Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

mesquite wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Nobody has even suggested a teacher should compromise any principles.

Consider wandeljw's parody of your requirements.

wandeljw wrote:
"Children, we will now be learning addition. First I must acknowledge the following:
1. Euclid can not answer all questions, any more than any number theory can.
2. There is more yet to learn than what any mathematician has ever devised.
3. There are other theories out there such as 2 plus 2 equals 5. However, since this can not be mathematically proven, I am not allowed to discuss it in math class. (I realize that I just discussed this other theory but I was told to acknowledge it and then to confuse you further by saying it can not be discussed.)"
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3064920#3064920

If that is what this is, Wandel's parody blatantly distorts and misrepresents my arguments as much as you do, FM does, Ros does and that doesn't even included the peanut gallery that can't resist piling on at intervals.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
And frankly it wouldn't make any difference whether a teacher did that in class or out in the hall. The effect is the same..

Forget it Fox. We're not getting anywhere anyway.

We rarely do when I'm arguing apples and you want to argue oranges. And you aren't going to answer the question are you?

How is it not indoctrinating a child in Atheistic doctrine for the science teacher to tell that child that his religious faith is magic or superstition?

Quote:

Main Entry: 1mag·ic
Function: noun
Pronunciation: 'ma-jik
Etymology: Middle English magique, from Middle French, from Latin magice, from Greek magike, feminine of magikos Magian, magical, from magos magus, sorcerer, of Iranian origin; akin to Old Persian magu sorcerer
1 a : the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces b : magic rites or incantations
2 a : an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source b : something that seems to cast a spell : ENCHANTMENT
3 : the art of producing illusions by sleight of hand

0 Replies

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

There's no guarantee, but the possibility of finding an answer is better than "it's because of ID" which doesn't seek to find answers, but relegates it to some unknown god or gods.

To which I responded-

Quote:

"Relegates" is a telling word there. God is in the junior grades now compared to c.i.

"Delegates" would have been better. Like when you delegate to Mr Bush to go get the oil and call him all the names you can think of, most of which you wouldn't dare to say to his face, when he does so.

Which Joe( I've slipped on the soap) Nation wrote-

Quote:

Relegates is a perfectly good word in that sentence, spendius, and you know that. Please, spare us the nit that is too small to be picked.

Of course it is a perfectly good word in that sentence. I said it was a "telling" word not a bad one. In what way does "telling" have anything to do with "perfectly good?

A Christian wouldn't have used "relegates".
That was the point I was making. Used in a classroom c.i.'s choice attacks the religious point of view of a kid just as much as ros's "magic" does. Moreso actually. And, as I have been saying all along, it is the Christian point of view which has been the energy source of the answers we have so far found.

The fact that you think I'm picking at a nit shows just how easily indoctrinating the kids with atheism can be managed in a classroom with a "telling" word and, I have little doubt, one accompanied by a "telling" gesture. The kids know where the relegated are.

It's elementary Goebells stuff.

Explain how atheists or Pagans would have got out of the sad and sorry situation which existed before the Christian project got started. Ignore that and you are not really in the debate and it is only your need to post which explains your presence and allows you to flatter yourself that you are. Which is trolling.

I notice that the other sentence was ignored. I presume because you enjoy using the oil at the same time as being oh so sweet with the Christian values about how it is delivered. Like a successful bank robber's daughters. Why would an evolutionist care how it was got? Hardly anybody cares how the land was got using "struggle for existence" and "survival of the fittest" principles red in tooth and claw.

0 Replies

Foxfyre:
How does that definition differ from one defining "Prayer"?

1 a : the use of means (as charms or spells ) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces b : magic rites or incantations
2 a : an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source b : something that seems to cast a spell : ENCHANTMENT

If people pray for rain and there is an increase of rain soon after, was that the use of a charm to have power over natural forces?

Joe('tis in my book)Nation

0 Replies

Is it a possibilty that the Establishment Clause exists because an official Christian presence in Goverment would have made the removal and marginalisation of the North American aboriginal population much more difficult. If religious leaders had no say in governing circles they could escape responsibility from what was being done and would thus be less likely to make a fuss about it citing Christian values.

I've seen a 1927 banner headline praising a sheriff and his posse for going to exterminate Indians. I think the head of our established church would have had something to say about that in 1827 never mind 1927.

I'm only asking.

0 Replies

Come on Joe-

Quote:

If people pray for rain and there is an increase of rain soon after, was that the use of a charm to have power over natural forces

That's infantile.

0 Replies

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it a possibilty that the Establishment Clause exists because an official Christian presence in Goverment would have made the removal and marginalisation of the North American aboriginal population much more difficult.

The Establishment clause had nothing to do with the "marginalization" of AMerican Indians. Why we were on the road to their induced extinction Embarrassed

Ill write some more on this when I get home this Afternoon.

0 Replies

BTW--Dictionaries are compiled by all sorts of people with all sorts of bourgeoise values in their baggage train. Non-bourgeoise people are rarely to be found compiling dictionaries.

I must have two dozen of them and there some significant differences with some words and the moreso if the words have emotive magical fields of force surrounding them. One can easily see the fields of force which conjure unusual actions into existence on this very site.

Words like "magic", "prayer", "enchantement" and "supernatural" have fields of force surrounding them, as Giovanni Battista Vico was at some pains to discuss, which can only be dimly perceived if one steeps oneself in literature for a lifetime.

Dictionaries are inadequate for the task.

And there's the obvious danger that a choice of dictionary is due to a sense that one is a similar sort of person as the compilers will each be and if you are not careful the little rewards one gets ( the sugar lumps) from "knowing" what a word means that others don't ( now don't go denying that because I know better), place you in some danger with lots of repetitions of being indoctrinated all to **** and thinking exactly like the compilers (compliers), and most of them are silly cunts.

How the compilers are chosen, and it's a nice job, no powerlines to fix in a blizzard and the **** being shifted is disembodied and thus has none of the usual qualities of real ****, runs along similar lines.

In time users of one dictionary come to be unwitting adherents of the grand mystic guru who invested in the project of publishing a dictionary.

In pubs they eventually recognise each other, at quiz nights mainly, and start huddling together in groups down the other end of the bar from where my lot lean.

In fact pub quizes are much more dangerous because the sugar lumps are much sweeter as you can see by how proud contestants are and how everyone should know they are justified in being so. You can train seals to look proud after doing a trick.

Crosswords are only medium sweet although ten years with one compiler every day is the psychological equivalent of cloning.

Some dictionaries define "spadework" as "work undertaken before the seed is planted" which is a bit thin once you've read Frank Harris' fuller version.

All compilers though, apart from the ones at VIZ, think that they think for themselves but that sort of flattery doesn't get past my guard.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

How is it not indoctrinating a child in Atheistic doctrine for the science teacher to tell that child that his religious faith is magic or superstition?

I'll take it further.

How is it proper for a public school teacher to address a student's faith in ANY context?

'Your faith teaches X, Y, Z.......'

'Your religion's followers practice A, B, C.......'

How is it acceptable for a public school teacher to presume to define a child's faith ( and by extension , the faith and behavior of his family) for him?

It's not.

Teachers have NO business trying to define, compartmentalize, marginalize or otherwise interfere in a student's religious beliefs in ANY context ---- whether that is scientific, political, or otherwise.

If teachers would mind their own business and teach reading, math, etc the country's schools would be much more productive.

The teacher's unions see the students as their opportunity to mold the future of the nation in their image.

Constant attempts to circumvent parental guidance and replace it with 'teacher says so' are not education, but indoctrination.

0 Replies

I'm sorry about that. I wrote those offensive words in the expectation that they would appear in my post as **** and **** and thus provide a demonstration of the point I was making.

I was shafted. Goodstyle.

It was a purely literary conceit I had in mind and I hope I haven't given the impression that such words form any significant proportion of my normal vocabulary.

0 Replies

rl wrote-

Quote:

Teachers have NO business trying to define, compartmentalize, marginalize or otherwise interfere in a student's religious beliefs in ANY context ---- whether that is scientific, political, or otherwise.

Get real life thinking rl. They cannot help it. Classes day in day out, year after year the teacher reveals himself. Kids are quick on things like that.

You would need a speak your weight machine method of declamation to avoid it.

There's only one route for you to pursue. Getting atheists out of classrooms altogether. Especially militant ones who are going to over-emphasise evolution and give it the psuedo-scientific chuntering treatment because it's all they know, it being dead simple and all, and because it helps them promote their cause.

A Christian science teacher on optics, say, would be doing more useful scientific teaching and his/her general good manners and pleasant demenour would be partially passed to the kids just as their opposites would be in the case of the militant atheist.

After all, atheists had been got out of the list of candidates for President long before this primary thing got underway in Iowa. I don't see why the kids have to put up with them when the American public evidently won't.

0 Replies

Foxy wrote-

Quote:

If that is what this is, Wandel's parody blatantly distorts and misrepresents my arguments as much as you do, FM does, Ros does and that doesn't even included the peanut gallery that can't resist piling on at intervals.

I didn't consider it worth wasting any time on but had I done so I doubt I could have dealt with it as stylishly as that.

0 Replies

You've surpassed yourself this time Spendy. What in gods name is a "militant atheist"?

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

You've surpassed yourself this time Spendy. What in gods name is a "militant atheist"?

Not in gods name--in the great ennui's name.

