Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

TCR-

You seem to have learned nothing from this thread.

The site is called Able To Know. Why do you bother with it when it is pitifully obvious that you don't wish to know anything you don't already know?

Do you not understand that evolution theory invades areas which are personally sensitive to a large number of people (not me I might say) and that it is therefore a special case.

Do you not understand that this subject has been a very hot topic ever since Darwin unveiled his theory for that very reason? And no other.

Do you not understand that I am unable to explain this clearly in simple language because you would be mortified if I did so and you are not a minor?

Do you not understand that you are taking advantage of that and presenting drawing room arguments as if it is not true?

Do you not understand that not everybody is as simple and innocent as you seem to be about such matters?

Do you not understand that modern family life, such as it still is, is dependent upon these matters not being debated in public?

Do you not understand that if you undermine that base you will have to offer alternative methods to ensure reproduction takes place in an approximately orderly manner within the institutions of class and property.

Do you not understand what the movie Titanic was about?

0 Replies

TCR-

Do you not understand that billions of words have been addressed to this subject by the high and the low in every continent on earth, often heatedly, and that such a fact rather makes you look extremely foolish if you think your little simplicities could have provided the solution.

You'll be informing us all next that war is a nasty business and that we should cease having anything to do with it.

Stick to the birds and the bees by all means but don't bring it onto a science thread.

0 Replies

foxy

Quote:

I don't think those supporting the Academic Freedom Act are suggesting any of that Ros. I do think they don't want the State to have the power to dictate to teachers that they must indoctrinate students with a single point of view and are not allowed to even acknowledge that a different point of view exists.

DAmn, I go away for one day and the thread takes a crooked "through the looking glass" turn where truth and facts are considered "indoctrination"

Shall we teach history with alternate endings?

Math shall have no such thing as definite answers anymore. The best we will hope for is that 2+2 is "sort of between 3 and 6"

All laws that have , for centuries worked, will now be considered optional

Cf 'The World Turned Upside Down". The tune played by Cornwallis as he marched his army out of his garrison after having been soundly beaten .

TCR, dont read anything of substance in what spendi writes. His alternate universe operates on laws that are still unrecognized in this dimension.

I believe that the suds have alot to do with his outlook

0 Replies

TCR-

Your science is in not the slightest danger. All the ID-iots are up to their necks in its productions. As is the Pope. It's a myth.

I think your post betrays signs that the voices are in your head. What dis I say specifically which led you to think they are mine.

Quote:

we don't determine what is science and what is not science by who is offended by it or who tries to intimidate us.

Oh yes you do. It isn't that you might be offended, though you might well be, and it isn't that you are intimidated by anybody. You are frightened of untramelled science. You only have to look at the decontamination procedures of moon-walkers as a simple example. And the row over GM crops. In biology it's hairy.

And if science has to be tramelled by common consent who is to do it but religious institutions?

Quote:

Although I understand that many of the countries in the E.U. are now using a process similar to the one you propose to determine editorially what goes into your newspapers and especially your comic strips.

I hadn't realised that I had proposed anything. But-yes- there is a control through governments, in all countries so far as I know and would expect, of what goes in newspapers and comics. There always has been.

If I get time tomorrow I'll give you a scientific demonstration of how far that control has been relaxed over the years.

Quote:

Another point I should probably make is that we get a little antsy over here when you Europeans begin to counsel our appeasement of the lunatic fringe.

Not me. I'm not counselling anybody. I'm in a debate. To learn things. I'm testing your AIDs-ing strengths. Trying to discover if your position is the right one. You won't persuade me with posts like that. Don't you ask salespersons to show you that something will work before you buy it. It's no good pulling the other side down. We know how that worked. It's in your face.

Which fringe is the lunatic fringe anyway?

