If the law of the land is that religion isn't allowed to be taught as science, then yes it is.Originally Posted by Lewkowski
If the law of the land is that religion isn't allowed to be taught as science, then yes it is.
Then who should get to decide? Unemployment nosy parents who make up the community boards?
Hope is the denial of reality
Actually it is if one religious group tries to change the definition of science to have its dogma taught outside of religious education.
Congratulations America
To be fair to the for some reason anonymous man, that's not exactly what he was talking about
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Firstly, voting is a Right enshrined with Constitutional protections. It doesn't come with any "test" for literacy, or even intellectual capacity. We don't turn low IQ or marginally IQ people away from the polls, and we don't demand a minimal education or language requirement. Legal age and citizenship is the minimum requirement. (We do restrict voting status by legal felony status, but that's a different can of worms.)
Secondly, if all you want to do is increase "your" base turnout.....it's no wonder "you" lost the election.
This is true, but it also doesn't mean everyone should vote. I know several people who don't have the time or inclination to focus on politics, and they make the conscious decision not to vote because they recognize that their opinion isn't informed.Firstly, voting is a Right enshrined with Constitutional protections. It doesn't come with any "test" for literacy, or even intellectual capacity. We don't turn low IQ or marginally IQ people away from the polls, and we don't demand a minimal education or language requirement. Legal age and citizenship is the minimum requirement. (We do restrict voting status by legal felony status, but that's a different can of worms.)
Secondly, if all you want to do is increase "your" base turnout.....it's no wonder "you" lost the election.
So what? There are probably thousands who should vote, but don't. They've either decided the process is contaminated or that their vote "doesn't count"....and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby political operatives convince people NOT to vote. That's fucked up.
So what? I was directly addressing your point that because it is a constitutionally enshrined right that somehow makes it a good idea for everyone to vote. I don't think limitations should be placed on voting, but I certainly don't want everyone to vote. I don't particularly think it's responsible to vote if you don't know the candidates, their positions, your positions, or what role they will be playing in office.
Again, so what? None of us should decide who's a "worthy" voter any more than we should decide whose vote is "worthy".
I know while that must have sounded very "meaningful," it doesn't really have much "meaning."
And perhaps you could show me where exactly I "said" that? In fact, I seem to remember suggesting the exact "opposite."
Now if you'd care to address what I actually "wrote," we might be able to have a "discussion."I don't think limitations should be placed on voting...
Sorry, but it's not a stretch. It is a fact.
The very creators of the ID paradigm (William Dembski et al) dreamt up ID in the first place because the Supreme Court ruling of Edwards v Aguillard in 1987 prevented the teaching of creationism as an alternative to evolution in public schools.
Dembski and chums wanted a more "scientific" basis for creationism, because Edwards v Aguillard prevented them from invoking God and creationism. Hence was born the "Intelligent Designer", a way to bring creationism to schools without referring to God or using the word Creationsim. Dembski and others such as Stephen Meyer and Michael Behe then went on, via the Discovery Institute, to dream up various methods to 'prove' the existence of an intelligent designer; such as Irreducible Complexity, the impossibility of the evolution of bacterial flagella and the eye.
This manifesto was all nicely laid out in what is known as the Wedge document, which the Discovery Institute spewed forth in around 1992.
In summary; The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to defeat materialism, naturalism, evolution, and "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
Unfortunately for them, the short-sighted folk at the DI simply took much of their manifesto from pre-Edwards v Aguillard, and replaced the word "Creationism" with the words "Intelligent Design" to produce the Wedge document.
This became clear as day in Barabara Forrest's cutting testimony during Kitzmiller v Dover, the Supreme Court case I referred you to in my previous posts.
Judge Jones's ruling in that case, and his closing arguments summarise this:
- For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID (Intelligent Design) would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)
- A significant aspect of the IDM (Intelligent Design Movement) is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity (page 26)
- The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism (page 31)
- Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause. (page 132)
~
That Intelligent Design is Creationism by another word has been proven by your Supreme Court.
It therefore does fully fall foul of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of your Constitution, as stated by Jones in his ruling above.
Last edited by Timbuk2; 11-15-2012 at 11:37 AM.
Well, you know that all is not entirely relevant to people who think that a theory is a random set of ideas that not have been proven yet. People who consider science to be empirical only. For them it's entirely acceptable to throw some hogglygoggly in a big bowl and serve it once cooked as 'science'.
Congratulations America
Lewk, aren't you always preaching about how science will fix all the problems the US is facing? Surely making a mockery of the science education in the country would keep that from happening? Are there no goals you're not willing to abandon for the sake of pleasing some ignorant fundies?
Hope is the denial of reality
I honestly don't care that much (as mentioned earlier in this thread) about the issue. Kids really don't care if its ID or evolution - 95% of them won't pay attention. And the ones that do only a fraction will enter that field. I think school education should be decided by parents not the federal government.
What happens if 51% of parents in a school want to teach ID and 49% don't?
What if parents decide that math and English should no longer be taught (to be replaced by Spanish)?
Hope is the denial of reality
This is just too bizarre.
This implies that you are happy for maths teachers to teach that 1 + 1 = 3, simply because 95% of kids don't pay attention in class, and even less will enter the mathematical field.
Regardless of the fact that your ridiculous 95% is obviously picked out of thin air. What citation could you bring that has a figure remotely close to that?
I remember quite a lot of detail from my school biology lessons, as I do my chemistry and physics lessons, yet I didn't enter any of those fields. Such lessons help me understand the natural world in which I live, and that is an understanding to which every child should be party. Every child. As such, school education is not just about setting up young adults for their careers.
The problem here, Lewk, since it needs spelling out, is peddling known falsehoods. We don't teach that 1 + 1 = 3 because it is false, and we don't teach ID, because it is false.
Worse than that, it's peddling known falsehoods to further a particular agenda.
Last edited by Timbuk2; 11-16-2012 at 09:35 AM.
I think that's a cop-out. It's also a truly bizarre approach to educationlet's be honest, the reason you say you "honestly don't care that much" is because you actually care very much but also happen to be wrong.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
If Lewk doesn't care - and SCOTUS and the rest of us does - then we can all just agree to accept that science should be taught in the science class, religion can be taught in Church and move along. Afterall Lewk doesn't care so no reason to overturn the status quo by trying to force religion into the science class.
I was initially replying to Lewk before you jumped in.
And goddammit....this "election predictions" thread has taken so many turns I can't get answers about what seemed like a related issue: how/why the GOP got their predictions so horribly wrong.
That's whats so amazing about school vouchers! The parent gets to choose!
No - I honestly don't care. I remember science class. It was fairly bland and boring and no one paid attention to the kind of entry level discussion evolution and the origin of the species is. On principal I dislike the notion that the federal government gets to make these kinds of choices. Its just another symbolic issues both sides get riled up about. On a larger scale its a fundamental reinterpretation of the 1st amendment. But specifically to what's being taught in science class? Don't really care.I think that's a cop-out. It's also a truly bizarre approach to education
I thought the beef with ID was that its not science because its not falsifiable. How can it therefore be false.
Why should our federal tax dollars go toward school vouchers if that means teaching Creationism or ID as "science"?
lol, well that's just one among a multitude of reasons why ID isn't science, but if you want to play semantics, insert made up and untrue in place of false.I thought the beef with ID was that its not science because its not falsifiable. How can it therefore be false.
Why should the federal government wishes supersede those of the parents?
It's okay, you're always free to get an F and a lower score on standardised tests. The point is that you care enough to aid in the devaluing of science education at the expense of safeguarding idiocy.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Because the government is paying for it?
Hope is the denial of reality
You mean the people who pay the taxes pay for it.Because the government is paying for it?
Not 47% of them.
Hope is the denial of reality
Most of them don't pay property taxes which is where the bulk of the money comes from.Not 47% of them.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote