NationStates Jolt Archive

About a week ago, I started a thread that argued String Theory had as much scientific legitimacy as ID. Most people there agreed that, though ID shouldn't be taught as science, it could be taught as philosophy.

The El Tejon, CA school board disagrees. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/01/17/evolution.debate.ap/index.html)

FRESNO, California (AP) -- Under legal pressure, a rural school district agreed Tuesday to stop offering high school students an elective philosophy course on "intelligent design," an advocacy group said.

A group of parents had sued the El Tejon school district in federal court last week, saying it violated the constitutional separation of church and state by offering "Philosophy of Design," a course taught by a minister's wife that advanced the notion that life is so complex it must have been created by some kind of higher intelligence.

Ayesha N. Khan, legal director for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which represented the parents, said Frazier Mountain High agreed to drop the class.

"This sends a strong signal to school districts across the country that they cannot promote creationism or intelligent design as an alternative to evolution, whether they do so in a science class or a humanities class," Khan said.

District officials did not immediately return calls for comment.

The settlement was announced just before a federal judge was scheduled to hold a hearing on whether to halt the class midway through the monthlong winter term.

In a landmark lawsuit, Americans United successfully blocked the Dover, Pennsylvania, school system last month from teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in high school biology classes. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is religion masquerading as science.

However, some activists contended that Jones' ruling opened the door to teaching intelligent design in philosophy or religion classes.

El Tejon Superintendent John Wight said the subject was proper for a philosophy class. But Americans United argued the course relied almost exclusively on videos that presented religious theories as scientific ones.

The high school in the Tehachapi Mountains about 75 miles north of Los Angeles draws 500 students from a dozen small communities.

Sharon Lemburg, a social studies teacher and soccer coach who taught "Philosophy of Design," defended the course in a letter to the weekly Mountain Enterprise. "I believe this is the class that the Lord wanted me to teach," she wrote.

Similar battles over intelligent design are being fought in Georgia and Kansas.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


I find the lawyer's quote very interesting: "This sends a strong signal to school districts across the country that they cannot promote creationism or intelligent design as an alternative to evolution, whether they do so in a science class or a humanities class." That seems to me like a direct attack on thought. So are school systems now relegated to strictly teaching science? Is there now no room to teach anything that suggests the possibility of a higher being? Is this protection of free speech, or squelching of it? Separation of church and state, or state indoctrination of athiesm?

I think the teacher's comment is also telling, the one about the Lord telling her to do this. That's probably a bit much for public school and I'm not sure I'd want her teaching the class. But I'd let my kids go to a class and hear an alternate theory to something.

Sharon Lemburg, a social studies teacher and soccer coach who taught "Philosophy of Design," defended the course in a letter to the weekly Mountain Enterprise. "I believe this is the class that the Lord wanted me to teach," she wrote.
If that was the best she had, no wonder they lost.

Creationism is intellectually bankrupt, no matter what subject you try to stuff it into. Creationist myths should be presented in comparative religions classes, and "Intelligent Design" should be presented with the same level of discussion as the theory that the Earth rides on the back of a giant turtle.

If the class had introduced a series of competing philosophies, it would have been fine. It espoused a single philosophy based on a single religion. A no-no.

If the class had introduced a series of competing philosophies, it would have been fine. It espoused a single philosophy based on a single religion. A no-no.
Yep. It's similar to the way the Supreme Court has ruled on Ten Commandments representations in court buildings--if it's among other, secular representations dealing with history and/or the law, then it's fine. On its own, where it takes on a significantly religious tone, it's a no go.

I say let the children learn whatever the hell they want to believe/study but that is for another thread

I fail to see what this teacher was doing wrong

I say let the children learn whatever the hell they want to believe/study but that is for another thread

I fail to see what this teacher was doing wrong
You did actually read posts 3, 4, and 5, didn't you? None of them are particularly complex.

I say let the children learn whatever the hell they want to believe/study but that is for another thread

Children are already prevented from "learning whatever the hell they want." If children were allowed to dictate academic standards, Tony Hawk would be an AP class.

It is the responsibility of adults to make sure that public school dollars are not being wasted on useless propaganda for superstitious cults.


I fail to see what this teacher was doing wrong
She wasn't "doing anything wrong," any more than I would be "doing something wrong" by claiming that I believe Xenu The Destroyer has commanded me to teach a class about how the principles of Scientology are accurate. It's not a crime to propose something stupid. This teacher isn't being put in jail or sued, she simply is being told that the grownups aren't prepared to use taxpayer dollars to help her flaunt her delusions to public school students.

You did actually read posts 3, 4, and 5, didn't you? None of them are particularly complex.

well if there is sufficient demand a class will be made based on any religion much like why some schools don't teach business studies

I say let the children learn whatever the hell they want to believe/study but that is for another thread

I fail to see what this teacher was doing wrong

It's not legitimate education to teach ID by itself, as an alternate scientific theory. Teach creationism (or ID) in a RELIGION CLASS WITH OTHER CREATION MYTHS.

I am so sick of this discussion.

SNIP

so your saying in your opinion the teacher could get away with it if she set up a fee for the class?

can't wait for that sex class then

so your saying in your opinion the teacher could get away with it if she set up a fee for the class?

can't wait for that sex class then
Ahh, I see. You're a troll. My mistake.

Sharon Lemburg, a social studies teacher and soccer coach who taught "Philosophy of Design," defended the course in a letter to the weekly Mountain Enterprise. "I believe this is the class that the Lord wanted me to teach," she wrote.
She was teaching a single religious view with an obviously religious motivation. That was where the objection arose.

The people saying it would be ok to teach it in a philosophy or comparative religion class generally meant to teach that some people hold a religious beleif and compare that belief with beleifs from other religions and explore what the differences are and why they are there. In the same way you would intepret art from two cultures. Such a class teaches that the view is a belief held by some people, not that it is a fact that should be held by all.
This class clearly intended to teach ID as a fact and not a view, it is not a comparative class but a class to teach a particular religous viewpoint to the students.

There is another great reason why ID should be kept out of schools altogether.
It's the biggest load of hogwash since 'the Earth is flat'.
And I say that as a proud flipflopfree Christian.

SNIP

I agree with that though you would have to look at the structure of the lessons and the words the teacher used.

interesting position though the words that the teacher uses would have to be in such a way as to not push any beliefs and any answers students would provide to questions could come under interpretation thus all students get an A+

I agree with that though you would have to look at the structure of the lessons and the words the teacher used.

interesting position though the words that the teacher uses would have to be in such a way as to not push any beliefs and any answers students would provide to questions could come under interpretation thus all students get an A+
This-
"I believe this is the class that the Lord wanted me to teach," she wrote.
doesn't do it for you?

doesn't do it for you?

This woman says she talks to the “Lord” why is this just being picked up on in a lawsuit clearly the school has failed here but then again the education system has allowed this class to function and there is a curriculum set up (since all classes have a curriculum decided by the education authorities as far as the British system goes) which shows that this is just a class that has been set up to teach it so why is the lawsuit aimed at this one class rather than the curriculum’s existence?

well if there is sufficient demand a class will be made based on any religion much like why some schools don't teach business studies

No. If there was sufficient demand for a class on a Satanic creation theory that displayed itself as a science, it still shouldn't be taught. If ID were being taught in a religious context alongside other creation myths, that's fine. To create a class solely for ID, which sets it up as a legitimate theory of origins of life, is dishonest.

Uhmm...she's being picked on for trying to convert kids to her particular religion, perhaps?

Thank god. My faith in the American educational system rises once again. Let us hope that Kansas will soon follow, though I highly doubt it.

so your saying in your opinion the teacher could get away with it if she set up a fee for the class?

can't wait for that sex class then

If a teacher wanted to teach a class after school hours on his own property and charge a fee for it, he's more than welcome to do so. If he expects to use taxpayer funds to teach it (which include his wages during normal school hours), he's going to see lawsuits like this. Taxpayer money will not fund such extravagances.

I agree with that though you would have to look at the structure of the lessons and the words the teacher used.

The course title seems to indicate a particular viewpoint and fromthe article it sounds that the intent of the course was to teach Creationism/ID - which also appears to be what a judge presented with all the evidence in detail decided too.

A course title that might indicate a more acceptable content would be along the lines of "Creation Mythology - A comparative study of world religions" or something along those lines. Assuming the course lived up to its title.

About a week ago, I started a thread that argued String Theory had as much scientific legitimacy as ID
Unlike string theory ID is not a scientific theory in any way shape or form.

I think the teacher's comment is also telling, the one about the Lord telling her to do this. That's probably a bit much for public school and I'm not sure I'd want her teaching the class. But I'd let my kids go to a class and hear an alternate theory to something.
ID is not an alternate theory and frankly if every alternate scientific theory was taught at a highschool level there would be no time for anything else besides science.
Students get taught current accepted theory. The then go to university and further if they find the field interesting where they will learn the alternate theories. Alternate theories are only useful to people who are studing the field. Everyone of them wants desperately to be the one who proves accepted theory wrong. That's what makes the accepted theories so strong. Just because you and people like you can't deal with the so called discrepancies between theory and your theological beliefs.

ID is not a theory.

state indoctrination of athiesm?
Evolution is theisticly neutral. It does not require not does it disallow the existance of a creator. It is the study of a possible and probable natural explaination of how the different speices came to be. That is what science does looks for natural explainations. God did it is giving up looking for that explaination. Science goes shure maybe but even if he did we want to know HOW it is done or even better how COULD it be done.

why do some of you believe so whole heartedly in evolution and dismiss intelligent design so easily?
just curious.

Separation of church and state, or state indoctrination of athiesm?

How very reactionary of you. Separation of church and state.

why do some of you believe so whole heartedly in evolution and dismiss intelligent design so easily?
just curious.

Cuz it's hogwash, supported by nothing but sophistries, wordplay, and the kind of reasonings one expects from telemarketeers. EXACTLY the kind of crap that gets a reasonable person angry.

Out of curiosity: why do YOU buy ID?

Just because you and people like you can't deal with the so called discrepancies between theory and your theological beliefs

eh? I never said I believe in I.D don't jump the gun and make assumptions just because I’m defending a persons viewpoint

eh? I never said I believe in I.D don't jump the gun and make assumptions just because I’m defending a persons viewpoint
Well, that's great. It doesn't matter what her viewpoint is though, it matters what she is teaching, and she is quite obviously teaching a religion class.

why do some of you believe so whole heartedly in evolution and dismiss intelligent design so easily?
just curious.


Because by definition, science needs to be demonstrable, and faith is simply accepted.

I can demonstrate how animals change to adapt to their environment with a tankful of guppies over several generations. Though we may believe in a higher power, no one has PROVEN it exists in over thousands of years.

why do some of you believe so whole heartedly in evolution and dismiss intelligent design so easily?
just curious.
It not a matter of belief. Science class does not teach belief. It teaches scientific theory. ID fail purely on the premise that ID does not look further then God did it to explain anything we currently don't understand. Evolution is not complete and is constantly being reviewed and 'evolved' to fit observation. This is what makes it a theory of science. It is attempting to explain the universe it terms of itself. Without referenceto anything external to the universe. It is a theory because we expect to see predictable results if we can desing and carry out the right experiment. IE. recreate a young earth exactly and we should see life starting to form sometime in the next billion or so years. ID cannot be tested even under this circumstance you need God to want to help you test it. It's not repeatable. Period. We can test evolution if we decide to run this type of experiment for billions of year.

Hell it's been shown that the building blocks (amino acids even RNA) form after only weeks in such an experiment. It's possible viable single cell organisims could appear after only a few hundred years.

But the point is that an experiment is possible. Get a sterile dish and watch it constantly while praying to god (or those aliens) to create life in the dish. How about even one of the building blocks of life.

-snip-

Hell it's been shown that the building blocks (amino acids even RNA) form after only weeks in such an experiment. It's possible viable single cell organisims could appear after only a few hundred years.

-snip-

Amino acids and RNA forming on their own?

Source for these experimental results?

why do some of you believe so whole heartedly in evolution and dismiss intelligent design so easily?
just curious.

Science isn't about beliuef. It isn't about faith. It is about disbelieving absolutely EVERYTHING until you can be shown demonstrable evidence to support things. Why do you dismiss using your brain and accept living your life without thinking so easily?

Amino acids and RNA forming on their own?

Source for these experimental results?

You are being intentionally disingenuous/dishonest/stupid. Simulating conditions thought to have been present in the primordial Earth, it has been shown that nucleic acids have formed on their own in such conditions. If you cannot be relied upon to look into these numerous studies which go back at least forty years, you have no business discussing the topic which you clearly do not understand as well as a highschool biology student.

Unlike string theory ID is not a scientific theory in any way shape or form.
The criticism of String Theory is that it's not really a theory and rather an excercise in pure mathmatics. The damning criticism is that this branch of mathmatics isn't doing anything interesting lately. There certainly is more than a little truth to this given that The Standard Model, though woefully imcomplete, does do a better job of explaining the universe we live in than String Theory.

There certainly are reasons to be hopeful, as accelerators become more powerful, the field of possibility might narrow somewhat for competing would-be contenders for the title of String Theory to gain an edge. Then some of these might beging making interesting, and useful predictions we can check with better telescopes and the like.

That said, String Theory isn't a religion, in any sense. And unlike religious deductions, it has produced valuable fruit that's been enriching our lives. More over, it's not taught to children, but rather very bright adults who are often in competitive graduate programs through the excersise of their own resources.

While String Theory might not yet be science, it's a world away from religion. Not that ID and String Theory share a context that doesn't involve kooks, loons, and assorted nuts in the first place.

ID has a place under the gaze government when it can provide, not an excuse, but a tool of undenyable efficacy. Something Evolution, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, and even humble String Theory, have all done.

well if there is sufficient demand a class will be made based on any religion much like why some schools don't teach business studies

Popularity doesn't give one an excuse to throw out the constitution. The US Constitution is designed to protect for tyranny of the majority. The school curriculum CANNOT be used to promote a religion. Period.

This woman says she talks to the “Lord” why is this just being picked up on in a lawsuit clearly the school has failed here but then again the education system has allowed this class to function and there is a curriculum set up (since all classes have a curriculum decided by the education authorities as far as the British system goes) which shows that this is just a class that has been set up to teach it so why is the lawsuit aimed at this one class rather than the curriculum’s existence?

Wow. Throw a comma or period in there, huh?

Clearly, you're missing it. They did attack the curriculum and the class. They attacked it because it promotes one religion which goes against the spirit and the letter of the first amendment. Popularity is not a factor. Money is not a factor. The fact is that the school curriculae is meant to prepare students for the world academically and possibly socially, but spiritually DOES NOT fall under their capacity and necessarily CANNOT.

Amino acids and RNA forming on their own?

Source for these experimental results?
http://www.accessexcellence.org/bioforum/bf02/awramik/bf02a2.html
These experiments go back over 50 years.
I can't wait to see what these will produce as we gain better understanding of the earth earth.

The criticism of String Theory is that it's not really a theory and rather an excercise in pure mathmatics. The damning criticism is that this branch of mathmatics isn't doing anything interesting lately. There certainly is more than a little truth to this given that The Standard Model, though woefully imcomplete, does do a better job of explaining the universe we live in than String Theory.

There certainly are reasons to be hopeful, as accelerators become more powerful, the field of possibility might narrow somewhat for competing would-be contenders for the title of String Theory to gain an edge. Then some of these might beging making interesting, and useful predictions we can check with better telescopes and the like.

That said, String Theory isn't a religion, in any sense. And unlike religious deductions, it has produced valuable fruit that's been enriching our lives. More over, it's not taught to children, but rather very bright adults who are often in competitive graduate programs through the excersise of their own resources.

While String Theory might not yet be science, it's a world away from religion. Not that ID and String Theory share a context that doesn't involve kooks, loons, and assorted nuts in the first place.

ID has a place under the gaze government when it can provide, not an excuse, but a tool of undenyable efficacy. Something Evolution, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, and even humble String Theory, have all done.

Exactly what I said. ;)

Children are already prevented from "learning whatever the hell they want." If children were allowed to dictate academic standards, Tony Hawk would be an AP class.


WRONG!!!!!!

You assume there would be schools in the first place! :D

But I do love the Hawk comment! :D

so your saying in your opinion the teacher could get away with it if she set up a fee for the class?

can't wait for that sex class then

Sure she can teach a community course like anybody else. They have those all the time. For like 20 bucks you can get an introduction to Buddism.

However, "teaching" to a room full of children that can't leave is indoctrinating. I don't want this women teaching my children about her Religion.

I agree with that though you would have to look at the structure of the lessons and the words the teacher used.

interesting position though the words that the teacher uses would have to be in such a way as to not push any beliefs and any answers students would provide to questions could come under interpretation thus all students get an A+

MUMBLER!!!!!

You know you have that habit. You have to speak up more!

Uhmm...she's being picked on for trying to convert kids to her particular religion, perhaps?

Now now don't be talking facts to them. They are supposed to be allows to do that! ;)

WRONG!!!!!!

You assume there would be schools in the first place! :D

But I do love the Hawk comment! :D
College credit for high scores in Unreal Tournament 2004 Deathmatch.

why do some of you believe so whole heartedly in evolution and dismiss intelligent design so easily?
just curious.

Well it's simple actually. The ID types try to compare themselves to Big Bang theory.

When BB was first proprosed it was met with "are you nuts?," etc.....

However over time and many tests people started to accept it.

Now what has ID done? Hired a publicty firm to help their cause, write continuous op-ed pieces attacking evolution as justification of their idea, get involved in politics and hastle school boards.

Why don't they simply do their tests and present them for judgment by peer review? They really don't have any. I am reading Dembskis book on ID and I am 3/4's through it and yet have found a formal test. Many references to God so they are lying when they say God is not the intent.

ID is based on the ignorant stance that if you can't explain it, then a designer has to been involved.

www.drdino.com has some good stuff on ID vs evolution

The problem is that evolutionary biology is not a philosophy, it is a science.

Because of this, an attempt to teach a religious "alternative" to it is by its very nature an attempt at teaching religion in the role of science, or in proselytizing religion.

A school cannot have a class called "Philosophy of Christ's Mercy" or "Philosophy of Allah the One True God."

Tagging a class "philosophy" is absolutely trivial if the material covered is unnacceptable in public school.

www.drdino.com has some good stuff on ID vs evolution

Kent Hovind is a hack and a liar.

People have put in for his "challenge" and he won't even acknowlege receiving their proof.

You only loose credibility by suggesting him. At least try somebody that actually makes an effort to sound like they understand this stuff(ie Behe, Johnson, Dembski).

College credit for high scores in Unreal Tournament 2004 Deathmatch.

:D Ewww I like it! :D

You can also challenge a course by getting a game published!

I learned Intelligent Design in school. Of course, there it was called the argument by design, aka St Thomas Aquinas's 5th Way:

We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God (Aquinas, Article 3, Question 2).

Makes me wonder just how educated the IDers are. They seem to think they've come up with something new.

Creationism is intellectually bankrupt, no matter what subject you try to stuff it into. Creationist myths should be presented in comparative religions classes, and "Intelligent Design" should be presented with the same level of discussion as the theory that the Earth rides on the back of a giant turtle.

Well, I have read something like 30 books claiming that the world does rides on the back of a giant turtle. And this author is from England folks, so it must be true!

I learned Intelligent Design in school. Of course, there it was called the argument by design, aka St Thomas Aquinas's 5th Way:



Makes me wonder just how educated the IDers are. They seem to think they've come up with something new.

Well, they always uses the smae old arguemnts, which they know ahs been proven wrong umptenth times...they just hope that YOU don't know that :)

I'm glad that this class was disallowed because of the obvious motivation behind it.

In theory, I am for teaching 'ID" as an elective, clearly labelled Philosophy class. Ideally, it would either be neutral to any specific religion(s) or would cover a wide range of religious beliefs and how they can fit in the hypothesis of Intelligent Design.

This case, however, seemed to be little more than a proselytising session in a public school.

Makes me wonder just how educated the IDers are.
Surely you jest. The fundamental principle behind Creationism is that things like "facts" and "information" and "evidence" have absolutely nothing to do with anything of importance. Accumulating knowledge regarding real events, persons, or phenomena is irrelevant to Creationists. What matters is how strongly you BELIEVE that you are correct, and how mean it is for elitist science nerds to refuse to respect your FEELINGS about the subject.

After all, children should be taught various FEELINGS about reality, not about the reality itself. This is why we teach children racism in class, so that they can choose for themselves whether they want to be respectful or racist. This is also why we teach children that some people believe the world is flat, and that this flat-Earth viewpoint is just as legitimate as the round-Earth belief system.

Or something. To be honest, I mostly tune out whenever Creationists start mumbling their Dark-Ages hokum.


They seem to think they've come up with something new.
Yes, they're all very pleased with how clever they are at renaming the same tired myths that grownups became bored with centuries ago.

