>>"Grilled cheese sandwiches are made with bread and cheese" by saying "That's not true! I have a theory that the bread was baked in an oven on Main Street, which is opposed to your theory!"
No... it is like saying people asking "Is that the ONLY way to make a sandwich."
The people who ASK the question believe sandwiches can be made of bread and Monkey Spleen.
Because bread and monkey spleen sandwiches are disgusting, and no one really EATS them, science is saying, "Yes. All sandwiches are bread and cheese."
That does not make the declaration TRUE, or SCIENTIFIC.
Not at all... that doesn't even make sense... you are talking about SCOPES... which is ENTIRELY different, Scopes was about suppressing science in favor of metaphysics.
As I've said, about 2 dozen times over the last few days... God is irrelevant. Can macro-evolution scientifically, legitimately, argued. Do we have definitive proof of it? No.
Does everyone misunderstand ID this way? I explained the difference before (Random versus [Evo] Something else [ID])... and you apparently ignored it. My "declaration" of what ID is asking for was ignored. Why? Why can't even the argument for ID be addressed scientifically. Why does science refuse to admit that it doesn't have a solid grasp on evolution?
And ultimately, the impetus, why are so many people happy to be misled?
ADDENDUM: I just did a check on a half dozen of the ID laws that are in process or have died are all EXCEPTIONALLY religious in their wording. Which is idiotic. This does not me ID is wrong, nor does it say Evolution SHOULD be taught as law, but I do acknowledge that it seems to be impossible for a conservative legislator to write a law.
Dover PA got really close, but suggesting ID is anti-darwinist is not accurate, and encouraging them to read a non-science book is unacceptable... minus that one paragraph, it's pretty solid.
I think you responded to the wrong comment. Everything you said is correct about why we teach theory as Law, and its also why you wouldn't want people teaching religion as law.
Your example is pretty weak, though... gravity isn't theorhetical, a child can prove its existence. You can discuss the NUANCES, but you can not make a legitimate argument that gravity is not there.
I've been trying to find a theory that is comprable to Evolution for the last couple of days, and I can't. That probably has more to do with my broken brain, but the point I would have been making is that OTHER theories that have the same level of proof applied to them as macro-evolution do not get treated as Law.
College? Not so much, the same bad science is there too, and the ridicule of the religious is much more open and sterner.
"Church is the same way. They say Jesus loves you, be good to each other, Jesus came back from the dead. If you really want to, you can learn all about transubstantiation, Eucharist, the arguments of the triumvirate. It's called seminary and theology."
And that's how I'm wrong? That is exactly what I was saying, you just agreed with me. You put that more even succinctly than I did. Yes, that is true, theology is exactly like that... the difference is theology is not based on fact, but faith and experience. Science is the exploration of the factual and provable...
"If we do want to teach the controversy" - We don't... I certainly don't, the Intelligent Design argument doesnt... so why is this an issue? We want to say a loose theory is a loose theory...
I would say that if teaching that a theory is in fact theorhetical is to hard and complicated, then don't teach the theory at all. Teaching Science in Science class would do nicely, meaning the entire concept of Macro-Evolution could be shifted of to "college and specialization." If you want to say one theory is valid enough to be taught as law, then every whacko theory with even a sliver of evidence to support it should be considered for teaching in schools.
OR we could say "The theory of evolution by Natural Selection is just that, a theory, and while researchers are working to prove the theory, there are still hurdles before them. The father of the theory, Charles Darwin, warned when he wrote it 150 years, that the fossil record didn't support his theory, but he was confident that future discoveries would confirm it. At present those discoveries have yet to be made."
Why are the facts to much to teach in a subject whose devotion to facts is only superceded by mathematics? I formulated and wrote the resolution to most arguments for ID request in 2 minutes. I never once mention deities or spaghetti monsters... and I didn't lie, which is actually MORE accurate, than the counter argument wants to teach in school.
This is all everyone I have spoken to about ID has wanted, acceptance by the Scientific community that despite having taught it as law for 50 years, that there is not enough evidence for the rational scientific community to say that macro-evolution happened as Darwin explained.
Which brings me back to the point you were responding to... Over and over, in various ways, I keep hearing the argument that "Teaching the theory as fact, and manipulating the details of those teachings to support the theory is good for students, and the science community."
Which to me is just as offensive as teaching some thing as "wrong" as "God Did This..."
*(excusing the ocassional fundamentalist who is somehow convinced that the natural sciences lie [despite being breathed into existence, ergo the "word" of God, ergo are infallible], but thats a whole 'nother ball of crazy)
Ok... there are two issues here and I didn't separate them well, and I appologize, but they are intimately related in the ID argument, so I see them in parallel. Those points are a) Invalidation of input if the generator believes in God b) Bad science being left to simmer while theology is condemned because it causes bad science.
>>Frankly, I find biology in general to be sort of wishy-washy science. It knows that some things work and that some things happen, but the theories as to why these happen are often analagous to the "phlogestin" theories about combustion from earlier centuries. >That's completely ok, until they start treating that part as if it is science. Science and religion are only compatible as long as it's understood that we're analyzing Gods creation, not analyzing God. This is important because it places ID outside the realm of science, which is natualistic and seeks only to look at the earth as it exists through whatever force created the Universe.>outside the observations of science.what it is is irrelevant, but that it is is scientific fact. Today we don't know everything. Until we do, it is intellectually irresponsible to remove options WITHOUT holding them up to scientific method.
Mold is icky and unclean and therefore we aren't going to study it from a pharmaceutical perspective. How did that work out for us? We had to discover penicillin by chance. Certainly we would have eventually, but how much SOONER would we have discovered it if we didn't judge it's source when making scientific examination.
There are huge numbers of people who fight their own common sense because they think their faith rejects science (usually not true) and they think science rejects their faith (certainly true among the people who tend to speak for it [I imagine there are VAST numbers of scientists, faithful and atheist, working in silence because they AGREE about what you're saying]).
>>It's existance as a brand new political ideology pretending to be the way things always were frustrates the hell out of me.>I'm sitting here somehow being called "leftist" for being a sane rational human being who doesn't feel like doing completely unprecidented things or taking extremist attitudes.> I'm not looking at some republican hating extremist leftists, I'm looking at scientists. >2000 years ago the greeks who recorded most of the knowlege that would be held as scientific fact for the next millenium and a half had the same attitudes.
They also recorded a hell of a lot of things that were later disproved, altered and improved, and like true scientists, they allowed that, because that knowledge is more important than where it came from. Many of the great originators and developers of these ideas were religious men, whose ideas stemmed from the belief that "God did this" which, by today's standards would make them not worthy of our examination. The much maligned Catholic church both protected and advanced science for centuries while the citizenry of those years were running around slaying each other (yes, yes, often in the name of the aforementioned Church). The belief in the existence of God is not a boolean for scientific validity or inclusion. Hiding behind the separation of Religion and Science because your science is bad is not a solution.
A) THANK YOU... I love a well worded and well thought out response... B) I was not taking on the legislation, I by nature of having had to watch politicians screw things up for the entirety of my lifetime, do not hope to improve law at any point. I think legislating this is repulsive. C) "educational sense to single out evolutionary theory for special attention" I agree, though the trick here is that Utah has, by even allowing a vote, made it illegal to question theory. D) No. Encourage people NOT to think differently, this is the issue. E) "have forced students to be given the incorrect view that evolutionary theory is somehow deeply questioned by scientists" IT IS! This is the other thing that ammuses me in this discussion today, that everyone in support of Darwinism here today acts like there is no dissention... Does no one see why that makes this ruling all the scarier? This is a completely tenuous theory (NOT in ANY way saying that some religious anser is more right... AT ALL... strictly scientifically, Evolution by way of Natural Selection is a very obvious answer, it's "easy" to see why it must be true, but there is EXCEPTIONALLY little evidence to support it). Again... I am an evolutionist... I actually believe it makes the most sense... but no way in hell do I think it's right to deny the possibility that there might be another answer to the question. It is a theory that has been excepted on face value faster than most hard scientific fact has been accepted when the evidence was irrefutable. I referenced Haekel in another reply, there is no reason for that and it scares me, as someone who agrees with the argument, that that is the best we can do to support our argument? Lie to people? Come on, can we not be mature logical people and say "look, we might be wrong."
I don't want religion taught in schools, and that includes bad science. Were it passed, (and it shouldn NOT have been) it might have forced teachers and writers... and SCIENTISTS, to take a look at what they are saying...
I can't say "God created everything in a week" in a science class, but I can say "Haekel discovered that embryos of animals evolve the same way"... One is an un-likely to be proven theory. One is a lie. The unprovable theory is illegal to share, the lie was just supported by the state of Utah. Go Team!
Are you talking about something? I hear a lot of rhetoric but I'm not finding anything to address...
"No, because it's religious fundtardry." - Nice word... I like a good word now and then, honestly made me stop and reconsider what you were saying...
So I'll respond. Grand Unified Theory would sufficiently answer "the Big Question" Which would mean science is in your view religious fundtardry. Am I missing something? Are you arguing that science and religion.
Faith is the belief in something that can't be seen or proven... Apples fall, asteroids are tracked... where exactly is the faith in that?
Faith and religion are irrelevant to what I said, and irrelevant to the recognition that scientific theory is somehow beyond reproach.
That's three for three... want to call me more names now or do you have an argument that actually has some weight?
Calling my argument a predictable political ploy seems... well... to be something of a predictable political ploy... I don't think I've ever seen a pro-conservative viewpoint on slashdot.
If I had one to post I would be SCARED to post it...
I didn't want to speak out of turn, so I went back and checked. There are 40 or so top level posts that actually have enough focus to give an opinion, 5 of these are relatively neutral on the subject (mine included, caustic as it might have been, the argument was that this is irrelevant to science, and BOTH sides are making it worse), and of those at least 2 come from Christians... the remainder of them are generally insulting and proudly anti-God/ID/Christian/Republican. It is "sweeping generalization"... it's a 10 to 1 gang rape.
And somehow I'm the bad guy who is judging people too harshly.
Some order higher in the discussion I noticed: "as the creationists try and blast the boards with their nonsense."
There are three things I noticed about this:
Firstly, it is one of the most even handed pro-status-quo opinion still managed to insult any opinions not of the collective viewpoint... and that you didn't bother to call them predictable.
Secondly, there don't appear to be hordes of creationists blasting nonsense... I mean, unless the 5 of us saying "Science is built on a foundation of various theories being worked until one is proven fact... why is that not ok now?" is somehow a blast of nonsense.
Generally speaking there are one or two fundamentalist Christian jackasses screaming at the top of their lungs and saying nothing. Trust me, I am usually standing in line with the anti-Christians to lay a beating on those guys. They make they whole discussion cheap, and prevent thoughts from being exchanged...
MOREOVER... the political jibe was not even the argument I made... it was the set dressing, and it was a pretty obvious farce.
So I am back to... I don't want a "bunch of politically correct garbage" in schools. Please if you do nothing else, recognize that I am in support of science... or explain to me when I made that argument... I'm pretty sure I tried to write (after my Part I, of course) very neutral and reference only the superceded issue.
Again... I don't know what you are turning around... In my farce I turned it around, in my conclusion I turned it around... I think turning it around was really my whole point. The left has BECOME the right and they are happy about it. You say you're turning around leftists into rightists... I'm nodding my head, exactly.
(I did want to say I appologize for using leftist, it was a poor choice. I was using the more common "anti-conservative" meaning, where you were using the more traditional "anti-establishment" meaning, and I didn't catch your direction right away.
It's akin to journalists being overt in their support of a political figure... it damned near goes against the definition of Journalist....and it CERTAINLY goes against the definition of scientist.
I do find the "politically correct" reference refreshing and interesting, as I agree with it, and that is a rare thing in these parts (not to pigeon-hole seven hundred thousand readers).
If we could get away from teaching things that aren't factually accurate. The trick is, without counterbalance any group-thought becomes unquestioned religion. The "science" taught in school LOOKS like science, but it isn't, it teaches theory as law, it avoids saying "I don't know" at all costs... it's a Priest in a hardcover book.
I remember my first experience with that... the Skull of the T-Rex, and how the scientific community refused to let go of a tenuous fraud for years simply because, well, it was science and science is never wrong. As a student it always fascinated me (being to young to grasp the hellish ugliness that Ego represents) why a Scientist would not be EXCITED to find the REAL head of the dinosaur he discovered. As an adult, I "get" it... but as a
Since your response assumes I believe in creation, want it to be taught in schools, and that somehow my saying all of what I said meant I don't respect the science involved in the development of a computer... I can only assume your were responding to someone elses post... or you don't know how to read.
I really don't have anything constructive to add... but then... clearly neither did you. Call the dissident NAMES! w00t
I'm proud that the Republican hating free thought open source and open minds collective hive mind of Slashdot is so totally behind this!
Children should NOT be taught that anyone disagrees with the science minded leftist elite! We are the correct ones, we have never ever been wrong, implying we might not be completely right all the time is bad for everyone! Dissident opinions should be oppressed and certainly not voiced in school.
---...and you call Bush a fascist.
It REPULSES me that you are all so on this bandwagon. The legislation, LITERALLY, said give kids an option to see everything and choose for themselves.
The anti-ID argument is the dumbest thing I have ever heard... it allows us take the focus off the one Big Question, and work as peers on everything ELSE.
But that isn't how we reacted. What did the logical, sound minded, scientific thinking side of the community do when challenged? EXACTLY what we have bitched about the Christian community doing since the dawn of science. We oppress their thoughts and opinions and refuse to acknowledge that they can even contribute, solely because we can't fit their worldview into ours, refuse to acknowledge that our "theory" is as broken as theirs.
Your faith in science, is not less ludicrous than someone elses faith.
When either side can prove their Grand Unified Theory, but God, Spaghetti Monster, or Abacus... they will. There will be much rubbing of the other sides noses in it, one side or the other will act like insufferable children for several decades, and we'll move on to other things...
UNTIL THEN... would it kill us to shut up, respect each other's merits and focus on the SCIENCE?
Logic Breakdown Breakdown:
Oppressing the thoughts of those who disagree is righteous and good.
Allowing individuals who think differently to participate is a stupid thing to teach children.
Allowing people who think differently to participate will only ruin the end result, take Open Source for instance.
Slashdot Mirror
>>"Grilled cheese sandwiches are made with bread and cheese" by saying "That's not true! I have a theory that the bread was baked in an oven on Main Street, which is opposed to your theory!"
No... it is like saying people asking "Is that the ONLY way to make a sandwich."
The people who ASK the question believe sandwiches can be made of bread and Monkey Spleen.
Because bread and monkey spleen sandwiches are disgusting, and no one really EATS them, science is saying, "Yes. All sandwiches are bread and cheese."
That does not make the declaration TRUE, or SCIENTIFIC.
Not at all... that doesn't even make sense... you are talking about SCOPES... which is ENTIRELY different, Scopes was about suppressing science in favor of metaphysics.
As I've said, about 2 dozen times over the last few days... God is irrelevant. Can macro-evolution scientifically, legitimately, argued. Do we have definitive proof of it? No.
Does everyone misunderstand ID this way? I explained the difference before (Random versus [Evo] Something else [ID])... and you apparently ignored it. My "declaration" of what ID is asking for was ignored. Why? Why can't even the argument for ID be addressed scientifically. Why does science refuse to admit that it doesn't have a solid grasp on evolution?
And ultimately, the impetus, why are so many people happy to be misled?
ADDENDUM: I just did a check on a half dozen of the ID laws that are in process or have died are all EXCEPTIONALLY religious in their wording. Which is idiotic. This does not me ID is wrong, nor does it say Evolution SHOULD be taught as law, but I do acknowledge that it seems to be impossible for a conservative legislator to write a law.
Dover PA got really close, but suggesting ID is anti-darwinist is not accurate, and encouraging them to read a non-science book is unacceptable... minus that one paragraph, it's pretty solid.
I think you responded to the wrong comment.
Everything you said is correct about why we teach theory as Law, and its also why you wouldn't want people teaching religion as law.
Your example is pretty weak, though... gravity isn't theorhetical, a child can prove its existence. You can discuss the NUANCES, but you can not make a legitimate argument that gravity is not there.
I've been trying to find a theory that is comprable to Evolution for the last couple of days, and I can't. That probably has more to do with my broken brain, but the point I would have been making is that OTHER theories that have the same level of proof applied to them as macro-evolution do not get treated as Law.
College? Not so much, the same bad science is there too, and the ridicule of the religious is much more open and sterner.
"Church is the same way. They say Jesus loves you, be good to each other, Jesus came back from the dead. If you really want to, you can learn all about transubstantiation, Eucharist, the arguments of the triumvirate. It's called seminary and theology."
And that's how I'm wrong? That is exactly what I was saying, you just agreed with me. You put that more even succinctly than I did. Yes, that is true, theology is exactly like that... the difference is theology is not based on fact, but faith and experience. Science is the exploration of the factual and provable...
"If we do want to teach the controversy" - We don't... I certainly don't, the Intelligent Design argument doesnt... so why is this an issue? We want to say a loose theory is a loose theory...
I would say that if teaching that a theory is in fact theorhetical is to hard and complicated, then don't teach the theory at all. Teaching Science in Science class would do nicely, meaning the entire concept of Macro-Evolution could be shifted of to "college and specialization." If you want to say one theory is valid enough to be taught as law, then every whacko theory with even a sliver of evidence to support it should be considered for teaching in schools.
OR we could say "The theory of evolution by Natural Selection is just that, a theory, and while researchers are working to prove the theory, there are still hurdles before them. The father of the theory, Charles Darwin, warned when he wrote it 150 years, that the fossil record didn't support his theory, but he was confident that future discoveries would confirm it. At present those discoveries have yet to be made."
Why are the facts to much to teach in a subject whose devotion to facts is only superceded by mathematics? I formulated and wrote the resolution to most arguments for ID request in 2 minutes. I never once mention deities or spaghetti monsters... and I didn't lie, which is actually MORE accurate, than the counter argument wants to teach in school.
This is all everyone I have spoken to about ID has wanted, acceptance by the Scientific community that despite having taught it as law for 50 years, that there is not enough evidence for the rational scientific community to say that macro-evolution happened as Darwin explained.
Which brings me back to the point you were responding to... Over and over, in various ways, I keep hearing the argument that "Teaching the theory as fact, and manipulating the details of those teachings to support the theory is good for students, and the science community."
Which to me is just as offensive as teaching some thing as "wrong" as "God Did This..."
*(excusing the ocassional fundamentalist who is somehow convinced that the natural sciences lie [despite being breathed into existence, ergo the "word" of God, ergo are infallible], but thats a whole 'nother ball of crazy)
Ok... there are two issues here and I didn't separate them well, and I appologize, but they are intimately related in the ID argument, so I see them in parallel. Those points are a) Invalidation of input if the generator believes in God b) Bad science being left to simmer while theology is condemned because it causes bad science.
>>Frankly, I find biology in general to be sort of wishy-washy science. It knows that some things work and that some things happen, but the theories as to why these happen are often analagous to the "phlogestin" theories about combustion from earlier centuries. >That's completely ok, until they start treating that part as if it is science. Science and religion are only compatible as long as it's understood that we're analyzing Gods creation, not analyzing God. This is important because it places ID outside the realm of science, which is natualistic and seeks only to look at the earth as it exists through whatever force created the Universe.>outside the observations of science.what it is is irrelevant, but that it is is scientific fact. Today we don't know everything. Until we do, it is intellectually irresponsible to remove options WITHOUT holding them up to scientific method.
Mold is icky and unclean and therefore we aren't going to study it from a pharmaceutical perspective. How did that work out for us? We had to discover penicillin by chance. Certainly we would have eventually, but how much SOONER would we have discovered it if we didn't judge it's source when making scientific examination.
There are huge numbers of people who fight their own common sense because they think their faith rejects science (usually not true) and they think science rejects their faith (certainly true among the people who tend to speak for it [I imagine there are VAST numbers of scientists, faithful and atheist, working in silence because they AGREE about what you're saying]).
>>It's existance as a brand new political ideology pretending to be the way things always were frustrates the hell out of me.>I'm sitting here somehow being called "leftist" for being a sane rational human being who doesn't feel like doing completely unprecidented things or taking extremist attitudes.> I'm not looking at some republican hating extremist leftists, I'm looking at scientists. >2000 years ago the greeks who recorded most of the knowlege that would be held as scientific fact for the next millenium and a half had the same attitudes.
They also recorded a hell of a lot of things that were later disproved, altered and improved, and like true scientists, they allowed that, because that knowledge is more important than where it came from. Many of the great originators and developers of these ideas were religious men, whose ideas stemmed from the belief that "God did this" which, by today's standards would make them not worthy of our examination. The much maligned Catholic church both protected and advanced science for centuries while the citizenry of those years were running around slaying each other (yes, yes, often in the name of the aforementioned Church). The belief in the existence of God is not a boolean for scientific validity or inclusion. Hiding behind the separation of Religion and Science because your science is bad is not a solution.
A) THANK YOU... I love a well worded and well thought out response...
B) I was not taking on the legislation, I by nature of having had to watch politicians screw things up for the entirety of my lifetime, do not hope to improve law at any point. I think legislating this is repulsive.
C) "educational sense to single out evolutionary theory for special attention" I agree, though the trick here is that Utah has, by even allowing a vote, made it illegal to question theory.
D) No. Encourage people NOT to think differently, this is the issue.
E) "have forced students to be given the incorrect view that evolutionary theory is somehow deeply questioned by scientists" IT IS! This is the other thing that ammuses me in this discussion today, that everyone in support of Darwinism here today acts like there is no dissention... Does no one see why that makes this ruling all the scarier? This is a completely tenuous theory (NOT in ANY way saying that some religious anser is more right... AT ALL... strictly scientifically, Evolution by way of Natural Selection is a very obvious answer, it's "easy" to see why it must be true, but there is EXCEPTIONALLY little evidence to support it). Again... I am an evolutionist... I actually believe it makes the most sense... but no way in hell do I think it's right to deny the possibility that there might be another answer to the question. It is a theory that has been excepted on face value faster than most hard scientific fact has been accepted when the evidence was irrefutable. I referenced Haekel in another reply, there is no reason for that and it scares me, as someone who agrees with the argument, that that is the best we can do to support our argument? Lie to people? Come on, can we not be mature logical people and say "look, we might be wrong."
I don't want religion taught in schools, and that includes bad science. Were it passed, (and it shouldn NOT have been) it might have forced teachers and writers... and SCIENTISTS, to take a look at what they are saying...
I can't say "God created everything in a week" in a science class, but I can say "Haekel discovered that embryos of animals evolve the same way"... One is an un-likely to be proven theory. One is a lie. The unprovable theory is illegal to share, the lie was just supported by the state of Utah. Go Team!
Are you talking about something? I hear a lot of rhetoric but I'm not finding anything to address...
"No, because it's religious fundtardry." - Nice word... I like a good word now and then, honestly made me stop and reconsider what you were saying...
So I'll respond. Grand Unified Theory would sufficiently answer "the Big Question" Which would mean science is in your view religious fundtardry. Am I missing something? Are you arguing that science and religion.
Faith is the belief in something that can't be seen or proven... Apples fall, asteroids are tracked... where exactly is the faith in that?
Faith and religion are irrelevant to what I said, and irrelevant to the recognition that scientific theory is somehow beyond reproach.
That's three for three... want to call me more names now or do you have an argument that actually has some weight?
Calling my argument a predictable political ploy seems... well... to be something of a predictable political ploy... I don't think I've ever seen a pro-conservative viewpoint on slashdot.
...and it CERTAINLY goes against the definition of scientist.
If I had one to post I would be SCARED to post it...
I didn't want to speak out of turn, so I went back and checked. There are 40 or so top level posts that actually have enough focus to give an opinion, 5 of these are relatively neutral on the subject (mine included, caustic as it might have been, the argument was that this is irrelevant to science, and BOTH sides are making it worse), and of those at least 2 come from Christians... the remainder of them are generally insulting and proudly anti-God/ID/Christian/Republican. It is "sweeping generalization"... it's a 10 to 1 gang rape.
And somehow I'm the bad guy who is judging people too harshly.
Some order higher in the discussion I noticed:
"as the creationists try and blast the boards with their nonsense."