0 Replies

FM:
I don't put anything into spendi's posts. Unfortunately his problems are far deeper than an issue of "suds". I think those are used as a poor substitute for badly needed pharmaceuticals. Which is why I (based on the diagnosis of a clinician I was working with whom I showed a variety of Spendi's posts) and many others (probably intuitively) give him a lot of latitude that we don't show to others. Its one thing to call out a charlatan it's another to make fun of someone with "issues". He can be entertaining, but it's not something you can really enjoy. Helping RL hang himself is more of a guiltless pleasure for me.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

foxy
Quote:
I don't think those supporting the Academic Freedom Act are suggesting any of that Ros. I do think they don't want the State to have the power to dictate to teachers that they must indoctrinate students with a single point of view and are not allowed to even acknowledge that a different point of view exists.

DAmn, I go away for one day and the thread takes a crooked "through the looking glass" turn where truth and facts are considered "indoctrination"

Shall we teach history with alternate endings?

Math shall have no such thing as definite answers anymore. The best we will hope for is that 2+2 is "sort of between 3 and 6"

All laws that have , for centuries worked, will now be considered optional

Cf 'The World Turned Upside Down". The tune played by Cornwallis as he marched his army out of his garrison after having been soundly beaten .

TCR, dont read anything of substance in what spendi writes. His alternate universe operates on laws that are still unrecognized in this dimension.

I believe that the suds have alot to do with his outlook

I neither suggested that truth and facts should not be taught in science (or any other) class nor did I suggest alternate endings for history, but then I'm getting accustomed to AIDers throwing in red herrings like that to avoid the actual subject.

If you are content to have the state dictate to you the exact script that you have to teach to your students and require that you not deviate from it, I am sure it makes your life a lot simpler. In fact, you could have easily skipped all that great education you got that you thought was preparing you to be sufficiently informed in your discipline to teach.

To satisfy requirements of political correctness and ideology, the State is already allowing revision of history in the textbooks here and there. Before long somebody is going to insist that Jeffersonian principles be the ones taught as the pure and good philosophy to the kids and that Federalist principles be denounced as the devil's playground or vice versa or some such. And unless there are parents (and teachers and others) willing to stand up and object to that, the state is given inordinate and dangerous power to shape the thoughts of a generation to conform to a specific point of view.

If the State is to be involved in curriculum at all, it should restrict that involvement to a summary of what the children will be required to know by the end of a course of study. It should never be given the power to dictate that such material is ALL the kids will be allowed to know.

0 Replies

foxfyre

Quote:

I neither suggested that truth and facts should not be taught in science (or any other) class nor did I suggest alternate endings for history, but then I'm getting accustomed to AIDers throwing in red herrings like that to avoid the actual subject.

Then I suggest that you do a better job of editing. Maybe what you think you say and what others read and interpret are two different things. I suggest that you read your posts as if you were someone on the line.
This is no "red herring". Its simple reading comprehension. SAy what you mean, dont try to infer from some tangential reference. (Hint: read some of spendis crap and then ask yourself if you really want to sound like that?)

0 Replies

I have just returned from the pub and read fm's last post.

There's hope for the boy after all.

0 Replies

Sorry. The previous one. He pipped me as they say on the Trivia threads.

I have to make my cocoa. The maids have gone to bed.

What they are doing I can't imagine. Snoring probably.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

foxfyre
Quote:
I neither suggested that truth and facts should not be taught in science (or any other) class nor did I suggest alternate endings for history, but then I'm getting accustomed to AIDers throwing in red herrings like that to avoid the actual subject.

Then I suggest that you do a better job of editing. Maybe what you think you say and what others read and interpret are two different things. I suggest that you read your posts as if you were someone on the line.
This is no "red herring". Its simple reading comprehension. SAy what you mean, dont try to infer from some tangential reference. (Hint: read some of spendis crap and then ask yourself if you really want to sound like that?)

Okay, I'll bite. Please show me exactly where I suggested in any post anywhere on A2K that I do not want truth taught to kids in any class or show me any specific phrase I've posted that suggested such a thing to you.

You do know what a red herring is don't you? Within the context of a response to what I said, would you not agree that these statements qualify? At the very least, all are non sequitor?

Quote:

Shall we teach history with alternate endings?

Math shall have no such thing as definite answers anymore. The best we will hope for is that 2+2 is "sort of between 3 and 6"

All laws that have , for centuries worked, will now be considered optional

0 Replies

Quote:

To satisfy requirements of political correctness and ideology, the State is already allowing revision of history in the textbooks here and there. Before long somebody is going to insist that Jeffersonian principles be the ones taught as the pure and good philosophy to the kids and that Federalist principles be denounced as the devil's playground or vice versa

. SOmeones been reading either
1John MCains "origins of political parties site" or

2David McCollough's work "John Adams".

Either way, this is not an example of an "alternative ending", since parties are still emerging and morphing.

As far as "The STATE" allowing revisions of textbooks, youve actually made my point against "indoctrination". In the cae of IDjits, they are still attempting to force their ways into the textbook market for the 23 states that purchase books at the state , rather than local , level. So far, nobodys buying this entire bill of goods.

You may try to equate accuracy and attention to fact, evidence, and balanced equations as mere "indoctrination" , and you would, of course , be all wet.

0 Replies

fm wrote- now I've caught up with the latest scientific thinking, gobbled down three tablespoonsful of thick-cut marmalade, like Mr Amis advised, rolled a stogie and have had the first swig of my cocoa-

Quote:

(Hint: read some of spendis crap and then ask yourself if you really want to sound like that?)

It's funny you should say that fm. I have often re-read some of my posts and thought to myself "boy that was serious crap!! I wonder what fm will make of it."

Is this the Ivory Tower of advanced philosophical thought or what?

0 Replies

foxy's quote

Quote:

I don't think those supporting the Academic Freedom Act are suggesting any of that Ros. I do think they don't want the State to have the power to dictate to teachers that they must indoctrinate students with a single point of view and are not allowed to even acknowledge that a different point of view exists.

Your entire point above is one where youve determined that "Indoctrination" is merely the presentation of alternative theories to any subject (even though these alternative hypotheses are dead wrong).

Why do you wish to further waste a school day with teaching garbage science and offal history? Anyway, your own admission was that
"YOU DONT THINK they want the state...", I think that youre flat wrong.

0 Replies

Foxy wrote-

Quote:

You do know what a red herring is don't you?

If he doesn't he's like a trawler deckhand pulling the net in who thinks they are all fractions of a dollar.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

I think that youre flat wrong.

I think you are flat out wrong. So there, murruhurr.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

foxy's quote
Quote:
I don't think those supporting the Academic Freedom Act are suggesting any of that Ros. I do think they don't want the State to have the power to dictate to teachers that they must indoctrinate students with a single point of view and are not allowed to even acknowledge that a different point of view exists.

Your entire point above is one where youve determined that "Indoctrination" is merely the presentation of alternative theories to any subject (even though these alternative hypotheses are dead wrong).

Why do you wish to further waste a school day with teaching garbage science and offal history? Anyway, your own admission was that
"YOU DONT THINK they want the state...", I think that youre flat wrong.

It is fine to say that you think I'm wrong. It is not okay for you to interject your own peculiar point of view into mine and then call that mine. Please take each of my sentences exactly as I said it alongside your interpretation, and VOILA!!!! Red herrings and/or non sequitors galore. From you. Not me.

The reason we cannot have any kind of reasoned discussion on this is that you will not accept what I say at face value, and I won't allow you to rewrite my words unchallenged nor allow you, without protest, to presume to tell me what I want/intend/really meant apart from what I actually say that I want/intend/really mean.

Sort of puts us at an impasse, huh.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't think those supporting the Academic Freedom Act are suggesting any of that Ros.

They are opening the door for that.

There is no need to open that door.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I don't think those supporting the Academic Freedom Act are suggesting any of that Ros.

They are opening the door for that.

There is no need to open that door.

To not open that door opens the other door for the State to have full license to indoctrinate children any way they might choose. In my way of thinking, risking exposing children to erroneous information is far less dangerous than allowing the government full license to decide what chlidren may or may not learn.

0 Replies

yeah... let's give the power to individuals who we can't clearly monitor. Screw standardization of curriculum! Let's let all of our high school juniors/seniors apply for college on that basis!

T
K
O

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know