Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Orlando Sentinel)   Florida schools to add the phrase "scientific theory of" before evolution, the Big Bang, and the Female Orgasm   (blogs.orlandosentinel.com ) divider line
    More: Florida  
•       •       •

6448 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Feb 2008 at 8:38 PM (8 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



760 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2008-02-16 01:53:21 PM  
SkinnyHead: Zamboro: More like 'cdesign proponentsist', right? Intelligent design was proven during the Dover trials to have originated as a repackaging of creationism as science to get it into public schools.

I don't know what a cdesign proponentsist is. Is that some sort of typographical error?

Yes, fool. They copy/pasted "intelligent design" in place of "creationism". Rather poorly.

And I can show that the term "intelligent design" as an alternative to Darwinism was used over 100 years ago.

Yeah, I forgot Paley et al. Unfortunately the leading lights of the current ID movement were involved with the making of "Of Pandas and People", which started the current "Intelligent Design" movement.
 
2008-02-16 01:53:50 PM  
shocker66s: Thats a great question. My answer is simple. The answer is I don't know. There are great arguments on both sides. Logic would dictate that evolution is highly probable but not an absolute and although there is no evidence at all that God or some creator exists there is still a small chance that it does exist. So in short "Who knows". Science will never have all the answers nor will religion.

Do you believe you are the direct descendant of your parents? Do you believe you breathe oxygen? Do you believe that Unicorns exist? Do you believe you just read what I typed?
 
2008-02-16 01:56:41 PM  
shocker66s: So in short "Who knows". Science will never have all the answers nor will religion.

This sort of naive apologetics is absolutely useless and quite disingenuous. Trying to place the knowledge of science on par with religion is asinine. Religion will never have ANY of the answers that science seeks.
 
2008-02-16 01:58:12 PM  
Zamboro: What technologies have been made possible by applied religion?

A hundred different ways to kill witches.
 
2008-02-16 02:00:13 PM  
abb3w: shocker66s: Even abb3w agrees that it can be wrong and thus be overturned however remote that might be.

I believe you underestimate the magnitude for "remote" and overestimate the degree of "wrong" I'm talking about.

shocker66s: Newton thought gravity was a force Einstein said it was an effect of matter on the fabric of space.

(Space-Time, BTW.) And the current understanding is that the two are the same thing, which is why physicists talk about extra dimensions. Your point?


(Space-Time, BTW.) lol, very cute. You did not say remote, you said wrong. As infinitesimal as that might be. Einstein defined gravity differently than Newton. Most physicists agree with Einstein. You can't possibly deny that.
physicists agree with Einstein.
 
2008-02-16 02:03:13 PM  
ninjakirby: shocker66s: Thats a great question. My answer is simple. The answer is I don't know. There are great arguments on both sides. Logic would dictate that evolution is highly probable but not an absolute and although there is no evidence at all that God or some creator exists there is still a small chance that it does exist. So in short "Who knows". Science will never have all the answers nor will religion.

Do you believe you are the direct descendant of your parents? Do you believe you breathe oxygen? Do you believe that Unicorns exist? Do you believe you just read what I typed?


Yes. Yes. NO. Yes.
 
2008-02-16 02:06:28 PM  
shocker66s: ninjakirby: shocker66s: Thats a great question. My answer is simple. The answer is I don't know. There are great arguments on both sides. Logic would dictate that evolution is highly probable but not an absolute and although there is no evidence at all that God or some creator exists there is still a small chance that it does exist. So in short "Who knows". Science will never have all the answers nor will religion.

Do you believe you are the direct descendant of your parents? Do you believe you breathe oxygen? Do you believe that Unicorns exist? Do you believe you just read what I typed?

Yes. Yes. NO. Yes.


How do you know?
 
2008-02-16 02:07:40 PM  
whatshisname: shocker66s: So in short "Who knows". Science will never have all the answers nor will religion.

This sort of naive apologetics is absolutely useless and quite disingenuous. Trying to place the knowledge of science on par with religion is asinine. Religion will never have ANY of the answers that science seeks.


Try and think about the big picture in answering this question. I do agree that religion will never have any of the answers that science seeks but when you ask enough questions both science and religion will eventually answer "I don't know".
 
