Panel okays evolution alternatives A Senate committee says teachers can discuss other origin-of-life ideas. By Linda Kleindienst The Orlando Sentinel Wednesday, April 9, 2008 Florida teachers could mention religious theories about human origins, such as creationism and intelligent design, without fearing retribution under a measure that passed a key Senate committee Tuesday. The “Evolution Academic Freedom Act” was approved 7-3 by the Senate Judiciary Committee and now goes to the full chamber for consideration, although no date has been set. The measure awaits its first hearing in the House. Sen. Ronda Storms, R-Valrico, said she filed the bill after hearing cases of students and teachers who felt “muzzled” and unable to discuss alternate theories on the origin of life. She said teachers have suffered retribution from school authorities and students have been the target of “denigrating comments” from other teachers. While the measure does not allow any teacher to promote a specific religious doctrine, “you can hold to your own religious views without being attacked for it,” Storms said. “This promotes the free flow of ideas.” While the committee’s six Republicans voted for the measure, the “no” votes came from Democratic Sens. Ted Deutch of Boca Raton, Steve Geller of Cooper City and Jeremy Ring of Parkland. “I believe the purpose of this bill is to let people bring their religious beliefs into school,” said Geller, the Senate’s Democratic Leader, voicing concerns about keeping the separation between church and state. “We need to keep the wall.” The legislation was filed after the state Board of Education, by a one-vote margin, approved changes in February to the state science standards requiring the teaching of the “scientific theory of evolution.” The new standards, which will present evolution as a “fundamental concept underlying all biology,” will be included in public-school curricula starting this fall, and the Science FCAT will test students on the material beginning in 2012. Mary Bahr, a Marion County middle-school teacher who helped write the standards, warned that Storms’ bill could “muddy the water” on what should be taught. “If this passes, what will we be teaching in our science classes?” she asked. Despite Storms’ claims of reprisals against teachers, according to the Florida Department of Education there has never been a case in Florida in which a public-school teacher has claimed discrimination based on science teaching. But Nathan Dunn, vice president of the Florida Family Action Network, read to the committee several letters from science teachers who claimed they had been shunned or ostracized when questioning evolution.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/orl-evolution0908apr09,0,3308090.storyOK so let me get this straight.1) In the history of the world, the amount of scientific evidence supporting the existance of a deity is Zero.2) In all the world, the number of repected Science research universities who accept “Intelligent Design” as a valid scientific theory is Zero.3) Some un-named teachers wrote emails saying they were “shunned or ostracized” because they questioned what is regarded by the scientific community as FACT. They weren’t hurt or fired, or threatened, they were shunned or ostracized for believing that 1+1=3.4) So… we have to change the law that was just passed to be the exact opposite of what it meant.I can’t wait until the Pastafarians and Wiccans get into their “opinions” of alternate Life Origins
CITW…
Don’t waste your time on Seeker…
He’s a fraud…
phreedm said:
“I let all of the teens know each Friday night. It’s a great lesson in pointing out the weaker hand in a debate…”
if you were a real man and wanted to open these teens up to the free thought you claim to covet, you would let them come to the blog themselves and read what is posted so they could decide who has the weak hand. unless you have brainwashed all of them as well some may have the mental capacity to realize what you are doing to them, and what you are all about.
so tell us phreedm, do you let them come and read the blog or do you act like the thought police and restrict what they have access to? i won’t hold my breath for an answer.
but from where i sit, you are not only a hateful and pitiful old man but a phoney as well.
Sayonara
Phreeky has absolutely no interest in free thought. It would be loads of fun to have one of his “teens” here to observe him make a fool of himself daily.
Phreedm,
Why the continued personal attacks?
Why are you unwilling to discuss the issues at hand rather than attack me personally?
Why are you discouraging other Christians from confronting the truth regarding biblical errors?
Is it an admission that you are wrong?
What,
I assume CITW’s post is a copy/paste; probably not original thought.
CITW,
Your argument went from defending ID to an ad hominem argument. Interestingly, the word “satan” originally came from a stumbling block. It didn’t describe an entity. In the Jewish version of the creation account was simply a serpent, not satan.
This, of course, gets into deeper theological discussion. God gives us free will, but I’m not sure I believe, or want to believe, in a god that gives us free will, but then literally punishes the hell out of us for exercising that free will by choosing any other option than a literal interpretation and asking us to believe in things that are beyond our understanding. Here again I stand with people like Tom Harpur. I believe that there is a god, but don’t think god determines what route I drive, what I invest money in or what I have for breakfast. I don’t believe in a god who would give us brains that can process data and then tell us if we don’t ignore it we’re going to burn in hell.
Spanders,
This is key argument against fundamentalist Christianity.
Entire civilizations — perhaps hundreds of millions of humans — lived and died wholly unaware of the existence of the Judeo-Christian religion.
Did all these people go to hell? Are they still there right his moment? Will they remain in hell’s torments for countless billions of years?
Doesn’t make sense, does it?
(btw – ad hominem attacks are admissions to defeat.)
Why do you think phreedum played the gay card on me? He is cornered and desperate. “I’ll give it to that elitist faggot for challenging my feel good beliefs-take that, Alex”. Bwahahaha!
Seeker
I disagree. When one does not make sincere arguments (see any of Phreeky’s blather) ad hominem attacks are appropriate and advisable.
Alex
Is that “elitist faggot” quote attributed to Phreek?
Phreedm you never did answer my question in the “still waiting” thread, so I will ask you again.
The bible dates the “creation” at
6000 years or 4000 BC, and the flood
at 2000 BC. If everyone is decended
from Noah’s family at what point did
the people forget that there was only
one God? Why is there no geological
evidence of the flood? Why is there no history of the flood written by
anyone else? (Chinesse,Egypitian etc)
The bible puts the earth at the center of the universe, but we know
this is not true.
How you can believe that before anything else existed a all knowing all powerful thing (who looked like us)existed? If there was no light why would god have eyes? The same goes for his nose, ears, etc. What would he do with his dick? Did he pee? What did he eat? If there was nothing before god created it how could he have knowledge about anything?
Wasn’t Galileo tried and convicted as a heretic for observing that the earth was not the center of the universe?
Matter, energy, space, and time exist
therefore we exist. Why does there need to be a creator? Besides the only reason most people what you believe is that they were brainwashed as children to believe it. At what point
in your life did you study all the various religions and sciences and pick the one you believe? Or did you inherit your beliefs from your parents?
Also comparing ID to evolution is like comparing a hot air balloon to the space shuttle, the balloon doesn’t fly, but is buoyed up by a lot of hot air.
The same to you citw.
Comment from: phreedm
Of course you’d have to say that Spanders…you’d never see the other side of the issue. Actually I’ve grown fond of the wide variety of names everyone has come up with for me…I let all of the teens know each Friday night. It’s a great lesson in pointing out the weaker hand in a debate…
Funny how you don’t seem to notice, pay attention to, or respond to to any rational points made by the other side of the issue. Only when they don’t accept your deluded fantsies does that ever seem to matter in your eyes. Funny, that…
I also wonder if you let those poor misguided teens know about all of the ad hominem attacks you engage in around here. Or if they know about your continual insistence on answers from others here when you refuse to answer any questions asked of you.
Only Liberals water down a message to compromise and make everyone feel all warm and fuzzy…
…while it seems to be the tendency of the religiously insane to reject anything other than their ‘message’ to the rest of the world.
Funny – you don’t seem to notice that, either. I wonder if those brainwashed teens are allowed to see your hypocrisy in this area?
The truth hurts. Had you been around you’d understand exactly what I’m taking about…why would someone find the need to pretend they’re someone they aren’t?
If you had any sort of familiarity with the truth, this statment might be more than semantic nonsense. Had you used some sort of rational response mechanism you might have been given some sort of credit for bringing valid points to the discussion. As it is, I’m afraid that all you’ve done (yet again) is offer the same religiously insane non sequiturs so as to deflect the topic at hand.
Oh – and by the way: you seem to be awfully fond of tossing questions into the discussion. Could you perhaps prove or disprove the following statement instead?
I’m wondering why Phreedm continues to post here. He has no intelligent arguments and his personal insults do nothing to persuade anyone.
Comment from: sayonara
Of course…you see, you’re judging me by your own standards. I have no fear of free thought…you on the other hand do…
It’s only those who have nothing to believe in who fear Truth…
We have our laptops connected to a wide screen television…
We bring up many of the topics covered by threads and comments on this site…why would you assume anyone can say anything on this site that would threaten what a teen believes…?
Comment from: alexatheist
Cornered? Hahaha…you’ve got to be kidding…
I’m still waiting for you to post a scientific study…
Your wide screen displays personal insults?
Comment from: nogodkevin
OK…I’ll play. But I’m betting you’re asking simply to argue…
Actually there are over 500 flood stories throughout world cultures, which proves it was once common knowledge…
Where does it make this claim…?
The same way you believe the universe had a beginning. How was the universe created…?
And if it wasn’t created, how can you believe it’s eternal?
Comment from: ☺ Seeker ☺
Really? Hmmmm…take an inventory of people who use to post here. Those who once attended church by their own admission…and then tell me how many are still posting?
You Seeker are a fake. There is no way a former pastor would ask the questions that you do…
Actually the biblical flood is one of many deluge stories recorded throughout antiquity. That the Hebrew account borrowed from other stories adds no credibility, as fundamentalists claim.
The same is true of the Moses-in-a-basket story; borrowed from other accounts and retold with a Hebrew twist.
Much of the Mosaic law (Ten Commandments included) was borrowed from other, much older cultures. After reading the Code of Hammurabi most conclude that the Ten Commandments is nearly plagiarism. (It predates Moses by about three centuries.)
Only the most stoic (and stubborn) of fundamentalists cling to the universal flood story. (Google “canopy theory”). Some old earth creationists prefer a local flood that was “universal” in the sense that it had tsunami effects on the people who endured its devastation.
Ancient floods were, of course, very real; just as they are today (Katrina, eg). That the stories were retold in exaggerated and embellished lore is not surprising. That we believe them is cause to ask why otherwise intelligent humans believe nonsense.
(You may be interested to know that the folks at New and Emerging Science and Technology are planning a study in Europe to determine why people are religious. Critical link:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/the_project.html)
Phreedm wrote,
Among the many preachers who came to their senses are Dan Barker and the late Charles Templeton.
View Templeton’s “Farewell to God: My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith” here:
http://www.templetons.com/brad/cbt.html
Read Dan Barker’s “Minister Turned Atheist” online here:
http://ffrf.org/about/bio_dan.php
Read Barker’s questions (that no way a former pastor would ask) here:
http://ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=theologian
Now that you’ve been conclusive proven wrong,
will you agree to stop the personal attacks and address the issues?
phreedm said:
“Of course…you see, you’re judging me by your own standards. I have no fear of free thought…you on the other hand do…”"
prove that you meet with these students and they visit this site with you. and then if you really do, i do pity you. i mean really is this what you are all about. trying to show teenagers that you “whip” atheists on a website. holy cow!!
———————————-
“It’s only those who have nothing to believe in who fear Truth…”
HAHAHA!
————————————
“We have our laptops connected to a wide screen television…
We bring up many of the topics covered by threads and comments on this site…why would you assume anyone can say anything on this site that would threaten what a teen believes…?”
interesting that you use the term “threaten”. it says a lot about what you think about us and our non belief.
————————————
“Really? Hmmmm…take an inventory of people who use to post here. Those who once attended church by their own admission…and then tell me how many are still posting?”
HAHAHA. delusional again i see. even i quit posting for a while (i used to be flanonblvr) because i was sick of your constant thrads derails, never answering the tough questions and just reading what you kept espousing, but then i thought… why should i not frequent a site for atheists because of you. so i’m back for now.
Comment from: phreedm
Comment from: ☺ Seeker ☺
I’m wondering why Phreedm continues to post here. He has no intelligent arguments and his personal insults do nothing to persuade anyone.
