Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Seems they got it right, but for the wrong reasons. OH WELL, you tally up the "W's" against the "L's" and hope the W's come out ahead or otherwise we are in for a Constittional convention that could give rise to a Christian "Sharia" state

That's some good news. Those who think of studying facts via the scientific method as acts of faith haven't a clue. I have long believed that the creationists will eventually fall in numbers until, voila, the Earth is round, in every person's life. It will take generations, I think.

I dont think that they will quietly accept reality and give in to science either . Until their synods and cult leaderships come up with some "discipline" that begins to extract itself from the colonial days, we will be faced with the Fundamentalist mind set as a differentworld view than reality provides

What's interesting about the ID'ers is their capacity to start with fiction, then they feed on fiction, and wants to spread that fiction to everybody.

Not spreading fictions is bad for us.

Dawkins refers to "why" questions as "silly".

Self refutingly, Dawkins attempts to argue philosophy, such as his 'The God Dellusion' works, theses arguements are also illogical, Craig has refuted these arguements, furthermore Dawkins refuses to ressolve these refutations.

Also, the uncertainty principle denies fate, however as a theist do you not accept the prophecies of the bible?

TENNESSEE UPDATE

Lets say hes tried, If its W Craig you mean, his arguments are all barged up with a single premise. Thats bullshit science and theology

when they start introducing learning resources for "Creation SCience" as is presently offered to homeschoolers as "Evidence" for critical thinking, then weve gotta make sre that the teachers themselves are trained enough to be a bit more sophisticated as science instructors.

In homeschooling curricla, I saw in Pa that "Eschatology" is considered a science
Holy jumpin Jesus H. Christ!!

Is mood music science fm? When you are having one of your periodic self-complacency frenzies in a restaurant to what extent are you affected by the non-nutritional nature of your surroundings sufficient to justify paying through the nose for it? Many people are not so affected. I'm not. Nutrient is just that. It's as tiresome as filling up the car with gas. Your salubrious surroundings, which allow short illusions of you being more important than you actually are scientifically, are entirely psychological.

This psychosomatic effect is presumably healing in some way for those who participate in these sorts of rituals. Thus justified.

It is the same with eschatology. It alters moods and attitudes and if the moods and attitudes are more powerful economically or militarily then evolution itself would necessarily claim that it is scientific.

It's the same with your Sunday best.

You can safely bet that the bigwigs in the NCSE and the ACLU, when attending conferences, are put up for the night in at least 4 star hotels with your subs. It makes them feel better than they would if they were put up in a YMCA dorm.

Do you think the US can survive full-blown secular materialism and if it isn't full-blown it is nothing. Then it's a mere pose.

Your hatred of the RC Church has contorted your brain.

You have a huge thread.I want to vote for you .that's very interesting for me.

Thank you. On this thread we are looking at various political methods being used against the teaching of evolution in schools.

The biggest problem with "creation science" is the simple fact that they must create the course through the same looking glass of the bible. In the introductory course, they must begin with the book of Genesis, and "claim or admit" that this world is 7,000 years old contrary to science.

Where do they go from there? More fiction.

Anyone who uses the political process to squeeze their ideas into science, instead of using the scientific process itself, should lose by default.

What's obvious to many of us who believe in evolution still has some "scientists" pushing for ID. They really don't understand science, because they will never understand the fundamentals of science.

I would certainly argue that he has refuted two of "Four Horsemen of New Atheism" in debates, that being Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett would be most intriguing, and I would further argue that Dawkins is a philosophical 'layman' (informally) of the four, his "critical thinking" may be reduced to logical absurdity (ad absurdum).

Example:
If God created the universe, then who created God?
Refutation: If God created the universe, then who created God, and who created the creator of God...ad infinitum.

Infinite regress is illogical, such implications eliminates the necessary pressuposition of semantics, if defining the concept of meaning is invalid (infinite properties of the universe would suggest a paradox), it would entail that meaning IS, whilst IS NOT valid, this infinite premise is of no logical consequent conditions, it is not divergent as a topological function (of cosmology) that conditionally 'aproaches infinity', this concept may be quantified.

Dawkins suggest that material constructs satisfy occhams razor, therefore a God hypothesis would be extraneous, however WHY is empirical suggestion (posterior systematic assumptions) of material constructs SIMPLER than an immeratial entity (i.e. whatever begins to exist has causation) that necessarily entails a singularity/creatio ex materia.

It cannot be refuted, classical /modal/quantum logic requires a space continuum, nothingness is not semantically apt for truth, in fact it cannot be actualised by human cognitive faculties, the word itself is morphological and of materialistic properties.

Nomology/physical quantity is contingent, however perhaps so is the theistic Gods, a necessary concept does not suggest dogmatic obligations, this awareness to assimilate to higher structure and meaning appears to satisfied by an entity of 'human' traits/attribution, yet omniscient/potent/benevelent.

It would be intriging to discover that many humans may in fact worship software entities in the future, just as the 'prophets' that asserted intelligent design.

Though, atheists (specifically metaphysical naturalists) may be as dogmatic as theists, and illogically appeal to authority, such as appealing to Dawkins and applications of abductive fallacies, hence re-interpretation of his fallicious arguements.

Example:
If God created the universe, then who created God.
Refutation: If God created the universe, then who created God, and who created the creator of God...ad infinito.
Re-interpretation: Craig misses the point, what Dawkins is ACTUALLY suggesting is why do complex things exist to begin with and how does a simpler entity design something more complex than itself?

This is erroneous, "complex things" requires a universal schemata, NOT normative predication, and as for the second question, Craig suggests that a mind itself is not a minds idea, I believe this refutation acknowledges the question as a genetic fallacy, though the assertion (i.e. mind=/=minds idea) may be of intuition, being that NO epistemology has defined consciousness.

Also, I would question abiogensis, and the synthetic implications (artifacts) that are pressuposed as being derrivations of design, is the space-time singularity itself the designer?

Again, it appears to be open to interpretation, theists may argue that if artifacts are intelligently designed, the derrivations of matter/energy are also intelligently designed, prior to this, there is no matter and density to measure.

If there is no logic prior to a singularity, does this suggest that illogical possibility exists prior to logic, such as omniscience?

Pehaps the ontological/epistemical subject-object problem may be eliminated by formally defining consciousness.

The basis of many contempoarary systems appear to be erroneous, be it proving the fifth postulate of Euclied, empirical definion of species, empirical definition of interchangable particles...ect, these assumptions have resulted in unsustainable epistemology, such as the concept of sub-species and dark energy, this is no different from programming errors in software, illogcal commands have been executed, algorithms are formal.

Craig may have a "single premise" (such as the one of Kalam cosmological arguement), however it is a deductive system, Craig also distinguishes philosophy, theology and science, he subjectively argues that Christian theism is the most rational of metaphysical solution, he acknowledges that evidence is not certitude, it is presupposition of the meaning for justification and how to operate this definition.

Dawkins converges concepts and argues normatives, perhaps being HOW these logical inconsistencies arise.

Dawkins published this article on the Gaurdian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig

Falicious.

I wonder if ros or ci, with their superior knowledge of science, which is always alluded to via the reverse invidious comparison and never with any evidence, would care to explain why some prominent feminist philosophers (Nancy Hartsock, Dorothy E. Smith and Evelyn Fox Keller for example) question the model of objectivity which relies on detachment and ask whether science from a feminist standpoint would do science differently?

And they are not the only philosophers who have questioned the demarcation of this special subject from the ordinary run of knowledge. Babies do science in its purest form. Once a bias has been learned, and the two above mentioned gents have had a mainlined dose of bias, science is starting to wither away into various channels of subjectivity.

If there is a specific feminist type of science then where is science because its laws are immutable. It opens up the possibility that there is an elderly American fairly well-to-do male way to do science and if anybody wishes to study it they need merely peruse the contributions of anti-IDers on this thread and especially those of ros and ci. for the pure naked version.

Even if they can't stay awake for more than a few of these ridiculously trite efforts they will get the general idea well enough and a spin to the early pages of the thread will confirm that not a shred of difference exists between now and then in this respect and it is reasonable to suppose between now and when they first formed their ideas in the middle grades of school.

One can see at a glance that any revision is neither necessary or possible.

I think they will find that there is no feminist way to do science and therein lies the marrow-bone misogyny which they are often to be seen indignantly denying. Rather too much denial for the average psychiatrist not to laugh in their face.

You are presenting me with what is more or less defined as a "Gish Gallop" , so named after the techniqes of Duane Gish, famous evolution denier. Youve transcended trying to disarm Dawkins and have entered the field of ipsidixitism and hightoned rhetoric. Youve not denied the statement of Dwkins any more than W Craig has.

You see Anomie? fm can deal with you like an African chief deals with flies.

He can't deal with me and he's making that pretty obvious. They can talk around you all year long. As if Dawkins is of the slightest importance. He's just a serial shagger trying to justify it. It's easy for him from the money his books make. Not so much for the buying wannabees though.

Did he actually try to put the "who created God" chestnut across them? Sheesh! That tells you all you need to know about his opinion of his worshipping, gawky-eyed groupies.

God is not a matter Dickie knows anything about.

Did you view the article by Dawkins?

He has been subjected to many logical fallacies, his assertions are derrivations of cognitive bias, and while this is not necessarily invalid, his arguement is specifically normative, appealing to objective moral values.

Let us assume this fuzzy concept ,"gish gallop" was to override logic, hence propositional, it would in fact be Dawkins that is applying this concept.

I do not personally agree with Craig conclusion (God exists), however I do believe that his philosophy does out perform Dawkins

This is the debate with Christopher Hitchens, in this case they have six minutes of questioning their doctrines:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8#t=79m00s

Hitchens universally asserts that God does not exist, he denies that evidence of absence IS absence of evidence (this has been formally proven), and has NO arguement that denies the existence of a possible God, though I do agree with Hitchens that there does not appear to be objective moral values, in this case Dawkins does (as his Gaurdian article is appealing to ridicule i.e. Craig defends genocide, therefore he WRONG and INSANE) believe in an supernatural, immaterial phenomena, yet is a naturalist/athiest, his arguement always appear to be self refuting.

Furthermore, (debate) It was in fact Hitchens that is applying rhetorics/red herring (converse to your proposition), Craig was simply suggesting logic.

If God is logically possible (subjunctive spectrum), it may deductively entail the ontological arguement.