| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fester" |
| Date: |
14 Nov 2007 06:52:16 AM |
| Object: |
NOVA on the Dover ID decision |
A fascinating 2 hour presentation of the case which reversed the Dover
school board decision to preface high school biology class with a
"disclaimer." Among the more interesting, to me, facets of this case was
the judge himself. NOVA made much of the fact that he was a "Republican,"
spoken of favorably by Rick Santorum (an ID proponent) and by Bush (who is
in favor of teaching "alternatives"). NOVA went out of their way, prior to
the dramatic conclusion, to foster the impression that such a judge could
not render a fair, reasonable and just verdict.
In fact, Judge Jones issued a sweeping judgment in favor of the plaintiffs
and against the school board. I think that there is a lesson in this that
NOVA brought out admirably. While it is certainly true that religious
fanatics are dangers to our scientific progress, not all religious fanatics
are. Some (and I would contend most) such as Judge Jones possess the
integrity to uphold the principles we rely on whether or not their personal
preferences may conflict with what is right.
Thank you NOVA and thank you Judge Jones.
.
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: NOVA on the Dover ID decision |
14 Nov 2007 08:46:33 AM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:473aef96$0$16452$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
A fascinating 2 hour presentation of the case which reversed the Dover
school board decision to preface high school biology class with a
"disclaimer." Among the more interesting, to me, facets of this case was
the judge himself. NOVA made much of the fact that he was a "Republican,"
spoken of favorably by Rick Santorum (an ID proponent) and by Bush (who is
in favor of teaching "alternatives"). NOVA went out of their way, prior to
the dramatic conclusion, to foster the impression that such a judge could
not render a fair, reasonable and just verdict.
In fact, Judge Jones issued a sweeping judgment in favor of the plaintiffs
and against the school board. I think that there is a lesson in this that
NOVA brought out admirably. While it is certainly true that religious
fanatics are dangers to our scientific progress, not all religious
fanatics are. Some (and I would contend most) such as Judge Jones possess
the integrity to uphold the principles we rely on whether or not their
personal preferences may conflict with what is right.
Thank you NOVA and thank you Judge Jones.
You bet. But just think what would have happened if it were that pastor who
near the end of the program called Judge Jones a 'clown' had been the judge
in the case? It would have set the teaching of science back on its rear and
allow religion to stream into our public schools like the waters that first
entered the gashed hull of the Titanic. And for what purpose? To brainwash
children into believing things that cannot even *hope* to be proven 'true'?
And look at the level of dishonesty, deceit, disingenuousness, and immoral
behavior the so-called 'Christians' involved went to to impose their
religious views on others and lie about their intention to do just that in
the process. And we atheists and Christians of good conscience, noble heart,
and grand character are supposed to look *up* to these phony-baloney,
artificial 'Christians' with reverence for their purported 'righteousness'
and 'family values' virtue? Hah! The snakes in the grass!
These religiously diseased fanatics are doing everything in their power to
(unwittingly) tear this country down and replace it with the kind 'society'
made up of the Dover-type religious-right zealots in charge of things and
using people who pretend they can read the mind of (make-believe) deity and
interpret 'Holy Books' in a way only *they* can be 'divinely inspired' to
interpret 'correctly'. What a load of crap!
Those people who strenuously argue that the Bible is the inerrant word of
deity are the same people, who *because* of that mindless belief, end up
worshipping and adoring a mass-murderer ('Noah's Flood'), the godfather of
Infanticide, the creator of evil itself, the creator of the
*personification* of Evil, 'Satan', who their 'God' failed to destroy along
with the baby infants and pregnant women he caused to drown to death in so
disturbing a fashion. Even if such a creature *did* exist, why would anyone
in their right mind worship and *adore* so vile and evil a creature?
No, we all saw from watching that NOVA program that the Islamic terrorists
aren't the only problem facing this country. We have religious extremists of
our own who are doing their damn best to divide and tear our beloved country
apart. We all saw how these religious right extremists think and operate.
And for those reading these words, what is being done to me out here on the
part of so-called Christians -- with *impunity*, I might add -- should send
a shudder up your spine. These people care not that in doing what they're
doing (as in the case of the Dover, PA religious zealots) they end up
violating the very tenets, the very precepts of their own religion, to get
their way. Forget morals, family values, integrity, honesty and everything
else that is supposed to go along with being a 'good' Christian. These are
utterly irrational, religiously diseased *dangerous* people. (What has been
done to me out here and *continues* to be done to me out here with virtually
no let-up speaks volumes about the 'character' of these nut-jobs.)
If these type of religious extremists were ever to gain the power of a Judge
Jones, heaven help this country. (Pun intended!) Thank goodness there are
Christians of the strand that oppose the lying, deceitful fundamentalist
Christians whose true nature was revealed in the program.
And the NOVA program did one more thing: It helped to show that the true
'God believer' being as morally upright and virtuous as he or she can be
*can* get along and work in partnership with the atheist or member of a
different religious faith. The goal of the atheist and 'good' Christian is
the same: To be the very best person you can be. And who, in that program,
was the 'good' Christian? Why the 'God believer' who's not 'threatened by
science and seeks to learn the truth about our universe and our existence.
In respecting where the other is 'coming from', we peacefully co-exist. The
fanatics portrayed in the program have no tolerance for those who fail to
think *their* way. It's either 'my way or the highway' (or in my case being
driven out of one's home, off one's property and out of the county, OR, even
to suicide) with these people. Thank goodness for the 'good' Christian . . .
who, unfortunately, we'll never completely agree with unless we atheists end
up having a 'Doubting Thomas' or 'Saul on the Road to Damascus' experience
of one sort or another. But hey, that's life. We can most certainly get
along with the 'good' Christian.
The question now remains: Is the 'good' Christian the 'real Christian or has
the 'real' Christian become the member of the extreme, religious right
persuasion?
With what all has been done to me out here (and especially what has *not*
been done in regards to me out here) leaves me highly suspicious that some
very powerful so-called Christians are seeing to it that I suffer like hell
for my atheism. I can't believe that its purely the forces of political
corruption at work out here. You would thing at least *one* Wisconsin
elected official would skewer Miron and turn him into shish-kebab at a
Packer pre-game tail-gating party (figuratively speaking) if that were the
case. No. An insidious form of Christian fanaticism is clearly playing a
role in my mistreatment out here. The same form of Christian fanaticism
viewers of the NOVA program viewed with dismay and disgust. And the note the
program closed on is, unfortunately, all too true. These people are
relentless (as my continued, unabated mistreatment out here proves) and
determined to get their way. Only time will tell if they succeed.
Only immoral people do the kind of things the Dover fundamentalists did and
what's being done to me out here. Mentally disturbed people, I would say.
State legislators who do nothing to curb these nut-jobs are, in effect,
condoning their religiously diseased actions. And if their staffs are
composed of such zealots who'll do nothing to stop such immoral behavior and
help to see it doesn't occur elsewhere, well, as I've painfully discovered,
there's not a damn thing you can do about it, is there?
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Donald E. Flood" |
|
| Title: Re: NOVA on the Dover ID decision |
14 Nov 2007 11:07:30 AM |
|
|
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:473aef96$0$16452$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
A fascinating 2 hour presentation of the case which reversed the Dover
school board decision to preface high school biology class with a
"disclaimer." Among the more interesting, to me, facets of this case was
the judge himself. NOVA made much of the fact that he was a "Republican,"
spoken of favorably by Rick Santorum (an ID proponent) and by Bush (who is
in favor of teaching "alternatives"). NOVA went out of their way, prior to
the dramatic conclusion, to foster the impression that such a judge could
not render a fair, reasonable and just verdict.
In fact, Judge Jones issued a sweeping judgment in favor of the plaintiffs
and against the school board. I think that there is a lesson in this that
NOVA brought out admirably. While it is certainly true that religious
fanatics are dangers to our scientific progress, not all religious
fanatics are. Some (and I would contend most) such as Judge Jones possess
the integrity to uphold the principles we rely on whether or not their
personal preferences may conflict with what is right.
Thank you NOVA and thank you Judge Jones.
I enjoyed it, also; however, PBS picked the usual "crop" of experts who
claim that science can only deal with naturalistic explanations. Not true:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1874,Onward-Science-Soldiers,Victor-Stenger-Skeptical-Inquirer
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: NOVA on the Dover ID decision |
19 Nov 2007 11:40:33 AM |
|
|
"Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> writes:
I enjoyed it, also; however, PBS picked the usual "crop" of experts who
claim that science can only deal with naturalistic explanations. Not true:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1874,Onward-Science-Soldiers,Victor-Stenger-Skeptical-Inquirer
That link doesn't say what you claim it says. It says that
religion makes claims about the real world; scientists using science
can demonstrate that either (a) those claims are ahistorical and
nonsensical under naturalistic explanation or (b) that there is a
parsimonious naturalistic explanation that doesn't require
supernatural intervention.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.pendorwright.com/
"You know how some people treat their body like a temple?
I treat mine like issa amusement park!" - Kei
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald E. Flood" |
|
| Title: Re: NOVA on the Dover ID decision |
20 Nov 2007 11:51:18 AM |
|
|
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:87abpa3zhq.fsf@speakeasy.net...
"Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> writes:
I enjoyed it, also; however, PBS picked the usual "crop" of experts who
claim that science can only deal with naturalistic explanations. Not
true:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1874,Onward-Science-Soldiers,Victor-Stenger-Skeptical-Inquirer
That link doesn't say what you claim it says. It says that
religion makes claims about the real world; scientists using science
can demonstrate that either (a) those claims are ahistorical and
nonsensical under naturalistic explanation or (b) that there is a
parsimonious naturalistic explanation that doesn't require
supernatural intervention.
Elf
--
Did you read the whole article:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/RelSci/Onward.pdf
Professor Stenger states, "Not only can science examine any claim that bears
on empirical data, reputable scientists from reputable institutions are
doing just that, for example, in controlled experiments on the efficacy of
intercessory prayer."
I am an atheist. If you or anyone else could show a "statistically and
clinically significant" signal on the distant, remote intercessory prayer
that is verifiable, replicable, and repeatable, I will renounce my atheism!
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: NOVA on the Dover ID decision |
21 Nov 2007 05:18:22 AM |
|
|
"Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:q8F0j.189673$Xa3.95046@attbi_s22...
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:87abpa3zhq.fsf@speakeasy.net...
"Donald E. Flood" <Jehanne@mchsi.com> writes:
I enjoyed it, also; however, PBS picked the usual "crop" of experts who
claim that science can only deal with naturalistic explanations. Not
true:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1874,Onward-Science-Soldiers,Victor-Stenger-Skeptical-Inquirer
That link doesn't say what you claim it says. It says that
religion makes claims about the real world; scientists using science
can demonstrate that either (a) those claims are ahistorical and
nonsensical under naturalistic explanation or (b) that there is a
parsimonious naturalistic explanation that doesn't require
supernatural intervention.
Elf
--
Did you read the whole article:
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/RelSci/Onward.pdf
Professor Stenger states, "Not only can science examine any claim that
bears on empirical data, reputable scientists from reputable institutions
are doing just that, for example, in controlled experiments on the
efficacy of intercessory prayer."
I am an atheist. If you or anyone else could show a "statistically and
clinically significant" signal on the distant, remote intercessory prayer
that is verifiable, replicable, and repeatable, I will renounce my
atheism!
Now is the time for a theist to say "God doesn't do tricks". And, of
course, if there was actual evidence that prayer worked, we wouldn't need
faith; so prayer works, but the evidence can only be seen by those who do
not need it. If only you were not blinded by Satan, you would see how
reasonable it all is - no really! : )
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: NOVA on the Dover ID decision |
14 Nov 2007 08:04:17 AM |
|
|
Fester <not@home.com> wrote in alt.atheism
A fascinating 2 hour presentation of the case which reversed the Dover
school board decision to preface high school biology class with a
"disclaimer." Among the more interesting, to me, facets of this case was
the judge himself. NOVA made much of the fact that he was a "Republican,"
spoken of favorably by Rick Santorum (an ID proponent) and by Bush (who is
in favor of teaching "alternatives"). NOVA went out of their way, prior to
the dramatic conclusion, to foster the impression that such a judge could
not render a fair, reasonable and just verdict.
In fact, Judge Jones issued a sweeping judgment in favor of the plaintiffs
and against the school board. I think that there is a lesson in this that
NOVA brought out admirably. While it is certainly true that religious
fanatics are dangers to our scientific progress, not all religious fanatics
are. Some (and I would contend most) such as Judge Jones possess the
integrity to uphold the principles we rely on whether or not their personal
preferences may conflict with what is right.
Thank you NOVA and thank you Judge Jones.
Interesting how he received several death threats after making the
decision, don't you think?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "ken" |
|
| Title: Re: NOVA on the Dover ID decision |
14 Nov 2007 11:34:00 AM |
|
|
On Nov 14, 6:04 am, Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> wrote:
..
Interesting how he received several death threats after making the
decision, don't you think?
How very Christian of them...No doubt from the same class of people
who bomb and burn abortion clinics and kill doictors
NOVA is one of the most thought provoking and intelligent programs on
TV.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: NOVA on the Dover ID decision |
14 Nov 2007 09:40:16 AM |
|
|
On Nov 14, 9:04 am, Elroy Willis <elroywil...@swbell.net> wrote:
Fester <n...@home.com> wrote in alt.atheism
A fascinating 2 hour presentation of the case which reversed the Dover
school board decision to preface high school biology class with a
"disclaimer." Among the more interesting, to me, facets of this case was
the judge himself. NOVA made much of the fact that he was a "Republican,"
spoken of favorably by Rick Santorum (an ID proponent) and by Bush (who is
in favor of teaching "alternatives"). NOVA went out of their way, prior to
the dramatic conclusion, to foster the impression that such a judge could
not render a fair, reasonable and just verdict.
In fact, Judge Jones issued a sweeping judgment in favor of the plaintiffs
and against the school board. I think that there is a lesson in this that
NOVA brought out admirably. While it is certainly true that religious
fanatics are dangers to our scientific progress, not all religious fanatics
are. Some (and I would contend most) such as Judge Jones possess the
integrity to uphold the principles we rely on whether or not their personal
preferences may conflict with what is right.
Thank you NOVA and thank you Judge Jones.
Interesting how he received several death threats after making the
decision, don't you think?
Christian love in action.
--
Elroy Williswww.elroysemporium.com- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: NOVA on the Dover ID decision |
14 Nov 2007 06:03:52 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Interesting how he received several death threats after making the
decision, don't you think?
Christian love in action.
And what a bunch of fucking Nazis...burning the mural.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: NOVA on the Dover ID decision |
15 Nov 2007 09:53:31 AM |
|
|
On Nov 14, 7:03 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
n...@snet.net wrote:
Interesting how he received several death threats after making the
decision, don't you think?
Christian love in action.
And what a bunch of fucking Nazis...burning the mural.
It also shows what a bunch of hypocrites they are. In order to burn
the mural they had to steal it 1st. Doesn't that violate one of the
Ten Commandments?
Then they lied under oath. So much for another commandment. I assume
they swore to tell the truth while their hand was on the buybull.
And they're supposed to be the moral ones?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: NOVA on the Dover ID decision |
14 Nov 2007 07:08:01 AM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
A fascinating 2 hour presentation of the case which reversed the Dover
school board decision to preface high school biology class with a
"disclaimer." Among the more interesting, to me, facets of this case
was the judge himself. NOVA made much of the fact that he was a
"Republican," spoken of favorably by Rick Santorum (an ID proponent)
and by Bush (who is in favor of teaching "alternatives"). NOVA went
out of their way, prior to the dramatic conclusion, to foster the
impression that such a judge could not render a fair, reasonable and
just verdict.
In fact, Judge Jones issued a sweeping judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs and against the school board. I think that there is a
lesson in this that NOVA brought out admirably. While it is
certainly true that religious fanatics are dangers to our scientific
progress, not all religious fanatics are. Some (and I would contend
most) such as Judge Jones possess the integrity to uphold the
principles we rely on whether or not their personal preferences may
conflict with what is right.
Thank you NOVA and thank you Judge Jones.
It was a pretty slanted presentation, but no more than it had to be. Those
fools didn't have a leg to stand on and got caught lying...wait, no they
just mispoke.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: NOVA on the Dover ID decision |
14 Nov 2007 07:24:56 AM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
A fascinating 2 hour presentation of the case which reversed the Dover
school board decision to preface high school biology class with a
"disclaimer." Among the more interesting, to me, facets of this case was
the judge himself. NOVA made much of the fact that he was a "Republican,"
spoken of favorably by Rick Santorum (an ID proponent) and by Bush (who is
in favor of teaching "alternatives"). NOVA went out of their way, prior to
the dramatic conclusion, to foster the impression that such a judge could
not render a fair, reasonable and just verdict.
In fact, Judge Jones issued a sweeping judgment in favor of the plaintiffs
and against the school board. I think that there is a lesson in this that
NOVA brought out admirably. While it is certainly true that religious
fanatics are dangers to our scientific progress, not all religious fanatics
are. Some (and I would contend most) such as Judge Jones possess the
integrity to uphold the principles we rely on whether or not their personal
preferences may conflict with what is right.
If Jones had integrity, he would not be both a religious Republican
AND be able to make that decision.
Think about it.
Still, it's good to see he did the right thing (which probably was the
only thing he could have done)
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: NOVA on the Dover ID decision |
14 Nov 2007 04:55:55 PM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1195046696.953948.239250@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Fester wrote:
A fascinating 2 hour presentation of the case which reversed the Dover
school board decision to preface high school biology class with a
"disclaimer." Among the more interesting, to me, facets of this case was
the judge himself. NOVA made much of the fact that he was a
"Republican,"
spoken of favorably by Rick Santorum (an ID proponent) and by Bush (who
is
in favor of teaching "alternatives"). NOVA went out of their way, prior
to
the dramatic conclusion, to foster the impression that such a judge could
not render a fair, reasonable and just verdict.
In fact, Judge Jones issued a sweeping judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs
and against the school board. I think that there is a lesson in this
that
NOVA brought out admirably. While it is certainly true that religious
fanatics are dangers to our scientific progress, not all religious
fanatics
are. Some (and I would contend most) such as Judge Jones possess the
integrity to uphold the principles we rely on whether or not their
personal
preferences may conflict with what is right.
If Jones had integrity, he would not be both a religious Republican
AND be able to make that decision.
Your inclusion of the word "Republican" is a bogus smear.
Think about it.
Still, it's good to see he did the right thing (which probably was the
only thing he could have done)
I would say that you're making the same mistake that the Creationist/ID
crowd has made. Specifically that one is free to accept or reject a theory
as true, be it the TOE or ID, but one is not free to present a theory as
being science unless it meets the definition of science. So the judge was
perfectly consistent, even if he rejects the TOE and thinks that ID is the
truth in his mind. He did his job with integrity when he found that the
testimony demonstrated that the TOE is science and ID is not. That is the
finding that was at issue, not whether one theory or the other was "true."
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: NOVA on the Dover ID decision |
14 Nov 2007 05:19:34 PM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1195046696.953948.239250@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Fester wrote:
A fascinating 2 hour presentation of the case which reversed the Dover
school board decision to preface high school biology class with a
"disclaimer." Among the more interesting, to me, facets of this case was
the judge himself. NOVA made much of the fact that he was a
"Republican,"
spoken of favorably by Rick Santorum (an ID proponent) and by Bush (who
is
in favor of teaching "alternatives"). NOVA went out of their way, prior
to
the dramatic conclusion, to foster the impression that such a judge could
not render a fair, reasonable and just verdict.
In fact, Judge Jones issued a sweeping judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs
and against the school board. I think that there is a lesson in this
that
NOVA brought out admirably. While it is certainly true that religious
fanatics are dangers to our scientific progress, not all religious
fanatics
are. Some (and I would contend most) such as Judge Jones possess the
integrity to uphold the principles we rely on whether or not their
personal
preferences may conflict with what is right.
If Jones had integrity, he would not be both a religious Republican
AND be able to make that decision.
Your inclusion of the word "Republican" is a bogus smear.
