NationStates Jolt Archive

I submit, for your perusal and discussion, the following real life situation...

Nashville Tennessee ~ Sen. Raymond Finney proposes to use the legislative process to get an answer to the question of whether the universe was created by a "Supreme Being."

Under Senate Resolution 17, introduced by the Maryville Republican, the answer would come from state Education Commissioner Lana Seivers "in report form" no later than Jan. 15, 2008.

Finney, a retired physician, said Monday that his objective is to formally prod the Department of Education into a dialogue about the teaching of evolution in school science classes without also teaching the alternative of "creationism," or "intelligent design."

THEORY QUERY:
Questions posed to Tennessee Department of Education Commissioner Lana Seivers:
• "Is the Universe and all that is within it, including human beings, created through purposeful, intelligent design by a Supreme Being, that is a Creator?"

• "Since the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught in Tennessee public schools?"

• "Since it cannot be determined whether the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation, or theory, along with the theory of evolution in Tennessee public schools?"

"I'm not demanding that she (Seivers) to do anything," he said, "just asking, 'Are you sure we're doing the right thing?' "

He said the resolution is "giving her the opportunity to say, 'You're wrong. There is no creationism.' "

Possible problematic answers:
• As the resolution is written, if Seivers does answer no to the first question - stating that the universe was not created by a Supreme Being - she would be offered "the General Assembly's admiration for being able to decide conclusively a question that has long perplexed and occupied the attention of scientists, philosophers, theologians, educators and others."

• But if she answers yes, or states that the answer to the creation of the universe is uncertain, then there is a follow-up question that must also be answered: Why is creationism not being taught in Tennessee schools?

Finney said he suspects that Seivers would answer that the means of creation of the universe is uncertain. Seivers was not available for comment.

SOURCE (http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/cda/article_print/0,1983,KNS_348_5380655_ARTICLE-DETAIL-PRINT,00.html)
Same Source (http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/state/article/0,1406,KNS_348_5380655,00.html) with sidebar

Those Tennesseans don't give up, do they?

I want some Governmental Gherkins, Governmental Olives and maybe a bit of Governmental Beetroot to go with them.

I want some Governmental Gherkins, Governmental Olives and maybe a bit of Governmental Beetroot to go with them.

They give away governmental cheese but you have to buy the crackers... :(

There is no problem here. I don't know for certain that sprites don't make suns, but we don't teach it because I also have no scientific evidence that they do make suns.

The reason God or Creation are not taught as alternatives has nothing to do with one's beliefs about God. God and Creation are untestable. As such, they are non-scientific. As such, they have no place in a science classroom. The answers given to those questions are irrelevant.

The answer should be "we'll be happy to teach Creationism in school when you explain to me how one falsifies God through the scientific process."

There is no problem here. I don't know for certain that sprites don't make suns, but we don't teach it because I also have no scientific evidence that they do make suns.

The reason God or Creation are not taught as alternatives has nothing to do with one's beliefs about God. God and Creation are untestable. As such, they are non-scientific. As such, they have no place in a science classroom. The answers given to those questions are irrelevant.

The answer should be "we'll be happy to teach Creationism in school when you explain to me how one falsifies God through the scientific process."

That's not one of her options... I didn't invent the options she has.

They should teach that God created the universe and anyone who thinks otherwise is going to hell. Then they should speed up the process by burning non-believers.

That's not one of her options... I didn't invent the options she has.

Ah, but the secret is that you don't answer the question you were asked, you answer the question you wish you were asked. Politicians do it all the time, and it would be nice to pull one of their stunts on them from a change.

Your poll options suck.

"Yes, I believe that there is a Creator, but I don't need to bother other people about it, especially students in public schools."

Ah, but the secret is that you don't answer the question you were asked, you answer the question you wish you were asked. Politicians do it all the time, and it would be nice to pull one of their stunts on them from a change.

She's not a politician, she's a commissioner. She's obligated to answer the congressional questions as a duty of her office... Finney's a mean SOB. :p

Your poll options suck.

"Yes, I believe that there is a Creator, but I don't need to bother other people about it, especially students in public schools."

My poll options represent her possible answers, not the answers for the question if posed in a normal conversation.

My poll options represent her possible answers, not the answers for the question if posed in a normal conversation.

She could certainly give my answer.

She's not a politician, she's a commissioner. She's obligated to answer the congressional questions as a duty of her office... Finney's a mean SOB. :p

And if I were her, I wouldn't give him either of the options he's requiring she choose from. I'd give him the answer to the question I'd wish he'd asked and let him look like the nitwit he so obviously is.

She could certainly give my answer.

Because your answer requires another answer: If your answer is that you believe it but can't prove it, your office must answer Finney's next question, "Since it cannot be determined whether the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation, or theory, along with the theory of evolution in Tennessee public schools?"

"Is the Universe and all that is within it, including human beings, created through purposeful, intelligent design by a Supreme Being, that is a Creator?"
Possibly, but the odds of such a being existing are so infinitesimal, that the idea is easily dismissed.
"Since the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught in Tennessee public schools?"
Because there's no scientific way to prove that?
"Since it cannot be determined whether the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation, or theory, along with the theory of evolution in Tennessee public schools?"
Because it cannot be determined was created by a Supreme Being. Assumptions, even popular assumptions, are not science.

They should teach that God created the universe and anyone who thinks otherwise is going to hell. Then they should speed up the process by burning non-believers.
Genius. That is satire.

Because your answer requires another answer: If your answer is that you believe it but can't prove it, your office must answer Finney's next question, "Since it cannot be determined whether the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation, or theory, along with the theory of evolution in Tennessee public schools?"

Do you love your father?

Possibly, but the odds of such a being existing are so infinitesimal, that the idea is easily dismissed.

Because there's no scientific way to prove that?

Because it cannot be determined was created by a Supreme Being. Assumptions, even popular assumptions, are not science.

Then your "assumption" that there is no God creator to be talked about in school should not itself be taught in schools, thus your dismissal was premature...

Do you love your father?

Okay, I'll play, although I don't see the relevance to Seivers pickle...

Yes, I love my father.

You can't scientifically prove or disprove the existence of a "supreme being" and therefore cannot teach it in science class. The end.

I think she should answer none of the above.

What she should answer is "Do we have evidence that there is a supreme being who created the universe? As long as there is no evidence for it, why should it be taught at school?"
Evolution is a theory, yes. Supported by tons of reviewed evidence. And it is taught as such at school. It is ridiculous to the extreme to demand that schools teach all and everything, with or without evidence for it.
There is currently no evidence for alien life forms, so their existance is not taught at school. There is evidence for planets that might or might not support life, and information on them is provided in schools.

The poll options suck.

Try this, instead:

"The possible existence of a supernatural Creator-being is a topic that has no place within science curricula, seeing as how it is not science."

"The existence of religions, superstitions, and Creator myths are already addressed in history, social studies, English, and comparative religions courses. These are appropriate contexts for such discussion. Science and maths courses, however, are not, since the supernatural is not relevant to such subjects."

"Insisting that we teach about Gawd in science class is as bogus as insisting that we teach physics in our English classes. Creationist anti-science wankers are not fooling anybody."

She should give answers like these.

Do you love your father?

That trap is getting old.
And love is NOT taught in science class, apart from maybe its hormonal and chemical effects.

there is a follow-up question that must also be answered: Why is creationism not being taught in Tennessee schools?

and that question brings another one : why can't the creationists come to term with what science is about, namely, to explain the workings of the universe by natural means, without ever invoking a fucking supreme being?

I think she should answer none of the above.

What she should answer is "Do we have evidence that there is a supreme being who created the universe? As long as there is no evidence for it, why should it be taught at school?"
Evolution is a theory, yes. Supported by tons of reviewed evidence. And it is taught as such at school. It is ridiculous to the extreme to demand that schools teach all and everything, with or without evidence for it.
There is currently no evidence for alien life forms, so their existance is not taught at school. There is evidence for planets that might or might not support life, and information on them is provided in schools.

I believe she has to answer, OR, resign her positon OR have congress withdraw the question...

That's not one of her options... I didn't invent the options she has.

It doesn't matter what options he gives. They aren't real answers. He has no right to ask her beliefs and her beliefs regarding theology have nothing to do with science. The mere fact that he would ask suggests he doesn't understand science at all.

I believe she has to answer, OR, resign her positon OR have congress withdraw the question...

And I just outlined what she should answer. Your point?
Are you honestly trying to tell me that every idiot can come along, ask her "Is ice red or hot?" and if she answers "Neither, it's cold and transparent" she has to resign?

I believe she has to answer, OR, resign her positon OR have congress withdraw the question...

Or take it to court as a violation of her first amendment rights. They cannot require her to discuss her religious beliefs as a requirement for her position.

Because your answer requires another answer: If your answer is that you believe it but can't prove it, your office must answer Finney's next question, "Since it cannot be determined whether the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation, or theory, along with the theory of evolution in Tennessee public schools?"

The answer to that question is simple. "Because what we believe is not science, it's philosophy. What we have evidence for is science. Do I need to explain the scientific method to you, Mr. Finney?"

The poll options suck.

Try this, instead:

"The possible existence of a supernatural Creator-being is a topic that has no place within science curricula, seeing as how it is not science."

"The existence of religions, superstitions, and Creator myths are already addressed in history, social studies, English, and comparative religions courses. These are appropriate contexts for such discussion. Science and maths courses, however, are not, since the supernatural is not relevant to such subjects."

"Insisting that we teach about Gawd in science class is as bogus as insisting that we teach physics in our English classes. Creationist anti-science wankers are not fooling anybody."


The poll options represent her possible answers within the arena she is required to play the game. As the education commisioner being required to answer the congressional questions, she's limited in her scope of possible answers. The science curricula in question is the topic of creation of the universe and can she prove of disprove a creator had anything to do with it...

The poll options represent her possible answers within the arena she is required to play the game. As the education commisioner being required to answer the congressional questions, she's limited in her scope of possible answers. The science curricula in question is the topic of creation of the universe and can she prove of disprove a creator had anything to do with it...

Can you prove or disprove gravity? No? Well, then we need to teach an alternative to it in science class, right?

:rolleyes:

The poll options represent her possible answers within the arena she is required to play the game. As the education commisioner being required to answer the congressional questions, she's limited in her scope of possible answers. The science curricula in question is the topic of creation of the universe and can she prove of disprove a creator had anything to do with it...

No, she can't. She can't even evidence it. That's why it's not science. And THAT is the answer she should give. They don't have free reign over her. They can't ask "Did you cheat on your husband?" Your possible answers are "Yes, once." And "Yes, repeatedly."

"Ma'am, you must answer or lose your job and you may only answer with the loaded answers we gave you that make no sense."

The answer to that question is simple. "Because what we believe is not science, it's philosophy. What we have evidence for is science. Do I need to explain the scientific method to you, Mr. Finney?"

If she can't disprove that God had anything to do with it, then he wants to know why all the proposed alternative concepts, explanations, or theories, are not presented in the classes.

Can you prove or disprove gravity? No? Well, then we need to teach an alternative to it in science class, right?

:rolleyes:

I say we're adhered to the surface by sheer force of will. Erm, subconscious will. Ahh, the sheer force of the will of the collective unconscious. Erm.

Would you believe Krazy Glue?

If she can't disprove that God had anything to do with it, then he wants to know why all the proposed alternative concepts, explanations, or theories, are not presented in the classes.

Because there is no evidence for them.

If she can't disprove that God had anything to do with it, then he wants to know why all the proposed alternative concepts, explanations, or theories, are not presented in the classes.

Because it's a SCIENCE class. Science requires that a theory be falsifiable. You can't disprove God. EVER. It is not falsifiable. It's not science. We also don't present the possiblity that we are all looking at a virtual reality program.

"Again, why am I explaining what science is to you, Mr. Finney? Are you actually attempting to determine what belongs in a science classroom with no reasonable knowledge on the very basis of the science discipline?"

No, she can't. She can't even evidence it. That's why it's not science. And THAT is the answer she should give. They don't have free reign over her. They can't ask "Did you cheat on your husband?" Your possible answers are "Yes, once." And "Yes, repeatedly."

"Ma'am, you must answer or lose your job and you may only answer with the loaded answers we gave you that make no sense."

Yes, he asked he a loaded question. Yes, he did it on purpose.

He can do it though, because the question is about state curriculum and she is the commissioner of education in the state.

I say we're adhered to the surface by sheer force of will. Erm, subconscious will. Ahh, the sheer force of the will of the collective unconscious. Erm.

Would you believe Krazy Glue?

I propose Mystic Flying as an alternative for gravity.

http://jocabia.blogspot.com/2006/05/natural-mystics.html

Yes, he asked he a loaded question. Yes, he did it on purpose.

He can do it though, because the question is about state curriculum and she is the commissioner of education in the state.

Well, nobody here is denying him the right to ask the question.
What we find so hard to believe is that it's also his right to supply the answers and force her to pick one.

If she can't disprove that God had anything to do with it, then he wants to know why all the proposed alternative concepts, explanations, or theories, are not presented in the classes.

The answer to that is that we don't teach, in science classes, alternative concepts or explanations without evidence for said concepts or explanations, and there are no alternate theories, at least not in the scientific meaning of the term. She could also add that if he wants the state to start teaching alternative concepts or explanations, that he'd better be ready to include creation myth from multiple cultures including the Flying Spaghetti Monster, may his noodly appendage be praised.

Yes, he asked he a loaded question. Yes, he did it on purpose.

He can do it though, because the question is about state curriculum and she is the commissioner of education in the state.

She has to answer the question. He can't keep her from answering honestly and scientifically. Meanwhile the answer to the last question is obvious. "We don't teach non-science in a science classroom. Creationism is philosophy or comparative religion. It is not falsifiable so it cannot by definition be science."

Because it's a SCIENCE class. Science requires that a theory be falsifiable. You can't disprove God. EVER. It is not falsifiable. It's not science. We also don't present the possiblity that we are all looking at a virtual reality program.

The question is about the cause of the creation of the Universe... how do you falsify that? Surely you’re not suggesting that the very topic of causation for the Universe (what happened a second beforethe Universe existed) cannot itself be discussed in science class simply because we can’t falsify it one way or the other?

If she can't disprove that God had anything to do with it, then he wants to know why all the proposed alternative concepts, explanations, or theories, are not presented in the classes.

because god has nothing to do in science since science is about everything that isn't supernatural... thus all those ideas about creation, intelligent design and whatnot, are NOT theories.

The question is about the cause of the creation of the Universe... how do you falsify that? Surely you’re not suggesting that the very topic of causation for the Universe (what happened a second beforethe Universe existed) cannot itself be discussed in science class simply because we can’t falsify it one way or the other?

I didn't know that we taught the causation for the universe in science classes in school?

Can you prove or disprove gravity? No? Well, then we need to teach an alternative to it in science class, right?

:rolleyes:

There is more than one theory taught about the causation of gravity.

There is more than one theory taught about the caussation of gravity.

Is there one that says "God does it. You can't prove me wrong, so you have to teach that!"?

Because there is no evidence for them.

There is no evidence for any theory of the causation of the Universe.

There is more than one theory taught about the caussation of gravity.

does one of them involve god? or is it a case of successive theories, each being more precise than the one before?

There is no evidence for any theory of the causation of the Universe.

what theory of the causation of the universe?

what theory of the causation of the universe?

I believe he might be talking about the Big Bang theory (or theories, it's not really my area, to be honest).

I didn't know that we taught the causation for the universe in science classes in school?

Classroom... Teacher finished Big Bang lecture. First student question, "What caused the Big Bang in the first place?"


See, to answer your question, yes, they must teach the options of the causation of the universe question because they have to if they mention the creation of the Universe at all.

I believe he might be talking about the Big Bang theory (or theories, it's not really my area, to be honest).

yeah, does the big bang theory pretend to explain what happened BEFORE the big bang?

thought so.

There's only one valid theory of gravity at this time:
http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node60.html

Curved spacetime.

While Newton is acknowledged, and useful for velocities far below the speed of light, Newton is still acknowledged to be wrong.

Classroom... Teacher finished Big Bang lecture. First student question, "What caused the Big Bang in the first place?"


See, to answer your question, yes, they must teach the options of the causation of the universe question because they have to if they mention the creation of the Universe at all.

I remember that answer to that being a "we don't know yet"...

The question is about the cause of the creation of the Universe... how do you falsify that?

A number of ways. Meanwhile, I though we were talking about alternatives for evolution. "Do you not know what evolution is either, Mr. Finney?"

Surely you’re not suggesting that the very topic of causation for the Universe (what happened a second beforethe Universe existed) cannot itself be discussed in science class simply because we can’t falsify it one way or the other?

There was no "a second before the Universe existed" according to all evidence we have. Time and space are intertwined. No time without space and no space without time. These are evidenced things based on observable and testable phenomena. Not things we randomly guessed at. Seriously, your questions demonstrate a lack of basic understanding of science. I'm hoping you're pretending to be Finney, because if you're not, this is very disappointing.

what theory of the causation of the universe?


Multiple Universes, Multiple Big Bangs, Expand and Crunch and re-Big Bang, Singular event Big Bang... Lots of options for the causation of the Universe.

Then your "assumption" that there is no God creator to be talked about in school should not itself be taught in schools, thus your dismissal was premature...
Indeed. There's no place for theology in science.

Classroom... Teacher finished Big Bang lecture. First student question, "What caused the Big Bang in the first place?"


See, to answer your question, yes, they must teach the options of the causation of the universe question because they have to if they mention the creation of the Universe at all.

The answer to "What caused the Big Bang in the first place?" is "I don't know." If someone asked me if God caused the Big Bang directly in my science classroom, I would say we have no evidence either way so it's certainly possible. However, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to bring up God as a possible cause unless I plan to list all other possible causes.

Indeed. There's no place for theology in science.

And, apparently, no place for science in some people's idea of theology. Even the oh-so-conservative Vatican recognises evolution.

A number of ways. Meanwhile, I though we were talking about alternatives for evolution. "Do you not know what evolution is either, Mr. Finney?"

We are not talking about evolution, you are mistaken about the question he asked her to answer.

There was no "a second before the Universe existed" according to all evidence we have. Time and space are intertwined. No time without space and no space without time. These are evidenced things based on observable and testable phenomena. Not things we randomly guessed at. Seriously, your questions demonstrate a lack of basic understanding of science. I'm hoping you're pretending to be Finney, because if you're not, this is very disappointing.

Exactly right, you have no evidence about the Universe before it existed, but the question remains in the classroom, "What caused the Universe, Big Bange, etc.," and the state approved answers to that question is what Seivers has to defend.

Multiple Universes, Multiple Big Bangs, Expand and Crunch and re-Big Bang, Singular event Big Bang... Lots of options for the causation of the Universe.

All of which are, one, reserved to philosophy of science classes and, two, based on availabe evidence and observation.

We are not talking about evolution, you are mistaken about the question he asked her to answer.



Exactly right, you have no evidence about the Universe before it existed, but the question remains in the classroom, "What caused the Universe, Big Bange, etc.," and the state approved answers to that question is what Seivers has to defend.

The answer is, "there may not be a before".

There are no physical laws that require a "before". See Stephen Hawking for more details.

If there is no before, there is no need for a Creator.

The answer to "What caused the Big Bang in the first place?" is "I don't know." If someone asked me if God caused the Big Bang directly in my science classroom, I would say we have no evidence either way so it's certainly possible. However, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to bring up God as a possible cause unless I plan to list all other possible causes.


Exactly right. And he is asking her WHY is God not included when all the other possible options are being discussed. Thus her pickle, Did God have anything to do with it, if yes, no or maybe, then we already know Finney's responses.

Multiple Universes, Multiple Big Bangs, Expand and Crunch and re-Big Bang, Singular event Big Bang... Lots of options for the causation of the Universe.

those, sir, are not theories, but mere hypotheses.

Exactly right, you have no evidence about the Universe before it existed, but the question remains in the classroom, "What caused the Universe, Big Bange, etc.," and the state approved answers to that question is what Seivers has to defend.

The question is, what theories are on the curriculum now? What evidence is there for these theories?
You see, scientists are shrewed little folks, they don't just form theories out of the blue, they tend to decorate them with as much evidence as they can possibly find. It's sort of traditional, it attracts females, and.... well, anyway, what evidence is there for the theories that are being taught, and what evidence is the for one supreme deluxe being?
Contrary to those cute lil scientists, supreme beings have this very unhealthy obsession with not leaving any evidence at all lying around...

The answer is, "there may not be a before".

There are no physical laws that require a "before". See Stephen Hawking for more details.

If there is no before, there is no need for a Creator.

Exactly right, that is definitely one of the options that should be taught. But as you know, Stephen Hawking also mentioned other possibilities as well and they too should be discussed.

Exactly right. And he is asking her WHY is God not included when all the other possible options are being discussed. Thus her pickle, Did God have anything to do with it, if yes, no or maybe, then we already know Finney's responses.

Because God is not a scientific explanation, since there is no evidence for God. We don't talk about BEFORE the universe existed in science classes. You are confused.

Meanwhile, am I mistaken about the questions. Hmmmm...

• "Since it cannot be determined whether the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation, or theory, along with the theory of evolution in Tennessee public schools?"

Finney, a retired physician, said Monday that his objective is to formally prod the Department of Education into a dialogue about the teaching of evolution in school science classes without also teaching the alternative of "creationism," or "intelligent design."

Oops. Seems according to your article this was a dialogue about alternatives to EVOLUTION. Not the Big Bang (which is not actually the prevailing theory anymore, but nevermind that). Did you read the article?

Exactly right, that is definitely one of the options that should be taught. But as you know, Stephen Hawking also mentioned other possibilities as well and they too should be discussed.

We should only discuss scientific theories in science class.

There is no science to prove the existence of God, while there is math to support the idea that there is no beginning and no end.

The question is, what theories are on the curriculum now? What evidence is there for these theories?
You see, scientists are shrewed little folks, they don't just form theories out of the blue, they tend to decorate them with as much evidence as they can possibly find. It's sort of traditional, it attracts females, and.... well, anyway, what evidence is there for the theories that are being taught, and what evidence is the for one supreme deluxe being?
Contrary to those cute lil scientists, supreme beings have this very unhealthy obsession with not leaving any evidence at all lying around...

There is currently no evidence for any of the theories, the only type of evidence that is even possible (for example) would be IF there is multiple universes within the same space, then theoretically that could some day be discovered, but until then or something like that, discussing which options are the causation of the Universe should remain wide-open.

Exactly right, that is definitely one of the options that should be taught. But as you know, Stephen Hawking also mentioned other possibilities as well and they too should be discussed.

I wasn't aware that science classes in the US gave you multiple explanations and then let you decide wich one was right for yourself...

once again :

hypothesis : idea/hunch made on the basis of some observation

theory : a hypothesis that survives testing. as such, the highest level in science (there is no 'just a theory').

science : attempt to explain the universe with natural laws without appealing to a supreme being.

We are not talking about evolution, you are mistaken about the question he asked her to answer.

You should reread the article. It specifically says we ARE talking about evolution.


Exactly right, you have no evidence about the Universe before it existed, but the question remains in the classroom, "What caused the Universe, Big Bange, etc.," and the state approved answers to that question is what Seivers has to defend.

The list of possible causes is endless and presenting wild guesses is a waste of students' time. The purpose of a sciencie classroom in gradeschool is to teach children the prevailing scientific theories and to teach children how science is executed and what it is used for as a discipline. There is no place for spending time for "Hey, kids, look at all the things that are possible but we have not one lick of evidence for."

Hmmmm... I wonder why he's not asking about Sipapu. That's an equally likely explanation for the origin of life (though it is not an alternative to evolution, which is what he's trying to ask about).

It's sad that legislators not only don't understand science, but don't even understand the concepts they are speaking about. Worse, it's sad that people defend this behavior.

There is currently no evidence for any of the theories, the only type of evidence that is even possible (for example) would be IF there is multiple universes within the same space, then theoretically that could some day be discovered, but until then or something like that, discussing which options are the causation of the Universe should remain wide-open.

At least there are mathematical proofs for the alternatives.

None for God.

Hey, get it through your head - as someone who believes in God, I don't require "proof". It's called "faith" for a reason.

And that is the reason it should stay OUT of schools....

We should only discuss scientific theories in science class.

There is no science to prove the existence of God, while there is math to support the idea that there is no beginning and no end.

Science class DOES talk about the creation of the Universe and students ask about it. We can't just stick our collective heads in the sand and tell teachers not to talk about astro-physics and the Universe because we don't have all the answers yet.

I wasn't aware that science classes in the US gave you multiple explanations and then let you decide wich one was right for yourself...

once again :

hypothesis : idea/hunch made on the basis of some observation

theory : a hypothesis that survives testing. as such, the highest level in science (there is no 'just a theory').

science : attempt to explain the universe with natural laws without appealing to a supreme being.

False. Supreme being has nothing to do with the definition of science as a discipline. Science doesn't exclude a supreme being as you suppose. It simply does not add concepts to theories when those concepts are unfalsifiable.

There is currently no evidence for any of the theories, the only type of evidence that is even possible (for example) would be IF there is multiple universes within the same space, then theoretically that could some day be discovered, but until then or something like that, discussing which options are the causation of the Universe should remain wide-open.

If that was the case, every scientist would tell you that they are not theories, but hypotheses.
So, are we talking about theories like the Big Bang (which does have evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Observational_evidence), or are we talking about mere hypotheses and assumptions?

There is currently no evidence for any of the theories, the only type of evidence that is even possible (for example) would be IF there is multiple universes within the same space, then theoretically that could some day be discovered, but until then or something like that, discussing which options are the causation of the Universe should remain wide-open.

was that supposed to mean anything, or is it a chewbacca defense?

evidence means you try to shoot down your hypothesis, and can't (yet).

if you're trying to say "we don't know anything for sure", we might as well give up on science right now...

Science class DOES talk about the creation of the Universe and students ask about it. We can't just stick our collective heads in the sand and tell teachers not to talk about astro-physics and the Universe because we don't have all the answers yet.

Science talks about the creation of the universe. Science classrooms do not talk about prior to the existence of the universe. Those subjects are reserved for philosophy of science classes. It's not entirely unlikely that they would mention in such a classroom that God's role is certainly a possibility.

Science class DOES talk about the creation of the Universe and students ask about it. We can't just stick our collective heads in the sand and tell teachers not to talk about astro-physics and the Universe because we don't have all the answers yet.

what's wrong with not knowing the answer yet?

that's what science is all about.

Oops. Seems according to your article this was a dialogue about alternatives to EVOLUTION. Not the Big Bang (which is not actually the prevailing theory anymore, but nevermind that). Did you read the article?

Oops.. Jocabia thinks the creation of the Universe has something to do with Evolution!

Real answer: Finney is expecting a positive God answer to the causation of the Universe question to assist him in his biology Evolution agenda.

False. Supreme being has nothing to do with the definition of science as a discipline. Science doesn't exclude a supreme being as you suppose. It simply does not add concepts to theories when those concepts are unfalsifiable.

by "supreme" I meant "supernatural".

if we're talking aliens here, I suppose they could be part of a theory... if we could find evidence of their existence... and of their involvement in something that happened billions of years ago...

At least there are mathematical proofs for the alternatives.

None for God.

Hey, get it through your head - as someone who believes in God, I don't require "proof". It's called "faith" for a reason.

And that is the reason it should stay OUT of schools....

Every part of their evidence is based on observation and mathematics. They have predictions that we can test. That's called science.

by "supreme" I meant "supernatural".

if we're talking aliens here, I suppose they could be part of a theory... if we could find evidence of their existence... and of their involvement in something that happened billions of years ago...

Still wrong.

If that was the case, every scientist would tell you that they are not theories, but hypotheses.
So, are we talking about theories like the Big Bang (which does have evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Observational_evidence), or are we talking about mere hypotheses and assumptions?


Finney brings it up in a place where it is umprovable one way or the other and within the realm of what is and what is not acceptable topics in the classroom in his state. He's trying to force Seivers into a postion that he can better attack.

Still wrong.

so what is your definition of science?

if you put a supernatural being in science, that means he doesn't have to obey the laws of science, so you can't use him for anything usefull... and I wonder how you falsify him...

Finney brings it up in a place where it is umprovable one way or the other and within the realm of what is and what is not acceptable topics in the classroom in his state. He's trying to force Seivers into a postion that he can better attack.

Oh, I know he is. It's pretty obvious. I just think he's not being very clever about it.

Science talks about the creation of the universe. Science classrooms do not talk about prior to the existence of the universe. Those subjects are reserved for philosophy of science classes. It's not entirely unlikely that they would mention in such a classroom that God's role is certainly a possibility.

Yes they do, unless you forbid certain questions or refuse to answer them... Your stance with that bolded specific is irrational, I suggest to pick a different one.

so what is your definition of science?

if you put a supernatural being in science, that means he doesn't have to obey the laws of science, so you can't use him for anything usefull... and I wonder how you falsify him...

Not the same. I told you already. Science does not exclude God or include God. It doesn't mention anything that is not falsifiable. It simply isn't good science. Your definition mentions God and/or the supernatural and, by that very mention, MUST be wrong.

You're confused. Simply because God isn't falsifiable doesn't mean we can mention Him as excluded. We simply leave out things that are not falsifiable. That's all there is to it. No mention. At all.

Yes they do, unless you forbid certain questions or refuse to answer them... Your stance with that bolded specific is irrational, I suggest to pick a different one.

There is a difference between the curriculae and the questions you answer. I would answer a question about whether God created the universe as "It's certainly possible." I would not teach it. The difference is not subtle.

Finney brings it up in a place where it is umprovable one way or the other and within the realm of what is and what is not acceptable topics in the classroom in his state. He's trying to force Seivers into a postion that he can better attack.

And, by doing so, is proving he doesn't understand evolution, science, Creation, or logic. He's really doing hiimself a disservice and you are doing yourself a disservice by defending him.

Not the same. I told you already. Science does not exclude God or include God. It doesn't mention anything that is not falsifiable. It simply isn't good science. Your definition mentions God and/or the supernatural and, by that very mention, MUST be wrong.

You're confused. Simply because God isn't falsifiable doesn't mean we can mention Him as excluded. We simply leave out things that are not falsifiable. That's all there is to it. No mention. At all.

yes science does exclude god. you can't at the same time not include and not exclude something. what science doesn't do is try to prove the inexistense of god, wich would be silly. but it certainly exclude god when it comes to building theories.

Oops.. Jocabia thinks the creation of the Universe has something to do with Evolution!

Real answer: Finney is expecting a positive God answer to the causation of the Universe question to assist him in his biology Evolution agenda.

Oops. The article says that it's a discussion of evolution and its alternatives. The question demonstrate that he is mixing theories. Jocabia knows the difference. Finney does not. Finney is an idiot.

You claimed we are not discussing evolution. According to the article YOU presented the discussion is evolution and alternatives to evolution. Again, did you even read it?

We are not talking about evolution, you are mistaken about the question he asked her to answer.

Finney, a retired physician, said Monday that his objective is to formally prod the Department of Education into a dialogue about the teaching of evolution in school science classes without also teaching the alternative of "creationism," or "intelligent design."
Hmmm... I wonder if Finney was talking about evolution when he said he wanted to "prod the DoE into a DIALOGUE about the teaching of EVOLUTION".

• "Since the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught in Tennessee public schools?"

• "Since it cannot be determined whether the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation, or theory, along with the theory of evolution in Tennessee public schools?"

Your friend Finney presents evolution as if it is the creation of the universe because he's clueless. You pretending as if he's right suggests you have an equal understanding of evolution and it's lack of reference to the origins of the universe.

yes science does exclude god. you can't at the same time not include and not exclude something. what science doesn't do is try to prove the inexistense of god, wich would be silly. but it certainly exclude god when it comes to building theories.

You certainly can. If I don't ask you to lunch, I haven't included you in my lunch plans. If, however, I don't actually consider you in my lunch plans, I haven't excluded you either. Exclusion is an active process in science and in most cases. Science does not actively include or exclude God. At all. It ignores God. According to science, God may very well have created the universe, but examining that is not possible.

You certainly can. If I don't ask you to lunch, I haven't included you in my lunch plans. If, however, I don't actually consider you in my lunch plans, I haven't excluded you either. Exclusion is an active process in science and in most cases. Science does not actively include or exclude God. At all. It ignores God. According to science, God may very well have created the universe, but examining that is not possible.

ok, I think we're basically saying the same thing, but we've got a problem with the vocabulary (well english isn't my mother language).

I mean that science is perfectly happy to say that god may indeed control everything in the universe, but we'll suppose that if he does, he's always following the same rules. wich is, as you say, the same as ignoring him.

Because your answer requires another answer: If your answer is that you believe it but can't prove it, your office must answer Finney's next question, "Since it cannot be determined whether the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation, or theory, along with the theory of evolution in Tennessee public schools?"

The answer to this question is so startlingly simple, so incredibly mundane, and so horridly common knowledge, that it is almost impossible to believe why it even needs to be asked.

Science uses repeatable, testable hypothesis and theories(Which also much be falsifiable-I.E. allow other explanations) that are supported by hard data. The Theory of Evolution meets these standards(Infact, the Theory of Evolution isn't that we evolved from primordial goop, up to vertebrates, mammals, pre-humans, and finally humans-that is a model we have constructed using the Theory of Evolution that seems to be the most likely fit), Creationism does not. Creationism has not be tested, infact there has been no hypothesis that is testable created around it, it is not falsifiable(Same as intelligent design), as it assumes itself true and the only possible answer, and is not a Scientific Theory(Infact, it isn't even a hypothesis-it's a statement. Two very different things). Thus, as far as science is considered, it is not.

Now then, create a hypothesis that is testable and falsifiable, test it with repeatable, consistent results, and back it up with hard data, then we can talk. However, until that happens, it's a no go.

ok, I think we're basically saying the same thing, but we've got a problem with the vocabulary (well english isn't my mother language).

I mean that science is perfectly happy to say that god may indeed control everything in the universe, but we'll suppose that if he does, he's always following the same rules. wich is, as you say, the same as ignoring him.

Yes. My issue was that you played into the science vs. religion myth that so many believe in. Science and religion are not at odds. Science does not address religion and most religious folks do not suggest science is at odds with their beliefs.

The answer to this question is so startlingly simple, so incredibly mundane, and so horridly common knowledge, that it is almost impossible to believe why it even needs to be asked.

Science uses repeatable, testable hypothesis and theories(Which also much be falsifiable-I.E. allow other explanations) that are supported by hard data. The Theory of Evolution meets these standards(Infact, the Theory of Evolution isn't that we evolved from primordial goop, up to vertebrates, mammals, pre-humans, and finally humans-that is a model we have constructed using the Theory of Evolution that seems to be the most likely fit), Creationism does not. Creationism has not be tested, infact there has been no hypothesis that is testable created around it, it is not falsifiable(Same as intelligent design), as it assumes itself true and the only possible answer, and is not a Scientific Theory(Infact, it isn't even a hypothesis-it's a statement. Two very different things). Thus, as far as science is considered, it is not.

Now then, create a hypothesis that is testable and falsifiable, test it with repeatable, consistent results, and back it up with hard data, then we can talk. However, until that happens, it's a no go.

Yes, the problem is apparently that PW doesn't care to utilize the definition of science as part of a discussion about science. Seems ludicrous to me, but hey whatever works.

Oops. The article says that it's a discussion of evolution and its alternatives. The question demonstrate that he is mixing theories. Jocabia knows the difference. Finney does not. Finney is an idiot.

You claimed we are not discussing evolution. According to the article YOU presented the discussion is evolution and alternatives to evolution. Again, did you even read it?

You are wrong. Evolution is NOT the topic. The answer to the question will affect his Evolution stance and thus it is presented in his question, but the question presented to Seivers is not about Evolution, it is, is a Creator involved with the creation of the Universe and THAT is not an evolution question.

But please, feel free to continue your "I'm stuck in the mud here and will not be moved from this position no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented!," methodology you are so well known for henceforth.

Yes. My issue was that you played into the science vs. religion myth that so many believe in. Science and religion are not at odds.
Careful. Superstition is not inherently at odds with science, but RELIGION very often is. It doesn't necessarily have to be, but our history is full of examples of how religion most definitely IS at odds with science to varying degrees.

Yes. My issue was that you played into the science vs. religion myth that so many believe in. Science and religion are not at odds. Science does not address religion and most religious folks do not suggest science is at odds with their beliefs.

I wasn't trying to say science is at odds with religion, I was trying to say science excludes god (or more accurately god's will) from its working hypotheses.

wich means that science doesn't care about god. it's passive exclusion, if you prefer.

The answer to this question is so startlingly simple, so incredibly mundane, and so horridly common knowledge, that it is almost impossible to believe why it even needs to be asked.

Science uses repeatable, testable hypothesis and theories(Which also much be falsifiable-I.E. allow other explanations) that are supported by hard data. The Theory of Evolution meets these standards....

You've fallen into Jocabia's misguided mind trap, the question to Seivers cannot be applied to Evolution, because Evolution has nothing to do with the creation and causation of the Universe. Finney anticipates the Universe answer to assist him in the evolution question... they (the questions) are not one and the same, he is using one to support the other.

Careful. Superstition is not inherently at odds with science, but RELIGION very often is. It doesn't necessarily have to be, but our history is full of examples of how religion most definitely IS at odds with science to varying degrees.

You're right it can be. Science is not at odds. And religion is not necessarily at odds. His definition placed science necessarily at odds with religion. It says that the supernatural is excluded instead of ignored.

You've fallen into Jocabia's misguided mind trap, the question to Seivers cannot be applied to Evolution, because Evolution has nothing to do with the creation and causation of the Universe. Finney anticipates the Universe answer to assist him in the evolution question... they (the questions) are not one and the same, he is using one to support the other.

and you seem to miss the point that god has no place in a science class.

wich doesn't mean that he doesn't exists. but since his existence can't be proved, science acts as if he didn't.

This is an idiotic question. Obviously, this guy doesn't understand what science is to begin with, which frightens me when I realize nitwits like him have some degree of political power.

Science is methodologically naturalistic, not philosophically naturalistic. Once he understands this, perhaps he will realize how stupid he sounds.

You're right it can be. Science is not at odds. And religion is not necessarily at odds. His definition placed science necessarily at odds with religion. It says that the supernatural is excluded instead of ignored.

I maintain that supernatural explanations are excluded from science. supernatural beings are ignored, if you will, but I see little difference between not receiving an invitation because no one could think of me, and not receiving one because no one wants to see me.

You're right it can be. Science is not at odds. And religion is not necessarily at odds. His definition placed science necessarily at odds with religion. It says that the supernatural is excluded instead of ignored.
Yeah, I figured you were hip to this point, I just figured it deserved a little clarification.

You've fallen into Jocabia's misguided mind trap, the question to Seivers cannot be applied to Evolution, because Evolution has nothing to do with the creation and causation of the Universe. Finney anticipates the Universe answer to assist him in the evolution question... they (the questions) are not one and the same, he is using one to support the other.

Amusing. The question presented to Seivers specifically says that they are talking about alternatives to evolution. Seriously, if you don't read what you post why should we?

• "Since it cannot be determined whether the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation, or theory, along with the theory of evolution in Tennessee public schools?"

Seriously, are you here to debate or simply embarrass yourself with ridiculous claims about how the question doesn't say what it explicitly says?

and you seem to miss the point that god has no place in a science class.

wich doesn't mean that he doesn't exists. but since his existence can't be proved, science acts as if he didn't.

If God has no place in science class, even when it regards the causation of the universe, then Seivers can certainly answer that way. But if she does then we already know that Finney will publicly address her and ridicule the arrogance of that position because it cannot be proven that God had nothing to do with it.

I want some Governmental Gherkins, Governmental Olives and maybe a bit of Governmental Beetroot to go with them.

Isn't a gherkin a toupee for your hoo haa?

I maintain that supernatural explanations are excluded from science.
I think I've got to agree with this.

The fundamental assumption in modern science is methodological naturalism. That is, the methodological assumption that observable effects in nature are best explainable only by natural causes. Supernatural explanations are deliberately excluded as being irrelevant in this context.

If God has no place in science class, even when it regards the causation of the universe, then Seivers can certainly answer that way. But if she does then we already know that Finney will publicly address her and ridicule the arrogance of that position because it cannot be proven that God had nothing to do with it.

and she can in turn ridicule him by pointing out that science doesn't pretend to disprove that it was god's doing, but that science only cares about finding mecanisms. if you want to say that those mecanisms were created by god, feel free. but that's outside of science's domain.

Amusing. The question presented to Seivers specifically says that they are talking about alternatives to evolution. Seriously, if you don't read what you post why should we?

Seriously, are you here to debate or simply embarrass yourself with ridiculous claims about how the question doesn't say what it explicitly says?

Unbelievable. You bolded it yourself.... "Since it cannot be determined whether the Universe, including human beings, (notice the commas? Notice how the human beings is attached to the prior topic?

Seriously, are you really, really stuck in the mud so deep that you can't move out of it? If so, please be quiet, it's meaningless nonsense on your part to continue that discourse. You know that the Universe has nothing to do with Evolution, I know that it has nothing to do with Evolution, Finney knows that it has nothing to do with Evolution... He is linking evolution to the Universe question because he thinks one supports the other.

If God has no place in science class, even when it regards the causation of the universe, then Seivers can certainly answer that way. But if she does then we already know that Finney will publicly address her and ridicule the arrogance of that position because it cannot be proven that God had nothing to do with it.
And Finney would be wrong for doing so, since IT DOESN'T MATTER if God did or did not have something to do with the causation of the universe, in the context of this discussion.

THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS is whether or not God-as-Creator is a SCIENTIFIC concept. Whether or not God is actually involved in anything is completely and totally 100% irrelevant to whether or not God should be a science topic.

God is a supernatural force. God cannot be tested or examined using scientific methods. Creation-by-God is not a testable, falsifiable hypothesis. Even if God absolutely positively did make the universe, God STILL would not belong in science class.

I think I've got to agree with this.

The fundamental assumption in modern science is methodological naturalism. That is, the methodological assumption that observable effects in nature are best explainable only by natural causes. Supernatural explanations are deliberately excluded as being irrelevant in this context.

thank you. I wish I could have put it that way earlier.

If God has no place in science class, even when it regards the causation of the universe, then Seivers can certainly answer that way. But if she does then we already know that Finney will publicly address her and ridicule the arrogance of that position because it cannot be proven that God had nothing to do with it.

And he will be laughed at by anyone with ever a passing understanding of science. We can't prove God has nothing to do with it and this is precisely why it isn't science. Science requires that a hypothesis be falsifiable. Your and Finney's lack of understanding does not change this simple fact.

I maintain that supernatural explanations are excluded from science. supernatural beings are ignored, if you will, but I see little difference between not receiving an invitation because no one could think of me, and not receiving one because no one wants to see me.

It's a huge difference. Being unaware of you and intentionally leaving you out are quite different acts. God may actually be addressed by science as far as we know, but not as a supernatural being. Science addresses him as far as anything he does that is observable, but as we cannot observe Him or address him in any way, we simply don't address the being. We may very well be dealing with the natural parts of God. We simply address that which is within our discipline. Nothing more. Nothing less.

And he will be laughed at by anyone with ever a passing understanding of science. We can't prove God has nothing to do with it and this is precisely why it isn't science. Science requires that a hypothesis be falsifiable. Your and Finney's lack of understanding does not change this simple fact.

Do you think it's about time you stop the personal insults? You've associated me with Finney several times and you associate Finney with an Idiot, thus, you attempt to call my an idiot by vicinity of position. How about you grow up now?

Well, I don't see why this shouldn't work. A court in New York City was able to decide that Santa Claus existed. No, that was movie, wasn't it.

Unbelievable. You bolded it yourself.... "Since it cannot be determined whether the Universe, including human beings, (notice the commas? Notice how the human beings is attached to the prior topic?

Seriously, are you really, really stuck in the mud so deep that you can't move out of it? If so, please be quiet, it's meaningless nonsense on your part to continue that discourse. You know that the Universe has nothing to do with Evolution, I know that it has nothing to do with Evolution, Finney knows that it has nothing to do with Evolution... He is linking evolution to the Universe question because he thinks one supports the other.

Again, that's the logical flaw here. If we are talking about evolution, whether God could have created the universe is irrelevant. What we know is that science has disproven that all creatures on the planet were here since the beginning of the world. If he'd asked that question, a relevant question when talking about evolution, he would get a different answer. He is mixing the origin of the universe, the origin of life, evolution, Creation, and Intelligent Design into one big muddled mass of misunderstanding and you're mixed right in there with him

Again, did you come here for debate or to make yourself look silly? I know that the even if human being were created whole 6,000 years ago, that it still wouldn't address whether or not evolution occurs. Finney doesn't. Do you?

And Finney would be wrong for doing so, since IT DOESN'T MATTER if God did or did not have something to do with the causation of the universe, in the context of this discussion.

THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS is whether or not God-as-Creator is a SCIENTIFIC concept. Whether or not God is actually involved in anything is completely and totally 100% irrelevant to whether or not God should be a science topic.

God is a supernatural force. God cannot be tested or examined using scientific methods. Creation-by-God is not a testable, falsifiable hypothesis. Even if God absolutely positively did make the universe, God STILL would not belong in science class.

What Finney is trying to do is get the Creator topic past the science room door and into the class, trying to do so with with the causation of the the universe question, and IF he can do that, then he wants to put it in the public record why God would be allowable discussion in one aspect and not the other.

I found it interesting that he's forcing an answer from the commissioner, and I found her predictament interesting as well, thus, the reason for this thread.

He certainly has't put her in a position that she must accept God in the class room though, and I put that in the options. I'm not sure she's going to go that way though, my guess is that she will say it's unknowable if she is in the end actually forced to answer it.

Do you think it's about time you stop the personal insults? You've associated me with Finney several times and you associate Finney with an Idiot, thus, you attempt to call my an idiot by vicinity of position. How about you grow up now?

You are demonstrating a lack of understanding of the topic. That's relevant. If you find it personally insulting then feel free to read up on the topics and treat as they are instead of making things up in order to support your personal philosophy.

Finney is an idiot. You associated you with Finney. I'm not calling you an idiot. I actually expect a better argument from you than the sad and obvious tripe that Finney came up with. I'm hoping you're simply arguing for him since he's not here in a devil's advocate kind of way.

Meanwhile, I find it amusing that you suggest I grow up after talking about how we shouldn't get personal. What does my maturity level have to do with the discussion? What does your understanding and Finney's understanding of science have to do with the discussion? The answers, respectively, are obviously none and everything.

It's a huge difference. Being unaware of you and intentionally leaving you out are quite different acts. God may actually be addressed by science as far as we know, but not as a supernatural being. Science addresses him as far as anything he does that is observable, but as we cannot observe Him or address him in any way, we simply don't address the being. We may very well be dealing with the natural parts of God. We simply address that which is within our discipline. Nothing more. Nothing less.

that's a bit over my head, but I think I get your point. and I still suspect it's real close to mine : all of the rules of the universe may well be created by a or many gods, but if it's the case, we'll suppose they're always acting in the same way, if only because it's the only way we can do something constructive towards better understanding the world we live in.

damn I wish I could make myself clearer.

Again, that's the logical flaw here. If we are talking about evolution, whether God could have created the universe is irrelevant.

We are talking about the universe first, THEN that answer affects evolution, we are NOT talking about evolution first.

Again, did you come here for debate or to make yourself look silly? I know that the even if human being were created whole 6,000 years ago, that it still wouldn't address whether or not evolution occurs. Finney doesn't. Do you?

The silly one is you, who seems to be incapable of not making strawman arguments.

What Finney is trying to do is get the Creator topic past the science room door and into the class, trying to do so with with the causation of the the universe question, and IF he can do that, then he wants to put it in the public record why God would be allowable discussion in one aspect and not the other.

No, he isn't. You've completely made that up. He is mixing the origin of the universe and evolution, a common mistake by Creatiionists. You're trying to pretend he hasn't done so, but every one of his question act as if the Creation of the universe is directly related to evolution. Meanwhile, even in the creation of the universe, it is not an option as it is unfalsifiable. The fact that it cannot be falsified, which is what he wants her to say, is precisely why it cannot be in a sciencie curriculum.


I found it interesting that he's forcing an answer from the commissioner, and I found her predictament interesting as well, thus, the reason for this thread.

So you don't agree that if we can't falsify Creation that it belongs in a science classroom? I'm asking YOU directly if you think that since Creation (in terms of the universe) has not been disproven (in terms of the origins of man it has) it belongs in the science classroom?


He certainly has't put her in a position that she must accept God in the class room though, and I put that in the options. I'm not sure she's going to go that way though, my guess is that she will say it's unknowable if she is in the end actually forced to answer it.

Unknowable is the point. We don't put the unknowable in the science classroom. That's really the basis of science. Theories and hypotheses are not random guess like they can be to a layperson. In science, there are rules to theories and hypotheses and the mistakes he is making regarding that are not new to the debate. It's the same mistake Creationists/IDers have been making pretty much always.

The question is stupid and easily answerable. The question of whether god created the universe is untestable and unfalsifiable. Scientific theory requires that a subject be testabled and falsifiable. Since it can not, it can not be considered scientific theory.

Since it can not, it does not belong in science class. QED

Unknowable is the point. We don't put the unknowable in the science classroom.

Technically incorrect. Everything, by definition, is unknowable, and science does not attempt to lable anything as "known" or "proved".

However, we do not put that which is untestable, and unfalsifiable in the classroom. This is both.

We are talking about the universe first, THEN that answer affects evolution, we are NOT talking about evolution first.

Not according to the article. Please quote where in the article it says that he is only talking about the origin of the universe in order to further it to evolution. It doesn't. He makes a direct comparison of the origin of the universe being specifically related to evolution, which it's not at all. At all.

The silly one is you, who seems to be incapable of not making strawman arguments.

Yes, I'm silly, because I read the article and recognize that according to YOUR article and Finney that this is entirely about evolution. He never once mentions the prevailing theory for the origin of the universe. Not once. You made that part up. He is mixing the origin of life, the origin of the universe and evolution together as so many have in the past.

One theory doesn't lead to the other, because while we cannot exclude God's involvement in evolution or the creation of the universe, we CAN exclude all the currernt life on the planet having been in its current state at the origin of the universe. We have evidence that falsifies that theory. As such, one is not falsifiable at all and the other is already falsified. They are only related in religous studies. In science, one was a scientific claim that collapsed and the other is nonscienitific.

Technically incorrect. Everything, by definition, is unknowable, and science does not attempt to lable anything as "known" or "proved".

However, we do not put that which is untestable, and unfalsifiable in the classroom. This is both.

Actually, do a search of scientific journals for the word "know". It is simply used in a different form than you're using. Know in science is not an absolute. Know means "we have overwhelming evidence for".

He is mixing the origin of life, the origin of the universe and evolution together as so many have in the past.

King's privlidge, three sciences at once!

10 points for who ever gets that.

Actually, do a search of scientific journals for the word "know". It is simply used in a different form than you're using. Know in science is not an absolute. Know means "we have overwhelming evidence for".

*shrug* well fair enough. Regardless, even if you use the layman's term, it still fails because it doesn't meet the fundamental criteria for a theory.

that's a bit over my head, but I think I get your point. and I still suspect it's real close to mine : all of the rules of the universe may well be created by a or many gods, but if it's the case, we'll suppose they're always acting in the same way, if only because it's the only way we can do something constructive towards better understanding the world we live in.

damn I wish I could make myself clearer.

I'll say it differently.

Take a particular theory.

Creation of the universe. Did God create the universe? Don't know. We can't exclude him from having created the universe. We can't include him as having created the universe. Instead we simply ignore Him as a creator of the universe.

When you say we exclude the supernatural you imply that we are actually pushing it out of human knowledge as opposed to simply ignoring it.

Bottle says it a bit differently and by doing so makes it clearer that she does not support that implication.

Were I the lady, I'd answer: "Yes, I exist. I am the creator, there is no higher authority than me. And I won't inform you one way or the other regarding evolution and creationism, because it's My will not to do so. And I, the Supreme Being of the Universe, decree that evolution will be taught and creationism won't. And I will not perform any miracles for you, as thou shalt not tempt the LORD your God."

Simple.

The question is stupid and easily answerable. The question of whether god created the universe is untestable and unfalsifiable. Scientific theory requires that a subject be testabled and falsifiable. Since it can not, it can not be considered scientific theory.

Since it can not, it does not belong in science class. QED

Of course it is. It's rather bizarre to hear rational people defend such absurdity. The question really is stupid and shows a profound misunderstanding of science and each of the theories that this is passingly related to.

Your poll options suck.

"Yes, I believe that there is a Creator, but I don't need to bother other people about it, especially students in public schools."

rAmen.

To elaborate: Creationism and Intelligent Design are not science. They carry within them none of the necessary criteria to be called scientific pursuits. One is a theological and metaphysical pursuit, and the other is creationism in a lab coat.

Evolution is a scientific theory because it passes the criteria needed for something to be a scientific theory. It is taught in schools, therefore, in SCIENCE classes. Only science should be taught in science classes. Intelligent Design and Creationism are not science. They should therefore not be taught in science classes.

Also, if you do decide to teach creationism and/or intelligent design in school, you are also obligated by your own arguments to teach alternate theories on creation. This includes but is not limited to: the Hindu creation myths, the Mayan creation myths, Gaia theory, Flying Spaghetti Monster, and any additional theory not covered in "creationism."

Have fun coming up with a lesson plan for that, you card-carrying members of the Tennessee Regressive Party.

Nashville Tennessee ~ Sen. Raymond Finney proposes to use the legislative process to get an answer to the question of whether the universe was created by a "Supreme Being." It's pretty dumb to assume the legislative process can answer whether the universe.

• "Since it cannot be determined whether the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation, or theory, along with the theory of evolution in Tennessee public schools?" Since it cannot be determined? Just a guess...

No, he isn't. You've completely made that up. He is mixing the origin of the universe and evolution, a common mistake by Creatiionists. You're trying to pretend he hasn't done so, but every one of his question act as if the Creation of the universe is directly related to evolution. Meanwhile, even in the creation of the universe, it is not an option as it is unfalsifiable. The fact that it cannot be falsified, which is what he wants her to say, is precisely why it cannot be in a sciencie curriculum....

Let's sum up our positions.

You state that anyone that takes position "A" is an idiot.
You say Finney took position A and therefore must be an idiot.
Your assumption is that the congressman gets published for being an idiot.


I state that position "B" does not have a easy answer.
I say that Finney took the position B question to his opponent because it is not an easy answer.
I assume that the congressman gets published because he brought position B, a conundrum, to his opponent.


Which is more likely to be correct? A: your position, that the congressman is just an idiot that doesn't understand that he could have asked a puzzling question but he didn't understand that the Universe has nothing to do with the theory of Evolution so he didn't ask it.

OR B: That the congressman (a retired Physician who can be assumed to have learned something about biology and evolution) knows that the Universe question is not related to the Evolution question directly and he asked the question because of the conundrum it causes the commissioner, on purpose, for his own gain.

I suggest that I am right and you are wrong by virtue of plausibility. The question was asked by the congressman because the commissioner was put in the spot by it, that's why it's news worthy.

OR B: That the congressman (a retired Physician who can be assumed to have learned something about biology and evolution) knows that the Universe question is not related to the Evolution question directly and he asked the question because of the conundrum it causes the commissioner, on purpose, for his own gain. Why's he trying to get the Creation of the Universe taught in biology class and not physics class?

Why's he trying to get the Creation of the Universe taught in biology class and not physics class?

I think he's simply trying to get "the Creator/God" word in the general science room class.

I think he's simply trying to get "the Creator/God" word in the general science room class.

Where it doesn't belong. Science should not be forced to bow before an untestable supernatural explanation.

I think he's simply trying to get "the Creator/God" word in the general science room class.But he's shown himself what a dumb fucking idea that is.

THEORY QUERY:
Questions posed to Tennessee Department of Education Commissioner Lana Seivers:
• "Is the Universe and all that is within it, including human beings, created through purposeful, intelligent design by a Supreme Being, that is a Creator?"

no

this has been another edition of "simple answers to stupid questions"

I thought we were "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here," but I look and there are christianist Taliban mullahs at work in Tennessee!

Which is more likely to be correct? A: your position, that the congressman is just an idiot that doesn't understand that he could have asked a puzzling question but he didn't understand that the Universe has nothing to do with the theory of Evolution so he didn't ask it.

OR B: That the congressman (a retired Physician who can be assumed to have learned something about biology and evolution) knows that the Universe question is not related to the Evolution question directly and he asked the question because of the conundrum it causes the commissioner, on purpose, for his own gain.



Neither is correct. I assume the congressman knew of the difficulty in his question, but is an idiot none the less for assuming an intelligent person could easily answer them, or, as the case may be, refuse to answer them as they can not be answered with a "yes" or a "no". So he's smart enough to know what he's doing, he's stupid enough to assume other people are going to play along and not see the glaring holes in it.

I think he's simply trying to get "the Creator/God" word in the general science room class.

and in doing so is a fool, as that word has no business in a science classroom.

Neither is correct. I assume the congressman knew of the difficulty in his question, but is an idiot none the less for assuming an intelligent person could easily answer them, or, as the case may be, refuse to answer them as they can not be answered with a "yes" or a "no". So he's smart enough to know what he's doing, he's stupid enough to assume other people are going to play along and not see the glaring holes in it.

That's just it, as the commisioner she has to play along, she has to answer the congressional question in report form, one way or the other. The only ways out for her is if the question is withdrawn OR she could resign and let the next commissioner try to answer it.

You've fallen into Jocabia's misguided mind trap, the question to Seivers cannot be applied to Evolution, because Evolution has nothing to do with the creation and causation of the Universe. Finney anticipates the Universe answer to assist him in the evolution question... they (the questions) are not one and the same, he is using one to support the other.

Actually, I hadn't even read Jocabia's statements. And that is entirely true, which is another concept which some seem to be unable to come to terms with-that evolution and the beginning of the universe are not necessarily related to one another. Disproving a hypothesis or theory of one does not disprove the other.

However, the point still does stand: Creationism is not science, by it's structure. No hypothesis' have been created, no experimentation has been done. Thus, it has no place in science, as it is not.

True or not, it is not science, as it does not follow the Scientific Method. This seems an incredibly difficult idea to drive home to some, eh?

and in doing so is a fool, as that word has no business in a science classroom.

Quite right. Perhaps the Senator would like to read Judge Jones' decision in Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District (http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf). Although that case was about ID versus evolution, and not cosmology, Judge Jones does make a very good point in saying that "the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."

That's just it, as the commisioner she has to play along, she has to answer the congressional question in report form, one way or the other. The only ways out for her is if the question is withdrawn OR she could resign and let the next commissioner try to answer it.

or she could just show up with a rock that was formed by non-intelligent, non-purposeful natural forces with no design whatsoever, and just say no.

When all's said and done, you know, the Senator's ploy is just a cheap and not particularly clever attempt to introduce Christian doctrine into the public school science curriculum. Creationism has been thrown out each and every time one state or another has tried something like this.

And just for the hell of it all, I'll answer all three questions!


• "Is the Universe and all that is within it, including human beings, created through purposeful, intelligent design by a Supreme Being, that is a Creator?"

This is actually a fairly easy answer-the existance and nature of a "Supreme Being" is simply unknowable. By it's nature, one cannot test for it's existance in the realms of science, as by definition this "Supreme Being" would exist outside of nature-that is all things we perceive as reality. One cannot test for something that there cannot be actual evidence of.

Which leads to:

• "Since the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught in Tennessee public schools?"

This is assuming that the statement is true. In science, you do not assume your statements true from the start-you test to see if those statements and hypothesis' hold true. You never assume that the is 100% true before the test-you guess that a certain outcome will hold true. It may not be, it may very well be, but you never say that the outcome is absolute before performing a test. It is similar to putting the cart before the horse, so to speak.

And finally...

• "Since it cannot be determined whether the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation, or theory, along with the theory of evolution in Tennessee public schools?"

Science is not about preaching all possible alternatives to a given subject. Instead, it is about presenting those ideas, hypothesis', and theories which have been tried, tested, and apparently true. Something that cannot be determined as true is not the same as something that appears true. If Creationism has valid evidence supporting, valid experimentation leading to the conclusion, and follows the scientific method, then yes, it would be considered science. However, as it falls under none of these categories, currently or by it's very structure, it is not science. No prediction are made, no experiments done, and as such, it is not scientific. Once again, this is putting the cart before the horse: Saying something is a valid Theory when infact it has not been tested as such.

Quite easy to answer. Now, if it is for a Philosophy or World Religions class, then I suppose, yes, it is fine. But not as science, as it is not.

When all's said and done, you know, the Senator's ploy is just a cheap and not particularly clever attempt to introduce Christian doctrine into the public school science curriculum. Creationism has been thrown out each and every time one state or another has tried something like this.

Isn't ID still being taught in Kansas? I know it was defeated in PA with Kitzmiller v. Dover, but I think Ohio and Kansas still have it on their lesson plans.

I wonder what's going to happen when those kids have to take college Bio.

Isn't ID still being taught in Kansas? I know it was defeated in PA with Kitzmiller v. Dover, but I think Ohio and Kansas still have it on their lesson plans.

I wonder what's going to happen when those kids have to take college Bio.

I can't remember, I think Kansas is back teaching evolution and not ID. I lost track. It's like playing Whack-A-Mole, though, each state and each school district has jurisdiction over what it teaches, which is good, but it can also be used by ID proponents to their advantage.

Finney. Devious old bugger. I se the pickle for the poor public person (hey check out my alliteration!) How about wording the replies something like this ...


THEORY QUERY:
Questions posed to Tennessee Department of Education Commissioner Lana Seivers:
• "Is the Universe and all that is within it, including human beings, created through purposeful, intelligent design by a Supreme Being, that is a Creator?"


Suggested answer:
There is insufficient data/evidence to conclude how the Universe, and all that is within it, was created.


• "Since the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught in Tennessee public schools?"

This question 'why is creationism not taught in Tennessess public schools' is based upon, and follows from, the premise that 'the Universe and human beings were created by a Supreme Being'. However, this premise was addressed in the answer to the previous question - there is insufficient data/evidence to conclude how the Universe, and all that is within it, was created. Accordingly, the question cannot be meaningfully answered owing to the invalidity of the pre-supposing premise.


• "Since it cannot be determined whether the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation, or theory, along with the theory of evolution in Tennessee public schools?"

The theory of evolution is a theory/hypothesis with explanatory and predictive power that based on observable phenomena. The theory / hypothesis is subject to review and change in the event of discovering new phenomena. As it is strand of objective thought, based on evidence and subject to falsification, it is a form of science and so is taught in Tennessee public schools in science classes. Creationism is theory with explanatory power but little or no predictive power and it is not based on observable phenomena. The theory is not subject to review or change in the event of the discovery of new evidence or phenomena and so it is not falsifiable. As a strand of subjective thought based on belief rather than the observation of phenomena it is a form of philosophy or religious belief and so is taught in Tennessee public schools in philosophy/cultural studies/religious education classes. The two separate systems of thought are not taught as alternative concepts, explanations or theories as the two separate systems are just that: separate.

And just for the hell of it all, I'll answer all three questions!

*snipped for brevity*

Quite easy to answer. Now, if it is for a Philosophy or World Religions class, then I suppose, yes, it is fine. But not as science, as it is not.

You say quite easy, but I say regardless, good job. I agree that what you wrote is very likely to look a lot like what she will eventually write as well if whe writes a well reasoned response. Perhaps we should forward your response onto her for reference. Nicely done. :)

*snipped for more brivity*

Nicely done too.

You say quite easy, but I say regardless, good job. I agree that what you wrote is very likely to look a lot like what she will eventually write as well if whe writes a well reasoned response. Perhaps we should forward your response onto her for reference. Nicely done. :)

Heh, I've heard that same rhetoric a thousand times, and have memorized most of what I say on the issue really. People like this think they are clever and try to pull a "Gotchya!", believing they have finally dumbfounded scientists. However, it really is nothing new, at all. Worse yet, these kinds of arguments have been so incredibly dismantled, that it's no longer beating a dead horse, it's beating the flowers the dead horse is pushing up.

And honestly, I hope she comes to the same conclusions. All she really needs to do is ask any science teacher those, and they will probably tell her at least something similar.

Better than mailing her, though, would be to send her a link to the forum! That would be much more fun.

these kinds of arguments have been so incredibly dismantled, that it's no longer beating a dead horse, it's beating the flowers the dead horse is pushing up.

Nice bit of phrasing, Seangoli. Have some karma :D

Suggested answer:
There is insufficient data/evidence to conclude how the Universe, and all that is within it, was created.

no need to give up that much ground.
"we are certain that this rock was not formed by purposeful intelligent design. therefore the answer to the question is no."

I've yet to see a problem with Secularism on this thread.

That's just it, as the commisioner she has to play along, she has to answer the congressional question in report form, one way or the other.

No, that's just it, she does NOT have to play along. She is not, in any way obligated to answer a question the answer to which she does not know and has no way of ascertaining.

In fact, were she, as a holder of public office, in an official report, give an answer that she does not believe to be correct, and signs that report in her official capacity she would be committing a crime.

She is not obligated in any way to answer a question she does not know the answer to, especially since giving an answer she knows she does not believe to be the correct one is a crime. The only answer she is obligated to give, indeed the only answer she CAN give is "I do not have sufficient information to answer that question nor sufficient means to aquire that information".

Any answer she gives, yes OR no, that she does not believe to be true, would be a criminal act.

To state that anyone, in any capacity, at any time is ever obligated to answer a question they do not and can not know the answer to is asinine. Not only does the law not support a requirement for her to answer, indeed it supports the requirement for her NOT to answer.

It doesn't matter whether there is a creator or not. It is a science class, and the last time I checked faith isn't part of science. Thus, only testable physical evidence should be used when discussing the creation of the universe, at least in a science class. Anything else is just doing a disservice to the children.

No, that's just it, she does NOT have to play along. She is not, in any way obligated to answer a question the answer to which she does not know and has no way of ascertaining.
...

When I said one way or another, I meant it to include the option of saying "I don't know and can't know." In fact, it's one of the three options presented in the OP and the article in question.

When I said one way or another, I meant it to include the option of saying "I don't know and can't know." In fact, it's one of the three options presented in the OP and the article in question.

which then is a sufficient answer to all questions therein. Which means he gets nowhere with this.

What, exactly, is he going to accomplish when she returns all the questions to him answered "I do not know"?

The answer to these questions are blindingly obvious:

Did god create the universe:

I do not know and can not know.

If you don't know why don't we teach it in science?

Because it can not be known and science doesn't deal with subjects that can not be known by science. QED

End of discussion. Questions answered. He gets nowhere.

no need to give up that much ground.
"we are certain that this rock was not formed by purposeful intelligent design. therefore the answer to the question is no."

I'm curious - how can you be certain that this rock was not formed by purposeful, intelligent design?

Who says gravity, the big bang, evolution, gluons etc weren't all thought up by some guy with a beard who sits in the clouds as the means by which to create and run his little toy?

Can you prove that's absolutely not true?

I've yet to see a problem with Secularism on this thread.

The secularism is the assumed point of view of the Commissioner. If she is a secularists than she's in the pickle position of having to defend it against questions like the one brought by Finney. If she’s not a secularist then she’s not in a pickle.

I'm all for a class to be found in public school curriculae which would be a global cultures class. Said class would address the issues and questions raised by many of the major global religions, and ask the questions, but not provide the answers. It would not only encourage an increased cultural understanding, but help ground students in many of the areas from which philosophy and critical thinking are borne.

The secularism is the assumed point of view of the Commissioner. If she is a secularists than she's in the pickle position of having to defend it against questions like the one brought by Finney. If she’s not a secularist then she’s not in a pickle.

she is in no such pickle in the slightest. Any reasonably intelligent person could get out of this situation no matter the answer to the first question, be it yes, no, or maybe.

Creation of the universe. Did God create the universe? Don't know. We can't exclude him from having created the universe. We can't include him as having created the universe.

only because god is an undefined term there. specify what is meant better and we certainly can, in principle, include and exclude all sorts of gods. tell me what the god in question allegedly did and how, and we can find out whether it happened. for example, we know with as close to certainty as we can get that creationist god doesn't exist and therefore didn't create anything.

which then is a sufficient answer to all questions therein. Which means he gets nowhere with this.

What, exactly, is he going to accomplish when she returns all the questions to him answered "I do not know"?

If she answers I don't know to too many questions, he'll say she doesn't have a reason to deny his position then (on the God option in the classroom)

The answer to these questions are blindingly obvious:

Did god create the universe:

I do not know and can not know.

If you don't know why don't we teach it in science?

Because it can not be known and science doesn't deal with subjects that can not be known by science. QED

End of discussion. Questions answered. He gets nowhere.

He does get somewhere though because hypothosis ARE talked about in science classes. String theory, unified field theory, Theoretical Elementary Particle Physics, black hole physics, etc. So when possibilities are being discussed, because they are discussed, then now the commissioner here is being asked to justify why a "Creator" option is eliminated without any reference whatsoever...And that would not be a good time to say, “I don’t know.”

Additionally, she’s in a public position, if her answer is too unpopular she’s likely going to be in longevity crisis in her ability to keep her position, thus another aspect of her pickle.

The secularism is the assumed point of view of the Commissioner. If she is a secularists than she's in the pickle position of having to defend it against questions like the one brought by Finney. If she’s not a secularist then she’s not in a pickle.

So "scientific" is now a synonym for "secularist"?

Besides, those questions don't take a genius to answer:

"We can't know whether God created the Universe in a generic, first cause kind of way (although as there was neither time nor causation before the Universe existed it seems improbable). We can, however, be sure that He didn't create the Universe 6-10 thousand years ago, we can be sure that there was never a global flood, and we can be sure that life wasn't just zapped into existence, and therefore we should not teach Creationism."

Failing that she could appeal to Flying Spaghetti Monsterism or Last Thursdayism.

she is in no such pickle in the slightest. Any reasonably intelligent person could get out of this situation no matter the answer to the first question, be it yes, no, or maybe.

You forget that she hold's her position at the blessing of politicians who hold their position at the blessing of their popularity. IF her answer is too affronting to the peoples sensibilities, she would likely be removed from her position...

He does get somewhere though because hypothosis ARE talked about in science classes. String theory, unified field theory,

uhhh....


Theoretical Elementary Particle Physics, black hole physics, etc. So when possibilities are being discussed, because they are discussed, then now the commissioner here is being asked to justify why a "Creator" option is eliminated without any reference whatsoever...And that would not be a good to say, “I don’t know.”

it would be good to say "creationism meets neither the definition of a scientific theory nor a scientific hypothesis" however

Additionally, she’s in a public position, if her answer is too unpopular she’s likely going to be in longevity crisis in her ability to keep her position, thus another aspect of her pickle.

I would love, LOVE to be there on the first day of the trial when the first words out of her mouth are "I got fired from a government job because I said I didn't believe in god" and has this ENTIRE paper trail to back her up.

Seriously, would pay money.

You forget that she hold's her position at the blessing of politicians who hold their position at the blessing of their popularity. IF her answer is too affronting to the peoples sensibilities, she would likely be removed from her position...

I'll repeat exactly what I said above:

I would love, LOVE to be there on the first day of the trial when the first words out of her mouth are "I got fired from a government job because I said I didn't believe in god" and has this ENTIRE paper trail to back her up.

Seriously, would pay money.

So "scientific" is now a synonym for "secularist"?

Nope, not at all.

Besides, those questions don't take a genius to answer:

"We can't know whether God created the Universe in a generic, first cause kind of way (although as there was neither time nor causation before the Universe existed it seems improbable). We can, however, be sure that He didn't create the Universe 6-10 thousand years ago, we can be sure that there was never a global flood, and we can be sure that life wasn't just zapped into existence, and therefore we should not teach Creationism."

Failing that she could appeal to Flying Spaghetti Monsterism or Last Thursdayism.

Your answer about the age of the earth is not the question she's been asked thus it doesn't get her out.

Nope, not at all.

Besides, those questions don't take a genius to answer:

Nor does it take a genius to answer these questions in such a way that would give this senator no satisfaction what so ever.

...
I would love, LOVE to be there on the first day of the trial when the first words out of her mouth are "I got fired from a government job because I said I didn't believe in god" and has this ENTIRE paper trail to back her up.

Seriously, would pay money.

There would be no trial. It's an governor appointed position.

There would be no trial. It's an governor appointed position.

Exactly, and a government job. And no matter what job you're in, termination for religious beliefs is illegal.

If she answers "I do not know if there is a god" or "I believe there is no god" and is fired shortly thereafter you better believe there will be a trial. It doesn't matter who you work for, evne if you job is entirely employment at will, discrimination on religious grounds is illegal. It does not matter what job he or she holds, if you fire someone because of his/her religious beliefs it is an actionable offense under federal law. And I believe under state law in every state.

Additionally because this is a GOVERNMENT job, and thus would be terminated by an agent of the GOVERNMENT, there's a first amendment rights issue there as well.

Wanna know how high the penalties get when the government violates civil liberties?

Nope, not at all.

Good. :)

Your answer about the age of the earth is not the question she's been asked thus it doesn't get her out.

Methinks you should reread the follow up questions my friend:

• "Since it cannot be determined whether the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation, or theory, along with the theory of evolution in Tennessee public schools?"

I was explaining why, even if we can't rule out a divine first cause (which is pretty much what he's asking), it doesn't follow that Creationism should be taught.

Exactly, and a government job. And no matter what job you're in, termination for religious beliefs is illegal.

If she answers "I do not know if there is a god" or "I believe there is no god" and is fired shortly thereafter you better believe there will be a trial. It doesn't matter who you work for, evne if you job is entirely employment at will, discrimination on religious grounds is illegal. It does not matter what job he or she holds, if you fire someone because of his/her religious beliefs it is an actionable offense under federal law. And I believe under state law in every state.

Additionally because this is a GOVERNMENT job, and thus would be terminated by an agent of the GOVERNMENT, there's a first amendment rights issue there as well.

Wanna know how high the penalties get when the government violates civil liberties?

You don't understand how it works in the political leaders cabinet then. IF a governor (or President for example) decides to replace any member of their cabinet, then they don't need any reason whatsoever. That person goes bye bye, and the governor appoints someone new. Loss of confidence or just found someone better, or someone less damaging to my career... etc., etc., etc.

I'm curious - how can you be certain that this rock was not formed by purposeful, intelligent design?

because the particular rock was formed by weathering - and nobody in their right minds will claim that frost heaving or wave action or whatever are intelligent agents. and the larger rock it was broken off of was formed by one of several geological processes, which again nobody not insane will call intelligent agents. therefore rocks are not formed by purposeful intelligent agents capable of designing anything.

the retreat move is then to say, "ok, but maybe those processes themselves are created through purposeful intelligent design". but this won't work either. frost heaving happens because it gets cold outside and then thaws, wave action is caused by the wind or geologic activity. and we aren't exactly requiring divine intervention to create the seasons anymore.

lather, rinse, repeat. it turns out that they'll have to retreat all the way back to "well, maybe the fundamental laws and constants of the universe are the result of purposeful intelligent design.

to which i will say "honestly, your track record looks really shitty on this - got any evidence? oh, and you do realize that this means that essentially nothing in the universe is caused by purposeful intelligent design, and you've just become a deist, right? congrats."

You don't understand how it works in the political leaders cabinet then. IF a governor (or President for example) decides to replace any member of their cabinet, then they don't need any reason whatsoever. That person goes bye bye, and the governor appoints someone new. Loss of confidence or just found someone better, or someone less damaging to my career... etc., etc., etc.

Before you start telling me "how it works", I have taken graduate level coursework in labor and employment law, have you? You are absolutly and totally wrong. Any politically appointed position is still a job. That makes the governor (or rather, the office of the governor) an employer. All employers, ALL EMPLOYERS must adhere to federal and state laws and regulations in regards to what they may use as reasons for termination.

Firing someone because of their religious beliefs is illegal. It is illegal under federal law, it is illegal under state law, and because this is a government job, is also illegal under the constitution.

She has every right to go to court and present evidence that she was fired under religious grounds.

Methinks you should reread the follow up questions my friend:

• "Since it cannot be determined whether the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation, or theory, along with the theory of evolution in Tennessee public schools?"

I was explaining why, even if we can't rule out a divine first cause (which is pretty much what he's asking), it doesn't follow that Creationism should be taught.

He doesn't identify which type of creationism he's referring to with the question. He could be talking about ID or some other variant, he doesn't need to suppose a 6000 year old earth (maybe even flat) as the belief referred to as "Creationism"...

It's much like string theory.

A very nice fantasy, but until you can make any sort of predictions with it, it has no scientific value.

Unlike string theory, creationism will never have scientific value.

Before you start telling me "how it works", I have taken graduate level coursework in labor and employment law, have you? You are absolutly and totally wrong. Any politically appointed position is still a job. That makes the governor (or rather, the office of the governor) an employer. All employers, ALL EMPLOYERS must adhere to federal and state laws and regulations in regards to what they may use as reasons for termination.

Firing someone because of their religious beliefs is illegal. It is illegal under federal law, it is illegal under state law, and because this is a government job, is also illegal under the constitution.

She has every right to go to court and present evidence that she was fired under religious grounds.

If they are fired/replaced, they are not going to get fired because of their religious beliefs, they are going to be replaced (by the governor) because the governor is unhappy with their performance and losing popularity because of them will make the governor unhappy with their performance, the governor doesn't need a 'reason' to replace someone in an appointed position.

He doesn't identify which type of creationism he's referring to with the question. He could be talking about ID or some other variant, he doesn't need to suppose a 6000 year old earth (maybe even flat) as the belief referred to as "Creationism"...

Intelligent Design advocates are adamant that their position is purely scientific, with no links to religion or Creationism whatsoever. Obviously this is nonsense, but if that's what they say why should I argue?

It's much like string theory.

A very nice fantasy, but until you can make any sort of predictions with it, it has no scientific value.

Unlike string theory, creationism will never have scientific value.

If you can't make predictions with it, you can't falsify it, if you can't falsify it or make predictions with it, what good is string theory? It has no value?

If they are fired/replaced, they are not going to get fired because of their religious beliefs, they are going to be replaced (by the governor) because the governor is unhappy with their performance and losing popularity because of them will make the governor unhappy with their performance, the governor doesn't need a 'reason' to replace someone in an appointed position.

And when she trots into court with the paperwork that states that the government MADE her answer questions as to her own particular religious beliefs?

Actually, come to think of it, this whole thing is freaking illegal as hell. The very first question requires her to answer a question about her personal religious beliefs. You can't ask that to someone.

So the whole things falls the hell to pieces because she can not be compelled to answer questions about her religious beliefs.

And if she gets fired then she again can walk into court and say "I was asked if I believed in god, I refused to answer, I was fired shortly thereafter" and let the jury make up their own conclusions.

Of course the governor will SAY that's not why he fired her, nobody ever admits to anything, but it's the question of who is going to be believed. And if that happens all the jury is going to get is that she was asked, illegally, whether she believed in god, she refused to answer, and then she was fired.

If you don't think that's one of the easiest cases in the world to win there's no hope for you.

Because your answer requires another answer: If your answer is that you believe it but can't prove it, your office must answer Finney's next question, "Since it cannot be determined whether the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation, or theory, along with the theory of evolution in Tennessee public schools?"

Because religion has no place in the public school system. Simple answer to a simple question.

I can wrap this up real quick.


Science class teaches science. Evolution = science. Science class teaches evolution.


Young earth theory/ID/Native American Folklore/etc = Fiction. Stories. Religion = fiction/stories. Religion classes should teach young earth theory/ID/Native American Folklore/etc.




That's all there is to it.

Now, he can begin trying to make religion class a core class just like science is. Then I'll punch him in the face.

And when she trots into court with the paperwork that states that the government MADE her answer questions as to her own particular religious beliefs?

Actually, come to think of it, this whole thing is freaking illegal as hell. The very first question requires her to answer a question about her personal religious beliefs. You can't ask that to someone.

So the whole things falls the hell to pieces because she can not be compelled to answer questions about her religious beliefs.

And if she gets fired then she again can walk into court and say "I was asked if I believed in god, I refused to answer, I was fired shortly thereafter" and let the jury make up their own conclusions.

Of course the governor will SAY that's not why he fired her, nobody ever admits to anything, but it's the question of who is going to be believed. And if that happens all the jury is going to get is that she was asked, illegally, whether she believed in god, she refused to answer, and then she was fired.

If you don't think that's one of the easiest cases in the world to win there's no hope for you.

You've got yourself all twisted into knots, you’re off on a tangent and haven't remembered the focus of the issue.

Let’s put a different spin on it. Can Bush fire Gonzales for any reason he wants? Or even on a whim? I'll assume your answer to be yes, because yes is the right answer.

What you are thinking of is the people below that level, the labor workers in the government under that, the ones that were not appointed on a whim, by the governor. The appointees themselves though and their private workers hold their positions entirely at the blessing of the current office holder.

Yes, he asked he a loaded question. Yes, he did it on purpose.

He can do it though, because the question is about state curriculum and she is the commissioner of education in the state.

The question is quite clearly about RELIGION not science.

...

Now, he can begin trying to make religion class a core class just like science is. Then I'll punch him in the face.

That IS one of the options :p

You know, now that I think about it, the senator just hung himself, because now will he NOT get an answer, he handed her one hell of a job security on a silver platter.

Why? Because he asked her if there was a creator. He asked her to state her personal religious beliefs. Uh oh, problem. You can not require someone to tell you their religious beliefs. Asking them that, in their official capacity is illegal as hell. So she doesn't have to answer.

And if anything, ANYTHING bad happens to her, she can walk into court, provide the paper work that HE GAVE HER and say "see, right here? here's where he illegally asked my what my religious beliefs were. I refused to answer them, short time afterwards I was fired"

And they can throw up any excuse they want, they can defend themselves to the death. All that jury is going to see is:

1) she got asked to state her religious beliefs
2) she refused
3) she got fired

There isn't a civil defense attorney in the world that wouldn't take one look at that and urge settlement. It's unwinnable. If she gets fired now, they're toast.

Can Bush fire Gonzales for any reason he wants?

no

yet another round of "simple answers to stupid questions"

yeah, does the big bang theory pretend to explain what happened BEFORE the big bang?

thought so.

Does the "God did it" theory pretend to explain where God came from?


Thought so.

You've got yourself all twisted into knots

Just because you can't understand it does not, in any way, make the argument "twisted"

Can Bush fire Gonzales for any reason he wants?

No. Bush can fire Gonzales for any reason he wants provided that the reason is not discriminatory as defined by law.

For example, Bush may fire Gonzales because he does not view him as competant for the job. He may not fire him because he is Hispanic.

I'll assume your answer to be yes, because yes is the right answer.

Your ability to make assumptions is as lacking as your knowledge of employment law.

What you are thinking of is the people below that level, the labor workers in the government under that,

No, I am thinking of any employee of any employer, who, by nature of being an employee of an employer is protected by Title VII of the civil rights act, any relevant state laws and, due to her position as an employee of the government, the constitution of the united states.

the ones that were not appointed on a whim, by the governor. The appointees themselves though and their private workers hold their positions entirely at the blessing of the current office holder.

Provided those blessings do not result in termination for discriminatory grounds, correct. If they do however, they are just as liable under Federal law and state law as any other employer. Since the employer in this instance is the government, it must ALSO adhere to the Constitution of the United States.

Science class DOES talk about the creation of the Universe and students ask about it. We can't just stick our collective heads in the sand and tell teachers not to talk about astro-physics and the Universe because we don't have all the answers yet.

They are free to talk about Astrophysics and the Universe. They are not on the other hand free to discuss religion with a captive audience of children. Is this really too complicated for you to understand?

...
No. Bush can fire Gonzales for any reason he wants provided that the reason is not discriminatory as defined by law.

For example, Bush may fire Gonzales because he does not view him as competant for the job. He may not fire him because he is Hispanic.

I concede that point, I generalized too far. My point in this matter still stands though, the commissioner could be fired simply for becoming too much of a distraction to the governor's position and platform.

I concede that point, I generalized too far. My point in this matter still stands though, the commissioner could be fired simply for becoming too much of a distraction to the governor's position and platform.

becoming a distraction through what means?

Moreover you're missing my point. It doesn't matter what he SAYS, it doesn't matter what justification he gives.

She can go into court, with official documents as proof and say "I was fired shortly after I refused to answer questions as to my religious beliefs"


The governor can spin it any way he likes. All the jury is going to see is that nice and official paperwork asking her, clear as day, what her religious beliefs are, and they'll listen to her say "I was fired shortly after I refused to answer questions as to my religious beliefs" and that will be that.

Let's sum up our positions.

You state that anyone that takes position "A" is an idiot.

Nope. This has nothing to do with his position. I've not said that ever. I've said his arguments are the problem.

You say Finney took position A and therefore must be an idiot.

Again, nope. He must be idiot because his questions and behavior are idiotic. There is nothing wrong with believing God created the universe or wanting to pass that belief on. Being intentionally deceptive to support a God that tells you not to is idiotic. Asking questions about religion that one should know the answer to and recognize as irrelevant to physics or biology while trying to claim they aren't is idiotic. Wishing this wasn't true, isn't. It's not his position that makes him an idiot. It's behaving like an idiot that leads me to the conclusion that he is.

Amusingly, didn't you also call him names. Is that because his position or his behavior? I assumed it was the latter, why don't you give me the same benefit of the doubt?

Your assumption is that the congressman gets published for being an idiot.

Pardon? Published? My assumption is that his story is available to us because it's something people like to read about. His being an idiot just helps it be more entertaining.


I state that position "B" does not have a easy answer.
I say that Finney took the position B question to his opponent because it is not an easy answer.
I assume that the congressman gets published because he brought position B, a conundrum, to his opponent.

Except it's not a conundrum to anyone with even a passing understanding of science. Not even a little bit. The question has been answered long ago. He is revisiting an argument that Creationists keep losing for the reason that they don't understand the argument.



Which is more likely to be correct? A: your position, that the congressman is just an idiot that doesn't understand that he could have asked a puzzling question but he didn't understand that the Universe has nothing to do with the theory of Evolution so he didn't ask it.

Didn't you mention strawmen? Now, let's state this more realistically.

My position A the congressmen made mistake that many Creationist make in not separating theories of on the origin of the universe from origin of life from origin of the species from evolution. He presents them together as if talking about the origin of the universe is related to evolution. He asks a question about an unfalsifiable assumption, tries to get her to admit it's unfalsifiable, not realizing that this very idea is what keeps it out of the science classroom. He also clearly doesn't realize that relating it to an already falsified assumption only makes his position weaker, mainly because he doesn't seem to recognize the difference.



OR B: That the congressman (a retired Physician who can be assumed to have learned something about biology and evolution) knows that the Universe question is not related to the Evolution question directly and he asked the question because of the conundrum it causes the commissioner, on purpose, for his own gain.

One would think the first part would be true. However, his questions suggest otherwise. Either he's not aware that his questions will demonstrate why it's not scientific which makes him an idiot or he is aware and he's trying to make himself LOOK like an idiot. I think that he's an idiot is more plausible than he likes looking like one.

Meanwhile, there is no conundrum. That's what everyone is trying to explain to you. There is nothing difficult about answering these questions for a scientists. One would think a physician would realize that. This physician doesn't.

I suggest that I am right and you are wrong by virtue of plausibility. The question was asked by the congressman because the commissioner was put in the spot by it, that's why it's news worthy.

The question was asked by the congressman because he's an idiot who likely doesn't realize that this makes him look beyond silly. I learned in gradeschool that not being falsifiable fails the muster in science.

...
The governor can spin it any way he likes. All the jury is going to see is that nice and official paperwork asking her, clear as day, what her religious beliefs are, and they'll listen to her say "I was fired shortly after I refused to answer questions as to my religious beliefs" and the governor's popularity dropped 15 points and was losing his bid for re-election, that will be that.

Added part (bolded part) for the reason the case never goes to court in the first place.

I would love, LOVE to be there on the first day of the trial when the first words out of her mouth are "I got fired from a government job because I said I didn't believe in god" and has this ENTIRE paper trail to back her up.

Seriously, would pay money.

And at the end of the trial so would the government! :p

No...
Meanwhile, there is no conundrum. That's what everyone is trying to explain to you. ...

Oh Really? Interesting then that we've been having actual discussions and debates with give and take without your participation, but with your participation all we get to talk about is how you like to throw the word idiot around a lot. :rolleyes:

That's just it, as the commisioner she has to play along, she has to answer the congressional question in report form, one way or the other. The only ways out for her is if the question is withdrawn OR she could resign and let the next commissioner try to answer it.

Yes, and playing along is easy. He leads her into a question that makes him look like an idiot.

Him: Since it cannot be determined whether the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation, or theory, along with the theory of evolution in Tennessee public schools?

Her: First of all, Creation as an origin to the universe and life would be an alternative concept to other theories as to the origin of the universe and life, of which the theory of evolution is not one, if you hadn't just demonstrated why it's not scientific. You do realize, DOCTOR Finney, that any theory that cannot be falsified, and you demonstrated that it couldn't, has no place in science. Thank you for supporting my curricula and showing why we needn't waste anymore time on considering unscientific theories for the science classroom.

Added part (bolded part) for the reason the case never goes to court in the first place.

So your claim is that if she refused to answer the question, she will be viewed negatively, and the governor by association? Thus the governor will fire her because he becomes unpopular?

Little problem with that. Actually no, BIG problem with that. Huge. Gigantic.

As she is a government employee, legally they're not allowed to answer that question in the first place. All you've done is made the argument better FOR HER. Now instead of "I got fired for not answering a question about my religious beliefs" it becomes "I got fired due to the political fallout because I asserted my rights to not answer an illegal question"

This really is no better.

Oh Really? Interesting then that we've been having actual discussions and debates with give and take without your participation, but with your participation all we get to talk about is how you like to throw the word idiot around a lot. :rolleyes:

Well, I could just call him an SOB, but I prefer to stick to the things I have evidence for.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12452440&postcount=10
She's not a politician, she's a commissioner. She's obligated to answer the congressional questions as a duty of her office... Finney's a mean SOB. :p

I love how my judgement of his arguments is less appropriate than yours.

However, how about you not drop arguments, per usual, and actually explain what is a conundrum about a bunch of questions that prove that Creationism cannot be falsified, which is the reason they don't belong in the science classroom.

I'm glad the death of my friend's mother could give you a moment's peace from having to address why proving Creationism can't be falsified helps it appear more scientific.

If you can't make predictions with it, you can't falsify it, if you can't falsify it or make predictions with it, what good is string theory? It has no value?

That's exactly what I said.

But, unlike creationism, string theory has the potential to one day make predictions. This is no reason to teach it, just like you do not teach mathematical conjectures to students that aren't studying maths at university level.

Heh, I've heard that same rhetoric a thousand times, and have memorized most of what I say on the issue really. People like this think they are clever and try to pull a "Gotchya!", believing they have finally dumbfounded scientists. However, it really is nothing new, at all. Worse yet, these kinds of arguments have been so incredibly dismantled, that it's no longer beating a dead horse, it's beating the flowers the dead horse is pushing up.

And honestly, I hope she comes to the same conclusions. All she really needs to do is ask any science teacher those, and they will probably tell her at least something similar.

Better than mailing her, though, would be to send her a link to the forum! That would be much more fun.

Yes, PW, actually thinks this is new stuff. It's like every time we see someone encounter Pascal's Wager for the first time and think they can trick people into faith, or people who come up with that silly "I can prove God isn't omnipotent. Can He make a rock that even He cannot lift?" These things are old. There is no conundrum unless she's not aware that him that things that are not falsifiable cannot appear in theories.

only because god is an undefined term there. specify what is meant better and we certainly can, in principle, include and exclude all sorts of gods. tell me what the god in question allegedly did and how, and we can find out whether it happened. for example, we know with as close to certainty as we can get that creationist god doesn't exist and therefore didn't create anything.

See, that's actually the point. God becomes an unnecessary complication to the process. I can test what happened. I cannot test whether God did it. See the difference. Evolution could very well be a tool of God. "God did it" could be the right answer. However, because we cannot address that part, we simply ignore His participation in the process. Define the process based on evidence. Test the process using predictions. Do so until you disprove the definition or you run out of tests.

If she answers I don't know to too many questions, he'll say she doesn't have a reason to deny his position then (on the God option in the classroom)

That's actually the reason to deny his position. That's the point. That we don't know, have no evidence and cannot ever have evidence makes it unscientific. You're aware of this, no?


He does get somewhere though because hypothosis ARE talked about in science classes. String theory, unified field theory, Theoretical Elementary Particle Physics, black hole physics, etc. So when possibilities are being discussed, because they are discussed, then now the commissioner here is being asked to justify why a "Creator" option is eliminated without any reference whatsoever...And that would not be a good time to say, “I don’t know.”

In grade school? No, they aren't. The theories are explored because they have predictive power. Now we may not have the ability to test some of those predictions yet, but there is every reason to believe we will. Much like atomic theory at one time. God is unfalsifiable. Every one of these theories can be falsified by testing predictions resulting from them.


Additionally, she’s in a public position, if her answer is too unpopular she’s likely going to be in longevity crisis in her ability to keep her position, thus another aspect of her pickle.
Nah. She could easily and openly admit she believes God created the universe. Then she can easily and openly point out that her belief is irrelevant. No pickle. The person in the pickle is the person who pretty clearly is violating her civil rights, our civil rights and is openly and blatantly trying to violate the fundamental principles of both science and faith.

I submit, for your perusal and discussion, the following real life situation...

Nashville Tennessee ~ Sen. Raymond Finney proposes to use the legislative process to get an answer to the question of whether there is an invisible pink unicorn in the room with us right now.

Under Senate Resolution 17, introduced by the Maryville Republican, the answer would come from state Education Commissioner Lana Seivers "in report form" no later than Jan. 15, 2008.

Finney, a retired physician, said Monday that his objective is to formally prod the Department of Education into a dialogue about the teaching of invisible unicorn nonexistance in school science classes without also teaching the alternative of Unicornism or invisible-being existence.

THEORY QUERY:
Questions posed to Tennessee Department of Education Commissioner Lana Seivers:
• "Is there in this room right now, a unicorn which is both invisible and pink simultaneously?"

• "Since there is an invisible pink unicorn in this room right now, why is Unicornism not taught in Tennessee public schools?"

• "Since it cannot be determined whether an invisible pink unicorn is in the room with us, why is Unicornism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation, or theory, along with the theory of invisible-being nonexistance in Tennessee public schools?"

"I'm not demanding that she (Seivers) to do anything," he said, "just asking, 'Are you sure we're doing the right thing?' "

He said the resolution is "giving her the opportunity to say, 'You're wrong. There is no invisible pink unicorn.' "

Possible problematic answers:
• As the resolution is written, if Seivers does answer no to the first question - stating that there is no invisible pink unicorn in the room - she would be offered "the General Assembly's admiration for being able to decide conclusively a question that has long perplexed and occupied the attention of scientists, philosophers, theologians, educators and others."

• But if she answers yes, or states that the answer to unicorn's existence is uncertain, then there is a follow-up question that must also be answered: Why is Unicornism not being taught in Tennessee schools?

Finney said he suspects that Seivers would answer that the means of existence of the unicorn is uncertain. Seivers was not available for comment.


maybe this will demonstrate the absurdity of this idea, though I could answer it pretty easily with the original questions: We don't know if there's a supreme being or not, and teaching creationism based on that would be stupid, first because creationism is a theory about the Christian God specifically, and second, because we don't teach the theory of other things that might be true, such as the existence of an invisible pink unicorn. Might I suggest that you take this discussion to a philosophy class, where it belongs? Unless you can come up with some way I can run experiments on God, the idea doesn't belong in a science classroom.

Because religion has no place in the public school system. Simple answer to a simple question.I disagree. It has no place in a science class, but religion classes are acceptable.

Is it possible that people can turn invisible?

If the answer is yes, the I would like for you to teach invisibility as an alternative to the holocaust. The Nazis turned them invisible.

If the answer is no, please explain when and where you investigated whether or not each and every person killed in the holocaust for an ability for invisibility.

I disagree. It has no place in a science class, but religion classes are acceptable.

And literature, naturally.

Is it possible that people can turn invisible?

If the answer is yes, the I would like for you to teach invisibility as an alternative to the holocaust. The Nazis turned them invisible.

If the answer is no, please explain when and where you investigated whether or not each and every person killed in the holocaust for an ability for invisibility.

Nice move, well-executed!

That's exactly what I said.

But, unlike creationism, string theory has the potential to one day make predictions. This is no reason to teach it, just like you do not teach mathematical conjectures to students that aren't studying maths at university level.

Oh contraire, I did know exactly what you meant, but I continued it.

IF the assumption is held that someday string theory might be usable for making predictions, then the same can be said in reverse as well.

IF ID was proved to be correct (how that could be proved I have no idea) then it too could be used for making predictions as well. Such as, since we know so-and-so was designed, “what was it made to do” becomes a relevant question. “Why this," and if so, "then that" becomes possible and should be true too, and then you would go and look and see if that thing predicted (whatever the predication was), is in fact true.

If ID had a basis in fact, it very well could be used for making predictions, in every field of study, nothing would be beyond it's impact.

I submit, for your perusal and discussion, the following real life situation...

Nashville Tennessee ~ Sen. Raymond Finney proposes to use the legislative process to get an answer to the question of whether there is an invisible pink unicorn in the room with us right now.

Under Senate Resolution 17, introduced by the Maryville Republican, the answer would come from state Education Commissioner Lana Seivers "in report form" no later than Jan. 15, 2008.

Finney, a retired physician, said Monday that his objective is to formally prod the Department of Education into a dialogue about the teaching of invisible unicorn nonexistance in school science classes without also teaching the alternative of Unicornism or invisible-being existence.

THEORY QUERY:
Questions posed to Tennessee Department of Education Commissioner Lana Seivers:
• "Is there in this room right now, a unicorn which is both invisible and pink simultaneously?"

• "Since there is an invisible pink unicorn in this room right now, why is Unicornism not taught in Tennessee public schools?"

• "Since it cannot be determined whether an invisible pink unicorn is in the room with us, why is Unicornism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation, or theory, along with the theory of invisible-being nonexistance in Tennessee public schools?"

And that pretty much sums it up.

/thread

IF ID was proved to be correct (how that could be proved I have no idea) then it too could be used for making predictions as well.

No, it really wouldn't.


Such as, since we know so-and-so was designed, “what was it made to do” becomes a relevant question. “Why this," and if so, "then that" becomes possible and should be true too, and then you would go and look and see if that thing predicted (whatever the predication was), is in fact true.

None of these are predictions generated by ID. Indeed, none is a prediction at all.

If we somehow were to prove that a SUPERNATURAL FORCE created the universe, a force that is beyond natural law BY DEFINITION, then we could make exactly zero predictions based upon this.

Seriously, try. Make one concrete, testable prediction, assuming (for the sake of argument) that it has been proven that the universe was created by a God-being.


If ID had a basis in fact, it very well could be used for making predictions, in every field of study, nothing would be beyond it's impact.
Actually, the opposite is true. Not only does ID not generate any predictions now, but it cannot generate any. It's not only a bunch of boring, unoriginal mythology, it's also of absolutely no practical value whatsoever.

Oh contraire, I did know exactly what you meant, but I continued it.

IF the assumption is held that someday string theory might be usable for making predictions, then the same can be said in reverse as well.

IF ID was proved to be correct (how that could be proved I have no idea) then it too could be used for making predictions as well. Such as, since we know so-and-so was designed, “what was it made to do” becomes a relevant question. “Why this," and if so, "then that" becomes possible and should be true too, and then you would go and look and see if that thing predicted (whatever the predication was), is in fact true.

If ID had a basis in fact, it very well could be used for making predictions, in every field of study, nothing would be beyond it's impact.

None of which are or ever will be true. They also point towards the fact that: ID/creationism should not be taught until they are.

And I really am not worried about them ever receiving scientific value.

No, it really wouldn't.


None of these are predictions generated by ID. Indeed, none is a prediction at all.

If we somehow were to prove that a SUPERNATURAL FORCE created the universe, a force that is beyond natural law BY DEFINITION, then we could make exactly zero predictions based upon this.

Seriously, try. Make one concrete, testable prediction, assuming (for the sake of argument) that it has been proven that the universe was created by a God-being.


Actually, the opposite is true. Not only does ID not generate any predictions now, but it cannot generate any. It's not only a bunch of boring, unoriginal mythology, it's also of absolutely no practical value whatsoever.

Yes, many of the predictions he mentions would only be possible if we had the slightest idea about the possible motivations of the kind of being capable of ID. We don't. We can't. We really have to be able to get much further into the characteristics of such a being before we could remotely guess at something like motivation. Hell, we struggle with the motivations of human beings.

Nice move, well-executed!

Quite the conundrum, no? I'm willing to pass on my knowledge of mystic invisibility for no charge if you're interested. You have to promise to use it only for good, however.

Oh contraire, I did know exactly what you meant, but I continued it.
Not wanting to be nitpicky, but it's "au contraire"...

Yes, many of the predictions he mentions would only be possible if we had the slightest idea about the possible motivations of the kind of being capable of ID. We don't. We can't. We really have to be able to get much further into the characteristics of such a being before we could remotely guess at something like motivation. Hell, we struggle with the motivations of human beings.

Perhaps they are counting on "God works in mysterious ways" as a prediction.

I disagree. It has no place in a science class, but religion classes are acceptable.

I suppose that would depend on if it's a class discussing comparative religion and the role of religion in history or if it's a class TEACHING a religion.

I suppose that would depend on if it's a class discussing comparative religion and the role of religion in history or if it's a class TEACHING a religion.
It's supposed to be the former, but in America it will often end up being the latter, unfortunately.

Which is too bad, because it's important stuff to know, seeing as even though it's the 21st century wars are still being fought over who has the bestest imaginary friend.

Perhaps they are counting on "God works in mysterious ways" as a prediction.

Actually, duh, yeah. Even people who believe now that God exists and created the universe can't explain the motivations of a being we (Christians, Jews, Muslims) know the characteristics of (or at least believe we do). How could we possibly predict the motivations of something we have no knowledge of other than its design of things? It presumes a lot and most of which we already know does not bear out.

Not wanting to be nitpicky, but it's "au contraire"...

I actually was thinking the same thing, but since people already think I'm a prick, I didn't want to add to the mounting evidence of my prickosity.

Actually, duh, yeah. Even people who believe now that God exists and created the universe can't explain the motivations of a being we (Christians, Jews, Muslims) know the characteristics of (or at least believe we do). How could we possibly predict the motivations of something we have no knowledge of other than its design of things? It presumes a lot and most of which we already know does not bear out.

Really, they have been trying to make predictions for years, "The good lord will provide," "He'll see us through," "He'll smite down sinners and bus drivers that allow people to board without exact faire but are treated as if they didn't...long story...," "The world will end" etc etc.

And have managed about the accuracy of a coin toss, and that's even granting that the successes are really successes when often they are an outside action or influence from a third, non-supernatural party that is then accredited to the good lord shining a light to make them do that or something.

Which is too bad, because it's important stuff to know, seeing as even though it's the 21st century wars are still being fought over who has the bestest imaginary friend.

mine is a dragon

I suppose that would depend on if it's a class discussing comparative religion and the role of religion in history or if it's a class TEACHING a religion.What's wrong with a class teaching religion as long as it isn't mandatory?

What's wrong with a class teaching religion as long as it isn't mandatory?

Well, rightfully some would complain that it is receiving funding. For example, you're wanting to study about wiccan and I'm wanting to study Christianity. Unless you have equal access to studying your own religion, you are promoting one over the other.

...
Actually, the opposite is true. Not only does ID not generate any predictions now, but it cannot generate any. It's not only a bunch of boring, unoriginal mythology, it's also of absolutely no practical value whatsoever.

A quick search says you are mistaken...
If ID is was proved correct, some predictions that might be made…

In causation of life: Harvard is trying to demonstrate how DNA-based life could have originated from undirected interplay of chemicals. If ID is true then it should assume that the Harvard attempt will not succeedl. The ID proposition would be that the ireducible complexity patterns of the basic building blocks of life should be too complex to come about without intelligent design.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/harvard-origin-of-life-project-an-id-prediction/

In Astronomy and Cosmology: astronomy and cosmology, in The Privileged Planet, Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards describe how to falsify their design argument. They suggest that there is a correlation between the conditions needed for life and the conditions needed for diverse types of scientific discovery, and suggest that such a correlation, if true, points to intelligent design. They write:

The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment. The opposite of this would have the same effect—finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.

Less devastating but still relevant would be discoveries that contradict individual parts of our argument. Most such discoveries would also show that the conditions for habitability of complex life are much wider and more diverse than we claim. For instance, discovering intelligent life inside a gas giant with an opaque atmosphere, near an X-ray emitting star in the Galactic center, or on a planet without a dark night would do it serious damage. Or take a less extreme example. We suggested in Chapter 1 that conditions that produce perfect solar eclipses also contribute to the habitability of a planetary environment. Thus, if intelligent extraterrestrial beings exist, they probably enjoy good to perfect solar eclipses. However, if we find complex, intelligent, indigenous life on a planet without a largish natural satellite, this plank in our argument would collapse.

Our argument presupposes that all complex life, at least in this universe, will almost certainly be based on carbon. Find a non-carbon based life form, and one of our presuppositions collapses. It’s clear that a number of discoveries would either directly or indirectly contradict our argument.

Similarly, there are future discoveries that would count in favor of it. Virtually any discovery in astrobiology is likely to bear on our argument one way or the other. If we find still more strict conditions that are important for habitability, this will strengthen our case.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/intelligent_design_is_empirica.html

In Biology: ID would force us to see organisms as life designs for evolving. If we assume that eukaryotes (for example) were designed with a purpose, and that purpose being of giving rise to multicellular organisms, we can make certain predictions. For one, we would expect the first eukaryotes to have contained a predecessor to the modern tool kit to enable the eukaryotes to build newer versions, and with that in mind, it's possible that remaining unicellular eukaryotes will have it. If they find some, the predictions is substantiated if not proven. If none are found, then the prediction fails.
http://telicthoughts.com/how-intelligent-design-can-be-used-to-make-predictions/

Others
http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Predictions_of_Intelligent_Design

Seriously, try. Make one concrete, testable prediction, assuming (for the sake of argument) that it has been proven that the universe was created by a God-being.

1.) Everything in the world is designed, except when it's not.

2.) Things in the natural world all have a purpose of some kind unless they don't. Ineffability and all that.

3.) If it looks designed then it is designed (with the exception of stuff which looks designed but isn't).

Not wanting to be nitpicky, but it's "au contraire"...

Guilty as charged, I never spell Au Jus correctly either (had to look it up this time to make sure it wasn't Au Juc... :p )

A quick search says you are mistaken...
If ID is was proved correct, some predictions that might be made…

In causation of life: Harvard is trying to demonstrate how DNA-based life could have originated from undirected interplay of chemicals. If ID is true then it should assume that the Harvard attempt will not succeedl. The ID proposition would be that the ireducible complexity patterns of the basic building blocks of life should be too complex to come about without intelligent design.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/harvard-origin-of-life-project-an-id-prediction/

Wrong. ID is a rehashing of the God-of-the-Gaps fallacy: just because you can show natural causes for any one thing (in this case the origin of life) doesn't falsify the claim that life has been purposively designed by a supernatural entity in some other way. This is exactly the same defense used by IDites when Behe's original examples of 'Irreducible Complexity' were debunked: "Ok, maybe that isn't an example of irreducible complexity, but that doesn't mean that there isn't irreducible complexity out there!"

Less devastating but still relevant would be discoveries that contradict individual parts of our argument. Most such discoveries would also show that the conditions for habitability of complex life are much wider and more diverse than we claim. For instance, discovering intelligent life inside a gas giant with an opaque atmosphere, near an X-ray emitting star in the Galactic center, or on a planet without a dark night would do it serious damage.

-snippage of pseudo-science-

Others
http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Predictions_of_Intelligent_Design

This is why ID is such a joke. From the link:

Perhaps life will be found where the habitat is hostile to the emergence of life, or the environment is generally sterile to biological life.

So, on the one hand ID says that finding life in suboptimal conditions will falsify it (because it shows that life can arise when the enviroment hasn't been 'fine-tuned' for it's benefit), on the other we're told that ID predicts that we'll find life in sub-optimal conditions! :p :D

You see, this is why ID isn't scientific: you can make two entirely contradictory predictions from it and so one of them is bound to be right.

This is why ID is such a joke. From the link:

So, on the one hand ID says that finding life in suboptimal conditions will falsify it (because it shows that life can arise when the enviroment hasn't been 'fine-tuned' for it's benefit), on the other we're told that ID predicts that we'll find life in sub-optimal conditions! :p :D

You see, this is why ID isn't scientific: you can make two entirely contradictory predictions from it and so one of them is bound to be right.

That's not what the first prediction said. It said; They suggest that there is a correlation between the conditions needed for life and the conditions needed for diverse types of scientific discovery, and suggest that such a correlation, if true, points to intelligent design" Then they went on to say that they predict that life is meant for optimal places where it can make scientific discoveries, (optimal then means places that they could both live AND make scientific discoveries not just easy to live places)... The second prediction you were talking about was suggesting that with ID life should live even in hard to survive and reach places and even unfavorable places because life could be 'designed' to live in such places even if it is not easy or if it shouldn't have happened by accident there. Those are two entirely different things and can't be compared against each other like you just tried to do.

A quick search says you are mistaken...
If ID is was proved correct, some predictions that might be made…

In causation of life: Harvard is trying to demonstrate how DNA-based life could have originated from undirected interplay of chemicals. If ID is true then it should assume that the Harvard attempt will not succeedl. The ID proposition would be that the ireducible complexity patterns of the basic building blocks of life should be too complex to come about without intelligent design.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/harvard-origin-of-life-project-an-id-prediction/

Unless of course design still occurs. As we cannot examine the purpose of design, we can't know that it wouldn't happen again. Again, those predictions would not be valuable because since we don't have access to designer S/He/It could do anything it likes, change the design specs, stop acting, act again, restart the whole thing. How could we predict the actions of an intelligence we haven't actually experiences?



In Astronomy and Cosmology: astronomy and cosmology, in The Privileged Planet, Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards describe how to falsify their design argument. They suggest that there is a correlation between the conditions needed for life and the conditions needed for diverse types of scientific discovery, and suggest that such a correlation, if true, points to intelligent design. They write:

The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment. The opposite of this would have the same effect—finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.

Less devastating but still relevant would be discoveries that contradict individual parts of our argument. Most such discoveries would also show that the conditions for habitability of complex life are much wider and more diverse than we claim. For instance, discovering intelligent life inside a gas giant with an opaque atmosphere, near an X-ray emitting star in the Galactic center, or on a planet without a dark night would do it serious damage. Or take a less extreme example. We suggested in Chapter 1 that conditions that produce perfect solar eclipses also contribute to the habitability of a planetary environment. Thus, if intelligent extraterrestrial beings exist, they probably enjoy good to perfect solar eclipses. However, if we find complex, intelligent, indigenous life on a planet without a largish natural satellite, this plank in our argument would collapse.

Our argument presupposes that all complex life, at least in this universe, will almost certainly be based on carbon. Find a non-carbon based life form, and one of our presuppositions collapses. It’s clear that a number of discoveries would either directly or indirectly contradict our argument.

Similarly, there are future discoveries that would count in favor of it. Virtually any discovery in astrobiology is likely to bear on our argument one way or the other. If we find still more strict conditions that are important for habitability, this will strengthen our case.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/intelligent_design_is_empirica.html

In Biology: ID would force us to see organisms as life designs for evolving. If we assume that eukaryotes (for example) were designed with a purpose, and that purpose being of giving rise to multicellular organisms, we can make certain predictions. For one, we would expect the first eukaryotes to have contained a predecessor to the modern tool kit to enable the eukaryotes to build newer versions, and with that in mind, it's possible that remaining unicellular eukaryotes will have it. If they find some, the predictions is substantiated if not proven. If none are found, then the prediction fails.
http://telicthoughts.com/how-intelligent-design-can-be-used-to-make-predictions/

Others
http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Predictions_of_Intelligent_Design

Of course, all of what they claim would prove them wrong basically says their theory is "if you're not sure, God did it." Because it claims that if we find more evidence for other theories that are not intelligently guided that it will somehow disprove theirs. It's entirely false.

Their theory would survive because they could poke the same ridiculous holes in those discoveries as well. What would make them suddenly immune? The logic of their claim is faulty.

As to the final one, again, this is predicated on the idea that the ability of the intelligence is limited in some rather human way. The prediction they claim would be true would also be true in any number of non-designed expectations. It's not a prediction that supports ID. It's not a prediction that if false proves ID false. It's a flawed claim.

Because they make faulty predictions based on the same illogical claims they started with doesn't mean we'll all just forget how science works.

THEORY QUERY:
Questions posed to Tennessee Department of Education Commissioner Lana Seivers:
• "Is the Universe and all that is within it, including human beings, created through purposeful, intelligent design by a Supreme Being, that is a Creator?"

• "Since the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught in Tennessee public schools?"

• "Since it cannot be determined whether the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation, or theory, along with the theory of evolution in Tennessee public schools?"



The answer to the first question has to be "there is no way to be sure".

Thus, the answers to the second and third questions are contingent on that. We don't teach religious hokum in science classes, because it is not science. We shouldn't teach Biblical Creationism, because there are hundreds if not thousands of POSSIBLE creation myths, none of which (including the biblical one) have a gnatwing of scientific evidence.

We have to make a choice - either we teach any idea indiscriminately, no matter how stupid or undupported, or we teach only what we can find evidence for.


Of course, other's might answer the question more delicately than I.

This is stupid.

The idea that ID as a theory is "falsifiable" is complete nonsense. IDers claim that we can theorize as to what design would look like, and if we find something that doesn't look like design, then that would disprove ID, and viola.

The problem is, this doesn't work. Because ID is predicated on two assumptions:

1) there is a designer
2) the designer is significantly more advanced than us

Therefore since we are incapable of fully understanding the designer, we are likewise incapable of theorizing what might constitute design. More to point, even if we find something that in no way looks like design, the ultimite ID copout is "god has his reasons"

It's the final copout. We look for evidence of design but everything is evidence of design, because it was designed, so therefore because it exists it's evidence of design because it exists, therefore it was designed.

The theory is in no way, ever, at all falsifiable because we can not ever, at all know what constitutes "design" when dealing with something capable of popping up universes.

We can never demonstrate that something is not designed, when we have no idea in hell what the design LOOKS like

That's not what the first prediction said. It said; They suggest that there is a correlation between the conditions needed for life and the conditions needed for diverse types of scientific discovery, and suggest that such a correlation, if true, points to intelligent design" Then they went on to say that they predict that life is meant for optimal places where it can make scientific discoveries, (optimal then means places that they could both live AND make scientific discoveries not just easy to live places)... The second prediction you were talking about was suggesting that with ID life should live even in hard to survive and reach places and even unfavorable places because life could be 'designed' to live in such places even if it is not easy or if it shouldn't have happened by accident there. Those are two entirely different things and can't be compared against each other like you just tried to do.

It doesn't, but that is neither here nor there. If their prediction proves false, guess what? That proves their prediction was wrong. Because of the nature of ID it doesn't have anything to say about ID.

They might as well say "I predict that if men are born with 75 fingers that this proves ID does not occur". It wouldn't prove anything. At all. The two things are not causally related. And, of course, when we finally do find someone with 75 fingers, the person who is around when that happens will just claim that my prediction was flawed, because, well, it was and move on with ID intact. There is no way to falsify a designer that is literally capable of anything and everything at all.

The answer to the first question has to be "there is no way to be sure or even scientifically explore the issue".

Thus, the answers to the second and third questions are contingent on that. We don't teach religious hokum in science classes, because it is not science. We shouldn't teach Biblical Creationism, because there are hundreds if not thousands of POSSIBLE creation myths, none of which (including the biblical one) have a gnatwing of scientific evidence.

We have to make a choice - either we teach any idea indiscriminately, no matter how stupid or unsupported, or we teach only what we can find evidence for.


Of course, other's might answer the question more delicately than I.

Edited to make it more correct.

OOD: Mike, send me your ph #, again. We need to talk about the comp and other stuff. You should be excited.

Edited to make it more correct.

Indeed, although I was taking that as read, with the rest of the statement.

Even if we could actually investigate the matter scientifically (and we really, really can't)... we still could never be sure about the nature of a creator, because we could never be sure we were actually investigating the whole picture.

Example - we discover a science that enables us to study 'god'. We discover that 'god' is long and thing, jointed twice, and has a hard carapace at one end.

Either we have to admit that - even with our 'god' studying science, we can't be 'sure', or we run the risk of mistaking the finger for the god.

Indeed, although I was taking that as read, with the rest of the statement.

Even if we could actually investigate the matter scientifically (and we really, really can't)... we still could never be sure about the nature of a creator, because we could never be sure we were actually investigating the whole picture.

Example - we discover a science that enables us to study 'god'. We discover that 'god' is long and thin(g), jointed twice, and has a hard carapace at one end.

Either we have to admit that - even with our 'god' studying science, we can't be 'sure', or we run the risk of mistaking the finger for the god.

Fixed again. And yes, exactly. Because ID doesn't even have a hard nature of the intelligence, the intelligence can just keep changing to fit the "evidence" while the theory "that life is intelligently designed" says as is. The only one could ever do in relation to the theory is prove that some made-up aspect of the intelligence doesn't fit the evidence. One could never actually disprove the intelligence or disprove that things are intelligently designed. EVER.

PS. Did you see my note above?

What's wrong with a class teaching religion as long as it isn't mandatory?

It's being paid for with my tax money. If you want your kids to learn religion send them to church.

Fixed again. And yes, exactly. Because ID doesn't even have a hard nature of the intelligence, the intelligence can just keep changing to fit the "evidence" while the theory "that life is intelligently designed" says as is. The only one could ever do in relation to the theory is prove that some made-up aspect of the intelligence doesn't fit the evidence. One could never actually disprove the intelligence or disprove that things are intelligently designed. EVER.

PS. Did you see my note above?

At heart (as I see it), the problem with the design argument is that we can identify what looks to us like design.

1) Why would a divine design look like anything we'd recognise as design?

2) If everything IS designed, what are we comparing it to? If there's no contrast, how can we decide?



Oh, and ps yes. Check tg's shortly. :)

At heart (as I see it), the problem with the design argument is that we can identify what looks to us like design.

1) Why would a divine design look like anything we'd recognise as design?

2) If everything IS designed, what are we comparing it to? If there's no contrast, how can we decide?



Oh, and ps yes. Check tg's shortly. :)

When I first decided to start speaking up on this forum, I tried to argue for ID, just to see if I could. I even told people I didn't really buy it, even though I thought it was reasonable. It's really not a defensible position. When I can't beat you and Dem in an argument....


J/K

If everything IS designed, what are we comparing it to? If there's no contrast, how can we decide?

yeah. back when paley is imaging walking across the heath to find the watch (and thus conclude there must be a watchmaker), he first uses a rock for contrast. but the point of his argument completely undermines that contrast. so instead of saying,

"In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given"

he would be forced to say,
"In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I would without hesitation declare that it was clearly evidence of a divine world-maker"
and we would all laugh him out of the room.

Does the "God did it" theory pretend to explain where God came from?


Thought so.

not only does the "god did it" notion not pretend to explain where god comes from, it doesn't pretend to explain anything else...

see the difference?

Well, rightfully some would complain that it is receiving funding. For example, you're wanting to study about wiccan and I'm wanting to study Christianity. Unless you have equal access to studying your own religion, you are promoting one over the other.

besides, you would also need a pantheism class, an agnostic class, and even an atheist class!