Well, I have read something like 30 books claiming that the world does rides on the back of a giant turtle. And this author is from England folks, so it must be true!
Oh yeah? Well I heard that the world was created in 7 days by a self-absorbed patriarch who demonstrates his love by drowning, burning, plaguing, and otherwise tormenting his most cherished creation! And I read that theory in a book about magic zombies and talking snakes, so you KNOW it's gotta be true.

Kent Hovind is a hack and a liar.

People have put in for his "challenge" and he won't even acknowlege receiving their proof.

You only loose credibility by suggesting him. At least try somebody that actually makes an effort to sound like they understand this stuff(ie Behe, Johnson, Dembski).
Man, when Behe is getting held up as a better choice, you KNOW that Hovind is a hack...Behe is one of the most disgustingly sloppy, unoriginal, dishonest humans that I have ever had the displeasure of encountering.

Popularity doesn't give one an excuse to throw out the constitution. The US Constitution is designed to protect for tyranny of the majority. The school curriculum CANNOT be used to promote a religion. Period.
And thank Xenu for that!

Unlike superstitious nonsense, scientific facts are not determined by what makes cowardly ignorami "feel nice." Yes, the belief that Sky Daddy made this planet just for you is probably a very warm and fuzzy feeling, but science doesn't give a fig how you feel about it. Science is about honesty. Science is about putting the external reality above your personal feelings, and creating a worldview that is based on something more significant than your own personal hangups. Science is about being a freaking grown up, and moving past your need to make the entire world conform to your preconceptions.

And that's why modern Creationists will never, ever be scientists.

Well, I have read something like 30 books claiming that the world does rides on the back of a giant turtle. And this author is from England folks, so it must be true!

The same author however acknowledges the existence of the "God of Evolution" :p

Oh yeah? Well I heard that the world was created in 7 days by a self-absorbed patriarch who demonstrates his love by drowning, burning, plaguing, and otherwise tormenting his most cherished creation! And I read that theory in a book about magic zombies and talking snakes, so you KNOW it's gotta be true.

Read that book to, but i felt that the caracters was a bit unrealistic, and the story was quite badly written, just mentions of guys and their forefathers...it just seemed so unrealistic.

But, if you think about a turtle you think about something strong that lives a long time so it feels reasonable to think that four elephants can stand on it. And elephants are big animals that can carry heavy things so they should be able to hold the whole world. As I said, it feels right so it should be in scienceclass. As a teacher I will at least include it!

Oh yeah? Well I heard that the world was created in 7 days by a self-absorbed patriarch who demonstrates his love by drowning, burning, plaguing, and otherwise tormenting his most cherished creation! And I read that theory in a book about magic zombies and talking snakes, so you KNOW it's gotta be true.
Can I sig this?

And thank Xenu for that!

Unlike superstitious nonsense, scientific facts are not determined by what makes cowardly ignorami "feel nice." Yes, the belief that Sky Daddy made this planet just for you is probably a very warm and fuzzy feeling, but science doesn't give a fig how you feel about it. Science is about honesty. Science is about putting the external reality above your personal feelings, and creating a worldview that is based on something more significant than your own personal hangups. Science is about being a freaking grown up, and moving past your need to make the entire world conform to your preconceptions.

And that's why modern Creationists will never, ever be scientists.

You know, ad hominems don't become you. And I say this knowing it's not directed at me. The very reason that ID is not a scientific theory is that it cannot be falsified. Calling discarding the idea of a God 'being a freaking grownup' is simply attempting to verify your BELIEFS through ridicule. It's not a very effective method and, to be honest, makes me skip many of your posts. Attack the idea, not the person.

I get that you don't believe God. Goody for you. However, the fact that God or ideas related to God are not scientific (among with MANY, MANY other philosophies) have little or nothing to do with the maturity of one who holds such beliefs.

Your posts reak of undisguised attempts to belittle the people who hold these beliefs rather than attempting to address the point and you'd do better to simply stick to the point that God and ideas related to God are not, were not and never will be scientific.

Until you can disprove the idea of God then your ideas are not more verifiable or mature than theirs. The only truly logical position is that of someone who leaves their personal beliefs about ABSOLUTE reality out of a discussion of what is or is not appropriate in the classroom and what is and is not science.

Oh yeah? Well I heard that the world was created in 7 days by a self-absorbed patriarch who demonstrates his love by drowning, burning, plaguing, and otherwise tormenting his most cherished creation! And I read that theory in a book about magic zombies and talking snakes, so you KNOW it's gotta be true.

You win this thread.

You know, ad hominems don't become you. And I say this knowing it's not directed at me. The very reason that ID is not a scientific theory is that it cannot be falsified. Calling discarding the idea of a God 'being a freaking grownup' is simply attempting to verify your BELIEFS through ridicule. It's not a very effective method and, to be honest, makes me skip many of your posts. Attack the idea, not the person.

I do attack the idea. I also attack any adult human--who is not suffering from an incapacitating mental illness--who chooses to subscibe to such a reprehensible and pathetic form of "thought."

It's much like how I attack racism, while also being honest about my utter lack of respect for any adult who is pathetic enough to subscribe to racist notions.

I believe people are free to be racist, sexist, superstitious, homophobic, or anything else they damn well please. I respect their RIGHT to believe those things. But I have no respect for the beliefs, and I lose respect for any person who holds them.


I get that you don't believe God. Goody for you. However, the fact that God or ideas related to God are not scientific (among with MANY, MANY other philosophies) have little or nothing to do with the maturity of one who holds such beliefs.

Whether or not there is a God, believing in the literal truth of the Biblical creation myth makes you a moron. If you are a full-grown adult who can't handle the concept of metaphor, you're a doofus.


Your posts reak of undisguised attempts to belittle the people who hold these beliefs rather than attempting to address the point and you'd do better to simply stick to the point that God and ideas related to God are not, were not and never will be scientific.

Yes, I belittle those who believe in Creationism. I also belittle those who believe that the sun orbits the Earth. I belittle those who believe that Elvis and Jackie O had a two-headed lovechild who went on to become First Emperor Of The Moon.


Until you can disprove the idea of God then your ideas are not more verifiable or mature than theirs.

And until you can disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Christianity should not be regarded with any more seriousness than is the worship of Her Great Noodliness.


The only truly logical position is that of someone who leaves their personal beliefs about ABSOLUTE reality out of a discussion of what is or is not appropriate in the classroom and what is and is not science.
"Absolute" reality? Gimme a break. Creationism has nothing to do with reality, of any kind, it has to do with mental crutches for the intellectually crippled. It has to do with cowards choosing willful ignorance because they are too lazy to use the one trait that distinguishes them from sheep...the ability for rational, critical thinking.

It's not just about keeping Creationism and superstition out of science classrooms. It's about keeping sloppy, lazy, cowardly anti-thinking out of schools entirely.

I think I understand why they blocked this teaching. It's a philosophy class where the teachers believe in absolutes. Most philosophy classes encourage people to question absolutely everything; in this case, the use of the train of thought "Irreducible complexity must suggest a creator" runs in sharp contrast to what would be considered mark-earning material.

I think I understand why they blocked this teaching. It's a philosophy class where the teachers believe in absolutes. Most philosophy classes encourage people to question absolutely everything; in this case, the use of the train of thought "Irreducible complexity must suggest a creator" runs in sharp contrast to what would be considered mark-earning material.
Precisely. It's more than just a matter of Creationism being bad science...Creationism is bad work in ANY subject.

I get that you don't believe God. Goody for you. However, the fact that God or ideas related to God are not scientific (among with MANY, MANY other philosophies) have little or nothing to do with the maturity of one who holds such beliefs.

...

Until you can disprove the idea of God then your ideas are not more verifiable or mature than theirs. The only truly logical position is that of someone who leaves their personal beliefs about ABSOLUTE reality out of a discussion of what is or is not appropriate in the classroom and what is and is not science.
The issue isn't one about God. It's not even about the Christian God. It's about a demand for a specific interpretation of God as the combined Creator, Maintainer and Destroyer of Paul of Tarsus. The two are different, as I'm sure you're aware.

I do attack the idea. I also attack any adult human--who is not suffering from an incapacitating mental illness--who chooses to subscibe to such a reprehensible and pathetic form of "thought."

And this saddens me. It means that you don't find it good enough to simply make your point. You don't trust that you can make your point without personal attacks. How unfortunate. Most of us don't need name-calling to drive our points home.

It's much like how I attack racism, while also being honest about my utter lack of respect for any adult who is pathetic enough to subscribe to racist notions.

So faith is the same as racism? Ridiculous.

I believe people are free to be racist, sexist, superstitious, homophobic, or anything else they damn well please. I respect their RIGHT to believe those things. But I have no respect for the beliefs, and I lose respect for any person who holds them.

Uh-huh. Again, how sad I am for you. That you think a hateful belief like racism is comparable to someone believe in a higher power.

Whether or not there is a God, believing in the literal truth of the Biblical creation myth makes you a moron. If you are a full-grown adult who can't handle the concept of metaphor, you're a doofus.

Really? And is ID a literal interpretation of Creation? Nope. Very much not.

Despite that fact, we aren't just talking about believing in Biblical creation, you are insulting a belief in God in and of itself and your attacks on people who believe differently than you is much more similar to racism than any simple belief in a higher power could ever be. You have a 'you're either like me or less than me' attitude and again I find it saddening. I hope one day you won't feel so threatened by people who believe differently than you. Of course, you can have your beliefs so long as you discontinue your attacks on others.

Yes, I belittle those who believe in Creationism. I also belittle those who believe that the sun orbits the Earth. I belittle those who believe that Elvis and Jackie O had a two-headed lovechild who went on to become First Emperor Of The Moon.

You didn't belittle Creationists. You belittled anyone who believes in a higher power. In fact, you compared it to racism several times. Quit trying to pretend like you are only addressing extreme examples.. Most 'superstitious' people will never attack or insult you for believing differently than them. I am again saddened that you don't find it good enough to simply disagree without belittling or insulting.

And until you can disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Christianity should not be regarded with any more seriousness than is the worship of Her Great Noodliness.

By science, I agree. However, I respect your right to believe in the Flying Speghetti Monster so long as you don't force your belief on others. In return, I won't force my beliefs on others either. At the same time, I won't belittle you for simply believing differently than me. I wish you'd afford me the same respect.

"Absolute" reality? Gimme a break. Creationism has nothing to do with reality, of any kind, it has to do with mental crutches for the intellectually crippled. It has to do with cowards choosing willful ignorance because they are too lazy to use the one trait that distinguishes them from sheep...the ability for rational, critical thinking.

Um, it doesn't? Prove it. Science does not deal in ABSOLUTE reality. It deals in observed reality. That's the point. Whether or not in an absolutely objective sense there is God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or nothing outside of the universe will NEVER be addressed by science and can't be. Regardless, it's difficult to argue that there is an absolute nature to reality that we can only speculate on with no real evidence. You have selected a belief on objective reality and choose to insult anyone who disagrees with you. You have a very unfortunate commonality with the fundamentalist who suggests anyone who disagrees with them is a sinner. Only you choose to call them morons and intellectually crippled instead of sinners.

I dislike fundamentalist behavior and I find the position to be illogical. Be that behavior Christian or 'Scientific' (there is nothing scientific about claiming that your evidence is anything more than simply observational), it's all the same to me.

It's not just about keeping Creationism and superstition out of science classrooms. It's about keeping sloppy, lazy, cowardly anti-thinking out of schools entirely.
No, it's not. You're welcome to keep it out of the classroom. I'll help you and stand by your right to do so. However, I'd also advocate keeping hate-speech and name-calling out of the classrom and out of these forums in general. It's unfortunate you don't believe in excercising a similar committment.

The issue isn't one about God. It's not even about the Christian God. It's about a demand for a specific interpretation of God as the combined Creator, Maintainer and Destroyer of Paul of Tarsus. The two are different, as I'm sure you're aware.

Only she isn't only insulting people who believe in a particular incarnation of God (which of course she can't offer an objective proof to the contrary only subjective observational proof at best). She's insulting anyone who believes in a higher power. The implication is more than insulting. It speaks volumes of the quality of the argument.

This here Christian is still awaiting for one single common sense argument to persuade him that ID is more than hogwash...

So faith is the same as racism? Ridiculous.

Blind dogmatic faith which does not allow adaptation in fact *is* quite similar. But of course, such "faith" is not limited to religion.

And this saddens me. It means that you don't find it good enough to simply make your point. You don't trust that you can make your point without personal attacks. How unfortunate. Most of us don't need name-calling to drive our points home.

But it looks like you do need to resort to falacies to make your point.

Of course I don't NEED to use "personal attacks." (I fail to see how they are "personal" when they are directed at a school of thought and those who choose to join it, as opposed to an actual person, but whatever...) I have made my points on this forum, and in other places, many different times and many different ways.


So faith is the same as racism? Ridiculous.

To me, the two are equally disgraceful. You do not have to share my opinion.


Uh-huh. Again, how sad I am for you. That you think a hateful belief like racism is comparable to someone believe in a higher power.

Yes, I have opinions. Yes, they are probably quite different from yours. If that makes you sad, so be it...I'm rather happy, myself :).


Really? And is ID a literal interpretation of Creation? Nope. Very much not.

Yes, it is. If you believe there is any significant difference between ID and the Creationist dreck that dominated during the Dark Ages, then I've got a piece of the True Cross I'd like to sell you.


Despite that fact, we aren't just talking about believing in Biblical creation, you are insulting a belief in God in and of itself and your attacks on people who believe differently than you is much more similar to racism than any simple belief in a higher power could ever be.

So you're saying people are born Christian? This is an interesting theory...what have you to support it?

And if my dislike for Christianity is like racism, then wouldn't your logic also lead us to conclude that my dislike for racism is like racism? After all, I dislike them for fundamentally the same reason.


You have a 'you're either like me or less than me' attitude and again I find it saddening.

Hardly. I tend to strongly dislike people who are like me. I also happen to dislike boring, willfully ignorant people. The two are sometimes one and the same, sometimes not. ;)


I hope one day you won't feel so threatened by people who believe differently than you. Of course, you can have your beliefs so long as you discontinue your attacks on others.

Ah, freshman psych rears its ugly head yet again. So I guess I must also dislike racists because I am threatened by their beliefs, right? And I must dislike child abusers because I am threatened by their beliefs, right?

Or might it be possible, perhaps, that I just think they hold rotten beliefs? No, I guess it must be because the poor Christians and racists and child abusers have such brilliant and beautiful ideas that my poor, bitter mind cannot possibly accept them. I guess I'd better go sulk in the corner, you've found me out!


You didn't belittle Creationists. You belittled anyone who believes in a higher power. In fact, you compared it to racism several times. Quit trying to pretend like you are only addressing extreme examples.

When did I pretend I was only addressing "extreme" examples? My point is that all superstition is equally silly. I belittle Creationists no more or less than I belittle any other superstitious cult.

And to clarify, yet again, I compare Creationism to racism because I believe them to be related schools of thought. The subject matter is different, but the thought patterns are virtually identical. I don't especially care if you agree with my viewpoint.


Most 'superstitious' people will never attack or insult you for believing differently than them.

Most racists I've met have not attacked me or insulted me for believing differently than them. What's your point?


I am again saddened that you don't find it good enough to simply disagree without belittling or insulting.

Ok, we get it, you're really really sad.


By science, I agree. However, I respect your right to believe in the Flying Speghetti Monster so long as you don't force your belief on others. In return, I won't force my beliefs on others either. At the same time, I won't belittle you for simply believing differently than me. I wish you'd afford me the same respect.

I do afford you the same respect. I have probably spent more time defending your right to believe in your Sky Daddy than you have. I vocally, publically, personally, and financially help to protect freedom of expression in all its forms, including forms that I personally detest (like superstition and racism). I have specifically and clearly stated that I respect your freedom to believe as you wish and to be open and honest about those beliefs.

You, on the other hand, seem particularly interested in shaming me into shutting up about mine.


Um, it doesn't? Prove it. Science does not deal in ABSOLUTE reality. It deals in observed reality. That's the point. Whether or not in an absolutely objective sense there is God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or nothing outside of the universe will NEVER be addressed by science and can't be.

Yes, and science cannot disprove that a race of magical invisible leopards are surrounding us all right at this moment, and controlling us with the mind-rays being shot from their spots.

If you feel like wasting your life trying to prove negatives, be my guest. I plan to cure cancer and learn to sky dive.


Regardless, it's difficult to argue that there is an absolute nature to reality that we can only speculate on with no real evidence. You have selected a belief on objective reality and choose to insult anyone who disagrees with you.

Darling, if you had done your homework you would know that I absolutely ADORE people who disagree with me, so long as they do so in an interesting manner. People who play the "what-if-we-are-all-in-the-Matrix" game are boring. Such discussions go nowhere.

I am agnostic. I believe that the only things worth thinking about are the things we could possibly know, at least in theory. If you want to ponder questions that the human mind will never be able to answer then I'm sure my roomie would be more than willing to blaze up with you.


You have a very unfortunate commonality with the fundamentalist who suggests anyone who disagrees with them is a sinner. Only you choose to call them morons and intellectually crippled instead of sinners.

It never ceases to amaze me how often religious people try to use "You're just like religious people!" as an insult...


I dislike fundamentalist behavior and I find the position to be illogical. Be that behavior Christian or 'Scientific' (there is nothing scientific about claiming that your evidence is anything more than simply observational), it's all the same to me.

Have I ever claimed that scientific evidence is anything other than empirical? Please, do show me where!


No, it's not. You're welcome to keep it out of the classroom. I'll help you and stand by your right to do so. However, I'd also advocate keeping hate-speech and name-calling out of the classrom and out of these forums in general. It's unfortunate you don't believe in excercising a similar committment.
Well, according to your logic it would be "hate speech" to object to racism, so I guess we will have to part ways on that one.

Blind dogmatic faith which does not allow adaptation in fact *is* quite similar. But of course, such "faith" is not limited to religion.

Exactly the point. I've seen similar dogmatic faith in science. Science, while the best way to describe and explain what is observable in our rule and offering the best means by which to physically operate within such a world, is fallible. In fact, it's fallibility is the exact point. That's why it makes no points whatsoever about the existence of superuniversal beings or lack thereof. It completely stays out of the supernatural based on its complete and utter lack of ability to deal with it.

This is why ID is totally outside the realm of science as is Creation. That is also why adhering to science has nothing to do with discarding God or growing up, but simply accepting the world in which we are forced to operate.

Often faith is neither blind or dogmatic and I agree that it is unfortunate when it is. However, as long as such faith is never forced upon others against their will or injected into our government or laws or used to physically or verbally attack others, I'm quite content agreeing to disagree with such people.

Only she isn't only insulting people who believe in a particular incarnation of God (which of course she can't offer an objective proof to the contrary only subjective observational proof at best). She's insulting anyone who believes in a higher power. The implication is more than insulting. It speaks volumes of the quality of the argument.
It's that particular "incarnation", as you put it, that gets people so worked up about it. The number of people I know that have been unalterably alienated from appreciating even mythological ideas of deity due to crass, abusive evangelicalism is far more than I'd care to put a figure to. The whole philosophy of pseudo-christianity (which I'm carefully distinguishing from actual Christianity, though perhaps in the 'States such a distinction would be met with a "Huh?") is one of aggressive personal promotion that stems as a logical progression from the precise God-with-Heaven/Hell doctrine of Paul, which in turn really has questionable grounds at best in the ideas of Jesus.

Now, the idea that this God is the one that people are demanding to be related in schools as reasonable truth results in a sense of moral disgust at the intentions of its proponents and hence one that propagates through to their ideas of divinity as a whole. If this were a supposition about a generic other-worldly programmer or a nameless benevolent guiding force, nobody would have a problem with it. But because it's doctrine of a group that stand for values that people hold in contempt (namely, "I believe because it feels good", "we should do good because God says so, and we want to be on God's good side when he picks sheep and goats" or, even worse, "this is a movement of great (political/social/family) significance, and I want to be a part of it") and doing so with the statement that they stand for the one possible incarnation of what they believe, you're naturally going to have an uproar of people who are of the opinion that any possible incarnation of what they believe is a load of trash if that's the kind of attitude it gives them.

It wouldn't be a problem if the logical result of the common God interpretation was something of societal benefit. However, Paul's God is not; it is one that ultimately pushes the outwardness and self-evident truths of Jesus onto a spirituality designed to promote the self. This is the one that the pseudo-christians hold, and in doing so, they have dramatically overshadowed those other interpretations that could bring more than just a smug sense of self-satisfaction.

Higher power? I reckon Bottle wouldn't mind people engaging in the higher power if it didn't lead them to become outspoken narcissists. Unfortunately, this is a perpetuating cycle. As those who would be most valuable to the Christian faith are turned away by its radical elements, those elements become ever stronger. In fact, this strong backlash against the Intelligent Design movement is just what the church needs in order to begin to realise what's happening to it. If it can ditch the Phelps's and Robertsons and find itself a confident and outwardly focused yet truly empathetic and selfless voice, you might just see a complete change in opinion of those who would criticise the spiritually minded.

Relief!! I'm so sick of radical fundamentalist Kansans! People that are actually arguing that intelligent design has as much proof as evolution are everywhere here. Its ignorant, but they don't know it. I can't really blame them, its how they were raised. I used to be somewhat of a religious zealot, but at least I grew out of it. That's another thing- as people acquire knowledge, and grow and learn, they begin to regard ideas like intelligent design as stupid and incorrect. That may say something about those who are in support of it being taught in science classes. . .

But it looks like you do need to resort to falacies to make your point.

Ha. Fallacies like ad-hominems? Please don't make me quote you. Those fallacies. Pointing out that you called people names is a FACT, not a fallacy.

Of course I don't NEED to use "personal attacks." (I fail to see how they are "personal" when they are directed at a school of thought and those who choose to join it, as opposed to an actual person, but whatever...) I have made my points on this forum, and in other places, many different times and many different ways.

They are personal attacks when they are directed at the person or persons and not at the belief. I'm surprised I have to explain this to you.

PERSON-al. See the connection?

To me, the two are equally disgraceful. You do not have to share my opinion.

I think someone who meets someone who is racist and someone who meets someone who is faithful would respectfully disagree. I find name-calling and hateful attacks disgraceful, but again we'll have to agree to disagree.

Yes, I have opinions. Yes, they are probably quite different from yours. If that makes you sad, so be it...I'm rather happy, myself :).

Your opinions are yours and it is appropropriate to share them with others. Your grouping of non-homogenous group of humans and making them seem as if they are homogenous in order to attack them verbally and call them names is makes me sad. In fact one could use the same description of racism, no? Yes, your stereotyping smacks of the same bile as racism.

Yes, it is. If you believe there is any significant difference between ID and the Creationist dreck that dominated during the Dark Ages, then I've got a piece of the True Cross I'd like to sell you.

Uh-huh. If you can't tell the difference between a world created in literally seven days directly by the hands of God literally shaping things and placing them on the land and the idea that the world was created over millenia under the design of God, then I'm afraid I can't help you.

So you're saying people are born Christian? This is an interesting theory...what have you to support it?

So would the attacks on LGBTs being any more justified if it were a choice? I hold the answer to be no. It appears you only think it's wrong if LGBTs are born that way.

Me, I'm suggesting that grouping a dissimilar group of people, misrepresenting them and perpetuating stereotypes about them and then using that misrepresentation, group and the stereotypes to attack them is very similar to racism. To most people, the comparison is obvious. You'd do better to simply deal with the idea. You're ideas contain more hate and have the potential to do more damage giving you openly suggest that people of faith or brain-damaged morons, etc. than the ideas of a person who simply believes that there is a divine presence in the universe. The attacks, the hate and the fact that they are dangerous creates a similarity to racism that a simple belief in the divine could never share.

And if my dislike for Christianity is like racism, then wouldn't your logic also lead us to conclude that my dislike for racism is like racism? After all, I dislike them for fundamentally the same reason.

Um, no. There is a difference between being intollerant a belief that is hateful and dangerous by its nature and subjugates one or more groups by its nature and being intollerant of a belief that affects you in no way shape or form. If you comments limited themselves to people who were doing harm directly or indirectly I would agree with you. However, of our two beliefs, the only one of us that is making sweeping generalizations and sweeping attacks is you.

Hardly. I tend to strongly dislike people who are like me. I also happen to dislike boring, willfully ignorant people. The two are sometimes one and the same, sometimes not. ;)

Uh-huh. Amusing.

Ah, freshman psych rears its ugly head yet again. So I guess I must also dislike racists because I am threatened by their beliefs, right? And I must dislike child abusers because I am threatened by their beliefs, right?

Again, if you can't see the difference between a belief that directly or indirectly harms people who do not hold the belief and one that doesn't, then I can't help you. However, of our two belief structures, only one of them drives us to make sweeping generalizations of people and then attack them for it. There is only one of us saying and doing things that are harmful to others. So which of us deserves the comparison? Can you guess? I'm fairly certain everyone looking on can.

Or might it be possible, perhaps, that I just think they hold rotten beliefs? No, I guess it must be because the poor Christians and racists and child abusers have such brilliant and beautiful ideas that my poor, bitter mind cannot possibly accept them. I guess I'd better go sulk in the corner, you've found me out!

Ah, yes. Again you prove that your ideas cannot stand on their own and you must compare people of faith to child abusers. Yes, having internal beliefs that don't match yours and never doing more than discussing those beliefs with those who are willing is totally equivalent to molesting a child. Yep, I can't see how I ever suggested there was a difference. /sarcasm

Now what were you saying about people of faith making leaps of logic? I think you're going to have to a little more to show how a private belief is equivalent to assaulting a person.

When did I pretend I was only addressing "extreme" examples? My point is that all superstition is equally silly. I belittle Creationists no more or less than I belittle any other superstitious cult.

No, but when I suggest that a comparison cannot be made between some of the things you compare you use extreme examples. Explain how Bob down the street who keeps his faith to himself, wishes no ill on anyone nor believes that anyone deserves ill in their life or death can be compared to a child molestor? Oh, wait, he can't be. Not unless you change Bob into someone who has somehow wronged another directly or indirectly. However, many, many people of faith have not and would not ever do such a thing. Suggesting otherwise is very similar to suggesting that all Muslims have bombs strapped to their chests. It's a gross overgeneralization and the very idea is fairly dangerous.

And to clarify, yet again, I compare Creationism to racism because I believe them to be related schools of thought. The subject matter is different, but the thought patterns are virtually identical. I don't especially care if you agree with my viewpoint.

Uh-huh. I notice that you make offer very little evidence to support said belief. I guess you suppose that simply making the insulting comparison and calling whole grossly overgeneralized groups of people names is good enough. What a great method of discussion.

Most racists I've met have not attacked me or insulted me for believing differently than them. What's your point?

Racism is dangerous in that basis of it is in treating certain humans as if they are less than others, not based on their actions, but based on personal characteristics. Most religions hold no such belief and have nothing in common with such beliefs. Mine certainly doesn't.

Ok, we get it, you're really really sad.

It's okay. I decided to do something about it.

I do afford you the same respect. I have probably spent more time defending your right to believe in your Sky Daddy than you have. I vocally, publically, personally, and financially help to protect freedom of expression in all its forms, including forms that I personally detest (like superstition and racism). I have specifically and clearly stated that I respect your freedom to believe as you wish and to be open and honest about those beliefs.

Yes, you are affording people respect when you compare racism, child molestation and religion. Tell me another whopper. If child molestation and religion are so similar, are you defending people's right to molest children? Or when you made the comparison was only meant to extend far enough to be insulting and trollish?

You, on the other hand, seem particularly interested in shaming me into shutting up about mine.

I am? And here I thought I was simply asking you to deal with discussing beliefs rather than attacking people. I didn't realize that attacking people and calling them names is an intricate part of espousing your ideas. Hmmm... it must be very difficult to espouse your beliefs then without going afoul of the mods. Or perhaps, you can capably espouse your beliefs without personal attacks and name-calling but choose not to.

Yes, and science cannot disprove that a race of magical invisible leopards are surrounding us all right at this moment, and controlling us with the mind-rays being shot from their spots.

You're correct. It's not their job. I'm glad they recognize it even if you don't.

If you feel like wasting your life trying to prove negatives, be my guest. I plan to cure cancer and learn to sky dive.

I'm not sure what part of my post you're struggling with, but I clearly said that such things are outside of the ability to 'prove'. In fact the ability to 'prove' is outside of the realm of science altogether. There is really only the ability to support or debunk.

Darling, if you had done your homework you would know that I absolutely ADORE people who disagree with me, so long as they do so in an interesting manner. People who play the "what-if-we-are-all-in-the-Matrix" game are boring. Such discussions go nowhere.

Yet, you seem so interested in entering discussion and insulting people who hold those beliefs. If you don't wish to discuss them then why bring them up and insult them? Oh, wait, I remember a term for that. What's the term for insulting a group of people with no intention of actually fostering a discussion on the subject? Hmmm... Anyone remember?

I am agnostic. I believe that the only things worth thinking about are the things we could possibly know, at least in theory. If you want to ponder questions that the human mind will never be able to answer then I'm sure my roomie would be more than willing to blaze up with you.

Bwah-ha-ha, agnostic. And I'm a bunny rabbit. Yep, calling people of faith intellectually-crippled, morons, etc., and comparing them to racists and child-molestors is totally agnostic. Nothing about that suggests that people of faith are wrong. Oh, wait... Now, understand, that if you truly believe that God is something that is unknowable and does not fall within the realm of emperical evidence (as I do) then you accept that there is a potential for these people to ABSOLUTELY AND UTTERLY correct. In fact, since science can't address it, it's quite possible that people who are of some particular faith (not all faiths, but just one of the millions of faiths that exist) could have a mental connection with a greater being without you have any ability to be aware of such thing. I mean, since you're agnostic, you accept this right. Given that they could have information you don't and you have no ability to actually address such a thing, then logic would tell you that you need only deal with their actions rather than make sweeping and gross generalizations about the quality of their belief and their ability to think.

I'll give you an alternate example. You're a logical person. Tomorrow, an alien appears in your bedroom. You see it. Interact with it. Hang out with it for a couple of hours. It tells you about its life. And then leaves. You are the only one that sees it and it tells you that if you call to anyone else it will leave. Now, being a rational person, you don't share your experience with anyone else, however it would be completely logical for you to spend the rest of your life believing in aliens. I'd argue that logic would also drive you to keep your mouth shut so as not to be ostracized, but that's really beside the point. Hmmmm... now that would make my belief that insists that people who believe aliens exist are all lunatics pretty much plainly wrong. However, seeing as I'm agnostic towards the existence of aliens (in that I don't think we can know right now), I would never say such a thing. At most I might question the rationality of trying to get others to blindly accept that you interacted with the alien, but I wouldn't say you were a lunatic for doing so.

You said plainly that people who believe in God must be intellectually-crippled people who need a crutch, and saying so suggest that you think one cannot rationally reach the conclusion of God at any time for any reason. That smacks of kind of the opposite of agnosticism. Now, you can argue that the belief requires faith, but you did no such thing. You called people who have the belief names and insulted them. Again, you're agnostic like I"m a bunny rabbit.

It never ceases to amaze me how often religious people try to use "You're just like religious people!" as an insult...

I wasn't comparing you to religious people. I was comparing you to people who hold the belief that they are greater than those that don't agree with them on their views of God. According to you if you are religious in any fashion or even just superstitious (basically if you haven't decided that Bottle's view of the universe is correct), you must be pathetic, mentally-crippled, etc. I wonder how anyone could notice a similarity between individuals who claim superiority over people who don't believe the same things they do about the absolute nature of reality. Why, oh, why didn't I notice that those individuals have nothing in common?

Have I ever claimed that scientific evidence is anything other than empirical? Please, do show me where!

"Absolute" reality? Gimme a break. Creationism has nothing to do with reality, of any kind.

Yes, I belittle those who believe in Creationism. I also belittle those who believe that the sun orbits the Earth. I belittle those who believe that Elvis and Jackie O had a two-headed lovechild who went on to become First Emperor Of The Moon.

Whoops. Pretty clearly states that Creationism is impossible. Your suggestion is that the scientific evidence against creation is more than just observed, it's absolute. Otherwise, on what evidence do you rest your claim that Creationism has nothing to do with reality of any kind? Faith? I would agree that Creationism cannot be rectified with what we've observed, but I also recognized that what we've observed is limited by our powers of observation. While it's completely logically to rely on those powers in terms of science, even science doesn't claim that new evidence can't come about that could disprove past observations or past conclusions. Creation can not be rectified with observed reality. Unfortunately, you made a stronger claim than that. One which requires faith.

Well, according to your logic it would be "hate speech" to object to racism, so I guess we will have to part ways on that one.
Uh-huh. Great attempt to pretend like those who are intolerant of intolerance are being hypocritical. You are openly and clearly being hateful to a large group of human beings based on sweeping generalizations, sweeping generalizations that led you to compare the group racists and childmolestors. Now you claim that suggesting that your actual derogatory speech towards people, not just their beliefs, and your sweeping generalizations CANNOT be compared to racism? Huh? You can make the comparison (because you claim the thought process is the same, though you actually made no effort to support the point) but when I make the comparison and demonstrate how your speech is similar, it's nonsensical. Uh-huh. Look, I'm a bunny rabbit.

About a week ago, I started a thread that argued String Theory had as much scientific legitimacy as ID. Most people there agreed that, though ID shouldn't be taught as science, it could be taught as philosophy.

The El Tejon, CA school board disagrees. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/01/17/evolution.debate.ap/index.html)



I find the lawyer's quote very interesting: "This sends a strong signal to school districts across the country that they cannot promote creationism or intelligent design as an alternative to evolution, whether they do so in a science class or a humanities class." That seems to me like a direct attack on thought. So are school systems now relegated to strictly teaching science? Is there now no room to teach anything that suggests the possibility of a higher being? Is this protection of free speech, or squelching of it? Separation of church and state, or state indoctrination of athiesm?

I think the teacher's comment is also telling, the one about the Lord telling her to do this. That's probably a bit much for public school and I'm not sure I'd want her teaching the class. But I'd let my kids go to a class and hear an alternate theory to something.


You can't teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a philosophy class because evolution isn't philosophy, it's science. It's like saying that you should be allowed to teach binary as an alternative to the alphabet. One does not substitute for another.

If you've got a class that deals with the philosophy of science and religion it can teach what creationism is and what evolition is and the different intellectual principles upon which they are based, but philosophy itself doesn't involve evolution.

It's that particular "incarnation", as you put it, that gets people so worked up about it. The number of people I know that have been unalterably alienated from appreciating even mythological ideas of deity due to crass, abusive evangelicalism is far more than I'd care to put a figure to. The whole philosophy of pseudo-christianity (which I'm carefully distinguishing from actual Christianity, though perhaps in the 'States such a distinction would be met with a "Huh?") is one of aggressive personal promotion that stems as a logical progression from the precise God-with-Heaven/Hell doctrine of Paul, which in turn really has questionable grounds at best in the ideas of Jesus.

Now, the idea that this God is the one that people are demanding to be related in schools as reasonable truth results in a sense of moral disgust at the intentions of its proponents and hence one that propagates through to their ideas of divinity as a whole. If this were a supposition about a generic other-worldly programmer or a nameless benevolent guiding force, nobody would have a problem with it. But because it's doctrine of a group that stand for values that people hold in contempt (namely, "I believe because it feels good", "we should do good because God says so, and we want to be on God's good side when he picks sheep and goats" or, even worse, "this is a movement of great (political/social/family) significance, and I want to be a part of it") and doing so with the statement that they stand for the one possible incarnation of what they believe, you're naturally going to have an uproar of people who are of the opinion that any possible incarnation of what they believe is a load of trash if that's the kind of attitude it gives them.

It wouldn't be a problem if the logical result of the common God interpretation was something of societal benefit. However, Paul's God is not; it is one that ultimately pushes the outwardness and self-evident truths of Jesus onto a spirituality designed to promote the self. This is the one that the pseudo-christians hold, and in doing so, they have dramatically overshadowed those other interpretations that could bring more than just a smug sense of self-satisfaction.

Higher power? I reckon Bottle wouldn't mind people engaging in the higher power if it didn't lead them to become outspoken narcissists. Unfortunately, this is a perpetuating cycle. As those who would be most valuable to the Christian faith are turned away by its radical elements, those elements become ever stronger. In fact, this strong backlash against the Intelligent Design movement is just what the church needs in order to begin to realise what's happening to it. If it can ditch the Phelps's and Robertsons and find itself a confident and outwardly focused yet truly empathetic and selfless voice, you might just see a complete change in opinion of those who would criticise the spiritually minded.

Then speak out against those that are doing the damage rather than making sweeping generalizations about people of faith or of a faith. I take no issue with people having a problem with fundamentalist Muslims who are screaming for jihad and blowing themselves up. I do have a problem with suggesting that all Muslims are psychotic and violent.

Problems with particular actions or particular beliefs that require particular actions is totally rational. Making sweeping generalizations about people who have only a slight resemblence to the people who are the problem merely makes a new problem.

Uh-huh. Great attempt to pretend like those who are intolerant of intolerance are being hypocritical. You are openly and clearly being hateful to a large group of human beings based on sweeping generalizations, sweeping generalizations that led you to compare the group racists and childmolestors. Now you claim that suggesting that your actual derogatory speech towards people, not just their beliefs, and your sweeping generalizations CANNOT be compared to racism? Huh? You can make the comparison (because you claim the thought process is the same, though you actually made no effort to support the point) but when I make the comparison and demonstrate how your speech is similar, it's nonsensical. Uh-huh. Look, I'm a bunny rabbit.

Isn't this exactly the sort of faulty logic that leads one to believe in creationism/ID to begin with? First you take a somewhat complicated position and oversimplify it. Then you make incorrect assumptions based on the oversimplified version, and argue those as being THE position with which you disagree.

It's rather like taking a picture and digitally reducing the resolution. Then when it's so blurry that it could be seen as just about anything, like how if you look at the clouds long enough they start to look like things, then saying "ha! I've got naked pictures of your wife!"

All I.D. design does is poke holes in evolution. Its proponents call it a "theory," and also refer to the "theory" of evolution. Technically, it is still a "theory" that the earth revolves around the sun. There is as much evidence for evolution as there is for heliocentricity.

Additionaly, Intelligent Design is only a slightly (very slightly modernized form of Creationism. If anyone has forgotten, the 1987 Supreme Court case of "Edwards v. Aguillard" has already prohibited Creationism from being taught in public schools.

Then speak out against those that are doing the damage rather than making sweeping generalizations about people of faith or of a faith. I take no issue with people having a problem with fundamentalist Muslims who are screaming for jihad and blowing themselves up. I do have a problem with suggesting that all Muslims are psychotic and violent.

Problems with particular actions or particular beliefs that require particular actions is totally rational. Making sweeping generalizations about people who have only a slight resemblence to the people who are the problem merely makes a new problem.
Though I did allude to sweeping generalisations, nothing was mine. These exist, whether either of us like it or not. They are a strong public entity at the minute and can't be simply ignored as typical secularist mutterings. What's more, with all the air-time the damagers get, the sweeping generalisations are scarily becoming more and more accurate as the message of a Bipolarity of Faith is spread like a virus. Things cannot remain as they are; either it gets fixed or it spirals out of control. And time is running out to make a move. American Christianity Needs a moderate central voice to counteract the media influence of these "Spiritual Politicians" before it gets completely sucked under. Hopefully, this ID debacle will help them see that.

Call that a generalisation if you like; I just consider it advice to those who haven't yet been bought by the "Heaven or Bust" groupies.

It's rather like taking a picture and digitally reducing the resolution. Then when it's so blurry that it could be seen as just about anything, like how if you look at the clouds long enough they start to look like things, then saying "ha! I've got naked pictures of your wife!"

Best analogy ever.

Isn't this exactly the sort of faulty logic that leads one to believe in creationism/ID to begin with? First you take a somewhat complicated position and oversimplify it. Then you make incorrect assumptions based on the oversimplified version, and argue those as being THE position with which you disagree.

Huh? Arguing against insulting people is exactly like the logic that leads on to ID? She made sweeping generalizations about people of faith. All people of faith. I see to not being accused of oversimplifying (kind of like treating ALL people of faith like a single-homogenous group) I must prove my position.

It's rather like taking a picture and digitally reducing the resolution. Then when it's so blurry that it could be seen as just about anything, like how if you look at the clouds long enough they start to look like things, then saying "ha! I've got naked pictures of your wife!"

Okey-dokey, seems like it's time for some quotes. I'll verify my posts sentence by sentence. Sound good to you?

You are openly and clearly being hateful to a large group of human beings based on sweeping generalizations, sweeping generalizations that led you to compare the group racists and childmolestors.

I do attack the idea. I also attack any adult human--who is not suffering from an incapacitating mental illness--who chooses to subscibe to such a reprehensible and pathetic form of "thought."

It's much like how I attack racism, while also being honest about my utter lack of respect for any adult who is pathetic enough to subscribe to racist notions.

I believe people are free to be racist, sexist, superstitious, homophobic, or anything else they damn well please. I respect their RIGHT to believe those things. But I have no respect for the beliefs, and I lose respect for any person who holds them.

Hmmm.... yep, she compared faith, which she calls superstition, to racism, homophobia and sexism. Just in case let's see if I can find more support, shall we?

So faith is the same as racism? Ridiculous.

To me, the two are equally disgraceful. You do not have to share my opinion.

Now let's see if she compares people of faith to child molestors?

So I guess I must also dislike racists because I am threatened by their beliefs, right? And I must dislike child abusers because I am threatened by their beliefs, right?

Or might it be possible, perhaps, that I just think they hold rotten beliefs? No, I guess it must be because the poor Christians and racists and child abusers have such brilliant and beautiful ideas that my poor, bitter mind cannot possibly accept them. I guess I'd better go sulk in the corner, you've found me out!

