Slashdot Mirror
Equal Time For Creationism
Brian Berns writes "Many news sources reported on
President Bush's recent semi-endorsement of 'intelligent
design', the politically correct version of
creationism that is currently in vogue among groups of conservative
Christians in the U.S.. While Mr. Bush was reportedly reluctant to make news on
this topic, he apparently felt it was an issue he could not duck. Most of those
same news sources, however, missed the
recent condemnation of Darwinian evolution by the Catholic cardinal
archbishop of Vienna. This NY Times op-ed appears to mark a deliberate attempt
to reverse the late Pope John Paul II's acceptance of evolution as 'more than
just a hypothesis'."
It's strange to see Mr. Bush support intelligent design when he so clearly shows the link between man and monkey by his mere existance.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Creationism *does* have a place in schools, but in the context of philosophical and religious education, not in the context of science.
It is worse than disingenuous to suggest that both creationism and evolution are theories and should hence be given equal weight. It is also deeply misleading to suggest that it has support from a large section of the scientific community as a scientific theory... you simply need to look at the number of papers published on the topic in peer-reviewed journals to see that.
Creationism is just as valid a theory as that of the Great Green Arkleseizure, and has as much place next to evolution as the Coming of The Great White Handkerchief next to the Big Crunch.
Philosophy and independent critical thought should be taught and actively encouraged in schools but hokum should be kept out of the science classroom.
"Nothing can shake my belief that this world is the fruit of a dark god whose shadow I extend." - Emil Michel Cioran
You are the one joking here. I suppose you will cite a logical, true, provable argument for the existence of God that you learned in your philosophy classes, yes?
I don't see why argument from design shouldn't be taught in Philosophy. It's part of its history, just like Kant's, Spinoza's, Kierkegaard's, etc. etc. arguments.
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
An idea moves incrementally through these stages of surety until it is permanently enshrined as a "fact", and cannot be questioned.
Further, all ideas at any given stage are equal. So, the "theory" of evolution, as a "theory" is equal in scientific value to the "theory" of the flying spaghetti monster.
Finally, in order for science itself to be valid, all ideas at any given stage of elevation in science must be absolutely true and agreed to by every scientist. That is, the existance of two mutually exclusive theories, conflicting results from two different experiments, or contradictory facts (including facts which contradict "common sense") immediately invalidat all of science. The inability of scientists to satisfactorily resolve the "irresistable force / immovable object" dilemma is a good example of the fact that science is not scientifically valid.
Any discrepancy discovered or perceived between two scientific "facts" thus invalidates all of science. Further, discovery of a discrepancy automatically grants the discoverer the right to propose one alternative idea. This idea must be unquestioningly accepted by the public and voted into law.
Fucking morons.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Intelligent Design is both an argument from evidence and falsifiable in principle. Thus it is a scientific theory. But I think it is premature to teach it below the graduate level until a basic facility in philosophy of science has been taught. Controversies such as this generally result from ignorance, and do not lead to enlightenment. Public education, rather than deciding such a controversy, will preclude it.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
They're extremists because they're trying to subvert the government to dictate how other people live their lives. I don't give a rats ass what you believe in, but if you think that laws should be passed to force me to believe it too, then that's extremism.
Like Earth Day & income tax. Got it.
Free Adam Smith! (Or best offer.)
The idea of Democratic Republics came from Rome and Greece before they were Christianized. These ideas were revived during the 17th/18th century Enlightment, first incorporated in the US government, then France and so on.
Yes, but the 'democracies' of the ancient world were hardly democratic. Precious few citizens of Athens had the vote.
What matters in western civilizations is not that they were the first to have the idea of a democratic republic, but that they saw democracy as a natural extention of metaphysical freedom, and that all people (well, all white men who owned property) were equally free. This is the basis of the 'equality and inalienable rights' clause of the Declaration of Independence.
This really all goes back to the Magna Carta -- the first successful challenge to the equally religious notion that kings were kings because God wanted them to be born that way, and everybody better do what the king says because that's what God wants.
The revolutionary idea that the king was just born lucky would eventually lead to the Enlightenment, the Glorious Revolution, the American and French Revolutions, the uprisings of 1848, and ultimately the ending of absolute monarchy in Europe after the First World War.
But my point remains -- if there were no concept that humans were free beings (in the image of God), there would be no reason to allow the unlucky a say in the Res Publicae, and no reason not to accept the king's existence as a divine mandate.
Wow ! we found one guy whose prayers God answers. Please make ask him to make this thread end, so we can all go back to reading Geek news. And when you succeed, we'll have proof for creation. Idiot.
"I am also not anti-abortion. But abortion is not only a "medical procedure", and not only about a "woman's choice". A life is ended."
OK thats just dumb come on. A life has ended? everytime you kill an insect a "life" has ended, as in the cells of the particular creature no longer replicate. is a fetus a human being? no. a fetus is a parasite eating off its host. conciousness is what makes you human. are newborn babies aware of their own exsistance? have you ever met a baby? they dont know shit!!
but i also think this world really needs to invent suicide booths, so like maybe i have a different sense of what the value placed on a human life should be. you are not a special flower.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
Intelligent Design is not just unproven, it is inherently unprovable. Intelligent Design is not a science in any sense, but a theology, and as such, its place is in the church/mosque/synagogue/whatever, not in the classroom.
Look, I can make a silly statement too! Evolution is not just unproven, it is inherently unprovable. First prove that the things you say evolved actually exist...
Proving that something was made by an intelligent creature is actually not very difficult. If you find a perfect cube of gold, you would be forced to conclude that it was made by an intelligent creature, most likely a human, if it was found on earth. Of course, it could have just solidified into that shape by chance, but that is so incredibly unlikely that you would be laughed at for suggesting it.
Now a cube of gold is very simple, but it goes against nature -- gold doesn't crystalize into cubes nor is there a natural process that forms soft metals into cubes. Now a living cell is a lot more complicated than a cube of gold. But the real question is to what degree do you need to go against nature to turn chemical soup into a living cell? If Intelligent Design theorists can show that, beyond reasonable doubt, it is unnatural for chemical soup to turn into a living cell, they will have proven their point. Likewise if they can show that some feature we have could not have evolved naturally. This is a very hard task and I doubt they can do it, but it is science. I'm not saying that this won't be abused by religious nuts, but it does have science behind it. You can usually tell which are the religious nuts by whether or not they "know" who the intelligent designer is.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Do the Darwinists get equal time in the churches as well?
Sure... Oh, wait. How much of the church's funding did you say you provide?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways