Posted on 09/27/2005 9:21:27 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
If that is so, then how do you explain the fact that the same people who authored that ammendment promoted the Bible as the best school textbook, and as the only acceptable standard for government?
You must be demented.
You realize that quoting an evolutionist like Heinlein while you are trying to defend the kind of scholastic drivel he loathed is not the smartest move you could have made, right? :)
Is the Axiom Of Choice necessary for set theory?
Never fear facts.
Thanks for the ping.
Oops! So much for that "nameless designer".
ID - religious dogma masqueraded as "science"; always has been, always will be.
>>>Show us the philosophical component of any branch of Mathematics, or Physics, or Chemistry?
String Theory.
String theory is a model of fundamental physics whose building blocks are one-dimensional extended objects (strings) rather than the zero-dimensional points (particles) that are the basis of the Standard Model of particle physics. For this reason, string theories are able to avoid problems associated with the presence of pointlike particles in a physical theory. Study of string theories has revealed that they require not just strings but other objects, variously including points, membranes, and higher-dimensional objects.
It is not yet known whether string theory is able to describe a universe with the precise collection of forces and matter that we observe, nor how much freedom to choose those details the theory will allow. No string theory has yet made falsifiable predictions that would allow it to be experimentally tested.
When something is not known in the absolute sense, that does not necessarily make it philosophy. If you believe it to be so, please demonstrate.
That is their claim, not mine! THEY are the ones that decided to sell off their own religious tenets by claiming that it wasn't their Christian God, but some anonymous higher power, that acted as the designer! And how DARE you denigrate my religion with terms such as 'stupidity' and 'lunacy'! I respect your choice of religion; you show no such character! Bigot!
You don't seem to understand that motives are non-justiciable. Why is that?
You do yourself a disservice by showing absolute ignorance regarding the weight of motive in a courtroom. That is all I have to say on that as far as the legal case goes. But how about in your heart? Do you excuse their motives because you like what they are saying? Does that not make you an accomplice to their deception?
That's what school boards do in the American Federalist system. Local school boards tell teachers what to teach. You with me here?
It is not the practice of setting policy that is the problem, but this specific policy in question.
Well, by all means, call Farhrenheit 451, a book needs burning. The book is not taught, it is not in the classroom and thus you have made another false assertion. False assertions win no arguments and put no gold stars on your forehead.
You rationalize the lie by telling yourself that they don't actually put the book in the students' hands, but their intent is clear. They first undermine the scientific teachings, then propose an alternative and endorse a text. It is undeniably suggestive guidance that relies on, and preys upon, the curiosity and trust of an authority figure that is an innate part of human nature. It is a despicable tactic of deceit and manipulation. And you embrace it, crying out that those who would dare to make this claim are the liars to hide from it yourself.
What I see as non virtuous is faux conservatives driven by their science influenced ideology willing to trash the Constitution and the powers of locals. That would be you. You don't want your kids in that school, move. You want school board members who won't challenge scientific dogma, vote them out. But keep the feds the hell out of my towns business. Clear enough for you?
Yeah, how dare us 'faux conservatives' be appalled that theocrats are hijacking science, the schools, and indeed even the Constitution that was meant to keep their authoritarian power in check, in a assault on our freedoms! Your claims pervert the core of our right to be free from controlling religious power-mongers in order to deliver us up to this very fate! You want the fed to stay out of your town's business? Then keep them the hell out of my religious rights!
LOL, you can't help yourself, you are what you claim anybody who disagrees with you is, a damn liar. I belive that's called projection.
Calling me a liar because I have pointed out that others are is not a defense, it is a dodge. You cannot refute my claim so you attack it. Come up with something better than what amounts to 'Oh, yeah? Well you're a liar too!'
>>>When something is not known in the absolute sense, that does not necessarily make it philosophy. If you believe it to be so, please demonstrate.
No version of string theory has yet made a prediction which differs from those made by other theories—at least, not in a way that could be checked by a currently feasible experiment. Until it does, it is just a philosophy on how the building blocks of life are organized.
It possesses many features of mathematical interest, and it may yet become supremely important in our understanding of the Universe, but it requires further developments before it is accepted or falsified.
Relevance? There weren't any government schools at the time, and certainly no federal schools, unless maybe there was maybe a military school or two. (The first ten amendments were not applied to the states until after the Civil War.)
Was your quote intentionally incomplete?
No. ???
You're throwing words around. An abstract is a visible expression of a set of data (in the mathematic sense) thus it definately is related to the physical world. On the other hand, as Doctor Stochastic has pointed out with regard to the axiom of choice, without hard definitions of terms, Math and logic can be sharply divided. Logic is not always scientific; it may involve a belief system, as is the case with evolution, or ID.
And if the 'statement reader' says no, doesn't that invalidate the statement?
"There are but two ways of forming an opinion in science. One is the scientific method; the other, the scholastic. One can judge from experiment, or one can blindly accept authority. To the scientific mind, experimental proof is all-important, and theory is merely a convenience in description, to be junked when it no longer fits. To the academic mind, authority is everything, and facts are junked when they do not fit theory laid down by authority."It is this point of view - academic minds clinging like oysters to disproved theories - that has blocked every advance of knowledge in history."
In a more recent quote Heinlein wrote:
"Belief gets in the way of learning."
Robert Heinlein (Time Enough for Love, 1973)What do you think the odds are that Heinlein was referring, in great part, to religious belief in this passage? That's the way I read it.
Should ID be taught in Earth Science classes as well?
That's another good question for the plaintiffs to ask.
The logical extrapolation of ID 'theory' is it should be taught in all science classes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.