 |
|
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
technocrat
Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 216
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 9:53 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | LOL. So now he's Michael Moore?! |
This is worse than Michael Moore, and not as funny. But I don't like Moore either.
| Quote: | | Science is very much about discovering new things, and is LITTERED with what were at the time, silly premises that are now known as true. |
Science is about discovering new things and providing efficient, accurate explanations of the natural world. Sadly, Intelligent Design comes up short here for a variety of reasons I will explain in greater depth.
1. A salient feature of science is Occam's Razor. This means that given multiple explanations of natural phenomena, the best choice is the simplest explanation that fits all known evidence. In other words, thou shalt not multiple entities in an explanation.
2. Intelligent Design, unless you're talking about aliens (but that's really doesn't answer much either), requires a divine, supernatural being which conveniently is like God without actually calling it God. This is because Intelligent Design is an evolution of Creationism. The old Creationists got knocked down, so they decided to create a new name for themselves: ID. The problem is that supernatural beliefs, such as intelligent design, are not congruent with science because of several reasons:
1. Supernatural things are beyond the nature and thus not amenable to empiricism. Supernatural terms are unfalsifiable at their vaguest formulation.
2. Secondly, the "designer" is vague and nebulous. They can't give any details about this being, they can't provide any concrete empirical evidence of said being, and they cannot provide a working mechanism for how said being does anything. I can boil their whole argument into one sentence: "I don't understand how this works, and it's really complex, therefore, a designer must have done it. "
3. Third, Intelligent Design also fails another way. It asserts that the complexity of the natural world requires an intelligent designer. This answer doesn'tt work for the obvious reason--it posits a solution to a problem by using the problem as the solution. If the natural world and living beings cannot come into existence without the presence of a complex intelligence, then it doesn't make sense to use complex intelligence as the origin of complex intelligence! Do you understand that this doesn't go anywhere, right? They just assume, by default, that their "intelligent designer" doesn't follow the same logic they use to evoke him in the first place. They simply assert he "is" and "always was" and "doesn't need an explanation." This is dishonest and useless. It explains nothing.
A. No mechanism
B. Vague terms
C. No evidence for said designer
D. Pointless begging the question.
Essentially, the entire concept of intelligent design rests on providing a vague appeal to incredulity and then positing an unfalsifiable entity to explain a phenomenon, while relying on said phenomenon tacitly. It just doesn't work.
The movie is fundamentally dishonest because of two reasons;
1. It asserts that there is some big conspiracy against creationists in the scientific world and that they are being persecuted because of their beliefs
2. It attempts to change the shift of debate to a legalistic "freedom" argument.
In reality, there is no giant conspiracy against them. The reason why you don't see many creationists publishing in peer review or instructing in well-respected positions is not because their personal beliefs are being trampled on, but because there are high standards of academic rigor their ideas cannot meet. You seem to be under the impression that the scientific community ought to be a free for all and accept everything, despite it being nonsense, just because it makes a specific group of people happy. This is poor science.
This might offend you, but it needs to be said: Creationism is absolutely NO different from Astrology in credibility. Do you believe that astrologers ought to be taken seriously by the scientific community and that the lack of astrological theory being taken seriously is some vast left-wing conspiracy against poor astrologers? I doubt it. I know what the real deal is, here, and it might offend you: you are a Christian. You sympathize with intelligent design because it gives credence to your Christian beliefs. You don't believe in astrology, so you don't give a shit about it. You are very interested in giving "equal time" to ID because it deals with God. This whole academic freedom spiel is a cover for attempting to push religion into science and undermine it.
This is what Stein is doing. He's got absolutely no knowledge of this topic, as he actually admits himself in interviews about the video. Yet he decided to make a huge polemic about it, as if he HAS knowledge about the topic. He simply has no business talking about the topic if you go by his OWN statements of knowing little about it! He doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. It's as simple as that. His degree in Economics in no way qualifies him to understand or talk about science seriously. Economics isn't biology.
Their "freedom" argument fails because they don't want freedom. They are just using that terminology to push themselves into the academic community. They are not taken seriously because of one reason: their beliefs are unsupported junk no more credible than phrenology or astrology. Of course, you disagree. I am sure astrologers would disagree too. If we took yours and his reasoning seriously, we would have to give equal time and support NOT ONLY TO CREATIONISM, but also to astrology, phrenology, and other assorted nonsense like free energy and "alternative medicine" like homeopathy. It's nonsense. Plain and simple. It sounds harsh, but it's the truth. What I.D. want is special treatment with kid gloves. That's it. Freedom is the vehicle and it's emotionally appealing when they try to spin it as them being "oppressed" by the "liberal establishment." That's simply UNTRUE.
Behe is a good example of this. I mentioned him earlier, which you ignored. His criticism of evolution and support for ID is the concept of irreducible complexity. He claims that some structures are just sooooo complex, it couldn't possibly have come about naturally. This argument fails for two reasons, one of which I outlined above.
1. It uses complexity to explain the impossibility of complexity.
2. It assumes that some structures are irreducibly complex. Yet, EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE he came up with has in fact been refuted: they are actually quite reducible. For example, he mentions the bacterial flagellum. This example has been refuted by the scientific community, yet he continually brings it up as if no one addressed it. He's dishonest. Period. I don't know how much clearer I can make this. He's a liar.
| Quote: |
Re-read that statement. And the truth comes out. Re-read that statement again. THIS is what's scary, not what Kizzume said was scary in the new thread that he made instead of identifying my many points in my earlier posts in this thread. Techno, you write smut like this and I have to be exposed to people crying about being afraid of religious extremists who want to be thought police and take away rights?!?! I love these weak minded liberals that like sheep, flock around the idea of freedom UNTIL it doesn't suit them. You sir are delusional. |
What is scary is that some people are adamant about pushing nonsensical religions beliefs not only into the public sphere, schools, but also into the scientific world. They demand that their silly beliefs be taken seriously at all costs, even if they are outright false. They want to get the freedom to peddle their nonsense or they will cry foul and claim they are being persecuted.
Intelligent Design is not science. It's pseudoscience, like 1930s Eugenics, Phrenology, and Astrology. Any credible figure actually promoting this is doing a disservice to the public and doing poor, dishonest, shoddy science. They aren't even attempting to use the scientific method, because they are putting their religious beliefs before science. They do not deserve the degree they have, and in fact, if they decide to use their "degree" to place authority behind their beliefs and influence the public, they deserve to be censured for violation of professional ethics.
It is WRONG to use their degree to promote their religious beliefs. It is WRONG to try to push their religion into the scientific community and use the legal system to force their nonsense on everyone via threat of lawsuit because they claim they are "persecuted." They know it's nonsense, just as it would be nonsense if astrologers tried the same thing. No one's rejecting their idea for the hell of it: it's rejected because it's junk science. What they want is not freedom, again: they want acceptance. That's never going to happen. It's as simple as that. The day Intelligent Design becomes accepted due to their nagging, that's the day science in America ends. We might as well pack up and g home. It's over.
| Quote: |
You say Creationism is false as a fact. What kind of idiot would expect others to take what he cannot prove as fact, AND THEN HAVE ZERO TOLERANCE FOR WHAT OTHERS BRING UP AS CURIOSITY?! You are a disgrace to freedom of thought.
|
I have no tolerance for pseudoscience, yes. I am not ashamed to admit that. I will ridicule, mock, and attack Intelligent Design just as I would other nonsense like Homeopathy and Astrology, and Scientology. I am an equal opportunity offender. Creationism Iis not just false, it's hilariously false, complete with talking animals and plants. It's a children's story for adults. Intelligent Design is little different from Creationism, except they are more vague as to make their idea meaningless.
Freedom of thought, you are under the impression, entails allowing anything and everything to go: an academic free for all, as I said. If I were to write an essay on "how the earth is made of cheese fries," it would rightfully be rejected. Just as creationism and intelligent design ought to be rejected. They posit the absurd and the unsupportable and DEMAND to be taken seriously.
You and others have double standards. For example, I know you wouldn't give the same treatment to a movie pumping Astrology or Homeopathy or perhaps...Communism. All these things have been refuted academically and discredited. Yet when ID is discredited....you still demand it be taken seriously, and if it's not, you whine and claim persecution. What about persecution of Commies and Homeopaths? Astrologers? Is academic ridicule and exclusion persecution of them too? Or just failure to take absurd, false beliefs seriously? Methinks the latter.
| Quote: |
And, that's where I stopped reading. Seriously. How ignorant are you? I'm embarrassed.
And don't bother trying to decide I'm being venomous because I'm an offended Christian. Nothing anyone can say will offend me. It just makes me SICK to see SO MANY double standards with liberals. |
I am not a Liberal. I have said this repeatedly, but yet, people never seem to listen.
Secondly, yes, he's a moron. He openly admits he doesn't know anything about the topic, yet he feels it's appropriate to pontificate about it...supporting the idea that a magical man who lives in the sky created everyone. His entire movie is what you ought to be embarrassed about. It's nonsense on stilts from beginning to end. He's like Michael Moore, only not as funny or intelligent.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2832
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| technocrat wrote: | | Quote: | | LOL. So now he's Michael Moore?! |
This is worse than Michael Moore, and not as funny. But I don't like Moore either.
| Quote: | | Science is very much about discovering new things, and is LITTERED with what were at the time, silly premises that are now known as true. |
Science is about discovering new things and providing efficient, accurate explanations of the natural world. Sadly, Intelligent Design comes up short here for a variety of reasons I will explain in greater depth.
1. A salient feature of science is Occam's Razor. This means that given multiple explanations of natural phenomena, the best choice is the simplest explanation that fits all known evidence. In other words, thou shalt not multiple entities in an explanation.
2. Intelligent Design, unless you're talking about aliens (but that's really doesn't answer much either), requires a divine, supernatural being which conveniently is like God without actually calling it God. This is because Intelligent Design is an evolution of Creationism. The old Creationists got knocked down, so they decided to create a new name for themselves: ID. The problem is that supernatural beliefs, such as intelligent design, are not congruent with science because of several reasons:
1. Supernatural things are beyond the nature and thus not amenable to empiricism. Supernatural terms are unfalsifiable at their vaguest formulation.
2. Secondly, the "designer" is vague and nebulous. They can't give any details about this being, they can't provide any concrete empirical evidence of said being, and they cannot provide a working mechanism for how said being does anything. I can boil their whole argument into one sentence: "I don't understand how this works, and it's really complex, therefore, a designer must have done it. "
3. Third, Intelligent Design also fails another way. It asserts that the complexity of the natural world requires an intelligent designer. This answer doesn'tt work for the obvious reason--it posits a solution to a problem by using the problem as the solution. If the natural world and living beings cannot come into existence without the presence of a complex intelligence, then it doesn't make sense to use complex intelligence as the origin of complex intelligence! Do you understand that this doesn't go anywhere, right? They just assume, by default, that their "intelligent designer" doesn't follow the same logic they use to evoke him in the first place. They simply assert he "is" and "always was" and "doesn't need an explanation." This is dishonest and useless. It explains nothing.
A. No mechanism
B. Vague terms
C. No evidence for said designer
D. Pointless begging the question.
Essentially, the entire concept of intelligent design rests on providing a vague appeal to incredulity and then positing an unfalsifiable entity to explain a phenomenon, while relying on said phenomenon tacitly. It just doesn't work.
The movie is fundamentally dishonest because of two reasons;
1. It asserts that there is some big conspiracy against creationists in the scientific world and that they are being persecuted because of their beliefs
2. It attempts to change the shift of debate to a legalistic "freedom" argument.
In reality, there is no giant conspiracy against them. The reason why you don't see many creationists publishing in peer review or instructing in well-respected positions is not because their personal beliefs are being trampled on, but because there are high standards of academic rigor their ideas cannot meet. You seem to be under the impression that the scientific community ought to be a free for all and accept everything, despite it being nonsense, just because it makes a specific group of people happy. This is poor science.
