State Legislators Seek Bills to Allow Questioning of Evolution Theory in Schools

sounds like someone's scared of losing their place of influence. Getting all down and dirty, strip the arguments...let's cut a deal. How about you can still jack off to pictures of darwin, and we'll teach children to think for themselves. Or do you need your lawyer here...

This thread is never going to end.

Here's the lowdown, I don't actually believe that everything in nature can be explained by evolution, but given that our only alternative is saying "God Did It" I think that evolution should be taught. There are a lot of things that kids are taught in schools that we have relatively little understanding about and could very well be wrong about, whose effects we understand but whose causes we do not, gravity for example. Are you going to demand that we teach that God causes gravity instead of attributing it to a function of mass?

Also, piss off you ignorant little shit.

It's the elephant in the room. Intelligent design is just rebranded creationism.

Even if we ignore who makes these arguments we can't ignore the logical conclusion to that argument. An ID proponent can of course argue a naturalistic explanation like panspermia or exogenesis but that doesn't solve the issue they claim, it only removes it one step.

The implication of you using the Clarke quote would be that the Creator in intelligent design is not divine but is actually hyper-advanced technology (the sci-fi term is technological singularity which the Asimov story is about).

I think you're confusing 'thinking for yourself' with 'believing what you want to despite all contrary evidence'.

You shouldn't think so often, but due to my views it won't be me stopping you.

That is just your own brand of closed-mindedness.

We could have been seeded here by a dying civilization from another world. We could have been the experiments of a race who lived here before.

There could be a host of ways we could be resulting from an Intelligent Design that has nothing to do with religion.

Yes, yes...there is no evidence. But the whole issue is "to Allow Questioning of Evolution Theory in Schools". Questioning the theory does not automatically mean yelling "God did it!!!" it simply means acknowledging that while evolution is the most likely scientific explaination, it is not beyond question.

No, it is not the most salient point, as you know very well. Offense is intended in what you wrote, because you are deliberately being obtuse. I didn't "just decide what I think a word means"; as I pointed out, any good Greek lexicon will show you that my definition is perfectly conformed to Greek usage in the period in which the Christian use of the word was initiated. That non-Christians centuries later try to deliberately re-define a Christian term in order to discredit what Christians believe shows only the intellectual dishonesty of those who cannot refute Christian belief and therefore must resort to such a fallacy. The definition you advance is not "authoritatively recognized" (the fact that you even use such a term shows how little you understand of semantics), nor is it "universally agreed-upon" (for one thing, if even one person disagrees with it, it is not "universal" and, more importantly, a comparison of the various meanings in various dictionaries will show that it is anything but "universally agreed-upon").

Every time I see people who try to argue that their refusal of religious faith is based on a more rational approach to truth than faith, but have to resort to such blatant logical and semantic fallacies to do so, I am amazed. By the very method of "reasoning" used, you and others like you prove with your every statement that your "faith" is not based on rationality. I have to wonder what kind of classes people like you have taken in formal and informal logic, semantics, and/or epistemology, and what grades you got in them...

No, it's history. Intelligent design was developed as a direct response to creationism being removed from the classroom. It was the Discovery Institute that developed and promoted it and they weren't shy about their intentions "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

Yes, those are the ideas of panspermia and exogenesis which I mentioned. And like I said it doesn't solve the problem at all, it only removes it one step, for the creators of life must also have been created.

What this all breaks down to is inserting doubt where non exists to make people feel better about their theological beliefs. There are no disclaimers about the nature of light slapped onto physics books even though our understanding of that is several magnitude less sure than evolution.

So let's stop pretending here.

Universally agreed-upon definition of the word??

You do know for that to be true that every single dictionary definition would be identical, right? That no one would challenge the definition at all?

This very thread makes your statement bunk, let alone any further research.

I'm referring to the intellectual integrity of recognizing that evolution is a limited theory that does not answer all questions and being intellectually honest about those places in which it's conclusions are speculative rather than evidentiary.

It's Ryan and the rest of you who are obsessed with fighting against ID.

I am not here or elsewhere proposing or defending the teaching of ID.

You guys would debate better if you quit trying to assign your opponents the positions you assume they hold and actually respond to what is posted.

for starters, it would be good to not demand of those you are debating a level of information you yourself do not posses. Beyond that, the intellectual honesty to ADMIT that your position is based on information which you trust to be accurate, not on information which you know by your own hand to be accurate.

Again, I have invoked no religious beliefs to be countered. I strongly suspect that whatever you THINK my beliefs are, you are mistaken, but more to the point, since i not only am not advocating the advancement of those beliefs in science class but actively oppose doing so, your brining that term to your response is either a delusion on your part or, more likely, a red herring.

That said, I think we should accept every credible work to the level that logic and reason suggest. That varies with the source, of course. I think that you pay due respect to credentialed professionals and grant them a measure of "faith" - especially when their work has received no credible challenge.

I do not, however, accept arguments from authority. Some credential professionals do it wrong, some purposely manipulate data to arrive at the results they want (The gay scientist who procliamed he had found the "gay gene" for instance).

I think every wise person should reserve the right to be skeptical.
The degree of skepticism is not an absolute, however, and varies according to the situation. Life is messy.

I am not saying that - I'm saying that if you are intellectually honest you MUST admit that your acceptance of the findings requires a certain amount of faith on your part.

that has nothing specifically to do with my skepticism. My skepticism is rooted in simple logical reasoning.
If a thing happened, it's far more likely to have happened logically in a way a common man can understand.
that which is counter-intuitive is obviously more likely to be the object of skepticism.

If you think my posts ad nothing, feel free to ignore them.

Quote me using the term woefully ignorant.

I do not find it insulting to say that you do not have a professionals level of knowledge on the subject.

Perhaps you are too sensitive?

Please demonstrate for the class where I have suggested anything good about teaching Intelligent Design.

sooner or later you will realize - one hopes - that you are arguing with figments of your imagination, not with my actual posts.

Infinite regression, of course. But irrespective of the issue of ID, which I carry no brief for, all Infinite regression does is say that there are questions yet unanswered about the origin of life. There is nothing inherently unscientific about, for instance, panspermia...it simply means that the answer to the question may lie beyond our current abilities to determine.

I do not advocate that explanation either, of course, but the potential for it is a perfectly valid alternative to the false delima "either god did it or we evolved"

So?

The bottom line for me is this: You guys set up the false delima "God or Evolution" and then use the otherwise valid arguments against god to defend your baby.

You frame the debate on ground you are familiar with.

I'm not debating on that ground.

I'm simply suggesting that intellectual skepticism regarding the speculative aspects of evolution theory is valid.

Do you car to counter that claim? or will you quit wasting your time arguing against what I'm not saying?

I find the whole idea that anything in a school can't be "questioned" anathema.

Question math. Question science. Question God. Question English. Question Everything.

And just to be clear....I may believe in God, but I do not believe school should be teaching religion. I wouldn't want school teaching my kid religion. I simply don't believe mentioning that there are a great deal of people in the world believe in something other than science is teaching or condoning religion.

It wouldn't even be an issue Shep if it wasn't being pushed on our education system.

ID is an unsupported hypothesis, and will remain so for the foreseeable future, and therefore has no place in a K-12 classroom.

^ And, as far as I can see, everyone in the thread agrees on that.

Okay, good to know. But what does that have to do with the quoted text?

I agree, there are lots of questions left unanswered.

As for panspermia, a hypothesis is scientific not because it exists as an idea. It's scientific because is can be tested and proved or, better yet, disproved (i.e. falsifiability). Since panspermia is untestable it really doesn't qualify.

It kinda negates your entire original premise on what supernatural is. That was the original bone of contention in this little volley. You jumped in where Async and I disagreed on what supernatural is.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! No way! Man, you say I put words in your mouth. Shesh!

God or evolution is a false dichotomy groups pushing creation on public schools promote. Evolution doesn't prove the nonexistence of god and vice versa.

And what speculative aspects would those be?

Hmm.

Maybe I will hope this passes after all.

Perhaps it will make some libs come around as far as school vouchers and choice is concerned.

Speaking of scientific ignorance, did you know that uncircumcised men are more prone to contracting HIV than circumcised ones?

So what are you doing here? Last I checked, this discussion wasn't about how to torque on the third lugnut on the front right wheel of a Chevy Malibu.

Or was it? I don't know. Does anybody here think Chevy Malibus evolved through natural selection, or do we generally agree that they were designed by an outside power more advanced than themselves?

When you're in an official debate, of the Lincoln-Douglas competition sort, the first thing the competitors do is define key terms from a source both sides can agree upon. Usually, it's the Oxford English Dictionary, or some other well-regarded authority.

I know this isn't a competition, but the point is still valid. I have no doubt that you are knowledgable in the areas you're speaking of. But ancient definitions of words don't apply to modern situations. Chaste doesn't refer to a maiden's bosom anymore, for instance. And no one is going to be offended if I bite my thumb at them.

The thing is, you said it's your own personal definition of the word. But then no one can really argue against that realistically, because you disregard the modern usage of that word. It's fine to believe what you do about how the word should be used, but that can't really be used as a defense for the ideas you're trying to advance.

And I truly did mean no offense with what I said. I enjoy your posts, even when I think you're wrong. You present an interesting challenge.

^ It is not "my own personal definition." It is "my own personal formulation" of a definition used by millions of people, and that has remained unchanged for thousands of years. You say old definitions don't apply to new situations; that is nonsense. Why should people today, who do not adhere to the teachings of Jesus, be either able or allowed to change the definition of faith that has been part of Christian teaching since its inception, especially as the Christians are still using that definition?

And if you want a dictionary definition, let's use one of the options in Webster's: "anything believed." How do you reconcile that, or the millions and millions of Christians who use a definition that is compatible with the one I gave you, with your claim that the "universally recognized" definition of faith is "belief without proof"?

Well, all I wanted when I first mentioned this was to know where you got your definition from. If you'd said from the start, "Well, it's from Websters, or Oxford, or somesuch", I would have just said "Oh, okay," and dropped it.



But now that we have a definition both of us can agree upon, we can move on to the other parts of the discussion, such as how scientific faith, as per the above definition, differs from the more abstract religious faith.

Oh yeah, that's a great idea, let's teach kids that we were all created by aliens, something we have less evidence of than the whole God thing.

Of course its not beyond question, nothing in school is except the rules. Logically if a kid decides to question evolution he should be allowed to or else the ACLU should be all over it. However, they only care about the rights they agree with.

But that isn't the goal here, the goal is to push intelligent design one step at a time. This is what private schools are for.

You are the one being somewhat intellectually dishonest here by not acknowledging the fact that when the religious text was written there was a specific word and definition for "faith". What it meant then is very important as it defines how some people see their beliefs now... regardless of popular usage.

To try and force modern definition on something established long ago is specious. Would you read Shakespeare and dismiss the meanings of words from his time in favor of modern definitions and render the work difficult if impossible to understand as the author intended?

Being able to discuss something is not "teaching it".

A teacher can discuss the KKK, for example, without teaching their tenets or condoning their beliefs. Mentioning their exsistance won't magically make people sprout robes any more than mentioning other beliefs exsist will make kids discount evolution out of hand.

You are comparing an already existing organization with a crackpot theory...

Stop playing obtuse.

My meaning is that mentioning something is not teaching it. I don't think there should be an ID curriculum. I also don't think a teacher should be fired if the subject comes up in class. I find nothing inappropriate about alternate viewpoints in classroom discussion.

I swear, some people go absolutely batshit over the stupidest little things.

What Asyncritus and I are discussing is not analogous at all to your Shakespeare example, though. We're on a fine line here in determining what a word means, as opposed to what it could mean. Faith is like love, in that it has a lot of meanings to a lot of different people. Thus, when discussing something where the meaning of a word is important, one must establish a common frame of reference for definitions. Now, since Async and I have done that, all is well.

Like hold the japs?

Are you kidding me? When the circus comes to town am I going to have to start telling people it's the one with clowns and elephants and not chariot races and gladiator fights because they might be using a 2000 year old definition?

For language to work words need to have common contemporary meaning. Using archaic definitions or making up your own is just limestone.