I, for one, see no harm in allowing the discussion in classrooms of the arguments in favor of various creation stories, so long as they are taught as what they are: evolution as science, and creationism as a matter of personal belief.
It bothers me that many people within the Christian religion feel so threatened by evolution, to the point that they insist that it is false without bothering to understand WHY the scientific community accepts it.
Johannes Brahms is God.
If I had to bet money on it I would say Obama is going to win...Is it possible that Mccain might win?..yes..likely, no..There are far to many factors working against Mccain in this election..but you never know..I think we're fucked either way..An insane neo-con or a lying Communist...Where's Ron Paul when you need him.
A man chooses; a slave obeys.-Andrew Ryan
There's no problem discussing it in a World Religion classroom. It has no place in a science classroom, because teaching it as a theory goes against everything students are taught in regards to the methodology of science. At very most, it should be presented as, "Some people believe this, but it is not a scientific theory. It is not wrong to believe it, or disbelieve it", and then never mention creationism in the science classroom again.Originally Posted by Ceidwad
In my lifetime, we've gone from Eisenhower to George W. Bush. We've gone from John F. Kennedy to Al Gore. If this is evolution, I believe that in 12 years, we'll be voting for plants.
-- Lewis Black
Well, I remember discussing Lamarckian evolutionary theory in biology classes, and that is considered just as defunct by the scientific community as creationism, so why not?
Just to be clear, I'm not advocating it as such, I'm just questioning why people believe the discussion of creationism in science class is such a bad thing. If anything, not talking about the issue will lead to more people becoming stuck in their own views. I don't personally have an issue with people (even politicians) being creationist, as long as they do not try to brainwash others into accepting that view. But others do, it would seem, so why do they not want to see debate on the matter?
Let's switch gears ... Here's a humorous article about Obama's dubious baseball flip-flop agenda
[Hidden link. Register to see links.]
I aim to misbehave.
That site is pretty interesting. Here's some analysis:
Of Barack Obama's 154 analysed statements:
49 are deemed by politifact.com to be 'true' (32%)
29 are deemed by politifact.com to be 'mostly true' (19%)
31 are deemed by politifact.com to be 'half true' (20%)
18 are deemed by politifact.com to be 'barely true' (12%)
25 are deemed by politifact.com to be 'false' (16%)
2 are deemed by politifact.com to be 'pants on fire' (1%)
Of Barack Obama's 5 alleged 'flip flops' analysed:
1 is deemed 'no flip' by politifact.com (20%)
2 are deemed 'half flip' by politifact.com (40%)
2 are deemed 'full flop' by politifact.com (40%)
Of John McCain's 151 analysed statements:
29 are deemed by politifact.com to be 'true' (19%)
27 are deemed by politifact.com to be 'mostly true' (18%)
27 are deemed by politifact.com to be 'half true' (18%)
27 are deemed by politifact.com to be 'barely true' (18%)
34 are deemed by politifact.com to be 'false' (23%)
7 are deemed by politifact.com to be 'pants on fire' (4%)
Of John McCain's 4 alleged 'flip flops' analysed:
1 is deemed 'no flip' by politifact.com (25%)
2 are deemed 'half flip' by politifact.com (50%)
1 is deemed 'full flop' by politifact.com (25%)
Of Joe Biden's 32 analysed statements:
8 are deemed by politifact.com to be 'true' (25%)
5 are deemed by politifact.com to be 'mostly true' (18%)
7 are deemed by politifact.com to be 'half true' (22%)
6 are deemed by politifact.com to be 'barely true' (19%)
4 are deemed by politifact.com to be 'false' (13%)
2 are deemed by politifact.com to be 'pants on fire' (6%)
Of Joe Biden's 1 alleged 'flip flop' analysed:
0 are deemed 'no flip' by politifact.com (0%)
0 are deemed 'half flip' by politifact.com (0%)
1 is deemed 'full flop' by politifact.com (100%)
Of Sarah Palin's 20 analysed statements:
6 are deemed by politifact.com to be 'true' (30%)
2 are deemed by politifact.com to be 'mostly true' (10%)
5 are deemed by politifact.com to be 'half true' (25%)
3 are deemed by politifact.com to be 'barely true' (15%)
2 are deemed by politifact.com to be 'false' (10%)
2 are deemed by politifact.com to be 'pants on fire' (10%)
Of Sarah Palin's 2 alleged 'flip flops' analysed:
0 are deemed 'no flip' by politifact.com (0%)
0 are deemed 'half flip' by politifact.com (0%)
2 are deemed 'full flop' by politifact.com (100%)
Main points from that: Obama tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth more than any of the others, but he also tells half truths more than McCain does. McCain's 'pants on fire' rating is four times higher than Obama's while Palin's is nearly twice as high as Biden's. However, Palin's 'true' statements are second only to Obama, and her 'false' and 'barely true' ratings are low. When Obama tells the truth, he really tells the whole truth, and when Palin tells a lie it's usually a whopper. The overall picture is a lot closer than some pundits would have us believe, though it is true that the Republican campaign has tended to mislead the public more. However, the circumstances aren't exactly favourable to them in this election, so I don't blame them for trying whatever they can get away with.
The Democratic campaign has flip-flopped slightly more than the Republican one. Both VP nominees have a 100% 'full flop' rating.
In conclusion, they're pretty much all lying out of their asses most of the time, and when they're not they don't really mean it and will change as soon as they get into office. Democracy ftw!
If you campaign telling the full truth about your political views, you're going to lose.
All politician's tell half truths. That's part of the political game. The point is to choose the one that best works for you. Of course, you can choose neither and create a new political system. But that will never happen, because the sheep would actually have to leave their comfortable cages and get involved. We can't have that.
Throw your 128kbps MP3's in the recycle bin. Enjoy the future! Enjoy Lossless!. Rap cannot make anyone anymore racist then they already are.
Also keep in mind - there is no base standard for the numbers. Palin's numbers are lowest of all since she came into the race late in the game - so there should be a margin of error if you are simply comparing each of the candidates numbers. I suppose you could average them all - but I still feel the numbers shown aren't an exact representation. What if Obama simply spoke twice as much as Mccain - thus offering Obama a bigger chance to have a better "mostly true" rating?
The best thing to do is to look at the articles individually and decide for yourself who is more truthful or not.
Well, I'm certainly not arguing that the numbers should be taken as anything other than a very loose guide to the actual truth (although the 'speaking more times argument' can be countered by using percentages, as I did). I've actually read over a few of the verdicts given by them and disagree with their conclusions in a couple of cases, so I'm very much in agreement with you. It is still fun to make generalising conclusions based on those numbers though, especially if they happen to be humorously put, as I humbly believe mine was.
And yes, FF1, I'm fully aware that the golden rule of politics is 'lie as much as you can get away with'.
[Hidden link. Register to see links.]
With this, the answer to the thread's titular question is "no."
Ceidwad, you're so full of yourself.
[Hidden link. Register to see links.]
FF1, that video was stupidly amusing. Silly Japanese.
I love how the video shows a guy playing a guitar solo a good 15 seconds BEFORE the audio kicks in.
So typically Japanese.
Swami, just because you don't take things in the spirit they're meant, doesn't make me full of myself. Humility is actually an important personal ethic for me, even if I can understand how you could have taken that comment in a negative way.
well, advocating discussing it is either moot, as i am lead to believe that it is a topic that is raised rather frequently when biology teachers try to teach the subject in the US, or a desire to formalise the discussion by making it a part of the curriculum. now that's not even a bad thing in and of itself, if only for the fact that the ID/creationist set would love nothing more than to introduce their highly spurious textbooks into the curriculum as the official "contoversy" part.
and quite aside from sneaking material which would do more to confuse than inform students interested in biology, there's only a limited amount of time available in classrooms these days. it sounds sensible saying it should be discussed, and there's nothing really wrong with it, but for almost every other science course i have taken at that level, we never discussed, say, the luminiferous aether in physics, or galileo's incorrect force law (which would be interesting in itself as i feel it highlights some unclear thinking on the subject of motion that starting students might have!), or early greek atomic theory in anything other than cursory mention in chemistry, or alchemy. or any of the millions of incorrect theories that people have at one point or another thought was true, not without justification. the simple fact of the matter is that there isn't that much time, so educators choose what's most relevant, what's believed to be correct, and what will enable students to deepen their knowledge of the subject in the future should they desire to.
Of course to a large extent Palin's position on the subject is moot, since it's mostly school boards etc who choose the content o a curriculum. But she does seem pretty blatantly alligned with the creationist/ID camp, even if they're more careful about getting this stuff into schools now! It would also be in line with her extreme leanings theologically, but to a large extent she's probably, you know, blowing the right dog whistles to appeal to the demographic anyways.
On an unrelated note, I wonder how condescending people would think I was if I went about instructing theologians as to what they should teach in the seminary?
Don't follow!
ps its probably worth pointing out that lamarckian evolution and creationism are different to the extent that the former is a theory and makes some claims, whereas the latter isn't even a theory, and makes no falsifiable claims other than "evolution isn't true!".