This might offend you, but it needs to be said: Creationism is absolutely NO different from Astrology in credibility. Do you believe that astrologers ought to be taken seriously by the scientific community and that the lack of astrological theory being taken seriously is some vast left-wing conspiracy against poor astrologers? I doubt it. I know what the real deal is, here, and it might offend you: you are a Christian. You sympathize with intelligent design because it gives credence to your Christian beliefs. You don't believe in astrology, so you don't give a shit about it. You are very interested in giving "equal time" to ID because it deals with God. This whole academic freedom spiel is a cover for attempting to push religion into science and undermine it.
This is what Stein is doing. He's got absolutely no knowledge of this topic, as he actually admits himself in interviews about the video. Yet he decided to make a huge polemic about it, as if he HAS knowledge about the topic. He simply has no business talking about the topic if you go by his OWN statements of knowing little about it! He doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. It's as simple as that. His degree in Economics in no way qualifies him to understand or talk about science seriously. Economics isn't biology.
Their "freedom" argument fails because they don't want freedom. They are just using that terminology to push themselves into the academic community. They are not taken seriously because of one reason: their beliefs are unsupported junk no more credible than phrenology or astrology. Of course, you disagree. I am sure astrologers would disagree too. If we took yours and his reasoning seriously, we would have to give equal time and support NOT ONLY TO CREATIONISM, but also to astrology, phrenology, and other assorted nonsense like free energy and "alternative medicine" like homeopathy. It's nonsense. Plain and simple. It sounds harsh, but it's the truth. What I.D. want is special treatment with kid gloves. That's it. Freedom is the vehicle and it's emotionally appealing when they try to spin it as them being "oppressed" by the "liberal establishment." That's simply UNTRUE.
Behe is a good example of this. I mentioned him earlier, which you ignored. His criticism of evolution and support for ID is the concept of irreducible complexity. He claims that some structures are just sooooo complex, it couldn't possibly have come about naturally. This argument fails for two reasons, one of which I outlined above.
1. It uses complexity to explain the impossibility of complexity.
2. It assumes that some structures are irreducibly complex. Yet, EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE he came up with has in fact been refuted: they are actually quite reducible. For example, he mentions the bacterial flagellum. This example has been refuted by the scientific community, yet he continually brings it up as if no one addressed it. He's dishonest. Period. I don't know how much clearer I can make this. He's a liar.
| Quote: |
Re-read that statement. And the truth comes out. Re-read that statement again. THIS is what's scary, not what Kizzume said was scary in the new thread that he made instead of identifying my many points in my earlier posts in this thread. Techno, you write smut like this and I have to be exposed to people crying about being afraid of religious extremists who want to be thought police and take away rights?!?! I love these weak minded liberals that like sheep, flock around the idea of freedom UNTIL it doesn't suit them. You sir are delusional. |
What is scary is that some people are adamant about pushing nonsensical religions beliefs not only into the public sphere, schools, but also into the scientific world. They demand that their silly beliefs be taken seriously at all costs, even if they are outright false. They want to get the freedom to peddle their nonsense or they will cry foul and claim they are being persecuted.
Intelligent Design is not science. It's pseudoscience, like 1930s Eugenics, Phrenology, and Astrology. Any credible figure actually promoting this is doing a disservice to the public and doing poor, dishonest, shoddy science. They aren't even attempting to use the scientific method, because they are putting their religious beliefs before science. They do not deserve the degree they have, and in fact, if they decide to use their "degree" to place authority behind their beliefs and influence the public, they deserve to be censured for violation of professional ethics.
It is WRONG to use their degree to promote their religious beliefs. It is WRONG to try to push their religion into the scientific community and use the legal system to force their nonsense on everyone via threat of lawsuit because they claim they are "persecuted." They know it's nonsense, just as it would be nonsense if astrologers tried the same thing. No one's rejecting their idea for the hell of it: it's rejected because it's junk science. What they want is not freedom, again: they want acceptance. That's never going to happen. It's as simple as that. The day Intelligent Design becomes accepted due to their nagging, that's the day science in America ends. We might as well pack up and g home. It's over.
| Quote: |
You say Creationism is false as a fact. What kind of idiot would expect others to take what he cannot prove as fact, AND THEN HAVE ZERO TOLERANCE FOR WHAT OTHERS BRING UP AS CURIOSITY?! You are a disgrace to freedom of thought.
|
I have no tolerance for pseudoscience, yes. I am not ashamed to admit that. I will ridicule, mock, and attack Intelligent Design just as I would other nonsense like Homeopathy and Astrology, and Scientology. I am an equal opportunity offender. Creationism Iis not just false, it's hilariously false, complete with talking animals and plants. It's a children's story for adults. Intelligent Design is little different from Creationism, except they are more vague as to make their idea meaningless.
Freedom of thought, you are under the impression, entails allowing anything and everything to go: an academic free for all, as I said. If I were to write an essay on "how the earth is made of cheese fries," it would rightfully be rejected. Just as creationism and intelligent design ought to be rejected. They posit the absurd and the unsupportable and DEMAND to be taken seriously.
You and others have double standards. For example, I know you wouldn't give the same treatment to a movie pumping Astrology or Homeopathy or perhaps...Communism. All these things have been refuted academically and discredited. Yet when ID is discredited....you still demand it be taken seriously, and if it's not, you whine and claim persecution. What about persecution of Commies and Homeopaths? Astrologers? Is academic ridicule and exclusion persecution of them too? Or just failure to take absurd, false beliefs seriously? Methinks the latter.
| Quote: |
And, that's where I stopped reading. Seriously. How ignorant are you? I'm embarrassed.
And don't bother trying to decide I'm being venomous because I'm an offended Christian. Nothing anyone can say will offend me. It just makes me SICK to see SO MANY double standards with liberals. |
I am not a Liberal. I have said this repeatedly, but yet, people never seem to listen.
Secondly, yes, he's a moron. He openly admits he doesn't know anything about the topic, yet he feels it's appropriate to pontificate about it...supporting the idea that a magical man who lives in the sky created everyone. His entire movie is what you ought to be embarrassed about. It's nonsense on stilts from beginning to end. He's like Michael Moore, only not as funny or intelligent. |
Very very harsh, but in actuality, very well said.
If there was something more specific that ID was pushing other than the idea that a creator created all this (and of course, the answer to who created the creator never gets touched), it might have some validity, but ID, to me, is nothing more than a push to inject religion into science. Whether the creator we're speaking of is of the Bible, the Koran, or writings associated with the flying spaghetti monster, it's still a religious concept, whether the religion is organized or not.
There are SO SO SO many theories that scientists have come up with that they don't really talk about because they have no way of proving those theories. Once the scientific community is told they MUST/HAVE TO accept a theory that can't be proven, science is on its way out. Pushing Intelligent Design as a VALID theory is one of the biggest threats to science that we have ever come across. Once scientists don't actually have to prove anything, scientific study becomes utterly useless.
Did Einstein demand that the scientific community accept his theory that "God does not play dice"? Hell no! He knew better than that! ID pushers really need to get their panties out of a bind until they can actually offer SOME sort of ANYTHING to back up their theories.
_________________
Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jq
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 1124
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am all about giving religious tolerance to everyone. However, it should be noted that many Christians throughout history have been very intolerant of people who aren't Christian. Clearly not all-- we've had some very open minded and cutting edge Christians, many of which also pioneered the way for positive changes, in the world and in our own country. Bono would be a great example of a model modern day Christian. So would Martin Luther King jr.
| Hackfest wrote: | I love these weak minded liberals that like sheep, flock around the idea of freedom UNTIL it doesn't suit them........
Nothing anyone can say will offend me. It just makes me SICK to see SO MANY double standards with liberals.
|
I don't think too many people are freaked out by Christians. And I find it too bad that you've chosen to generalize all liberals as being a certain way,-- especially since I am liberal and do not have a problem with Christianity at all. I certainly wouldn't make the accusation that Christians as a whole are all the same way, as Christianity makes up a huge group of people, much of whom have been fluid to change for better or worse depending on their circumstances in their country. I'd say it is a more truthful statement to admit that people of any culture, ideology or religion can and often are guilty of double standards. It is more a human condition than a liberal or a Christian one.
I'm going to try not to make the same mistake that is easy to make in these sort of debates and make sure not to treat Christians like they are all one breed. I know they are not. Just like not all liberals are anti-God or anti-religion.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2832
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Also well said JQ.
I have no problem with religious people as long as they aren't trying to inject their religion around every corner into everything and get upset and cry foul when people reject it. It's the extremists like Robertson and Dobson who I have a problem with. I have a problem when people try to cram dominionism down people's throats. If you don't know what dominionism is, here's a definition from wikipedia:
| Quote: | | Dominionism describes, in several distinct ways, a tendency among some conservative politically-active Christians to seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action — aiming either at a nation governed by Christians or a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law. The use and application of this terminology is a matter of controversy. |
It goes a lot deeper than that into this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism
This is the type of thing I am afraid of, and there ARE a lot of politically active people who "call" themselves Christians pushing for this sort of thing, particularly on the right wing. Ben Stein pretty much lost ALL my respect when I learned of his trying to cram that "creator" thing with the foundings of this government--that was the one that took the cake for me. He appears to be a dominionist, a reconstructionist to a degree, just like Robertson and Dobson, and to a lesser degree, O'Reilly--religious dominionist neocons (neocons, not conservatives). I put Ben Stein in that category now, and I am so very very deeply disappointed in learning this about him.
Just because in the past, ideas such as these were considered normal, it doesn't mean it will always be that way. Yes, religious people have to work harder to get their religious ideas taken seriously now than ever before. Yes, that is happening, and it will continue to happen as newer generations are less and less religious (unless they're brought up at private religious schools). The less religion that is in schools, the less religious the next generation will be.
Many people who are religious are trying to preserve those religious ideas and ideals as much as they possibly can, and it seems some people like Stein, and scientists who just can't keep their religion out of their work, and Pat Robertson, and James Dobson, and Jerry Falwell (one of the few people I can say I'm actually glad he's no longer poisoning people with his negativity and hate said with a smug smiling face), are willing to take some interesting depths to try to peddle their religious beliefs onto people in their attempt to live in denial of provable scientific reality.
It is a HUGE jump that because there are similarities to everything that it had to have been created by someone/something intelligent. There IS NO scientific basis for it, there's no way to prove it, and to me changing "creationism" into "intelligent design" is propaganda in an attempt to make a religious issue look like one that isn't religious.
What's really sad to me is that the people who are pushing for intelligent design usually don't know jack shit about Darwinian theory. Seedless bananas and so many other "modified" foods we wouldn't even have if it were not for Darwinian theory. "Survival of the fittest" is the primary aspect of it, but what always gets people's panties in a bind is the aspects to it that shove forth that people are animals, that we're really not much different from other animals. People want to believe that we're "chosen", that we're really really really special, that we are more important than everything else, that we were created on purpose, and most of all, that we're here to enslave everything that can't speak English directly and say "you're making my life miserable" (all plants and animals other than humans) because of the book of genesis and traditional thinking and because "that's just the way it is, we're better". What's funny about the whole thing is that the very thing that we do, enslaving the things around us, is part of the "survival of the fittest" theory--the people who are against Darwinian theory are actually promoting it at the same time. This is what one of the things that make the whole intelligent design "debate" so ridiculous.
I think the astrology argument pretty much says it all.
Hackfest: | Quote: | | What kind of idiot would expect others to take what he cannot prove as fact, AND THEN HAVE ZERO TOLERANCE FOR WHAT OTHERS BRING UP AS CURIOSITY?! You are a disgrace to freedom of thought. |
Freedom of thought? And Darwinian theory HAS been proven in abundance, what has not been proven is whether we "come from apes" or not.
Many people in the scientific have brought up the idea of intelligent design as a curiosity, but they really can't go anywhere with those ideas because it is a belief that requires that people believe in a higher power, just like Einstein believed "god does not play dice" but didn't tell people he was being persecuted and whine because people weren't considering it. Many people have wondered what "dark matter" is in space, but they don't take a huge jump of logic and say something like "It's god's pillow, he needs it to sleep", they try to study observable things, things that can be mathematically diagnosed. There's no way for them to research "God's pillow". There's no way to research Adam and Eve. There's no way to research the idea that things were created by a creator--it's POINTLESS in the scientific community to say we were created by a creator because there's no study that can even ATTEMPT to prove it. It is nothing less than the attempt to prove religion through science. I don't see a problem with people trying to do this, but to jump on the rest of the scientific community for not wanting to consider it is unreasonable. Trying to get people to consider "intelligent design" is NO DIFFERENT than trying to get people to consider "a higher power" or "God"--it is pure propaganda, junk science, and total rubbish.
I agree with Technocrat that the scientists that are throwing a tissyfit because they can't get the scientific community to consider the concept of a higher power or "god" should be stripped of their credentials. To those scientists: You may have your personal beliefs, but to try to hold the scientific community hostage for not considering your personal beliefs is simply NOT acceptable.
_________________
Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2832
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry for going on for so long about it--this subject is really sore one for me--my feelings are VERY strong about it, probably over-the-top. I didn't mean to offend anyone in my previous post, but I needed to truly say how I felt about the subject.
_________________
Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hackfest
Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 413
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, quite a bit has happened since my last post, eh? As much as I didn't want to, I took the time to read everything. What I'm not going to do is take the time to answer it. Mostly because my response would be lost on all of you. I know that sounds elitist, and I can honestly tell you, that's not at all how I mean it. But by reading each of your posts, I see that you have strong feelings partially based on passion, which is dangerous, and are extremely defensive. Some of you admit this (Kizzume) and others are transparent (Technocrat, changing his sig once again in an attempt to offend, btw poorer taste in making a point there couldn't be). Along with being misunderstood on very basic levels (Kizzume's quote of my post that called out Technocrat's double standard of spewing unprovable things as fact, "ID IS FALSE", to which Kizzume responded as if it meant something totally different . . . to jq thinking I somehow meant ALL liberals when it was clear to me even by the part he quoted what kind of liberal I meant), perhaps in part due to this defensiveness, I see that this is something people's minds are made up on already. It's a bit different for me, partially because I don't need faith to know that God exists. It started that way, but through events in my life, I know for a fact God exists, as surely as any of you know that when you close your eyes you can't see. I know this isn't the case for everyone. But for me, everything you guys talk about is like watching a re-run with people who have never seen the show. Again, I'm sorry if I sound elitist, but what do you want me to do . . . lie? BTW, Kizzume, now that you put Stein in your extremist group, I no longer concerned that you put O'Reilly in there before.
_________________
The Democratic Anthem: The American Dream is okay! Until you make $250,000. Then you're the devil.
I can always count on message boards to consistently shatter my faith in humanity.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2832
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
You may not need faith to "know" God exists, but other people DO. Intelligent Design REQUIRES that one believes in a higher power in order for it to make any sense.
Anyone that wants to change this country to be more religion-centric I'm going to put into that extremist group. Stein complaining and whining that people aren't even SLIGHTLY considering Intelligent Design and him complaining that scientists are being persecuted for trying to convert people into considering ID puts him in that same category.
As far as your possible response being lost on us--being that I don't believe in a higher power in the same way that ID requires, the answer WOULD be lost on me. The thing is, this issue only makes sense to people who believe strongly in a higher power. To me, your answer was kind-of a cop-out. I almost think what you're trying to say is that "you just have to believe and if you don't then you just wouldn't understand."
Can you at least admit that Intelligent Design is an attempt at proving religious beliefs with science (it is an attempt at proving the concept of a higher power, and that a higher power created everything), and if you can't, can you explain how it is different in your opinion?
Please, explain how the concept of Intelligent Design makes any sense without the belief in a higher power.
_________________
Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
technocrat
Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 216
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I went through the trouble of posting a reasoned rebuttal and explanation, and he doesn't even have the decency to respond because he doesn't like what I had to say.
That's a shame.
And then he couches his last response in an insulting passive-aggressive attack on anyone what makes them look "emotional" and stupid for disagreeing with him, despite not addressing the validity of the ideas. . 
_________________
Last edited by technocrat on Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
technocrat
Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 216
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You didn't address any of the points I made, and I took the time to point out to why why Intelligent Design fails as an adequate explanation and why this "documetnary" is bad. You just ignored it, insulted me and anyone else with your "you just don't understand" routine while avoiding any actual rebuttal-making. You then claim "I just know God exists" and assert it as definitive proof. Point out where I made a mistake in my reasoning and in my points attacking Intelligent Design.
You have claimed I have a double standard; I have no double standard. That's untrue.
You "know" God exists about as much as people "know" ghosts exist. That is, they just think they do. It's not based on any testable, replicatable evidence.
I have not said anything that's unprovable. I said ID is false. I listed what that means. Many of their claims are false, while others they have are unfalsifiable and thus useless. Refer to my statement regarding Complexity and Irreducibility. Of course, I could go into more detail about it.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2832
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I should make it clear, also, WHY I am so against the government doing anything to possibly promote religion.
The thing that makes SO MANY (but not all) of the primarily Islamic countries absolute SHIT come in the form of two words: Sharia Law
Sharia law is basically the implementation of religious values from the Koran into EVERYTHING. I want to be vigilant in keeping this from ever happening with the Bible here, and you know as well as I do that the people can take sections of the Bible literally that would really mess things up for a lot of people of they were put into law. I'm going to be vigilant to make sure that ANYTHING that even HINTS at doing such is going to be questioned and potentially shunned.
Maybe to some degree I am being similar to what the McCarthyism era in reverse and I'll be able to fully see how I was being later on, I don't know, but I just know that during times when the countries we are having the most problems with HAVE the problems they do BECAUSE they have inserted religion into EVERYTHING, it just seems really asinine to start injecting religion into things it has no business being in.
Let me also say this--there IS a very very remote possibility that everything that we know in existence was created by something intelligent. It's not a very big possibility if you look at the way many things unfold, but still, even if ID was something that people knew as a fact, how does that help us? How does that change the way we look for things in a positive way towards finding new things? How does it benefit science in ANY way? Seriously.
If you can tell us how this sort of thing could benefit science, I'd really love to know about it. How does "knowing" that everything has a creator HELP science? Are we supposed to be looking at some sort of universal fingerprint? Well that's already established, depending on how you look at things--one person can look at a wrinkled napkin and just see a napkin and someone else can look at it and see Mother Mary and almost pass out because they were so moved. What I mean by it's already established is--you just look at the fact that we are made out of the same matter--that within itself could be looked at as a fingerprint, but it could also simply be looked at as the simple fact that we are made up out of the same matter.
I've read many people talk about their feelings about Intelligent Design, but one of these ramblings I've ever read have EVER talked about how this idea could benefit science. Generally, it's people complaining about it not being taken seriously, and I've just seen it SOOOO many times that I guess I have prepared answers for it to some degree. I'm SOOO tired of people trying to push for ID theory to be taken seriously by "science". I'm trying to find articles, but all I find is the same shit--people complaining about it not being taken seriously and the people like me who are just saying "what the fuck?!" because it's just not making sense what all the hubbub is about, and why the proponents of ID can't see it for what it is--it is an attempt to prove religious beliefs with science AND it is an attempt to interject their religious beliefs onto the scientific community so they can pretend that the stereotype of religion generally being anti-science really isn't true, and the attempt is failing miserably.
Changing "Creationism" into "Intelligent Design" is a very similar attempt as it was several hundred years ago in trying to get pagans to switch to Catholicism--they'd use their worship of "Goddess" into worshiping "Mother Mary", and it is also similar to when they took the pagan celebration of winter solstice and turned it into Christmas--it's a way of trying to interject religion into something in a very sneaky manner, and this time around the attempts are failing miserably. I'm just thankful that it wasn't the way it was before there was proof that the earth is round--to where denying that it was flat was blasphemous and could get you killed in the wrong circles.
At least now there is debate and civility to the whole thing, it's just people getting angry, there isn't anyone getting killed over it, or at least, nothing that's getting on the news. But so far, science is winning, thankfully. This makes me very happy.
The reviews of Stein's movie makes me very happy. The fact that he couldn't pull off a convincing argument to be upset over it (because there IS no convincing argument that I've read yet, please prove me if I'm wrong) to anyone makes me very happy.
Do I think it should be looked into seriously? As much as the potential that the universe is not actually curved.
_________________
Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jq
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 1124
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kizzume wrote: |
Sharia law is basically the implementation of religious values from the Koran into EVERYTHING. I want to be vigilant in keeping this from ever happening with the Bible here, and you know as well as I do that the people can take sections of the Bible literally that would really mess things up for a lot of people of they were put into law. I'm going to be vigilant to make sure that ANYTHING that even HINTS at doing such is going to be questioned and potentially shunned.
|
I don' mean to split hairs, but technically that isn't true. Sharia law does NOT come out of the Qu'ran, but is a somewhat vague set of ideals which come from a variety of sources. (The Qu'ran, but also the Hadith, the community and the elders.) Technically, the rules of Sharia are not set in stone, and not stuck on paper, and much of sharia law was implemented long AFTER the Qu'ran and many of the laws were written out from people other than Mohommed.
Splitting hairs I realize, but if we're going to use Sharia law as an example for why influence from the Bible is bad we should be accurate about the fact that it isn't spelled out in the Qu'ran.
Now, about the Bible. You say you would be vigilant about ANYTHING that even HINTS at such, but I am sure you are aware that many-- MANY-- of our laws are based off of Biblical ones. Most of our laws have been influenced by Christianity and are already in place. And MOST of them seem pretty reasonable. Save for just a few, only one of which I can actually think of right now:
Gay Rights-- this is despicable. Oppression of homosexuals is completely wrong and does not provide the freedom we preach to give to everyone. If we are going to give religious freedom, that is great, but that shouldn't include the freedom to oppress.Save for the overall current Christian view on homosexual rights, (I hope and believe this can change) I'd say most of our already established laws (Do not Murder, do not steal, etc) are good ones.
Remember that Jesus didn't oppress anybody. In fact, on a human rights level, if we are to treat him as simply a person, he was one hell of a good guy for his time. He treated women with a fairness that hadn't previously been seen in history, and he spoke out AGAINST the church and the pharisees for their corruption and hypocrisy. Remember the roots of Christianity, and that they came from someone who was a revolutionary in how we treat one another. Jesus didn't call for violence, I think ever, (I could be wrong on that though.)He is famous for his line "Turn the Other Cheek." When Peter was ready to defend Jesus with a sword, and he cut a guy's ear off!!!, Jesus said something along the lines of "Hold it, we aren't going to do this sort of thing." He healed the soldier's ear, the same guy who was coming to take him away!
If you haven't read the "Sermon on the Mount," you should! Here is part of it:
| Quote: | 1 Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, 2 and he began to teach them saying:
3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
|
[The rest can be found on Matthew 5]
Not exactly offensive, is it? In fact, what is he saying? "Blessed are the peacekeepers," "Blessed are the merciful," etc. This is brilliant stuff. This was said 2000 years ago!
I think it is really easy to go to far on either side. I think it would be easy to fear everything Christian-- which is unnecessary -- or to take an extreme conservative view, too. I think somewhere in the middle lies the truth with just about everything. And for the record, I'd say we've done way better being influenced by Christianity than if we were influenced by Sharia law. Our country is certainly not perfect-- in fact, it is riddled with flaws, BUT, in relation to history, we have come a long way.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2832
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nothing offensive there. However, things like "thou shall not have any gods before me" push much of that away.
If we're JUST talking about the words of Jesus, there is no war, no prejudice, no real problems if people actually followed JUST what Jesus says--the things he says are primarily philosophical, and they are beautiful things, even when he got angry when he was speaking against people for selling things at the church, the things he said seemed right on.
