as a graduate student i am embarassed that this article showed up in the WSJ

dannybin1742

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2002
2,335
0
0
emailed to me by one of my profs: (i don't have a subscription to the WSJ)

>> PAGE ONE
>
>>
>> Darwinian Struggle
>
>> At Some Colleges,
>
>> Classes Questioning
>
>> Evolution Take Hold
>
>> 'Intelligent Design' Doctrine
>
>> Leaves Room for Creator;
>
>> In Iowa, Science on Defense
>
>> A Professor Turns Heckler
>
>> By DANIEL GOLDEN
>
>> Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
>
>> November 14, 2005; Page A1
>
>> AMES, Iowa -- With a magician's flourish, Thomas Ingebritsen pulled
>
>> six mousetraps from a shopping bag and handed them out to students in
>
>> his "God and Science" seminar. At his instruction, they removed one
>
>> component -- either the spring, hammer or holding bar -- from each
>
>> mousetrap. They then tested the traps, which all failed to snap.
>
>>
>> "Is the mousetrap irreducibly complex?" the Iowa State University
>
>> molecular biologist asked the class.
>
>>
>>
>> "Yes, definitely," said Jason Mueller, a junior biochemistry major
>
>> wearing a cross around his neck.
>
>>
>> That's the answer Mr. Ingebritsen was looking for. He was using the
>
>> mousetrap to support the antievolution doctrine known as intelligent
>
>> design. Like a mousetrap, the associate professor suggested, living
>
>> cells are "irreducibly complex" -- they can't fulfill their functions
>
>> without all of their parts. Hence, they could not have evolved bit by
>
>> bit through natural selection but must have been devised by a creator.
>
>>
>> "This is the closest to a science class on campus where anybody's
>
>> going to talk about intelligent design," the fatherly looking
>
>> associate professor told his class. "At least for now."
>
>>
>> Overshadowed by attacks on evolution in high-school science curricula,
>
>> intelligent design is gaining a precarious and hotly contested
>
>> foothold in American higher education. Intelligent-design courses have
>
>> cropped up at the state universities of Minnesota, Georgia and New
>
>> Mexico, as well as Iowa State, and at private institutions such as
>
>> Wake Forest and Carnegie Mellon. Most of the courses, like Mr.
>
>> Ingebritsen's, are small seminars that don't count for science credit.
>
>> Many colleges have also hosted lectures by advocates of the doctrine.
>
>>
>> The spread of these courses reflects the growing influence of
>
>> evangelical Christianity in academia, as in other aspects of American
>
>> culture. Last week, the Kansas state board of education adopted new
>
>> science guidelines that question evolution.
>
>>
>> Intelligent design does not demand a literal reading of the Bible.
>
>> Unlike traditional creationists, most adherents agree with the
>
>> prevailing scientific view that the earth is billions of years old.
>
>> And they allow that the designer is not necessarily the Christian God.
>
>>
>> Still, professors with evangelical beliefs, including some eminent
>
>> scientists, have initiated most of the courses and lectures, often
>
>> with start-up funding from the John Templeton Foundation. Established
>
>> by famous stockpicker Sir John Templeton, the foundation promotes
>
>> exploring the boundary of theology and science. It fostered the
>
>> movement's growth with grants of $10,000 and up for guest speakers,
>
>> library materials, research and conferences.
>
>>
>> Intelligent design's beachhead on campus has provoked a backlash.
>
>> Universities have discouraged teaching of intelligent design in
>
>> science classes and canceled lectures on the topic. Last month,
>
>> University of Idaho President Tim White flatly declared that teaching
>
>> of "views that differ from evolution" in science courses is
>
>> "inappropriate."
>
>>
>> Citing what they describe as overwhelming evidence for evolution,
>
>> mainstream scientists say no one has the right to teach wrong science,
>
>> or religion in the guise of science. "My interest is in making sure
>
>> that intelligent design and creationism do not make the kind of
>
>> inroads at the university level that they're making at the K-12
>
>> level," says Leslie McFadden, chair of earth and planetary sciences at
>
>> the University of New Mexico, who led a successful fight there to
>
>> re-classify a course on intelligent design from science to humanities.
>
>> "You can't teach whatever you damn well please. If you're a geologist,
>
>> and you decide that the earth's core is made of green cheese, you
>
>> can't teach that."
>
>>
>> At Iowa State, where Mr. Ingebritsen teaches, more than 120 faculty
>
>> signed a petition this year condemning "all attempts to represent
>
>> intelligent design as a scientific endeavor." In response, 47
>
>> Christian faculty and staff members, including Mr. Ingebritsen, signed
>
>> a statement calling on the university to protect their freedom to
>
>> discuss intelligent design.
>
>>
>> At stake in this dispute are the minds of the next generation of
>
>> scientists and science teachers. Some are arriving at college with
>
>> conflicting accounts of mankind's origins at home, in church and at
>
>> school. Many of Iowa State's 21,000-plus undergraduates come from
>
>> fundamentalist backgrounds and belong to Christian student groups on
>
>> campus.
>
>>
>> According to an informal survey by James Colbert, an associate
>
>> professor who teaches introductory biology at Iowa State, one-third of
>
>> ISU freshmen planning to major in biology agree with the statement
>
>> that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at
>
>> one time within the last 10,000 years." Although it's widely assumed
>
>> that college-bound students learn about evolution in high school, Mr.
>
>> Colbert says that isn't always the case.
>
>>
>> "I've had frequent conversations with freshmen who told me that their
>
>> high-school biology teachers skipped the evolution chapter," he says.
>
>> "I would say that high-school teachers in many cases feel intimidated
>
>> about teaching evolution. They're concerned they're going to be
>
>> criticized by parents, students and school boards."
>
>>
>> Avoiding Confrontations
>
>>
>> Warren Dolphin, who also teaches introductory biology at Iowa State,
>
>> says he's begun describing evolution to his class as a hypothesis
>
>> rather than as a fact to avoid confrontations with creationist
>
>> students. "I don't want to get into a nonproductive debate," he says.
>
>> "What I'm saying is so contrary to what they're hearing in their small
>
>> town, their school, their church that I won't convert them in 40
>
>> lectures by a pointy-headed professor. The most I can do is get them
>
>> to question their beliefs."
>
>>
>> In a 1999 fund-raising proposal, the Discovery Institute -- an
>
>> intelligent design think tank in Seattle -- outlined what it called a
>
>> "wedge strategy" to replace the "stifling dominance of the materialist
>
>> worldview" with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic
>
>> conviction." Its five-year objectives included making intelligent
>
>> design "an accepted alternative in the sciences" and the "dominant
>
>> perspective" at two universities which weren't identified.
>
>>
>> While these goals weren't met, some intelligent-design advocates
>
>> associated with the Discovery Institute, found a receptive ear at the
>
>> Pennsylvania-based Templeton Foundation. Between 1994 and 2002, the
>
>> foundation funded nearly 800 courses, including several on intelligent
>
>> design. It has also supported research by William Dembski, who headed
>
>> an intelligent-design center at Baylor University, and Guillermo
>
>> Gonzalez, co-author of a 2004 book, "The Privileged Planet." The book
>
>> claimed to discern a designer from the earth's position in the cosmos.
>
>> Mr. Gonzalez, an assistant professor of astronomy at Iowa State,
>
>> received $58,000 from the foundation over three years.
>
>>
>> Foundation staff members now say that intelligent design hasn't
>
>> yielded as much research as they'd hoped. Mr. Templeton, who chairs
>
>> the foundation and will turn 93 later this month, believes "the
>
>> creation-evolution argument is a waste of time," says Paul Wason, the
>
>> foundation's director of science and religion programs. Mr. Wason adds
>
>> that Mr. Templeton is more interested in applying the scientific
>
>> method to exploring spiritual questions such as the nature of
>
>> forgiveness. Nevertheless, staff members remain reluctant to dismiss
>
>> intelligent design entirely, in part because the doctrine's popularity
>
>> could help achieve the foundation's goal of persuading evangelical
>
>> Christians to pursue scientific careers. The foundation also complains
>
>> that academia is too quick to censor the doctrine.
>
>>
>> Templeton-funded proponents of intelligent design include Christopher
>
>> Macosko, a professor of chemical engineering at University of
>
>> Minnesota. Mr. Macosko, a member of the National Academy of
>
>> Engineering, became a born-again Christian as an assistant professor
>
>> after a falling-out with a business partner. For eight years, he's
>
>> taught a freshman seminar: "Life: By Chance or By Design?" According
>
>> to Mr. Macosko, "All the students who finish my course say, 'Gee, I
>
>> didn't realize how shaky evolution is.' "
>
>>
>> Another recipient of Templeton funding, Harold Delaney, a professor of
>
>> psychology at the University of New Mexico, taught an honors seminar
>
>> in 2003 and 2004 on "Origins: Science, Faith and Philosophy."
>
>> Co-taught by Michael Kent, a scientist at Sandia National
>
>> Laboratories, the course included readings on both sides as well as a
>
>> guest lecture by David Keller, another intelligent-design advocate on
>
>> the New Mexico faculty.
>
>>
>> The university initially approved the course as qualifying students
>
>> for science credit, as had been the custom with many interdisciplinary
>
>> courses. Then the earth sciences chairman, Mr. McFadden, heard about
>
>> the course. In an email to the chairman of biology, he described Mr.
>
>> Delaney and Mr. Kent each as a "known creationist." The course, Mr.
>
>> McFadden wrote, was "clearly 'designed' to show that 'intelligent
>
>> design' is legitimate science.' " He added that he was "absolutely
>
>> opposed" to classifying "Origins" as a science course.
>
>>
>> The biology chairman and other faculty members agreed, and Reed
>
>> Dasenbrock, then dean of arts and sciences, re-categorized "Origins"
>
>> as a humanities course.
>
>>
>> Mr. Delaney complained in a letter to the director of the honors
>
>> program that the reclassification was "a violation of my academic
>
>> freedom." But Mr. Dasenbrock, now interim provost, says the principle
>
>> of academic freedom was not at stake in the decision. "People didn't
>
>> buy it as science," he said.
>
>>
>> The controversy didn't end there. Once the course started, a retired
>
>> neuroscientist, Gerald Weiss, sat in on several classes, passing out
>
>> evolution literature and heckling the teachers. Intelligent design is
>
>> "deception," Mr. Weiss said. "They had the students in the palm of
>
>> their hands. I wasn't welcome at all, and I finally gave it up."
>
>>
>> Despite the humanities classification, Mr. Delaney says, other faculty
>
>> continued to object to "Origins" and regard it as an embarrassment. He
>
>> doesn't plan to offer the course again.
>
>>
>> Some well-respected scientists have fostered the spread of intelligent
>
>> design. Henry F. Schaefer, director of the Center for Computational
>
>> Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia, has written or
>
>> co-authored 1,082 scientific papers and is one of the world's most
>
>> widely cited chemists by other researchers.
>
>>
>> Mr. Schaefer teaches a freshman seminar at Georgia entitled: "Science
>
>> and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?" He has spoken on religion
>
>> and science at many American universities, and gave the "John M.
>
>> Templeton Lecture" -- funded by the foundation -- at Case Western
>
>> Reserve in 1992, Montana State in 1999, and Princeton and Carnegie
>
>> Mellon in 2004. "Those who favor the standard evolutionary model are
>
>> in a state of panic," he says. "Intelligent design truly terrorizes
>
>> them."
>
>>
>> This past April, the school of science at Duquesne University, a
>
>> Catholic university in Pittsburgh, abruptly canceled its sponsorship
>
>> of a lecture by Mr. Schaefer in its distinguished scientist series.
>
