Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@farmerman,

Quote:

Im resigning from this thread cause theres no longer a point. . .

What was that all about fm?

It is you who is circular. You start from " a small minority of Christian sects" and your own idea of what "faith" is.

Suppose the faith is that scientific materialism does not produce a society fit for purpose and therefore must be blended, or toned down, by a religious creed of some sort. And Academic Freedom must include the proviso that a society fit for purpose is its principle goal. Otherwise Academic Freedom is left to wreak the havoc 90% of Americans think it will.

I dare say 100% of Americans would think so if they thought about it more scientifically.

I know your game. You seek to confine power to "experts" and those approved by them in order to produce the dictatorship of bigoted nerds. Your sort are envious of the power of religious hierarchies. You want it for yourselves. And you will get it if you are not stood up to.

Was it Mr Bryan I quoted for you a long while ago to the effect that words can be easily found to defend any position? Cannibalism can be defended on the basis that the institution contributes to the society being fit for purpose in a number of different ways, singly or in combination.

You need to say the Christian society is not fit for purpose in order to get the slightest scientific traction. I'm inclined to think that you do believe Christian society is not fit for purpose.

To me it has the feel of winning the lottery. Every week. It is a miraculous wonder.

Why you are all so pissed off with it sufficiently enough to want to plough it in is beyond the reach of my comprehension unless I put it down to the abstinence from certain chemical substances which blur the boundaries between the ego and the other.

Did you know that Adam means "red earth" in Aramaic. If that doesn't cause interesting notions to shoot through your brain you are not even a half-baked scientist.

3 Replies

@spendius,

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

1 Reply

@spendius,

I am continuing the spirit of this thread but Ive resignd from the idiotic illogical silly and clueless crap that has been posed by Frank.

The first of the cases that will probably go to court either this year or next, will involve KANSAS. In that state the Educational standards are being proposed to include teaching the evidence and the biology of natural selection . The "Academic Freedom" stricture that the Evangelicals and the "IDers" are wrapping themselves in is solely based upon the "Free Expression" clause of the First Amendment.

I predict that such ccases will be slam dunks to defeat and that the Discovery Institute, as poorly prepared as they were in Dover P, will be even more so in this case.
When you stipulate that your "Scientific worldview" I based upon a religious interpretation, you aren't leaving much wobble room to make the case even last more than a week.

4 Replies

@farmerman,

DISCOVERY INTITUTE"S MODEL ORDINANCE FOR"ACADEMIC FREEDOM"

Quote:

MODEL ACADEMIC FREEDOM STATUTE ON EVOLUTION
[version: 9/7/2007]

SYNOPSIS: Existing law does not expressly provide a right nor does it expressly protect tenure and employment for a public school teacher or teacher at an institution of higher education for presenting scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution. In addition, students are not expressly provided a right to positions on views regarding biological and chemical evolution.

This bill would expressly provide rights and protection for teachers concerning scientific presentations on views regarding biological and chemical evolution and students concerning their positions on views regarding biological and chemical evolution.

A BILL
TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT

Providing teacher rights and protection for a public school teacher or a teacher at an institution of higher education to present scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution in applicable curricula or in a course of learning; providing employment and tenure protection and protection against discrimination for any public school teacher or teacher at a public institution of higher education related to the presentation of such information; and providing student protection for subscribing to a particular position on views regarding biological or chemical evolution.

BE IT ENACTED BY ____________:

Section 1. This law shall be known as the "Academic Freedom Act."

Section 2. The Legislature finds that existing law does not expressly protect the right of teachers identified by the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard to present scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories. The Legislature further finds that existing law does not expressly protect the right of students to hold a position on views regarding biological or chemical evolution. The Legislature further finds that the topic of evolution has generated intense controversy, lawsuits and threats of lawsuits, where some lower courts such as Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School Board, have created confusion about the rights of teachers and students to hold differing views about scientific controversies and express those views without fear of adverse employment or academic consequences. Finally, the Legislature finds that school districts and school administrators should not bear the primary burden of defending the academic freedom of teachers and students to discuss the topics of biological or chemical evolution. It is the intent of the Legislature that this act expressly protects those rights.

Section 3. Every K-12 public school teacher or teacher or instructor in any two-year or four-year public institution of higher education, or in any graduate or adult program thereof, in the State of ______________, shall have the affirmative right and freedom to present scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution.

Section 4. No K-12 public school teacher or teacher or instructor in any two-year or four-year public institution of higher education, or in any graduate or adult program thereof, in the State of ___________, shall be terminated, disciplined, denied tenure, or otherwise discriminated against for presenting scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views regarding biological or chemical evolution in any curricula or course of learning, provided, with respect to K-12 teachers, the [insert official title of state’s science standards] has been taught as appropriate to the grade and subject assignment.

Section 5. Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student in any public school or institution of higher education shall be penalized in any way because he or she may subscribe to a particular position on any views regarding biological or chemical evolution.

Section 6. The rights and privileges contained in this act apply when the subject of biological or chemical origins is part of the curriculum. Nothing in this act shall be construed as requiring or encouraging any change in the state curriculum standards in K-12 public schools, nor shall any provision of this act be construed as prescribing the curricular content of any course in any two-year or four-year public institution of higher education in the state.

Section 7. Nothing in this act shall be construed as promoting any religious doctrine, promoting discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promoting discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.

Section 8. This act shall become effective on the first day of the third month following its passage and approval by the Governor, or its otherwise becoming law.

‹

This one hs a better chance of surviving as a law until it goes to court where it would be posed as an Academic Freedom based upon a religious belief , and this would target only science classes , mostly biology.

Verry Interesting

2 Replies

@spendius,

Incidentally--wouldn't it make sense for Big Business, employing lickspittals and lackeys in advertising and Media (prostitutes actually), to make the ego unable to break down the barriers between self and other and therefore seek to undermine all processes which enable such a necessity.

The explosion of internet use suggests a desperation to explore, if only timidly, the nature of the "other". A long pent-up frustration being relieved.

And there's nothing like a long dignified, incense fueled, ceremonial complete with music and colour, gentle movement and mysterious chanting in unknown tongues to help breakdown the barriers between self and the "other" enough to sense, the headbangers embrace, all possible othernesses,

Mass media is defunct unless it gets its act together. We have worked out that it is nothing but Big Business's Spin Doctor. It will eventually, if unhindered, make us all feel as alone as Winston Smith. And I include those who "work" in it.

No wonder it fears the Internet. The internet can place a camera and microphone in a line-backer's helmet and those online will be virtually able to play in the game in his position. I say "his" not to be sexist. I assume no ladies play American football on account of the gross spectacle it would present in the short period leading up to the snap.

As lady jockeys do but not lined up in a row.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I presume from that that you gave my post a modicum of attention.

1 Reply

@spendius,

You know, spendi. Same ol' same ol'.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

I'm not reading that Statute. It will have more wriggle room than a flagella in an ocean has.

Are you saying that Academic Freedom does not need to subject itself to the discipline of helping to produce a society "in form"?

Can Academic Freedom ever be thought of in societies "out of form"? Galileo's blind spot so to speak.

Is it not a luxurious indulgence similar to those of a lady of fashion living on the inherited wealth of a guano merchant?

Quote:

This one hs a better chance of surviving as a law until it goes to court where it would be posed as an Academic Freedom based upon a religious belief , and this would target only science classes , mostly biology.

Verry Interesting

Would the modern fad of sex lessons fall under science or biology? If so would Academic Freedom apply? Good luck with that mate!!!

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

"Academic Freedom" to "Teach rhe Controversy" about the scientific sense of ID is all the rage right niw. Nowhere is there any guarantee f anything called academic freedom for teachers to try to subvert the scientific method by teaching such clearly religious based concepts.
(These concepts are derived from the beliefs of a small minority of Christian sects).
SO, in order to set it right, state legislatures are wasting time trying to come up with ACademiC Standards for the schools in their states.
That, in turn , will lead to a series of law suits in the various states wherein those Chritians feel denied of their religious freedoms.
SO, its now become nicely circular.
1. The IDers deny that their "Untestable, unfalsifiable logic base (Hint: We call it faith, period) is religiously bsed. They lean on an "Undefined Creator who is definitely not the God of Abraham)

2. BUT, when threatened with academic standards that insist that such a "controversy does NOT exist in science", they immediately threaten us with lawsuits that deny them "Academic Freedom"

Frank would feel comfortable with that logic

No, Frank wouldn't....and has never said or intimated that.

But if it makes you feel more comfortable with yourself to think that...you certainly are free to do so.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I am continuing the spirit of this thread but Ive resignd from the idiotic illogical silly and clueless crap that has been posed by Frank.

There is nothing idiotic, illogical, silly, clueless or crap like in what I have said.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

The "Academic Freedom" stricture that the Evangelicals and the "IDers" are wrapping themselves in is solely based upon the "Free Expression" clause of the First Amendment.

That is a good example of you being circular. The senior theologians of such movements will likely be wrapping themselves in the ambition to produce and maintain a society fit for purpose. The rest being Mr Bryan's word games which are to certain parties what hay is to horses.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Not sure why you are asserting that a designer GOD is an impossibility, Farmerman...

...but that assertion is every bit as absurd as the assertion that there definitely is a designer GOD by the IDers you think so little of.

The only way to deal with your assertion is to see the irony and humor in it...which is what I do. Wink

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:

MODEL ACADEMIC FREEDOM STATUTE ON EVOLUTION
[version: 9/7/2007]

SYNOPSIS: Existing law does not expressly provide a right nor does it expressly protect tenure and employment for a public school teacher or teacher at an institution of higher education for presenting scientific information pertaining to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution...

Nor does existing law expressly provide a right for math teachers to teach the full range of mathematics, or of history teachers to teach the full range of history, or any other teacher to teach the full range of their subject.

And that's done by intention because we want public schools to have the right to get rid of teachers who aren't teaching what the school considers valid and valuable elements of the curriculum.

Likewise, students don't need to be granted explicit rights to hold any views they hold, they simply have to be able to pass the tests on the subject matter which they are given in a class.

If I attended a class on comparative religions, I wouldn't be expected to become religious just to understand the material. Nor are kids learning evolution expected to change their religious views. All they have to do is pass the tests.

The real problem here is that religious institutions are afraid to let kids learn about evolution because they're afraid the kids will understand it and realize that it's a better explanation.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

As someone said, its all about control of our larvae's minds and hearts. Of course Im not cynical, nor do I see any conflict in learning about the religious interpretation of the rise of life on our planet vs the scientific, in the confines of a biology class. . RIIIIIIGGGGGGGHHHHHHHTTTT

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

There is nothing idiotic, illogical, silly, clueless or crap like in what I have said.

There is. The equivocation has no conclusion. One might defend scientific materialism and its conclusions and also religion and its conclusions. The neutral stance can have no further evolution than itself and its smug certainty. It has no principle for action. It cannot know how to proceed and proceed we must. It has no force and is subject to other forces.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
There is nothing idiotic, illogical, silly, clueless or crap like in what I have said.

There is. The equivocation has no conclusion. One might defend scientific materialism and its conclusions and also religion and its conclusions. The neutral stance can have no further evolution than itself and its smug certainty. It has no principle for action. It cannot know how to proceed and proceed we must. It has no force and is subject to other forces.

Thank you for sharing you thoughts on that, Spendius.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Don't mention it old boy: it's really nothing.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Don't mention it old boy: it's really nothing.

My thoughts exactly. Wink

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Of course Im not cynical, nor do I see any conflict in learning about the religious interpretation of the rise of life on our planet vs the scientific, in the confines of a biology class.

Of course, I suppose the scientific explanation would be alright in the hands of a young, somewhat plain, New England school marm fresh from the idealism of the teacher training college. An elderly old Marxist roue retired from a lifetime of libertinage and lascivious lechery might not fit every schoolboard's rigid parameters.

What is the scientific interpretation of the rise of life on the planet? A description is not an interpretation. The score of a Mozart opera is a description. Interpretations are when we see it performed.

Could a scientific interpretation lift our spirits and send us home with hope in our hearts and with a cheery step? Are not interpretations which can't do that no ******* good whatsoever?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

btw fm--my use of "Pollocks" the other day was not a typo. I had written "a load of Jackson Pollocks" but deleted the "Jackson" on the basis that including it might suggest I underestimate your intelligence.

It had struck me that Mr Pollock painted metaphors of a designer God who just chucked **** around and then road a bike all over it. Sort of--"well, if you believe in God and look around the world this must have been how he did it". A pessimistic view I would have said.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know