Evolution? How?

I can define a hero as anyone who is dedicated to their beliefs no matter the difficulty, and then go on to "prove" that Hitler was a hero by my definition. But what have I accomplished?

0 Replies

Ros said

"But let's face it, anyone who thinks the Earth is only 4000 years old needs a good healthy dope slap to wake them up because they're just not living in the real world. Where do we draw the line between respecting people's beliefs and letting the inmates run the asylum?"

thks ros always nice to agree with someone who agrees.

0 Replies

Quote, "Where do we draw the line between respecting people's beliefs and letting the inmates run the asylum?" That's a gem, but didn't want to add another slap on the head. LOL

0 Replies

I think your'e like the rest of us ci

You dont want to offend, but the time for niceties has passed.

These people need a slap in the face. They are dangerous.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

These people need a slap in the face. They are dangerous.

Many of these creation/evolution threads do a pretty extensive job of slapping people in the face with facts, but with all the logic and evidence we throw into these threads, I have yet to see even one true believer change their mind, or even open their eyes.

True believers aren't going to suddenly switch to investigating the world through the scientific method. But people who *do* see the world through rational eyes need to stand up for that rather obvious distinction more often. Bad things happen when good people stand silently and do nothing. And fanatical viewpoints gain ground when people who know better just shrug and look the other way.

Most of us on these discussion threads are pretty good, because that's what we're here for; to discuss (and disagree). But in daily life, most people are too busy or too socially cautious to speak up when someone says something pious and reverent, but totally irrational.

Scientists also tend to take the path of least expression and hide themselves in research while ignoring the spread of ignorance around them. I'm glad people like Farmerman are willing to spend time getting involved in these science class ID pushes. More people in the scientific professions should spend more of their time doing this type of communicating as well.

0 Replies

rosborne, Your first paragraph pretty answers your last. What's the use?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

The real death knell to Creationism as a political force came in June 1987 when the US Supreme Court found Against Gov Edwards of Louisiana in the famous Edwards v Aguillard decision. The court ruled 7-2 that teaching Creationism was not a scientific pursuit and was not to be taught in Science curricula of schools. SO ,the Creationists may scream that their alive and well but youve been found to be proposing a "religious based dogma" posing as science

Justices Scalia and Rhenquist voted in the minority

Scalia's dissent

The Majority Opinion

Quote:

... In this case, the purpose of the Creationism Act was to restructure the science curriculum to conform with a particular religious viewpoint. Out of many possible science subjects taught in the public schools, the legislature chose to affect the teaching of the one scientific theory that historically has been opposed by certain religious sects. As in Epperson, the legislature passed the Act to give preference to those religious groups which have as one of their tenets the creation of humankind by a divine creator. The "overriding fact" that confronted the Court in Epperson was "that Arkansas' law selects from the body of knowledge a particular segment which it proscribes for the sole reason that it is deemed to conflict with . . . a particular interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular religious group." Similarly, the Creationism Act is designed either to promote the theory of creation science which embodies a particular religious tenet by requiring that creation science be taught whenever evolution is taught or to prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects by forbidding the teaching of evolution when creation science is not also taught. The Establishment Clause, however, "forbids alike the preference of a religious doctrine or the prohibition of theory which is deemed antagonistic to a particular dogma."

The Louisiana Creationism Act advances a religious doctrine by requiring either the banishment of the theory of evolution from public school classrooms or the presentation of a religious viewpoint that rejects evolution in its entirety. The Act violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose. The judgment of the Court of Appeals therefore is

Affirmed.

I love it when they quit mincing words (like Scalia did), cut to the chase, and lay down the law Smile

0 Replies

Another religious nut trying to justify his support of ID with mumbo jumbo.

0 Replies

I think many people are afraid of speaking out. They've seen what happened to those who took a stand against "political correctness". Most people have enough in their lives without attracting the attention of lunatics. Now there seems to be a tide of opinion flowing against the rational in favour of the irrational/religious. I admire people who like farmerman have the patience to explain. But I've had enough of these people. They are dangerous. Filling kid's heads full of the koran or the bible is nothing short of child abuse imo. We have a duty to ourselves and wider society to be intolerant of intolerance.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

rosborne, Your first paragraph pretty answers your last. What's the use?

Because a majority of people are on the fence. Most people don't understand evolution, and when they do, it makes more sense to them.

We need to stand up for rationality not to change the minds of the true believers, but to make sure their view isn't the only one seen by all those who are sincerely trying to understand and learn.

0 Replies

I can buy that! >smile

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Another religious nut trying to justify his support of ID with mumbo jumbo.

Exactly.

We should "eschew obfiscation", not embrace it like an ostrich with its head in the sand.

0 Replies

one minor point guys. The present case is one in which the issue of ID will be quite separate and distinct from Creationism. The Supreme Court was quite specific about what its decision did (and did not cover) ID wasnt even a germ of a way around the establishment clause. Im not so certain that we will prevail in this case. I was at a "heads up" seminar in which an attorney (not associated with anything) gave an opinion that scared the crap out of me.
If ID can make it to the Supreme court and , spearately, be upheld as "science deserving equal time with standard evolutionary theory" . Its underpinnings (creationism) will by default, be under the tent flap again.
I dont wanna be a wet blanket but I haveny heard the nodal point wherein Intelligent design does stand in conflict to evolutionary science.
I think that this ones gonna be tougher than the 1987 decision, which as ros said, was unambiguous and clearly written.
Possibly the best approach is for an inferred connection between ID and Creationism be driven home to the courts. Now ,u nder the rules of evidence that came with Daubert, its possible for courts to hire their own experts to serve in an advisory capacity, and, a large portion of the case be about defining "who" this intelligent designer may be, thus maybe getting the whole thing either in a summary judgement or either having it just tossed out as an exampleof
"been there, done that in 1987, lets move on".
The CReationists still feel that they are a valid force and they will be workin their butts off to prevail, but still recognizing that they (the true believers in Creationism) will have to maintain a "behind the curtain " presence in the whole case.
Am I making sense here?

0 Replies

Up to a point. Where I'm having difficulty is where any common sense thinker can separate ID and Creationism.

0 Replies

I wish that somebody like Joe from Chicago or Tico or jespah would chime in. CI, we have to dispell all our belief in common sense. The courts often act in weird ways to reach a decision.For purposes of the Dover case, the issue is only ID (which, by its definition, only should be about the very origin of life not how it progressed)
However, as you correctly state, we all know its just a ruse to get Creationism legitimized. However, for any court case to be successful for ID, they must remove themselves from Creationists doctrine and proceed as if this "Theory" is a fresh, stand alone concept , of such suitable scientific merit that it should be taught in the sience curriculum of our public schools.
Im being sort of alarmist cause I think that (at least I hope that) the parade of courts will ultimately see that ID is , once again, merely a special legislation for a small group of Americans, and the Bill of Rights will mean squat (at least the first amendmenT).

Im always of the opinion that I should be prepared for the worst case cause the best case doesnt need any help.

The opening bell on this will be in April , maybe Im worried about nothin but, my group discussions have led me to believe otherwise.
Mike Behes getting all kinds of press now but Im sure hes gonna be a major liability because he is busy "preaching" to church groups. Right there, if this were LAW AND ORDER, wed have Briscoe take this guy downtown and "tune him up" a bit to establish that he
1quacks like a duck
2walks like a duck, and most importantly
3Hangs around with other Ducks.

0 Replies

Maybe it's a rooster.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

I dont wanna be a wet blanket but I haveny heard the nodal point wherein Intelligent design does stand in conflict to evolutionary science.

Intelligent Design proposes to deduce an unknown intelligence from the structure of what would otherwise be the "natural" world. This is no different than proclaiming that all unknown conditions prove the existance of a magic elf.

In this way, Intelligent Design fails as a general science. If you read the majority opinion from the case you cited, you will see a three pronged "test" which the court puts these things through. Unless I'm mistaken, ID will fail at least two of those prongs, and even one prong is enough to gore it to death.

(unless of course, Scalia gets the final word).

0 Replies

I have fallen behind on this discussion but on pg. 18 the idea of adaptation is evolution was brought up. I would just like to pose this situation: in baseball, a batter must adapt to different pitching and same with the pitcher to the batter, but when they adapt to this what has made them evolve? They just resort back to their prev. teachings after that occurrance. So i guess i would say that i think your idea is wrong.

0 Replies

Wrong analogy. Adaptation to sports is not the same as biological changes to adapt to their environment.

0 Replies

I have to say, this is one of the most civilized evolution discussions I have ever happened upon. Kudos to all involved.

0 Replies

Evolution? How?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know