again) I know. But my arguement would be if you can have aliens in this game, and fantasy creatures in this game, and faster-than-light drives in this game, why not a nation brought forth by a goddess?

OOC: It falls under religious dogma. That doesn't mean that you can rewrite the theory of evolution or state it isn't happening right now. We still don't know whether we evolved as an origin or were created - and we probably won't ever know until we're dead (maybe not even then). But it's all theories. Even with their FT, they still don't tell us that the evolutionary process never happened, that gravity doesn't exist, etc. They don't rewrite science. They might add on at a Sci-fi or Fantasy level, but they don't rewrite it.

Again, origin of species is nothing more than a theory - from both religious and scientific perspectives. You'll note that I defend the evolutionary process, not the evolutionary origin (though I believe in the latter myself)

(ooc) And if I were me, I would generally agree. But I am Queen Lily, so I don't.

OOC: I have a hard time that even the most able religious leaders would deny what they can observe. They may find different excuses for it, but what you propose is utter denial for observations. Regardless, it still doesn't trump science, it merely works alongside science - as science is blind to religion.

(ooc) (grin) Democracy rules! (possibly a tad sarcastic)

OOC: Unfortunately, no. Corruption does

Yes, and many scientists fall under the same spell in believing their own work to be so undeniable that it is fact. If you wish to be called a hypocrite, keep debating that point with me. Your "fact" has no place above mine.


Fair enough.


It forces you to accept that this science exists as a theory, yes. It does not force you to teach it. If a teacher wishes to show something that's beyond the standard curriculum, I will not condone nor permit punishing them for doing so.


But, to go off the topic of science for a moment, we are back to racism and homophobia. And in our nation the condoning of the policies of Queen Leonara (a truly evil and heinous Queen) is also frowned upon, especially the parts that focus on condemming those who fought against her. While we don't imprison people for this, we do tend to ensure the teacher in question is either asked to tidy up her act, or move on to another job. There are certain things we do not let our teachers teach, due to the influence they have over children.
Why can't this be one of them, on the basis it can damage the kids?


If you have science class, teach science. If you have religious class, teach religion. It is your nation's choice what opinions are to be considered part of the official curriculum. It is the teacher's right to disagree with that opinion, and to teach that disagreement to his/her pupils.


And it is the right of the school-head to discipline or remove that teacher, isn't it?


I don't tell you what you can teach to your children. I am just telling you that you cannot prevent other human beings from teaching your children differently than what you teach them. If your way is so right, then your children will be able to determine for themselves which of the two theories is correct.


Semantics. This resolution requires me to accept that what you think should be taught to my kids (the theory of evolution) must be taught if someone wants to teach it. There is nothing I can do to prevent it, so it can be argued that this FORCES me to teach evolution, because you say so (not you, I know - the UN)


*sighs* You missed my point. Have you met the Three Divine Beings? That was my point


Yes.


Evolution as a theory of origin is merely a theory based upon extrapolation rather than evidence. This is not what we are protecting. We are protecting the continuing evolutionary process being taught, as it helps in so many fields (many of which were listed by the Supreme Councilor from Reformatia). That said, I again suggest that you let your kids know both theories. If you have taught them well, they will be able to decide correctly for themselves what the true origin of the species was.


Wow. That is actually not a bad point. And wow - I sound really condescending (that wasn't my aim I swear!). But - just out of curiousity - what if both theories are true, depending where you come from?

(And we haven't even gone on to the topic of alien species yet. Do they get a say in the teaching of evolution? And is it their evolution or your evolution? And wow this just opens up even more problems)


You don't believe in science?


Woah - when did I say that? Oh - I did, just not in that context.

I am saying that, given our experiments and so forth, I don't believe in your theory of evolution. I do believe that when you throw something up, it comes down, when you split an atom, really BAD things can happen, and that if you strap a piece of buttered toast to a cat and throw it in the air, it will hovver for ever (ok - that last one is mostly just theory based on observation, but hey - it's fun to test!)


I find that hard to believe, but I shall accept your argument. So why is it different? You stated your "truth" as fact, as undeniable and undisputable fact. You give no arguments beyond your own belief. My position is defended by things that can be tested, and if my truth is wrong, its because my understanding of the results is wrong. But wait, that was my argument of why Science is only THEORIES. We discredit ourselves if we claim it to be anything beyond theories. I am not claiming it to be fact. I'm stating that your statement is no more provable than mine.


It's possible I either didn't post what I thought I had, or I buried it and you missed it. We have tested it with science - our basic DNA is exactly the same, to within almost 100% - of the DNA of those buried from 100, 500, 1000 years ago. Further more there is no intermixture of our DNA in any animals in the region. There is no cross breeding and so forth. This is what we call science, though hey - we could be wrong :}


OOC: good loophole, but I think you'll find you have more problems than you have successes. A teacher could bring forth his/her opinions on evolution every time that creationism is brought up. As such, if no one is allowed to attend, that teacher could pretty much kill both theories at the same time.....and not have to work. As an actual loophole, it works. From a practical point of view, you are hurting your education system more than you're helping it.


(ooc/ic) If the teacher is limited to one subject, and not permitted to talk to children out side of that class, it would be a bugger ;}

(ic) But even though we can use the loophole, I would rather have the freedom not to need it.


Congratulations, but I believe it is better to teach the lie, and the reasons why it is a lie. If you tell your students "here's what some nations believe - blahblahblah - here's why it is not true", that is perfectly acceptable by this resolution. If you can prove it to your citizens as they are brought up, then you don't need to force your beliefs down their throats. Teach them how to analyze the problem, and explain why it is wrong.


I admit, at the moment, I have no answer for this. However it might be cause it's been a very long day and my brain is not working well, so I will revisit it in the morning.

I think you are COMPLETELY misunderstanding my arguments. I am not talking about origin of the species. I'm talking about evolutionary process. If evolutionary process is an affront to your religion, then yes, your religion is backwards beyond comprehension and at that point, education of your students to a level that is internationally acceptable.


Oh. Then yes - I might be misunderstanding you. Just to make sure, one way or the other, what exactly do you mean? (Seriously - I am now confused. Evolution - which this resolution defends - has always meant (to me) the fact that humans evolved from single cell beings. If that is not what you are defending, and not what I am required to teach - yeah, you would argue I am not required - then I am misunderstanding. But if my class requires me to teach my children that they descended from monkeys (more or less) then I am not misunderstanding)


We are not forcing you to teach evolution. In fact, the resolution SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT. We are telling you that you can't persecute teachers if they taught evolution. If you have an issue with that and want to persecute people for having beliefs that contradict yours, then I SHALL NOT HELP YOU and I will actively campaign to oppose any move you take in that direction.


Which forces me to accept it. If there is one person in my nation who wants to do this, I can't stop them. So it forces me to accept it.

You are not being religiously oppressed

My schools are required to teach things counter to their basic religious beliefs if one person wants to teach or learn about it. So the entire basis of my religion is being subverted by the UN because of one person.

I would class that as religious oppression :}

(ooc, again) I know. But my arguement would be if you can have aliens in this game, and fantasy creatures in this game, and faster-than-light drives in this game, why not a nation brought forth by a goddess?


OOC: I find myself in rare agreement with Pallatium here. If we can have elves, aliens, sentient robots, and anthropomorphic hamsters, why the hell not a religious fantasy? I don't see why one fantasy should be deemed better than another. (Although, frankly, I think all of this fantasy stuff, in a political game, is silly.)

OOC: It falls under religious dogma. That doesn't mean that you can rewrite the theory of evolution or state it isn't happening right now. We still don't know whether we evolved as an origin or were created - and we probably won't ever know until we're dead (maybe not even then). But it's all theories. Even with their FT, they still don't tell us that the evolutionary process never happened, that gravity doesn't exist, etc. They don't rewrite science. They might add on at a Sci-fi or Fantasy level, but they don't rewrite it.


(ooc) Right....


OOC: I have a hard time that even the most able religious leaders would deny what they can observe. They may find different excuses for it, but what you propose is utter denial for observations. Regardless, it still doesn't trump science, it merely works alongside science - as science is blind to religion.


(ooc) There are those who would argue pure science without reference to faith is a religion in itself. If only because those who pursue it are sometimes afraid to question the basics of it. (note - I am not a believer in creationism, nor in ID, so please don't think this next part is driven by any religious ideology or such like). People accept evolution as more or less fact, despite the "theory" part, but when they are asked "what if god did it to test faith" they ignore it without a second thought, cause they accept on faith that that can't be the case. Yet if you ask a religious person how do they know their god exists, and they say "it is faith", people don't accept that as an actual basis.

(ooc) But I am really getting off topic here :}


OOC: Unfortunately, no. Corruption does

(ooc) That explains SO much about the NSUN :}

Just an off-topic thought...has anyone ever RPed an ID-created world, in which evolution really didn't happen?

OOC: I find myself in rare agreement with Pallatium here. If we can have elves, aliens, sentient robots, and anthropomorphic hamsters, why the hell not a religious fantasy? I don't see why one fantasy should be deemed better than another. (Although, frankly, I think all of this fantasy stuff, in a political game, is silly.)

(ooc) I would agree, but nowadays everything is political, and the NSUN was involved in religion way before I came along (and that was nigh on a year ago now)

(ooc) I would agree, but nowadays everything is political, and the NSUN was involved in religion way before I came along (and that was nigh on a year ago now)

OOC: Only because religion is a "hot button" issue that people get riled about. :rolleyes:

Just an off-topic thought...has anyone ever RPed an ID-created world, in which evolution really didn't happen?

I don't know about worlds, but nations....

Aside from mine (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Pallatium)?

TilEnca (a nation I have some passing familiarity with, thought it was deleted in April this year), arguably any world/nation based on Tolkiens Middle Earth (the books are pretty clear that the Elves were "awakened" by the creator of Middle Earth, which sounds a lot like ID) and maybe some of the FT worlds that work on genetic engineering and cloning (although that would not be so much "god" behind the ID as man).

But, to go off the topic of science for a moment, we are back to racism and homophobia. And in our nation the condoning of the policies of Queen Leonara (a truly evil and heinous Queen) is also frowned upon, especially the parts that focus on condemming those who fought against her. While we don't imprison people for this, we do tend to ensure the teacher in question is either asked to tidy up her act, or move on to another job. There are certain things we do not let our teachers teach, due to the influence they have over children.
Why can't this be one of them, on the basis it can damage the kids?

It's not the kids that prevents us from teaching this, but it is those that they are homophobic or rascist towards. We are not concerned about the influence a certain teaching may have on the way a child thinks, unless the way that child thinks would be harmful to another person. Before its stated, don't try and state that them believing something else hurts someone - if they ACT upon their belief, then it hurts someone. Until that action, it is a belief, nothing more.

You are allowed to believe anything you want, but you can't ACT upon that belief if it defies certain rules.

And it is the right of the school-head to discipline or remove that teacher, isn't it?

OOC: Perhaps, but it is difficult to differentiate between a less accepted truth and a blatant lie. I had a Social Studies teacher who taught me that Canada was the largest country in the world. Rather humorously, it was my brother's class 10 years later that finally proved her wrong by challenginer her to look it up for herself. For over 10 years, she had taught students the wrong information and was not disciplined for it. All it took to correct her was challenging her to check her facts. If she can provide facts brought forth by some source - I don't care what field - then I will continue to accept it as A truth rather than a lie. With so many nations who have proven evolution at some level or another, any teacher in your nation can produce proof that the theory of evolution has been proven.

IC: You can tell the teacher to check his/her facts, but I don't believe its grounds to discipline or fire him/her. If he/she refuses to be academically responsible and do the research to substantiate his/her claims, then that would be grounds for discipline.

Semantics. This resolution requires me to accept that what you think should be taught to my kids (the theory of evolution) must be taught if someone wants to teach it. There is nothing I can do to prevent it, so it can be argued that this FORCES me to teach evolution, because you say so (not you, I know - the UN)

"He does it, so I must do it". Please, we were taught this line was false when we were toddlers.

Yes.

Interesting

Wow. That is actually not a bad point. And wow - I sound really condescending (that wasn't my aim I swear!). But - just out of curiousity - what if both theories are true, depending where you come from?

(And we haven't even gone on to the topic of alien species yet. Do they get a say in the teaching of evolution? And is it their evolution or your evolution? And wow this just opens up even more problems)

Actually, evolution is built well enough that if alien species do have a theory similar to evolution, the two theories could work together for a while before they come up with a common theory of evolution. That's actually how most scientific principle works - if we have another theory that seems equally valid but isn't the same as the one we have, we work through both theories, determine where the fundamental differences are, and either test for the success or failings of those differences and come up with a new theory that works even better than either of the old 2. In essence, after 10-50 years, the science gets streamlined.

OOC: Considering that they're still teaching the 1913 Bohr model of the atom which was pretty much extended even further by several models through the early and mid 1900s in many highschools, what science teachers and what science has proven is slightly delayed

OOC: I can accept that someone might have different origins than us. Considering some nations have a population of several million and a human population of 0, it would actually be necessary. Again, we aren't debating origin, we're debating evolutionary process.

Woah - when did I say that? Oh - I did, just not in that context.

:D

I am saying that, given our experiments and so forth, I don't believe in your theory of evolution. I do believe that when you throw something up, it comes down, when you split an atom, really BAD things can happen, and that if you strap a piece of buttered toast to a cat and throw it in the air, it will hovver for ever (ok - that last one is mostly just theory based on observation, but hey - it's fun to test!)

It's possible I either didn't post what I thought I had, or I buried it and you missed it. We have tested it with science - our basic DNA is exactly the same, to within almost 100% - of the DNA of those buried from 100, 500, 1000 years ago. Further more there is no intermixture of our DNA in any animals in the region. There is no cross breeding and so forth. This is what we call science, though hey - we could be wrong :}


But when you strip an atom, the lights go on

My theory of evolution states that if a stimulus exists, there is a probability that a new trait will begin to appear on different species to attempt to adapt to the new stimulus. Those that adapt best will continue the species, while those that fail to adapt will die off. That's evolutionary theory. Adaptation.

Says who you need to share part of your genetic code with others species to disprove the evolutionary theory.

That said, I wonder what would happen if you compared yourself to one of my people DNA wise.....and then compared your people to the chimpanzee which we find to share 98% of our DNA.

(ooc/ic) If the teacher is limited to one subject, and not permitted to talk to children out side of that class, it would be a bugger ;}

It would be a damn shame and a ridiculous concept for the teacher not to be able to talk to children outside of class. It would place ridiculous burdens on teachers to help students with things like homework, or discuss issues of marking or testing, or allow the teacher to be there as a confidant for the student. You are punishing the average because you are deathly afraid of the few.

(ic) But even though we can use the loophole, I would rather have the freedom not to need it.

Again, I think you're hurting yourself more than helping by using it.

I admit, at the moment, I have no answer for this. However it might be cause it's been a very long day and my brain is not working well, so I will revisit it in the morning.

I look foreward to it, though I might not be able to respond well into next week.

Oh. Then yes - I might be misunderstanding you. Just to make sure, one way or the other, what exactly do you mean? (Seriously - I am now confused. Evolution - which this resolution defends - has always meant (to me) the fact that humans evolved from single cell beings. If that is not what you are defending, and not what I am required to teach - yeah, you would argue I am not required - then I am misunderstanding. But if my class requires me to teach my children that they descended from monkeys (more or less) then I am not misunderstanding)

OOC: Yeah, you're misunderstanding. There's two forms of evolutionary theory, and it actually is why the ID vs Evolution debate is so extraordinarily complicated. Evolution in terms of adaptation and darwinism we observe in biology class and is completely and totally necessary for various scientific policies. Evolution as an origin of the species is actually a form of religious dogma per-se - an atheist one. It was scientists extrapolating and interpreting their data to come up with a conclusion - just as they did the same thing with the big bang. The problem with their theory - for both - is what happened before that. With the big bang, what happened before you had this huge explosion. If nothing, what caused it to go boom? With evolution, how did we become a single celled organism to begin with. We don't have answers for this - even at a theory level. No one has recreated either (thank god on the latter), so it becomes a matter of faith that this is the truth. I cannot defend that any more than I can defend that some almighty being created us all in 7 days that I have never met nor seen and who's existance is only recorded in a book.

Which forces me to accept it. If there is one person in my nation who wants to do this, I can't stop them. So it forces me to accept it.

*sighs* missing my point again

My schools are required to teach things counter to their basic religious beliefs if one person wants to teach or learn about it. So the entire basis of my religion is being subverted by the UN because of one person.

I would class that as religious oppression :}

Um...no. Your schools are forced to not fire a teacher who teaches counter to their religious belief because they teach that material. They are not being forced to teach anything, but to allow what is being taught to continue to be taught.

(ooc) There are those who would argue pure science without reference to faith is a religion in itself. If only because those who pursue it are sometimes afraid to question the basics of it. (note - I am not a believer in creationism, nor in ID, so please don't think this next part is driven by any religious ideology or such like). People accept evolution as more or less fact, despite the "theory" part, but when they are asked "what if god did it to test faith" they ignore it without a second thought, cause they accept on faith that that can't be the case. Yet if you ask a religious person how do they know their god exists, and they say "it is faith", people don't accept that as an actual basis.

OOC

Actually, that's why I'm agnostic. I don't believe in ruling things like that out. I acknowledge it as a possibility. However, I lean towards science because it explains things, and for me, an answer will always be more attractive. When it comes to origins, I lean towards science because I feel it goes farther. I admit that the possibility exists, but that doesn't mean I disbelieve what I feel was the best argument.

My reason: simple. I don't believe in any religious dogma. That requires faith, and I don't have any. I need to see an actual logical proof before I believe it. When I hear the words "trust me", I always refuse. I also believe that to pretend to have faith and not is a greater sin than not having faith and admitting it. Didn't Dante claim that the deceivers get the lowest circle of hell, while the non-believers the highest? If Science is wrong, history ends before science does. If science is right, religious theory ends before history does. As such, we have 6 billion years of history we don't know - some would note 11 billion. We might as well acknowledge that history as being a possibility as well.

It's not the kids that prevents us from teaching this, but it is those that they are homophobic or rascist towards. We are not concerned about the influence a certain teaching may have on the way a child thinks, unless the way that child thinks would be harmful to another person. Before its stated, don't try and state that them believing something else hurts someone - if they ACT upon their belief, then it hurts someone. Until that action, it is a belief, nothing more.

You are allowed to believe anything you want, but you can't ACT upon that belief if it defies certain rules.


"If you hit and humiliate a child, then they in turn will learn to hit and humiliate others"

I admit quoting Little Women is not the best thing I can do, but it seems to work at the moment.

I would argue that yeah - you can hold any beliefs you want, as long as you don't act on those that would do harm to others. But if all you are taught is to do harm to others, then not acting on them would be very hard.

And - to bring in your arguement so you won't have to - if I teach "Pallatium Science" along with evolution then I will be letting the children decide. But that puts a lot of faith in the skill of the respective teachers.....


OOC: Perhaps, but it is difficult to differentiate between a less accepted truth and a blatant lie. I had a Social Studies teacher who taught me that Canada was the largest country in the world. Rather humorously, it was my brother's class 10 years later that finally proved her wrong by challenginer her to look it up for herself. For over 10 years, she had taught students the wrong information and was not disciplined for it. All it took to correct her was challenging her to check her facts. If she can provide facts brought forth by some source - I don't care what field - then I will continue to accept it as A truth rather than a lie. With so many nations who have proven evolution at some level or another, any teacher in your nation can produce proof that the theory of evolution has been proven.


I suppose. But with the proof we have we can also prove our theory is right as well.


IC: You can tell the teacher to check his/her facts, but I don't believe its grounds to discipline or fire him/her. If he/she refuses to be academically responsible and do the research to substantiate his/her claims, then that would be grounds for discipline.


Ok.


"He does it, so I must do it". Please, we were taught this line was false when we were toddlers.


Again - I think we are at cross purposes here. I understand what you are saying, but I think you are missing my point.

edit

Sorry - I get it now. When I said "if one person wants to teach evolution, it forces me to do it" I was speaking as the nation, not the person. I am the Queen, and basically my word goes as law. So if a single teacher wants to teach evolution, I (as Queen and UN member) am duty bound to let him do that. So while the resolution doesn't force me to teach, it does require me to give in to anyone who wants to teach it, thus effectively removing my free will over the issue. That was what I meant :}

end edit


Interesting


You have *no* idea. Queen Tina (my predecessor, now sadly passed beyond) told me about her first meeting with The Three That Are (we have a lot of names for them), but seriously - you have no idea what it is like to stand in the presence of the divine until you do it. And you can never communicate what it feels like to anyone else, for much the same reason.


Actually, evolution is built well enough that if alien species do have a theory similar to evolution, the two theories could work together for a while before they come up with a common theory of evolution. That's actually how most scientific principle works - if we have another theory that seems equally valid but isn't the same as the one we have, we work through both theories, determine where the fundamental differences are, and either test for the success or failings of those differences and come up with a new theory that works even better than either of the old 2. In essence, after 10-50 years, the science gets streamlined.


(smirk) See - that I can agree with. But just out of morbid curiousity - what happens if you get two theories that are both proven true, but are diametrically opposed?


But when you strip an atom, the lights go on


I didn't say good things couldn't happen, I just said bad things could :}


My theory of evolution states that if a stimulus exists, there is a probability that a new trait will begin to appear on different species to attempt to adapt to the new stimulus. Those that adapt best will continue the species, while those that fail to adapt will die off. That's evolutionary theory. Adaptation.



Says who you need to share part of your genetic code with others species to disprove the evolutionary theory.


This would be the misunderstanding I was misunderstanding.


That said, I wonder what would happen if you compared yourself to one of my people DNA wise.....and then compared your people to the chimpanzee which we find to share 98% of our DNA.


Co-incidence? (I know - unlikely. But isn't that the very definition of co-incidence?)


I look foreward to it, though I might not be able to respond well into next week.

By that point I will have given up. As much as I hate to step down and back out, you are making REALLY good points and I am lacking the ability to respond to them with any kind of sense (I am attempting to be sensible in my replies now, cause apparently some people think they border on the zany)

OOC: Yeah, you're misunderstanding. There's two forms of evolutionary theory, and it actually is why the ID vs Evolution debate is so extraordinarily complicated. Evolution in terms of adaptation and darwinism we observe in biology class and is completely and totally necessary for various scientific policies. Evolution as an origin of the species is actually a form of religious dogma per-se - an atheist one. It was scientists extrapolating and interpreting their data to come up with a conclusion - just as they did the same thing with the big bang. The problem with their theory - for both - is what happened before that. With the big bang, what happened before you had this huge explosion. If nothing, what caused it to go boom? With evolution, how did we become a single celled organism to begin with. We don't have answers for this - even at a theory level. No one has recreated either (thank god on the latter), so it becomes a matter of faith that this is the truth. I cannot defend that any more than I can defend that some almighty being created us all in 7 days that I have never met nor seen and who's existance is only recorded in a book.


(ic) Ok. I can live with the idea we adapt to our surroundings. I can live with the idea that we adapt to external stimulus (we stopped forcing people to practice their boomering throwing every day after we got the wild animal population under control and more safety in our cities). And if that is what this requires us to teach, I have no problem with it, cause I am happy to admit that that is actually happening (though, from a certain point of view one could argue this :- what if instead of adapting to stimulus, the Three just alter our genetic makeup so we react differently?) .

It's the origin of the species I have issues with. Not so much teaching that other races have evolved (cause I will accept your word for that) but teaching that our race evolved cause - seriously - not true :}




Um...no. Your schools are forced to not fire a teacher who teaches counter to their religious belief because they teach that material. They are not being forced to teach anything, but to allow what is being taught to continue to be taught.

What if they are not teaching it now, but decide to in the near future?

OOC

Actually, that's why I'm agnostic. I don't believe in ruling things like that out. I acknowledge it as a possibility. However, I lean towards science because it explains things, and for me, an answer will always be more attractive. When it comes to origins, I lean towards science because I feel it goes farther. I admit that the possibility exists, but that doesn't mean I disbelieve what I feel was the best argument.

My reason: simple. I don't believe in any religious dogma. That requires faith, and I don't have any. I need to see an actual logical proof before I believe it. When I hear the words "trust me", I always refuse. I also believe that to pretend to have faith and not is a greater sin than not having faith and admitting it. Didn't Dante claim that the deceivers get the lowest circle of hell, while the non-believers the highest? If Science is wrong, history ends before science does. If science is right, religious theory ends before history does. As such, we have 6 billion years of history we don't know - some would note 11 billion. We might as well acknowledge that history as being a possibility as well.


(equally ooc). I tend to trust science over religion as well, but not to a point where I won't accept that science can be wrong. Agent Scully (yeah - from Little Women to The X-Files in one thread. I have a lot of quoting issues) said "I believe that science has all the answers, but that we do not yet know enough science to know all the answers". Three, Four thousand years ago, science told us the world was flat, and it was based on the best evidence they had. They were wrong (obviously) but at the time no one knew that.

Science will have the answers, and always has had all the answers, but we need to learn more about science before we can claim to have all the answers it contains. And - of course - if your ruler is too short then the whole world is smaller (or longer - I can never get that right) than you think.

Basically it is not in my nature to dismiss things out of hand just cause they seem silly or impossible. I admit it leads to me not really believing anything, but so far it has served me well :}

"If you hit and humiliate a child, then they in turn will learn to hit and humiliate others"

I admit quoting Little Women is not the best thing I can do, but it seems to work at the moment.

I would argue that yeah - you can hold any beliefs you want, as long as you don't act on those that would do harm to others. But if all you are taught is to do harm to others, then not acting on them would be very hard.

And - to bring in your arguement so you won't have to - if I teach "Pallatium Science" along with evolution then I will be letting the children decide. But that puts a lot of faith in the skill of the respective teachers.....

If you can't trust your teachers, why are they your teachers?

Honestly, as someone who believes in objectivity, teachers will always scew the facts into the way they believe. That'll be there problem.

I suppose. But with the proof we have we can also prove our theory is right as well.

Doesn't, however, mean she's wrong. All proofs have an "if" clause. Most religious ones are "if our doctrine is correct". Science is "if our analysis is correct". Wait, that sounds very similar. :D

I'm not claiming the proof needs to trump other theories, but it needs to validate itself, not indicate its value compared to others.

Ok.

Again - I think we are at cross purposes here. I understand what you are saying, but I think you are missing my point.

edit

Sorry - I get it now. When I said "if one person wants to teach evolution, it forces me to do it" I was speaking as the nation, not the person. I am the Queen, and basically my word goes as law. So if a single teacher wants to teach evolution, I (as Queen and UN member) am duty bound to let him do that. So while the resolution doesn't force me to teach, it does require me to give in to anyone who wants to teach it, thus effectively removing my free will over the issue. That was what I meant :}

end edit

Ah, but then it becomes a NatSov issue, not a Religious Sovereignty issue. Quite frankly, when it comes to rulers versus citizen, I almost always pick the citizen. There's a reason why I'm an International Federalist (I need to think of a good short-form for that).

(smirk) See - that I can agree with. But just out of morbid curiousity - what happens if you get two theories that are both proven true, but are diametrically opposed?

If both can prove absolutely every single theory that has been proven by the other, and they remain diametrically opposed, I will know for sure there is a God and he definately like ****ing with our minds

I didn't say good things couldn't happen, I just said bad things could :}

This would be the misunderstanding I was misunderstanding.

Co-incidence? (I know - unlikely. But isn't that the very definition of co-incidence?)

There's actually a percentage for most species between normal humans and animals. I think its actually where a lot of the foundation for origin from single celled creature starts from.

By that point I will have given up. As much as I hate to step down and back out, you are making REALLY good points and I am lacking the ability to respond to them with any kind of sense (I am attempting to be sensible in my replies now, cause apparently some people think they border on the zany)

:p

OOC: Shhhh. It's a secret.
OOC: Or, at least it was.

Er, I was pretty sure there was never a proposal "forcing" evolution be taught. There's a resolution about not punishing teachers for teaching evolution, but I'm pretty sure the author of that resolution had enough respect for good governemnt not to force a single cirriculum down 30,000+ individual nations with individual education situations.

Oh, and all those who "don't give a 'darn' about NatSov", I hope will think back to the Solar Panel resolution--when almost everyone, suddenly, cared very much about the UN not unversally mandating "bad government", i.e. national sovereignty--and remember there are some of us who scrutinize the governance of every UN resolution in that way ;)

Three, Four thousand years ago, science told us the world was flat, and it was based on the best evidence they had. They were wrong (obviously) but at the time no one knew that.
OOC: Interestingly, 2500 years ago, scientists deduced that the world was round. Indeed, that was a basic requirement of the Ptolomaic Universe, which explained absolutely everything people needed to worry about. the first time a serious blow was laid to it was Galileo's telescope, which showed things which simply could not exist within Ptolemy's astronomy (that is, Jupiter's moons).

On the evolution front: evolution isn't a science concerned with the origins of life. It's a science explaining how life changed. If you want to have a look at the origins of life, try something like Exobiology. We don't have enough information to work out how life first arose - there've been lots of ideas, but none have managed to fit all the known facts.

Oh, and all those who "don't give a 'darn' about NatSov", I hope will think back to the Solar Panel resolution--when almost everyone, suddenly, cared very much about the UN not unversally mandating "bad government", i.e. national sovereignty--and remember there are some of us who scrutinize the governance of every UN resolution in that way ;)
Bad government's one thing. But that resolution was mandating bad science, a completely different kettle of fish.

Bad government's one thing. But that resolution was mandating bad science, a completely different kettle of fish.
Um...I'm really not sure what you mean by this.

Um...I'm really not sure what you mean by this.
Most of the complaints about the Solar Power resolution were not because it was enforcing 'bad government'.
The resolution was enforcing bad science - incorrect, false, misleading science. That was the basis for much, if not most, of the opposition.

And unless your nation is a technocracy, there is a fairly big difference between complaining about bad science and bad government.

[edit] On the other hand, if the expression 'kettle of fish' was the source of your confusion, that's a different matter. It is idiomatic, and like much idiomatic language makes no sense whatsoever unless you understand it. I'll try to avoid it in future.:)

Most of the complaints about the Solar Power resolution were not because it was enforcing 'bad government'.
The resolution was enforcing bad science - incorrect, false, misleading science. That was the basis for much, if not most, of the opposition.

You're right, now that I'm thinking back to it. Though there was a lot of backlash for the "eliminate fossil fuels in x years" (which might be considered bad governance, as it was impractical for almost every UN government). Either way, I don't think it changes the validity of my disagreement that many in the UN forum "don't give a darn about National Sovereignty" (or other such near absolute statement).

My point was that the enforcement of "bad $CHAR" (be it bad science or bad government) got people riled up. I was just saying that I think most people who opposed the resolution can have some empathy towards the Sovereingtist stance, as it was the enforcement of something they didn't like, or didn't agree with, that irked them: often the motivation for sovereigntists.

The people of Aroden hereby REFUSE to support this proposal. And we also disagree with "Intelligent Design" being classified a scientific theory.

My point was that the enforcement of "bad $CHAR" (be it bad science or bad government) got people riled up. I was just saying that I think most people who opposed the resolution can have some empathy towards the Sovereingtist stance, as it was the enforcement of something they didn't like, or didn't agree with, that irked them: often the motivation for sovereigntists.

We really understand your national sovereignty movement and begin to admire it.

However, the UN is not "United persons behind their computers", but United Nations

=> proposition are always balanced between Human Rights VS Natsov

the United Nation had done a lot for Human Rights in the world, and yes sometimes Human rights are more important than natsov,

personnaly our 1st resolution (sex ed act), was respective of natsov as it didn't mandate anything, our second (education+ivf) mandates something and you right maybe it would have been better if not

Secondly, it seems to me that very often some people use the "natsov" argument, when they don't have others arguments, in particular to defend their conservative social views. Sometimes it seems to me that people use it in the same way as some bad and false arguments:
- natural law
- violate my religion freedom
- traditional
without saying why on this particular topic, natural/traditionnal/religious facts are justifiable

Remember this global food distribution act, where subsidies where declared illogically "domestic" and protected by the "natsov" argument and "tarrifs" declared "international"
=> so you cannot use the natsov argyument only when you like something and say no its not natsov when you don't like
=> you have to argument

We will try to be better respectfull of natsov in our future propositions, and we will appreciate NSO members to be more interested in human Rights

Bad government's one thing. But that resolution was mandating bad science, a completely different kettle of fish.

Actually, it was mandating bad government based on bad science.

OOC: Or, at least it was.

OOC : I kind of already knew about it, so don't worry so much :}

The people of Aroden hereby REFUSE to support this proposal. And we also disagree with "Intelligent Design" being classified a scientific theory.

Due to the various good and convincing replies, there is some discussion about abandoning this repeal. It is not that we are convinced our theories are suddenly any more valid, but the arguement that if we expose children to more view points, to the idea that other nations might have lessons to teach us that we could do to understand, is a worthy one.

But - just to ensure no one gets the wrong idea about this from a single misguided post, no where did this repeal require the forced teaching of ID.

I haven't read all five pages of this repeal discussion, so if this has been mentioned before, my sincere apologies.

The evolution theory was defeated by it's author as he lay on his deathbed. Thus, upon learning this valuable piece of information, New Pictaviens are no longer taught the evolution theory, as it bears no importance on science, having already been defeated.

Thus we would be in support of this repeal.

I haven't read all five pages of this repeal discussion, so if this has been mentioned before, my sincere apologies.

The evolution theory was defeated by it's author as he lay on his deathbed. Thus, upon learning this valuable piece of information, New Pictaviens are no longer taught the evolution theory, as it bears no importance on science, having already been defeated.

Thus we would be in support of this repeal.


Sorry, this is a rumour reported by only one person who visited darwin at that time: Lady Hope

Your "fact" has no place above mine.

A dangerous statement for you to make. Down that path lies national sovereignty, because in turn your fact has no place above Queen Lily's. In the context of your respective realms, you both have the facts right.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

I haven't read all five pages of this repeal discussion, so if this has been mentioned before, my sincere apologies.

The evolution theory was defeated by it's author as he lay on his deathbed. Thus, upon learning this valuable piece of information, New Pictaviens are no longer taught the evolution theory, as it bears no importance on science, having already been defeated.

Thus we would be in support of this repeal.

How exactly "defeated" and how can you be certain that this wasn't the ramblings of a semi-delirious old man. The fact is, evolution is the most complete and accurate scientific theory around to explain the development and creation of life. It may not be perfect, yet it is the best and most widely endorsed theory and I see little reason to doubt it, given the vast body of evidence that exists in favour of it.

Please let's not let the prevelance of nonsense replace scientific methodology.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

A dangerous statement for you to make. Down that path lies national sovereignty, because in turn your fact has no place above Queen Lily's. In the context of your respective realms, you both have the facts right.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Considering the context, no it doesn't. I note that we are discussing a resolution where one person is protected from being disciplined by another person because they follow a different set of facts that are held by a different group of people than the other person. I'm saying that neither have the right to tell the other they are wrong. I have the right to explain why I think you're wrong about National Sovereignty, but I don't have the right to censor you because I disagree with your arguments for National Sovereignty (or, well, any other issue we disagree on). That was my point.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, and all those who "don't give a 'darn' about NatSov", I hope will think back to the Solar Panel resolution--when almost everyone, suddenly, cared very much about the UN not unversally mandating "bad government", i.e. national sovereignty--and remember there are some of us who scrutinize the governance of every UN resolution in that way

PC, what in the world makes you think that I care that there are those that came out of the woodwork stating NatSov as an argument to dump Solar Panels. What matters is what MY opinion was during that entire debate. I didn't criticize that resolution because it infringed upon National Sovereignty - nor did the repeal text nor did the guys who lead the charge against the resolution. We criticized it because it was impractical, unrealistic, bad science, and just plain stupid. I don't care that your nor TH nor Flibs, nor half of the UNOG and a majority of the regulars are in favor of NatSov. I note it, I debate against it, and my opinion is that I don't care about national sovereignty. I believe in International Governance and just because a few resolutions and pretty much the primary focus of this government as of late has been NatSov, doesn't mean that I endorse it, support it, or really give a damn about whether a resolution does or doesn't respect my NatSov.

I know you are capable of more intelligent arguments than that.

Considering the context, no it doesn't. I note that we are discussing a resolution where one person is protected from being disciplined by another person because they follow a different set of facts that are held by a different group of people than the other person. I'm saying that neither have the right to tell the other they are wrong. I have the right to explain why I think you're wrong about National Sovereignty, but I don't have the right to censor you because I disagree with your arguments for National Sovereignty (or, well, any other issue we disagree on). That was my point.

Then how can you endorse telling thousands of nations that they are wrong in outlawing the teaching of evolution/persecuting those who teach it? You support outlawing a certain kind of censorship by censoring those that are expressing their desire for an education they see as factual and true. That is censorship on a massive international scale of censorship on a national scale.

Whether it is done by well-intentioned laws or punching someone who says something they don't like, it's still censorship.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

It's get round-able, is this one. It only protects teachers, not mandates the teaching. Thus, by eliminating all textbooks about evolution, banning certain websites, etc you can prevent anyone in your country from knowing about evolution, including teachers, and teachers can't teach what they don't know!

Then how can you endorse telling thousands of nations that they are wrong in outlawing the teaching of evolution/persecuting those who teach it? You support outlawing a certain kind of censorship by censoring those that are expressing their desire for an education they see as factual and true. That is censorship on a massive international scale of censorship on a national scale.

Whether it is done by well-intentioned laws or punching someone who says something they don't like, it's still censorship.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Censorship is opinion can't be heard. Their opinion is heard, we just didn't act on their opinion.

There is a difference between being able to believe something, being able to share your belief with others, and being able to act on your belief. Each has a different level of validity. Would you allow a nation to not allow someone to believe something? Would you allow them to believe that someone else shouldn't believe something?

It's get round-able, is this one. It only protects teachers, not mandates the teaching. Thus, by eliminating all textbooks about evolution, banning certain websites, etc you can prevent anyone in your country from knowing about evolution, including teachers, and teachers can't teach what they don't know!

Your right, the resolution doesn't ban withholding knowledge. It only bans persecuting those that have this knowledge.

Censorship is opinion can't be heard. Their opinion is heard, we just didn't act on their opinion.

There is a difference between being able to believe something, being able to share your belief with others, and being able to act on your belief. Each has a different level of validity. Would you allow a nation to not allow someone to believe something? Would you allow them to believe that someone else shouldn't believe something?

Both, of course. Would I even allow you to act on your belief that other folks should not be censored and the UN is an effective means of preventing that censorship? Certainly. I'm nice like that.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

PC, what in the world makes you think that I care that there are those that came out of the woodwork stating NatSov as an argument to dump Solar Panels. What matters is what MY opinion was during that entire debate.
No disrespect, but I'm not reading beyond this. As you're going to make this about you and what you "actually" thought (a decent strategy, as I cannot redefine it, and it's largely unknown to me anyway, unless I'm keeping a strict catalogue of your feelings and persuasions: most increadibly unlikely) I'm not going to continue taking in the argument, as further understanding of what you're saying is not necessary. I'm just going to say something like, "fine, Forgottenlands, you can feel that way if you like. I still think you out-of-hand discredit Sovereigntists because you can't see how your own ideological stances mirror theirs' in ways, but I'm not going to tell you what I think you were thinking: that seems a bit of a confusing and problematic proposition."

I would dress that up in IC-treatment, but I'm too sore and too happy and too tired.

I know you are capable of more intelligent arguments than that.
Er, sorry, Forgottenlands, I'm trying not to respond to even borderline flamebait. No official response for this section either.

No disrespect, but I'm not reading beyond this.

I recommend you do, because it's more than just my opinion, and one would only have to read that thread again to realize the accuracy of my statement.

Hell, one would only have to re-read the proposal to realize the accuracy of my statement

the theory of evolution is taught in Kirisuban schools. i know because i had to sit through plenty of science classes.

as we are a multi faith society its presented as a theory alongside other scientific theorys and laws.

at the end of the day the student can decide to believe this or not because its not taught as fact.

If the entire UN appears to want national sovereignty, they can have it with both barrels.

Hirota is against this repeal.

1. The title is misleading - it is not forced teaching, it is the right for pupils (or their parents) to have evolution taught or not taught.

2. Hirota feels that the rights of the citizens override national interest in this situation.

I recommend you do, because it's more than just my opinion, and one would only have to read that thread again to realize the accuracy of my statement.

Hell, one would only have to re-read the proposal to realize the accuracy of my statement
Sorry, but I have much better things to do with my time than (and this is probably the sixth time someone has asked me to do something like this) research your viewpoints. I'm just not playing this game to keep track of how everyone else on the forum thinks. I have my own agendas, and am no catalogue of opinion.

Also noting that many religious doctrines do not accept Evolution as scientific theory,

Lets point out the Mismatch!
Religious Doctrine = It is because we say it is.......
Scientific Theory = It is because we have proved it to be.....

These two will always be at odds, especially as it is the latter who is responsible for the disproving of many of the formers "lil bit of faith" theories.

I will not be approving a repeal of this as freedom to teach without persecution is held high with the peoples of my nation and region.

Evolution is an integral part of Biology as we know it. As far as mainstream scientists have found out, it is the most complete and accurate theory of our origin. Suppressing this important knowledge is nothing less than a grave travesty of the right to learn.

The resolution does not state that other theories such as Intelligent Design cannot be taught. It merely allows the freedom to teach Evolution. Evolution is the most scientifically accurate theory in the land. The fact is that if this proposal passes, many nations will ban Evolution due to religious/pseudoscientific grounds, rather than for scientific reasons. The removal of Evolution from curriculums for such reasons is mere propaganda, to promote one "brand" of thought over the other.

For the sake of knowledge, we should retain the resolution.

The people of Heaven Gate (in this case, me, since I am Heaven Gate and Heaven Gate is me) finds this proposition preposterous. As a fervent Norse-Buddhist, I believe that teaching evolution is the best way to promote the proper way humanity reached it`s point, before it is destroyed by yet another Ragnarok.

Emperor-Subordinate Rey Mei Gerr
Heaven Gate Representative to the UN
Duke of Illocaster

This thread is dead, the author backed off. Please stop bumping it.