[Hidden link. Register to see links.]
It is possible.
12 MILLION VOTERS HAVE ALREADY CAST BALLOTS
[Hidden link. Register to see links.]
(With Barack Obama taking roughly sixty percent of that total...wow.)
Taking Palin's words at face value, all I can see that she's trying to achieve is the former rather than the latter, i.e. to defend the right of people to be allowed to discuss creationism with their biology teachers. She said 'it [creationism] doesn't have to be part of the curriculum', which implies she is not publicly in favour of forcing ID or creationism into the official textbooks.
None of those things really have the relevance to modern life as does creationism. Most students probably haven't even heard of those things, let alone come to the conclusion (correctly or otherwise) that they are scientific truth.
Okay.....? We seem to be in agreement here, I'm not denying that Palin most likely believes a variant of creationism or intelligent design. But I'm personally of the view that there is nothing particularly wrong with an individual holding these views. The argument is that Palin is not going to arbitrarily force others into accepting ID or creationism as science.
Well I don't know. I suppose the equivalent of this in theology circles, as objectively as I can call it, would be to have some kind of public lobby defending the right to discuss atheism in theological classes. But people have always done this. If you're of the opinion that science and theology are completely seperate things, then I think that has to be a two-way thing. For example, is it not OK for creationism to be discussed in a science classroom, but acceptable for Richard Dawkins to argue against the existence of a God based on scientific arguments? Yes, I know Dawkins uses some theological arguments in his books, but a great part of those books is about how science supposedly makes belief in God obsolete.
The 'free-for-all' comment was a bit of a vague reference to previous freedom of speech arguments we've had in the past and how you believe in absolute freedom of speech.
I don't think I would say that creationism or ID makes no falsifiable claims. They both claim that life came about not because of a gradual development of species over generations but through a one-off creation of all seperate species. Whilst this is not falsifiable in that creationists can theoretically argue that the creator created species only to later kill them off and introduce new ones that shared a suspiciously large amount in common with their extinct forebears, this is not a very convincing argument. Creationism also assumes that there is a beginning to life and the universe, which for a long time in science were by no means uncontested notions, they were argued about long after the formation of creationism as a worldview. Perhaps it is not a particularly rigid theory and leaves plenty of flexibility regarding specifics, but essentially I would argue that it is a theory.
Also: regardless of your view on creationism in schools, I think we can all admit that when people are forced to resign (such as happened to that poor chap from the Royal Society) for suggesting that creationism might be discussed in schools, it is getting a bit too far.
It is perfectly reasonable to use science in order to argue against God if you are making scientific claims for the existence of God. For example, the argument from "irreducible complexity" or things along those lines are attempting to use scientific findings to prove the existence of God. Likewise, the claim that God must exist as He created the world, aside from being a poor argument, is also directly testable using science. If proponents for ID wanted a theological discussion on evolution then, by all means, the discussion should be held on a theological basis. But if they discuss science then science must come into it.
Some of the claims of ID are falsifiable and have, accordingly, been proven false. However, the major claim - that God or some higher power created the universe and everything in it - is entirely untestable and thus unfalsifiable.I don't think I would say that creationism or ID makes no falsifiable claims. They both claim that life came about not because of a gradual development of species over generations but through a one-off creation of all seperate species. Whilst this is not falsifiable in that creationists can theoretically argue that the creator created species only to later kill them off and introduce new ones that shared a suspiciously large amount in common with their extinct forebears, this is not a very convincing argument. Creationism also assumes that there is a beginning to life and the universe, which for a long time in science were by no means uncontested notions, they were argued about long after the formation of creationism as a worldview. Perhaps it is not a particularly rigid theory and leaves plenty of flexibility regarding specifics, but essentially I would argue that it is a theory.
Also: regardless of your view on creationism in schools, I think we can all admit that when people are forced to resign (such as happened to that poor chap from the Royal Society) for suggesting that creationism might be discussed in schools, it is getting a bit too far.
All hell is gonna break loose no matter who wins. If Obama wins there will be African Americans who will no doubt walk around preening and prancing with cultural pride. That will infuriate white supremists, who will try to silence such "uppity" behavior with hate crimes. Conversely, if Obama loses, there will be black zealots pissed off that "the man" once again has defeated their dreams to rise. Riots will break out.
Either way, it's gonna get ugly
priceless
___________________________
sig limit is 400x150
"It was once said by a man who couldn't quit...."
NO!
Close Now.
you are retarded.
Sig too big
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks