| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
05 Oct 2004 04:50:38 AM |
| Object: |
Op-Ed: Teach the controversy |
From the article:
----------------------------------------------
Scientific rigor demands proof of its testable hypotheses, but politics
just demands numbers, expressed as votes, and by attracting the votes of
school board members, Intelligent Design is making significant inroads
into the schools, notably in Ohio. More notably, perhaps, its promoters
have done so without resorting to God or the Bible, but by drawing
attention to the un-supportable over-reach of the evolutionary
materialists. While the ID folks admit that natural selection, for
example, should still be taught for its importance to understanding how
species adapt to changing conditions, but say that 'scientific' claims
that the "big questions" are all answered by the theory of materialist
evolution are simply bogus. They say that ID offers a legitimate
alternative theory and the mantra of their push for ID's recognition in
schools is, "Teach the Controversy."
Let's be intellectually honest here. Materialist science emphatically does
not have the final answers. It has some theories, like that of "the big
bang" that describe with some plausibility "how" the universe developed,
but offers nothing to the persistent question "why?" that is the root of
human morality, and which can only be answered by an intelligence greater
than our own. We have already witnessed the totalitarian horror that
results from the belief that materialist science is "all we need to know."
For far too long this narrow version of truth has been exercising a
dangerous stranglehold on our rising generations and our whole society. We
should applaud Intelligent Design in our schools as a step toward breaking
free.
-----------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/evans/041004
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
| User: "tim gueguen" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach the controversy |
05 Oct 2004 04:48:42 PM |
|
|
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:X4A8d.24450$223.18728@edtnps89...
I guess Jason Spaceman is a greater intelligence since he is answering
these questions (his answer is...god). All hail Jason Spaceman!
No, its not his answer. He merely posts links to various articles in an
effort to promote discussion. When he does comment on the articles in
question it is usually from a pro science viewpoint.
tim gueguen 101867
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alexander" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach the controversy |
06 Oct 2004 10:12:10 AM |
|
|
"tim gueguen" <tgueguen@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:bJE8d.620478$M95.406285@pd7tw1no...
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:X4A8d.24450$223.18728@edtnps89...
I guess Jason Spaceman is a greater intelligence since he is answering
these questions (his answer is...god). All hail Jason Spaceman!
No, its not his answer. He merely posts links to various articles in an
effort to promote discussion. When he does comment on the articles in
question it is usually from a pro science viewpoint.
tim gueguen 101867
Think Jason needs to put a disclaimer or summat on his posts
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach the controversy |
09 Oct 2004 12:03:24 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 15:12:10 +0000 (UTC),
Alexander <alexander.hudson@virgin.net> wrote:
"tim gueguen" <tgueguen@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:bJE8d.620478$M95.406285@pd7tw1no...
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:X4A8d.24450$223.18728@edtnps89...
I guess Jason Spaceman is a greater intelligence since he is answering
these questions (his answer is...god). All hail Jason Spaceman!
No, its not his answer. He merely posts links to various articles in an
effort to promote discussion. When he does comment on the articles in
question it is usually from a pro science viewpoint.
tim gueguen 101867
Think Jason needs to put a disclaimer or summat on his posts
Why do we have to have this discussion every few months. Jason is not a
Creationist, a pseudo-scientist or kook. He posts articles that are of
interest to the origins debate. Since he clearly indicates that these are
articles from elsewhere, as opposed to the plagiarism of certain hit and run
posters, the point is to debate the article, not attack the messenger.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
"My illness is due to my doctor's insistence that I drink milk, a
whitish fluid they force down helpless babies." - WC Fields
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Luke" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach the controversy |
05 Oct 2004 07:47:06 AM |
|
|
Let's be intellectually honest here.
BRRAAAAZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTT!!!
Damn! That ***** buzzer scares the hell out of me every time it goes
off.
--
Dan
"Did you just have a stroke and not tell me?" - Jiminy Glick
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "dandelion" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach the controversy |
05 Oct 2004 06:16:00 AM |
|
|
Hi Jason,
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.61.0410050546400.13175@computerroom.pr.phub.net.cable.rogers.com...
From the article:
----------------------------------------------
Scientific rigor demands proof of its testable hypotheses, but politics
just demands numbers, expressed as votes, and by attracting the votes of
school board members, Intelligent Design is making significant inroads
into the schools, notably in Ohio. More notably, perhaps, its promoters
have done so without resorting to God or the Bible, but by drawing
attention to the un-supportable over-reach of the evolutionary
materialists. While the ID folks admit that natural selection, for
example, should still be taught for its importance to understanding how
species adapt to changing conditions, but say that 'scientific' claims
that the "big questions" are all answered by the theory of materialist
evolution are simply bogus. They say that ID offers a legitimate
alternative theory and the mantra of their push for ID's recognition in
schools is, "Teach the Controversy."
Let's be intellectually honest here.
Yeah... Lets..
Materialist science emphatically does
not have the final answers.
"Materialist" science does not claim that.
It has some theories,
More than "Some". Has anyone explained to this guy what a "Theory" is?
like that of "the big bang" that describe with some plausibility "how"
the universe developed,
but offers nothing to the persistent question "why?" that is the root of
human morality, and which can only be answered by an intelligence greater
than our own.
That's a fair number of faults in one sentence.
1. The Big Bang" theory (I would still call it a hypothesis) does not claim
to answer any questions regarding "the root of human morality"
2. The origin and evolution of the universe does not have any direct
implications for human morality.
3. The assertion that only an intelligence greater than our own can answer
these uestions is a non- sequitur.
We have already witnessed the totalitarian horror that
results from the belief that materialist science is "all we need to know."
TV. Computers, networks, trains, planes and automobiles, etc. What "results"
is he talking about. Oh, wait... It's jut playing on the "The World is a
Rotten Place" sentiment he expects from his readers and tapping into that,
he's merely trying for an emotional response.
I forgot.... We're anti-intellectual these days.
For far too long this narrow version of truth has been exercising a
dangerous stranglehold on our rising generations and our whole society.
The fact that society does not cpe well with raising it's youngsters does
not have any implications for science, but plenty for politics, parents and
editors-at-large, i'm afraid.
We should applaud Intelligent Design in our schools as a step toward
breaking
free.
We should sack/fire/dismiss the writer of that article for not being able to
get a coherent line of reasoning printed.
Read it at http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/evans/041004
Nomen est omen...
J. Spaceman
Thanks Jason.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach the controversy |
05 Oct 2004 11:32:18 AM |
|
|
"dandelion" <somewhere@meadown.net> wrote in message
news:416283c6$0$176$e4fe514c@dreader4.news.xs4all.nl...
Hi Jason,
"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.61.0410050546400.13175@computerroom.pr.phub.net.cable.rogers.com...
From the article:
----------------------------------------------
Scientific rigor demands proof of its testable hypotheses, but politics
just demands numbers, expressed as votes, and by attracting the votes of
school board members, Intelligent Design is making significant inroads
into the schools, notably in Ohio. More notably, perhaps, its promoters
have done so without resorting to God or the Bible, but by drawing
attention to the un-supportable over-reach of the evolutionary
materialists. While the ID folks admit that natural selection, for
example, should still be taught for its importance to understanding how
species adapt to changing conditions, but say that 'scientific' claims
that the "big questions" are all answered by the theory of materialist
evolution are simply bogus. They say that ID offers a legitimate
alternative theory and the mantra of their push for ID's recognition in
schools is, "Teach the Controversy."
Let's be intellectually honest here.
Yeah... Lets..
Materialist science emphatically does
not have the final answers.
"Materialist" science does not claim that.
It has some theories,
More than "Some". Has anyone explained to this guy what a "Theory" is?
like that of "the big bang" that describe with some plausibility "how"
the universe developed,
but offers nothing to the persistent question "why?" that is the root of
human morality, and which can only be answered by an intelligence greater
than our own.
That's a fair number of faults in one sentence.
1. The Big Bang" theory (I would still call it a hypothesis) does not
claim
to answer any questions regarding "the root of human morality"
2. The origin and evolution of the universe does not have any direct
implications for human morality.
3. The assertion that only an intelligence greater than our own can answer
these uestions is a non- sequitur.
I guess Jason Spaceman is a greater intelligence since he is answering these
questions (his answer is...god). All hail Jason Spaceman!
We have already witnessed the totalitarian horror that
results from the belief that materialist science is "all we need to
know."
TV. Computers, networks, trains, planes and automobiles, etc. What
"results"
is he talking about. Oh, wait... It's jut playing on the "The World is a
Rotten Place" sentiment he expects from his readers and tapping into that,
he's merely trying for an emotional response.
I forgot.... We're anti-intellectual these days.
For far too long this narrow version of truth has been exercising a
dangerous stranglehold on our rising generations and our whole society.
The fact that society does not cpe well with raising it's youngsters does
not have any implications for science, but plenty for politics, parents
and
editors-at-large, i'm afraid.
You forgot religion.
We should applaud Intelligent Design in our schools as a step toward
breaking
free.
We should sack/fire/dismiss the writer of that article for not being able
to
get a coherent line of reasoning printed.
Read it at http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/evans/041004
Nomen est omen...
J. Spaceman
Thanks Jason.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lt. Kizhe Catson" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach the controversy |
05 Oct 2004 12:05:50 PM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.61.0410050546400.13175@computerroom.pr.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>...
From the article:
----------------------------------------------
Scientific rigor demands proof of its testable hypotheses, but politics
just demands numbers, expressed as votes, and by attracting the votes of
school board members, Intelligent Design is making significant inroads
into the schools, notably in Ohio. More notably, perhaps, its promoters
have done so without resorting to God or the Bible, but by drawing
attention to the un-supportable over-reach of the evolutionary
materialists. While the ID folks admit that natural selection, for
example, should still be taught for its importance to understanding how
species adapt to changing conditions, but say that 'scientific' claims
that the "big questions" are all answered by the theory of materialist
evolution are simply bogus. They say that ID offers a legitimate
alternative theory and the mantra of their push for ID's recognition in
schools is, "Teach the Controversy."
Let's be intellectually honest here. Materialist science emphatically does
not have the final answers. It has some theories, like that of "the big
bang" that describe with some plausibility "how" the universe developed,
but offers nothing to the persistent question "why?" that is the root of
human morality, and which can only be answered by an intelligence greater
than our own. We have already witnessed the totalitarian horror that
results from the belief that materialist science is "all we need to know."
For far too long this narrow version of truth has been exercising a
dangerous stranglehold on our rising generations and our whole society. We
should applaud Intelligent Design in our schools as a step toward breaking
free.
-----------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/evans/041004
More:
"Today, we are ridding the world of the last vestiges of the political
application of radical materialism. It was just recently blasted out
of Iraq and still lingers in North Korea, Communist China, Cuba and,
in a watered-down form, in Euro-socialism."
Gee, and all along I thought Saddam was just a jumped-up street thug,
and the US went after him for WMDs (which he didn't have), terrorist
links (ditto), and because he was Really Mean to his people (true, but
the long-term prospects for his replacement don't look much better).
But really, it's because he was a radical materialist. Who'd a thunk
it? Presumably, the article's authors prefer the decidedly
non-materialist regime next door....
-- Kizhe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach the controversy |
05 Oct 2004 08:49:18 AM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
----------------------------------------------
Scientific rigor demands proof of its testable hypotheses, but politics
just demands numbers, expressed as votes, and by attracting the votes of
school board members, Intelligent Design is making significant inroads
into the schools, notably in Ohio. More notably, perhaps, its promoters
have done so without resorting to God or the Bible, but by drawing
attention to the un-supportable over-reach of the evolutionary
materialists.
Not really, it is still basically saying no more than "I can't believe
that these things could exist unless God made them"
While the ID folks admit that natural selection, for
example, should still be taught for its importance to understanding how
species adapt to changing conditions, but say that 'scientific' claims
that the "big questions" are all answered by the theory of materialist
evolution are simply bogus. They say that ID offers a legitimate
alternative theory and the mantra of their push for ID's recognition in
schools is, "Teach the Controversy."
From a scientific point of view, there is no controversy
Let's be intellectually honest here. Materialist science emphatically does
not have the final answers. It has some theories, like that of "the big
bang" that describe with some plausibility "how" the universe developed,
but offers nothing to the persistent question "why?" that is the root of
human morality, and which can only be answered by an intelligence greater
than our own. We have already witnessed the totalitarian horror that
results from the belief that materialist science is "all we need to know."
For far too long this narrow version of truth has been exercising a
dangerous stranglehold on our rising generations and our whole society. We
should applaud Intelligent Design in our schools as a step toward breaking
free.
Teaching religion, even religion that tries to disguise itself, as
science is till wrong
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "EjP" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach the controversy |
05 Oct 2004 10:23:10 AM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
----------------------------------------------
Scientific rigor demands proof of its testable hypotheses, but politics
just demands numbers, expressed as votes, and by attracting the votes of
school board members, Intelligent Design is making significant inroads
into the schools, notably in Ohio. More notably, perhaps, its promoters
have done so without resorting to God or the Bible, but by drawing
attention to the un-supportable over-reach of the evolutionary
materialists. While the ID folks admit that natural selection, for
example, should still be taught for its importance to understanding how
species adapt to changing conditions, but say that 'scientific' claims
that the "big questions" are all answered by the theory of materialist
evolution are simply bogus. They say that ID offers a legitimate
alternative theory and the mantra of their push for ID's recognition in
schools is, "Teach the Controversy."
I wonder, prior to 1916 did anyone propose that one had to invoke
God to explain the orbit of Mercury?
-E
Let's be intellectually honest here. Materialist science emphatically does
not have the final answers. It has some theories, like that of "the big
bang" that describe with some plausibility "how" the universe developed,
but offers nothing to the persistent question "why?" that is the root of
human morality, and which can only be answered by an intelligence greater
than our own. We have already witnessed the totalitarian horror that
results from the belief that materialist science is "all we need to know."
For far too long this narrow version of truth has been exercising a
dangerous stranglehold on our rising generations and our whole society. We
should applaud Intelligent Design in our schools as a step toward breaking
free.
-----------------------------------------------
Read it at http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/evans/041004
J. Spaceman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach the controversy |
05 Oct 2004 11:30:15 AM |
|
|
On Tue 05 Oct 2004 10:23:10a, EjP <nospam@hackers.are.bad> kicked back
with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a joint,
then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
We have already
witnessed the totalitarian horror that results from the belief that
materialist science is "all we need to know."
The totalitarian horror? Oh, right, you're thinking of the Nazis -- but
wait, weren't those Christians? Yes in-diddly-eedy! Ah well, then you
must be talking about the Crusades... whoops, that was Christians too!
Wasn't there another one? Oh yes, the Inquisition -- might that be what
you meant? Well ***** me Freddy, you're right, those Inquisitors were
Christian to the bone!
Oliver Cromwell is another good example -- what was he, atheist?
Satanist? Human-sacrificer? My history books say otherwise, it seems
-- he was a Christian.
*sigh* Ah well, at least we can always point to the Salem Witch Trials
as evidence of the inveterate depravity of atheistic materialism.
What's that you say? My God, they were Christians *too*?! For the love
of God, where are all the damned atheists?!
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gascoyne" |
|
| Title: Re: Op-Ed: Teach the controversy |
05 Oct 2004 11:40:37 AM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
----------------------------------------------
[snip] We have already witnessed the totalitarian horror that
results from the belief that materialist science is "all we need to know."
[snip]
(Apologies if this goes only to talk.origins - posting problems....)
I'm not aware of too many folks (such as Dawkins) on the "science" side
of the manufactured controversy suggesting that religion is superfluous.
Mostly, what I see is the vocal minority on the "religion" side
attempting to infuse religion into science.
I would point out that we have also seen the totalitarian horror that
results from the belief that (the "correct") religious faith is "all we
need to know." Look at the Dark Ages, the Inquisition, the Ayatollahs,
bin Laden, etc.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