2008-02-16 02:08:07 PM  
shocker66s: physicists agree with Einstein.

But they don't think Newton was wrong.
 
2008-02-16 02:08:41 PM  
shocker66s: ninjakirby: shocker66s: Thats a great question. My answer is simple. The answer is I don't know. There are great arguments on both sides. Logic would dictate that evolution is highly probable but not an absolute and although there is no evidence at all that God or some creator exists there is still a small chance that it does exist. So in short "Who knows". Science will never have all the answers nor will religion.

Do you believe you are the direct descendant of your parents? Do you believe you breathe oxygen? Do you believe that Unicorns exist? Do you believe you just read what I typed?

Yes. Yes. NO. Yes.


But you COULD be wrong about all of those. So you don't really "believe" so much as you think that your answers are all logically "highly probable".
 
2008-02-16 02:09:06 PM  
Zamboro: What of all the other court cases?

None of those cases involved the scientific theory of intelligent design.
 
2008-02-16 02:09:23 PM  
shocker66s Something I think you may not understand about science is that it isn't particularly concerned with terms like "right" and "wrong." Those are pure value judgements; you can't use them as a foundation for further progress. All scientists care about, when formally evaluating a proposition, is, "Does this statement have predictive power?"

When a proposition like natural selection is shown to explain not only existing observations but also to allow scientists to make predictions about the outcome of other experiments, it gains a lot of credibility. Recent genetic research -- more recent even than most of Bevets's quotes from people like Crick -- have placed evolution on intellectual ground that's as safe and secure as the tangible electronic principles that allow you to indulge in all of your subjectivist arguments. (Or do you write woo-woo letters to Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Linus Torvalds asking them to consider the alternatives to Boolean logic, too?)

Intelligent Design, Creationism, or whatever SkinnyHead's crowd is calling it these days makes absolutely no testable predictions and explains absolutely no observations that cannot be better explained with less invention and equivocation. It doesn't belong in schools, or indeed, in the heads of anyone with an I.Q. over 85 or so. Those who come to accept Creationism have fewer questions than they had before, which contrary to your opinion is not considered a good thing in science. (Hey, biologists need job security, too.)

Yet this myth affects everyone's reality, thanks to the disproportionate political power that fundamentalist Christians wield in the US. Do you honestly expect those of us on the right half of the bell curve to smile and nod while the Bible-thumpers try to drag us into a new Dark Age?

If so, why? Never mind "right" and "wrong"... what's in it for us?
 
2008-02-16 02:09:47 PM  
whatshisname: shocker66s: physicists agree with Einstein.

But they don't think Newton was wrong.


In some respects they do.
 
2008-02-16 02:13:09 PM  
Had a bad experience with a thinly veiled creationist today. He butted into a conversation when he overheard us discussiong evolution. After a bit, I asked him if he was a creationist. He denied being one. Denied even being a theist. Played the whole "I'm just asking questions like any good scientist, you're a fanatic who follows the religion of evolutionism because your precious atheism relies on it."

Oh yes, my precious atheism. I desperately need to believe that I'm not the center of creation, that I won't go on living after death, that there's no purpose to my existence other than the one I make for myself. That's such an attractive proposition!

The kicker is that he eventually slipped up and revealed that he really was a theist, but stormed off before I could get him to confess that his motivation for downplaying the factual support evolution was due to him either believing in or sympathizing with creationism.

The theists I've encountered have without exception been deeply intellectually dishonest. Probably because you have to be in order to defend premature affirmation of belief in a magical being, when even the bare supposition is unsupported by evidence. You can't avoid making with the smoke and mirrors, the deliberate misdirection, because it's all you have. If creationists should take anything away from the Dover trial transcripts, it's that their heroes are all demonstrably liars, because they had to be in order to defend a belief that didn't stand on its own merits. I can't see any way that this wouldn't be endemic to theism as well, so long as it remains unsupported by evidence.
 
2008-02-16 02:13:11 PM  
shocker66s: whatshisname: shocker66s: physicists agree with Einstein.

But they don't think Newton was wrong.

In some respects they do.


There's a huge difference between being considered "not as right" and being considered "wrong"
 
2008-02-16 02:13:53 PM  
shocker66s: Thats a great question. My answer is simple. The answer is I don't know.

But you decline to even put down odds, when they are manifestly unequal.

shocker66s: There are great arguments on both sides.

No. Evolution is indisputably superior, given the underlying premises of Logic, ZF self-consistency, and the Strong Church-Turing Universe Thesis (or my more general Cantor Ordinal form). I have yet to see anyone present a "good argument" for why one should reject one or more of these. Bevets came closest, but with a position that (in my ignorant lay opinion) borders on psychotic delusional schizophrenia.

shocker66s: Logic would dictate that evolution is highly probable but not an absolute and although there is no evidence at all that God or some creator exists there is still a small chance that it does exist. So in short "Who knows".

I can be shown (from the usual suspects) that the simpler model encoding the available data is more likely to be correct; ergo, the conclusion to draw from the absence of evidence of God is "God most probably does not exist", which is a far cry from "Who knows".

shocker66s: Science will never have all the answers nor will religion.

Science, however, will continue to increase the scope and power of its answers, while those religion has attempted to offer (such as disease as a punishment for sin) have proven irreparably wrong.
 
2008-02-16 02:14:58 PM  
SkinnyHead: Activist Judge Jones relied heavily on the Selman decision in deciding Kitzmiller v. Dover. He cited it 15 times. Since Selman has been vacated as unsupported by the evidence, it no longer exists on the books. Because Activist Judge Jones relied so heavily on a vacated case to decide Kitzmiller, his decision in Kitzmiller has become worthless.

There are indeed 15 citations of Selman v Cobb in his decision. Compare that to:

McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (28)
Edwards v. Aguillard (35)
Epperson v. Arkansas (18)
Santa Fe Independent Sch. Dist. v. Doe (16)
Lemon v. Kurtzman (37)

I'm beginning to wonder if you've ever read the decision in question.
 
2008-02-16 02:15:45 PM  
SkinnyHead: "None of those cases involved the scientific theory of intelligent design."

Intelligent design isn't a scientific theory. It doesn't qualify, every piece of evidence put forth turned out to be completely explicable by evolution when scrutinized. What's more, the people behind Intelligent Design were all shown to be deliberate liars during the Dover Trial. Watch the Nova special I linked you to, it follows the court transcripts. Do you know what cdesign propentists means yet?
 
2008-02-16 02:16:13 PM  
Man On Pink Corner: shocker66s Something I think you may not understand about science is that it isn't particularly concerned with terms like "right" and "wrong." Those are pure value judgements; you can't use them as a foundation for further progress. All scientists care about, when formally evaluating a proposition, is, "Does this statement have predictive power?"

When a proposition like natural selection is shown to explain not only existing observations but also to allow scientists to make predictions about the outcome of other experiments, it gains a lot of credibility. Recent genetic research -- more recent even than most of Bevets's quotes from people like Crick -- have placed evolution on intellectual ground that's as safe and secure as the tangible electronic principles that allow you to indulge in all of your subjectivist arguments. (Or do you write woo-woo letters to Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Linus Torvalds asking them to consider the alternatives to Boolean logic, too?)

Intelligent Design, Creationism, or whatever SkinnyHead's crowd is calling it these days makes absolutely no testable predictions and explains absolutely no observations that cannot be better explained with less invention and equivocation. It doesn't belong in schools, or indeed, in the heads of anyone with an I.Q. over 85 or so. Those who come to accept Creationism have fewer questions than they had before, which contrary to your opinion is not considered a good thing in science. (Hey, biologists need job security, too.)

Yet this myth affects everyone's reality, thanks to the disproportionate political power that fundamentalist Christians wield in the US. Do you honestly expect those of us on the right half of the bell curve to smile and nod while the Bible-thumpers try to drag us into a new Dark Age?

If so, why? Never mind "right" and "wrong"... what's in it for us?


