@failures art,
Quote:It is simple spendi. Your convolution of the topic means a not to real minds that matter. It is a false stalemate perpetuated by ignorant mass of religious idiots. The idea is to promote a false scientific controversy, nothing more.
Those four sentences are all assertions. Any scientific sensibility would recognise them as such instantly and as equally quickly comprehend their worthlessness. They are all false. When I asserted that the matter is not simple I gave a reason and it is one which anybody who knows the 150 year long history of this debate, which has engaged the minds of the best and the brightest, cannot refuse to recognise. Your four assertions are based on nothing. You have thus demonstrated that, like all the other anti-IDers, who are seemingly unable to think without assertions, you have no understanding of science or the scientific method.
Quote:My agenda is not hidden.
Okay--What are your views on abortion, divorce, adultery, homosexuality, eugenics and general promiscuity. And how did you come by them?
Quote:A theology class should teach a student about various world religions and how they came to be. The class should talk about the influence of religion on language and culture.
Theology, I'm afraid to say, is a subject which cannot even be touched upon when what Camus called a "lucid indifference" is absent. It is concerned with the regulation of human life and thus those who it is intended to regulate are unable to appreciate the subject. Hence the poverty and chastity vows of the various priesthoods which cannot be dismissed on the strength of some failures to keep them no matter how much attention media pays to them. Your ideas are again mere assertions based on a lack of understanding of the subject which I will accept is widespread.
Quote:Can it contradict what other classes say? Sure. Sophomore English classes in High School teach Greek and Roman mythology already. It provides a very different account of history that is contradictory. It's not being sold as truth.
I had other matters in mind actually. Such ladies' coffee morning contradictions as you suggest are divested of emotional content through the distance of history.
Quote:Yes. The teaching of evolution has not created any sort of threat, and so treating it as dangerous is irrational. For that matter, the concept of idea-threats is a specious notion.
Give it a rest fa. Assertions of that nature are as worthless as all your other assertions and as unscientific. They constitute emotional blurts and do not belong on a science thread. Similar emotional blurts by other anti-IDers have characterised their contributions on here for six years and prove the absence of a scientific attitude. Infants have a scientific attitude. It is retaining it which requires that "lucid indifference" I mentioned. If you read Veblen's The Higher Learning in America you will see that he made that test the crucial one and bemoaned its absence in the institutions he was writing about and with which he was very familiar. Judging from the posts I read on here he hit the bullseye. Remember that it was an assertion that Saddam Hussein had WMDs that led to the invasion of Iraq. The concept of "idea-threats" was hardly specious in that case.
Quote:You're not a scientist.
There you go again.
Quote:I don't give a damn what you'd like to badge yourself with.
You have an odd way of showing that you don't give a damn.
Quote:Your arguments have shown no real scientific understanding of evolution.
Blimey--you're incorrigble. You have assertivitis. It is my scientific understanding of evolution which has led me to oppose teaching it to adolescents and particularly in relation to how certain teachers would deal with it and the reaction of parents to it. It contains a mordant, black humour which can easily be misunderstood. One of Darwin's colleagues told him that he laughed all the way through Origins. I can't claim that but I did chortle a few times.
Quote:If you are a scientist, you're **** at it.
Another pointless exercise of your fingertips. I never claimed to be any good at it. But I do keep up Veblen's tests. The other one is curiosity. It matters not one jot how much technical expertise someone has rote learned if they have no lucid indifference or proper curiosity. The latter involves being interested in everything and not just something to make a career out of.
Quote:It is, and will always be, to have science taught in the science classroom. In the case of evolution, it belongs, and ID does not.
There's a lot of science besides evolution and evolution has not been agreed to be scientific. I refer you to Dr Le Fanu's essay which I posted a few days ago.
http://www.thomasmoreinstitute.org.uk/node/143.
There is no such disagreement about the vast bulk of science. An indifferent curiosity is bound to wonder why there is so much emotional energy associated with teaching evolution when there is quite sufficient science to last a million lifetimes never mind a few biology lessons in which attention is unlikely to be fully engaged and the most welcome sound is the bell to signify they are over.
)
