Pennsylvania School District to Defend Policy on Intelligent Design

The Christian Post ^ | 9/19/05 | Francis Helguero

[ml1954]

haps-not side

I don't try to have a discussion with people who make up their own words. Sorry.

[Coyoteman]

I am trying to stay away from the scientific end of this argument for the same reason that I stayed away for 7 years: It's too acrimonious, requires too much time/knowledge/digging/etc, and I see very little ROI for myself. If you folks are discussing science on this thread, please ask me to leave.

Tempting... But no, nobody should be asked to leave. This is FR!

The problem is that we need to keep science and its methods separate from belief and their ways.

Science works from data and theory, with theory being the attempts to explain those pesky facts (data). Sometimes theories have to change when new facts arise, or when better theory emerges.

Belief is unchanging, and based on faith. The two really are separate and should not be used to argue against one another.

You say you don't have time to study science and then proceed to trash science and its methods. Then don't enter into science-bashing.

But don't leave an FR thread (especially an old fossil like yourself!) because of something like this. ; )

[Kevin OMalley]

Hey, I like your login AND your tagline.

Then you never had an understanding of what evolutionary theory is or what it's limits are.
***For purposes of social policy discussion, that doesn't really matter. I think I had a rudimentary understanding of the theory at the time, and I also think that I'm running into a lack of understanding from the proponents of TOE/abio that their theories have implications in the inductive realms that they need to address.



Was any of it a substantive dispute with what the theory says?
***Yes.



The president is not the arbiter of what is correct in science.
***I'm not saying that he is. In one stroke, it became a SOCIAL POLICY issue. It still has elements of an issue of science and science policy, but now those elements are now inextricably mixed with politics. That means you start having these kinds of discussions with numbskulls like me, and if you can't explain things in a clear fashion, politely - look up the word politic & compare it to polite -- without arrogance, they tend to wander away and vote against your policy down the road (maybe even become president & really stir things up). I have trouble seeing that ID is a pseudoscience when these guys were instrumental in finding that the fine structure constant of light (and most probably a resulting finding that the speed of light is not a constant) has changed. Scientists were not able to convince two of our greatest presidents that this is wacky pseudoscience. There is something to this controversy.



I gotta run, talk to you folks later.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" I am trying to stay away from the scientific end of this argument..."

Too bad, science is the center of this debate.

"I guess you're stuck with smoke, sorry about that. I would love to discuss social policy and politics in this here, ahem, POLITICAL forum, but if all you can come up with is basic ridicule that proves you're a true holy warrior for your chosen belief system, you lose all those sincere lurkers that have so much say in our social policies. So, keep 'em coming, eventually you'll realize that, they do your side more harm than you really intended in the beginning."

So, you really can't provide any scientific critiques of evolution. I didn't think you could. I don't see how you expect to bring anybody over to your side with no argument whatsoever. Not even an attempt.

" I trust that GWB consulted some pretty high falutin sources when he made up his mind on this social policy issue..."

So, you look to the president for science? How odd.

"The answer is, no, I don't WANT such people deciding what the science curriculum is, but I ACCEPT that such people are, I AGREE with them on a philosophical level, I SEE some of the same problems with this theory that they see, and I THINK that there could be some good science that results from all of this discussion and exercise."

What problems? You refuse to even touch on the science, why should anybody care what you think?

"Science doesn't deal with the spiritual....

It's not a cop-out, its a fact.
***Baloney."

Your *Baloney* means nothing when you hide from discussing the science. Just more smoke out yer butt.

"Name ONE scientific theory that uses supernatural, non-material causes. Just one.
***I don't know what you're saying here. "

Are you capable of understanding English? What did you not comprehend?

"Of course, the THEORIES don't rise or fall, but when it comes to giving professors money so that they can teach my kids a soulless philosophy, I and 2/3 of the public draw the line and say, "No More.""

So you want science by poll. And 2/3rds of the population do NOT want evolution out of the classrooms.

"I'd rather have an ignorant child who has the ability to make excellent moral progress than a brilliant amoral scientist."

False dichotomy. Show how science is making people *amoral*.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Verb unnecessary. Intelligible anyway. Simpler language. Adverbs, adjectives sufficient. Universal stasis."

Intelligible maybe; sloppy definitely.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Was any of it a substantive dispute with what the theory says?
***Yes."

This was about why you allegedly discarded evolution, you had said,

""Some of it is with experience. Some of it is with instinct. Some of it is still undecided." "

You have not shown you even know what the theory says. Smoke is still rising from your butt.

"That means you start having these kinds of discussions with numbskulls like me, and if you can't explain things in a clear fashion, politely - look up the word politic & compare it to polite -- without arrogance, they tend to wander away and vote against your policy down."

You haven't shown the least inclination in wanting to know anything about evolution. You want to discuss the politics of a science debate without any mention of the science. That is impossible.

"I have trouble seeing that ID is a pseudoscience when these guys were instrumental in finding that the fine structure constant of light (and most probably a resulting finding that the speed of light is not a constant) has changed."

The speed of light is still constant and hasn't changed. What are you talking about?

"Scientists were not able to convince two of our greatest presidents that this is wacky pseudoscience. There is something to this controversy."

You only argument has been that Bush and Reagan like ID so we must take it seriously as science. You DO know that the argument from authority is a logical fallacy, right? Especially when they have no science backgrounds.

You are way, WAY out of your league.

[Coyoteman]

Evolution opponents often believe the Bible is infallible, but they do not hold the scientific evidence they present to be unfalsifiable.

OK. But can you falsify this? How. Please be specific in your answer.

Creation of the Earth

The world was once nothing but water. The only land above the water was Black Mountain. All the people lived up there when the flood came, and their fireplaces can still be seen.

Fish-eater and Hawk lived there. Fish-eater was Hawk's uncle. One day they were singing and shaking a rattle. As they sang, Hawk shook this rattle and dirt began to fall out of it. They sang all night, shaking the rattle the whole time. Soon there was so much dirt on the water that the water started to go down. When it had gone all the way down, they put up the Sierra Nevada to hold the ocean back. Soon they saw a river running down through the valley.

When they finished making the earth, Hawk said, "Well, we have finished. Here is a rabbit for me. I will live on rabbits in my lifetime." Fish-eater was over a swampy place, and he said, "I will live on fish in my lifetime." They had plenty to eat for themselves. It was finished.

Owens Valley Paiute creation story, eastern California

[Right Wing Professor]

Ridicule

Well-earned ridicule. You think whining about it will cause us to spare you?

Some of it was by wearing it as a philosophy (I used to be an evolutionist) and finding that there really was very little that kept me from becoming a lawless individual if I wanted to carry it forward.

Well, there's your problem. You thought it was a 'philosophy', when in fact evolution is a scientific theory. If you were looking for a philosophy, why didn't you take up Feng Shui?

If mainstream science can't convince the president that teaching this stuff side by side is a bad idea, I doubt your ridicule and scorn would be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

If his advisors can't convince the President we need a viable immigration policy or a curb on federal spending, I doubt they'll have any more luck with biology. At least Bush has the sense to employ a science advisor who does know the difference between science and ID.

So why don't we discuss this social policy issue on its merits?

Evolution isn't a social policy any more than it's a philosophy. Why don't we discuss it as a scientific theory?

[TheHound]

That is the point! While I have no way of knowing whether, intelligent design, evolution or out-right creation is responsible, neither do any of the others. It is all opinion and as we know all communication is persuasion, I have decided, like one rooting for the underdog in a football game, to oppose evolution. (That I believe in God might factor in as well)

[Wormwood]

But there are zero ways to prove the Intelligence behind ID. It can never be subjected to scientific inquiry.

[Right Wing Professor]

Poor St. Thomas must be rolling over in his grave.

What is with that, by the way? Thomas More was one of the first victims of the English Reformation. When did he get adopted by literalist Protestants?

[Coyoteman]

While I have no way of knowing whether, intelligent design, evolution or out-right creation is responsible, neither do any of the others. It is all opinion

That's not true. Either you have faith and believe in one of the thousands of religions, or you deal with science. Many people actually can reconcile the two!

But when you really need to figure things out, who you gonna call? The ghost busters? A fortune teller or tarot card reader? Astrologer? Witch doctor? Shaman? The local politician? The neighbors? Divine revelation? Opinion polls?

I think you will look for the facts. What are the facts? And to how many decimal places. And that path leads to science.

I may be wrong in this, but I would not bet the rent money on the others.

[TheHound]

That's not true. Either you have faith and believe in one of the thousands of religions, or you deal with science. Many people actually can reconcile the two!

Please, contemplate that thought.

[TheHound]

But there are zero ways to prove the Intelligence behind ID. It can never be subjected to scientific inquiry.

So it is ipso facto is it, so let us not even look at that possibility. What a scientific approach.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[curiosity]

On their website they do not call him by his title "saint." The site is also suspiciously Protestant-like in its tone and attitude. In their description of St. Thomas, they fail to mention that was martyred for failing to accept Protestantism.

I find this whole thing a bit offensive. The Bishop of whatever city they are located in would make an official statement declaring that they have absolutely nothing to do with the Catholic Church.

People also might get them confused with the St. Thomas More Society, a respectable organization of Catholic lawyers and law students that has absolutely nothing to do with this ID nonsense.

Again, I wish the Catholic Church would copyright the names of our saints.

[PatrickHenry]

But when you really need to figure things out, who you gonna call? The ghost busters? A fortune teller or tarot card reader? Astrologer? Witch doctor? Shaman? The local politician? The neighbors? Divine revelation? Opinion polls?

Of that dreary and un-inspiring lot, at least the neighbors and opinion polls have the virtue of not directly conning you out of your money. All the others come right out and demand it. So as long as you're going to get inaccurate information, you might as well get it for free.

[atlaw]

I am trying to stay away from the scientific end of this argument for the same reason that I stayed away for 7 years: It's too acrimonious, requires too much time/knowledge/digging/etc . . .

Actually, it's nice to see this admission. It neatly sums up the entire ID/creationist movement. I wish the balance of the movement's proponents were as honest.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Perhaps creationism and creationism-lite are just consequences of people being too lazy to think.

[longshadow]

early bird gets the primes.....