Texas school board is full of morons.

[Oblarg]

Ultimately the biggest "proof" put foreward for ID was that "this world is so perfectly tuned to human life that there HAS to be a designer for life!

 

Actually you're just a little off on this one point. The rest was correct. ID is based on the lack of evidence of an evolutionary path from single cell to complex organisims. As Oblarg correctly pointed out it is a "God in the Gaps" argument that presumes there is no such a path, not that it is just unknown. The idea that complex life was seeded here by aliens also explains the "missing link". Still I really don't see the issue with presenting the idea as an unproven hypothosis with the caveat that it is a hypothesis. Natual Selection does fine explaining the progession of life over hundreds of generations, but it is mute on the origin of compex life.

 

I have to say I find the hostility on this board to the idea to be pretty remakable. By the tone of his posts I'd say Oblarg was foaming at the mouth and slapping his keyboard in his anxiety to get his words out. Others too. You know, 100 years ago you could be thrown in prision for teaching Natual Selection (look up the Scopes Monkey trial). 300 years ago they would excecute you for it. In Iran they still would. By the sound of most of you I think you would be in favor of similar treatment to anyone who presents an alternative idea like ID. Like I said, it's funny how the shoe is on the other foot now.

 

Ad-hominem attacks on people who disagree with you won't change the fact that you're completely and utterly wrong.

 

ID isn't a valid alternative explanation. When you have a scientifically viable theory, try again.

[Guard Dog]

Ad-hominem attacks on people who disagree with you won't change the fact that you're completely and utterly wrong.

 

ID isn't a valid alternative explanation. When you have a scientifically viable theory, try again.

 

That was not an Ad-hominem. Merely an observation on the tone of your post. If I were to call you a nasty, condescending a-hole, THAT would be Ad-hominem. But I didn't did I? You know what else I did not do? Express any support for AD as a factual explanation for the origin of life. I simply pointed out a few things that you and a few others posted about it that were factually incorrect. And I was not wrong about that.

 

Isn't it odd that the whole concept of ID generates so much rage in people that a thread that had nothing what-so-ever to do with it gets sidetracked far OT. Almost like it was heresey or something like that. Ironic isn't it?

 

Actually this thread was about what the history books in Texas were going to say about the history of Texas and it's place in US history.

[Bos_hybrid]

In the end it comes down to this: I believe Religon has absolutely no place in public schools. ID is religon and therefore has no place in public schools.

[Hurlshort]

You know, we could just teach science in science classes... and teach religion in religion classes (or, in churches).

 

Actually I teach religion in Social Science (which is a fancy term for History.)

If you don't mind my asking Hurl, how closely do you have to teach to your text?

 

Not closely at all, really. I have a co-worker who has pretty much written off our most recent textbooks as rubbish and uses the older sets as well more specialized supplemental material.

 

We have to address certain standards. We are basically given a framework, for example I cover 11 different units in a year, starting with the Fall of the Roman Empire, the rise of Feudalism in Europe, the Rise of Islam, West Africa, 4 major Chinese dynasties, Feudal Japan, Meso-America, then back to Europe for the Renaissance, Reformation, Scientific Revolution, Age of Exploration, and if time permits (which it never does) I cover the Enlightenment. Now my textbook is designed to follow that path, but it is a very simplified version of the events. So I go through and expand on certain parts of the content. I know a lot of teachers, and very few do not do this. That is why I think this whole Texas school board stuff is a bit of a non-issue. A good teacher will cover the whole spectrum no matter what is in the text.

 

I am more worried when school boards try to tell me what not to teach.

[Oblarg]

Ad-hominem attacks on people who disagree with you won't change the fact that you're completely and utterly wrong.

 

ID isn't a valid alternative explanation. When you have a scientifically viable theory, try again.

 

That was not an Ad-hominem. Merely an observation on the tone of your post. If I were to call you a nasty, condescending a-hole, THAT would be Ad-hominem. But I didn't did I? You know what else I did not do? Express any support for AD as a factual explanation for the origin of life. I simply pointed out a few things that you and a few others posted about it that were factually incorrect. And I was not wrong about that.

 

Isn't it odd that the whole concept of ID generates so much rage in people that a thread that had nothing what-so-ever to do with it gets sidetracked far OT. Almost like it was heresey or something like that. Ironic isn't it?

 

Actually this thread was about what the history books in Texas were going to say about the history of Texas and it's place in US history.

 

It generates rage in people who care about the integrity of our educational system (which should be everyone) because having kids learn things which are demonstrably false is bad for the future of the country.

[Humodour]

If I were to call you a nasty, condescending a-hole, THAT would be Ad-hominem.

 

It would also be wrong, making it a poor choice of argumentum ad hominem.

[Tigranes]

I cover 11 different units in a year, starting with the Fall of the Roman Empire, the rise of Feudalism in Europe, the Rise of Islam, West Africa, 4 major Chinese dynasties, Feudal Japan, Meso-America, then back to Europe for the Renaissance, Reformation, Scientific Revolution, Age of Exploration, and if time permits (which it never does) I cover the Enlightenment.

 

All that in one year? Man, it must feel like Cliffnotes at times. Must be a big challenge to teach.

 

Anyway, this thread is starting to sound like some sort of American election debate, so run!

[Humodour]

You... often skip the Enlightenment? Um...

[Hurlshort]

You... often skip the Enlightenment? Um...

 

Did you look at the list of units? I just plain run out of time.

 

They will also get much more exposure to the Enlightenment in High School, whereas areas like West Africa, Japan, and the Middle East get very little attention after 7th grade according the the California state education standards.

[Walsingham]

Question, as someone who nevertheless believes frimly in evolutionary theory:

 

If we can comfortably state that we do not know what initiated the Big Bang then can we state for certain that there is no Outside entity such as a God which - by creating the fundamental rules of the universe - also created evolution? Do you see what I mean? Or am i way way way off topic?

[Pidesco]

Question, as someone who nevertheless believes frimly in evolutionary theory:

 

If we can comfortably state that we do not know what initiated the Big Bang then can we state for certain that there is no Outside entity such as a God which - by creating the fundamental rules of the universe - also created evolution? Do you see what I mean? Or am i way way way off topic?

 

 

The theory of evolution and the Big Bang, like all science, say nothing about the existence or inexistence of God.

[Slowtrain]

Question, as someone who nevertheless believes frimly in evolutionary theory:

 

If we can comfortably state that we do not know what initiated the Big Bang then can we state for certain that there is no Outside entity such as a God which - by creating the fundamental rules of the universe - also created evolution? Do you see what I mean? Or am i way way way off topic?

 

 

The theory of evolution and the Big Bang, like all science, say nothing about the existence or inexistence of God.

 

 

But for those who wish to attribute some aspect of creation to a divine force there shouldn't be a problem.

 

Science is a fine tool, but it is neither an end or an answer in and of itself. There's no reason science and some sort of faith in the divine cannot coexist.

 

IMO, positing an extreme anti-divine science as salvation is just as problematic as positing an extreme anti-science divine faith as salvation.

[Walsingham]

But for those who wish to attribute some aspect of creation to a divine force there shouldn't be a problem.

 

Science is a fine tool, but it is neither an end or an answer in and of itself. There's no reason science and some sort of faith in the divine cannot coexist.

 

IMO, positing an extreme anti-divine science as salvation is just as problematic as positing an extreme anti-science divine faith as salvation.

 

That makes sense.

[Amentep]

Question, as someone who nevertheless believes frimly in evolutionary theory:

 

If we can comfortably state that we do not know what initiated the Big Bang then can we state for certain that there is no Outside entity such as a God which - by creating the fundamental rules of the universe - also created evolution? Do you see what I mean? Or am i way way way off topic?

 

The theory of evolution and the Big Bang, like all science, say nothing about the existence or inexistence of God.

 

But for those who wish to attribute some aspect of creation to a divine force there shouldn't be a problem.

 

Science is a fine tool, but it is neither an end or an answer in and of itself. There's no reason science and some sort of faith in the divine cannot coexist.

 

IMO, positing an extreme anti-divine science as salvation is just as problematic as positing an extreme anti-science divine faith as salvation.

 

 

Indeed, logically speaking, an all-powerful creator would be sufficient to explain anything in science if you were inclined to believe in one (For example - disparity between the number of years the Bible suggests the earth has existed vs science? Well if an all-powerful God created time, She/He could have a million years pass in a minute).

 

This could also be used to argue about the duality of free will vs destiny vis a vis God's omnipotence (if God created time then God is outside time meaning everything that could, would and has happened did so in an instant for God, so if He/She wanted us to have free will we could do whatever we want and God would still know it because from Her/His perspective our entire existence already exists for Him/Her).

[Oblarg]

Question, as someone who nevertheless believes frimly in evolutionary theory:

 

If we can comfortably state that we do not know what initiated the Big Bang then can we state for certain that there is no Outside entity such as a God which - by creating the fundamental rules of the universe - also created evolution? Do you see what I mean? Or am i way way way off topic?

 

 

The theory of evolution and the Big Bang, like all science, say nothing about the existence or inexistence of God.

 

 

But for those who wish to attribute some aspect of creation to a divine force there shouldn't be a problem.

 

Science is a fine tool, but it is neither an end or an answer in and of itself. There's no reason science and some sort of faith in the divine cannot coexist.

 

IMO, positing an extreme anti-divine science as salvation is just as problematic as positing an extreme anti-science divine faith as salvation.

 

Considering the possibility of an afterlife or creator is a waste of time. It's a question which is by definition unanswerable.

[Slowtrain]

Considering the possibility of an afterlife or creator is a waste of time.

 

 

A waste of time for you perhaps. Which is fine. But maybe not so for others

 

It's a question which is by definition unanswerable.

 

 

Perhaps. Often though it is the search for possible answers, rather than the answers themselves, that has value. I think that applies to both science and faith.

 

Science alone can give us knowledge. No question. Which has a lot of value. But can science alone give us meaning?

 

 

I'm not saying science is a bad thing, which I hope is obvious, I'm merely positing that science and some sort of faith can, and maybe even should, go hand in hand.

 

Faith balances science and science balances faith. Either one operating alone is a somewhat frightening prospect.

[Tigranes]

Unanswerable through scientific means.

 

Slowtrain was discussing the issue in terms of those who are willing to use means other than the scientific method to identify truths in their lives. You are just bludgeoning that distinction entirely and effectively claiming science = all truth, all logic, all value. I'd suggest that that is a fairly silly exercise, unless you really want to champion the all-powerful right of science or something.

[Gorth]

My problem with mixing faith and science is, that faith sort of implies a stop for the search for answers, since you believe you know them. I would rather keep the two separate

[Tigranes]

Fair enough. To me faith is simply a different regime of truth, and you have to work just as hard to find answers and keep on searching for answers. Obviously, in a lot of cases, people don't take faith that way, though. But I'd consider efforts at ID the former.

[Walsingham]

I think the thing which really bugs me is the way people get fundamentalist about scientific theories. Science is a form of applied doubt, FFS! If you get fundamentalist about it anything beyond the principle of not being fundamentalist, then you fail. It doesn't mean you have to believe everything. It just means oh... who cares? i'm going to cook a steak.

[Guest The Architect]

Damn you people, we came from mushrooms!

 

It doesn't mean you have to believe everything. It just means oh... who cares? i'm going to cook a steak.

 

[Walsingham]

And I did. I flour coated the steaks, got some chilli and crushed garlic into some groundnut oil, put on some thyme and soy sauce then fried those babies up. Served with grated carrot, and palin boiled potatoes. Fantastic.

 

That should have read plain boiled potatoes, but whatever.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Walsingham

[Meshugger]

"Beliefs are neat. Cherish them, but don't share them like they're the truth."

 

- Bill Hicks