User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 27

  1. #11
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    No doubt, the spectrum in which this movement operates is respectable. One must "test the waters" if you will, before attempting to implement a genuine, well-constructed "BIG LIE". The systematic dismantling of the scientific process is a feat worthy of legend, and it is something that I feel very strongly about. It is the work of a genius sociopath, or of a truly fanatic believer. In either case, I respect the tenacity with which these legislators fight to discredit such a fundamental and largely explicable phenomenon in the universe. I do, however, take great offense towards the implementation of what is, by any measure of definition, a non-scientific curriculum over an established, scientific explanation of the living world. I feel that, given enough repetition, and given similar tenacity over a long enough period of time, one's interpretation of reality can, in fact, become distorted.

    The scientific and non-scientific exist independently, with a real barrier between them. What this story represents to me is a systematic dismantling of the wall between reality and fiction. It is one thing to question the consensus of the scientific community, this is done every minute of every hour of every day, but to a distinctly separate end. We do not admit evidence to be considered and evaluated without first demonstrating that the data is derived using the scientific method. This is what separates creationism from science, and it is why this story is troubling. We do not promote ignorance to expand our knowledge of the universe, and it is immoral to strip the capacity for individuals to apply reason and knowledge for the sake of satisfying a base of the electorate.

    I very much view this issue under the context of a discernible dichotomy between reality and fantasy, but we can go further. We have a choice between believing something demonstrable through evidence and reason, or rejecting this (and all of the nuggets of wisdom that coincide with our progress being made, even on this very day, toward understanding the phenomenon of evolution) in favor of a fantasy. This is the anti-Enlightenment, and it is growing, rather than shrinking. I feel very strongly about this subject.


    ^ Very well done, sir.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    Oh, I agree completely. Just trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, which is most likely not deserved.

    Back when I learned it for the first time in high school, the teacher said something like "this is a controversial topic, but you're expected to know about evolution for this class. You can believe what you want", which was fine. We didn't learn anything about creationism of course. In university we didn't really discuss the controversy side of things (at least with regard to creationism), since that's not really an interesting debate in the scientific community ("evolution is the most valid scientific theory that we have to explain human origins, and should be taught in science classes!" "well yeah, obviously")
    Here is the problem. If there was any validity in a theory, it would stake a claim in the academic discussion, regardless of any action taken by lawmakers. Nobody has to pass controversial legislation to allow for a dialogue between the proponents of two opposing views. This isn't even an opposing scientific view, because it isn't science. There is not a shred of scientific evidence to promote the dialogue to begin with, instead it is manufactured by fanatics and liars, and then forced (by law) into the academic community as if it were valid to begin with. The moment where a political organization (the state congress, for example) becomes involved in dictating what is and is not science is one where our attention should be immediately be drawn. The lack of attention here by citizens with a strong understanding of the scientific process is alarming. I am now an alarmist, but I don't feel guilty at all.

    When a researcher indicates that X is happening, there is no political intervention, there is only validation that this is occurring. It happens because results obtained through the scientific process may be replicated to determine whether the statement that X is happening is valid or invalid. There is no legislation passed, there is only affirmation of truth through consensus and meticulous peer review.

    This is why this legislation is an assault on reason and this is why these legislators should be chastised before our grasp on what is true and what is not true becomes meaningless, and is instead dictated by popular opinion (we still vote for these politicians, naturally), rather than actual science.

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nancynobullets View Post
    If by "harm" you mean "not support the beliefs of", then yes.

    But if you mean "harm" as in "make suffer", then no.

    The loss of these bills does not harm a hair on any religious person's head, nor is its purpose to turn people against religion. Evolution is the best theory science has to explain matters, so it should be taught in SCIENCE classes.

    I have wondered though, don't schools in America have religious education lessons? I had them when I was in high school in the UK.
    I think creationism does harm religiosity, its an antiquated idea born of solo scripture and other theological wrangles which most of its present day support are largely ignorant off anyway, so long as religiosity is considered synonymous with such things it will be all the easier, whatever impulses to the contrary they have, for people to shake any spiritual leanings or longing and embrace despondent atheism.

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patches View Post
    I find it bothersome. My high school biology class had to include both creation and evolution. I remember very vividly my Bio teacher saying, "I'm going to present to you both the story of creation, as well as the theory of evolution. You will be expected to understand both, to be able to answer questions based on both on an exam. You may choose for yourself what you believe in, but you will be expected to understand both." I sat there wondering why I was being tested on bible verses in a Biology class.

    It's absurd. A biology class is where science is taught. If you also would like your children to be taught the story of creation - do it at home, or at church. What about the other religions? Christianity isn't the only religion with a story of creation. What about the Buddhist story of creation? What about the Hindu story of creation? Hell, even various denominations of Christians don't agree on a single story. Are our biology teachers expected to explain those of other religions, too?
    Not all Christians are creationists either, its based upon a literal interpretation of the bible which I consider idolatrous in extremis.