There are three things I noticed about this:
Firstly, it is one of the most even handed pro-status-quo opinion still managed to insult any opinions not of the collective viewpoint... and that you didn't bother to call them predictable.
Secondly, there don't appear to be hordes of creationists blasting nonsense... I mean, unless the 5 of us saying "Science is built on a foundation of various theories being worked until one is proven fact... why is that not ok now?" is somehow a blast of nonsense.
Generally speaking there are one or two fundamentalist Christian jackasses screaming at the top of their lungs and saying nothing. Trust me, I am usually standing in line with the anti-Christians to lay a beating on those guys. They make they whole discussion cheap, and prevent thoughts from being exchanged...
MOREOVER... the political jibe was not even the argument I made... it was the set dressing, and it was a pretty obvious farce.
So I am back to... I don't want a "bunch of politically correct garbage" in schools. Please if you do nothing else, recognize that I am in support of science... or explain to me when I made that argument... I'm pretty sure I tried to write (after my Part I, of course) very neutral and reference only the superceded issue.
Again... I don't know what you are turning around... In my farce I turned it around, in my conclusion I turned it around... I think turning it around was really my whole point. The left has BECOME the right and they are happy about it. You say you're turning around leftists into rightists... I'm nodding my head, exactly.
(I did want to say I appologize for using leftist, it was a poor choice. I was using the more common "anti-conservative" meaning, where you were using the more traditional "anti-establishment" meaning, and I didn't catch your direction right away.
It's akin to journalists being overt in their support of a political figure... it damned near goes against the definition of Journalist.
I do find the "politically correct" reference refreshing and interesting, as I agree with it, and that is a rare thing in these parts (not to pigeon-hole seven hundred thousand readers).
If we could get away from teaching things that aren't factually accurate. The trick is, without counterbalance any group-thought becomes unquestioned religion. The "science" taught in school LOOKS like science, but it isn't, it teaches theory as law, it avoids saying "I don't know" at all costs... it's a Priest in a hardcover book.
I remember my first experience with that... the Skull of the T-Rex, and how the scientific community refused to let go of a tenuous fraud for years simply because, well, it was science and science is never wrong. As a student it always fascinated me (being to young to grasp the hellish ugliness that Ego represents) why a Scientist would not be EXCITED to find the REAL head of the dinosaur he discovered. As an adult, I "get" it... but as a
Since your response assumes I believe in creation, want it to be taught in schools, and that somehow my saying all of what I said meant I don't respect the science involved in the development of a computer... I can only assume your were responding to someone elses post... or you don't know how to read.
I really don't have anything constructive to add... but then... clearly neither did you. Call the dissident NAMES! w00t
I'm proud that the Republican hating free thought open source and open minds collective hive mind of Slashdot is so totally behind this! Children should NOT be taught that anyone disagrees with the science minded leftist elite! We are the correct ones, we have never ever been wrong, implying we might not be completely right all the time is bad for everyone! Dissident opinions should be oppressed and certainly not voiced in school. --- ...and you call Bush a fascist.
It REPULSES me that you are all so on this bandwagon. The legislation, LITERALLY, said give kids an option to see everything and choose for themselves.
The anti-ID argument is the dumbest thing I have ever heard... it allows us take the focus off the one Big Question, and work as peers on everything ELSE.
But that isn't how we reacted. What did the logical, sound minded, scientific thinking side of the community do when challenged? EXACTLY what we have bitched about the Christian community doing since the dawn of science. We oppress their thoughts and opinions and refuse to acknowledge that they can even contribute, solely because we can't fit their worldview into ours, refuse to acknowledge that our "theory" is as broken as theirs.
Your faith in science, is not less ludicrous than someone elses faith.
When either side can prove their Grand Unified Theory, but God, Spaghetti Monster, or Abacus... they will. There will be much rubbing of the other sides noses in it, one side or the other will act like insufferable children for several decades, and we'll move on to other things...
UNTIL THEN... would it kill us to shut up, respect each other's merits and focus on the SCIENCE?
Logic Breakdown Breakdown:
Oppressing the thoughts of those who disagree is righteous and good.
Allowing individuals who think differently to participate is a stupid thing to teach children.
Allowing people who think differently to participate will only ruin the end result, take Open Source for instance.