Motto of a militant agnostic---I don't know and neither do you!

Rap

0 Replies

MINNESOTA UPDATE

Quote:

Our View: Pure science should be the goal

0 Replies

raprap wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
You've surpassed yourself this time Spendy. What in gods name is a "militant atheist"?
Not in gods name--in the great ennui's name.

Motto of a militant agnostic---I don't know and neither do you!

Rap

how is that militant?

0 Replies

Steve wrote-

Quote:

You've surpassed yourself this time Spendy. What in gods name is a "militant atheist"?

One who bangs on about it all the time. Mr Dawkins fits the bill. A ranter.
Looks for stuff to confirm his wisdom. Sucks it all up. Goes nuts. Starts heavy drinking. Carks it at 60. I've known two.

Sheesh!!

rap wrote-

Quote:

Motto of a militant agnostic---I don't know and neither do you!

Beside the point rap. You are not familiar I take it with my general argument.

Are you suggesting that if you convert us to your point of view, which is so well known to be barmy that it has an official name, which I forget, not Occam's razor but something similar--Spinoza maybe but not cat--that's Schrodinger--Voltaire's snake oil will do unofficially, that all this debate will go away.

That's an ever better explanation of why it's barmy. You are seemingly not a producer of biology text books or a member of a school board. Nor a minister of the faith.

People were saying-"I don't know and neither do you! " long before Caractacus's Mum winked through a gap in the wattle and daub. It had no utility.

0 Replies

for the science lovers on the thread

Quote:

Messenger's Pictures From Mercury Surprise Scientists

"The Spider" is one of the novel formations captured by Messenger.

The Messenger spacecraft that sped past Mercury on Jan. 14 sent back pictures of a geological formation never seen before in the solar system: a central depression with more than 100 narrow troughs radiating out from it.

Called "The Spider" by scientists analyzing the trove of images and data coming back from Messenger, the puzzling feature is the kind of surprise that researchers live for.

"Messenger has sent back data near perfectly, and some of it confirms earlier understandings, and some of it tells us something brand-new," said principal investigator Sean C. Solomon. "The Spider is definitely in the category of something we never imagined we'd find."

Scientists were also surprised by evidence of ancient volcanoes on many parts of the planet's surface and how different it looks compared with the moon, which is about the same size. Unlike the moon, Mercury has huge cliffs, as well as formations snaking hundreds of miles that indicate patterns of fault activity from Mercury's earliest days, more than 4 billion years ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013003299.html?nav=hcmodule

0 Replies

spendi wrote: It was a purely literary conceit I had in mind and I hope I haven't given the impression that such words form any significant proportion of my normal vocabulary.

spendi, your so-called "literary conceit" goes all over the globe, and your "normal vocabulary" is not normal by any sense of that worrd. But we all enjoy your posts, anywhose.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
How is it not indoctrinating a child in Atheistic doctrine for the science teacher to tell that child that his religious faith is magic or superstition?

I'll take it further.

How is it proper for a public school teacher to address a student's faith in ANY context?

'Your faith teaches X, Y, Z.......'

'Your religion's followers practice A, B, C.......'

How is it acceptable for a public school teacher to presume to define a child's faith ( and by extension , the faith and behavior of his family) for him?

It's not.

If teachers would mind their own business and teach reading, math, etc the country's schools would be much more productive.

The teacher's unions see the students as their opportunity to mold the future of the nation in their image.

Constant attempts to circumvent parental guidance and replace it with 'teacher says so' are not education, but indoctrination.

Absolutely right that public school teachers have NO business trying to define, compartmentalize, marginalize or otherwise interfere in a student's religious beliefs in ANY context ---- whether that is scientific, political, or otherwise.

The context in which that came up, however, was the likely questions re God and/or ID that could come up during a discussion on Darwin and how the science teacher should handle that. My opinion is that all the teacher needs to do is explain that some form of ID is a belief or theory held by millions of people but it cannot be tested, proved, or refuted scientifically and therefore it can't be considered as science. The student doesn't have to believe in natural selection, but he's going to have to know what that is and pass a test showing that he learned it. I think only a tiny number of parents would object to that approach.

To his credit, Ros, was at least honest enough to flat out said he would tell the kid that ID/Creationism or whatever is magic. Then he affirmed that he would tell the kid that and if the parent had a problem with it the kid should be taken out of public school and put in a Christian school.

And is THAT kind of attitude that I think has prompted all these silly efforts to put Creationism into science class.

But the anti-IDers don't want to discuss any form of compromise. No siree. They excoriate the very suggestion. They apparently don't care if a child's faith is destroyed but they do care that a science teacher might be expected to be sensitive to that.

But we IDers who can accept both ID and science are the close minded ones you see.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know