Posted on 07/26/2009 12:39:59 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
So how did life begin, Mr. Evolutionist?
What experiments did those two perform to confirm their First Cause hypothesis? Especially the ones to distinguish it from the Uncaused hypothesis?
Second, the First Cause argument is not the same as creationism. You can have a First Cause without a 6-day act of creation and the special creation of every animal with no evolution. Even if the First Cause argument is a proper scientific theory--of which I am not convinced--that doesn't mean creationism is one.
Interestingly, the Wikipedia entry on the subject says, "The Prime Mover did not organize matter physically, but was instead a being who constantly thought about thinking itself, and who organized the Cosmos by making matter the object of 'aspiration or desire'." If that's accurate, Aristotle's Prime Mover is not creationism's Creator or even Intelligent Design's designer, who certainly do organize matter physically.
I think you do believe your discretion special. You just take it so for granted that you don’t even realize how special you believe it to be. Presumably you’re convinced that the cost of education must be borne at public expense. If you insist on public funding, surely you must know that the funding will be subject to the vicissitudes of outrageous politics and the predation of numberless irreconcilable interests. Yet, somehow you seem to believe that you rate entrée to public money without being subjected to the tempestuous seas of public policy. Yeah, I would say you think yourself pretty special even though you seem not to be aware of your premises nor understand the consequences of your assumptions.
”That’s why I would go to the experts in a particular discipline to find out what ought to be taught in that discipline.
Is it your theory that a valueless public education is achievable? The conclusions arising from a discipline are very dependant on the values an ‘expert’ brings with his discipline. You haven’t thought this through?
”Do you have a better idea?”
Fund your own education. Don’t demand that others participate in funding the form and content of education you prefer. Combine with others who are like-minded, and create private schools and homeschooling associations.
”—Mathematicians. Who do you think it should be?”
Suppose that mathematician expert were to illustrate the efficiency of geometry by demonstrating how it can take the 14 billion years of the existence of the universe and fold it into the six days of creation? Would you be content with that scholar even though he might be exceedingly expert in the discipline of mathematics and geometry?
”—Scholars and experts in literature. Who do you think it should be?”
Suppose that literature ‘scholar’ were to insist the only Western Literature worthy of study is the literature of gender studies, women and religion, female sexuality, sex crimes against women, gay/lesbian studies, and perhaps black liberation? You OK with that?
”—Hmm, how about historians?”
Historians who teach a curriculum of Socialist class struggle? And teach that the Founding Fathers were racist slaveholders who founded a government perpetuating the concentration of power in their hands for the exploitation of the Proletariat?
”—Such as what contradictions?”
Contradictions? Besides what I’ve named above? Hmmm.
It’s clear that if government were not permitted any role in education, then scientists would not have to concern themselves over what they might be compelled to teach. When the scientific community undertook to allow their discipline to be subsidized by the taxpayer, they irrevocably surrendered themselves to the influences of public policy and to the slings and arrows of outrageous politics. At the time that inevitable consequence may not have been immediately obvious, but those days are long gone, and the obvious can no longer be ignored and swept under the rug. You seem to advocate the contradiction that public funds must be made available to your ambitions but that you should not be accountable to the people for where your ambitions take you. Do you genuinely believe that you can perpetuate the contradiction that public monies must be available for the education you favor, but that it should be free of the turbulence of public policy?
I can conceive of no reason why you should not be filled with more than a little unease at the idea that agencies of government, even of the most local kind, ought to be in command of institutions charged with the imparting of knowledge, including the knowledge that generates and supports the most crucial ideas of western civilization. Indeed, your fear of publicly funded education is palpable, and it is obvious that you cannot tolerate its existence unless it lies under your control.
Do you regard socialized medicine to be a disaster for American health care? Think of public schools as socialized education. Maybe that will help. Then again, perhaps you think socialized medicine a splendid ideal.
There is such a thing as an ‘Educational Establishment,’ not unlike that thing called a ‘Religious Establishment.’ The objection Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and Franklin (and many others) had with ‘Establishment’ was that it forced doctrines on people with which they took exception, often vehement exception, and it extorted their support, both financially and by their attendance. That’s not unlike the circumstances many people find in Government controlled education. Particularly since Government (Federal, State, and even at least some Local) has come to regard Education as nothing more than part of its official Ministry of Information. There is certainly no reason to believe that the Founders would have approved the enforcement of iniquitous doctrines, and their financial support, on the people, even if it were something other than religion. You’ve not thought this through either?
The education of our children is done in the interests of the state (Federal, State, & Local), and in the interests of the various warring groups fighting for control of the state. The day that it was done in the interests of the children and their parents (the people, in other words) is long gone. The fact that the Federal government, the state governments, and even many of the local governments have come to regard the public school system as nothing more than a part of their respective information ministry infrastructures, is as clear a signal as possible that education can no longer serve the people while it remains a creature of the state.
I asked if you expected everyone to finance what you believe ought to be taught in science class. You declined reply.
==By God(gasp!) in such a way that the laws and circumstances of that eventually led over billions of years to the creation of the stars and planets, and eventually life, which over the billions of years resulted in humans, Christ, and us.
You don’t have shred of empirical evidence to back up a sing one of your claims, thus far.
==And the current scientific evidence clearly shows that the mechanism of change documented in all the hard scientific evidence is that evolution is the mechanism of that change.
Please show me the empirical evidence that demonstrates that random mutations generated the raw material that resulted in the diversity of life we see on Earth.
As long as schools teach subjects from the experts of each field (and I don’t mean from “an” expert, but from the preponderance of experts in each field) than I believe they are a great benefit to society. I would want my children to learn the leading theories and idea of each field. If that means them learning some things I disagree with, then so be it – I’m certainly not going to get with “like minded” people so that my kids only learn what I believe. I don’t think that highly of myself and my beliefs to do such a thing. I would want my children to potentially surpass me in knowledge and understanding; I think that’s what most parents want.
Being that that’s how most people think education should work, that’s how schools work for the most part. If things change – for instance, if people begin disregarding scientists and the scientific method and schools begin teaching whatever pet ideas people have for religious reasons or whatever, then the term “science class” will cease to have much meaning. At that point I’d probably avoid public schools.
“Suppose that mathematician expert were to illustrate the efficiency of geometry by demonstrating how it can take the 14 billion years of the existence of the universe and fold it into the six days of creation? Would you be content with that scholar even though he might be exceedingly expert in the discipline of mathematics and geometry? “
—I’m not talking about “an” expert in a field, but the leading ideas and theories in each field. If such a thing could be demonstrated and passes peer review to become a leading theory than that would be awesome – why wouldn’t I want that taught?
“I asked if you expected everyone to finance what you believe ought to be taught in science class. You declined reply.”
—I believe in public education so that all children have an opportunity to learn science – not just those kids who have parents that can afford to educate their children. What *I* want taught in science class is simply the scientific method and the leading theories. That’s how science progresses from one generation to the next and is a primary reason that science and technology has been so successful in the industrial world, and hopefully it continues. If there are no standards for what is taught in science class, than it wouldn’t have much point.
It appears, by all accounts, that significant numbers of children in the public schools are not afforded an ‘opportunity to learn’ very much of anything. But, you seem not to find anything essentially troubling in how public education is managed, so you’ve chosen to make like a pillow on a couch. If that’s your story, you should stick with it.
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.