>> According to David Seybert, dean of the Bayer School of Natural and
>
>> Environmental Sciences, Mr. Schaefer was invited at the suggestion of
>
>> a faculty member belonging to a Christian fellowship group on campus.
>
>> The invitation was withdrawn after several biology professors
>
>> complained that Mr. Schaefer planned to speak in favor of intelligent
>
>> design. The school wanted to avoid "legitimizing intelligent design
>
>> from a scientific perspective," Mr. Seybert said. Faculty members were
>
>> also concerned that top students might not apply to Duquesne if they
>
>> thought it endorsed intelligent design. Mr. Schaefer gave his lecture
>
>> -- entitled "The Big Bang, Stephen Hawking, and God" -- to a packed
>
>> hall at Duquesne under the auspices of a Christian group instead.
>
>>
>> High Tensions
>
>>
>> Tensions are running high at Iowa State, with Mr. Ingebritsen playing
>
>> a key role. Joining the Iowa State faculty in 1986, he specialized in
>
>> studying how cells communicate, but ended his research about 10 years
>
>> ago and took up developing online biology courses. Shortly before that
>
>> career change, he had converted from agnosticism to evangelical
>
>> Christianity. As he explored whether -- and how -- modern science
>
>> could be compatible with his religious beliefs, intelligent design
>
>> intrigued him.
>
>>
>> He taught "God and Science" for three years starting in 2000 without
>
>> incident. But when he again proposed the seminar in 2003, members of
>
>> the honors curriculum committee sought outside opinions from
>
>> colleagues in biology and philosophy of science. They reported that
>
>> the course relied on a textbook by a Christian publisher and slighted
>
>> evolution. "I have serious worries about whether a course almost
>
>> exclusively focused on the defense of Christian views is appropriate
>
>> at a secular, state institution," wrote Michael Bishop, then
>
>> philosophy chairman. The committee rejected the course by a 5-4 vote.
>
>>
>> After protesting to a higher-level administrator to no avail, Mr.
>
>> Ingebritsen revised the syllabus, added a mainstream textbook, and
>
>> resumed teaching the course in 2004.
>
>>
>> On the Spot
>
>>
>> On a brisk Thursday in October, following the mousetrap gambit, Mr.
>
>> Ingebritsen displayed diagrams on an overhead projector of
>
>> "irreducibly complex" structures such as bacterial flagellum, the
>
>> motor that helps bacteria move about. The flagellum, he said,
>
>> constitutes strong evidence for intelligent design.
>
>>
>> One student, Mary West, disputed this conclusion. "These systems could
>
>> have arisen through natural selection," the senior said, citing the
>
>> pro-evolution textbook.
>
>>
>> "That doesn't explain this system," Mr. Ingebritsen answered. "You're
>
>> a scientist. How did the flagellum evolve? Do you have a compelling
>
>> argument for how it came into being?"
>
>>
>> Ms. West looked down, avoiding his eye. "Nope," she muttered. The
>
>> textbook, "Finding Darwin's God," by Kenneth Miller, a biology
>
>> professor at Brown University, asserts that a flagellum isn't
>
>> irreducibly complex because it can function to some degree even
>
>> without all of its parts. This suggests to evolutionists that the
>
>> flagellum could have developed over time, adding parts that made it
>
>> work better.
>
>>
>> During a class break, Ms. West says that Mr. Ingebritsen often puts
>
>> her on the spot. "He knows I'm not religious," she says. "In the
>
>> beginning, we talked about our religious philosophy. Everyone else in
>
>> the class is some sort of a Christian. I'm not." The course helps her
>
>> understand "the arguments on the other side," she adds, but she would
>
>> like to see Mr. Ingebritsen co-teach it with a proponent of evolution.
>
>>
>> Ms. West and other honors students will have a chance to hear the
>
>> opposing viewpoint next semester. Counter-programming against Mr.
>
>> Ingebritsen, three faculty members are preparing a seminar titled:
>
>> "The Nature of Science: Why the Overwhelming Consensus of Science is
>
>> that Intelligent Design is not Good Science."
>
>>
>> Write to Daniel Golden at dan.golden@wsj.com
>

sorry for the formatting, this is the onlyway i could cut and paste it from my email.

anyways as a graduate student in biochem (here at ISU), i'm embarassed that this appeared in the WSJ, it gives our university a black eye in terms of getting more students to come to school here (the whole living in iowa argument, fundies...etc....)


Mr. Ingebritsen, doesn't even do real research anymore....what a hack


a mouse trap with a missing part is nothing more than a non-functional mouse trap, there are no simmilarities between that and a living cell, many many genes can be removed and cells can still be viable
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Most of the courses, like Mr. Ingebritsen's, are small seminars that don't count for science credit.

Limit the scope, limit the findings. I don't see anything wrong here, or nothing to be embarassed about at least.
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,198
4
76
Well, this part wasn't so bad:

Most of the courses, like Mr.
>
>> Ingebritsen's, are small seminars that don't count for science credit.

However, the part about it not being all and the large number of students entering college thinking the earth isn't more than 10,000 years old is disturbing.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: Strk
Well, this part wasn't so bad:

Most of the courses, like Mr.
>
>> Ingebritsen's, are small seminars that don't count for science credit.

However, the part about it not being all and the large number of students entering college thinking the earth isn't more than 10,000 years old is disturbing.

I actually find the intolerance people show towards people of faith disturbing in this country more than somebody thinking the world is 10,000 years old. The guy thinking the world is 10,000 years old is harmless while people who are intolerant usually end up trying to trample peoples rights and silence them.
 

dannybin1742

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2002
2,335
0
0
its embarassing because Mr. Ingebritsen is a tenured professor in our department,, and reflects badly upon our field

good old genX87, always there to support the RRR:

I actually find the intolerance people show towards people of faith disturbing in this country more than somebody thinking the world is 10,000 years old. The guy thinking the world is 10,000 years old is harmless while people who are intolerant usually end up trying to trample peoples rights and silence them.

these are the poeple who will destroy science in this country
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: dannybin1742
its embarassing because Mr. Ingebritsen is a tenured professor in our department,, and reflects badly upon our field

So you dont agree with him, get over it, not everybody thinks the way you do. Dont they teach that in the indoctrination centers of american higher education?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
these are the poeple who will destroy science in this country

Here is a clue, if Science survived the dark ages, the inquisistion, the witch trials. How the hell do you think religion is going to destroy science in a country setup for freedoms never experienced under the above scenarios?

For a person of science I would have thought you required more proof than a hunch.
 

homercles337

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2004
6,345
3
71
Originally posted by: dannybin1742
its embarassing because Mr. Ingebritsen is a tenured professor in our department,, and reflects badly upon our field

Yes, i would be embarassed to be associated with that department as well. Maybe you should point him here, or here.
 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
these are the poeple who will destroy science in this country

Here is a clue, if Science survived the dark ages, the inquisistion, the witch trials. How the hell do you think religion is going to destroy science in a country setup for freedoms never experienced under the above scenarios?

Simple. The RRR types will use Congress and the legal system to force their views to be taught.

Its funny... back in the day, these religious freaky-freaks would home school so they could teach their wacky religious views. Now, people who want their children to learn science will have to home school.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: Genx87
these are the poeple who will destroy science in this country

Here is a clue, if Science survived the dark ages, the inquisistion, the witch trials. How the hell do you think religion is going to destroy science in a country setup for freedoms never experienced under the above scenarios?

Simple. The RRR types will use Congress and the legal system to force their views to be taught.

Unfounded

Its funny... back in the day, these religious freaky-freaks would home school so they could teach their wacky religious views. Now, people who want their children to learn science will have to home school.

Yes, like I said, stamping out religion and opposing views at every possible opportunity.
 

dannybin1742

Platinum Member
Jan 16, 2002
2,335
0
0
you seem to miss the point genx87, science is taught by science professors, science profs have no right to drag religion inot the science class room, you can be the most hard core fundie that i've ver met, but if you still teach evolution in science classrooms without any mension of ID or religion, then i have no problem with you.

what is embarassing is that we have a department member that trys to teach philosophy in a science based department, as all other posts have unequivocally proved, ID is not science.

and what i meant by destroying science was all it will take is a few well placed fundies in public policy on what should be taugh in science class, and you essentially start to destroy the part of the population that will replace us in 20 years in evidence driven research, look at whats happened to saudi arabia, 20 years ago people who went to colleges there got degrees in engineering, mathematics, physics...computer science, now 95% ore more of the degrees attained in SA are religious based......not saying that will happen, but there is definately a driving force in this country to get religion back into school and gut science.

science at the graduate school level was well funded under clinton, under bush it has been horrible, grant approval has dropped to 5% (vs 25% under clinton) and its not because of research goals, its because of money
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,198
4
76
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Strk
Well, this part wasn't so bad:

Most of the courses, like Mr. Ingebritsen's, are small seminars that don't count for science credit.

However, the part about it not being all and the large number of students entering college thinking the earth isn't more than 10,000 years old is disturbing.

I actually find the intolerance people show towards people of faith disturbing in this country more than somebody thinking the world is 10,000 years old. The guy thinking the world is 10,000 years old is harmless while people who are intolerant usually end up trying to trample peoples rights and silence them.

Except a lot of these students aren't even given the option to decide for themselves:

According to an informal survey by James Colbert, an associate professor who teaches introductory biology at Iowa State, one-third of ISU freshmen planning to major in biology agree with the statement that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." Although it's widely assumed that college-bound students learn about evolution in high school, Mr. Colbert says that isn't always the case. "I've had frequent conversations with freshmen who told me that their high-school biology teachers skipped the evolution chapter," he says. "I would say that high-school teachers in many cases feel intimidated about teaching evolution. They're concerned they're going to be criticized by parents, students and school boards."

I'm sorry I'm not a fan of replacing science with theology. And I'm intollerant of faith? You know nothing about me other than I don't want religion taught in schools - especially not in place of science.
 

GreyMittens

Member
Nov 1, 2005
174
0
0
Originally posted by: EatSpam

Its funny... back in the day, these religious freaky-freaks would home school so they could teach their wacky religious views. Now, people who want their children to learn science will have to home school.

I tend to agree. Next will there be classes on witch craft and head shrinking? Come on just because science survived the dark ages and inquisistion doesn't mean we should still live in them.
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,198
4
76
Originally posted by: GreyMittens
Originally posted by: EatSpam

Its funny... back in the day, these religious freaky-freaks would home school so they could teach their wacky religious views. Now, people who want their children to learn science will have to home school.

I tend to agree. Next will there be classes on witch craft and head shrinking? Come on just because science survived the dark ages and inquisistion doesn't mean we should still live in them.

Head shrinking could be taught in a science class, since there is an actual process to it :)

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
you seem to miss the point genx87, science is taught by science professors, science profs have no right to drag religion inot the science class room, you can be the most hard core fundie that i've ver met, but if you still teach evolution in science classrooms without any mension of ID or religion, then i have no problem with you.

Maybe I am missing something, but isnt this just a seminar and not required curriculum?
If these are elective and non-credited what is the problem?

and what i meant by destroying science was all it will take is a few well placed fundies in public policy on what should be taugh in science class, and you essentially start to destroy the part of the population that will replace us in 20 years in evidence driven research, look at whats happened to saudi arabia, 20 years ago people who went to colleges there got degrees in engineering, mathematics, physics...computer science, now 95% ore more of the degrees attained in SA are religious based......not saying that will happen, but there is definately a driving force in this country to get religion back into school and gut science.

No offense but comparing SA with the United States is like comparing an orange and an Apple. Your paranoid is noted but I dont see any real concern.

Except a lot of these students aren't even given the option to decide for themselves:

So what you are saying is your intolerance is out of concern for those people?

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Strk
Well, this part wasn't so bad:

Most of the courses, like Mr.
>
>> Ingebritsen's, are small seminars that don't count for science credit.

However, the part about it not being all and the large number of students entering college thinking the earth isn't more than 10,000 years old is disturbing.

I actually find the intolerance people show towards people of faith disturbing in this country more than somebody thinking the world is 10,000 years old. The guy thinking the world is 10,000 years old is harmless while people who are intolerant usually end up trying to trample peoples rights and silence them.

Originally posted by: Todd33
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Well, I'm embarassed for America that this is even a debate.

Agreed. Thank the American Taliban.

Example of American Taliban above.

He preaches Religious tolerance yet has no problem with Religion imposing their views on all others.

Best definition of American Taliban = current Republicans
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,198
4
76
Originally posted by: Genx87
So what you are saying is your intolerance is out of concern for those people?

I question their beliefs when they aren't given the option to decide for themselves. I guess I just don't believe the bible should be taken literally.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Strk
Well, this part wasn't so bad:

Most of the courses, like Mr.
>
>> Ingebritsen's, are small seminars that don't count for science credit.

However, the part about it not being all and the large number of students entering college thinking the earth isn't more than 10,000 years old is disturbing.

I actually find the intolerance people show towards people of faith disturbing in this country more than somebody thinking the world is 10,000 years old. The guy thinking the world is 10,000 years old is harmless while people who are intolerant usually end up trying to trample peoples rights and silence them.

Originally posted by: Todd33
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Well, I'm embarassed for America that this is even a debate.

Agreed. Thank the American Taliban.

Example of American Taliban above.

He preaches Religious tolerance yet has no problem with Religion imposing their views on all others.

Best definition of American Taliban = current Republicans

Please show me where I said that.



 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,198
4
76
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Strk
Well, this part wasn't so bad:

Most of the courses, like Mr.
>
>> Ingebritsen's, are small seminars that don't count for science credit.

However, the part about it not being all and the large number of students entering college thinking the earth isn't more than 10,000 years old is disturbing.

I actually find the intolerance people show towards people of faith disturbing in this country more than somebody thinking the world is 10,000 years old. The guy thinking the world is 10,000 years old is harmless while people who are intolerant usually end up trying to trample peoples rights and silence them.

Originally posted by: Todd33
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Well, I'm embarassed for America that this is even a debate.

Agreed. Thank the American Taliban.

Example of American Taliban above.

He preaches Religious tolerance yet has no problem with Religion imposing their views on all others.

Best definition of American Taliban = current Republicans

Please show me where I said that.

All you've done is argue against the seperation of science and theology, while at the same time accusing anyone who does believe in it of being intollerant. How about giving us a reason not to believe that? (Oh, and I'm not agreeing with Dave on his attack on Repubs, but the general idea)
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
btw before this turns into a flame war I want to clarify what I am arguing in this thread. I am not arguing for or against ID or the theory of evolution. I dont know enough about ID to warrant a valid opinion and I think the theory of evolution from what i have read looks sound.

What I am arguing is the recent trend of intolerance to the point of mocking people who have faith in this country. If somebody doesnt believe in the way of science they are mocked, silenced, or discredited.

 

Gigantopithecus

Diamond Member
Dec 14, 2004
7,665
0
71
Originally posted by: Genx87
I actually find the intolerance people show towards people of faith disturbing in this country more than somebody thinking the world is 10,000 years old.

Are the astronomers intolerant of astrologers? Chemists intolerant of alchemists? Physicists intolerant of magicians?

Originally posted by: Genx87
The guy thinking the world is 10,000 years old is harmless while people who are intolerant usually end up trying to trample peoples rights and silence them.

Just go ask a homosexual or pregnant woman trying to obtain a legal abortion about that one. They'll tell you how tolerant the religious right is.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Just go ask a homosexual or pregnant woman trying to obtain a legal abortion about that one. They'll tell you how tolerant the religious right is.
I never said religious people cant be intolerant.