Oh, looky. How's that for a clear photograph?

Let's see what else I said in my distorted photograph that twisted things....

Now you claim that suggesting that your actual derogatory speech towards people, not just their beliefs, and your sweeping generalizations CANNOT be compared to racism? Huh?

Well, first let's see if she said that?

However, I'd also advocate keeping hate-speech and name-calling out of the classrom and out of these forums in general. It's unfortunate you don't believe in excercising a similar committment.

Well, according to your logic it would be "hate speech" to object to racism, so I guess we will have to part ways on that one.

Now, just so we're clear let's point out that what I'm referring to as hate speech is comparing people of faith to child molestors and racists while calling them intellectually-crippled, morons, etc. I think my presentation of hate-speech is pretty clear. Dismissing all people of faith with such monikers is pretty clearly demonstrated. Do I actually need to quote it?

Let's look at the next part...

You can make the comparison (because you claim the thought process is the same, though you actually made no effort to support the point) but when I make the comparison and demonstrate how your speech is similar, it's nonsensical. Uh-huh. Look, I'm a bunny rabbit.

Do I need to show again that she ACTUALLY said that racists and people of faith have the same thought processes? Do I actually need to quote myself showing how her statements are gross overgeneralizations about people of faith, that they involve name-calling and derogatory statements or did you also see it? Cuz I can use quotes.


Now let's be clear since you appear to be twisting it. I started this conversation saying that I don't hold ID or literal Creation to be true and that neither is science. I actually agree with her argument regarding such things. However, it is totally an ad-hominem to attack people the way she has been doing. She resorts to name-calling and personal attacks rather than addressing the beliefs.

Though I did allude to sweeping generalisations, nothing was mine. These exist, whether either of us like it or not. They are a strong public entity at the minute and can't be simply ignored as typical secularist mutterings. What's more, with all the air-time the damagers get, the sweeping generalisations are scarily becoming more and more accurate as the message of a Bipolarity of Faith is spread like a virus. Things cannot remain as they are; either it gets fixed or it spirals out of control. And time is running out to make a move. American Christianity Needs a moderate central voice to counteract the media influence of these "Spiritual Politicians" before it gets completely sucked under. Hopefully, this ID debacle will help them see that.

Call that a generalisation if you like; I just consider it advice to those who haven't yet been bought by the "Heaven or Bust" groupies.

Pffft... I don't care if they exist, they're wrong. I don't have to answer for other people of faith simply because they make a lot of noise. Black people don't have to answer for the black people who commit crimes. Muslims don't have to answer for the small percentage who are violent. We don't have to answer for our stereotypes. Why should we? I'm not more responsible for Jim Baker and Pat Robertson than you are. I have no more in common with them. I have nothing to do with them. I dislike them as much as you do. The difference I treat them as a representative of them and people self-identifiy with them, not of all white people or all males or all people on tv or all Christians or whatever. Ask them what the hell is wrong with them, because I have no clue.

I'm so tired of hearing how it's okay to attack groups because they 'deserve' it for not doing anything about someone who happens to look like them or claim to believe the same as them or pretend to be like them in some way. It's the argument that makes people pretend like feminism is really a radical group of man-haters instead of a large portion of the population who want equality for the sexes. It's the same argument that makes people pretend like Muslims are all violent and dangerous terrorists instead a huge population of people who are mostly peaceful and respectful of life. I won't answer for your inability to treat people as individuals.

Isn't this exactly the sort of faulty logic that leads one to believe in creationism/ID to begin with? First you take a somewhat complicated position and oversimplify it. Then you make incorrect assumptions based on the oversimplified version, and argue those as being THE position with which you disagree.

It's rather like taking a picture and digitally reducing the resolution. Then when it's so blurry that it could be seen as just about anything, like how if you look at the clouds long enough they start to look like things, then saying "ha! I've got naked pictures of your wife!"

Actually, I take it back. That's exactly what she did. Take a rather complicated position (like the millions of various faiths) and oversimplify it (like comparing it to child molesting and racism). It is a good analogy. I'm glad we're on the same page. However, just to help I posted support for my position of above in case it was unclear.

Well, I have read something like 30 books claiming that the world does rides on the back of a giant turtle. And this author is from England folks, so it must be true!

:D

Next you'll be telling us about thinking brain dogs, transmogrified wizard librarians, and a six foot tall dwarf. Pfft!

:D

Next you'll be telling us about thinking brain dogs, transmogrified wizard librarians, and a six foot tall dwarf. Pfft!

Well, I had a vsion of them, and they said I should spread the Word. Of course I got it when I was piss drunk and had hit my head, but that can't have any effect right?

I believe that the correct decision has been made.

That does not, however, mean that I think Intelligent Design cannot be taught in public schools.

I distinguish this case on two grounds:

First, the teacher was the wife of a minister, not a qualified philosopher with a general knowledge of philosophies of life and science (not to mention philosophical standards of truth). To teach effectively, she should be able to maintain some degree of objectivity with respect to her subject; but as a minister's wife teaching a class "the Lord wanted her to teach," she has a clear conflict of interest.

Secondly, the course was designed to teach only Intelligent Design, and no other philosophies of the origins and ends of life. From the evidence we have here, it does not seem likely that classes of equal weight were available in other philosophies. This looks like thinly veiled advocacy to me.

An appropriate venue for Intelligent Design might be in the context of a broader philosophy course. It might be called, for instance, "The Origins and Ends of Human Life" or even "The Meaning of Life." Treating a variety of answers to the question "why are we here," it could validly include Intelligent Design as a philosophy suggesting the existence of an intelligent creator with intelligent plans for his/her/its creation.

As an atheist, I would have no problem with that, as long as significant philosophical criticisms and alternatives are also presented.

I think a "separate but equal" doctrine is on shakier ground. One reason for this is that if an entire class is devoted to Intelligent Design, it is difficult to see what one opposing theory of a similar weight could be taught in a separate class. If you have one class on Intelligent Design, and another class covering other philosophies of life, the fact that Intelligent Design has a class all to itself suggests that it is of greater importance than others, which smacks of "advocacy." Even if you choose an alternative to teach in another class, having two such classes would suggest that these two philosophies are the most important, which is also dubious. To make things fair, one would have to have several such classes... and that seems beyond the resources of most schools.

I think including Intelligent Design in the context of a broader philosophy class, taught by a qualified philosophy instructor, is the wisest, most constitutionally sound, and most cost-effective option.

The problem with that is that Intelligent Design is not a philosophy, it is an attempt to rationalise the Bible using science and it doesnt work at all. Creationism could arguably be a philosophy, as it does not pretend to be scientific or rational; it only demands faith. Intelligent Design is really nothing more than a veiled attempt to confuse people who do not understand scientific method into accepting that creationism can be both religious and rational, which it cannot.

www.drdino.com has some good stuff on ID vs evolution

No it hasn't. Dr. Dino is a fraud and a liar, and his crap is religion that has no contact with science, or reality for that matter. The very first word on the site is "Creation" and the very first paragaph talks about "the Lord." Now please explain what this liar has to do with science or in what sense his site is not religious propaganda?

The problem with that is that Intelligent Design is not a philosophy, it is an attempt to rationalise the Bible using science and it doesnt work at all. Creationism could arguably be a philosophy, as it does not pretend to be scientific or rational; it only demands faith.

That's disingenuous.

We consider various teleological theories "philosophies"... and most of them "pretend to be scientific" insofar as they collect empirical observations about the world and claim that the order, beauty, and functional qualities they find suggest that things (especially living things) have "purposes" or "ends"... and whatever mistakes such philosophies make, they are mistakes of reason, for their advocates believed they had made their case on rational grounds.

Intelligent Design, similarly, takes a relatively careful empirical look at the world and concludes that life is "too complex" to have developed without an intelligent hand guiding its development.

Now, most of us may regard this as a mistake of reason and poor epistemology... but that is the same way we regard Aristotle's teleology, and others. They still come under the heading of philosophy, right or wrong.

The Progress of Math Education
Teaching Math in 1955
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?

Teaching Math in 1965
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?

Teaching Math in 1975
A logger exchanges a set "L" of lumber for a set "M" of money. The cardinality of set "M" is 100. Each element is worth one dollar. Make 100 dots representing the elements of the set "M". The set "C", the cost of production contains 20 fewer points than set "M." Represent the set "C" as a subset of set "M" and answer the following question: What is the cardinality of the set "P" for profits?

Teaching Math in 1985
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. Her cost of production is $80 and her profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.

Teaching Math in 1995
By cutting down beautiful forest trees, the logger makes $20. How do you feel about this way of making a living by destroying nature? Topic for class participation after answering the question: Everyone take on the roles of the forest birds, squirrels, and trees and express how they would feel as the logger cuts down the trees. There are no wrong answers.

Teaching Math in 2005.
Invade a foreign country. Use public funds to rebuild that country. Award all contracts to Haliburton. Read the applicable laws on minority hiring for federal contractors for materials to justify giving all contracts on a no-bid basis to Haliburton.

Teaching Math in 2015
You cut down a tree and sell it for a profit of $20. Pay 10% to your Pastor. Find appropriate bible-quotes to paint on the log, and call it Intelligent Design.

rofl!

The Progress of Math Education
SNIP

That is the best laugh I've had in ages. thanks :p

Pffft... I don't care if they exist, they're wrong.
While true that such assumptions are, at the minute, incorrect, dismissing all requests to do anything about it is like refusing to do anything about the meteor that someone has discovered is about to smash into the planet because it won't do so after something has been done about it.

You're right that Black people don't have to answer about those who perpetuate a negative stereotype. We can't choose to be any other race than we are; we don't Join an ethnic group because we like their public image or the things they stand for. The creation of an image is purely an external thing, something applied by the outside, and has very little influence on the actual behaviour of the members of the group.

On the other hand, Religions look elsewhere for their members. People hear the outward message of a given church and decide whether or not to join based on what they hear. As the message changes, so does the structure of the church based on who finds it appealing/enlightening/rewarding. And as the voice of the church as perceived by the public becomes one based on Spiritual Politics, so the recruits of the church become more likely to be those who agree with the notion of divine retribution, instant, impersonal forgiveness of sins, Heaven-bound environmental distain and consumerism and Kingdom-Of-God-esque Imperialism.

This isn't the Church. But if something isn't done about it, it will be. And both Christianity and Islam have a choice to make. They can either fight their stereotypes or become them, and a group with no single voice will have an immense struggle to bring about the first of those options.

It's of no direct consequence to the individual Christian. He or She will only have to deal with a little harsh opinion on the part of those who don't know you. But it needs to be tackled if you don't want those who come after you to live up to those harsh opinions.
I won't answer for your inability to treat people as individuals.
Inability? I'm a computer scientist; I see levels of abstraction in humanity from society down to microbiology. When someone joins a religion, they become a part of a high-level abstraction, as does anyone in any social group.

In this case, it just happens that the individual level isn't where the big problem lies. If I make a mistake when writing a high-level program, I don't go right the way down to transistor level in order to fix it; in fact, doing so will only mess up everything else that I've gotten to work fine. If every time something wrong happens in an abstraction you go straight to the base, you're going to end up with at best a very vague understanding of what's actually going wrong and probably nothing even remotely approaching a solution.

Treating people as individuals is all fine and good. But treating a Religion as a collection of individuals isn't enough. These things live on way past anything currently within it, influencing people both inside and outside in ways that cannot be attributed to any single source but that yet have a tremendous impact. All I'm suggesting is redefining the abstraction to put a clear structure that allows analysis of problems in the system. Where's the problem with that?

While true that such assumptions are, at the minute, incorrect, dismissing all requests to do anything about it is like refusing to do anything about the meteor that someone has discovered is about to smash into the planet because it won't do so after something has been done about it.

You're right that Black people don't have to answer about those who perpetuate a negative stereotype. We can't choose to be any other race than we are; we don't Join an ethnic group because we like their public image or the things they stand for. The creation of an image is purely an external thing, something applied by the outside, and has very little influence on the actual behaviour of the members of the group.

On the other hand, Religions look elsewhere for their members. People hear the outward message of a given church and decide whether or not to join based on what they hear. As the message changes, so does the structure of the church based on who finds it appealing/enlightening/rewarding. And as the voice of the church as perceived by the public becomes one based on Spiritual Politics, so the recruits of the church become more likely to be those who agree with the notion of divine retribution, instant, impersonal forgiveness of sins, Heaven-bound environmental distain and consumerism and Kingdom-Of-God-esque Imperialism.

Again, you treat Christianity like a giant homogenous group. I'm quite happy that groups the endorse Pat Robertson are represented by him. I like that they're telling us what's wrong with them right up front. However, his group has nothing to do with my religion, so anyone who uses him as an excuse to avoid Christianity as a whole isn't using a rational approach and isn't going find my religion anyway.


This isn't the Church. But if something isn't done about it, it will be. And both Christianity and Islam have a choice to make. They can either fight their stereotypes or become them, and a group with no single voice will have an immense struggle to bring about the first of those options.

It's some churches. It's okay though, because that's the magic. No matter what your religion there is no requirement to endorse such churches, thank goodness. They may be Christians and you may not be Christians but if they start their 'imperialism', we are more likely be standing side by side than they and I are.

It's of no direct consequence to the individual Christian. He or She will only have to deal with a little harsh opinion on the part of those who don't know you. But it needs to be tackled if you don't want those who come after you to live up to those harsh opinions.

They don't have to live up to anything. Fortunately, I think the world moves more and more towards avoiding the level of generalizations you've been making. They treat individuals as individuals more an more so that I only have to answer for me and my children will only have to answer for my children.

Inability? I'm a computer scientist; I see levels of abstraction in humanity from society down to microbiology. When someone joins a religion, they become a part of a high-level abstraction, as does anyone in any social group.

Ah, yes, being a computer scientist prevents generalizations. I think it's the basis of an entire string of courses. I judge people by their actions. And you've demonstrated time and again that you think individuals should have to answer for other individuals simply because YOU've grouped them together. Me, I'll treat individuals who answer for individuals. I won't ask them to answer for another unless they've personally offered their endorsement of that person.

In this case, it just happens that the individual level isn't where the big problem lies. If I make a mistake when writing a high-level program, I don't go right the way down to transistor level in order to fix it; in fact, doing so will only mess up everything else that I've gotten to work fine. If every time something wrong happens in an abstraction you go straight to the base, you're going to end up with at best a very vague understanding of what's actually going wrong and probably nothing even remotely approaching a solution.

Ya think? Ha, I can see from you're statements you've been studying computer science for a long time. You probably should have made this argument to someone who knows how ridiculous this is. If your write a program that has a bug in it. You would fix the code that is the problem. Fixing other code would simply cause a problem. It wouldn't matter how widespread the problem appears to be, if you did anything other than fix the problem code, the problem would persist. You wouldn't ask other code to answer for the problem code just because the problem is widespread. And your point about transistors merely shows your true level of understanding of the subject.

Treating people as individuals is all fine and good. But treating a Religion as a collection of individuals isn't enough. These things live on way past anything currently within it, influencing people both inside and outside in ways that cannot be attributed to any single source but that yet have a tremendous impact. All I'm suggesting is redefining the abstraction to put a clear structure that allows analysis of problems in the system. Where's the problem with that?

All you're suggesting it treating everyone who happens to be under the umbrella of Christianity as a homogenous group when anyone who looks at the situation realistically recognizes that it's a bunch of groups that have only small things in common. I would give me left arm to keep the religious right out of power. I've got nothting to do with them. You would lump us together. That's not my problem. That's yours.

About a week ago, I started a thread that argued String Theory had as much scientific legitimacy as ID. Most people there agreed that, though ID shouldn't be taught as science, it could be taught as philosophy.

The El Tejon, CA school board disagrees. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/01/17/evolution.debate.ap/index.html)

I find the lawyer's quote very interesting: "This sends a strong signal to school districts across the country that they cannot promote creationism or intelligent design as an alternative to evolution, whether they do so in a science class or a humanities class." That seems to me like a direct attack on thought. So are school systems now relegated to strictly teaching science? Is there now no room to teach anything that suggests the possibility of a higher being? Is this protection of free speech, or squelching of it? Separation of church and state, or state indoctrination of athiesm?

I think the teacher's comment is also telling, the one about the Lord telling her to do this. That's probably a bit much for public school and I'm not sure I'd want her teaching the class. But I'd let my kids go to a class and hear an alternate theory to something.
Although I despise "Intelligent Design" nonsense, I have to take the side of the local school district. Teaching it as an elective course is perfectly acceptable. Then again, we're talking about the Land of Fruits and Nuts here, and the case never went to court. I seriously doubt that it will stop school districts in many parts of the Nation from allowing ID in the classroom, particularly as an elective.

So anybody know what ID there is to teach? I dont know exactly how this kind of thing works but I would have thought schools would teach the simpler aspects of a subject that are agreed upon by the vast majority of researchers at universities.

But since no professors apart from a few guys go anywhere near ID what are they going to teach? Maybe they'll just make it up as they go along, it seems thats what they've been doing so far. Either that of spend the entire time pointing out perceived holes in evolution which I suppose is another of their favourites.

I think part of the problem with the case in question is that, unless I'm mistaken, the class was more focused on strict creationism than intelligent design, so the proponents of intelligent design were not pleased with this either...

And teaching young earth creationism in a philosophy class is like teaching that the world is flat in a philosophy class. It's scientifically not right at all and shouldn't be taught at all.

I think part of the problem with the case in question is that, unless I'm mistaken, the class was more focused on strict creationism than intelligent design, so the proponents of intelligent design were not pleased with this either...

And teaching young earth creationism in a philosophy class is like teaching that the world is flat in a philosophy class. It's scientifically not right at all and shouldn't be taught at all.

Ah, but in a curved universe, couldn't a flat Earth be made to appear as a ball, just as on a positivly curved sphere three right angles form an equilateral triangle? ;)

Personally, I think that both ID and young earth creationism are too simple to justify a course of study, even if they are true. The teacher should simply say, "if you really want to believe that God did it, then this is how he did it. If you want to believe that he created the world 6,000 years ago, well fine, 6,000 years ago he created a 13 billion year-old universe and put a 4 billion year-old Earth in it, and this was what the 13 billion years that he created 6,000 years ago would have looked like."

Ah, but in a curved universe, couldn't a flat Earth be made to appear as a ball, just as on a positivly curved sphere three right angles form an equilateral triangle? ;)
But the curvature of the universe would be insignificant with respect to the curve of the earth.

Unless of course, earth truly was the centre of the universe and it is flat, but the universe bends around the earth, thus bending it into a sphere. In which case it's still not really flat...

However, using Occam's razor to take away the more technically complicated and thus improbable theory, we're left with the earth is round because of gravity.

That majority of that post that dealt with me being a generalising so and so.
To start with, did something happen when you posted that? Returning my point with another point of my own seems unusual when there is no contradiction involved.

Secondly, I think I've worked out why there's a communication issue here and why we seem to keep misunderstanding each other. To you, Christianity is a set of Theological beliefs. To me, Christianity is a label signifying a set of theological beliefs. Both of these are true. To you, a Christian is someone with those beliefs. To me, a Christian is someone who has consciously decided to adopt that label. Both of these are also true. This is equally my stance on all religious identifiers from Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism all the way to Jedi.

There is a very subtle difference in those definitions. Namely, that one implies that a Christian is entering into a social construct when they adopt a religious tag. I believe this to be the case, simply because it would be meaningless to apply the name if you didn't want it to have some sort of social outcome. There's no reason to explicitly call yourself a Christian solely due to taking Jesus's teachings to heart, loving God and using His wisdom for the benefit of mankind. God didn't tell you to do that and it's not in the Bible anywhere, so why? There must be some other reason. And the one that comes to mind is the social connotations of identifying with a particular social group.

I don't expect anyone to answer for the actions of others, but I do think it's reasonable to expect them to be able to answer for their own decisions. I think it's fair to suggest that either the pick their labels carefully or, if they don't want to do that, that they control the social construct behind their labelling if they want to avoid false prejudice.

By the way, on the Computer Science points,
Ah, yes, being a computer scientist prevents generalizations. I think it's the basis of an entire string of courses.
I'm not saying I don't make generalisations; merely that I try to look at as many levels of generalisation as physically possible, and furthermore that the Individual human is itself a generalisation of finite living things in coexistence. That's what I meant by levels of human abstraction from society to microbiology. I consider the individual AND the higher-order generalisations; a trait that I find to be a useful one in many circumstances.

Perhaps the way I identify people as individual humans is different than yours, but both are none-the-less examples of generalisation themselves. I do adopt the look at the self. Many Christians that I know are entirely reasonable people with mostly reasonable beliefs. But even some of them feel an increasing pressure from the voices of their communities to behave in a way that they have difficulty justifying. When the group starts to directly affect the individuals like that, is it appropriate to single out individual people as the cause?
And your point about transistors merely shows your true level of understanding of the subject.
It was meant to expand upon the abstraction point. You don't solve high-level problems with low-level techniques, just like you don't try to deal with a democratically elected mad-man by selectively kicking the electorate who voted for them.
Ya think? Ha, I can see from you're statements you've been studying computer science for a long time. You probably should have made this argument to someone who knows how ridiculous this is. If your write a program that has a bug in it. You would fix the code that is the problem. Fixing other code would simply cause a problem. It wouldn't matter how widespread the problem appears to be, if you did anything other than fix the problem code, the problem would persist. You wouldn't ask other code to answer for the problem code just because the problem is widespread.
My point was that you're not the high-level code in this scenario. You're more like a data structure or an operation implemented at a lower level and used by the code, as are all individuals. All of the structures have been tested, but since they're all slightly different, you can't necessarily access them in the same way. The bug in the system causes some of the structures to produce potentially damaging output where other structures function normally. This isn't something wrong with any of the structures; it's the higher levels of coding. But this can be overcome pretty easily by including other levels of functionality that deal with this miscommunication issue.

I don't have many problems with the faith, but it seems to have a few compatibility issues with certain personality archetypes. Whether this is merely a protocol issue or an actual invalid use of those structures is one that's open to question, but I'd like to think that there would be some (even hypothetical) way for the likes of Robertson and Phelps to be reasonable people.

Creationism is intellectually bankrupt, no matter what subject you try to stuff it into. Creationist myths should be presented in comparative religions classes, and "Intelligent Design" should be presented with the same level of discussion as the theory that the Earth rides on the back of a giant turtle.
THE problem with ID is that christians have warped it to form their religion. THE TRUTH IS THAT ID BACKS ITS THEORY UP WITH A SINGLE FACT, THE FLAGELLATED MOTOR IN A CERTAIN TYPE OF BACTERIA CANNOT HAVE OCCURED DURING EVOLUTION BECAUSE THE DESIGN IS TOO COMPLEX. It seems people that believe in ID, discount evolution, which has been proved time and time again, on the basis of one fact. That is what pisses me off that it is accepted as scientific when it is really just another religious belief.

THE problem with ID is that christians have warped it to form their religion. THE TRUTH IS THAT ID BACKS ITS THEORY UP WITH A SINGLE FACT, THE FLAGELLATED MOTOR IN A CERTAIN TYPE OF BACTERIA CANNOT HAVE OCCURED DURING EVOLUTION BECAUSE THE DESIGN IS TOO COMPLEX. It seems people that believe in ID, discount evolution, which has been proved time and time again, on the basis of one fact. That is what pisses me off that it is accepted as scientific when it is really just another religious belief.
huh?

what is the problem with ID? that christians have warped the theory of ID WITH their religious bias? you think that ID exists outside of christianity?

you think that its a FACT that bacteria cannot possibly have evolved flagella?

you think that there is soemone out there who thinks that ID is a science?

i think i got you all wrong. maybe you could explain your position again.

THE problem with ID is that christians have warped it to form their religion. THE TRUTH IS THAT ID BACKS ITS THEORY UP WITH A SINGLE FACT, THE FLAGELLATED MOTOR IN A CERTAIN TYPE OF BACTERIA CANNOT HAVE OCCURED DURING EVOLUTION BECAUSE THE DESIGN IS TOO COMPLEX. It seems people that believe in ID, discount evolution, which has been proved time and time again, on the basis of one fact. That is what pisses me off that it is accepted as scientific when it is really just another religious belief.
I think the real problem with intelligent design is that it started as a political movement to tear apart godless, heathenistic science and the bit about there being some empirical evidence to support intelligent design was an afterthought. Read up on the wedge thing...

huh?

what is the problem with ID? that christians have warped the theory of ID WITH their religious bias? you think that ID exists outside of christianity?

you think that its a FACT that bacteria cannot possibly have evolved flagella?

you think that there is soemone out there who thinks that ID is a science?

i think i got you all wrong. maybe you could explain your position again.

I don't have any idea about bacteria and flagella, but I do know that the word "design" has been rejected by biologists.

As to ID being a science or not, I think if you looked into cosmology instead of biology, you would find a fair number of people talking about indicators of weak or strong anthropic principles (the universe in regard to humankind).

Like this chapter, a .pdf file 14 pages, that talks about this discussion issue directly.
http://quake.stanford.edu/~bai/ch11.pdf#search='creating%20the%20universe'

I don't have any idea about bacteria and flagella, but I do know that the word "design" has been rejected by biologists.

As to ID being a science or not, I think if you looked into cosmology instead of biology, you would find a fair number of people talking about indicators of weak or strong anthropic principles (the universe in regard to humankind).

Like this chapter, a .pdf file 14 pages, that talks about this discussion issue directly.
http://quake.stanford.edu/~bai/ch11.pdf#search='creating%20the%20universe'
The problem with people who go on about the odds of such a universe occuring is the fact that there is some probability of getting that universe. Furthermore, we're looking at the fact that we have such a universe to begin with so we know it's possible...

The best analogy I've ever had is you're playing bridge, and the odds of you getting a specific hand are about 1 in 6 billion, but if you get your cards, you're not going to proclaim that it was impossible for you to get that exact hand you got because obviously, it did happen.

The problem with people who go on about the odds of such a universe occuring is the fact that there is some probability of getting that universe. Furthermore, we're looking at the fact that we have such a universe to begin with so we know it's possible...

The best analogy I've ever had is you're playing bridge, and the odds of you getting a specific hand are about 1 in 6 billion, but if you get your cards, you're not going to proclaim that it was impossible for you to get that exact hand you got because obviously, it did happen.

The question they are asking is not why this life and not different life (one bridge hand over another), but the cosmologist are wondering why any life occurred at all, it looks like maybe someone or something had to 'deal' the cards...

The question they are asking is not why this life and not different life (one bridge hand over another), but the cosmologist are wondering why any life occurred at all, it looks like maybe someone or something had to 'deal' the cards...

So you are basicly asking "if I get a grand slam hand in bridge, must the dealer have dealt it deliberately ?".

So you are basicly asking "if I get a grand slam hand in bridge, must the dealer have dealt it deliberately ?".

I'm not asking anything myself, but pointing out that the card analogy doesn't really work here because it's talking about what set of cards you are getting instead of asking, why are the cards being dealt at all. Because unless the universe is created at the very precise variable that must have been met (because we are they must have been met), otherwise there aren't any cards at all, none, not different cards, no card hand. (Assuming card hands means a universe that is capable of existing with any life at all)

But really, my point wasn't about whether it's right or not, but that it is spoken about openly as a valid scientific theory and posit, at this time, and to me, it looks a lot like ID.

Although I despise "Intelligent Design" nonsense, I have to take the side of the local school district. Teaching it as an elective course is perfectly acceptable. Then again, we're talking about the Land of Fruits and Nuts here, and the case never went to court. I seriously doubt that it will stop school districts in many parts of the Nation from allowing ID in the classroom, particularly as an elective.

Elective is one thing but the fact that Christianity is the only offering makes it an endorsement of a Religion.

I'm not asking anything myself, but pointing out that the card analogy doesn't really work here because it's talking about what set of cards you are getting instead of asking, why are the cards being dealt at all. Because unless the universe is created at the very precise variable that must have been met (because we are they must have been met), otherwise there aren't any cards at all, none, not different cards, no card hand. (Assuming card hands means a universe that is capable of existing with any life at all)

But really, my point wasn't about whether it's right or not, but that it is spoken about openly as a valid scientific theory and posit, at this time, and to me, it looks a lot like ID.

yeah

people look at things too "personally"

the odds of a particular person winning the lottery are 500 million to one. but SOMEONE always wins it. quite often without having to sell 500 million tickets. THAT person might think that the universe must have rigged it for him to win, but he is irrelevant in the calculation of odds.

that THIS universe seems rather unlikely is irrelevant to the notion that SOME universe was going to exist within a fraction of a second of the big bang. if the laws had been entirely different and an entirely different form of life had begun....say one that "eats" cosmic rays...it would seem unlikely to THEM that it had happened that way (or maybe "they" would be "us" and we would be wondering)

yeah

people look at things too "personally"

the odds of a particular person winning the lottery are 500 million to one. but SOMEONE always wins it. quite often without having to sell 500 million tickets. THAT person might think that the universe must have rigged it for him to win, but he is irrelevant in the calculation of odds.

that THIS universe seems rather unlikely is irrelevant to the notion that SOME universe was going to exist within a fraction of a second of the big bang. if the laws had been entirely different and an entirely different form of life had begun....say one that "eats" cosmic rays...it would seem unlikely to THEM that it had happened that way (or maybe "they" would be "us" and we would be wondering)

I completely understand what you are saying, I get the lottery outlook and the, if someone else was the winner they would think the same thing, comparison. But really, that's not what the theory is talking about. I'll try one last time, it's not that important, I wasn’t trying to prove the theory right or not, only that it exists, in the scientific realm, and that it is similar to ID.

The Strong anthropic theory doesn’t say that 'humans' need to exist as carbon based lifeforms, it asks why there is any universe created at all, with stars and galaxies of any kind, of matter and the laws of physics themselves, from the big bang eventuality...


Why is the universe the way it appears? Some scientists think that our very existence provides the answer. To them, many of the physical properties of the universe seem finely tuned for producing life. For instance, if the relative strengths of the four fundamental forces were slightly different, stars might never have formed and life as we know it would have been impossible. Or if the universe had expanded slightly faster than it did, matter would have spread out too quickly to coalesce into any significant objects. Conversely, if the expansion had been just a little slower, the universe would have already collapsed back into a “Big Crunch.”

These and other cosmic “coincidences” led some scientists to speculate that the universe is the way it is because we are here to observe it. This anthropic principle has two basic versions, the weak and the strong. The weak version, developed by Robert Dicke in the early 1960s, states that in a large universe, intelligent life can exist only during a narrow window of time. We shouldn’t be surprised at the universe we see because we could never be around to view it at a significantly different time.

The strong anthropic principle goes much further. Proposed by Brandon Carter in the late 1960s, it states that among all the possible universes that could exist, only a special few have the right conditions that could give rise to intelligent life. The cosmic coincidences are then not some fundamental aspect of the way the laws of physics operate, but rather a prerequisite for the development of life. If the strong anthropic principle is true, then some would argue that the universe was designed with a purpose. If it is false, then a future “theory of everything” should be able to explain why the seeming coincidences that created life really are not.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/anth.html

Another one:
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/mar31/anthropic.html

But really, my point wasn't about whether it's right or not, but that it is spoken about openly as a valid scientific theory and posit, at this time, and to me, it looks a lot like ID.
The principle(s) to which you refer are ideas that are thought of by scientists as the edge of science. They may even be true, but those idea aren't science, scientists just came up with them. As you may have noticed more powerful particle accelorators, and telescopes are being built and yet more concieved. No one has given up on uniting gravity with the other fundemental forces. It's the realization that we will likely not be able to answer all our questions about the universe. There is a reason it's described as a principle and not a theory or hypothesis. It speaks to our expectations, knowing that directly observing the facts is likely some shade of impossible in at least some cases. That's all.

Most 'superstitious' people will never attack or insult you for believing differently than them.

This is a point I strongly have to disagree with, religious people almost always act like this. My grandparents are at the point they are afraid to let anyone know their atheistic beliefs, because of the social implications of this. They don't even live in a strongly religious area. I also get harassedon an almost daily basis by my Christian co-workers (I can't complain because my boss is also Christian and attends the same church.)

Religious people tend to be highly judgemental and many still act on those judgements.

This is a point I strongly have to disagree with, religious people almost always act like this. My grandparents are at the point they are afraid to let anyone know their atheistic beliefs, because of the social implications of this. They don't even live in a strongly religious area. I also get harassedon an almost daily basis by my Christian co-workers (I can't complain because my boss is also Christian and attends the same church.)

Religious people tend to be highly judgemental and many still act on those judgements.

Really? How can you tell if someone is religious if they don't? And if they don't attack you with their religion, do you notice and go, gee, I guess they don't all do that? It's unfortunate that you've experienced such things but most religious people have no interest in attacking the beliefs of others, anecdotal evidence aside.

To start with, did something happen when you posted that? Returning my point with another point of my own seems unusual when there is no contradiction involved.

Secondly, I think I've worked out why there's a communication issue here and why we seem to keep misunderstanding each other. To you, Christianity is a set of Theological beliefs. To me, Christianity is a label signifying a set of theological beliefs. Both of these are true. To you, a Christian is someone with those beliefs. To me, a Christian is someone who has consciously decided to adopt that label. Both of these are also true. This is equally my stance on all religious identifiers from Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism all the way to Jedi.

There is a very subtle difference in those definitions. Namely, that one implies that a Christian is entering into a social construct when they adopt a religious tag. I believe this to be the case, simply because it would be meaningless to apply the name if you didn't want it to have some sort of social outcome. There's no reason to explicitly call yourself a Christian solely due to taking Jesus's teachings to heart, loving God and using His wisdom for the benefit of mankind. God didn't tell you to do that and it's not in the Bible anywhere, so why? There must be some other reason. And the one that comes to mind is the social connotations of identifying with a particular social group.

I don't expect anyone to answer for the actions of others, but I do think it's reasonable to expect them to be able to answer for their own decisions. I think it's fair to suggest that either the pick their labels carefully or, if they don't want to do that, that they control the social construct behind their labelling if they want to avoid false prejudice.

By the way, on the Computer Science points,

I'm not saying I don't make generalisations; merely that I try to look at as many levels of generalisation as physically possible, and furthermore that the Individual human is itself a generalisation of finite living things in coexistence. That's what I meant by levels of human abstraction from society to microbiology. I consider the individual AND the higher-order generalisations; a trait that I find to be a useful one in many circumstances.

Perhaps the way I identify people as individual humans is different than yours, but both are none-the-less examples of generalisation themselves. I do adopt the look at the self. Many Christians that I know are entirely reasonable people with mostly reasonable beliefs. But even some of them feel an increasing pressure from the voices of their communities to behave in a way that they have difficulty justifying. When the group starts to directly affect the individuals like that, is it appropriate to single out individual people as the cause?

It was meant to expand upon the abstraction point. You don't solve high-level problems with low-level techniques, just like you don't try to deal with a democratically elected mad-man by selectively kicking the electorate who voted for them.

My point was that you're not the high-level code in this scenario. You're more like a data structure or an operation implemented at a lower level and used by the code, as are all individuals. All of the structures have been tested, but since they're all slightly different, you can't necessarily access them in the same way. The bug in the system causes some of the structures to produce potentially damaging output where other structures function normally. This isn't something wrong with any of the structures; it's the higher levels of coding. But this can be overcome pretty easily by including other levels of functionality that deal with this miscommunication issue.

I don't have many problems with the faith, but it seems to have a few compatibility issues with certain personality archetypes. Whether this is merely a protocol issue or an actual invalid use of those structures is one that's open to question, but I'd like to think that there would be some (even hypothetical) way for the likes of Robertson and Phelps to be reasonable people.

I'm bored with this. It's ridiculous. I call myself a Christian. I don't have to call myself something different because some idiots like Pat Robertson call themselves one and you can't tell the difference. I love how you make it my fault that you don't treat people like individuals.

Yep, you're allowed to attack homosexuals because there's a subtle difference. There are those that are born homosexual and there are those that call themselves homosexual. And we're talking about the second group, right. The second group deserves the bigotry because they chose to be a part of that social group. That is just ridiculous.

I completely understand what you are saying, I get the lottery outlook and the, if someone else was the winner they would think the same thing, comparison. But really, that's not what the theory is talking about. I'll try one last time, it's not that important, I wasn’t trying to prove the theory right or not, only that it exists, in the scientific realm, and that it is similar to ID.

The Strong anthropic theory doesn’t say that 'humans' need to exist as carbon based lifeforms, it asks why there is any universe created at all, with stars and galaxies of any kind, of matter and the laws of physics themselves, from the big bang eventuality...


Why is the universe the way it appears? Some scientists think that our very existence provides the answer. To them, many of the physical properties of the universe seem finely tuned for producing life. For instance, if the relative strengths of the four fundamental forces were slightly different, stars might never have formed and life as we know it would have been impossible. Or if the universe had expanded slightly faster than it did, matter would have spread out too quickly to coalesce into any significant objects. Conversely, if the expansion had been just a little slower, the universe would have already collapsed back into a “Big Crunch.”

These and other cosmic “coincidences” led some scientists to speculate that the universe is the way it is because we are here to observe it. This anthropic principle has two basic versions, the weak and the strong. The weak version, developed by Robert Dicke in the early 1960s, states that in a large universe, intelligent life can exist only during a narrow window of time. We shouldn’t be surprised at the universe we see because we could never be around to view it at a significantly different time.

The strong anthropic principle goes much further. Proposed by Brandon Carter in the late 1960s, it states that among all the possible universes that could exist, only a special few have the right conditions that could give rise to intelligent life. The cosmic coincidences are then not some fundamental aspect of the way the laws of physics operate, but rather a prerequisite for the development of life. If the strong anthropic principle is true, then some would argue that the universe was designed with a purpose. If it is false, then a future “theory of everything” should be able to explain why the seeming coincidences that created life really are not.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/anth.html

Another one:
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/mar31/anthropic.html
i guess i must be missing something because that sounds almost exactly like the lottery and the bridge hand example to me. except that it goes a bit farther...

since it was so unlikely that i won the lottery, the lottery must in fact exist ONLY so that i can win it!

I'm bored with this. It's ridiculous. I call myself a Christian. I don't have to call myself something different because some idiots like Pat Robertson call themselves one and you can't tell the difference. I love how you make it my fault that you don't treat people like individuals.

Yep, you're allowed to attack homosexuals because there's a subtle difference. There are those that are born homosexual and there are those that call themselves homosexual. And we're talking about the second group, right. The second group deserves the bigotry because they chose to be a part of that social group. That is just ridiculous.
If you want to stop discussing this, fine. But don't end by putting words in my mouth. You're reading something different than I'm trying to say; it could be that's my fault due to an inability to articulate, but I want to have one last chance at clarifying it.

Homosexuality is not a social construct; it is a personal trait, whether you choose it or not. Race is not a social construct; it is a personal trait. Vegitarianism isn't a social construct; it is a personal trait. Faith is not a social construct; it is a personal trait, whether you choose that or not. To classify people due to a personal trait is to be incapable of treating people as individuals; that is the cause of Prejudice. I'm not doing that. I'm not saying "Anyone who believes x is equally y as someone else who also believes x". You have a faith, sexual orientation, race, stance on environmental and animal protection and character of your own that are not being called into question in the slightest.

Being a member of a particular organised religion is vastly different to holding a particular faith. Being a member of a religion is not a personal trait like having a faith. Religions are social constructs. You cannot expect to declare support for a particular social construct and have those around you ignore what the social construct stands for. Christianity is a conglomeracy of different faiths. To assume that calling yourself a Christian refers only to your particular faith is to deny the nature of the Church.

Since you're bored and/or tired, I'll not go on. Sorry for taking up your time.

Huh? Arguing against insulting people is exactly like the logic that leads on to ID? She made sweeping generalizations about people of faith. All people of faith. I see to not being accused of oversimplifying (kind of like treating ALL people of faith like a single-homogenous group) I must prove my position.

Okey-dokey, seems like it's time for some quotes. I'll verify my posts sentence by sentence. Sound good to you?

Hmmm.... yep, she compared faith, which she calls superstition, to racism, homophobia and sexism. Just in case let's see if I can find more support, shall we?

Now let's see if she compares people of faith to child molestors?

Oh, looky. How's that for a clear photograph?

Let's see what else I said in my distorted photograph that twisted things....

Well, first let's see if she said that?

Now, just so we're clear let's point out that what I'm referring to as hate speech is comparing people of faith to child molestors and racists while calling them intellectually-crippled, morons, etc. I think my presentation of hate-speech is pretty clear. Dismissing all people of faith with such monikers is pretty clearly demonstrated. Do I actually need to quote it?

Let's look at the next part...

Do I need to show again that she ACTUALLY said that racists and people of faith have the same thought processes? Do I actually need to quote myself showing how her statements are gross overgeneralizations about people of faith, that they involve name-calling and derogatory statements or did you also see it? Cuz I can use quotes.

Now let's be clear since you appear to be twisting it. I started this conversation saying that I don't hold ID or literal Creation to be true and that neither is science. I actually agree with her argument regarding such things. However, it is totally an ad-hominem to attack people the way she has been doing. She resorts to name-calling and personal attacks rather than addressing the beliefs.

Pffft... I don't care if they exist, they're wrong. I don't have to answer for other people of faith simply because they make a lot of noise. Black people don't have to answer for the black people who commit crimes. Muslims don't have to answer for the small percentage who are violent. We don't have to answer for our stereotypes. Why should we? I'm not more responsible for Jim Baker and Pat Robertson than you are. I have no more in common with them. I have nothing to do with them. I dislike them as much as you do. The difference I treat them as a representative of them and people self-identifiy with them, not of all white people or all males or all people on tv or all Christians or whatever. Ask them what the hell is wrong with them, because I have no clue.

I'm so tired of hearing how it's okay to attack groups because they 'deserve' it for not doing anything about someone who happens to look like them or claim to believe the same as them or pretend to be like them in some way. It's the argument that makes people pretend like feminism is really a radical group of man-haters instead of a large portion of the population who want equality for the sexes. It's the same argument that makes people pretend like Muslims are all violent and dangerous terrorists instead a huge population of people who are mostly peaceful and respectful of life. I won't answer for your inability to treat people as individuals.
I can find little in Bottle's statements to be insulted about, even though I did (also) take them the wrong way I first came to these boards.

I believe people are free to be racist, sexist, superstitious, homophobic, or anything else they damn well please. I respect their RIGHT to believe those things. But I have no respect for the beliefs, and I lose respect for any person who holds them.
She is talking about her beliefs, which we should respect. She may believe whatever she likes about religions, and have "no respect for the beliefs," but that is not the same as "no right to believe," or "no respect for the people who hold them."

So faith is the same as racism? Ridiculous.
To me, the two are equally disgraceful. You do not have to share my opinion.
Again, she is expressing her belief, a kernel about herself, not something objectively true. She is entitled to an opinion.

So I guess I must also dislike racists because I am threatened by their beliefs, right? And I must dislike child abusers because I am threatened by their beliefs, right?

Or might it be possible, perhaps, that I just think they hold rotten beliefs? No, I guess it must be because the poor Christians and racists and child abusers have such brilliant and beautiful ideas that my poor, bitter mind cannot possibly accept them. I guess I'd better go sulk in the corner, you've found me out!
Here she is reacting strongly because you are trying to re-write her beliefs.

Her attacks are against the belief, not the person who holds them.

What you are doing is a variation of "taking it personally". I made the same mistake when I first began debating and someone suggested that to support abortion is to support murder. Does that mean he called me a murderer? No. He was addressing the subject, not attacking me personally.

I completely understand what you are saying, I get the lottery outlook and the, if someone else was the winner they would think the same thing, comparison. But really, that's not what the theory is talking about. I'll try one last time, it's not that important, I wasn’t trying to prove the theory right or not, only that it exists, in the scientific realm, and that it is similar to ID.

The Strong anthropic theory doesn’t say that 'humans' need to exist as carbon based lifeforms, it asks why there is any universe created at all, with stars and galaxies of any kind, of matter and the laws of physics themselves, from the big bang eventuality...

Why is the universe the way it appears? Some scientists think that our very existence provides the answer. To them, many of the physical properties of the universe seem finely tuned for producing life. For instance, if the relative strengths of the four fundamental forces were slightly different, stars might never have formed and life as we know it would have been impossible. Or if the universe had expanded slightly faster than it did, matter would have spread out too quickly to coalesce into any significant objects. Conversely, if the expansion had been just a little slower, the universe would have already collapsed back into a “Big Crunch.”

These and other cosmic “coincidences” led some scientists to speculate that the universe is the way it is because we are here to observe it. This anthropic principle has two basic versions, the weak and the strong. The weak version, developed by Robert Dicke in the early 1960s, states that in a large universe, intelligent life can exist only during a narrow window of time. We shouldn’t be surprised at the universe we see because we could never be around to view it at a significantly different time.

The strong anthropic principle goes much further. Proposed by Brandon Carter in the late 1960s, it states that among all the possible universes that could exist, only a special few have the right conditions that could give rise to intelligent life. The cosmic coincidences are then not some fundamental aspect of the way the laws of physics operate, but rather a prerequisite for the development of life. If the strong anthropic principle is true, then some would argue that the universe was designed with a purpose. If it is false, then a future “theory of everything” should be able to explain why the seeming coincidences that created life really are not.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/anth.html

Another one:
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/mar31/anthropic.html
But this *is* addressed by what Ashmoria said. I bolded the key important words above. "To them" and "seem" (root word "see", to understand) suggest that whatever purpose is divined for the creation of the universe ("fine-tuned for producing life") is looked at from an entirely subjectively perspective. This isn't a bad thing, except that the subjective purpose so divined is then being substituted "as if" it was an an objective reason. It is not.

The "life" that both the strong and weak "anthropic principle" address is our life, intelligent life as we now know it. If the universe had some other properties or rate of expansion, then life may simply have become "life not as we know now know it".

I can find little in Bottle's statements to be insulted about, even though I did (also) take them the wrong way I first came to these boards.


She is talking about her beliefs, which we should respect. She may believe whatever she likes about religions, and have "no respect for the beliefs," but that is not the same as "no right to believe," or "no respect for the people who hold them."


Again, she is expressing her belief, a kernel about herself, not something objectively true. She is entitled to an opinion.


Here she is reacting strongly because you are trying to re-write her beliefs.

Her attacks are against the belief, not the person who holds them.

What you are doing is a variation of "taking it personally". I made the same mistake when I first began debating and someone suggested that to support abortion is to support murder. Does that mean he called me a murderer? No. He was addressing the subject, not attacking me personally.

I would accept what you said except she didn't say racism and child abuse, she racists and child abusers. That's the people, not the beliefs. She called them morons, intellectually-crippled. That's the person not the belief. She's welcome to say what she likes about her opinions on the beliefs. However, she openly admitted that she thinks it is acceptable to attack people of faith.

You apparently missed this...
I do attack the idea. I also attack any adult human--who is not suffering from an incapacitating mental illness--who chooses to subscibe to such a reprehensible and pathetic form of "thought."

If you want to stop discussing this, fine. But don't end by putting words in my mouth. You're reading something different than I'm trying to say; it could be that's my fault due to an inability to articulate, but I want to have one last chance at clarifying it.

Homosexuality is not a social construct; it is a personal trait, whether you choose it or not. Race is not a social construct; it is a personal trait. Vegitarianism isn't a social construct; it is a personal trait. Faith is not a social construct; it is a personal trait, whether you choose that or not. To classify people due to a personal trait is to be incapable of treating people as individuals; that is the cause of Prejudice. I'm not doing that. I'm not saying "Anyone who believes x is equally y as someone else who also believes x". You have a faith, sexual orientation, race, stance on environmental and animal protection and character of your own that are not being called into question in the slightest.

Being a member of a particular organised religion is vastly different to holding a particular faith. Being a member of a religion is not a personal trait like having a faith. Religions are social constructs. You cannot expect to declare support for a particular social construct and have those around you ignore what the social construct stands for. Christianity is a conglomeracy of different faiths. To assume that calling yourself a Christian refers only to your particular faith is to deny the nature of the Church.

Since you're bored and/or tired, I'll not go on. Sorry for taking up your time.

See there's the problem. Christianity is not one organized religion. That's the point. It's thousands of them. For you to treat them as one is what's insulting. You want me to apologize for people of other faiths (something you acknowledge) when I have no need or duty to do so. They are of OTHER faiths. They just happen to call their faith a Christian faith as well. Not my problem. Not my fault. Not an issue I need to answer for.

And you suggested in clear language that the problem isn't having the beliefs but identifying with the social group. Many homosexuals identify with the social group 'homosexuals', I still hold that they do not need to answer for other homosexuals.

Homosexuality is not a social construct; it is a personal trait, whether you choose it or not.

Actually, it is both. The term "homosexual" brings with it just as many stereotypes and societal significance as the term "Christian", or the term, "hispanic."

Race is not a social construct; it is a personal trait.

Actually, race is pretty much entirely a social construct created due to people looking at others of different build or skin color and labeling them as "different". THere is no biological difference great enough between those groups labeled as "races" to actually classify them as such. It is pure social construct that causes us to separate "races".

Being a member of a particular organised religion is vastly different to holding a particular faith.

Ah, but one does not have to be a member of an organized religion to be a member of a religion. I am a Christian, but am not a member of any organized religion.

All it takes to be a Christian is to have faith in Christ. That is it. One can choose to join any number of organized religion, and then, and only then, should one be held in any way responsible for their actions. If I choose to become a member of the church around the corner, and said church preaches homophobia and racism, then I have chosen to be associated with such things. If I simply keep to my personal faith in Christ and in the teachings of Christ, I have made no such choice. It is only others who try to lump me in with said church.

Ah, but one does not have to be a member of an organized religion to be a member of a religion. I am a Christian, but am not a member of any organized religion.

All it takes to be a Christian is to have faith in Christ. That is it. One can choose to join any number of organized religion, and then, and only then, should one be held in any way responsible for their actions. If I choose to become a member of the church around the corner, and said church preaches homophobia and racism, then I have chosen to be associated with such things. If I simply keep to my personal faith in Christ and in the teachings of Christ, I have made no such choice. It is only others who try to lump me in with said church.
I don't understand... Are you saying that joining an organized religion absolves a person from responsibility for their own actions?

I must have read that wrong --please tell me I did.

I don't understand... Are you saying that joining an organized religion absolves a person from responsibility for their own actions?


Uhhhm.. yes - why do you think religions are so popular ?

I don't understand... Are you saying that joining an organized religion absolves a person from responsibility for their own actions?

I must have read that wrong --please tell me I did.

Hardly. No person is ever absolved of responsibility for their own actions (unless they are mentally incapable of such responsibility). I am simply saying that one can *only* be held responsible for their own actions, not for the actions of others. In order to be seen as part of an organized religion, one must make the choice to join said organized religion. Otherwise, the individual cannot be held responsible for anything the organized religion does.

I am saying that the only way any individual can be held in any way accountable for the actions of a group is if the individual has chosen to join that group. If I make the choice to be a part of a specific church, and that church, as a group, advocates violence, racism, homophobia, etc., then it would make sense to hold me accountable for those things, as I would have chosen to be associated with those who advocate such things.

However, if I join no such group, but hold to my own personal beliefs, then it is only logical to hold me accountable for my own personal beliefs. I can't and shouldn't be held any more accountable for the actions of parishioners of the church down the street, or of Phelps or Robertson, or of President Bush simply because they belong to an incredibly broad category of human beings that also includes me than you or Ghandi should. I have made no choice to be a part of any organized group that includes them.

I can't and shouldn't be held any more accountable for the actions of parishioners of the church down the street, or of Phelps or Robertson, or of President Bush simply because they belong to an incredibly broad category of human beings that also includes me than you or Ghandi should. I have made no choice to be a part of any organized group that includes them.

Well, when you choose to label your personal beliefs with the same incredibly broad term as they do, expect associations. not to be held accountable for them, when did someone, besides Jocabia, mention apoligizing for them?

Well, when you choose to label your personal beliefs with the same incredibly broad term as they do, expect associations.

When I choose to label my sexuality under the broad term "bisexuality", even though every bisexual is different and the term covers a broad spectrum of sexual attraction and refers to people with a broad spectrum of sexual behavior, should I just expect that everyone is going to see me as a promiscuous person constantly jumping in and out of bed with lots of men and women? After all, there certainly are bisexuals like that.

When I choose to label my ethnicity under the broad term "white", does that mean that people should assume I have a great deal in common with the average Irish person, or a Swede, or a German?

Some words apply to such a broad spectrum of humanity that attempting to paint them all with the same brush is simply idiotic.

not to be held accountable for them, when did someone, besides Jocabia, mention apoligizing for them?

Kamsaki, for one.

When I choose to label my sexuality under the broad term "bisexuality", even though every bisexual is different and the term covers a broad spectrum of sexual attraction and refers to people with a broad spectrum of sexual behavior, should I just expect that everyone is going to see me as a promiscuous person constantly jumping in and out of bed with lots of men and women? After all, there certainly are bisexuals like that.

When I choose to label my ethnicity under the broad term "white", does that mean that people should assume I have a great deal in common with the average Irish person, or a Swede, or a German?

Some words apply to such a broad spectrum of humanity that attempting to paint them all with the same brush is simply idiotic.



Kamsaki, for one.

Well, there will be people who see you like like that, and you should know that, it comes with the label, certain people will think certain things of you, but what does that have to do with being held accountable? As far as white, people shouldn't dot that, but some might, are you being asked to apoligize to those people for Swedes and Germans? And when was it that Kamsaki said so? I might've missed it...

Hardly. No person is ever absolved of responsibility for their own actions (unless they are mentally incapable of such responsibility). I am simply saying that one can *only* be held responsible for their own actions, not for the actions of others. In order to be seen as part of an organized religion, one must make the choice to join said organized religion. Otherwise, the individual cannot be held responsible for anything the organized religion does.

I am saying that the only way any individual can be held in any way accountable for the actions of a group is if the individual has chosen to join that group. If I make the choice to be a part of a specific church, and that church, as a group, advocates violence, racism, homophobia, etc., then it would make sense to hold me accountable for those things, as I would have chosen to be associated with those who advocate such things.

However, if I join no such group, but hold to my own personal beliefs, then it is only logical to hold me accountable for my own personal beliefs. I can't and shouldn't be held any more accountable for the actions of parishioners of the church down the street, or of Phelps or Robertson, or of President Bush simply because they belong to an incredibly broad category of human beings that also includes me than you or Ghandi should. I have made no choice to be a part of any organized group that includes them.
So, if you choose to be a part of a group that decides to exterminate an entire "race" of people, you are to be held accountable for the actions of the group?

EDIT: you seem to be blurring the line between what an individual is responsible for and what a group is responsible for.

Uhhhm.. yes - why do you think religions are so popular ?
I tend to think there is some higher level of 'satisfaction'.

Actually, race is pretty much entirely a social construct created due to people looking at others of different build or skin color and labeling them as "different". THere is no biological difference great enough between those groups labeled as "races" to actually classify them as such. It is pure social construct that causes us to separate "races".

Yeah, just like "Scottish", "German", "Chinese", "American." If, say, African Americans want to connect with the lives of their ancestors, to recall that they endured slavery and extraordinary racism--in the midst of which they often developed complex and spiritual cultures of resistance--then they have just as much right to do so as my father does to call himself "Scottish" and connect with Scottish culture... through an ancestry he didn't even know he had until about six years ago.

It seems there was a baby in your bathwater.

When I choose to label my sexuality under the broad term "bisexuality", even though every bisexual is different and the term covers a broad spectrum of sexual attraction and refers to people with a broad spectrum of sexual behavior, should I just expect that everyone is going to see me as a promiscuous person constantly jumping in and out of bed with lots of men and women? After all, there certainly are bisexuals like that.


It seems to me thought that bisexual is not an organization... unlike, say, organized religion. The entire point of organized religion is to introduce order in the lives of its followers. This must occur, or it is not 'organized.' Thus by associating yourself with said organization, you are responsible by association for its actions. One cannot identify oneself with a group ideology but expect to be regarded as an individual.

Actually, race is pretty much entirely a social construct created due to people looking at others of different build or skin color and labeling them as "different". THere is no biological difference great enough between those groups labeled as "races" to actually classify them as such. It is pure social construct that causes us to separate "races".



I would also point out that race is not only a social construct, but a murkily-defined phylogenetic construct. In plainer terms, it means that there are levels of organization beneath 'species', but these are so hotly debated among biologists that like most scientific arguments people seize on the 'do not exist' side.
Thus it can and does exist, as a means to identify groups of people that have differing physical and physiology traits, which, by the way, are genetic. So there IS enough biological difference for the labeling: white parents don't spontaneously give birth to black, blue, yellow, pink, or purple kids.

Well maybe the purple.

I'm not asking anything myself, but pointing out that the card analogy doesn't really work here because it's talking about what set of cards you are getting instead of asking, why are the cards being dealt at all. Because unless the universe is created at the very precise variable that must have been met (because we are they must have been met), otherwise there aren't any cards at all, none, not different cards, no card hand. (Assuming card hands means a universe that is capable of existing with any life at all)

But really, my point wasn't about whether it's right or not, but that it is spoken about openly as a valid scientific theory and posit, at this time, and to me, it looks a lot like ID.
Divination is garnering knowledge about a third party from the perspective of a second party. Divination is generally frowned upon in modern Western society, simply because it is not empirical knowlege.

Looking at the cards and asking, 'Why these cards are dealt?' is a good example of divination. It attempts to garner knowledge of the third party (the dealer) from the perspective of a second party (the universe, the entire set of dealt cards).

This is the reason that ID is compared to astrology.

Kamsaki, for one.
Hold on there. I didn't say anything about apologising on anyone's behalf. All I said (in, admittedly, not the best of ways) was that if you're a member of an organised religion that is getting bad press, you can either do something about it or you can accept it. Ignoring the problem only makes it worse, and saying that the fault is due in part to individual members of the religion, part due to social prejudice isn't going to help matters. We know that there will always be wacko nutjobs around, but they shouldn't be capable of getting as much Media Credibility (deliberate capitalisation there - implied ridicule of the media, but the term is still pretty powerful) as they have done, and telling people "There is no problem. You are wrong" only worsens things.

Apologising isn't the answer, but shrugging it off as hype is probably even less constructive. My solution was to have some form of organised structure similar to the Anglican Church that appoints only trusted representatives to the position of credible religious spokesperson and thus destroy any sense of the "Christian Imperialists" as being those who stand up as the voice of the faith in America. Evidently, people thought I was wrong to suggest that, since it added an extra layer of generalisation. I still think it's a reasonable idea, though.

When I choose to label my sexuality under the broad term "bisexuality", even though every bisexual is different and the term covers a broad spectrum of sexual attraction and refers to people with a broad spectrum of sexual behavior, should I just expect that everyone is going to see me as a promiscuous person constantly jumping in and out of bed with lots of men and women? After all, there certainly are bisexuals like that.

When I choose to label my ethnicity under the broad term "white", does that mean that people should assume I have a great deal in common with the average Irish person, or a Swede, or a German?

Some words apply to such a broad spectrum of humanity that attempting to paint them all with the same brush is simply idiotic.
As idiotic as it might be, it happens.

I might equally compare "Christian" to "Trekkie" and find some similar social significance. That's not really a point. The point is that you choose as a label for yourself something that has certain ramifications attached to it.

For the same reason you are not really a "Christian" as most would see it, I do not label myself a "feminist". What label you put on yourself is secondary in this instance to what label others put on you, and if that label of "Christian" means something different to you than to them, their position is all that will matter in the long run. That's the way of it.

It seems there was a baby in your bathwater.
LOL! :)

..so much trouble in de world.

But this *is* addressed by what Ashmoria said. I bolded the key important words above. "To them" and "seem" (root word "see", to understand) suggest that whatever purpose is divined for the creation of the universe ("fine-tuned for producing life") is looked at from an entirely subjectively perspective. This isn't a bad thing, except that the subjective purpose so divined is then being substituted "as if" it was an an objective reason. It is not.

Should we now outlaw it being discussed in astronomy class then? If so, why, if not, why not?

The "life" that both the strong and weak "anthropic principle" address is our life, intelligent life as we now know it. If the universe had some other properties or rate of expansion, then life may simply have become "life not as we know now know it".

Agreed, but when they say, “not as we know it now," they really, really mean it. There should be no stars because there should have been no gas clouds to form from the primordial hydrogen, because even that, perhaps, should not have existed, at least from our concepts of what happens immediately after the big bang. And if there were no stars, there would be no heavy elements to form the planets and asteroids of any kind, and thus, no organic material of any kind (neither carbon nor silicon or whatever). To suggest that life 'could' exist in a universe like that, devoid of matter and nuclear energy, is to suggest a religious type of belief that life is somehow 'spiritual' or energy outside of matter ~ and again, we are back to unsupported hypothesis as to the nature of 'life.'

But again, the point is, there is nothing wrong with discussing these kinds of concepts and theories in a public school system, IMO.

Should we now outlaw it being discussed in astronomy class then? If so, why, if not, why not?



Agreed, but when they say, “not as we know it now," they really, really mean it. There should be no stars because there should have been no gas clouds to form from the primordial hydrogen, because even that, perhaps, should not have existed, at least from our concepts of what happens immediately after the big bang. And if there were no stars, there would be no heavy elements to form the planets and asteroids of any kind, and thus, no organic material of any kind (neither carbon nor silicon or whatever). To suggest that life 'could' exist in a universe like that, devoid of matter and nuclear energy, is to suggest a religious type of belief that life is somehow 'spiritual' or energy outside of matter ~ and again, we are back to unsupported hypothesis as to the nature of 'life.'

But again, the point is, there is nothing wrong with discussing these kinds of concepts and theories in a public school system, IMO.

I'm confused.

Is your point that there is nothing wrong with teaching religion as science? If so, you are wrong.

Or are you merely saying such things can be discussed as possibilities amongst others in a philosophy/religion class? If so, you've said nothing controversial.

I'm confused.

Is your point that there is nothing wrong with teaching religion as science? If so, you are wrong.

Or are you merely saying such things can be discussed as possibilities amongst others in a philosophy/religion class? If so, you've said nothing controversial.

I didn't say anything about religion. I said, I don't have any idea about bacteria and flagella and biological indicators that supposedly justify the ID theory that it’s proponents claim, but I do know that the word "design" has been rejected by the vast majority of biologists.

As to ID being a science or not, though, I think a person who looked into a cosmology classroom instead of a biology classroom would find a fair number of people talking about indicators of weak or strong anthropic principles (the formation of the universe in regard to being capable of sustaining any life whatsoever).

