Louisiana passes first antievolution "academic freedom" law

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: torpid
Originally posted by: ArkitechThis is the problems with these type of discussions, you can not apply the same rules on religion that you can on science. Science is a discipline based in observation and experimentation, religion is a practice of faith. Although the two are not mutually exclusive the approach is different. Billions of people on this planet have a spiritual inclination (likely some in your own families) and it's foolish to dismiss their beliefs as nothing more than antiquated superstitions. At the very least investigate something before you attempting to become the authority on what is'nt real or factual.

For the most part I agree with your overall position in the above paragraph. However, since you will agree that Science is a completely different discipline, I hope you would also agree that a class that is focused on science should never present something unscientific as an alternative. If they are to discuss intelligent design, it should be the "before science came in and whooped its ass" in the same way spontaneous appearance of maggots on meat is handled.

I don't agree with your slant on ID but I agree that science class should be based on science. I definitely don't side with the thought that bible education or religion needs to be forced on people who don't want it.

...which is what ID is. that is not debatable.


Not true, belief in ID does'nt meant that I want to enforce it on others. In fact I don't think belief in ID means disbelief in evolution.

actually, ID is not evolution. Those who support ID simply do not understand the point of evolution, or how it works. In fact, a lot of ID flat-out denies the most elegant principles of evolutionary theory.

This may seem new to you, but that really isn't your fault. If you read the ID literature, it pretty much fabricates it's own "facts" about the evidence regarding evolution that are so false, well, it would make baby jesus cry. If you don't see why it fabricates the reality of evolution, then you need to start reading more

Gould
 
S

SlitheryDee

Oh shit. This is awful. :Q

I live in Louisiana and this is the first I've heard of this. WTF is going on? How can people actually want this? Shit I'm gonna have to move.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: sao123
Originally posted by: PowerEngineer
Originally posted by: Arkitech
In fact I don't think belief in ID means disbelief in evolution.

That's an odd contention, since the whole argument for ID is that the life we see around us is too complicated (eyeball and flagellum cited as examples) to have been produced by evolution, and therefore require an intelligent designer (who essentially created them as as complete works as they appear today).

The whole problem with evolution vs. creation debate is that believers often insist that science must conform to their beliefs. Requiring ID or creationism to be presented in a science makes as much sense as having evolution presented in a fundamentalist Sunday school. The "respect" for the differences between science and religion has to go both ways.

thats not it at all... science doesnt have to conform to anyones beliefs. The problem is, that some questions are unanswerable by science. And that is a limitation of the scientific field, not a problem of the believers.

consider the premise...
Life was created.
Unfortunately the answer to that question is at best UNKNOWABLE.
However the simple fact remains that the statement is exactly either true or false.

If the answer is false, then science may be able to answer the question of the origins of life.
However if the answer is true, then science will never be able to answer the question about the origins of life.

Science is ill equipped to answer the question of origins IF a creator then exists. So many scientists use the scientific explanation of origins to deny that a creator exists... yet science should never have been used to explain origins until a creator has already been ruled out.

The problem is that no-one has stopped and asked the question IS SCIENCE THE PROPER FIELD TO TAKE ON THE ORIGINS ISSUE? and the answer is... MAYBE NOT.


not at all.

all you show is laziness by this argument. the classic "oh may god it's too hard I just don't want to think about it anymore" mentality.

life is certainly knowable. and there are brilliant theories that point to how it happened. the virus world (here, you eve get to debate about what life is), for example.

to say something is "Unknowable" is not science. and this is what believers FAIL to understand. To say that "science will never be able to answer [x]" is incredibly naive, and ignorant. If you know anything about history..hell, if you are on this website dedicated to computer technology, you know that claiming science can never achieve x is a ludicrous statement.

though, I will concede that life after death is that one, very likely, unreachable plateau. origins are certainly testable, and quite observable. But it's very difficult to ask a person what happened after they are dead.
hell, science did attempt this, when they weighed the corpses, deciding that 21 grams is the weight of your soul. Of course, science also taught us, later on, that this is due to water loss and such.
This is why science works--it constantly strives to DISPROVE itself--and when it fails to do that, we have theories (evolution has yet to be dis-proven at any "level" (what the fundies like to differentiate as 'micro' and macro' evolution...terms that don't really exist in the evolutionary vernacular, but the fundies enjoy making up terms).
Religion strive to PROVE itself. see how this works? it seeks to validate itself, and is constantly open to interpretation. There is a certain elegance to it, and I respect that and love it, but it ain't science. and it has no place meddling around with it.

The great irony, though, is that science was born out of religion. Both seek to "know" and as we all know, the earliest scientist were extremely devout believers, many seeking to prove God. That has yet to happen, but that is also why God remains. ....it is also why science has mercifully diverged from that path.
 

RESmonkey

Diamond Member
May 6, 2007
4,818
2
0
Originally posted by: Mwilding
Gravity is a theory, but me not believing in it doesn't make rocks fly.

NO! It's obvious God our loving savior makes them stay on the ground!

/sarcasm ^^

Intelligent design is bullshit. Religion is a made up set of lies to control people back in the day.

 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: RESmonkey
Originally posted by: Mwilding
Gravity is a theory, but me not believing in it doesn't make rocks fly.

NO! It's obvious God our loving savior makes them stay on the ground!

/sarcasm ^^

Intelligent design is bullshit. Religion is a made up set of lies to control people back in the day.

kinda....but not completely. ;)
 

RESmonkey

Diamond Member
May 6, 2007
4,818
2
0
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: RESmonkey
Originally posted by: Mwilding
Gravity is a theory, but me not believing in it doesn't make rocks fly.

NO! It's obvious God our loving savior makes them stay on the ground!

/sarcasm ^^

Intelligent design is bullshit. Religion is a made up set of lies to control people back in the day.

kinda....but not completely. ;)

Which portion of my post?
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,277
0
0
Originally posted by: RESmonkey
... Religion is a made up set of lies to control people back in the day.
And to explain away fears - "trust us, we'll take care of you".

And apparently is still controlling some today.
 

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
11,347
2,709
136
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: RESmonkey
Why do people still believe in creationism? I know we shouldn't hate on people's beliefs, but some people are just stupid as fuck.

This is a major problem with the world, lack of respect for another person's opinion. If someone takes an opposite opinion of what you believe they must be stupid and un-educated.

Oh I see that you don't like Bush, you're an idiot.

What was that, you don't support abortion? You're a flaming idiot.

I can't believe you like the Lakers over the Celtics, someone get a rope and let's find a tree.


Honestly if you're so close minded where you need to insult someone over a difference of opinion maybe you're the stupid one.

Nobody is hating on "opinions" when they say that "creationists are stupid". It's not an opinion they hold, they're completely and blatantly ignoring FACTS AND EVIDENCE because it makes them feel UNCOMFORTABLE. They're cowards, and they're willingly ignorant, and that makes them STUPID.



First off it's never a good idea to classify an entire group of people as cowards and stupid. Considering there are billions of people who believe in creationism, to label them all in one particular fashion shows your ignorance. It also reeks of the racist and bigoted attitudes of people who try to portray an entire race of people in a negative light. Secondly evolution is a theory in the sense that it explains the origins of life. If you have concrete evidence that shows otherwise I will be happy to examine it.



Originally posted by: Citrix
Evolution is a THEORY not a fact. you knuckle-dragers seem to forget that.

Go back to church, and I mean that in the most demeaning way possible. Everything is a theory, that's the BEST status that an idea can have. "Theory" implies that it has data and proof, that it's logical, and that it doesn't contradict other fact and evidence supported theories. Anything that doesn't have enough proof is just an idea, and anything that has absolutely zero (or negative) proof is FAITH.

seriously, billions? I dispute that claim.

You have to take into consideration the other religions of the world and their creation myths, and not just the christian one. With what, 6-7 billion now, it could easily be that many.

I got a kick out of the ownage handed to Citrix(wasn't that a producer of cheap, low quality cpus in the '90s?) in this thread.

 

GagHalfrunt

Lifer
Apr 19, 2001
25,284
1,996
126
Originally posted by: dawp

I got a kick out of the ownage handed to Citrix(wasn't that a producer of cheap, low quality cpus in the '90s?) in this thread.

That would be fitting, this one is obviously running on a low quality processing unit.
 

rbV5

Lifer
Dec 10, 2000
12,632
0
0
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: rbV5
Secondly evolution is a theory in the sense that it explains the origins of life.

Get this; The theory of Evolution has NOTHING to do with, nor says ANYTHING about the ORIGINS of life..period.

This point seems to be missed completely by a large number of people, so it bears repeating.

Is this a widely held scientific belief? I notice that many people here who support evolution have linked it with the origins of life.

"Support" evolution?

"Secular" science requires a little faith. Scientific "beliefs" are subject to revision based on better evidence or ideas.
------------------------------------------------------
*Faith that what "we" are experiencing is real.
*Faith that what is "true" today, was "true" yesterday, and will be "true" tommorrow.
------------------------------------------------------

Evolution is "a theory" that science has developed and revised to explain the "diversity of life" around us.

Science uses "theories" to try to explain the "origin of life" itself.

------------------------------------------------------

Scientific theories and scientific explanations are predicated on only the 2 "faiths" above and require evidence that can withstand scientific scrutiny and not contain any element of "magic" to work and that better evidence or ideas can revise those theories.
------------------------------------------------------




"Beliefs"
------------

"Belief" in the origin of life.

Science tries to explain complex issues driven by the 2 "scientific faiths" and using scientific theories (like evolution). To not believe in the current scientific theories of the origins of life, you must dicount the evidence.

Religion explains complex issues through stories. To not believe in the religious explanations of the origins of life, you must discount the stories.
------------

"Belief" in evolution is accepted by the scientific community at large because the evidence withstands scientific scrutiny and scientific "faith". To not believe in evolution, you must discount the evidence.
------------
"Belief" in Bigfoot, or in Extraterristrial life flying around in UFO's cannot withstand scientific scrutiny to the point of acceptance by the the scientific community at large because the evidence at this point relies too much on "non-scientific" faith rather than hard scientifically accepted evidence. To believe in "Bigfoot" or "Aliens flying around in UFO's" you must rely somewhat on "non scientific faith" because the evidence itself doesn't withstand scientific scrutiny.
-------------
Religious "beliefs" are not supported by evidence that can withstand scientific scrutiny or either of the 2 "scientific faiths" at all, but rather they rely on "non scientific faith" and stories. To "believe" in religion you must "believe" what someone else "tells" you. If enough people "believe' something in religion, "religious beliefs" can slowly be revised to suit those changes, but by and large, religious "beliefs" are very resistant to revision.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
166
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Just a fun new direction to go, since someone mentioned panspermia

Where in the Bible does it say that the origin of life occurred on this planet? Just a few hundred years ago, people were being killed for suggesting that the Earth wasn't the center of the Universe, because this seemed to go against what the Bible implied.
 

rbV5

Lifer
Dec 10, 2000
12,632
0
0
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Just a fun new direction to go, since someone mentioned panspermia

Where in the Bible does it say that the origin of life occurred on this planet? Just a few hundred years ago, people were being killed for suggesting that the Earth wasn't the center of the Universe, because this seemed to go against what the Bible implied.

The Book of Genesis; Chapter 1.
 

rbV5

Lifer
Dec 10, 2000
12,632
0
0
Originally posted by: rbV5
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Just a fun new direction to go, since someone mentioned panspermia

Where in the Bible does it say that the origin of life occurred on this planet? Just a few hundred years ago, people were being killed for suggesting that the Earth wasn't the center of the Universe, because this seemed to go against what the Bible implied.

The Book of Genesis; Chapter 1.

First mention of life in Genesis;

11 God said, 'Let the earth produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants, and fruit trees on earth, bearing fruit with their seed inside, each corresponding to its own species.' And so it was

Later God made the stars (and curiously our sun...after he created plants) (from Genesis)

16 God made the two great lights: the greater light to govern the day, the smaller light to govern the night, and the stars.
 

rbV5

Lifer
Dec 10, 2000
12,632
0
0
Originally posted by: DrPizza
But that doesn't say where the seeds came from. All it says is that God produced earth with good soil that plants could grow in.

Clearly it states that the "Earth" produces the vegetation and seed-bearing plants

edit; the creation is "God's word", he commands it, it is so.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Originally posted by: rbV5
Originally posted by: DrPizza
But that doesn't say where the seeds came from. All it says is that God produced earth with good soil that plants could grow in.

Clearly it states that the "Earth" produces the vegetation and seed-bearing plants
The Hebrew word used in Gen 1:11 is 'erets, which simply means "land, ground, territory." It doesn't really necessitate that it has to be on this planet.


 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Originally posted by: sao123
That Evolution does occur may be a fact... however...
There's no "may" about it. It has been observed to happen.


The claim that natural selection is the single sole process which got us from the first life ever (genesis) to all the wide variety of species we have today is not.
I don't know a single evolutionary biologist that would assert that natural selection was the only significant process in evolution. Genetic mutation is also necessary.

Learn to distinguish the 2, realize that one is right and one is wrong.
Trivially, I suppose, because like I said, the latter idea does not represent one held by any serious evolutionary biologist.
 

rbV5

Lifer
Dec 10, 2000
12,632
0
0
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Originally posted by: rbV5
Originally posted by: DrPizza
But that doesn't say where the seeds came from. All it says is that God produced earth with good soil that plants could grow in.

Clearly it states that the "Earth" produces the vegetation and seed-bearing plants
The Hebrew word used in Gen 1:11 is 'erets, which simply means "land, ground, territory." It doesn't really necessitate that it has to be on this planet.

I'm sure there could be a dedicated thread to argue Genesis book 1, however Earth appears to be the only planet at that particular time. The stars come later but no mention of other planets. I don't believe the authors of Genesis really had planetary knowlege yet or even that the stars were "Suns" like ours.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Originally posted by: rbV5
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Originally posted by: rbV5
Originally posted by: DrPizza
But that doesn't say where the seeds came from. All it says is that God produced earth with good soil that plants could grow in.

Clearly it states that the "Earth" produces the vegetation and seed-bearing plants
The Hebrew word used in Gen 1:11 is 'erets, which simply means "land, ground, territory." It doesn't really necessitate that it has to be on this planet.

I'm sure there could be a dedicated thread to argue Genesis book 1, however Earth appears to be the only planet at that particular time. The stars come later but no mention of other planets. I don't believe the authors of Genesis really had planetary knowlege yet or even that the stars were "Suns" like ours.

Well, I'm not interested in defending the literal truth of Genesis 1, but I'm pretty sure that Christian orthdoxy stipulates that God himself is the author of Genesis 1, so it doesn't really matter what the human stenographers understood.
 

rbV5

Lifer
Dec 10, 2000
12,632
0
0
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Originally posted by: rbV5
Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt
Originally posted by: rbV5
Originally posted by: DrPizza
But that doesn't say where the seeds came from. All it says is that God produced earth with good soil that plants could grow in.

Clearly it states that the "Earth" produces the vegetation and seed-bearing plants
The Hebrew word used in Gen 1:11 is 'erets, which simply means "land, ground, territory." It doesn't really necessitate that it has to be on this planet.

I'm sure there could be a dedicated thread to argue Genesis book 1, however Earth appears to be the only planet at that particular time. The stars come later but no mention of other planets. I don't believe the authors of Genesis really had planetary knowlege yet or even that the stars were "Suns" like ours.

Well, I'm not interested in defending the literal truth of Genesis 1, but I'm pretty sure that Christian orthdoxy stipulates that God himself is the author of Genesis 1, so it doesn't really matter what the human stenographers understood.

The "literal truth" of Genesis1 is that it is simply a "story" and that "what" the author(s) understood is where the "content" came from.

Surely the diversity of religion that we see today "evolved" in a sense from the stories handed down throughout human history and then "editied" by the politics that have occured since the beginning of the written record.

Just as surely as science will continue to paint religion into the corner that it cannot escape as the "unexplainable" magic forces of God disappear to the scrutiny of the collective pursuit of science's discoveries.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,081
10,883
136
Originally posted by: rbV5
Originally posted by: rbV5
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Just a fun new direction to go, since someone mentioned panspermia

Where in the Bible does it say that the origin of life occurred on this planet? Just a few hundred years ago, people were being killed for suggesting that the Earth wasn't the center of the Universe, because this seemed to go against what the Bible implied.

The Book of Genesis; Chapter 1.

First mention of life in Genesis;

11 God said, 'Let the earth produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants, and fruit trees on earth, bearing fruit with their seed inside, each corresponding to its own species.' And so it was

Later God made the stars (and curiously our sun...after he created plants) (from Genesis)

16 God made the two great lights: the greater light to govern the day, the smaller light to govern the night, and the stars.

so the bible is a history and science book to you?
 

rbV5

Lifer
Dec 10, 2000
12,632
0
0
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
Originally posted by: rbV5
Originally posted by: rbV5
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Just a fun new direction to go, since someone mentioned panspermia

Where in the Bible does it say that the origin of life occurred on this planet? Just a few hundred years ago, people were being killed for suggesting that the Earth wasn't the center of the Universe, because this seemed to go against what the Bible implied.

The Book of Genesis; Chapter 1.

First mention of life in Genesis;

11 God said, 'Let the earth produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants, and fruit trees on earth, bearing fruit with their seed inside, each corresponding to its own species.' And so it was

Later God made the stars (and curiously our sun...after he created plants) (from Genesis)

16 God made the two great lights: the greater light to govern the day, the smaller light to govern the night, and the stars.

so the bible is a history and science book to you?

? You tell me. I'll quote my very last post prior to your...I think it clearly states my position on the Bible and Religious texts ;)

The "literal truth" of Genesis1 is that it is simply a "story" and that "what" the author(s) understood is where the "content" came from.

Surely the diversity of religion that we see today "evolved" in a sense from the stories handed down throughout human history and then "editied" by the politics that have occured since the beginning of the written record.

Just as surely as science will continue to paint religion into the corner that it cannot escape as the "unexplainable" magic forces of God disappear to the scrutiny of the collective pursuit of science's discoveries.
 

rbV5

Lifer
Dec 10, 2000
12,632
0
0
Originally posted by: RESmonkey
You're forgetting something. If this genesis book is the "truth" then what about all the other religions?

Look at this:
http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/images/heiden.jpg

Religion = myth = not science, and everyone who follows it, even more advocates teaching it alongside evolution, is wrong.

:music: my god is better than your god :music:

Understand that the book of Genesis is reputably the word of God as told directly to Moses. Also understand that for Moses himself, while described in Judaism as the "Father of all prophets", Christianity as the symbol of "Gods law" , and Islam as "He who spoke with God" and he is referenced in other religions and religious texts........ there exists no real evidence that he actually ever existed. (The Egyptians apparently didn't recollect him, or his freeing the Hebrew slaves, the 10 plagues or the decimation of the Egyptian army in the Red Sea, because their exist no accounts or evidence that Moses or that the Exodus occured in Egypt at all.)

His legend and larger than life exaggerations seem somewhat like the heros of Greek Mythology, but with a "modern" (for then) twist to appeal to a more modern audience of the times after mythological characters and gods fell out of favor.

I'm not forgetting :)