Expelled from Expelled

[Pidesco]

I was specifically referring to the "lying down by default" bit.

[Cycloneman]

Summing it up: Ben Stein and Mark Mathis are a couple of creationist wankers. Mathis lied to Dawkins, saying this movie wasn't a bunch of creationist wanking. Dawkins tells it like it is: this is a crappy movie based on lies, deceptive quotes, strawmen and disinformation.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Summing it up: Ben Stein and Mark Mathis are a couple of creationist wankers. Mathis lied to Dawkins, saying this movie wasn't a bunch of creationist wanking. Dawkins tells it like it is: this is a crappy movie based on lies, deceptive quotes, strawmen and disinformation.

 

I cannot see anything wrong with that statement at the moment.

[samm]

I think the whole blogging-thing going on right now makes us see the what "flaming" is going on on a personal level. Not really interesting, makes the scientists seem less sientific because they deal out on said personal level and get offended on the same level, and the creationists, well... they didn't seem worthy of serious attention so far, and only become so thanks to the internet showing a quantity of them actually do exist in this world, many of them obviously in the US. To me, this is all unnecessarily public, a thing of belief and thus should be quite personal. The whole science vs. religion debate is so superfluous... I mean, who the hell cares if a scientist is a christian, an atheist, or something else? Job and belief really should be on a different level for every serious scientist and educated person in general, if you're not a religion scientist or a priest.

Edited March 25, 2008 by samm

[Cycloneman]

I think the whole blogging-thing going on right now makes us see the what "flaming" is going on on a personal level. Not really interesting, makes the scientists seem less sientific because they deal out on said personal level and get offended on the same level, and the creationists, well... they didn't seem worthy of serious attention so far, and only become so thanks to the internet showing a quantity of them actually do exist in this world, many of them obviously in the US. To me, this is all unnecessarily public, a thing of belief and thus should be quite personal. The whole science vs. religion debate is so superfluous... I mean, who the hell cares if a scientist is a christian, an atheist, or something else? Job and belief really should be on a different level for every serious scientist and educated person in general, if you're not a religion scientist or a priest.

Half of the US population thinks the world is less than ten thousand years old. Creationists have an extremely strong position in the United States, and it wasn't so long ago that acts making the teaching of evolution illegal passed by an overwhelming majority.

[thepixiesrock]

Does what other people believe really have such a huge impact on your (everyone's) lives?

[Hell Kitty]

^ In general or in relation to creationists?

[Gorgon]

Its true that the creationist got their hooks in primary education. The curriculum's are decided on the state level and following a judgment they now have to pretend that creation science is not complete nonsense, by 'allowing for the possibility of intelligent design'.

 

 

Thats all fine, very egalitarian, but it doesn't belong in a science textbook. This battle was fought once before in the 50s and 60s, back then the US needed to go to the moon, to prove that they were more technically advanced than the soviets. The creationists were stamped out without a moments notice, no room for it in a cold war.

 

Now they are resuirrging, and again choosing education as the battlefield.

[Sand]

I have no problems with Intelligent Design being taught in public schools, just as long as it isn't taught as hard science or biology. It belongs with religious studies and the social sciences.

[thepixiesrock]

I don't know, I don't think it's a huge deal for it to be taught in science classes, as long as they put it in context as being a faith based theory.

[Xard]

 

Hilarious. It's not like I like Dawkins (he has read too much Dennet for his own good) or agree with most of his ideas but like his exemplar, he is smart fellow and surely knows how to write

[Pidesco]

If it's not science, why should it be taught in science classes?

[thepixiesrock]

To get people off their backs.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I don't think it's a huge deal for it to be taught in science classes, as long as they put it in context as being a faith based theory.

 

No, it should be in a voluntary philosophy or religious studies class, not a science class.

[Krookie]

lol, nevermind.

Edited March 25, 2008 by Krookie

[Nick_i_am]

There was a radio show on yesturday where an intelligent sounding woman tried to defend the physical resurection of Jesus Christ as being 'the only resnoble explaination to the evidence we have'. As far as I can see, when the only explaination for somthing is someone physically coming back to life after three days, there's a problem.

 

It's not just that she belived this actually happened, but she tried to defend this as being about more than just faith, given the 'evidence'.

 

These are not the kind of people who should be teaching children science.

[thepixiesrock]

It's like in high school where when we were studying origins of life, there were three main models we were introduced to,

 

Primordial Soup Model

Extra-terrestrial

And then one other one that was like intelligent design, I'm not sure if it was called that though

 

We only went into depth on the first one, but they still mentioned the others because they are still out there. I mean, they still mention perpetual motion even though they pretty much laugh it off as impossible.

[Krookie]

eh, if you aren't going to teach both sides of the story you shouldn't teach either.

[thepixiesrock]

These are not the kind of people who should be teaching children science.

 

Right, those people don't teach children now, and I wouldn't expect that to change.

[Sand]

There is only one side in science and that is going by the empirical evidence at hand and applying the scientific method. You can't do that with Intelligent Design because its roots lie with religious belief and not sound scientific thought, Krookie. Intelligent Design does not belong with science. It belongs in Religious Studies.

Edited March 25, 2008 by Sand

[thepixiesrock]

You seem to feel pretty strongly about this issue Hades. Almost, fanatical.

 

There is only one side in science

 

I don't know about that.

Edited March 25, 2008 by thepixiesrock

[samm]

There are very different sides in science of course But if you didn't quote it out of context, it might have become obvious that it actually means "only one viable method of backing up theories".

 

I agree that intelligent design should not be banned from school (banning never makes things better), but certainly not be taught in a science class, but rather be noted as theory with roots in mythology or belief.

[Cycloneman]

I wouldn't particularly have a problem with them "teaching" ID and creationism in the same way they "teach" things like prior models of the atom, perpetual motion, the classical four elements and such: as completely debunked bull****. Science classes do tend to have some "history of science" thrown in. But you know the creationists wouldn't stand for that.

 

You seem to feel pretty strongly about this issue Hades. Almost, fanatical.

It's an important issue and teaching children that there is any real doubt about evolutionary biology

 

There is only one side in science

 

I don't know about that.

In this issue? There's one side: evolution as the origin of humanity is as much a fact as any scientific theory can be (read: pretty ****ing well).

[samm]

I wouldn't particularly have a problem with them "teaching" ID and creationism in the same way they "teach" things like prior models of the atom *snip*

Certain atom models are still useful for calculating certain things, on school level at least, as long as it's made clear that these are no longer considered models that describe things accurately from nowadays knowledge. Thus it has it's place in an introductory science class, where, as you wrote, the history of science plays a role too. You cannot, however, calculate or conclude anything using ID, except trying to prove that it is a valid model. Thus it is completely self-centered and serves no further scientific purpose and should, in my opinion, not be taught as scientific approach to anything.

Edited March 25, 2008 by samm

[thepixiesrock]

That last post was just to bust Hades's chops. I think I've made my case.