My point hasn’t been about whether it's right or not, but that it is simply spoken about openly as a valid scientific theory, posit and principle that needs to be addressed by any ultimate “theory of Everything” or Unification theory, and at this time, to me, the weak and strong anthropic principles type of questioning and hypothesis looks a lot like the ID discussion, IMO. However, I don’t see any reason to call it a religion, simply because some religious people try to advocate the concept to their own ends, and wouldn’t ‘outlaw’ it’s discussion in the public school system.

I didn't say anything about religion. I said, I don't have any idea about bacteria and flagella and biological indicators that supposedly justify the ID theory that it’s proponents claim, but I do know that the word "design" has been rejected by the vast majority of biologists.

As to ID being a science or not, though, I think a person who looked into a cosmology classroom instead of a biology classroom would find a fair number of people talking about indicators of weak or strong anthropic principles (the formation of the universe in regard to being capable of sustaining any life whatsoever).

My point hasn’t been about whether it's right or not, but that it is simply spoken about openly as a valid scientific theory, posit and principle that needs to be addressed by any ultimate “theory of Everything” or Unification theory, and at this time, to me, the weak and strong anthropic principles type of questioning and hypothesis looks a lot like the ID discussion, IMO. However, I don’t see any reason to call it a religion, simply because some religious people try to advocate the concept to their own ends, and wouldn’t ‘outlaw’ it’s discussion in the public school system.

Nice job of not answering either question.

If you want an explanation as to why ID is a religion, read up on it a little. This (http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/12/20/kitzmiller.pdf) would be a good place to start. It documents the point at length based on the testimony of leading ID theorists. The belief that a supernatural
creator was responsible for the creation of human kind is a religious viewpoint.

My point hasn’t been about whether it's right or not, but that it is simply spoken about openly as a valid scientific theory, posit and principle that needs to be addressed by any ultimate “theory of Everything” or Unification theory, and at this time, to me, the weak and strong anthropic principles type of questioning and hypothesis looks a lot like the ID discussion, IMO. However, I don’t see any reason to call it a religion, simply because some religious people try to advocate the concept to their own ends, and wouldn’t ‘outlaw’ it’s discussion in the public school system.

The problem is the fact the IDers have yet to offer anything exacept bullet items of why Evolution is wrong.

As to Religion, well Behe has said the designer is God and Dembski can't seem to not mention God in his discussions.

ID is just repackaged Creationism designed to try and slip under the radar of the Constitution.

Nice job of not answering either question.

If you want an explanation as to why ID is a religion, read up on it a little. This (http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/12/20/kitzmiller.pdf) would be a good place to start. It documents the point at length based on the testimony of leading ID theorists. The belief that a supernatural
creator was responsible for the creation of human kind is a religious viewpoint.


I answered both of your questions, I compared discussing ID to discussing a strong Anthropic principle in a cosmology class. And I suggested that simply because some religious people advocate for an idea it doesn't make the concept itself a religious doctrine, IMO. What are you on about?

You seem to want to imply that I have a lack of knowledge on the issue and you use that statement as an implied attack against my posit, instead of actually discussing my statement of comparing the anthropic principles (weak or strong) but the free discussion of them in cosmology and astronomy classes today and why they should not be ‘outlawed’ discussions.

Should books like this be banned from public school astronomy class discussion?
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/365718/the_cosmic_landscape_books__nonfiction/index.html?source=r_science

Even when they are for or against an idea, to outlaw discussion seems anti-freedom to me.

Another one:
http://villagevoice.com/arts/0602,dayal,71616,12.html

Anthropic Principle discussed...
http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~lwilliam/sota/anth/anthropic_principle_index.html

I answered both of your questions, I compared discussing ID to discussing a strong Anthropic principle in a cosmology class. And I suggested that simply because some religious people advocate for an idea it doesn't make the concept itself a religious doctrine, IMO. What are you on about?

You seem to want to imply that I have a lack of knowledge on the issue and you use that statement as an implied attack against my posit, instead of actually discussing my statement of comparing the anthropic principles (weak or strong) but the free discussion of them in cosmology and astronomy classes today and why they should not be ‘outlawed’ discussions.

Should books like this be banned from public school astronomy class discussion?
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/365718/the_cosmic_landscape_books__nonfiction/index.html?source=r_science

Even when they are for or against an idea, to outlaw discussion seems anti-freedom to me.

Another one:
http://villagevoice.com/arts/0602,dayal,71616,12.html

ID isn't merely an anthropic principle. You are arguing a red herring.

My point hasn’t been about whether it's right or not, but that it is simply spoken about openly as a valid scientific theory, posit and principle that needs to be addressed by any ultimate “theory of Everything” or Unification theory, and at this time, to me, the weak and strong anthropic principles type of questioning and hypothesis looks a lot like the ID discussion, IMO.

Well, your opinion is wrong.

You are correct to assert that a "Theory of Everything" has to answer questions addressed by anthropic theories, but you misconstrue what these questions are.

The fundamental question is this: are things (basic physical laws) the way they are by necessity--i.e. they could not be any other way--or are they the way they are by accident, circumstance, or contingency.

Ironically, the anthropic theories which you think "look a lot like" ID or religion, go with the latter.

The weak anthropic theory says, "It's a circumstance of this period in the universe's evolution. Naturally, the only time we (living things) get to observe the universe is during a period in which it can support (intelligent) life. Physical laws don't have to be this way, they just are right now."

The strong anthropic theory says, "It's an accident of the 'Universe' in which we happen to live. Plenty of other--perhaps infinite--'Universes' are possible... indeed, they may exist alongside ours (whatever that means). But we only get to observe the one in which we live, which of course must have laws that support life. But those laws are not there by "necessity" or "design"... they just happen to be the laws of this Universe."

Neither one supports the idea of a "designer." Indeed, both "anthropic" theories were suggested precisely to attack the Creationist notion that the fact that the laws of the Universe are such as to support living things suggests that they must have been designed that way.

ID isn't merely an anthropic principle. You are arguing a red herring.

I see you disagree, and that you've made up your mind. Thanks for sharing.

But this *is* addressed by what Ashmoria said. I bolded the key important words above. "To them" and "seem" (root word "see", to understand) suggest that whatever purpose is divined for the creation of the universe ("fine-tuned for producing life") is looked at from an entirely subjectively perspective. This isn't a bad thing, except that the subjective purpose so divined is then being substituted "as if" it was an an objective reason. It is not.
Should we now outlaw it being discussed in astronomy class then? If so, why, if not, why not?
Yes! If cosmology or divination are discussed in astronomy class at all, they should be limited to a suggestion, as much as possible. The teacher should stick to the cirriculum (if they want to keep their job).

Agreed, but when they say, “not as we know it now," they really, really mean it. There should be no stars because there should have been no gas clouds to form from the primordial hydrogen, because even that, perhaps, should not have existed, at least from our concepts of what happens immediately after the big bang. And if there were no stars, there would be no heavy elements to form the planets and asteroids of any kind, and thus, no organic material of any kind (neither carbon nor silicon or whatever). To suggest that life 'could' exist in a universe like that, devoid of matter and nuclear energy, is to suggest a religious type of belief that life is somehow 'spiritual' or energy outside of matter ~ and again, we are back to unsupported hypothesis as to the nature of 'life.'

But again, the point is, there is nothing wrong with discussing these kinds of concepts and theories in a public school system, IMO.
A "universe devoid of matter and energy" is not a universe! All the universe we know is energy and matter (thought to be another form of energy), nothing else!

They are not talking about the chances of "a universe" developing that supports our life, but "one universe" developing that supports our life --in which case, they are talking out of their collective asses, because they cannot know if any other universe can support life as we know it --they cannot say that our universe alone supports live as we know it, or even life at all.

Eh??

...
Neither one supports the idea of a "designer." Indeed, both "anthropic" theories were suggested precisely to attack the Creationist notion that the fact that the laws of the Universe are such as to support living things suggests that they must have been designed that way.

Later, Carter also proposed the Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP), which states that the Universe had to bring humanity into being. This version is much more teleological, if not theological, and is of a highly speculative nature. Nonetheless, Carter had scientific reasons to propose it. The definition of the SAP) is as follows:


“Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP): the Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in it’s history.” (The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, p. 21)
http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~lwilliam/sota/anth/anthropic_principle_index.html

...

They are not talking about the chances of "a universe" developing that supports our life, but "one universe" developing that supports our life --in which case, they are talking out of their collective asses, because they cannot know if any other universe can support life as we know it --they cannot say that our universe alone supports live as we know it, or even life at all.


It's one of the things they discuss in cosmology, there is no reason to get upset. Astro-physics, Astronomy and Cosmology, must deal with the outer limits of hypothesis and theory, by it's very nature.

To suggest that they should be 'outlawed' discussions sound similar to convicting Galileo and outlawing telescopes.

There is no reason to get angry about it.

Creationism is intellectually bankrupt, no matter what subject you try to stuff it into. Creationist myths should be presented in comparative religions classes, and "Intelligent Design" should be presented with the same level of discussion as the theory that the Earth rides on the back of a giant turtle.

I can totally understand someone not believing in angels sitting on clouds playing the harp, but it is really so ridiculous to consider that there might be a higher meaning to life and the universe? Science is always going to come up against questions it can't answer, and this should be acknowledged in schools.
And it looks like you're lumping creationism and ID together, as far as I know they are not the same thing. ID doesn't even contradict evolution.

It's one of the things they discuss in cosmology, there is no reason to get upset. Astro-physics, Astronomy and Cosmology, must deal with the outer limits of hypothesis and theory, by it's very nature.

To suggest that they should be 'outlawed' discussions sound similar to convicting Galileo and outlawing telescopes.

There is no reason to get angry about it.
I'm not the one getting upset.

I'm not the one proposing that cosmology should be taught in Biology class.

I'm not the one getting upset.

I'm not the one proposing that cosmology should be taught in Biology class.

:D

I was going to say something about slippery slope too......

Later, Carter also proposed the Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP), which states that the Universe had to bring humanity into being. This version is much more teleological, if not theological, and is of a highly speculative nature. Nonetheless, Carter had scientific reasons to propose it. The definition of the SAP) is as follows:


“Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP): the Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in it’s history.” (The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, p. 21)

That does not change anything, and it is not "more teleological, if not theological," except to people who want to misinterpret it.

All it says is that, as scientists theorize cosmological properties of the Universe, they must reject any properties that do not allow life to develop... because life obviously has developed, so any such properties are disproven by the blatant fact.

In no way does it imply, nor was it meant to imply, a "designer." Once again, proponents of Intelligent Design have misinterpreted science for their own ends.

To me ID and "big Bang theories" are the same type of theories

Neither can be truly tested
Each has a religious idea behind it ("Spiritual Being created the Universe" or "The earth is a fluke of happenstance.. ie no spiritual creator.)
Both have proponents

If something is taught and it has been tested and found to be true then by all means teach it and only it.

If something is taught and it cannot be tested (or has not been tested) then as educators teachers and governments should be duty bound to at least say "This is a theory, and these are the arguments for it."... for both of them.

My issue is that there is no choice students are have evolution shoved down their throats and no mention of "this is not tested but this is what it is beleived to be" or that ID is an alternative theory

I can totally understand someone not believing in angels sitting on clouds playing the harp, but it is really so ridiculous to consider that there might be a higher meaning to life and the universe? Science is always going to come up against questions it can't answer, and this should be acknowledged in schools.
And it looks like you're lumping creationism and ID together, as far as I know they are not the same thing. ID doesn't even contradict evolution.
Okay, then, but there are billions of humans.

Whose "meaning" should be considered "higher"?

I'm not the one getting upset.

I'm not the one proposing that cosmology should be taught in Biology class.

That doesn't make any sense at all, no one said that. They are both science courses however. Cosmology is the study of the Universe. What exactly do you think it is?

/me rocks to Otis Redding sitting on the dock of the bay

Bazalonia']To me ID and "big Bang theories" are the same type of theories

Neither can be truly tested
Each has a religious idea behind it ("Spiritual Being created the Universe" or "The earth is a fluke of happenstance.. ie no spiritual creator.)
Both have proponents

If something is taught and it has been tested and found to be true then by all means teach it and only it.

If something is taught and it cannot be tested (or has not been tested) then as educators teachers and governments should be duty bound to at least say "This is a theory, and these are the arguments for it."... for both of them.

My issue is that there is no choice students are have evolution shoved down their throats and no mention of "this is not tested but this is what it is beleived to be" or that ID is an alternative theory
But no, testing should not be necessary.

If one theory supports a contingent universe and another supports a non-contingent universe, then what should we, as 'contingent being', support??

Below is a link to a more balanced overview of the anthropic theories, published by an actual professor.

http://www.jca.umbc.edu/~george/html/courses/glossary/cosmo_principle_anthro.html

I would prefer to trust this, rather than Dubya's link... which takes us to a site posted by a woman with a master's degree in physics, who tells us "I study the nature of the universe, then I sing and dance and make media about it."

;)

That does not change anything, and it is not "more teleological, if not theological," except to people who want to misinterpret it.

All it says is that, as scientists theorize cosmological properties of the Universe, they must reject any properties that do not allow life to develop... because life obviously has developed, so any such properties are disproven by the blatant fact.

In no way does it imply, nor was it meant to imply, a "designer." Once again, proponents of Intelligent Design have misinterpreted science for their own ends.

You are arguing with a direct quote from the San Francisco State University Physics department, I linked to it directly under that quote, it wasn't my statement. My statement is only that such things are discussed in science classes, as well they should be.
http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~lwilliam/sota/anth/anthropic_principle_index.html

That does not change anything, and it is not "more teleological, if not theological," except to people who want to misinterpret it.

All it says is that, as scientists theorize cosmological properties of the Universe, they must reject any properties that do not allow life to develop... because life obviously has developed, so any such properties are disproven by the blatant fact.

In no way does it imply, nor was it meant to imply, a "designer." Once again, proponents of Intelligent Design have misinterpreted science for their own ends.

Neither can be proven or dis-proven because we can't do tests that prove something was or was not created. We can theorise and subjecture on wether or not they where created or not but that is as far as we can go. So what does that mean? ID while it is an alternative to a widely accepted theory (or groups of theories) does not make it any more or less valid... It is there and it's not going to go away unless you prove it to be wrong. Are you going to prove that the was not created? No. Can others prove that the world was big-banged and everything after that was the result of pure chance? No Can either be dis-proved? No...

... Ipso facto .. ID is as scientifically valid ... even though it is not as popular because it directly implies that a being in a realm that we don't understand created the universe ie... a god of some description. god in science?... that's crazy talk. Even if god does exist.

That doesn't make any sense at all, no one said that. They are both science courses however. Cosmology is the study of the Universe. What exactly do you think it is?
I was just supporting how opponents to the contingent universe tend to get upset. I'm not upset. Really.

You are arguing with a direct quote from the San Francisco State University Physics department, I linked to it directly under that quote, it wasn't my statement. My statement is only that such things are discussed in science classes, as well they should be.
http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~lwilliam/sota/anth/anthropic_principle_index.html

Yep... yep...

Except perhaps you forgot to check who from the physics department posted it?

As you can see from the url, it is a user's site, not the main website.

The user is "lwilliam," or Lynda Williams, whose home page on the site can be found here:

http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~lwilliam/

As you see, she hasn't even been there since 2000. And if you want some more info on her, check here:

http://www.sfsu.edu/~science/newsletters/fall1997/alumnidomain.html

A master's degree!! Ha!!

okay, even as little into this discussion as we are, I am tired of this call for, and voluntary contribution of, resources.

I want to hear what you think, not how many qualified people you can link to.

"Eff" the resources! I'm deliberately not going to click those links.

Below is a link to a more balanced overview of the anthropic theories, published by an actual professor.

http://www.jca.umbc.edu/~george/html/courses/glossary/cosmo_principle_anthro.html

I would prefer to trust this, rather than Dubya's link... which takes us to a site posted by a woman with a master's degree in physics, who tells us "I study the nature of the universe, then I sing and dance and make media about it."

;)

Your link looks like a good link, thanks for sharing it, but I fail to see the reason you felt the need or justification for throwing in an added barb or implied insult towards me. I've linked to both arguments for and arguments against the weak and strong anthropic principle, because it’s being right or wrong is irrelevant to my posit that it should remain legal discussion in a public science classroom, and I mentioned how it looks similar to the ID hypothesis.

Your link looks like a good link, thanks for sharing it, but I fail to see the reason you felt the need or justification for throwing in an added barb or implied insult towards me. I've linked to both arguments for and arguments against the weak and strong anthropic principle, because it’s being right or wrong is irrelevant to my posit that it should remain legal discussion in a public science classroom, and I mentioned how it looks similar to the ID hypothesis.

I agree that it should remain "legal" discussion in a public science classroom, because it makes no claim to a religious or teleological "explanation" of the Universe. I also think it cannot be proven scientifically, but it does give students an idea of "the kind of Universe" we are studying--namely, one in which life exists, so that speculation about Universes in which life does not exist is, for the most part, essentially moot.

I disagree that it "looks similar to the ID hypothesis," which claims that because the Universe "looks" "designed," it must have been. The anthropic theories say precisely the opposite. They argue that the universe must "look" suitable for life, or we would not be here... Their whole point being that the fact that it "looks" designed cannot be taken as evidence that it is designed.

It debunks Creationist muddling... it does not support it or resemble it.

It seems to me thought that bisexual is not an organization... unlike, say, organized religion. The entire point of organized religion is to introduce order in the lives of its followers. This must occur, or it is not 'organized.' Thus by associating yourself with said organization, you are responsible by association for its actions. One cannot identify oneself with a group ideology but expect to be regarded as an individual.

See, but that is exactly the point. There is no mass organized religion that all Chrisitans belong to. If I choose to associate with Twin City Baptist Church down the street, why should I have to answer for Pat Robertson? Kamsaki said that if one chooses to proclaim they are a Christian they should expect for people to assume they have things in common with the vast array of idiots one can generally find on television evangelizing. The point is that no one within the groups would associate me with them. Really only a small number of people outside of the group would suggest such a thing. We didn't choose to associate with other. Other people chose to lump us together.

Hold on there. I didn't say anything about apologising on anyone's behalf. All I said (in, admittedly, not the best of ways) was that if you're a member of an organised religion that is getting bad press, you can either do something about it or you can accept it. Ignoring the problem only makes it worse, and saying that the fault is due in part to individual members of the religion, part due to social prejudice isn't going to help matters. We know that there will always be wacko nutjobs around, but they shouldn't be capable of getting as much Media Credibility (deliberate capitalisation there - implied ridicule of the media, but the term is still pretty powerful) as they have done, and telling people "There is no problem. You are wrong" only worsens things.

Apologising isn't the answer, but shrugging it off as hype is probably even less constructive. My solution was to have some form of organised structure similar to the Anglican Church that appoints only trusted representatives to the position of credible religious spokesperson and thus destroy any sense of the "Christian Imperialists" as being those who stand up as the voice of the faith in America. Evidently, people thought I was wrong to suggest that, since it added an extra layer of generalisation. I still think it's a reasonable idea, though.

Who chose them as the voice? We did or someone else (mainly them) did?

So if I suddenly declare that I'm the voice of engineering community and i get a whole bunch of people to do so all declaring ourselves engineers, it's a problem for people who decide they are the voice or a problem for me because I'm an engineer? The obvious answer is that if you can't tell the difference between the idiots on tv and other people of faith, the problem is yours, not mine. I'm not perpetuating the problem, you are, when you associate people with someone else neither person decided to group together. The only ones claiming we are one homogeneous group are people like you who are trying to practice prejudice. Your prejudice is not my problem no matter how hard you try to make it my problem. I won't answer for your prejudice.

I have only read the first post, and I already have a question.

To deny that id can't be taught at all, because it's "religion" doesn't that violate freedom of speech and the freedom of religion as found in the constitution? , notice that the constitution says freedom of religion not freedom from religion.

So, if you choose to be a part of a group that decides to exterminate an entire "race" of people, you are to be held accountable for the actions of the group?

Yes, of course. You made a choice to be part of a group doing this, thus you are responsible for your actions.

EDIT: you seem to be blurring the line between what an individual is responsible for and what a group is responsible for.

One cannot have a group without the individuals that make it up. If individuals decide to do something as a group, then they are all responsible for the actions of the group. If an individual, on the other hand, decides not to be a part of a group, then they are not responsible for the actions of that group. See?

Yeah, just like "Scottish", "German", "Chinese", "American." If, say, African Americans want to connect with the lives of their ancestors, to recall that they endured slavery and extraordinary racism--in the midst of which they often developed complex and spiritual cultures of resistance--then they have just as much right to do so as my father does to call himself "Scottish" and connect with Scottish culture... through an ancestry he didn't even know he had until about six years ago.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the price of eggs in China.

I have only read the first post, and I already have a question.

To deny that id can't be taught at all, because it's "religion" doesn't that violate freedom of speech and the freedom of religion as found in the constitution? , notice that the constitution says freedom of religion not freedom from religion.

Yes, but first it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Private schools, fine. Public schools, no.

It seems to me thought that bisexual is not an organization... unlike, say, organized religion. The entire point of organized religion is to introduce order in the lives of its followers. This must occur, or it is not 'organized.' Thus by associating yourself with said organization, you are responsible by association for its actions. One cannot identify oneself with a group ideology but expect to be regarded as an individual.

And as Jocabia and I both pointed out, all religion is not organized religion. I, along with many other Christians, have chosen NOT to become a member of any organized religion. Thus, I am associating myself with no organization or "group ideology". I am being lumped in with those organizations by others.

Hold on there. I didn't say anything about apologising on anyone's behalf. All I said (in, admittedly, not the best of ways) was that if you're a member of an organised religion that is getting bad press, you can either do something about it or you can accept it.

And yet you continue to ignore the fact that "Christianity" is not, and never has been, an organized religion. It is a set of varied beliefs, some of which are organized, some of which are not.

Apologising isn't the answer, but shrugging it off as hype is probably even less constructive. My solution was to have some form of organised structure similar to the Anglican Church that appoints only trusted representatives to the position of credible religious spokesperson and thus destroy any sense of the "Christian Imperialists" as being those who stand up as the voice of the faith in America. Evidently, people thought I was wrong to suggest that, since it added an extra layer of generalisation. I still think it's a reasonable idea, though.

Why should those who have rejected the very idea of organized religion have to form an organization?

Yes, of course. You made a choice to be part of a group doing this, thus you are responsible for your actions.

One cannot have a group without the individuals that make it up. If individuals decide to do something as a group, then they are all responsible for the actions of the group. If an individual, on the other hand, decides not to be a part of a group, then they are not responsible for the actions of that group. See?
I hold other opinions. I guess we would have to agree to disagree on this.

EDIT: I tend to hold an individual responsible for his own actions regardless of whether he joins a group --I'm funny that way.

Yes, but first it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Private schools, fine. Public schools, no.

but if it is taught volonteraly(sp?) why should people care?, evolution takes just as much faith to believe in as id, and how is teaching an opposing viewpoint estabilishing a religion?, all that is it doing is stating that there are other opinions out there besides evolution, and id never states what created the world, just a higher being.

also if you don't teach id in schools, is this not a violation of freedom of speech?

but if it is taught volonteraly(sp?) why should people care?,

Voluntarily how? Voluntary on the part of the teacher, the students, the school, the taxpayers?

I care about a violation of the Constitution whether or not some people would voluntarily agree to it.

evolution takes just as much faith to believe in as id,

Nope. Evolution is a second-order question. It is proper science.

Most major religions -- including the Roman Catholic Church -- have accepted evolution as a fact.

and how is teaching an opposing viewpoint estabilishing a religion?, all that is it doing is stating that there are other opinions out there besides evolution, and id never states what created the world, just a higher being.

Wrong. ID does rely on the existence of God.

Saying the world was created by an intelligent supernatural being is inherently religious.

also if you don't teach id in schools, is this not a violation of freedom of speech?

If you don't teach that seven Jews in a vault control the money supply as part of a conspiracy with the lesbian dentist cartel, does that violate free speech?

Taxpayer dollars not only do not have to, but should not, be used to teach some viewpoints.

See, but that is exactly the point. There is no mass organized religion that all Chrisitans belong to. If I choose to associate with Twin City Baptist Church down the street, why should I have to answer for Pat Robertson? Kamsaki said that if one chooses to proclaim they are a Christian they should expect for people to assume they have things in common with the vast array of idiots one can generally find on television evangelizing. The point is that no one within the groups would associate me with them. Really only a small number of people outside of the group would suggest such a thing. We didn't choose to associate with other. Other people chose to lump us together.

Um. So if someone says they are a Christian, I can make no assumptions about what they believe whatsoever?

"Christian" is a meaningless term?

but if it is taught volonteraly(sp?) why should people care?

Voluntarily on the part of whom?

Students don't get much choice about what they are going to take or who is going to teach them. In all likelihood, they are required to take biology.

Now, it may be that no parents in that particular district protest. In that case, I suppose it is voluntary, and whether it's illegal or not it will go on. Plenty of teachers lead their students in prayer today, and that's illegal... it just persists in very religious (err, Christian) areas.

If, however, a minority comes along who dissents, then he/she will have every right to demand that the school obey the law.

evolution takes just as much faith to believe in as id

No, evolution is supported by a scientific standard of truth. Intelligent Design, while it makes empirical arguments, does not make scientific ones.

and how is teaching an opposing viewpoint estabilishing a religion?

If you teach that viewpoint in a science classroom, as an authoritative "alternative" to the considered view of the scientific community, then you are advocating a religious belief as an "alternative" to scientific explanation.

If you want to teach it as an "alternative" in a philosophy or a religion classroom, have at it. But it is repugnant to science.

id never states what created the world, just a higher being.

The laws says the state cannot "establish a religion"... a vague religion that believes in a "higher being" is still a religion. Atheists have rights, too.

also if you don't teach id in schools, is this not a violation of freedom of speech?

No, you can say whatever you want, whenever you want.... unless you are a representative of the government, in which case you represent the law--including the law that says the government cannot establish a religion.

EDIT: Our free speech doctrine (though I may happen to disagree with it) allows Nazis to publicly espouse Nazi ideology.

That does not mean that it requires our teachers to say, "Okay kids, one alternative to equality and freedom is Nazism," and to give evidence and arguments supporting the Nazi position.

Um. So if someone says they are a Christian, I can make no assumptions about what they believe whatsoever?

"Christian" is a meaningless term?
It is, how some people use it.

I think it's time for Emo...

"I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. so I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!"
"Why shouldn't I?" he said.
I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"
He said, "Like what?"
I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"
He said, "Religious."
I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?"
He said, "Christian."
I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?"
He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?"
He said, "Baptist!"
I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?"
He said, "Baptist church of god!"
I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?"
He said, "Reformed baptist church of god!"
I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?"
He said, "Reformed baptist church of reformation of 1915!"
I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off."

It is, how some people use it.

Apparently.

EDIT: Nice quote. Fits this discussion well.

As idiotic as it might be, it happens.

Well, I am not responsible for the actions and viewpoints of idiots.

The point is that you choose as a label for yourself something that has certain ramifications attached to it.

So "bisexual" automatically has the ramifications, "slut who shags anything that moves," attached to it? "White" automatically has a nationality attached? "Christian" automatically has "homophobe who believes in Creationism," attached?

WRONG!

These are additional things that bigots attach to the words. And I am not responsible for the viewpoints of bigots, nor am I going to stop using a word that properly describes my viewpoint just because some idiots can't stick to the meaning of the word.

For the same reason you are not really a "Christian" as most would see it, I do not label myself a "feminist". What label you put on yourself is secondary in this instance to what label others put on you, and if that label of "Christian" means something different to you than to them, their position is all that will matter in the long run. That's the way of it.

Incorrect. If *I* use the label, it is *my* definition that matters. If someone thinks that they might have misunderstood me, they should ask for clarification. If they assume a bigotted viewpoint, I have no reason to talk to them in the first place.

Bazalonia']Neither can be proven or dis-proven because we can't do tests that prove something was or was not created.

Ok, so you've just explained why ID is not a tenable theory - it cannot be tested. Of course, no scientific theory assumes that anything was "created", at least not in the sense that any being created it. Thus, your reasoning only applies to ID in the discussion at hand.

ID while it is an alternative to a widely accepted theory (or groups of theories) does not make it any more or less valid... It is there and it's not going to go away unless you prove it to be wrong.

And herein lies the problem. If you cannot prove it to be wrong - if it is logically impossible (as proving ID wrong is), then it cannot be considered at all scientific. A scientific theory must be able to be disproven. ID cannot.

Are you going to prove that the was not created? No. Can others prove that the world was big-banged and everything after that was the result of pure chance? No Can either be dis-proved? No...

Actually, the big bang theory can be disproven, as it can be used to make predictions. If the predictions are not correct, the theory is not correct.


I hold other opinions. I guess we would have to agree to disagree on this.

EDIT: I tend to hold an individual responsible for his own actions regardless of whether he joins a group --I'm funny that way.

You seem to be intentionally skewing my words. I have never once said anything even remotely connected to the idea that any individual is not responsible for his own actions. In fact, I have explicitly stated the exact opposite more than once. Every person is responsible for their own actions, in a group or out of it. However, if you choose to be a part of a group, you are also responsible for the actions of that group, as your choice puts that responsibility upon you. In fact, it seems that I am holding an individual much more responsible for their actions than you are.


Um. So if someone says they are a Christian, I can make no assumptions about what they believe whatsoever?

You can assume that they believe in the teachings of Christ, whatever they believe those teachings to amount to.

And, well, that's about it. You can't assume they think Christ is God - not all Christians do. You can't assume they believe any particular dogma or even accept all the Gospels - not all Christians do. And you certainly can't make stupid assumptions like, "This person must hate homosexuals," or, "This person believes in Creationism."

"Christian" is a meaningless term?

Hardly. It simply doesn't need all the extra connotation that people try to apply to it.

If someone tells you they are white, what can you tell about them? Well, you can tell that they have light-colored skin. It isn't meaningless - they have told you something. But you can't start making silly assumptions, like "This person is from Europe," or "This person hates blacks."

Um. So if someone says they are a Christian, I can make no assumptions about what they believe whatsoever?

"Christian" is a meaningless term?

Not at all. However, he is talking about the actions of people that have nothing to do with what is inherently Christian. The only things an educated person can assume about someone who says they are Christian is that the person believes there is a God and that a person lived who saves us with that God. You could also generally assume that follow some of all of the Bible. Aside from that, it's pretty much up for grabs. Kamsaki is suggesting that it's acceptable to suggest that people like Pat Robertson represent all Christians. He said we should do something about him or else we are condoning his actions. I'm no more responsible for Pat Robertson than Kamsaki is.

Bazalonia']To me ID and "big Bang theories" are the same type of theories
Wrong. The Big Bang, a phrase coined to ridicule the preposterous idea that the universe is expanding, and thus expanding from something, has several seperate pieces of supporting evidence. Which fundementally rely on physical chemistry, or quantum mechanics. Which are well understood, to about 1 part in 10 billion. In short, not believing in the Big Bang is akin to believing televisions, computers, microwaves and lightbulbs work on by magic alone. And being a complete dumbshit is completely acceptable as a personal choice in America. It might even get you a show on MTV. You can be the crazy guy on the street, the Jesus freak at the football game, it's a free country. But because it IS a free country, your personal predilictions, founded entirely in fear and ignorance, don't get to have the force of law. That's the bargain we're all born into.

What is unacceptable in the United States, because it is a secular, not Christian nation, BY LAW, is forcing your small, invisible, petty, finite, God into the lives of other people's children because you lack the courage of your own convictions and imagination demanded by your "faith."

When Intelligent Design produces a better mouse trap, microchip, medicine, or Mars Rover, then you'll have a basis from which to begin criticizing Evolution, Cosmology, and the rest. But, it'll never happen. No proponant of ID seeks a better description of the universe and exploitation of it's immutalbe laws. Their one petty wish is only to keep better, more commited, honest, generous and faithful people from sharing their wealth of insight with a larger world. They don't want to be left behind before Super Sky-Dad magics them out of their clothes to his invisible sky-fort for frolicking, naked (platonic) giggles.

Bazalonia']To me ID and "big Bang theories" are the same type of theories

I'll the "to me" to mean "if you're not really educated about either theory". Because scientifically they are vastly different.

Bazalonia']Neither can be truly tested

False.

ID is not a scientific theory as there is no scientific reason for the theory. It does not explain an observed phenomenon in the simplest possible way. The primary feature of the phenomenon cannot be tested. It spans across many fields of explanations which is why it ends up being confused with evolution, abiogenesis and the origin of the universe. The reason it's so broad is because it's primary rationale is "God did it", which is entierly untestable. No means of testing the 'theory' of ID have ever been offered that don't merely seek to poke holes in evolutionary theory. Disproving a contrary theory is not testing a theory.

Now the "Big Bang" theory relies on observed phenomena that suggests the universe is expanding from a single point. It has offered dozens of means of positively testing the theory, all of which have held up. And the only part that is untestable is singularity, which is a completely undefined item for that very reason. The singularity could be anything, even God. It's undefined.

Bazalonia']Each has a religious idea behind it ("Spiritual Being created the Universe" or "The earth is a fluke of happenstance.. ie no spiritual creator.)

Your definition of the theory is absolutely false. In "Big Bang", God can still very well be a factor. No scientific theory disables the hand of God. It merely does not add it in. As such, ID is entirely religious and "Big Bang" is not.

Bazalonia']Both have proponents

Um, how is that a factor? There are proponents for the idea that GWB is an alien, does that make it a scientific theory?

Bazalonia']If something is taught and it has been tested and found to be true then by all means teach it and only it.

Exactly. "Big Bang" theory has been tested and ID has not, by your own admission.

Bazalonia']If something is taught and it cannot be tested (or has not been tested) then as educators teachers and governments should be duty bound to at least say "This is a theory, and these are the arguments for it."... for both of them.

Um, all scientific conclusions are theories. However, not all theories are scientific conclusions. "Big Bang" theory is a scientific conclusion because ever part of it relies on evidence and that evidence has held up while more evidence for the theory has been gathered. There is NO evidence for ID and no evidence has been added since the 'theory' came about. You are intentionally mixing two types of theories, one of which is not scientific. Perhaps instead of teaching ID your teacher should be teaching you about what a scientific theory ACTUALLY is.

Evolutionary theory is taught as "this is a theory and these are the arguments for it..." Because you fail to recognize this does not make it false. Now, the reason ID is not taught is because in terms of science it is NOT a theory.

Bazalonia']My issue is that there is no choice students are have evolution shoved down their throats and no mention of "this is not tested but this is what it is beleived to be" or that ID is an alternative theory
ID is not an alternative 'theory'. ID is a religious theory. Evolution is a scientific theory. I notice you compared "Big Bang" and ID and then suggested that ID is an alternative to evolutionary theory. If Evolution is the alternative then why didn't you compare the two? Answer: Because evolution has been tested, observed and upheld over and over of decades and that really doesn't help your whole religious argument, now does it?

Well, I am not responsible for the actions and viewpoints of idiots.
Exactly. You belong to the group of idiots (humanity) but you are responsible for your actions, not the group's.

Yes, of course. You made a choice to be part of a group doing this, thus you are responsible for your actions.
Yes, "your actions" within the group. Only if the individual is participating in the activity of the group are they responsible for anything, in which case it is the individual's actions, not the groups actions, that count.

You seem to be intentionally skewing my words. I have never once said anything even remotely connected to the idea that any individual is not responsible for his own actions. In fact, I have explicitly stated the exact opposite more than once. Every person is responsible for their own actions, in a group or out of it. However, if you choose to be a part of a group, you are also responsible for the actions of that group, as your choice puts that responsibility upon you. In fact, it seems that I am holding an individual much more responsible for their actions than you are.
My apologies for skewing your words.

The only instance I can imagine where an individual can be responsible for the actions of the group is where the group puts that individual in the role of responsibility for other's actions, namely leadership.

If individuals decide to do something as a group, then they are all responsible for the actions of the group.
This statement is, specifically, what I disagree with. Simple association with a group, whether wilful or not, active or not, is not enough to hold them responsible for the group. The individuals who decide to "do something as a group" are doing something as individuals. There can be ones who do not particpate, who are also a part of the group.
EDIT: God, this sounds so pedantic; it is an important distinction, though. You seem to be talking about individual's actions, and then defaulting to addressing that as "the activities of a group". If 'group' here is defined only by those individuals participating in the activities you talk about, then you've created a nice little circular logic, and fine; but it is the activities of individuals that is really being addressed here.

Exactly. You belong to the group of idiots (humanity) but you are responsible for your actions, not the group's.


Yes, "your actions" within the group. Only if the individual is participating in the activity of the group are they responsible for anything, in which case it is the individual's actions, not the groups actions, that count.


My apologies for skewing your words.

The only instance I can imagine where an individual can be responsible for the actions of the group is where the group puts that individual in the role of responsibility for other's actions, namely leadership.


This statement is, specifically, what I disagree with. Simple association with a group, whether wilful or not, active or not, is not enough to hold them responsible for the group. The individuals who decide to "do something as a group" are doing something as individuals. There can be ones who do not particpate, who are also a part of the group.

I think what she means is that if you join a specific group where said actions are a very likely byproduct then you should be held accountable for the actions of the group. Example: I join a mob of people armed with guns searching for someone they believed raped a member of the community. I didn't join with the intention of murdering anyone but I can reasonably expect that the guns are there for a reason and that the murder of the suspect is a reasonably likely outcome. In that case, yes, I would believe that I am responsible for joining a mob of people that would eventually murder the suspect and even for not making some effort to prevent the mob action (I hold the second part true if the action is illegal).

If I join the Aryan nation then I'm pretty responsible for the racism I supported even if I just joined it to get laid or something.

I think what she means is that if you join a specific group where said actions are a very likely byproduct then you should be held accountable for the actions of the group.

This is close. It was more that, if you join a group, you are responsible for what it does as a group because you are a part of it. You are giving support to the actions of that group simply by being a part of it. If you don't like the actions of that group, you either need to try and change them (ie. you are actually responsible for trying to change the "norm" of the group) or get the hell out of it. If you make the decision to join a group, then you become, in part, responsible for all that said group does.

Note: This doesn't mean that you are responsible for what one individual out of the group does. We are talking about the group as a whole here and how it is seen.

If I join the Aryan nation then I'm pretty responsible for the racism I supported even if I just joined it to get laid or something.

Exactly. Unless (although I can't see this happening), you joined the group because you think it is cool to have a group for your ethnicity, but you are trying to eradicate the racism within it.

Every intelligent design class or unit of a class should be looked at individually to determine whether or not it is teaching religious beliefs or intelligent design, unless a lesson plan for the subject can be agreed upon by the state. Even then, people have every right to go to court over it; if the courts decide it is infringing upon the Supreme Court precedent of not allowing religious classes to be taught on government property, the class should be removed to a nearby location off-campus.

Every intelligent design class or unit of a class should be looked at individually to determine whether or not it is teaching religious beliefs or intelligent design, unless a lesson plan for the subject can be agreed upon by the state.

The problem is that there is no either/or. Intelligent Design is, by definition, religious belief.

It's like saying, "Every Christianity class should be looked at individual to determine whether it is teaching that Christ is the savior or religious beliefs."

Even then, people have every right to go to court over it; if the courts decide it is infringing upon the Supreme Court precedent of not allowing religious classes to be taught on government property, the class should be removed to a nearby location off-campus.

The rule isn't "This can't be taught on government property." It is that public funds cannot be used to teach it in public schools. Moving it off-campus would only work if it became completely voluntary, outside of school time, and privately funded.

The problem is that there is no either/or. Intelligent Design is, by definition, religious belief.

It's like saying, "Every Christianity class should be looked at individual to determine whether it is teaching that Christ is the savior or religious beliefs."



The rule isn't "This can't be taught on government property." It is that public funds cannot be used to teach it in public schools. Moving it off-campus would only work if it became completely voluntary, outside of school time, and privately funded.
Hmm, I do agree with you about it being religious belief... let's then say that the criteria is that it cannot promote a particular religion.

There is more room for maneuver than you think regarding religious classes in school. The class would have to be voluntary but it could still count for credit, it would not have to be outside of school hours (this I know, since my school had a seminary class), and funding wouldn't be an issue if it were conducted in, for example, a nearby church.

Mind you, I don't think there's enough to study in ID to make an entire class out of it (hell, it can be summed up in one sentence) so it would be better off in a philosophy class instead of a class of its own.

Hmm, I do agree with you about it being religious belief... let's then say that the criteria is that it cannot promote a particular religion.

Belief in a god or gods is not a religious belief? What exactly is it then?

Edit: Meanwhile, there is no court precedent for a legal distinction of ID as being inherently religious. It is very clear that ID cannot be separated from it's Creationist roots, nor from the belief in God.

There is more room for maneuver than you think regarding religious classes in school. The class would have to be voluntary but it could still count for credit, it would not have to be outside of school hours (this I know, since my school had a seminary class), and funding wouldn't be an issue if it were conducted in, for example, a nearby church.

Your public school funded a seminary class? If it did, it was doing something very illegal. If anyone were to sue, the class would be stopped.

My guess is that the funding did not come from the public.

Meanwhile, it would have to be outside of school hours, as students are required to attend school during school hours.

Mind you, I don't think there's enough to study in ID to make an entire class out of it (hell, it can be summed up in one sentence) so it would be better off in a philosophy class instead of a class of its own.

Now, ID being taught as a single viewpoint among many in a philosophy class would be fine. Philosophy can certainly cover religion, in a "This is what X religion believes," sort of way. Of course, not many public schools have the time or the resources (or the interest) for a philosophy class.