Really? Hmmmm…take an inventory of people who use to post here. Those who once attended church by their own admission…and then tell me how many are still posting?
Pray tell me, oh most wholly phreakshow, what does an inventory of the people who used [sic] to post here and how many are still posting have anything to do with why you post here?
Is this supposed to even resemble some sort of coherent response to the question? Perhaps you have given us a clue as to why you have refused to answer the questions asked of you here.
I wonder if any of the impressionable teens who you have corrupted with your deviant christian lifestyle are aware that you have refused to answer the vast majority of questions that have been directed to you? I wonder if they will notice that you have failed to answer with your attempt here?
I’m also really impressed with your unsourced, unfounded allegation that Seeker is not a former pastor. What kind of factual evidence do you have that this is the case? Have you investigated the claim enough to be able to show the rest of the people here that Seeker’s claims that he was once a pastor is false? That he is no longer a pastor?
Or are you maintaining that you know that, because you think that there is no way a former pastor would ask the questions that you do, you believe that your opinion about what a former pastor would ask is equivalent to proof that the individual in question is not a pastor?
:tom:
Phreedm attacks seeker in lieu of credible responses.
Psycholigists talk about “projection” when one projects his or her faults onto others. I reckon phreedm is uneducated and intimidated by seeker’s biblical knowledge. In other words, phreedm is the fraud or POSER as they say in cyberspace.
Comment from: phreedm
Comment from: sayonara
so tell us phreedm, do you let them come and read the blog or do you act like the thought police and restrict what they have access to? i won’t hold my breath for an answer.
Of course…you see, you’re judging me by your own standards. I have no fear of free thought…you on the other hand do…
Please provide some sort of proof that sayonara is afraid of free thought.
Is your reluctance to answer any questions asked of you on this site related to your bravery in the face of free thought?
Is the hypocrisy involved in you saying that sayonara judges others by his own standards, while you judge everyone here at this blog based on your own standards, something that you struggle with from day to day? Or do you have no problems whatsoever demanding that others be held to standards that you yourself refuse to adhere to?
It’s only those who have nothing to believe in who fear Truth…
It’s only those who fear truth who have to rely on something to believe in…
We have our laptops connected to a wide screen television…
Is the wide screen television connected to any of the laptops in particular? So that, for example, any comments of a controversial (to religious study groups, at least…) nature would not be shown on the big screen if the person using the controlling laptop did not want them to be seen?
Is the feed going into the TV sent to all those laptops, so that the only thing they can look at from the site is the comments selected to be displayed by the controlling laptop?
Help me out here – I’m just a computer programmer / operations / maintenance guy who’s trying to figure out just exactly how you’re setting things up in order to display the comments on this blog to a bunch of teens in class…
We bring up many of the topics covered by threads and comments on this site…why would you assume anyone can say anything on this site that would threaten what a teen believes…?
Let’s think about this for a second… if a teen believes that being gay is unnatural, and a bunch of people here provide real world examples of how it’s not and/or peer reviewed and vetted scientific studies asserting that homosexuality is a natural state of existence for some beings, would some christians consider that a threat to their beliefs?
What about if people here pointed to stories of sexual impropriety, hypocrisy, fraud, embezzlement, and other assorted illegal and immoral acts being engaged in by religious authorities of their faith? And those religious leaders told them it was some satanic propaganda intended to steer them away from the loving embrace of their gawd? Would those teens consider the stories pointed to here as a threat to their beliefs?
Anytime you’re ready, feel free to answer. You might try and find the time to answer any of the myriad of questions already asked of you within the pages of this web before insisting that others answer yours. Not holding out any hope for either event to occur within any of our lifetimes, though…
Comment from Tom:
I think what Phreedm meant to say was that he could not have been a True Pastor, for no True Pastor would ever lose faith. Ha. Convenient and simple.
tom said:
“It’s only those who fear truth who have to rely on something to believe in…”
right on bro…
jesus-ernesto:
Thanks for the spot-on analysis of the walking phreakshow that tries (and fails) to come up with stuff that threatens atheism – seemingly projecting his own fear of non-theistic rationality replacing his delusional pagan superstitions.
I seek to infotain the studio audience and provide incontravertable proof that religiously insane individuals like this are a cancer on today’s society, and, as such, deserve some specialized attention so that their cancer can be expunged from society. It’s too bad that, if they have these unfounded occult beliefs, they can’t even have the simple decency to keep it to themselves. I hope that my continuing ridicule of phreakish religiously insane phantasies, and my continued noting of their hypocrisy, lack of reasoning skills, and incivil behavior is showing others that there is no need to be silent while their occult propaganda is being spewed in public. You wouldn’t believe the un-christian words I hear when I tell the local christians that I would never let my children be taught by people who would try and seduce them into their deviant christian lifestyle and then try and molest them. You also wouldn’t believe the torrent I get when I then tell them that I’m only using the same words they do, except I replaced the word homosexual with the word christian. If we even get that far, my next ’standard’ comment, that their rhetoric sounds an awful lot like what I heard years ago about the darkies, usually gets them to leave very quickly and very indignantly. For some strange reason, they don’t seem to come back too much once they’ve gone through that exercise…
I would like to point out that the only name I’ve ever called you is “phreed”, which is simply a shortening of your handle.
You’ve called me an idiot.
You’re right about the lesson part, though.
phreed:
Let me ask you, what did nearly all civilizations have in common? I’ll give you a hint: location, location, location.
correction:
nearly all early civilizations
Typing fast has its drawbaacks.
spanders:
Thanks, spanders. That link also has the Simpsons version, which I couldn’t previously find on YT.
nice to see spanders back around town. a xtian voice of reason. and even a fellow xtian attacks him for not being xtian enough. how xtian is that?
thanks for the funny link on the evolution/creation.
justme,
You may have a valid point regarding Phreedm.
However…
If he meant to say,
but intead said,
then maybe he can’t frame an intelligent argument.
I wonder what Phreeky tells his “teens” when they ask “Don’t you have a job?”. He must look like a total loser to those “teens”.
As I’ve stated on here, their is a definitive separation between science and Christianity. Science demands that a theory be rigorously and experimentally proven before it can be unanimously accepted as fact. It is clearly stated countless times in the Bible that the Mystery of God is beyond our understanding. And no this is not a copout, as this was written thousands of years before the advent of modern science. It’s also justifiable if you can imagine that if there is a god who created everything, including gravitational attraction, molecules, DNA, the human brain, love, etc., then he must be an amazingly complex “thinker”, beyond our simple logical brains. So there will never be a scientifically-accepted theory that says God did it. Why? Because science assumes our minds can comprehend anything, when the Bible says that we cannot comprehend God’s ways.
I understand why you don’t believe; I once had the same thoughts as you. I know exactly why you feel the way you feel, and why you believe what you believe. The thing I don’t understand is how you can attack the idea of having intelligent design presented in public schools (just as a theory), when only one side of the argument is currently being presented (also just a theory). When only one theory is presented, it is generally accepted as fact. Much of the disgust towards Christianity is the fact that we try to spread our beliefs (we do so because God has called us to). The general atheist (or non-Christian) thought is “Don’t force your beliefs on others! Let people make up their own minds!” So why not present the most prevelant theories and let them decide?
A large survey in the early 90’s has shown that 46% of the scientific community attends church, about the same number as the general public. Are they really all “insane”? They are smart people that have spent much of their lives studying science in one way or another.
Here is a quote from Dr. Henry Shaefer’s 1991 speech that is mentions this:
Why not let everyone decide? Will I still try to convince every non-believer I can that there is a God, He loves us, and he saved us with the blood of Jesus on the cross? Absolutely. But I will still let them decide! I will never force, or try to force (even if I had the power to do so) anyone to believe anything.
uoflcard,
Here’s the problem; you cannot present both arguments as if they were equal. If the vast majority of scientists accept that evolution is the most likely way we got to where we are and a much smaller percentage argue that god did it, do we present EVERY possible explanation? If Scientologists tell us that we’re the result of an intergalactic battle and has a small percentage of scientists supporting it, should we spend equal time on that?
I am a christian and think that evolution is the most likely way we got to where we are. Going to to church does not equal agreeing with ID.
If you (and others like you) would accept the fact that many of us have indeed already decided and leave us the fuck alone, STOP stealing tax monies, instituting laws in order to force atheists into your camp (or lose their rights),STOP trying to force I(ntellectual D(ishonesty) bullshit (without SCIENTIFIC evidence, creationist crap does not belong in a SCIENCE class)and prayer on unsuspecting children in classrooms, etc., there wouldn’t be a problem.
GET OFF MY PORCH!
Suck it jesus freaks!
uoflcard,
i went to the website link you suggested on another thread just to read what this “god is beyond our understanding” preacher had to say. first of all, it is till a copout to say that “we simplistic humans cannot understand” god’s ways. i could say the same thing about understanding our own earthly ways. there are still many things about own human makeup that are not understood. but 100 years ago there were a 1000 times more things we did not know. science has provided answers through research and trial and error and “thought process”.
if you want to say that god is too complex to understand and always was, then i can say the same about human beings and it would be equally as true. since we don’t know how we got here, i proclaim that we have always existed. and you cannot refute that. the main difference is us and a god is that at least we can see each other and we know that we do exist.
i found some of the passages quotes in that link very disturbing. Examples:
“a prudent man conceals knowledge”
and
“A fool utters all in his mind, but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards”
well my concept of knowledge is that it has NO value unless shared and passed on. wouldn’t it be nice to know exactly how the pyramids were constructed to such precision? the knowledge was not passed down and is lost.
so i read your linked article and reject it and it certainly does not inspire one to think that the preacher values “freedom of thought” .
uoflcard,
I don’t know the particulars of that study, but it’s certainly in the deep minority. Here are a handful of more recent studies:
http://tinyurl.com/qdc0
Just read the first 3 and ignore the bits about IQ, it’s not germane to my post. Also, IQ is an unreliable measurement.
Here’s another study claiming that religion is much more rare amongst scientists, but not because of science. The scientists in this study claim that they were disbelievers before they became scientists:
http://tinyurl.com/4m7odq
In other words, the correlation between nonreligion and science isn’t because science says “no.” It’s because people who say “no” are more likely to be drawn to science. So the idea that teaching kids evolution will necessarily remove their religion is not supported.
The single biggest predictor of religion is still the parent’s religion. This is because parents are an authority figure and children are more authoritarian than their adult counterparts. Some children never grown out of authoritarianism.
Science doesn’t “demand” anything. That’s like saying a telescope can demand something. Science is a tool, nothing more, nothing less.
Furthermore, “unanimous” is far too strong a word for most scientific theories. Dissent is (or at least, should be) welcome. As long as a competing theory can stand up to scrutiny, it should not be shot down. I’m sure that this happens occasionally (and is deplorable), but that is not the case with ID, more on this later.
It may not have been a copout 2000 years ago, but it certainly is now.
Fair enough. But imagination is only useful to come up with possibilities. Once the possibility has been agreed upon, then we need to go on to the next step. Here are the first 4 steps of the scientific method:
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
Imagination can only get us to step 3. But you already know that:
I would really like you to defend the statement that “science assumes our minds can comprehend anything.” That runs contrary to most everything I’ve ever learned about science.
First, since when does science “assume” things. There’s no room for assumption in the scientific method. Second, how could you ever run an experiment to test this? Only a deity with the same qualities as yours could run the experiment, and such a deity wouldn’t need to experiment.
No, you don’t. All you know about us is that we don’t believe in deities. That in itself is not a belief. Furthermore, there is more than one way to come to be called an atheist, you can’t have experienced them all (since a few are mutually exclusive).
We’re talking about science class here, right? I am, but I’m not sure everyone else is. So that’s what I’ll stick to. I won’t defend not mentioning ID in other classes, I think that’s ludicrous (especially a social studies class).
In order to present an idea in science class, the idea has to be scientific. ID does not meet the criteria. Wikipedia says (with citations) “The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science but pseudoscience.” (http://tinyurl.com/8o6sw) Intelligent design is not testable, ergo it does not belong in a science class.
You can’t present ID in science class for the same reason that kids don’t learn about calculus in English class. It simply doesn’t belong. If you want to bring it up in social studies class, then I’ll back you all the way as long as you also address all the other creation myths floating around the aether.
Don’t categorize evolution as a “prevalent theory,” it is far more than that. “Evolution” is unfortunately a word that has come to mean two different things and using it the way you have is only perpetuating the confusion.
The Theory of Evolution (capital ‘E’) was originally postulated by Charles Darwin and attempts to explain the mechanisms behind the diversity of life, you already know this. Alternately, evolution (small ‘e’) is a word that basically describes the changes in organisms through succeeding generations. The Theory has been fine-tuned and is fairly robust, but evolution has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, many times:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Every time that two humans have a baby that doesn’t look identical to one of the parents, evolution has taken place.
I really hope you’re not confusing evolution with abiogenesis. That is not robust enough to be teaching in schools, in my opinion.
If you want to make the case that ID is scientific and can be tested, then go for it. I will relent as soon as the case is made.
Does that include teaching your (possible future) children about all the religions (and nonreligion) when they’re young? Will you send them to a mosque and a temple and a synagogue as often as you send them to a church? Will you also let an atheist speak to them about why they don’t believe in a deity?
Children have impressionable minds, I don’t believe it’s possible as a parent to avoid having a resounding impact on a child’s future beliefs. I would certainly call an intentional weighting of the topics “forcing.”
You might say the same thing about us, but you can’t use science class as an argument since nobody has shown a positive link between learning about evolution and becoming an atheist. If that were true, there would be far more atheists in the US today.
You’ve got to criticize each individual parent for this, not the public schools.
alatham,
nice presentation. hopefully uoflcard will at least read it but it won’t sink in. just like with phreedm, there is some kind of wall or blockage there. we can’t get through to them because there minds are closed. i use brainwashing to describe it, they use faith. it’s really both; faith-based brainwashing.
i’ve had similar discussions with my immediate family who are engineers (science oriented) deeply religious (home school, reject carbon dating, reject evolution, etc.)they will not listen to a discussion such as you have presented because their minds have been set.
those who say our minds are set don’t understand. my mind is only set against there being a god due to NO factual evidence. the famous book of fables is no evidence of any kind and no more factual than scientology’s BS.
anyway, nice job for what it’s worth.
Sure, I’ll pile on…
Comment from: uoflcard
I understand why you don’t believe; I once had the same thoughts as you. I know exactly why you feel the way you feel, and why you believe what you believe.
Besides the fact that I believe that you cannot understand why I don’t accept the premise that belief is necessary or desirable in my moral code, and the fact that you don’t know why I feel what I feel and why I feel it, why exactly do you feel entitled to exhibit this oh-so christian trait of presuming to speak on behalf of your fellow beings, and presuming that you know what’s inside their head?
You haven’t gotten off to too well of a start, I’m afraid…
The thing I don’t understand is how you can attack the idea of having intelligent design presented in public schools (just as a theory), when only one side of the argument is currently being presented (also just a theory).
What I don’t understand is how you can blithely conflate two definitions of the word theory here. The first example, intelligent design, is an example of the contemplation, speculation, guesses or conjecture definition of the word theory, while the Theory of Evolution is a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena theory. If intelligent design had any way of being provable (in other words, if you can test the theory in order to determine if it is correct), and the level of testable proof supported intelligent design to the degree that exists for the theory of evolution, then I would say that you might have a point in considering them both to be worthy of scientific study.
If you want to teach intelligent design along with other sets of religious beliefs, then go ahead. But please don’t presume to know how and why people don’t agree with you in your belief that ID and evolution are equivalent theories and should be given equal time in the science lab.
what said:
“Phreeky wants the freedom to declare that anything qualifies as thought.”
yea, he’s confusing rote memory with thought. but when you head is only full of religious rote memories i guess recall of that trash is the only thought process you’ve got.