Still don't believe in evolution? Try this!

[babe]

One Brow, meet babe, the king of obfuscation. More specific/transparent/direct? Why in the world would he do that?

yah, I was going to go do some real work, but leaving that question hanging for a week or two, if not longer, just got to me somehow.

I should probably write a book to give it the answer it deserves. Maybe research the legal cases which have already consumed thousands of years of lawyer time, at lawyer rates. Maybe sift through just as much metaphysical, religious, and scientific literature.

When done, OB will find some hair of evidence to throw it all out and start a new trial.

The reason scientists and public policy makers, and courts, are going to be dealing with this for years to come, is just because people don't like government horning into their personal lives, their bedrooms, or their minds. The only way out is for us all to get our government, and our little grade schools, out of it.

 

[One Brow]

And our courts have ruled that "evolutionary science" is good science in much the same way. Ruled that a broad theory is the standard for classroom instruction, while ruling that people cannot bring their Bibles into the class or discuss "God" on public premises. . . . and especially that teachers cannot do that.

Individuals who are not representatives of the government can bring the Bibles into classrooms and discuss God, as long as it does not disrupt class. Teachers, who are representatives of the government, can not. I'm surprised that you think it would be a good thing to allow government representatives to personally propagandize individuals.

The way I look at it, "evolution" as a "theory of everything" is just about as vague as "God". It is a hindrance to actual education to reduce public education to the level of taking one side or another on this subject.

Worded like that, I agree. I disagree that your wording represents what texts actually say.

What is needed is a conclusionless and moral-less treatment of competing concepts with equal reference to "authority" on both sides of the question, such as that "authority" might be. . . . , with liberal encouragement to the students imagination and freedom to form their own happy little delusions of understanding or belief.

As long as that doesn't mean schools represent beliefs in leprechauns and unicorns as being scientifically justifiable positions.

 

[babe]

One Brow, meet babe, the king of obfuscation. More specific/transparent/direct? Why in the world would he do that?

so you didn't get this charge lodged before I blew it out of the water, right above where you're standing. . . . .

ah, but anything you can't understand will still look like obfuscation. . . . and miss the mark in your own mind.

Lucidity, like beauty, is in the eye and mind of the beholder. . . . .

Now, I do have work to do.

 

[babe]

[

QUOTE=One Brow;898044]Individuals who are not representatives of the government can bring the Bibles into classrooms and discuss God, as long as it does not disrupt class. Teachers, who are representatives of the government, can not. I'm surprised that you think it would be a good thing to allow government representatives to personally propagandize individuals.

actually, I'd like it a whole lot better if teachers were not "government representatives" but people standing on their own merits. Ah, the future I dream of. . . . on-line education with many, many choice in competing resources, available at prices any one can afford, free. A few "ads" ought to pay the freight.

Worded like that, I agree. I disagree that your wording represents what texts actually say.

I'd have to look at the current texts to know what they are trending in their treatments on the subject.

As long as that doesn't mean schools represent beliefs in leprechauns and unicorns as being scientifically justifiable positions.

[/QUOTE]

leprechauns and unicorns might be good for a laugh, and anybody who has some explanation of their origins in our lore might make some interesting reading. . . . but "beliefs" like those, and magic, and "change" mediated by one president, are definitely not on my list of valuable "education".

 

[babe]

Do you have a problem with courts putting limits on free speech? I know of no country on earth that has looser limits on that than the US. Are you opposed to free speech limitations on things like yelling FIRE in a crowded place in order to incite panic? Such limitations are perfectly within reason. I'm not aware of any instance where the court made it illegal to talk about anything inside homes.

Social work professionals who try to rescue human beings from abuse bother you? If society gave any more rights to parents over their children, we might as well change the term from parenthood to ownership. As long as they're not subjected to great physical harm, or sexual abuse, it's pretty much fair game. Even those parents who isolate their children from society and information in order to brainwash them into remaining within the fold of their archaic, and dying, religions are allowed to do so. What exactly it is you want?

Public schools training people to function in the modern world is also a baffling objection. Sure you can argue for better approaches to education (and I've heard so many suggestions). But in the end, if education doesn't prepare you for modern life, then what's the point of it at all?

Your gripe seems to be mainly with the government-corporates framework. I agree that corporatism and the emerging police state are serious and related problems, but the hierarchy of conspirators you created is without any basis. In your worldview, evil atheist socialists force their will on helpless Christian children through the use of propaganda and pharmaceuticals in order to create an army of unthinking drones to support the status quo. You're upset the modern world doesn't reflect whatever ideal paradigm you think life should follow, and you're making all kinds of irrational connections in order to justify that sentiment.

you invoke "irrational connections" as your objection to me, after writing this?????

well, inciting riot or causing a trampling panic in a crowded building might be viewed as something other than expressing one's beliefs openly to an interested audience. The point is State-prescribed standards for speech.

standards of acceptable political correctness are being applied to custody cases around the world, and speech is increasingly regulated. Schools are applying all these "concerns" to professional standards of conduct. Judges are weighing in on it all.

"training people to function in a modern world" is newspeak for a whole raft of behavioral norms. Probably some little prejudice imp is whispering in your ear how to make out everything I say as "irrational". The fact is, the "authority" to decide what is or is not suitable for training, is the problem.

If you just put that "authority" out of reach of government, there will be plenty of room left for people to resolve those issues personally, without your guidance or the governments. And they will, happily.

 

[Siro]

you invoke "irrational connections" as your objection to me, after writing this?????

well, inciting riot or causing a trampling panic in a crowded building might be viewed as something other than expressing one's beliefs openly to an interested audience. The point is State-prescribed standards for speech.

standards of acceptable political correctness are being applied to custody cases around the world, and speech is increasingly regulated. Schools are applying all these "concerns" to professional standards of conduct. Judges are weighing in on it all.

"training people to function in a modern world" is newspeak for a whole raft of behavioral norms. Probably some little prejudice imp is whispering in your ear how to make out everything I say as "irrational". The fact is, the "authority" to decide what is or is not suitable for training, is the problem.

If you just put that "authority" out of reach of government, there will be plenty of room left for people to resolve those issues personally, without your guidance or the governments. And they will, happily.

What is ironic about your perspective is that society was at one point Christian, and we saw how gracious THEY were to those who don't conform to your hated behavioral norms. Reading your complaints I can't help but be thankful for the secularization of mainstream society, because I don't have to worry about being burnt at the stake for having a different opinion, and neither does the Westboro Baptist Church.

What is most bizarre, though, got to be your view of how science should be taught. Scientists get to decide what is and isn't science. Period. Your side lost this argument nearly a thousand years ago, back when the scientists and the theologians were one and the same. Why are you still fighting a battle you've lost? What do you think will happen? We're going to discard all we've accomplished, and just let you decide which science is acceptable for us to use?

 

[babe]

What is ironic about your perspective is that society was at one point Christian, and we saw how gracious THEY were to those who don't conform to your hated behavioral norms. Reading your complaints I can't help but be thankful for the secularization of mainstream society, because I don't have to worry about being burnt at the stake for having a different opinion, and neither does the Westboro Baptist Church.

What is most bizarre, though, got to be your view of how science should be taught. Scientists get to decide what is and isn't science. Period. Your side lost this argument nearly a thousand years ago, back when the scientists and the theologians were one and the same. Why are you still fighting a battle you've lost? What do you think will happen? We're going to discard all we've accomplished, and just let you decide which science is acceptable for us to use?

people get to decide what is or isn't "society", some say.

Scientists don't really get to say what is or isn't true, any more than Priests or any other brand of religious authority.

You are not in a position to change the nature of things, all you can do is speculate. . . . theorize. . . . and conduct some sort of limited investigation into what exists in nature. Believe it or not, that's all any religion can do, either. True enough, religion deals generally with a "God" who is not, apparently, observable or testable, say, like mass or energy. A pure "materialist" might dismiss the concept as having no material evidence on display, I suppose.

Scientists have an advantage in that they get to define their methods of investigation, which makes it easier to limit the subject. Problem is, reality is not so easily managed, in terms of either extensive or intensive parameters. So in effect, Scientists have chosen to wear blinders to exclude everything that is not observable under our material senses or our instruments, especially "God".

Anybody can claim to be "religious", and can say anything they want about God. I'm not concerned with that sort of "religion". I am concerned about the context of our existence, particularly in terms of what we are, or can choose to be. What is our nature and our relation to the Universe? We defy all the precepts of science in terms of measureability, observability, and predictability. We have transcendent powers of imagination, fantasy, intuition, understanding, reasoning, and choice.

And only "religion" is capable of addressing our nature on those dimensions, and provide us with a schema for self-awareness and relation to the universe. And yes, indeed, it is entirely probable that it's our choice, our projection, our imagination that we call "religion".

secular humanism displaces all those "human" capacities with a theory of the universe that merely transfers human rights to a new class of brahmins called "government officials" operating on fascist-dictated imperatives which displace all that makes humans "happy".

 

[♪alt13]

What is ironic about your perspective is that society was at one point Christian, and we saw how gracious THEY were to those who don't conform to your hated behavioral norms. Reading your complaints I can't help but be thankful for the secularization of mainstream society, because I don't have to worry about being burnt at the stake for having a different opinion, and neither does the Westboro Baptist Church.

What is most bizarre, though, got to be your view of how science should be taught. Scientists get to decide what is and isn't science. Period. Your side lost this argument nearly a thousand years ago, back when the scientists and the theologians were one and the same. Why are you still fighting a battle you've lost? What do you think will happen? We're going to discard all we've accomplished, and just let you decide which science is acceptable for us to use?

Sorry to interrupt but this isn't true. Science has a definition independent of any ones opinion. As does scientific theory.

sci·ence/ˈsīəns/
noun

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

scientific theory

a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

Judges have appropriately used these definitions along with the US Constitution to decide what can legally be taught in a public school.

There is no conspiracy babe. Evolution meets the standard and intelligent design does not.

 

[Siro]

people get to decide what is or isn't "society", some say.

Scientists don't really get to say what is or isn't true, any more than Priests or any other brand of religious authority.

You are not in a position to change the nature of things, all you can do is speculate. . . . theorize. . . . and conduct some sort of limited investigation into what exists in nature. Believe it or not, that's all any religion can do, either. True enough, religion deals generally with a "God" who is not, apparently, observable or testable, say, like mass or energy. A pure "materialist" might dismiss the concept as having no material evidence on display, I suppose.

Scientists have an advantage in that they get to define their methods of investigation, which makes it easier to limit the subject. Problem is, reality is not so easily managed, in terms of either extensive or intensive parameters. So in effect, Scientists have chosen to wear blinders to exclude everything that is not observable under our material senses or our instruments, especially "God".

Anybody can claim to be "religious", and can say anything they want about God. I'm not concerned with that sort of "religion". I am concerned about the context of our existence, particularly in terms of what we are, or can choose to be. What is our nature and our relation to the Universe? We defy all the precepts of science in terms of measureability, observability, and predictability. We have transcendent powers of imagination, fantasy, intuition, understanding, reasoning, and choice.

And only "religion" is capable of addressing our nature on those dimensions, and provide us with a schema for self-awareness and relation to the universe. And yes, indeed, it is entirely probable that it's our choice, our projection, our imagination that we call "religion".

secular humanism displaces all those "human" capacities with a theory of the universe that merely transfers human rights to a new class of brahmins called "government officials" operating on fascist-dictated imperatives which displace all that makes humans "happy".

Scientists get to decide what is and isn't science. Your deliberately meaningless concept of "truth" is of no concern to the scientific pursuit. I say it is deliberate because you have gathered a bunch of ideas, and decided that, as far as you're concerned, they are beyond the reach of objective analysis. That is your prerogative, but surely you can't expect the rest of us to adhere to the dictates of your own personal sentiments. I see no reason why human cognition is somehow only appropriately discussed using the vocabulary of the immaterial, when it is clearly an objective physical phenomenon that can be observed and studied. Now I'm not telling you that you should accept any of the conclusions of science, but I am baffled as to why you think the world should revolve around your subjective interpretation of what the universe is all about? Surely if consciousness if magic, then you have nothing to worry about. It will never be understood regardless of how much effort is expended to understand it. But you are opposed to the very idea of even TRYING to understand it, because you cling to the emotional comfort the opposite view provides (provides YOU that is. I am perfectly happy with 100% materialist universe).

 

[Siro]

Sorry to interrupt but this isn't true. Science has a definition independent of any ones opinion. As does scientific theory.

sci·ence/ˈsīəns/
noun

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

scientific theory

a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

Judges have appropriately used these definitions along with the US Constitution to decide what can legally be taught in a public school.

There is no conspiracy babe. Evolution meets the standard and intelligent design does not.

You misunderstand. What I meant is, if biologists accept evolution as the best explanation for what we see, and reject creationism, then evolution will be taught as the best explanation for what we see. The opinion of lawyers is irrelevant. The opinion of restaurant servers is irrelevant. The opinion of everyone except those who study the subject is irrelevant. If you disagree with a theory, then join the field and gather your evidence and submit your studies.

 

[♪alt13]

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

 

[♪alt13]

You misunderstand. What I meant is, if biologists accept evolution as the best explanation for what we see, and reject creationism, then evolution will be taught as the best explanation for what we see. The opinion of lawyers is irrelevant. The opinion of restaurant servers is irrelevant. The opinion of everyone except those who study the subject is irrelevant. If you disagree with a theory, then join the field and gather your evidence and submit your studies.

I'm sorry but you are wrong. Creationism isn't taught in school because it is unconstitutional. Law is what matters here. The merits of a scientific theory is not decided by the number of people that believe in a theory. It is not decided by the credentials of someone that holds that opinion. The merits of a scientific theory is decided by the scientific evidence that supports that theory.

Scientists may lend credibility to an idea through their support of it but it must first meet the standards of actually being a scientific theory if it is to be taught as one in a public school.