Yay for creationists

[DukeN]

http://blog.wired.com/wiredsci...8/mccains-vp-want.html

You guessed it - creationism!

Of course kids should be exposed to everything from the scientific method, to baseless scientific interpretations of religious texts to satan worship, right? That way they can gauge for themselves what they want to believe in.

Yay for right wing america - this administration wouldn't be Dubya v 3.0, it would be more like Dubya X 3.

---

Locked because FUBAR Talk somehow bumped a year old thread. :roll:

Harvey
Senior AT Mod

 

[bdude]

Dubya^3

 

[nageov3t]

#1: repost
#2: what did Palin do as governor to get creationism taught in schools?

 

[Genx87]

http://www.factcheck.org/elect...008/sliming_palin.html

Looks towards the bottom.

 

[yuppiejr]

Originally posted by: DukeN
http://blog.wired.com/wiredsci...8/mccains-vp-want.html

You guessed it - creationism!

Of course kids should be exposed to everything from the scientific method, to baseless scientific interpretations of religious texts to satan worship, right? That way they can gauge for themselves what they want to believe in.

Yay for right wing america - this administration wouldn't be Dubya v 3.0, it would be more like Dubya X 3.

"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

So you are opposed to presenting various ideologies in school rather than focusing on just the one you happen to support? How is forcing a secular driven agenda any different than forcing a specific religious angle... I thought progressives were all about free expression and thought, not this "railroad our own agenda" shit that some people spend so much time complaining about (this thread, for example).

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Originally posted by: DukeN
http://blog.wired.com/wiredsci...8/mccains-vp-want.html

You guessed it - creationism!

Of course kids should be exposed to everything from the scientific method, to baseless scientific interpretations of religious texts to satan worship, right? That way they can gauge for themselves what they want to believe in.

Yay for right wing america - this administration wouldn't be Dubya v 3.0, it would be more like Dubya X 3.

"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

So you are opposed to presenting various ideologies in school rather than focusing on just the one you happen to support? How is forcing a secular driven agenda any different than forcing a specific religious angle... I thought progressives were all about free expression and thought, not this "railroad our own agenda" shit that some people spend so much time complaining about (this thread, for example).

science class. The 'debate' belongs in philosophy.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Ideologies don't belong in science class.

Science is not a secular agenda.

To believe otherwise paints you as a fool IMHO.

 

[yuppiejr]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Ideologies don't belong in science class.

Science is not a secular agenda.

To believe otherwise paints you as a fool IMHO.

Does that also mean ethics has no place in science? Are the Nazi experiments on Jewish prisoners during WWII legitimate based on a purely scientific slant - they were available bodies and much was learned about human anatomy as a result, right?

If you are a pure secularist, I suppose any opposing viewpoint paints one a "fool" - however a number of rather famous names in science like Issac Newton, Benjamin Franklin, Leonardo DiVinci were all men of science AND religion. That's not to say they promoted a religious agenda in science, that would be foolish. These men were able to apply science to better discover and understand the natural and unnatural world without limiting themselves into an agenda driven way of thinking.

The fools here are the ones that assume science and religion are mutually exclusive - just like science and ethics.

The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer.

? Albert Einstein

 

[yuppiejr]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot


science class. The 'debate' belongs in philosophy.

Right - fortunately real men of science understand the importance of debate. Or is your world still flat?

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Originally posted by: miketheidiot


science class. The 'debate' belongs in philosophy.

Right - fortunately real men of science understand the importance of debate. Or is your world still flat?

ID isn't science. It does not present a hypothesis that is scientifically falsifiable. Hence, it doesn't belong in a science classroom.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Ideologies don't belong in science class.

Science is not a secular agenda.

To believe otherwise paints you as a fool IMHO.

Does that also mean ethics has no place in science? Are the Nazi experiments on Jewish prisoners during WWII legitimate based on a purely scientific slant - they were available bodies and much was learned about human anatomy as a result, right?

What do ethics have to do with teaching creationism in a SCIENCE class?

Anyway, thread over, Godwin's Law has been invoked. GG.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Ideologies don't belong in science class.

Science is not a secular agenda.

To believe otherwise paints you as a fool IMHO.

Does that also mean ethics has no place in science? Are the Nazi experiments on Jewish prisoners during WWII legitimate based on a purely scientific slant - they were available bodies and much was learned about human anatomy as a result, right?

If you are a pure secularist, I suppose any opposing viewpoint paints one a "fool" - however a number of rather famous names in science like Issac Newton, Benjamin Franklin, Leonardo DiVinci were all men of science AND religion. That's not to say they promoted a religious agenda in science, that would be foolish. These men were able to apply science to better discover and understand the natural and unnatural world without limiting themselves into an agenda driven way of thinking.

The fools here are the ones that assume science and religion are mutually exclusive - just like science and ethics.

The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer.

? Albert Einstein

Sounds like history class, not science. Science classes are about teaching students about how molecular systems work and the physical rules of our physical universe.

 

[blackangst1]

So?

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: loki8481
#1: repost
#2: what did Palin do as governor to get creationism taught in schools?

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Originally posted by: miketheidiot


science class. The 'debate' belongs in philosophy.

Right - fortunately real men of science understand the importance of debate. Or is your world still flat?

ID isn't science. It does not present a hypothesis that is scientifically falsifiable. Hence, it doesn't belong in a science classroom.

So far, neither is the big bang, or that we evolved from a single celled organism, until one day we see the person who is responsible for ID....

See what I did there?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Originally posted by: DukeN
http://blog.wired.com/wiredsci...8/mccains-vp-want.html

You guessed it - creationism!

Of course kids should be exposed to everything from the scientific method, to baseless scientific interpretations of religious texts to satan worship, right? That way they can gauge for themselves what they want to believe in.

Yay for right wing america - this administration wouldn't be Dubya v 3.0, it would be more like Dubya X 3.

"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

So you are opposed to presenting various ideologies in school rather than focusing on just the one you happen to support? How is forcing a secular driven agenda any different than forcing a specific religious angle... I thought progressives were all about free expression and thought, not this "railroad our own agenda" shit that some people spend so much time complaining about (this thread, for example).

science class. The 'debate' belongs in philosophy.

I agree. There is a time and a place for everything and creationism does belong in a science classroom.

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
ID isn't science. It does not present a hypothesis that is scientifically falsifiable. Hence, it doesn't belong in a science classroom.

So far, neither is the big bang, or that we evolved from a single celled organism, until one day we see the person who is responsible for ID....

See what I did there?

So...are you trying to argue that since there is some questionable subject material in the science classes we should just add more?

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Originally posted by: miketheidiot


science class. The 'debate' belongs in philosophy.

Right - fortunately real men of science understand the importance of debate. Or is your world still flat?

ID isn't science. It does not present a hypothesis that is scientifically falsifiable. Hence, it doesn't belong in a science classroom.

So far, neither is the big bang, or that we evolved from a single celled organism, until one day we see the person who is responsible for ID....

See what I did there?

Demonstrated why America needs better science education.

 

[fskimospy]

Haven't we had this debate enough?

1.) Creationism/ID are religion, not science.
2.) Only science should be taught in science class.
3.) Therefore, creationism/ID should not be taught in science class.

"teaching the controversy" and other avenues to encourage debate on this subject are dishonest attempts to shoehorn creationism into schools. They are alternative theories without merit, and until they are able to scientifically show their merit, will not be taught in science class. If you honestly believe that creationism/ID should be in schools to teach the debate, then you honestly can't be against teaching the Flying Spaghetti Monster there either, as it is an equally well supported alternate theory.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Ideologies don't belong in science class.

Science is not a secular agenda.

To believe otherwise paints you as a fool IMHO.

Does that also mean ethics has no place in science? Are the Nazi experiments on Jewish prisoners during WWII legitimate based on a purely scientific slant - they were available bodies and much was learned about human anatomy as a result, right?

If you are a pure secularist, I suppose any opposing viewpoint paints one a "fool" - however a number of rather famous names in science like Issac Newton, Benjamin Franklin, Leonardo DiVinci were all men of science AND religion. That's not to say they promoted a religious agenda in science, that would be foolish. These men were able to apply science to better discover and understand the natural and unnatural world without limiting themselves into an agenda driven way of thinking.

The fools here are the ones that assume science and religion are mutually exclusive - just like science and ethics.

The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer.

? Albert Einstein

Sounds like history class, not science. Science classes are about teaching students about how molecular systems work and the physical rules of our physical universe.

So, when scientists created a synthetic genome of a virus and implanted it into a cell, the virus became "biologically active," that isnt science either? Ot is it science because MAN did it?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Originally posted by: miketheidiot


science class. The 'debate' belongs in philosophy.

Right - fortunately real men of science understand the importance of debate. Or is your world still flat?

ID isn't science. It does not present a hypothesis that is scientifically falsifiable. Hence, it doesn't belong in a science classroom.

So far, neither is the big bang, or that we evolved from a single celled organism, until one day we see the person who is responsible for ID....

The big bang and evolution are both falsifiable. Creationism/ID is not.

See what I did there?

You lied out of your ass.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Ideologies don't belong in science class.

Science is not a secular agenda.

To believe otherwise paints you as a fool IMHO.

Does that also mean ethics has no place in science? Are the Nazi experiments on Jewish prisoners during WWII legitimate based on a purely scientific slant - they were available bodies and much was learned about human anatomy as a result, right?

If you are a pure secularist, I suppose any opposing viewpoint paints one a "fool" - however a number of rather famous names in science like Issac Newton, Benjamin Franklin, Leonardo DiVinci were all men of science AND religion. That's not to say they promoted a religious agenda in science, that would be foolish. These men were able to apply science to better discover and understand the natural and unnatural world without limiting themselves into an agenda driven way of thinking.

The fools here are the ones that assume science and religion are mutually exclusive - just like science and ethics.

The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer.

? Albert Einstein

Sounds like history class, not science. Science classes are about teaching students about how molecular systems work and the physical rules of our physical universe.

So, when scientists created a synthetic genome of a virus and implanted it into a cell, the virus became "biologically active," that isnt science either? Ot is it science because MAN did it?

What? Sciences classes at the high-school level are about teaching the fundamental structure of our world, not about debating whether creating a Frankenstein is morally reprehensible.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Originally posted by: miketheidiot


science class. The 'debate' belongs in philosophy.

Right - fortunately real men of science understand the importance of debate. Or is your world still flat?

ID isn't science. It does not present a hypothesis that is scientifically falsifiable. Hence, it doesn't belong in a science classroom.

So far, neither is the big bang, or that we evolved from a single celled organism, until one day we see the person who is responsible for ID....

See what I did there?

As someone else said, this only shows we need better science education. The big bang most certainly does provide a hypothesis that is falsifiable. Many of them in fact. Evolution provides a whole load of predictions that are falsifiable (of course many of these have later been proven). So yes, both belong in a science classroom.

Until you can name a hypothesis from ID that we can test, it doesn't get anywhere near our kids.

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Originally posted by: miketheidiot


science class. The 'debate' belongs in philosophy.

Right - fortunately real men of science understand the importance of debate. Or is your world still flat?

ID isn't science. It does not present a hypothesis that is scientifically falsifiable. Hence, it doesn't belong in a science classroom.

So far, neither is the big bang, or that we evolved from a single celled organism, until one day we see the person who is responsible for ID....

See what I did there?

Demonstrated why America needs better science education.

Or better scientists.

The big bang or single cell theory has not been proven or disproven, and neither has ID. The reason why people think it does not belong in a science class is because they believe (read: have faith) that science will one day prove beyond a doubt that we evolved because of the big bang or from a single cell, and at the same time reject and/or lack the belief (read: faith) that ID (or creationism) can or will one day be proven.

Current scientific theories must be met with faith that we somehow evolved and that no ID was involved, which means even if the big bang, single cell, etc are all disproven or found to be unprovable, they will move onto another theory.

 

[uclaLabrat]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Originally posted by: DukeN
http://blog.wired.com/wiredsci...8/mccains-vp-want.html

You guessed it - creationism!

Of course kids should be exposed to everything from the scientific method, to baseless scientific interpretations of religious texts to satan worship, right? That way they can gauge for themselves what they want to believe in.

Yay for right wing america - this administration wouldn't be Dubya v 3.0, it would be more like Dubya X 3.

"Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

So you are opposed to presenting various ideologies in school rather than focusing on just the one you happen to support? How is forcing a secular driven agenda any different than forcing a specific religious angle... I thought progressives were all about free expression and thought, not this "railroad our own agenda" shit that some people spend so much time complaining about (this thread, for example).

science class. The 'debate' belongs in philosophy.

I agree. There is a time and a place for everything and creationism does belong in a science classroom.

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: BeauJangles
ID isn't science. It does not present a hypothesis that is scientifically falsifiable. Hence, it doesn't belong in a science classroom.

So far, neither is the big bang, or that we evolved from a single celled organism, until one day we see the person who is responsible for ID....

See what I did there?

So...are you trying to argue that since there is some questionable subject material in the science classes we should just add more?

Absolutely. Teach the kids to think for god's sake, to reason for themselves. Science class as it is now is mostly "Follow these rules kids, smart guys figured them out". Doesn't make for a well-educated society, as these forums illustrate.

 

[pstylesss]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: yuppiejr

Originally posted by: miketheidiot


science class. The 'debate' belongs in philosophy.

Right - fortunately real men of science understand the importance of debate. Or is your world still flat?

ID isn't science. It does not present a hypothesis that is scientifically falsifiable. Hence, it doesn't belong in a science classroom.

So far, neither is the big bang, or that we evolved from a single celled organism, until one day we see the person who is responsible for ID....

See what I did there?

As someone else said, this only shows we need better science education. The big bang most certainly does provide a hypothesis that is falsifiable. Many of them in fact. Evolution provides a whole load of predictions that are falsifiable (of course many of these have later been proven). So yes, both belong in a science classroom.

Until you can name a hypothesis from ID that we can test, it doesn't get anywhere near our kids.

Depending on which idea of ID you want to go with there are different theories involved.

ID is falsifiable, simply by proving that it came about another way or finding the intelligent being that did the creating.