I don't expect you to do anything. I just ask you to keep an open mind and be tolerant of other peoples opinions. If you can do that there is so much in it for you.:)
 
2008-02-16 02:21:29 PM  
shocker66s: "I just ask you to keep an open mind"

The problem is that you've kept your mind so open that your brain has slipped out. You're needlessly nitpicking something as thoroughly proven as germ theory. Of course evolution stands up to the nitpicking, it's just that it gets aggravating after a while when someone chastises people for being "too sure" that the earth is round.

shocker66s: "and be tolerant of other peoples opinions. If you can do that there is so much in it for you.:)"

Oh totally, let's tolerate all opinions for the sake of being tolerant.

www.imagehosting.com
 
2008-02-16 02:26:38 PM  
shocker66s: I don't expect you to do anything. I just ask you to keep an open mind and be tolerant of other peoples opinions. If you can do that there is so much in it for you.:)

Dude, f*ck that. Opinions are not worth being tolerated if they are stupid opinions. I do not tolerate the opinion that black people made good farm equipment or that the earth is flat, for the same general reason. Both of those are ignorant and stupid opinions that demonstrate the person who holds them to be a mindless moron. The same is true for all of the anti-science and anti-history opinions, such as intelligent design, holocaust denial, the moon landing conspiracy theory, and the 9/11 Truther's bullsh*t. All of them are wrong for the same reasons and none of them deserve to be respected or tolerated.
 
2008-02-16 02:27:34 PM  
Kome, check your email.
 
2008-02-16 02:27:36 PM  
shocker66s: Einstein defined gravity differently than Newton. Most physicists agree with Einstein. You can't possibly deny that.

This does not make Newton's theory so much "wrong" as an imperfect evolutionary precursor to Einstein's General Relativity. Newton's approximation is still "right" enough to be regularly used.

shocker66s: when you ask enough questions both science and religion will eventually answer "I don't know".

Wrong; religion will eventually answer "We don't know", science will eventually answer "We don't know yet."

shocker66s: In some respects they do.

Mainly with his ideas on Alchemy.
 
2008-02-16 02:29:19 PM  
shocker66s: Sry:) Newton thought gravity was a force Einstein said it was an effect of matter on the fabric of space.

Was Newton wrong? Is a force not able to be an effect of matter on the fabric of space? Was Newton's Law of Gravitation incorrect? Or was it extended and enhanced?

For the record.

shocker66s: At least you can agree that evolution could be wrong. Thats good.

Not very wrong, however.


What is "wrong"?

Newton's laws still are valid, just not in a relativistic framework. Does the apple not fall to the ground according to Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation? Physicists still use Newtonian Physics for non-relativistic calculations since it is easy to work with.
 
2008-02-16 02:30:30 PM  
Zamboro: Kome, check your email.

That was probably one of the greatest e-mails I've ever received. The wording of it was just... perfect.
 
2008-02-16 02:31:34 PM  
abb3w: shocker66s: Thats a great question. My answer is simple. The answer is I don't know.

But you decline to even put down odds, when they are manifestly unequal.

I agree but odds have been beat before.

shocker66s: There are great arguments on both sides.

No. Evolution is indisputably superior, given the underlying premises of Logic, ZF self-consistency, and the Strong Church-Turing Universe Thesis (or my more general Cantor Ordinal form). I have yet to see anyone present a "good argument" for why one should reject one or more of these. Bevets came closest, but with a position that (in my ignorant lay opinion) borders on psychotic delusional schizophrenia.

Follow the path of logic and where evolution would ultimately take you. You are like a man trying to drive while only looking with a straw. There is a bigger picture where science and religion fall flat on their face.

shocker66s: Logic would dictate that evolution is highly probable but not an absolute and although there is no evidence at all that God or some creator exists there is still a small chance that it does exist. So in short "Who knows".

I can be shown (from the usual suspects) that the simpler model encoding the available data is more likely to be correct; ergo, the conclusion to draw from the absence of evidence of God is "God most probably does not exist", which is a far cry from "Who knows".

"Its a super duck!"

shocker66s: Science will never have all the answers nor will religion.

Science, however, will continue to increase the scope and power of its answers, while those religion has attempted to offer (such as disease as a punishment for sin) have proven irreparably wrong.


Remember there is no gene or dna for right or wrong. Its survival of the fittest. It's a good thing religion has been around to protect all you poor souls. So I would guess it has had some good answers to some questions.
 
2008-02-16 02:34:10 PM  
shocker66s: "Remember there is no gene or dna for right or wrong. Its survival of the fittest. It's a good thing religion has been around to protect all you poor souls. So I would guess it has had some good answers to some questions."

Come clean on your beliefs. For that matter, tell us exactly what factual answers religion has ever provided. Do not ignore this.
 
2008-02-16 02:39:44 PM  
shocker66s: Remember there is no gene or dna for right or wrong. Its survival of the fittest. It's a good thing religion has been around to protect all you poor souls. So I would guess it has had some good answers to some questions.

Morality does have a genetic basis. And morality does enhance fitness. "The Science of Good and Evil" by Michael Shermer is a terrific book that synthesizes a ton of current scientific evidence about the evolution of morality, including the concepts of "rightness" and "wrongness."
 
2008-02-16 02:42:14 PM  
Zamboro: shocker66s: "Remember there is no gene or dna for right or wrong. Its survival of the fittest. It's a good thing religion has been around to protect all you poor souls. So I would guess it has had some good answers to some questions."

Come clean on your beliefs. For that matter, tell us exactly what factual answers religion has ever provided. Do not ignore this.


What is this some kind of witch hunt? I have not said ever that religion had any factual answers. My beliefs have been stated. Take care on how you treat and talk to Christians. By people demeaning them and mocking them, you are only giving them fuel.
They tend to see all this as some fulfillment of prophecy. Have an open mind is all I ask once again.
 
2008-02-16 02:42:20 PM  
shocker66s: I don't expect you to do anything. I just ask you to keep an open mind and be tolerant of other peoples opinions. If you can do that there is so much in it for you.:)

Why should we be tolerant of them? Why? Why should I be tolerant of Bigots? Why should I be tolerant of Cannibals? Why should I be tolerant of people who think they are Napoleon?
 
2008-02-16 02:42:42 PM  
shocker66s: Follow the path of logic and where evolution would ultimately take you. You are like a man trying to drive while only looking with a straw. There is a bigger picture where science and religion fall flat on their face.

Care to elaborate on that? Coherently?

And, bear in mind, I'm not working from logic and evolution; I'm working from Logic (Robbins axioms), Mathematics (ZF self-consistency), and Evidence (Formal Complexity of Cantor Ordinal Turing Degree for the Observable Universe; presumed zero).

shocker66s: Remember there is no gene or dna for right or wrong. Its survival of the fittest. It's a good thing religion has been around to protect all you poor souls.

I believe your use of "right or wrong" in that is unclear as to whether you mean "good or evil" or "correct or incorrect". Either way, I refer you to "Darwin's Cathedral" from the regular reading list, which illustrates how Religion evolves from Human society, and how Society evolves within Species. In short, religion is just another example of evolution.
 
2008-02-16 02:43:28 PM  
At its most basic, evolution is the recognition that there are certain traits that make it so that some members of a species are more likely to reproduce than others. For example, we all want to fark the hot blond but won't touch the 300-pound redhead. Those who reproduce pass on their genes. For examples, all of these hot blonds getting farked are likely to produce a larger proportion of hot blond children, and thus, the ratio of hot blonds to fat redheads increases in the next generation.

Now, if you disagree with the above, you obviously have an inferior knowledge of science (third grade or lower) and should stay out of this conversation.

If you agree with the above, then you basically agree that evolution is at play, and you, my friend, are not a Neanderthal.
 
2008-02-16 02:44:02 PM  
ninjakirby: Why should I be tolerant of people who think they are Napoleon?

Elba needs more tourists. =)
 
2008-02-16 02:45:00 PM  
swarms909: Now, if you disagree with the above, you obviously have an inferior knowledge of science (third grade or lower) and should stay out of this conversation.

Or they just love fatties.
 
2008-02-16 02:45:23 PM  
Bevets: The Florida Department of Education is working up a second option for the State Board of Education to consider that would insert the phrase "the scientific theory of" before the word evolution and in other "appropriate places throughout the standards," according to Tom Butler, department spokesman.

...

Some of the opponents have said they would be pleased if evolution was taught but as a theory; others have objected to the standard's entire treatment of the topic.

This is misleading because it implies evolutionism is supported by science.

Rules of atheism "Science":

Rule #1 God is IRRELEVANT
Rule #2 If God is relevant, see Rule #1
Rule #3 If God might be relevant, see Rule #1

Theists will consider natural causes.
Atheists will ONLY consider natural causes.

Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep God out of their brainwaves.


You have lied about this before. Buddhists are atheists who consider cases that are not natural. You fail, dummy.

Also, it is a theory. But most people don't realize that they have no clue what the definition of theory is. There is no theory of intelligent design (creationism), only a hypothesis that can never be tested or observed.

Also, Bevets, as well as most of the people I have encountered in daily life and those who somehow get their opinions heard, is a dummy.

Next thing you know I'll have to tell people that theism and atheism have no direct correlation with gnosticism and agnosticism.
/buy a damn dictionsry
//OR LOOK IT UP ONLINE!
 
2008-02-16 02:46:31 PM  
ninjakirby: shocker66s: I don't expect you to do anything. I just ask you to keep an open mind and be tolerant of other peoples opinions. If you can do that there is so much in it for you.:)

Why should we be tolerant of them? Why? Why should I be tolerant of Bigots? Why should I be tolerant of Cannibals? Why should I be tolerant of people who think they are Napoleon?


Because as long as they do not hurt you or anyone else they are entitled to their opinion. Try and show them a better way if you like but don't shove your ideals down their throats or else you become no better.
 
2008-02-16 02:48:08 PM  
swarms909: For example, we all want to fark the hot blond but won't touch the 300-pound redhead.

Dude, she was six foot four, only 280, and with natural 48EEE tits! Damn straight I farked her!

/mmmm, mountain climbing
//point 6 FTW
 
2008-02-16 02:48:08 PM  
They say it as though qualifying something as a "scientific theory" is a bad thing.
 
2008-02-16 02:50:11 PM  
abb3w: shocker66s: Follow the path of logic and where evolution would ultimately take you. You are like a man trying to drive while only looking with a straw. There is a bigger picture where science and religion fall flat on their face.

Care to elaborate on that? Coherently?

And, bear in mind, I'm not working from logic and evolution; I'm working from Logic (Robbins axioms), Mathematics (ZF self-consistency), and Evidence (Formal Complexity of Cantor Ordinal Turing Degree for the Observable Universe; presumed zero).

Too tired:) Some other time perhaps. Your a smart person. It's nice to see.

shocker66s: Remember there is no gene or dna for right or wrong. Its survival of the fittest. It's a good thing religion has been around to protect all you poor souls.

I believe your use of "right or wrong" in that is unclear as to whether you mean "good or evil" or "correct or incorrect". Either way, I refer you to "Darwin's Cathedral" from the regular reading list, which illustrates how Religion evolves from Human society, and how Society evolves within Species. In short, religion is just another example of evolution.


Sounds like a good read. I could use a nice book. Ty
 
2008-02-16 02:50:54 PM  
shocker66s: Because as long as they do not hurt you or anyone else they are entitled to their opinion.

Unfortunately, trying to dumb down the school education damages the social ecology and technological infrastructure that keeps life from reverting to being nasty, brutish, and short.

Or in other words, if they meddle in the school system's science education, that's a problem.
 
2008-02-16 02:51:52 PM  
shocker66s: "Because as long as they do not hurt you or anyone else they are entitled to their opinion."

...And I am entitled to criticize that opinion based upon it's merits. You may return fire, but you may not disarm me.
 
2008-02-16 02:53:39 PM  
shocker66s: ninjakirby: shocker66s: I don't expect you to do anything. I just ask you to keep an open mind and be tolerant of other peoples opinions. If you can do that there is so much in it for you.:)

Why should we be tolerant of them? Why? Why should I be tolerant of Bigots? Why should I be tolerant of Cannibals? Why should I be tolerant of people who think they are Napoleon?

Because as long as they do not hurt you or anyone else they are entitled to their opinion. Try and show them a better way if you like but don't shove your ideals down their throats or else you become no better.


Opinions affect how people act. Stupid opinions, whatever they are, will always cause harm. The incredibly loud and unfounded opinion that evolution is wrong (which is spouted off mostly by people who are scientifically illiterate) degrades the science education of countless students. If you cannot see how students having a poor science education could cause real damage, then your narrow-mindedness is contributing to that damage.

I will be willing to have an honest sit down and chat with someone who is willing to learn something they think I can teach them. I will respect that person for trying, even if in the end they cannot see where I'm coming from. I will not, however, tolerate people who refuse to learn even the basic terminology of what I know and then demand that their uneducated opinions on those topics be treated equally. Those people deserve derision.
 
2008-02-16 02:53:46 PM  
shocker66s: Sounds like a good read. I could use a nice book.

See the rest of ninjakirby's Amazon reading list for other titles useful to understanding the debate.
 
2008-02-16 02:55:23 PM  
Sumo Surfer: That's why you'll see some theists debate about how life came to be, while evolutionists deny (with much gusto!) any possibility of anything other than a random explosion producing all of us.

The theory of evolution does not describe, or attempt to describe, how life started.

Darkraven: I believe in God.
I also believe in science.
Science is simply the language of God.


I don't believe in god, but I'm amazed at how many believers seem to think that science is somehow anti-god. If god exists, and he created the world and everything in it, then science is just a study of gods creations. Why is that a bad thing?

I believe the problem is that most religions claim to have all the answers. And sometimes, those answers are proven to be wrong. Thus you have situations like Galileo, where the church-approved answer is proven to be incorrect. Religions who have been telling people "We have all the answers" don't like that.
 
2008-02-16 02:55:27 PM  
Kome: I will be willing to have an honest sit down and chat with someone who is willing to learn something they think I can teach them.

Or even someone who thinks they can teach you something.
 
2008-02-16 02:55:50 PM  
Kome: "The Science of Good and Evil"

Added.

Moderately off topic, someone I know has offered to purchase five books from my wishlist of my choosing and I don't know which to choose. Tough decision.
 
2008-02-16 02:58:04 PM  
abb3w: Kome: I will be willing to have an honest sit down and chat with someone who is willing to learn something they think I can teach them.

Or even someone who thinks they can teach you something.


But... that assumes for some strange reason that I don't know everything. It just doesn't make any sense.
 
2008-02-16 02:59:38 PM  
Zamboro: shocker66s: "Because as long as they do not hurt you or anyone else they are entitled to their opinion."

...And I am entitled to criticize that opinion based upon it's merits. You may return fire, but you may not disarm me.


Fire away as long as you do not harm.
 
2008-02-16 03:00:39 PM  
ninjakirby: Kome: "The Science of Good and Evil"

Added.

Moderately off topic, someone I know has offered to purchase five books from my wishlist of my choosing and I don't know which to choose. Tough decision.


The 5 most expensive. =)
 
2008-02-16 03:01:08 PM  
shocker66s I don't expect you to do anything. I just ask you to keep an open mind and be tolerant of other peoples opinions. If you can do that there is so much in it for you.:)

I'm very tolerant of other peoples' opinions until they resort to the use of force to propagate them. Since children are forced to go to school in the US, any attempt at corrupting science education is an act of intellectual violence.

I think there's a lot at stake. If you read very much medieval/Renaissance history it's hard to escape the conclusion that people were really, really stupid at the time. Witchcraft. Alchemy. Astrology. Demonology.

But you have to avoid the trap of thinking everybody was just "stupid" back in the day, as if everything's different now. Newton believed in spontaneous generation, but he wasn't stupid, was he? Paracelsus was an alchemist, but he wasn't stupid, either. No, we weren't stupid back then... we were just wasting our time, and doing so almost entirely thanks to magical, faith-based thinking. Only when we began to permit other mental disciplines to displace superstition and religious thought did we start to become less "stupid," as a species.

Yet the Bevetses and SkinnyHeads of today want us to return to an era when Crick and Watson would have spent their careers looking for the Philosopher's Stone. Einstein's paycheck would be signed by Pat Robertson. Alan Turing would never have seen his twentieth birthday, and Gandhi would have been assassinated because he was on the wrong side of the whole transsubstantiation question.

It isn't a question of "right" and "wrong," as I said before. It's way more important than that. These people have to be stopped, not tolerated.
 
Displayed 50 of 760 comments


Oldest | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report