The thing is, there are very few people out there who CALL themselves Christians--key word CALL--who actually just follow the words of Jesus. When I look at Jesus' teachings, he seemed to be stressing that everyone can actually be like him. I personally like the interpretation that was given in the movie "the Last Temptation of Christ", as the things he was saying went VERY far against what the others believed. The movie gave the interpretation I've had of his teachings for a long time.
People generally do not follow the teachings of Jesus. They instead use the religion that came after he died (mixed with what was before he was alive) that was pushed forth by people who suddenly turn him into a religion that really has nothing to do with what he talked about. To me, the concepts that Jesus pushes forth are very similar to Buddhist philosophy, and that is why you will NEVER hear me ranking on Jesus. The philosophies he pushed forth could help everyone, quite honestly.
There are many GOOD things in the Bible. There are also many negative things in the Bible, things that can be used as weapons JUST as things written in the Koran can be used as a weapon.
In this country, the view of a religion as a whole is going to be averaged out with the ones that are extreme, and until there is a time when we look at those that are extreme as what they are, but still allowing them to say what they want, the ones who DO pay attention to this need to be vigilant in keeping this sort of thing from happening here.
I have a little more reason to be paranoid than many other people. In countries that implement a set of Sharia law, I would be killed in a horrible way. There are a number of passages in the Old Testament of the Bible that speak against homosexuality, and there are a number of people out there who would be very happy if similar laws to many in those countries were applied here. Just like there are a LOT of racists out there, there are a lot of people who hate/dislike/don't-want-to-be-around gay people just as much, and I have a lot of fear around that.
----------------------------------------------
JQ: Thank you for making it more clear about Sharia Law.
_________________
Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hackfest
Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 413
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I re-read my post up until Technocrat started ranting. As much as it pains me to say this, everything you said was worthless to the subject. Can you guess why? I bet not, because you're too wrapped up in the "debate" you invented. Nothing I said AT ALL ever talked about ID being correct. Nothing I said at all claimed it should be science. From the beginning I stated (and plainly, I might add) that I was excited about it because IN THE FOUR MINUTE INTERVIEW Stein talked about the idea of asking questions in Science, not ANYTHING you talked about. See here for easy, follow along reference in case you easily get derailed trying to talk about a different subject again:
| Hackfest wrote: | | I agree there. It's not about that though. The documentary focuses on the fact that Ivy League scientists are being driven out based on their beliefs. By hypocrites. Exposing hypocrites = win + fun. |
I have not seen the film, nor did I claim so, and my interjections were based on the interview I posted. Not that I would take at face value your opinion of the movie. As an example of possible slant, here is an excerpt from the ew.com review comment page I found interesting:
"Funny how the word "bias" wasn't mentioned once in EW's gushing 800-word review of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11"; instead, the film was lauded as "a catharsis," "potent," and "highly resonant." EW saved pejoratives like "bias," "heavy-handed," and "exasperating" for its 94-word review of Ben Stein's documentary . . ."
(Kizzume gave a long list of bad reviews for a film I have yet to see, I started at his bottom link and will continue up the list. From the looks of some of the reviews, I probably will see this film.)
Really?! Didn't use the word "bias" one time in Fahrenheit? Sounds pretty credible, I think there's no possibility at all of any kind of media agenda happening here.
Hey, here's my next post, since it is clear you didn't read any of them. Right? I mean, how else could you attempt to turn what I said into the conclusion I'll quote you on after we review, you know, just to make sure I'm not missing something 
| Hackfest wrote: |
Meh, I didn't hear or see anything that should make someone defensive as to the motives of this. No one said ANYTHING about proving anything. The guy goes so far as to say that the God idea could be completely wrong. I also didn't hear anything that said creationism should be taught as a science, but only as another theory or potential helping cause. This is done in science based discussion all the time. I don't see AT ALL how this turns into the paranoid delusion of not talking about anything else that has some facts. I get the feeling that your answer is rooted in someone else's approach to this, maybe from somewhere else. Someone harsher maybe? Maybe Robertson? Your answer seems to respond to what sounds like an attack on science, nothing at all remotely like the video link I posted. |
See, there's me in essence saying "God will burn you all! ID is my way to validity, since I can't seem to stand on my fragile, shaky belief system of hobgoblins and ghosts. I NEED ID TAUGHT IN PUBLIC SKOOL!!11!! Then I can email Pat Robertson and tell him to execute plan 66."
| technocrat wrote: |
I know what the real deal is, here, and it might offend you: you are a Christian. You sympathize with intelligent design because it gives credence to your Christian beliefs. You don't believe in astrology, so you don't give a shit about it. You are very interested in giving "equal time" to ID because it deals with God.
|
You are a cynical bitter individual who comes across like an idiot. Who happens to be completely wrong. You certainly presume to tell people what they think. Good luck with that. Well, I've done all I can by showing you my posts. And you've certainly defended . . . something else really well. Glad I could be your phantom counterpoint maker. Everything that you have said about me has been baseless and typical, probably applicable to most Christians. But that's not me. Alright then, enough time wasted here, I need to go play some Call of Duty 4. Do me a favor though, make sure you don't misquote me like you did in your Ben Stein quote in your signature. You know, I scoured the internet, I just couldn't find when or where he said that.
_________________
The Democratic Anthem: The American Dream is okay! Until you make $250,000. Then you're the devil.
I can always count on message boards to consistently shatter my faith in humanity.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2832
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hackfest wrote: | Well, I re-read my post up until Technocrat started ranting. As much as it pains me to say this, everything you said was worthless to the subject. Can you guess why? I bet not, because you're too wrapped up in the "debate" you invented. Nothing I said AT ALL ever talked about ID being correct. Nothing I said at all claimed it should be science.
|
I don't understand. If you think ID should be considered by scientists, then you think it should be part of science. If you can tell me how I'm wrong in that deduction, please explain how.
| Quote: |
From the beginning I stated (and plainly, I might add) that I was excited about it because IN THE FOUR MINUTE INTERVIEW Stein talked about the idea of asking questions in Science, not ANYTHING you talked about. See here for easy, follow along reference in case you easily get derailed trying to talk about a different subject again:
| Hackfest wrote: | | I agree there. It's not about that though. The documentary focuses on the fact that Ivy League scientists are being driven out based on their beliefs. By hypocrites. Exposing hypocrites = win + fun. |
I have not seen the film, nor did I claim so, and my interjections were based on the interview I posted. Not that I would take at face value your opinion of the movie. As an example of possible slant, here is an excerpt from the ew.com review comment page I found interesting:
"Funny how the word "bias" wasn't mentioned once in EW's gushing 800-word review of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11"; instead, the film was lauded as "a catharsis," "potent," and "highly resonant." EW saved pejoratives like "bias," "heavy-handed," and "exasperating" for its 94-word review of Ben Stein's documentary . . ."
(Kizzume gave a long list of bad reviews for a film I have yet to see, I started at his bottom link and will continue up the list. From the looks of some of the reviews, I probably will see this film.)
|
Interestingly enough, I looked for some reviews of 9/11, and found this, which contains links to several reviews including the EW of Farenheit 9/11. | Quote: |
Really?! Didn't use the word "bias" one time in Fahrenheit? Sounds pretty credible, I think there's no possibility at all of any kind of media agenda happening here.
|
Nope, not one mention of the word bias--it was completely biased TOWARDS Michael Moore's opinion and take on the subject. | Quote: |
Hey, here's my next post, since it is clear you didn't read any of them. Right? I mean, how else could you attempt to turn what I said into the conclusion I'll quote you on after we review, you know, just to make sure I'm not missing something
| Hackfest wrote: |
Meh, I didn't hear or see anything that should make someone defensive as to the motives of this. |
|
I do. I see a LOT to be defensive about. Trying to make scientists consider ID is nothing short of cramming religion down their throats because, again, in order to believe in ID, you have to believe in a higher power or God/s. | Quote: | | Quote: | | No one said ANYTHING about proving anything. The guy goes so far as to say that the God idea could be completely wrong. |
|
Wow. That's really going far, let me tell you.  Seriously, read that last sentence before my interjection that you are currently reading that I am typing. Science assumes things from a non-religious viewpoint. Sure, there are people that are religious studying science, but they're not trying to get other scientists to consider their religious theories. | Quote: | | Quote: | | I also didn't hear anything that said creationism should be taught as a science, but only as another theory or potential helping cause. |
|
This is exactly what I'm talking about. I can not think of ANY advantage that thinking of things from the perspective of a higher power would BENEFIT scientific study. | Quote: | | Quote: | | This is done in science based discussion all the time. I don't see AT ALL how this turns into the paranoid delusion of not talking about anything else that has some facts. |
|
Why is it so important to mention? Why is it SO important to mention religious beliefs in a scientific discussion? Sure, if debating points are what is wanted, that's exactly what someone might bring up, but to actually talk about science, it has NO business there. It's a theory that we can't even begin to know how to prove in any way shape or form. It's like trying to prove what someone was thinking in 1876--we're never going to really be able to prove one way or the other exactly what someone was thinking. | Quote: | | Quote: | | I get the feeling that your answer is rooted in someone else's approach to this, maybe from somewhere else. Someone harsher maybe? Maybe Robertson? Your answer seems to respond to what sounds like an attack on science, nothing at all remotely like the video link I posted. |
|
Trying to force scientists to consider ID IS AN ATTACK ON SCIENCE. I just don't understand how you can think otherwise--it absolutely boggles my mind. | Quote: |
See, there's me in essence saying "God will burn you all! ID is my way to validity, since I can't seem to stand on my fragile, shaky belief system of hobgoblins and ghosts. I NEED ID TAUGHT IN PUBLIC SKOOL!!11!! Then I can email Pat Robertson and tell him to execute plan 66."
| technocrat wrote: |
I know what the real deal is, here, and it might offend you: you are a Christian. You sympathize with intelligent design because it gives credence to your Christian beliefs. You don't believe in astrology, so you don't give a shit about it. You are very interested in giving "equal time" to ID because it deals with God.
|
You are a cynical bitter individual who comes across like an idiot. Who happens to be completely wrong. You certainly presume to tell people what they think. Good luck with that. Well, I've done all I can by showing you my posts. And you've certainly defended . . . something else really well. Glad I could be your phantom counterpoint maker. Everything that you have said about me has been baseless and typical, probably applicable to most Christians. But that's not me. Alright then, enough time wasted here, I need to go play some Call of Duty 4. Do me a favor though, make sure you don't misquote me like you did in your Ben Stein quote in your signature. You know, I scoured the internet, I just couldn't find when or where he said that. |
[/quote]I don't like to think of you the way that Technocrat describes, and I think he's wrong about you, or at least I really hope he's wrong about you. Can you PLEASE explain a few things so I understand a little more. I try to be open minded to religious beliefs as much as I can, but to expect science to be open minded to it just seems really really strange to me.
There have been a lot of attacks on both sides, and I don't think either side really quite realizes it because this is a touchy subject. So, for people of BOTH sides on this, please try to look at the meat and potatoes of what the other person is saying on this. Sometimes wording can get really harsh and even derogatory, but I am seeing people attempting to make their points as much as they know how, but I think both sides could do better at this debate (except JQ who has been very diplomatic about this whole thing).
I'm trying to be diplomatic, but my strong feelings on this subject somewhat get the best of me.
Hackfest, it really would help me understand your perspective on this a bit more if you answered some of the things I've been asking. I know you're upset with me for putting Stein in a neocon category, and I'm sorry that's the way I feel about him, but that's the way I feel about him. Maybe you can give some links to some speeches from him that show how much he hates the whole neocon reconstructionist thing and I can start to build back up a respect for him. But more importantly, I really would like to know how making scientists consider ID or making it part of a discussion about science in schools can help science at all, other than to bash religion. --you KNOW that's what it gets used for when it gets talked about in science classes, don't you? It's usually used to bash religion. Why do you WANT that to happen?
_________________
Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
technocrat
Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 216
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| | |