Why, are religious Democrats pushing ID? (they could be, for all I
know, but it just doesn't seem to be very likely)
Still, it's good to see he did the right thing (which probably was the
only thing he could have done)
I would say that you're making the same mistake that the Creationist/ID
crowd has made. Specifically that one is free to accept or reject a theory
as true, be it the TOE or ID, but one is not free to present a theory as
being science unless it meets the definition of science. So the judge was
perfectly consistent, even if he rejects the TOE and thinks that ID is the
truth in his mind. He did his job with integrity when he found that the
testimony demonstrated that the TOE is science and ID is not. That is the
finding that was at issue, not whether one theory or the other was "true."
My point is that he found against ID, yet he believes ID. It seems to
me that is the opposite of integrity...for if one has integrity, all
the parts fit together, and one can do ones work in a way that fully
matches ones beliefs.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: NOVA on the Dover ID decision |
14 Nov 2007 06:31:08 PM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1195082374.868612.301730@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Fester wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1195046696.953948.239250@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Fester wrote:
A fascinating 2 hour presentation of the case which reversed the Dover
school board decision to preface high school biology class with a
"disclaimer." Among the more interesting, to me, facets of this case
was
the judge himself. NOVA made much of the fact that he was a
"Republican,"
spoken of favorably by Rick Santorum (an ID proponent) and by Bush
(who
is
in favor of teaching "alternatives"). NOVA went out of their way,
prior
to
the dramatic conclusion, to foster the impression that such a judge
could
not render a fair, reasonable and just verdict.
In fact, Judge Jones issued a sweeping judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs
and against the school board. I think that there is a lesson in this
that
NOVA brought out admirably. While it is certainly true that religious
fanatics are dangers to our scientific progress, not all religious
fanatics
are. Some (and I would contend most) such as Judge Jones possess the
integrity to uphold the principles we rely on whether or not their
personal
preferences may conflict with what is right.
If Jones had integrity, he would not be both a religious Republican
AND be able to make that decision.
Your inclusion of the word "Republican" is a bogus smear.
Why, are religious Democrats pushing ID? (they could be, for all I
know, but it just doesn't seem to be very likely)
Still, it's good to see he did the right thing (which probably was the
only thing he could have done)
I would say that you're making the same mistake that the Creationist/ID
crowd has made. Specifically that one is free to accept or reject a
theory
as true, be it the TOE or ID, but one is not free to present a theory as
being science unless it meets the definition of science. So the judge
was
perfectly consistent, even if he rejects the TOE and thinks that ID is
the
truth in his mind. He did his job with integrity when he found that the
testimony demonstrated that the TOE is science and ID is not. That is
the
finding that was at issue, not whether one theory or the other was
"true."
My point is that he found against ID, yet he believes ID. It seems to
me that is the opposite of integrity...for if one has integrity, all
the parts fit together, and one can do ones work in a way that fully
matches ones beliefs.
Your position is incoherent. His job was not to find whether ID is "true,"
it was to find whether ID is science. He did his job honorably, despite
what NOVA implied were his personal opinions about the truthfulness of the
theory. That is the definition of integrity. Why do you begrudge him that?
Why must you insist that integrity in his job implies violating his oath and
acceptance of the position he holds?
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: NOVA on the Dover ID decision |
14 Nov 2007 07:13:59 PM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1195082374.868612.301730@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
My point is that he found against ID, yet he believes ID. It seems to
me that is the opposite of integrity...for if one has integrity, all
the parts fit together, and one can do ones work in a way that fully
matches ones beliefs.
Your position is incoherent. His job was not to find whether ID is "true,"
it was to find whether ID is science. He did his job honorably, despite
what NOVA implied were his personal opinions about the truthfulness of the
theory. That is the definition of integrity. Why do you begrudge him that?
Why must you insist that integrity in his job implies violating his oath and
acceptance of the position he holds?
Do you really think that any religious person who can compartmentalize
their beliefs has integrity?
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: NOVA on the Dover ID decision |
14 Nov 2007 07:54:47 PM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:b8c5c5d0-fedf-4c5b-be40-42a057069410@s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Fester wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1195082374.868612.301730@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
My point is that he found against ID, yet he believes ID. It seems to
me that is the opposite of integrity...for if one has integrity, all
the parts fit together, and one can do ones work in a way that fully
matches ones beliefs.
Your position is incoherent. His job was not to find whether ID is
"true,"
it was to find whether ID is science. He did his job honorably, despite
what NOVA implied were his personal opinions about the truthfulness of
the
theory. That is the definition of integrity. Why do you begrudge him
that?
Why must you insist that integrity in his job implies violating his oath
and
acceptance of the position he holds?
Do you really think that any religious person who can compartmentalize
their beliefs has integrity?
You are making quite an effort to avoid a clear, evidenced truth here. He
had no need to compartmentalize his beliefs. His duty was to not determine
the truth or falsity of any given theory. It was to determine whether one,
the other or both are scientific. He did so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: NOVA on the Dover ID decision |
14 Nov 2007 09:14:13 PM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:b8c5c5d0-fedf-4c5b-be40-42a057069410@s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Fester wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1195082374.868612.301730@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
My point is that he found against ID, yet he believes ID. It seems to
me that is the opposite of integrity...for if one has integrity, all
the parts fit together, and one can do ones work in a way that fully
matches ones beliefs.
Your position is incoherent. His job was not to find whether ID is
"true,"
it was to find whether ID is science. He did his job honorably, despite
what NOVA implied were his personal opinions about the truthfulness of
the
theory. That is the definition of integrity. Why do you begrudge him
that?
Why must you insist that integrity in his job implies violating his oath
and
acceptance of the position he holds?
Do you really think that any religious person who can compartmentalize
their beliefs has integrity?
You are making quite an effort to avoid a clear, evidenced truth here. He
had no need to compartmentalize his beliefs. His duty was to not determine
the truth or falsity of any given theory. It was to determine whether one,
the other or both are scientific. He did so.
Yes, he did so. I'm not contesting the fact that he did his job!
sheesh. I said so in my first post. Quit trying to say I am
contesting this fact. That's not what I'm talking about at all.
What I am contesting is your claim that he has integrity, simply
because he did his job. there's a lot more to integrity than the
ability to do one's job.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: NOVA on the Dover ID decision |
14 Nov 2007 10:08:56 PM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:eae7c43b-05d1-4d0d-9c4e-34b1bfe919ba@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Fester wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:b8c5c5d0-fedf-4c5b-be40-42a057069410@s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Fester wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1195082374.868612.301730@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
My point is that he found against ID, yet he believes ID. It seems
to
me that is the opposite of integrity...for if one has integrity, all
the parts fit together, and one can do ones work in a way that fully
matches ones beliefs.
Your position is incoherent. His job was not to find whether ID is
"true,"
it was to find whether ID is science. He did his job honorably,
despite
what NOVA implied were his personal opinions about the truthfulness of
the
theory. That is the definition of integrity. Why do you begrudge him
that?
Why must you insist that integrity in his job implies violating his
oath
and
acceptance of the position he holds?
Do you really think that any religious person who can compartmentalize
their beliefs has integrity?
You are making quite an effort to avoid a clear, evidenced truth here.
He
had no need to compartmentalize his beliefs. His duty was to not
determine
the truth or falsity of any given theory. It was to determine whether
one,
the other or both are scientific. He did so.
Yes, he did so. I'm not contesting the fact that he did his job!
sheesh. I said so in my first post. Quit trying to say I am
contesting this fact. That's not what I'm talking about at all.
What I am contesting is your claim that he has integrity, simply
because he did his job. there's a lot more to integrity than the
ability to do one's job.
You're wasting my time <plonk>
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: NOVA on the Dover ID decision |
15 Nov 2007 07:34:04 AM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
You're wasting my time <plonk>
yup, it's a waste of time to discover that you're full of *****.
Sorry, dude.
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: NOVA on the Dover ID decision |
15 Nov 2007 09:43:02 PM |
|
|
J Forbes <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote:
If Jones had integrity, he would not be both a religious Republican
AND be able to make that decision.
What a stupid fuckin' comment. Jones exhibited great integrity--he
upheld the Constitution. That's what a judge is SUPPOSED to do,
regardless of his religious or political affiliation. The trial wasn't
about Jones' own beliefs, and he is free to be religious and Republican
if he so chooses. That's also in the Constitution...
My point is that he found against ID, yet he believes ID.
Where did you come up with this little gem? The judge said no such
thing, in fact he described ID as "breathtaking inanity."
Perhaps if you had read the judge's decision or any of the excellent
books about the trial you would have a clue what the hell you're talking
about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: NOVA on the Dover ID decision |
16 Nov 2007 10:14:29 AM |
|
|
Scott Richter wrote:
J Forbes <jforbnospam@selectric.org> wrote:
If Jones had integrity, he would not be both a religious Republican
AND be able to make that decision.
What a stupid fuckin' comment. Jones exhibited great integrity--he
upheld the Constitution. That's what a judge is SUPPOSED to do,
regardless of his religious or political affiliation. The trial wasn't
about Jones' own beliefs, and he is free to be religious and Republican
if he so chooses. That's also in the Constitution...
My point is that he found against ID, yet he believes ID.
Where did you come up with this little gem? The judge said no such
thing, in fact he described ID as "breathtaking inanity."
Perhaps if you had read the judge's decision or any of the excellent
books about the trial you would have a clue what the hell you're talking
about.
You're right, I don't have a clue what I'm talking about, I was just
replying to Fester's comments on the show.
Sorry about that....
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: NOVA on the Dover ID decision |
14 Nov 2007 06:03:08 PM |
|
|
J Forbes wrote:
Why, are religious Democrats pushing ID? (they could be, for all I
know, but it just doesn't seem to be very likely)
My Dad is a staunch Democrat and a devout R. Catholic. He doesn't know too
much about ID specifics and he certainly isn't "pushing" it on anyone, but
he made it clear that he is a firm believer that there is a designer. Well,
I guess he'd have to.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: NOVA on the Dover ID decision |
14 Nov 2007 10:21:23 AM |
|
|
On Nov 14, 6:52 am, "Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote:
A fascinating 2 hour presentation of the case which reversed the Dover
school board decision to preface high school biology class with a
"disclaimer." Among the more interesting, to me, facets of this case was
the judge himself. NOVA made much of the fact that he was a "Republican,"
spoken of favorably by Rick Santorum (an ID proponent) and by Bush (who is
in favor of teaching "alternatives"). NOVA went out of their way, prior to
the dramatic conclusion, to foster the impression that such a judge could
not render a fair, reasonable and just verdict.
In fact, Judge Jones issued a sweeping judgment in favor of the plaintiffs
and against the school board. I think that there is a lesson in this that
NOVA brought out admirably. While it is certainly true that religious
fanatics are dangers to our scientific progress, not all religious fanatics
are. Some (and I would contend most) such as Judge Jones possess the
integrity to uphold the principles we rely on whether or not their personal
preferences may conflict with what is right.
Thank you NOVA and thank you Judge Jones.
REPLY: How can 'religious fanatics be a danger to science' when ALL of
the modern founders of our sciences were bible believing Christians
and Creationists !!!? You should be thanking Christianity for this
fact. Further, there really isnt a person on earth who doesnt see
that there is intelligent design in the many things on earth and in
our solar system ; its a shame the Documentary didnt get into all of
the extremely defined scientific parameters of our solar system (133
and counting) which are necessary and must be present simultaneously
so earth can be here as a life sustaining little planet. To think
these razor edge Constants knows as anthropics 'just popped' into
existence then decided to have a party ... is the belief of Fools. Of
course...its really all about denying the obvious creator and his care
and love for his creation , especially us. Its a fly in many peoples
ointment of personal independent freedom to live as they like . This
silly invention of a pond scum protozoa turning eventually into a 206
bone human being with a brain processing 2,000,000 bits of information
per second...shows the desperation willful atheists will go to in
order to live thier life unencumbered by a Creator to whom th3y will
be responswible to on3 day (soon).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: NOVA on the Dover ID decision |
14 Nov 2007 04:24:49 PM |
|
|
<IbeDavid@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1195057283.015341.274760@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 14, 6:52 am, "Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote:
A fascinating 2 hour presentation of the case which reversed the Dover
school board decision to preface high school biology class with a
"disclaimer." Among the more interesting, to me, facets of this case was
the judge himself. NOVA made much of the fact that he was a
"Republican,"
spoken of favorably by Rick Santorum (an ID proponent) and by Bush (who
is
in favor of teaching "alternatives"). NOVA went out of their way, prior
to
the dramatic conclusion, to foster the impression that such a judge could
not render a fair, reasonable and just verdict.
In fact, Judge Jones issued a sweeping judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs
and against the school board. I think that there is a lesson in this
that
NOVA brought out admirably. While it is certainly true that religious
fanatics are dangers to our scientific progress, not all religious
fanatics
are. Some (and I would contend most) such as Judge Jones possess the
integrity to uphold the principles we rely on whether or not their
personal
preferences may conflict with what is right.
Thank you NOVA and thank you Judge Jones.
REPLY: How can 'religious fanatics be a danger to science' when ALL of
the modern founders of our sciences were bible believing Christians
and Creationists !!!? You should be thanking Christianity for this
fact.
I do not begrudge or deny the fact ath people of faith, including devout
Christians are capable of performing valuable science. As we both know,
history is full of them.
Further, there really isnt a person on earth who doesnt see
that there is intelligent design in the many things on earth and in
our solar system ;
That's not at all true. What one sees is the product of the natural world,
operating according to a consistent set of rules, yielding functional
complexity.
its a shame the Documentary didnt get into all of
the extremely defined scientific parameters of our solar system (133
and counting) which are necessary and must be present simultaneously
so earth can be here as a life sustaining little planet. To think
these razor edge Constants knows as anthropics 'just popped' into
existence then decided to have a party ... is the belief of Fools.
They didn't discuss that because it has nothing to do with the TOE or ID.
The above is simply a statement of what you prefer to believe and not a
scientific argument.
Of
course...its really all about denying the obvious creator and his care
and love for his creation , especially us. Its a fly in many peoples
ointment of personal independent freedom to live as they like . This
silly invention of a pond scum protozoa turning eventually into a 206
bone human being with a brain processing 2,000,000 bits of information
per second...shows the desperation willful atheists will go to in
order to live thier life unencumbered by a Creator to whom th3y will
be responswible to on3 day (soon).
And here are where your true colors fly. I won't argue about whether
religion in general or Christianity in particular is a positive or negative,
moral or immoral belief system. Such considerations are not relevant to the
question of what and what is not science. As I see it, the world is as the
world is and those of us who prefer to accept what our senses tell us about
the world we live in are more likely to learn. That you would like to
believe the world to be a certain way is something that you are free and
even welcome to do. But when you try to pass it off as science are your
committing a fraud.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doc Smartass" |
|
| Title: Re: NOVA on the Dover ID decision |
15 Nov 2007 12:43:06 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1195057283.015341.274760@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
On Nov 14, 6:52 am, "Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote:
A fascinating 2 hour presentation of the case which reversed the
Dover school board decision to preface high school biology class with
a "disclaimer." Among the more interesting, to me, facets of this
case was the judge himself. NOVA made much of the fact that he was a
"Republican," spoken of favorably by Rick Santorum (an ID proponent)
and by Bush (who is in favor of teaching "alternatives"). NOVA went
out of their way, prior to the dramatic conclusion, to foster the
impression that such a judge could not render a fair, reasonable and
just verdict.
In fact, Judge Jones issued a sweeping judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs and against the school board. I think that there is a
lesson in this that NOVA brought out admirably. While it is
certainly true that religious fanatics are dangers to our scientific
progress, not all religious fanatics are. Some (and I would contend
most) such as Judge Jones possess the integrity to uphold the
principles we rely on whether or not their personal preferences may
conflict with what is right.
Thank you NOVA and thank you Judge Jones.
REPLY: How can 'religious fanatics be a danger to science' when ALL of
the modern founders of our sciences were bible believing Christians
and Creationists !!!?
You're either a liar or an imbecile. The ancient Greeks provided us the
foundation for the sciences. They weren't christers.
Dumbass.
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling
aa # 1939
No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices.
--Edward R. Murrow
.
|
|
|
| User: "ken" |
|
| Title: Re: NOVA on the Dover ID decision |
15 Nov 2007 12:51:18 PM |
|
|
On Nov 15, 10:43 am, Doc Smartass <gek...@astroskivviesboymail.com>
wrote:
IbeDa...@hotmail.com wrote .
REPLY: How can 'religious fanatics be a danger to science' when ALL of
the modern founders of our sciences were bible believing Christians
and Creationists !!!?
You're either a liar or an imbecile. The ancient Greeks provided us the
foundation for the sciences. They weren't christers.
Dumbass.
Dimwitted Dave is an unusual case of being BOTH an liar and an
imbicile.
And he provides proof of this on a near daily basis with his
delusional rantings on the internet
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew Haley" |
|
| Title: Re: NOVA on the Dover ID decision |
14 Nov 2007 12:02:34 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Nov 14, 6:52 am, "Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote:
While it is certainly true that religious
fanatics are dangers to our scientific progress, not all religious fanatics
are. Some (and I would contend most) such as Judge Jones possess the
integrity to uphold the principles we rely on whether or not their personal
preferences may conflict with what is right.
Thank you NOVA and thank you Judge Jones.
REPLY: How can 'religious fanatics be a danger to science' when ALL of
the modern founders of our sciences were bible believing Christians
and Creationists !!!?
Ferdinand Magellan had a good answer to that question. Prior to his
circumnavigation he said "The Church says the Earth is flat, but I
have seen its shadow on the Moon, and I have more faith in the shadow
than I do in the Church." That's the point: don't believe in people,
don't believe in books, believe in *evidence*.
Andrew.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No 33 Secretary" |
|
| Title: Re: NOVA on the Dover ID decision |
14 Nov 2007 12:19:19 PM |
|
|
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in
news:13jme1qd9po9p9a@news.supernews.com:
IbeDavid@hotmail.com wrote:
On Nov 14, 6:52 am, "Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote:
While it is certainly true that religious
fanatics are dangers to our scientific progress, not all
religious fanatics are. Some (and I would contend most) such
as Judge Jones possess the integrity to uphold the principles
we rely on whether or not their personal preferences may
conflict with what is right.
Thank you NOVA and thank you Judge Jones.
REPLY: How can 'religious fanatics be a danger to science' when
ALL of the modern founders of our sciences were bible believing
Christians and Creationists !!!?
Ferdinand Magellan had a good answer to that question. Prior to
his circumnavigation he said "The Church says the Earth is flat,
but I have seen its shadow on the Moon, and I have more faith in
the shadow than I do in the Church." That's the point: don't
believe in people, don't believe in books, believe in
*evidence*.
And since the Church never said the earth was flat, Magellan is a
good example of the principle.
--
Terry Austin
"There's no law west of the internet."
- Nick Stump
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew Haley" |
|
| Title: Re: NOVA on the Dover ID decision |
14 Nov 2007 12:30:14 PM |
|
|
No 33 Secretary <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> wrote:
Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in
news:13jme1qd9po9p9a@news.supernews.com:
IbeDavid@hotmail.com wrote:
On Nov 14, 6:52 am, "Fester" <n...@home.com> wrote:
While it is certainly true that religious
fanatics are dangers to our scientific progress, not all
religious fanatics are. Some (and I would contend most) such
as Judge Jones possess the integrity to uphold the principles
we rely on whether or not their personal preferences may
conflict with what is right.
Thank you NOVA and thank you Judge Jones.
REPLY: How can 'religious fanatics be a danger to science' when
ALL of the modern founders of our sciences were bible believing
Christians and Creationists !!!?
Ferdinand Magellan had a good answer to that question. Prior to
his circumnavigation he said "The Church says the Earth is flat,
but I have seen its shadow on the Moon, and I have more faith in
the shadow than I do in the Church." That's the point: don't
believe in people, don't believe in books, believe in
*evidence*.
And since the Church never said the earth was flat, Magellan is a
good example of the principle.
Let me try to understand what you are saying. Are you seriously
trying to tell us that the Church never maintained that the Earth was
flat?
Andrew.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
