posted
You see why that standard of behavior doesn't hold *on* an internet discussion board? Much as we see the "living room" analogy around here, that's a dead horse. Actually burned and buried.
But I'll drop it from here.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What exactly is your argument here? That Rabbit should decide we're a bunch of obnoxious jerks, then continue believing what she believes and go off to persuade other people who don't have your background knowledge?Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interestingly enough I don't see why that standard of behavior does not hold on an internet discussion board. Although, I don't find it acceptable when people honk their horns at one another when they are driving or flick each other off. That and I think you would be amazed how many people can get truly angry from a discussion on a forum board.
However, I also know that I am generally a bit too polite at times. Regardless, I would say that one of the things missing from our society is actual rational discourse that focuses on the argument and its premises rather than fallacious argument forms, such as the personality of the person(s) that you are arguing with.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's been made pretty clear that arguing the points with her doesn't work, restating the facts doesn't work, yelling doesn't work, so yeah, having it just be dropped would at least make it go away from here, which might be nice.
It's religion. You know what you get when you discuss science from a religious perspective? Nothing of value. Ever.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's religion. You know what you get when you discuss science from a religious perspective? Nothing of value. Ever.
Nothing quite like an absolute statement to say more about the speaker than the subject being spoken of.
quote:What exactly is your argument here? That Rabbit should decide we're a bunch of obnoxious jerks, then continue believing what she believes and go off to persuade other people who don't have your background knowledge?
What I'm saying, at least, is that if in one's perspective another person is being ridiculous and irrational, and one objects to that on grounds of rationality and science...perhaps the reasonable, consistent course of action wouldn't be to turn things into an emotional insult-exchange.
What is it about a scientific, rational outlook that says, "I'll be calm, polite, rational, and reasonable. But if someone comes along and is silly, superstitious, and insistently utterly wrong-headed and ignorant, then to hell with that, I'ma call `em idiots because that's what they are, I'm right and they're stupid." I don't understand that. Well, actually, I do understand that: a failure to practice what is preached, which is a very human failing.
It's just strange and kind of funny to see it from folks who claim to eschew that sort of thing.
ETA: That was to what you said, not to you personally, Raymond, if you get what I mean.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
If ID is a scientific theory that makes sense regardless of religious beliefs, are there any atheist scientists that accept it?
I know there are plenty of atheist biochemists that would be able to understand these mysterious arguments that are over our heads. If someone could post a link to one of them explaining why s/he believes in ID without believing in God, it might make the argument a little more clear and/or persuasive.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
On that case I think you would actually be surprised, especially when you consider the breadth of what is a "religious perspective." That and I think part of the problem is what we all consider "facts." You certainly find the premises true, but she might have some reason, rational or not, for not agreeing with you on those specific points.
That and science is often brought forward as almost a type of religion, especially by those that have little practical experience with actual science. Most people simply spend their lives with the general causal knowledge that pushing a button produces effect X. Faith is found in more places than we want to admit. By virtue of our lives and history we simply tend to distort the meaning and implications of certain parts of language as well as concepts that are connected with it all.
Example being Intelligent Design. There is a feeling that because ID attempts to describe complex (yeah we can argue if it is complex or not) material systems that is therefore science. Even though it is really attempting to address a material "reality" with an article of faith, which is most certainly not empirical inquiry or science.
Part of the issue that many rational thinkers have with those that are heavy on the faith side is the notion that no evidence is great enough to shake that persons faith. Simply stated, there is always some excuse for why God or some force exists contrary to what the evidence states. Example: We found evidence that evolution exists through examining the fossil record etc. Riposte: God could have simply inserted a false fossil record to challenge our faith. Obviously not every religious person is this way, however it happens and tends to simply cause rational thinkers to do something resembling Vesuvius. Intellectual magma spews forth and all the bystanders get covered in ash to be uncovered by another group of intellectuals centuries later.
Trying to bury religion with science or vice versa is a futile pursuit that simply emboldens the other party. Ending the argument on the note of "you're stupid" or anything resembling that statement also does little to enamor your points to any audience.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Baron Samedi, the only example of a non-Christian IDer I can think of is David Berlinski, and he's nothing but a contrarian, with all of the Christopher Hitchens foolishness that implies, with none of the rakish charm.
quote:What exactly is your argument here? That Rabbit should decide we're a bunch of obnoxious jerks, then continue believing what she believes and go off to persuade other people who don't have your background knowledge?
Actually, I'm cool with this too.
Here's the thing. The ID/Evolution debate is not actually as important as everyone seems to think it is. Sure, it is scientifically important, but beyond that? Let's say the Texas School Board people succeed beyond their wildest dreams, and ID appears in high school textbooks across the nation.
The consequences:
1) Intelligent teachers get into fights with their principles and boards. Ok, that's bad.
2) University profs waste a few hours in first year courses correcting various incorrect ideas.
3) Incorrigible students drop out.
The first consequence is truly unfortunate. The second is an inconvenience. The third is the chickens coming home to roost.
Scientific research will continue apace, because IDers will continue to produce and publish what they've always produced and published: nothing. Science hardly has anything to fear from nothing.
So do I care if someone stomps off in a huff? No. ID has lost, and everything is over but the crying.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Finding a simple Atheist, Buddhist, Animist, etc. to support a theory of any sort that comes from an opposie viewpoint does not make it true or more likely. Ideas should be judged on their own merit, not based on where the idea came from.
That and I believe the entire problem with ID is that it ends up being conjecture that things are so complex they had to designed by someone/something intelligent. However, how do you test for that? For that reason it can't be science. Using information derived from scientific inquiry does not make your product science, hence why we have the field of engineering ( I love engineers by the way). Using some science does not make you science.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ID argument for science education is a bit like the Bigfoot agument for Calculus education.
I fing Calculus to be too complex to have been invented by the human mind, so only a purely mathematical mind, like that of the Bigfootcould ha e invented it.
I suggest we teach this controversy, including, for historical perspective of course, all the other things that I believe about Bigfoot as well.
You're all OK with that, right? You don't want to stifle discussion, do you?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Scientific research will continue apace, because IDers will continue to produce and publish what they've always produced and published: nothing. Science hardly has anything to fear from nothing.
So do I care if someone stomps off in a huff? No. ID has lost, and everything is over but the crying.
So, if there is nothing to fear, Raymond Arnold's question becomes even more interesting. Is the reason to be obnoxious just...what, gloating? To be be a bad winner?
quote:I suggest we teach this controversy, including, for historical perspective of course, all the other things that I believe about Bigfoot as well.
And so, after calling you an ignorant twit for believing something so absurdly stupid...what have I gained? I haven't persuaded you. I haven't changed my own mind about how silly it is. If I changed someone else's mind with such a colorful insult-filled rant, chances are they could be easily persuaded one way or another. So what's been gained, aside from chest-thumping?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mighty Cow, I always laugh at the things that you write ( in a good way, not that upper tier haughty British laughter, however the whole bigfoot and calculus analogy is really argument by false analogy. That and if you ever read what Plato thought about mathematics you might really flip your whig ( not that I'm with Plato on that, just so you don't verbally stab me in the face here).
The difference of course is that millions, really billions, of people have deep religious convictions. Something that they don't have about bigfoot, at least that I am aware of. The reason for the conversation and debate is that many people hold the ideas and we all live in the same world. For that reason rational and civilized discourse over the matter is preferrable to slinging mud.
That and I have always felt that we should teach things beyond simply math, science, and english in the K-12 levels. That is an argument for another day. Just to clarify, I do not think that teaching intelligent design in a science class is acceptable for many of the reasons listed here. However, I think you are missing the fact that if enough people believe anything that alone makes it a topic of importance. This goes far beyond religios beliefs.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, if there is nothing to fear, Raymond Arnold's question becomes even more interesting. Is the reason to be obnoxious just...what, gloating? To be be a bad winner?
It's not a competition, though. That's what is missed here. You're still thinking of this in terms of democratic debate. On one side stands knowledge, and on the other, willful ignorance. Democracy and debate have nothing to do with it.
I grew up surrounded by young Earth creationists; I was one myself until I was 19. We endlessly debated the role of will in belief; do people just believe what they want to believe? To a certain extent, yes. I always pointed out a very specific difference between them and I, however. One of their favourite Biblical story was that of the rich man and Lazarus; I assume you know it? Anyways, when the rich man is in hell, he asks Abraham to resurrect someone from the dead to warn his brothers about hell. Abraham responds that if they don't believe Moses and the prophets, than they won't believe a resurrected human.
Maybe, I always said. Maybe. But I've never seen a resurrected human. For their part, however, every single night of their lives they looked into the night sky and gazed at star light that had taken considerably longer than 6000 years to travel to Earth.
In the end, my attitude is the same as Abraham's. If the mountains of evidence won't convince them, if they literally refuse to believe their own eyes, why should we care? They can't stop scientific research, and the data will always be there for them to re-consider. They can always find salvation, but if they refuse, well, Jesus had a term for continued discussions with them: throwing pearls before swine.
If IDers could have some practical ill effect on scientific research, I would feel differently. But they can't; all they can do is waste the time of a professor trying to teach first year biology, physics or geology classes.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am dubious about the claim saying ID has no effect on science. Ultimately science requires some sort of funding and money and backing to develop. Isn't the fear that teaching ID as a viable alternative to science will create a society of individuals who don't value science and instead believe in ideas that are false, which in turn will have a detrimental effect on science?
Posts: 76 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not a competition, though. That's what is missed here. You're still thinking of this in terms of democratic debate. On one side stands knowledge, and on the other, willful ignorance. Democracy and debate have nothing to do with it.
I'm not missing it, I'm thinking about it differently. See, if you're coming at the matter from a purely abstract perspective, then you're right, it's not a competition. But it's not abstract. I'm coming at it from, "What is the goal? Why are people saying these things?" Slinging mud is really not consistent with any goal besides chest thumping, and has no other excuse than frustration and self-righteousness. Which is very understandable in this situation, but let's label things accurately: calling names and sneering does not actually move one's side even an inch closer to proving its point to the other side. Quite the opposite sometimes, in fact.
quote: In the end, my attitude is the same as Abraham's. If the mountains of evidence won't convince them, if they literally refuse to believe their own eyes, why should we care? They can't stop scientific research, and the data will always be there for them to re-consider. They can always find salvation, but if they refuse, well, Jesus had a term for continued discussions with them: throwing pearls before swine.
If IDers could have some practical ill effect on scientific research, I would feel differently. But they can't; all they can do is waste the time of a professor trying to teach first year biology, physics or geology classes.
Well, I suppose if you think that the way our public schools educate our children is insubstantial and essentially meaningless, then I suppose you're right. It is meaningless. That's a pretty smug, silly thing to think, though. It would be one thing if it led one to think, "OK, they're too deluded and stupid to persuade, so I'll ignore them." That's a rational, reasonable stance to take. What's being said here, though, is, "They're too stupid and deluded to persuade, so let's call them names and sneer at them, and drive them away. Anyone who disagrees with that approach, remember, they're asking for it."
C'mon, Foust. Why should you care? Because they can throw up a speed-bump in the way of scientific progress. How many years did you waste growing up believing in YEC? What could you have instead been learning in that time? How would your life have been different if you hadn't been taught such things? That's why you should care, that's why it matters. Your life personally would have been improved, however slightly, and the lives of those around you would have been as well. You live in the world with them.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting. But if it's defending an atheistic view of ID, why is it called "Seeking God in Science?"
I haven't read it either, but based on the title it seems like another example of ID being religion-dependent, and the opposite of what the original post was trying to demonstrate.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jenos: I am dubious about the claim saying ID has no effect on science. Ultimately science requires some sort of funding and money and backing to develop. Isn't the fear that teaching ID as a viable alternative to science will create a society of individuals who don't value science and instead believe in ideas that are false, which in turn will have a detrimental effect on science?
That is the aim of the "teach the debate" movement. It's an insidious attempt to disrupt and weaken children's understanding of science. I don't think even most people who support or promote that particular cause understand that this is what they are doing. I'm not even clear on whether anyone involved in it really understands that aim, because if they were rational about what they were doing, they would also understand that it was wrong and dishonest. This is something different from an expressed aim, and it's something a little different from simple dishonesty and trickery. It's really worse than that- it's the collective paroxysm of the religious (some of them) against reason, because reason threatens their view of the universe. Those that don't fall headlong into the fight on that side are only those who are too smart, or have been indoctrinated too imperfectly to commit to such madness.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Black Fox: Is Argumentum ad populum any better?
I wouldn't say that it's false analogy anyway, by your post. You just seem to be talking a matter of numbers. If thousands of people believe in Bigfoot, how many more need to believe before we take them seriously and teach their bad math?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The matter of Bigfoot being a source of knowledge due to so many people believing it to be true would certainly be a bad argument. However, when so many people believe that Bigfoot is a source of knowledge you have to respect that fact to a certain degree. You certainly do not and should not teach bad math because of it. I am saying that ID is a matter of faith, not a matter of science. However, people who believe in ID will believe that it is science and that is where it can be morally and conversationally difficult. Does that make sense?
ID should be taught in theology or history courses, not in a chemistry or biology. Does that make sense? That and even if you believe/know that ID is a bunk scientific theory ( in so far that it really is not a scientific theory ) does not mean that you somehow have a moral high ground to sling mud. You simply have knowledge, depending on your concept of what knowledge is.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is, as I see it, that rational and calm discussion never changes the perception of those who hold the ID position that it is science. Slinging mud may not do so either, but what other options are there to stop people from teaching something that is not science and potentially detrimental to the future of scientific development in America?
Posts: 76 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Black Fox: I am OK with comparitive religion creations stories taught in the appropriate classes, so long as a real cross section are taught, and done so as equals. If a particular religion wants to do more, that is what church is for.
Under no circumstances should a Biblical creationism be taught in school under the false name ID. I don't think junk science deserves even a moment of our time except to debunk it, no matter how many people believe it.
Should faith healing be taught in Medical School? Should the Great Flood be taught in geology? Should human sacrifice theory of crop growth be taught, or the angry gods theory of thunder?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
MightyCow, are you even reading Black Fox's responses? The guy just said ID should not be taught as science, because it is not science. If I'm not mistaken, that isn't a change of position for him, either.
quote:The problem is, as I see it, that rational and calm discussion never changes the perception of those who hold the ID position that it is science. Slinging mud may not do so either, but what other options are there to stop people from teaching something that is not science and potentially detrimental to the future of scientific development in America?
The problem here is twofold. One, you think that your experience on the subject is either comprehensive or representative. Why is that? How many different people have you seen someone attempt to convince that ID is not science? Second, you also appear sure that you have a firm handle on what rational and calm discussion is. I can't dispute the calm part, but the rational is called into question pretty clearly by your first assumption.
Anyway, to answer your question, I don't grant your premise. I wasn't aware science required mud-slinging to defend it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: Did you even read my response? I'm agreeing with him in one regard, and then going a few steps further.
He's on the right track, but I think it's a mistake to even consider ID as an honest course of study in any field, because it isn't a real topic, it's simply a clever smear campaign against evolution.
As I said, teach comparative religion, but ID is just a sneaky attempt to give Christian Creationism undue time.
The last paragraph was aimed at ID proponents, so if there was any confusion there, it was unintentional, and not because I think Black Fox would support those ideas.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem is, as I see it, that rational and calm discussion never changes the perception of those who hold the ID position that it is science. Slinging mud may not do so either, but what other options are there to stop people from teaching something that is not science and potentially detrimental to the future of scientific development in America?
Exactly. We're at the point where all we can hope to do is get them to say "screw you guys, I'm taking my ball and going home."
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fortunately, getting ID proponents to go home is a win.
Good science will win out over ignorance, but it has an uphill battle against indoctrination.
Many people want to know the answers to life's questions, but given an imaginary answer that is easy to digest, some will stop there, without caring if the easy answer is the right one.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Brad Morton's blog (author of "Seeking God in Science"). I haven't read the book, and only came across the blog as a result of IanO's post. I'm also not particularly invested in the topic, and am very limited in my understanding of any of the arguments (pro or con).
Merton's basic claim is not that ID is "true," but (in his words) "that it’s legitimate to think of intelligent design as a science and that arguments for intelligent design are more plausible than they’re typically given credit for. I also argue that there are ways in which it’s a good idea for intelligent design to be taught in public school." To the final claim, his point is that many students will have already been taught ID concepts at home or at church, and that these then need to be addressed in the science classroom.
Also, in reading his archived blog posts, he references the works of Steve Fuller and David Berlinski, both of whom are also atheists (or, at least, agnostics) and who agree that ID should be treated with more respect as a scientific discipline than it currently receives.
*Caveat: to the original question, "are there any atheist scientists that accept [ID]," it may be useful to point out that 1) depending on your definitions, it could be argued that none of these three are "scientists" (rather they're philosophers studying the philosophy of science) and 2) none are wholly endorsing ID, but generally making weaker claims like "the arguments against ID are insufficient to dismiss it."
<edit>The question also seems somewhat impossible to satisfy, in that the creator of life is usually synonymous with "God." I suppose an atheist IDer could believe some non-human entity designed life, but that this designer is so far removed from what is traditionally considered "God" that they refuse the label.</edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Good science will win out over ignorance, but it has an uphill battle against indoctrination.
Many people want to know the answers to life's questions, but given an imaginary answer that is easy to digest, some will stop there, without caring if the easy answer is the right one.
I've been pondering this a lot recently. Does more precise knowledge translate into a better understanding? And better decision-making?
A decision is based off of two things:
Data
Values
All the data in the world will not alter a decision if the values are independent of the data.
This is true for many points of contention today. Climate Change, oil dependence, habitat loss, ID vs. evolution, etc. In many places, good science is not defeating ignorance. More data, or better data, or more explicitly defined data do not penetrate through to values.
Ideally:
1) Someone has a preconception 2) New data are discovered 3) The preconception is verified or disproved, and the new data are incorporated
In reality, new data are ignored, devalued, and twisted. Preconceptions are rarely tested and changed. The problem isn't with the data, it's with peoples' unwillingness to challenge their preconceptions. Often changing one's mind is perceived as a weakness. That is the biggest problem I can see, and I don't know how to make it better.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Bradley Monton isn't a scientist, he's a philosopher of science. But whatever you can get, I suppose.
SenojRetep, Steve Fuller is a sociologist. As for Berlinski, he was prominently featured in Expelled. Ok, he has scientific credentials, but his engagement with ID seems more to be about contrarianism rather than any positive position.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I wasn't trying to get anything. Someone asked a question, it tickled the back of my mind and reminded me of a title I had seen a while ago, and I tracked it down. That's the whole point of "FWIW". End of story- without the implication of desperation.
Posts: 1346 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:He's on the right track, but I think it's a mistake to even consider ID as an honest course of study in any field, because it isn't a real topic, it's simply a clever smear campaign against evolution.
What, it shouldn't even be taught in a history or philosophy class? That doesn't fit with your claims that religion can be taught, so long as it is given equality across the board with its own competitors.
So, yeah, I read your response. Black Fox essentially agreed with you, and then you moved the goalposts even further.
-------
quote:Exactly. We're at the point where all we can hope to do is get them to say "screw you guys, I'm taking my ball and going home."
quote:Fortunately, getting ID proponents to go home is a win.
Good science will win out over ignorance, but it has an uphill battle against indoctrination.
Heh, so just to be clear, you guys - Foust and MightyCow - actually don't think science can win out over religious thinking without slinging mud in this case? Well, that certainly explains your posting style, MightyCow.
Know what they do when they take their ball and go home? Preach it harder at church and to their families. Slinging mud makes this kind of thinking harder to defeat, not easier. You might as well see someone building up to an angry explosion and try to calm them down by slapping them in the face.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
ID gets to discussed in science (or philosophy) class when it proposes actual ideas about the designer that can be discussed and questioned.
Otherwise, simply saying "too complex" isn't proposing intelligent design, it's merely proposing "too-complex-ianism," which is really kinda just part of the testing process for normal science. Except without admitting when the "too complex" counter-hypothesis is proved wrong.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Heh, so just to be clear, you guys - Foust and MightyCow - actually don't think science can win out over religious thinking without slinging mud in this case?
In the context of public opinion, no, it probably can't - religion is nigh invincible. As I said in a previous posts, people who stare at the ancient light of stars every night of the lives are still somehow young earth creationists.
The fact that IDers never publish anything is more than just a blight on their credibility. It also means they have no hope of interfering with the larger realm of scientific research. The people that face the biggest threat from them are, as I've said, the poor professors who have to deal with students indoctrinated in this stuff.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Bradley Monton isn't a scientist, he's a philosopher of science. But whatever you can get, I suppose.
SenojRetep, Steve Fuller is a sociologist. As for Berlinski, he was prominently featured in Expelled. Ok, he has scientific credentials, but his engagement with ID seems more to be about contrarianism rather than any positive position.
I did mention in my caveat that all three were more philosophically engaged with the material than scientifically engaged. Steve Fuller seems to be a sociologist in the same way that Merton is a scientist (i.e. both seem to focus more on the philosophy behind the subjects rather than the subjects themselves).
I haven't seen Expelled and know only a little about it, but dismissing someone because they were featured in it seems a little odd. But, as I said in my initial post, I'm not particularly invested; if you feel they can be easily cast aside feel free to do so.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: ID gets to discussed in science (or philosophy) class when it proposes actual ideas about the designer that can be discussed and questioned.
Otherwise, simply saying "too complex" isn't proposing intelligent design, it's merely proposing "too-complex-ianism," which is really kinda just part of the testing process for normal science. Except without admitting when the "too complex" counter-hypothesis is proved wrong.
quote:In the context of public opinion, no, it probably can't - religion is nigh invincible. As I said in a previous posts, people who stare at the ancient light of stars every night of the lives are still somehow young earth creationists.
The fact that IDers never publish anything is more than just a blight on their credibility. It also means they have no hope of interfering with the larger realm of scientific research. The people that face the biggest threat from them are, as I've said, the poor professors who have to deal with students indoctrinated in this stuff.
If in the context of public opinion religion is invincible...why are things like church attendance and individual religious belief not either growing or remaining static, Foust? Both of them, particularly when looked at over generations, have been in decline for quite some time now. The facts of reality simply do not match your argument, which more and more sounds like an excuse not to have to deal with them.
Which is fine, but let's not pretty it up by saying it's the only possible effective tactic. It's clearly not the only possible effective tactic, and I dispute that it's very effective at all.
As for who faces the biggest threat...what about children who are brought up in that kind of mentality, Foust? What about kids who are taught to twist or even outright sneer at science and all the many benefits it can bring, as though science and religion were by definition mutually exclusive? We all know what sort of harm that kind of thinking can do.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem is, as I see it, that rational and calm discussion never changes the perception of those who hold the ID position that it is science. Slinging mud may not do so either, but what other options are there to stop people from teaching something that is not science and potentially detrimental to the future of scientific development in America?
Exactly. We're at the point where all we can hope to do is get them to say "screw you guys, I'm taking my ball and going home."
Are they leaving a science classroom to go hem and hew about how they are so right and this is so unfair outside of secular education and/or the strenuous debate of credible theory?
quote:Are they leaving a science classroom to go hem and hew about how they are so right and this is so unfair outside of secular education and/or the strenuous debate of credible theory?
If so, then, win!
What also happens is that the leave the science classroom or the PTA meeting and go run for the local school board.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the context of public opinion, no, it probably can't - religion is nigh invincible. As I said in a previous posts, people who stare at the ancient light of stars every night of the lives are still somehow young earth creationists.
Heh. The Czech Republic is 60% non-believing, with 19% of the population espousing belief in god, meaning 80% of the country is non-deist, never mind non-Christian. The size of the catholic population in this country has decreased by 50% in ten years. "Well-nigh invincible" indeed.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: What also happens is that the leave the science classroom or the PTA meeting and go run for the local school board.
that's less win, but then it results in Dover-esque precedent generating conflict with the law, which is more net win overall! hoorrraaayyy!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my defense, I took Rakeesh to be speaking about a select group of believers - those actively involved as either YECers or IDers. When I called religion invincible, I really did just mean to refer to the specific demographics relevant to this discussion.
Frankly, I think that should have been obvious to all of you considering the context. Orincoro.
quote:What about kids who are taught to twist or even outright sneer at science and all the many benefits it can bring, as though science and religion were by definition mutually exclusive? We all know what sort of harm that kind of thinking can do.
Yeah, we do. Less competition for physics programs and wasted time in first year biology classes.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
You claim that YECers or IDers are 'well nigh invincible' in their belief against any contradiction. You claim this is based on your own experience. Well, how much experience do you have, exactly? Experience of people challenging their beliefs, that is. Of that experience, how much of it was calm, rational, and insistent as opposed to mud-slinging? How sure are you that when you saw these attempts, you were able to accurately gauge the difference? And finally, most importantly, what is your experience in proportion to the entire amount of times someone has attempted to contradict such people?
quote:Yeah, we do. Less competition for physics programs and wasted time in first year biology classes.
Certainly not at the public school pre-college level, where classes where biology is a big topic are frequently mandatory. You're really holding on rather...dogmatically to this point of yours, Foust.
--------
quote:that's less win, but then it results in Dover-esque precedent generating conflict with the law, which is more net win overall! hoorrraaayyy!
How long did that take, exactly? What impact do you think this decision has had on the people who will be teaching their kids YEC/ID anyway?
But, again, I ask the question: since when does science need mud-slinging and insults to defend itself against superstition and nonsense? You know what needs that sort of thing to defend itself? Not science. Angry people are who need that sort of thing, or at least think they do. "Raaagh, you refuse to acknowledge my rational, scientific outlook! You stupid sheep-headed moron, just go away! Raagh!"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose ID can have one paragraph, immediately following LeMark, in the "things that sound good but are completely wrong when you learn a little more" category.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