    It doesnt belong in science classes, although I would also suggest that there is no place for aggressive atheism either, it would be fair to present all the thesis and knowledge about origins of the species and speculation about common ancestory there is but just how conclusive that actually is I dont know, it is theorising and it is also pre-Einstein and Popper so does it stand up to most tests of scientific validation they held out?

  5. #15
    Tier 1 Member LunaLuminosity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 so/sp
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    2,484

    Default

    I'm not really concerned about the laws as much as the statements made by some of the people supporting these laws. It is being taken so seriously and cluelessly at the same time.

    I don't really have a problem with creationism being mentioned in a science classroom, as long as it is made clear that creationism is not an actual science. But then why bring it up? It would be a very foreign concept to integrate into a science class. Literature/Philosophy would work better if it is to be brought up...
    Tune into Ventrilo weeknights between 6pm and 1am PST for continuation of universe dominating shenanigans and occassional type-related propaganda.........

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LunaLuminosity View Post
    I'm not really concerned about the laws as much as the statements made by some of the people supporting these laws. It is being taken so seriously and cluelessly at the same time.

    I don't really have a problem with creationism being mentioned in a science classroom, as long as it is made clear that creationism is not an actual science. But then why bring it up? It would be a very foreign concept to integrate into a science class. Literature/Philosophy would work better if it is to be brought up...
    Better just to have a religion class and let it feature there instead.

    Its a bit like mentioning geography during science or biology. Could be related. Its just a different topic.

  7. #17
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Being that science is inductive and not deductive (saving the part about establishing and checking a hypothesis), nothing is definitively false. That being said, at this point creationism, or intelligent design as some have the pretense to call it, is a very, very weak position against evolution's vast strength as a position. It's in such bad standing at this point that it's almost like believing the sun is orbiting the earth. It really has no place at all in any science class. A sincere interest in scientific understanding is never behind this movement. It's all fudging the facts for the sake of ideology, and I do think it is intellectually harmful if we give young students the impression that it merits equal consideration to evolution.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  8. #18
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Exclamation Teaching evolution in Britain and the United States

    Britain is far, far worse than the United States, for just the other day a British imam tried to introduce his flock to the, "Origin of Species", or as they call it, evolution.

    He immediately received three fatwas declaring that he was an apostate for teaching evolution in the mosque. And that if he didn't recant publicly in writing, he would be put to death.

    And discretion being the better part of valour, the imam did recant publicly and in writing, declaring that Adam and Eve had no parents.

    And although he is still alive, the imam has been excluded from his own mosque.

    So those teaching evolution in the United States are not threatened with death, but in Britain they are.

  9. #19
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    That being said, at this point creationism, or intelligent design as some have the pretense to call it
    Actually, the PC term is now "creation science", not creationism. Creationism and intelligent design no longer sound credible enough, so creation science is the common term used today. I'm not even making this up. It takes a very subtle, but determined mindset to warp reality to the extent necessary to turn agenda into policy.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Britain is far, far worse than the United States, for just the other day a British imam tried to introduce his flock to the, "Origin of Species", or as they call it, evolution.

    He immediately received three fatwas declaring that he was an apostate for teaching evolution in the mosque. And that if he didn't recant publicly in writing, he would be put to death.

    And discretion being the better part of valour, the imam did recant publicly and in writing, declaring that Adam and Eve had no parents.

    And although he is still alive, the imam has been excluded from his own mosque.

    So those teaching evolution in the United States are not threatened with death, but in Britain they are.
    Victor, the difference is significant. In Britain, if you teach evolution, you may be threatened with crime, by a criminal. In America, if you teach evolution properly, you could be breaking the law. In Britain, truth is consistent with law, but in certain American states, truth could become incompatible with the law. You should be able to see the difference here. For example, you could state that you enjoy vanilla icecream, and I could threaten to kill you for your beliefs, but I would be in the wrong, legally. In America, if you were to demonstrate scientific findings to me (peer reviewed and with mountains of evidence) in an academic setting, YOU could be in the wrong, legally.

    But this is not exactly the case. Instead of outlawing the teaching of evolution, the process takes a more subtle tone. It isn't that evolution is wrong, it is that creation science is just as valid, which is less openly regressive, and in fact, many tout this is a good thing because we learn different perspectives. We know that learning from different perspectives is a good thing, so the undermining of the scientific process goes relatively unnoticed, and what should be outrageous and deplorable is instead dismissed as if it were insignificant (until it comes back next year). The problem is that creationism is being touted as science, not that it exists as a belief. It is fine and dandy to mention creationism as a belief, because that is all it is. It would make for fine conversation in philosophy or even ancient history. But this isn't the goal of this legislation, the idea is to implement creationist teachings as science, just as valid as actual science.

Similar Threads

  1. An example of the working of type as defined by the "Hero" and "Parent" ego states
    By Eric B in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-18-2016, 07:13 PM
  2. INFJ hails and well mets (but not New York Mets)
    By comicsgurl in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 06-28-2008, 02:04 AM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-13-2008, 07:05 PM
  4. Dawkins and Evolution, a discussion (moved to new thread)
    By hereandnow in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-18-2007, 11:41 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO