Religions > Atheism > Re: 'Intelligent design' idiots spew their stone-age superstition in PA schools <= k00k alert!
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
" \- Prof. Jonez©" |
| Date: |
25 Sep 2005 11:28:52 AM |
| Object: |
Re: 'Intelligent design' idiots spew their stone-age superstition in PA schools <= k00k alert! |
'Intelligent design' supporters to state their case in court
Sunday, September 25, 2005
By Bill Toland, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
If "intelligent design" supporters weren't so quick to rebuke those who connect
their mission to the Bible, it would be tempting to borrow from the Old
Testament and describe the upcoming federal trial over the issue as a legal
version of David vs. Goliath.
Instead, we'll let the defendants in this case, which pits Dover Area School
District against parent plaintiffs, to describe the trial in their own words.
"It's almost David vs. Goliath," says Richard Thompson, of Michigan's Thomas
More Law Center, which is defending the York County, Pa., district.
Hmmm. So much for the gag order on all things biblical.
Last autumn, Dover's school board instructed its ninth-grade biology teachers to
tell students the theory of evolution is an incomplete one, and that intelligent
design, which says biology's minutia presents evidence of an intelligent
creator, is an alternative argument to evolution.
Evolution says that life developed subtly, unpredictably and randomly through
mutation and, through natural selection, preserved the changes most likely to
ensure a species' continued existence on Earth.
Intelligent design is gaining popularity, if not among biologists, then at least
among politicians. The top politician himself, President Bush, told reporters
last month that schools should teach both evolution and intelligent design "so
people can understand what the debate is about."
Supporters of intelligent design say the argument has nothing to do with the
Bible, God or the Judeo-Christian account of life's origins found in Genesis.
But a group of doubting parents sued the district in December, saying
intelligent design amounts to a religious belief, and has no place in a biology
course.
The three-paragraph statement read to students is unconstitutional, they say,
because it implicitly endorses a superhuman creator, and that breeches the
church-state separation wall. Thompson argues it's ironic that a group
advocating civil liberties would endorse the censorship of a particular idea.
The trial, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, begins tomorrow in
Harrisburg, under the supervision of U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones
III. Media from around the globe are expected to attend, anticipating that this
will be the latest episode in America's longest-running cultural soap-opera:
Should public school students be taught, along with evolution, other ideas about
how life and humanity came to be?
In the view of Thompson's law center, a firm that litigates on behalf of
"Christians and time-honored family values," Dover is David in this real-life
parable, and the group of parents, represented by attorneys from the American
Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State,
and the Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton, is Goliath.
"It's an attempt by the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church
and State to intimidate this tiny school district in Pennsylvania," he said.
"They want to make an example of this small school district."
The parents, their attorneys and most scientists and educators see it the other
way around.
Intelligent design is pseudo-science, they say, but a well-orchestrated one,
funded by Christian literalists who oppose the theory of evolution and promoted
slickly during the past 10 years by religious groups. They say intelligent
design supporters are disingenuous when they claim their argument has no
religious implications, because intelligent design's top advocates have already
let the cat out of the bag. Intelligent design opponents point to the words of
Phillip Johnson, devout Presbyterian and father of the theory:
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue
of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the
academic world and into the schools."
The supporters, despite their religious roots, are then able to suggest
scientific legitimacy by pointing to the work of the Seattle-based Discovery
Institute, home of the design movement. The Discovery Institute itself, however,
is not a direct player in the Dover case, and is not supporting the school
district.
It's clear that, in Dover, "the board acted with the purpose of promoting
religious view," says Pepper Hamilton attorney Stephen G. Harvey. "One board
member said, 'Two thousand years ago, a man died on a cross. Can't someone take
a stand for him?' " Harvey is repeating an account of a school board meeting
published in both of York's daily newspapers. But the board member reported to
have made the comment has since said the quotes were fabricated.
An audio tape of the meeting has been destroyed. Harvey and his team are asking
the judge for a permanent injunction, striking down the school board's mandate
that the intelligent design statement be read to students.
The statement says: "The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to
learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized
test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it
continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact.
Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as
a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from
Darwin's view. The reference book, 'Of Pandas and People,' is available for
students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent
design actually involves. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to
keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to
individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class
instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on
standards-based assessments."
The Harrisburg trial is not the first to consider the ideas of evolution and
religion. There's the 80-year-old Scopes "Monkey Trial," during which defendant
John Scopes was found guilty of a state law that banned the teaching of
evolution. In 1968's Epperson v. Arkansas, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned an
Arkansas statute which prohibited the teaching of evolution. In the 1980s came
McLean vs. Arkansas and Edwards vs. Aguillard, which overturned acts demanding
schools give equal time to the evolution and "creation science." And in Georgia,
a suburban Atlanta district is still fighting a judge's order to remove stickers
in science textbooks which say evolution is "a theory, not a fact."
The "theory, not a fact" line is just one of several used by intelligent design
proponents in attempts to gin up the appearance of a scientific controversy,
ACLU attorney Witold Walczak said.
"That is an old creationist ploy." In truth, he said, "there is simply no
controversy in the scientific community." Just because evolution is "just a
theory" doesn't make it scientifically suspect. Gravity, too, is a theory.
One of the star witnesses for the plaintiffs is expected to be Kenneth Miller, a
biology professor from Brown University and a Roman Catholic, a religious
affiliation which gives him "strong propaganda value" as a defender of
evolution, according to one of his colleagues, because he shows it's possible to
be both a Christian and a supporter of evolution.
Reporters for the York Dispatch and the York Daily Record who wrote about the
school board meetings also might testify.
For the defendants, Michael Behe, a biochemist from Lehigh University, and Scott
Minnich, a biologist from Idaho, will testify that intelligent design is
legitimate science. They also will say that intelligent design concerns itself
not with the identity of the intelligent designer, but only with evidence that
points to the designer.
Attempts to connect intelligent design to its religious supporters is a
smokescreen, meant to obscure real faults in evolutionary theory, said Thompson,
the Thomas More center attorney.
.
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Intelligent design' idiots spew their stone-age superstition in PA schools <= k00k alert! |
25 Sep 2005 11:30:46 AM |
|
|
"- Prof. Jonez©" wrote:
'Intelligent design' supporters to state their case in court
Sunday, September 25, 2005
By Bill Toland, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
If "intelligent design" supporters weren't so quick to rebuke those
who connect their mission to the Bible, it would be tempting to
borrow from the Old Testament and describe the upcoming federal trial
over the issue as a legal version of David vs. Goliath.
Instead, we'll let the defendants in this case, which pits Dover Area
School District against parent plaintiffs, to describe the trial in
their own words.
"It's almost David vs. Goliath," says Richard Thompson, of Michigan's
Thomas More Law Center, which is defending the York County, Pa.,
district.
Hmmm. So much for the gag order on all things biblical.
Last autumn, Dover's school board instructed its ninth-grade biology
teachers to tell students the theory of evolution is an incomplete
one, and that intelligent design, which says biology's minutia
presents evidence of an intelligent creator, is an alternative
argument to evolution.
Evolution says that life developed subtly, unpredictably and randomly
through mutation and, through natural selection, preserved the
changes most likely to ensure a species' continued existence on Earth.
Intelligent design is gaining popularity, if not among biologists,
then at least among politicians. The top politician himself,
President Bush, told reporters last month that schools should teach
both evolution and intelligent design "so people can understand what
the debate is about."
Supporters of intelligent design say the argument has nothing to do
with the Bible, God or the Judeo-Christian account of life's origins
found in Genesis. But a group of doubting parents sued the district
in December, saying intelligent design amounts to a religious belief,
and has no place in a biology course.
The three-paragraph statement read to students is unconstitutional,
they say, because it implicitly endorses a superhuman creator, and
that breeches the church-state separation wall. Thompson argues it's
ironic that a group advocating civil liberties would endorse the
censorship of a particular idea.
The trial, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, begins tomorrow
in Harrisburg, under the supervision of U.S. District Court Judge
John E. Jones III. Media from around the globe are expected to
attend, anticipating that this will be the latest episode in
America's longest-running cultural soap-opera: Should public school
students be taught, along with evolution, other ideas about how life
and humanity came to be?
In the view of Thompson's law center, a firm that litigates on behalf
of "Christians and time-honored family values," Dover is David in
this real-life parable, and the group of parents, represented by
attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United
for the Separation of Church and State, and the Philadelphia law firm
Pepper Hamilton, is Goliath.
"It's an attempt by the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation
of Church and State to intimidate this tiny school district in
Pennsylvania," he said. "They want to make an example of this small
school district."
The parents, their attorneys and most scientists and educators see it
the other way around.
Intelligent design is pseudo-science, they say, but a
well-orchestrated one, funded by Christian literalists who oppose the
theory of evolution and promoted slickly during the past 10 years by
religious groups. They say intelligent design supporters are
disingenuous when they claim their argument has no religious
implications, because intelligent design's top advocates have already
let the cat out of the bag. Intelligent design opponents point to the
words of Phillip Johnson, devout Presbyterian and father of the
theory:
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get
the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of
God, before the academic world and into the schools."
The supporters, despite their religious roots, are then able to
suggest scientific legitimacy by pointing to the work of the
Seattle-based Discovery Institute, home of the design movement. The
Discovery Institute itself, however, is not a direct player in the
Dover case, and is not supporting the school district.
It's clear that, in Dover, "the board acted with the purpose of
promoting religious view," says Pepper Hamilton attorney Stephen G.
Harvey. "One board member said, 'Two thousand years ago, a man died
on a cross. Can't someone take a stand for him?' " Harvey is
repeating an account of a school board meeting published in both of
York's daily newspapers. But the board member reported to have made
the comment has since said the quotes were fabricated.
An audio tape of the meeting has been destroyed. Harvey and his team
are asking the judge for a permanent injunction, striking down the
school board's mandate that the intelligent design statement be read
to students.
The statement says: "The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require
students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually
to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because
Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new
evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory
exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a
well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that
differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, 'Of Pandas and
People,' is available for students who might be interested in gaining
an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves. With
respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind.
The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual
students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class
instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on
standards-based assessments."
The Harrisburg trial is not the first to consider the ideas of
evolution and religion. There's the 80-year-old Scopes "Monkey
Trial," during which defendant John Scopes was found guilty of a
state law that banned the teaching of evolution. In 1968's Epperson
v. Arkansas, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned an Arkansas statute
which prohibited the teaching of evolution. In the 1980s came McLean
vs. Arkansas and Edwards vs. Aguillard, which overturned acts
demanding schools give equal time to the evolution and "creation
science." And in Georgia, a suburban Atlanta district is still
fighting a judge's order to remove stickers in science textbooks
which say evolution is "a theory, not a fact."
The "theory, not a fact" line is just one of several used by
intelligent design proponents in attempts to gin up the appearance of
a scientific controversy, ACLU attorney Witold Walczak said.
"That is an old creationist ploy." In truth, he said, "there is
simply no controversy in the scientific community." Just because
evolution is "just a theory" doesn't make it scientifically suspect.
Gravity, too, is a theory.
One of the star witnesses for the plaintiffs is expected to be
Kenneth Miller, a biology professor from Brown University and a Roman
Catholic, a religious affiliation which gives him "strong propaganda
value" as a defender of evolution, according to one of his
colleagues, because he shows it's possible to be both a Christian and
a supporter of evolution.
Reporters for the York Dispatch and the York Daily Record who wrote
about the school board meetings also might testify.
For the defendants, Michael Behe, a biochemist from Lehigh
University, and Scott Minnich, a biologist from Idaho, will testify
that intelligent design is legitimate science. They also will say
that intelligent design concerns itself not with the identity of the
intelligent designer, but only with evidence that points to the
designer.
Attempts to connect intelligent design to its religious supporters is
a smokescreen, meant to obscure real faults in evolutionary theory,
said Thompson, the Thomas More center attorney.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don H" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Intelligent design' idiots spew their stone-age superstition in PA schools <= k00k alert! |
25 Sep 2005 01:16:09 PM |
|
|
" "- Prof. Jonez©"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote in message
news:2hAZe.21$hJ5.3614@news.uswest.net...
"- Prof. Jonez©" wrote:
'Intelligent design' supporters to state their case in court
Sunday, September 25, 2005
By Bill Toland, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
If "intelligent design" supporters weren't so quick to rebuke those
who connect their mission to the Bible, it would be tempting to
borrow from the Old Testament and describe the upcoming federal trial
over the issue as a legal version of David vs. Goliath.
Instead, we'll let the defendants in this case, which pits Dover Area
School District against parent plaintiffs, to describe the trial in
their own words.
"It's almost David vs. Goliath," says Richard Thompson, of Michigan's
Thomas More Law Center, which is defending the York County, Pa.,
district.
Hmmm. So much for the gag order on all things biblical.
Last autumn, Dover's school board instructed its ninth-grade biology
teachers to tell students the theory of evolution is an incomplete
one, and that intelligent design, which says biology's minutia
presents evidence of an intelligent creator, is an alternative
argument to evolution.
Evolution says that life developed subtly, unpredictably and randomly
through mutation and, through natural selection, preserved the
changes most likely to ensure a species' continued existence on Earth.
Intelligent design is gaining popularity, if not among biologists,
then at least among politicians. The top politician himself,
President Bush, told reporters last month that schools should teach
both evolution and intelligent design "so people can understand what
the debate is about."
Supporters of intelligent design say the argument has nothing to do
with the Bible, God or the Judeo-Christian account of life's origins
found in Genesis. But a group of doubting parents sued the district
in December, saying intelligent design amounts to a religious belief,
and has no place in a biology course.
The three-paragraph statement read to students is unconstitutional,
they say, because it implicitly endorses a superhuman creator, and
that breeches the church-state separation wall. Thompson argues it's
ironic that a group advocating civil liberties would endorse the
censorship of a particular idea.
The trial, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, begins tomorrow
in Harrisburg, under the supervision of U.S. District Court Judge
John E. Jones III. Media from around the globe are expected to
attend, anticipating that this will be the latest episode in
America's longest-running cultural soap-opera: Should public school
students be taught, along with evolution, other ideas about how life
and humanity came to be?
In the view of Thompson's law center, a firm that litigates on behalf
of "Christians and time-honored family values," Dover is David in
this real-life parable, and the group of parents, represented by
attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United
for the Separation of Church and State, and the Philadelphia law firm
Pepper Hamilton, is Goliath.
"It's an attempt by the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation
of Church and State to intimidate this tiny school district in
Pennsylvania," he said. "They want to make an example of this small
school district."
The parents, their attorneys and most scientists and educators see it
the other way around.
Intelligent design is pseudo-science, they say, but a
well-orchestrated one, funded by Christian literalists who oppose the
theory of evolution and promoted slickly during the past 10 years by
religious groups. They say intelligent design supporters are
disingenuous when they claim their argument has no religious
implications, because intelligent design's top advocates have already
let the cat out of the bag. Intelligent design opponents point to the
words of Phillip Johnson, devout Presbyterian and father of the
theory:
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get
the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of
God, before the academic world and into the schools."
The supporters, despite their religious roots, are then able to
suggest scientific legitimacy by pointing to the work of the
Seattle-based Discovery Institute, home of the design movement. The
Discovery Institute itself, however, is not a direct player in the
Dover case, and is not supporting the school district.
It's clear that, in Dover, "the board acted with the purpose of
promoting religious view," says Pepper Hamilton attorney Stephen G.
Harvey. "One board member said, 'Two thousand years ago, a man died
on a cross. Can't someone take a stand for him?' " Harvey is
repeating an account of a school board meeting published in both of
York's daily newspapers. But the board member reported to have made
the comment has since said the quotes were fabricated.
An audio tape of the meeting has been destroyed. Harvey and his team
are asking the judge for a permanent injunction, striking down the
school board's mandate that the intelligent design statement be read
to students.
The statement says: "The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require
students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually
to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because
Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new
evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory
exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a
well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that
differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, 'Of Pandas and
People,' is available for students who might be interested in gaining
an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves. With
respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind.
The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual
students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class
instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on
standards-based assessments."
The Harrisburg trial is not the first to consider the ideas of
evolution and religion. There's the 80-year-old Scopes "Monkey
Trial," during which defendant John Scopes was found guilty of a
state law that banned the teaching of evolution. In 1968's Epperson
v. Arkansas, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned an Arkansas statute
which prohibited the teaching of evolution. In the 1980s came McLean
vs. Arkansas and Edwards vs. Aguillard, which overturned acts
demanding schools give equal time to the evolution and "creation
science." And in Georgia, a suburban Atlanta district is still
fighting a judge's order to remove stickers in science textbooks
which say evolution is "a theory, not a fact."
The "theory, not a fact" line is just one of several used by
intelligent design proponents in attempts to gin up the appearance of
a scientific controversy, ACLU attorney Witold Walczak said.
"That is an old creationist ploy." In truth, he said, "there is
simply no controversy in the scientific community." Just because
evolution is "just a theory" doesn't make it scientifically suspect.
Gravity, too, is a theory.
One of the star witnesses for the plaintiffs is expected to be
Kenneth Miller, a biology professor from Brown University and a Roman
Catholic, a religious affiliation which gives him "strong propaganda
value" as a defender of evolution, according to one of his
colleagues, because he shows it's possible to be both a Christian and
a supporter of evolution.
Reporters for the York Dispatch and the York Daily Record who wrote
about the school board meetings also might testify.
For the defendants, Michael Behe, a biochemist from Lehigh
University, and Scott Minnich, a biologist from Idaho, will testify
that intelligent design is legitimate science. They also will say
that intelligent design concerns itself not with the identity of the
intelligent designer, but only with evidence that points to the
designer.
Attempts to connect intelligent design to its religious supporters is
a smokescreen, meant to obscure real faults in evolutionary theory,
said Thompson, the Thomas More center attorney.
# What are some characteristics of Science?
(1) Science uses the minimal hypothetical construct to explain phenomena
(Occam's Razor); the Theory of Biological Evolution is one such case.
"Intelligence" and "design" add new concepts to the basic theory; are they
warranted?
(2) Any hypothesis must be testable, in whole or in part; otherwise it is
useless. There are many supporting facts for Evolution, even if the whole
can't be tested in a laboratory. "Artificial selection" is a human-guided,
and speeded-up, version of "natural selection" - and certain shows
"intelligent design" (but only by humans). eg. we can breed dogs to suit our
purposes. "Natural selection" is an automatic, causal, process, which has
no need of (nor evidence for) "intelligence" or "design". What tests can be
applied to "intelligent design"?
(3) Science goes by evidence; human desires are irrelevant. If new facts
eventuate, you must revise your opinion. Your "pet theory" must be
discarded if the facts indicate it is flawed or false. Religionists might
want an Intelligent Designer, but wishful thinking doesn't make it happen;
if there are no supporting facts, the hypothesis is unproven.
(4) If no conclusion is possible, Science doesn't pretend to know the
answer - even though it may speculate. Gaps in the fossil record, or other
as-yet unexplained phenomena, must remain unexplained until factual evidence
arises. On the other hand, the Biblical Genesis cosmology was accepted as
factual by religion until recently; only now is it seen as allegorical -
because evolution refutes it.
================================
"Intelligent design" may be proposed as an hypothesis, but can it match the
criteria above? If not, then it is not scientific, whatever else it might
be.
======================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scarab" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Intelligent design' idiots spew their stone-age superstition in PA schools <= k00k alert! |
25 Sep 2005 01:25:34 PM |
|
|
Don H <donlhumphries@bigpond.com> wrote in message:
news:<JPBZe.14471$0E5.2215@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
"Intelligent design" may be proposed as an hypothesis, but can it match the
criteria above? If not, then it is not scientific, whatever else it might
be.
If you refuse to believe that there's a man in the sky who created us and
controls our destiny as the Bible says, you are obviously a heretic and a God
hating Liberal!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Intelligent design' idiots spew their stone-age superstition in PA schools <= k00k alert! |
25 Sep 2005 05:57:29 PM |
|
|
"Scarab" <Scarab@wonder.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1da0b5a745f2b2f98bdcd@news.individual.net...
Don H <donlhumphries@bigpond.com> wrote in message:
news:<JPBZe.14471$0E5.2215@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
"Intelligent design" may be proposed as an hypothesis, but can it match
the
criteria above? If not, then it is not scientific, whatever else it might
be.
If you refuse to believe that there's a man in the sky who created us and
controls our destiny as the Bible says, you are obviously a heretic and a
God
hating Liberal!
No, were neither God hating or liberals. we just don't believe in myths and
legends but prefer
objective facts.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Glynn" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Intelligent design' idiots spew their stone-age superstitionin PA schools <= k00k alert! |
25 Sep 2005 04:18:38 PM |
|
|
Don H wrote:
================================
"Intelligent design" may be proposed as an hypothesis, but can it match the
criteria above? If not, then it is not scientific, whatever else it might
be.
======================================
And is the theory of 'Intelligent Design' proposed for Kansas schools
any more valid than that proposed by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti
Monster?
http://www.venganza.org/
Steve
--
"It has been said," he began at length, withdrawing his eyes
reluctantly from an usually large insect upon the ceiling and
addressing himself to the maiden, "that there are few
situations in life that cannot be honourably settled, and
without any loss of time, either by suicide, a bag of gold, or
by thrusting a despised antagonist over the edge of a
precipice on a dark night."
.
|
|
|
| User: "pcourterelle" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Intelligent design' idiots spew their stone-age superstition in PA schools <= k00k alert! |
25 Sep 2005 11:29:23 PM |
|
|
"Stephen Glynn" <stephen.glynn@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:OuEZe.4683$3q4.3863@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
Don H wrote:
================================
"Intelligent design" may be proposed as an hypothesis, but can it match
the
criteria above? If not, then it is not scientific, whatever else it
might
be.
======================================
And is the theory of 'Intelligent Design' proposed for Kansas schools any
more valid than that proposed by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti
Monster?
http://www.venganza.org/
LMAO
.
|
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: Flying Spaghetti Monster -- 'Intelligent design' idiots spew their stone-age superstition in PA schools <= k00k alert! |
25 Sep 2005 05:40:26 PM |
|
|
Stephen Glynn wrote:
Don H wrote:
================================
"Intelligent design" may be proposed as an hypothesis, but can it
match the criteria above? If not, then it is not scientific,
whatever else it might be.
======================================
And is the theory of 'Intelligent Design' proposed for Kansas schools
any more valid than that proposed by the Church of the Flying
Spaghetti Monster?
http://www.venganza.org/
ROTFLMAO!
OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD
I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide
whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with
the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for
students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the
theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students
will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.
Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and
many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was
created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and
all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence
pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in
place by Him.
It is for this reason that I'm writing you today, to formally request that this
alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories.
In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be
forced to proceed with legal action. I'm sure you see where we are coming from.
If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another
scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be
taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.
Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more
about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the
universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written
accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His
power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us,
and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are
not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don't understand is
that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is.
For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He
finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission
to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old,
as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist
does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti
Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have
numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons
why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter
with ease.
I'm sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this
alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable
evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is
disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of
course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough,
and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this
letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes
angry if we don't.
You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and
other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates
since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate
number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years.
As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship
between pirates and global temperature.
In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I
hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your
students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate
theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal
action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when
these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the
country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one
third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical
conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.
Sincerely Yours,
Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.
P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and
a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "B1ackwater" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Intelligent design' idiots spew their stone-age superstition in PA schools <= k00k alert! |
25 Sep 2005 12:48:18 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 10:30:46 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
<jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
"- Prof. Jonez©" wrote:
'Intelligent design' supporters to state their case in court
Sunday, September 25, 2005
By Bill Toland, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
If "intelligent design" supporters weren't so quick to rebuke those
who connect their mission to the Bible, it would be tempting to
borrow from the Old Testament and describe the upcoming federal trial
over the issue as a legal version of David vs. Goliath.
Instead, we'll let the defendants in this case, which pits Dover Area
School District against parent plaintiffs, to describe the trial in
their own words.
"It's almost David vs. Goliath," says Richard Thompson, of Michigan's
Thomas More Law Center, which is defending the York County, Pa.,
district.
Hmmm. So much for the gag order on all things biblical.
Last autumn, Dover's school board instructed its ninth-grade biology
teachers to tell students the theory of evolution is an incomplete
one, and that intelligent design, which says biology's minutia
presents evidence of an intelligent creator, is an alternative
argument to evolution.
And therein lies the problem - that the teachers will COMPLY.
So long as the flunkies will do whatever they're told then
there's no reason not to tell 'em to say ANYTHING that's
'PC' at the moment.
FDAs Susan Wood (and possibly the FDA chief himself) resigned
because they claimed that science was being usurped by politics
in the case of the 'morning-after pill'. No doubt more 'liberal'
administrations have put similar pressure on the FDA to
exaggerate the dangers of smoking and eating meat. Thing is,
it was CORRECT for these people to resign. The FDA is supposed
to be about science, and if politicians try to make it about
political 'truths' instead, well, no respectable scientist
should be complicit in such an endeavour.
So, science teachers ought NOT lend creedence to 'ID' and
similar unsupported/unsupportable theories. If they get
fired then they get fired - but it's for a higher cause.
Plenty of schools would be happy to snap 'em up. Better
an honest science teacher than propagandists for the
politics of the moment.
One other option for nervous educators ; 'ID' *can* and
probably *should* be discussed, just not as a viable
'alternative' to evolution. Such notions are part of
the history of science and shaped the path of science
over many centuries. 'Divine' influence, vitalism,
assumptions about world-floods, 'perfect' paths for
natural bodies and such were powerful influences on
scientific thought. The lesson taught should be how
these things were proven wrong or foolish. So go ahead
and 'discuss' 'ID' - run it into the dirt.
.
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Intelligent design' idiots spew their stone-age superstition in PA schools <= k00k alert! |
25 Sep 2005 12:57:37 PM |
|
|
B1ackwater wrote:
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 10:30:46 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
<jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
"- Prof. Jonez©" wrote:
'Intelligent design' supporters to state their case in court
Sunday, September 25, 2005
By Bill Toland, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
If "intelligent design" supporters weren't so quick to rebuke
those who connect their mission to the Bible, it would be
tempting to borrow from the Old Testament and describe the
upcoming federal trial over the issue as a legal version of David
vs. Goliath.
Instead, we'll let the defendants in this case, which pits Dover
Area School District against parent plaintiffs, to describe the
trial in their own words.
"It's almost David vs. Goliath," says Richard Thompson, of
Michigan's Thomas More Law Center, which is defending the York
County, Pa., district.
Hmmm. So much for the gag order on all things biblical.
Last autumn, Dover's school board instructed its ninth-grade
biology teachers to tell students the theory of evolution is an
incomplete one, and that intelligent design, which says biology's
minutia presents evidence of an intelligent creator, is an
alternative argument to evolution.
And therein lies the problem - that the teachers will COMPLY.
So long as the flunkies will do whatever they're told then
there's no reason not to tell 'em to say ANYTHING that's
'PC' at the moment.
FDAs Susan Wood (and possibly the FDA chief himself) resigned
because they claimed that science was being usurped by politics
in the case of the 'morning-after pill'. No doubt more 'liberal'
administrations have put similar pressure on the FDA to
exaggerate the dangers of smoking and eating meat. Thing is,
it was CORRECT for these people to resign. The FDA is supposed
to be about science, and if politicians try to make it about
political 'truths' instead, well, no respectable scientist
should be complicit in such an endeavour.
So, science teachers ought NOT lend creedence to 'ID' and
similar unsupported/unsupportable theories. If they get
fired then they get fired - but it's for a higher cause.
Plenty of schools would be happy to snap 'em up. Better
an honest science teacher than propagandists for the
politics of the moment.
One other option for nervous educators ; 'ID' *can* and
probably *should* be discussed, just not as a viable
'alternative' to evolution. Such notions are part of
the history of science and shaped the path of science
over many centuries. 'Divine' influence, vitalism,
assumptions about world-floods, 'perfect' paths for
natural bodies and such were powerful influences on
scientific thought. The lesson taught should be how
these things were proven wrong or foolish. So go ahead
and 'discuss' 'ID' - run it into the dirt.
America is, if nothing else, a Nation of Cowards and Imbeciles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "B1ackwater" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Intelligent design' idiots spew their stone-age superstition in PA schools <= k00k alert! |
26 Sep 2005 04:29:10 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 11:57:37 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
<jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
B1ackwater wrote:
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 10:30:46 -0600, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\""
<jonez@norcom.ca> wrote:
"- Prof. Jonez©" wrote:
'Intelligent design' supporters to state their case in court
Sunday, September 25, 2005
By Bill Toland, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
If "intelligent design" supporters weren't so quick to rebuke
those who connect their mission to the Bible, it would be
tempting to borrow from the Old Testament and describe the
upcoming federal trial over the issue as a legal version of David
vs. Goliath.
Instead, we'll let the defendants in this case, which pits Dover
Area School District against parent plaintiffs, to describe the
trial in their own words.
"It's almost David vs. Goliath," says Richard Thompson, of
Michigan's Thomas More Law Center, which is defending the York
County, Pa., district.
Hmmm. So much for the gag order on all things biblical.
Last autumn, Dover's school board instructed its ninth-grade
biology teachers to tell students the theory of evolution is an
incomplete one, and that intelligent design, which says biology's
minutia presents evidence of an intelligent creator, is an
alternative argument to evolution.
And therein lies the problem - that the teachers will COMPLY.
So long as the flunkies will do whatever they're told then
there's no reason not to tell 'em to say ANYTHING that's
'PC' at the moment.
FDAs Susan Wood (and possibly the FDA chief himself) resigned
because they claimed that science was being usurped by politics
in the case of the 'morning-after pill'. No doubt more 'liberal'
administrations have put similar pressure on the FDA to
exaggerate the dangers of smoking and eating meat. Thing is,
it was CORRECT for these people to resign. The FDA is supposed
to be about science, and if politicians try to make it about
political 'truths' instead, well, no respectable scientist
should be complicit in such an endeavour.
So, science teachers ought NOT lend creedence to 'ID' and
similar unsupported/unsupportable theories. If they get
fired then they get fired - but it's for a higher cause.
Plenty of schools would be happy to snap 'em up. Better
an honest science teacher than propagandists for the
politics of the moment.
One other option for nervous educators ; 'ID' *can* and
probably *should* be discussed, just not as a viable
'alternative' to evolution. Such notions are part of
the history of science and shaped the path of science
over many centuries. 'Divine' influence, vitalism,
assumptions about world-floods, 'perfect' paths for
natural bodies and such were powerful influences on
scientific thought. The lesson taught should be how
these things were proven wrong or foolish. So go ahead
and 'discuss' 'ID' - run it into the dirt.
America is, if nothing else, a Nation of Cowards and Imbeciles.
Imbecility leading to cowardly behavior. You see, most
Americans are deeply in DEBT. They didn't HAVE to be,
but they felt compelled to buy that extra-big house,
that extra-big SUV, that extra-big plasma TV, that
extra-big wardrobe with extra-big price-tags to impress
the neighbors ... and they bought it all on CREDIT in
some form or another.
Being in debt alters ones behavior - it makes one very
timid about rocking the boat. Get fired and you won't
be able to make your bank payments ... and then the
house, the SUV, the TV, the pool and probably the wife
and kids will be GONE. Oh yea, you'll STILL owe the
fed your INCOME TAXES for that year ...
So, when the administration of the moment comes up
and says "Teacher, teach OUR Truths, not THE Truth",
well - they do.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Intelligent design' idiots spew their stone-age superstition in PA schools <= k00k alert! |
25 Sep 2005 04:19:22 PM |
|
|
" "- Prof. Jonez©"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote
The statement says: "The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students
to
learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a
standardized
test of which evolution is a part.
Here the intelligent design proponents have a point.
A creationist schoolchild faces a questionnaire
Man's closest relative is
A) Orang utan B) Rabbit C) Dog D) Chimpanzee E) E. coli
He knows full well that evolutionary theory says "chimpanzee", but to expect
him to tick that box would be unreasonable. The only sensible response is to
write "none of the above", or "this question is based on assumptions I
disagree with", but the automated marker won't accept such input.
Where scientific truth is disputed, the school board must abandon the
fatuity of standardised tests. Universities want students who can argue and
have an interest in the subject, not ones who fill in correct responses to
questions they have been taught.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Olik" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Intelligent design' idiots spew their stone-age superstition in PA schools <= k00k alert! |
26 Sep 2005 04:02:46 PM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
A creationist schoolchild faces a questionnaire
Man's closest relative is
A) Orang utan B) Rabbit C) Dog D) Chimpanzee E) E. coli
He knows full well that evolutionary theory says "chimpanzee", but to expect
him to tick that box would be unreasonable. The only sensible response is to
write "none of the above", or "this question is based on assumptions I
disagree with", but the automated marker won't accept such input.
How is it unreasonable? 98% of a chimpanzee's DNA matches that of
human DNA. There is no other being on this planet that comes as close.
It's simply a fact. Just because theists refuse to see the truth does
not change that fact.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: " \- Prof. Jonez©" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Intelligent design' idiots spew their stone-age superstition in PA schools <= k00k alert! |
25 Sep 2005 05:22:28 PM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
" "- Prof. Jonez©"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote
The statement says: "The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require
students to
learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a
standardized
test of which evolution is a part.
Here the intelligent design proponents have a point.
No, they really don't.
A creationist schoolchild faces a questionnaire
Man's closest relative is
A) Orang utan B) Rabbit C) Dog D) Chimpanzee E) E. coli
He knows full well that evolutionary theory says "chimpanzee", but to
expect him to tick that box would be unreasonable.
No, it wouldn't. As that is the correct answer based upon the
currently accepted Science.
The only sensible
response is to write "none of the above", or "this question is based
on assumptions I disagree with",
Evolution isn't an "assumption", jackass. It's a fact supported
by a working, and as yet uncontradicted, theory as to the exact
mechanisms of its function.
but the automated marker won't
accept such input.
Nor should it, nor would it accept an imput from someone
who "doesn't agree" with the "assumption" of the Theory
of Relativity, or the Theory of Gravity.
Where scientific truth is disputed,
Fortunately there is no valid dispute regarding Evolution.
the school board must abandon the
fatuity of standardised tests.
Universities want students who can
argue and have an interest in the subject, not ones who fill in
correct responses to questions they have been taught.
So present your argument for "gaaawd did it", and be prepared with
supporting, demonstrable facts, and be prepared to defend it via
the scientific method.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charles & Mambo Duckman" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Intelligent design' idiots spew their stone-age superstitionin PA schools <= k00k alert! |
25 Sep 2005 08:09:33 PM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
Here the intelligent design proponents have a point.
A creationist schoolchild faces a questionnaire
Man's closest relative is
A) Orang utan B) Rabbit C) Dog D) Chimpanzee E) E. coli
He knows full well that evolutionary theory says "chimpanzee", but to expect
him to tick that box would be unreasonable.
By whose standard? What would you expect a Holocaust revisionist neo-Nazi to
answer to the question of the responsibility for the WW2 genocide? Would it
be "unreasonable" to expect him to answer with the historically correct
answer or are we nowadays allowed, nay, encouraged, to come up with any
fucking ***** that agrees with our worldview?
The only sensible response is to
write "none of the above", or "this question is based on assumptions I
disagree with", but the automated marker won't accept such input.
How the hell is this sensible? Shall we have a proponent of alchemy answer
all chemistry questions with "none of the above", or "this question is based
on assumptions I disagree with"??? If yes, why? If not, why should only the
ID proponent be allowed to get away with it?
Where scientific truth is disputed, the school board must abandon the
fatuity of standardised tests.
There is no "dispute" over evolution, other than in the minds of religious
morons who are unable to shake off their superstition and mistakenly think
that the freedom of religion allows them to impose their ***** on
everybody else.
Universities want students who can argue and
have an interest in the subject, not ones who fill in correct responses to
questions they have been taught.
Really? So I suppose, Universities would also want students who can argue
against the electromagnetic theory in favor of "magic pixies move electrons
around and that's how we have electric power", not ones who fill in correct
responses to questions they have been taught?
--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood
Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Intelligent design' idiots spew their stone-age superstition in PA schools <= k00k alert! |
26 Sep 2005 04:48:54 AM |
|
|
Charles & Mambo Duckman wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Here the intelligent design proponents have a point.
A creationist schoolchild faces a questionnaire
Man's closest relative is
A) Orang utan B) Rabbit C) Dog D) Chimpanzee E) E. coli
He knows full well that evolutionary theory says "chimpanzee", but to expect
him to tick that box would be unreasonable.
By whose standard? What would you expect a Holocaust revisionist neo-Nazi to
answer to the question of the responsibility for the WW2 genocide? Would it
be "unreasonable" to expect him to answer with the historically correct
answer or are we nowadays allowed, nay, encouraged, to come up with any
fucking ***** that agrees with our worldview?
The only sensible response is to
write "none of the above", or "this question is based on assumptions I
disagree with", but the automated marker won't accept such input.
How the hell is this sensible? Shall we have a proponent of alchemy answer
all chemistry questions with "none of the above", or "this question is based
on assumptions I disagree with"??? If yes, why? If not, why should only the
ID proponent be allowed to get away with it?
Where scientific truth is disputed, the school board must abandon the
fatuity of standardised tests.
There is no "dispute" over evolution, other than in the minds of religious
morons who are unable to shake off their superstition and mistakenly think
that the freedom of religion allows them to impose their ***** on
everybody else.
Universities want students who can argue and
have an interest in the subject, not ones who fill in correct responses to
questions they have been taught.
Really? So I suppose, Universities would also want students who can argue
against the electromagnetic theory in favor of "magic pixies move electrons
around and that's how we have electric power", not ones who fill in correct
responses to questions they have been taught?
--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood
Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House
I do not care whether School Boards want to teach Intelligent Design,
Christianity, Islam, Cargo cultism or Papuan Head-hunting. But keep
your religion for your pulpits and cathecisms.
Don't censor our scientific textbooks.
It happened last time when Galileism was a heresy.
B C.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Not So Brilliant Deductions" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Intelligent design' idiots spew their stone-age superstition in PA schools <= k00k alert! |
26 Sep 2005 07:40:00 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 21:19:22 +0000 (UTC), "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:
Where scientific truth is disputed,
By scientists.
Not by schoolchildren, nor by under-educated parents.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phaedrine" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Intelligent design' idiots spew their stone-age superstition in PA schools <= k00k alert! |
26 Sep 2005 02:17:05 PM |
|
|
In article <20rfj1hgr9fgapd60c66d2npuioj5r4in5@4ax.com>,
Not So Brilliant Deductions <glipglop@clouded.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 21:19:22 +0000 (UTC), "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:
Where scientific truth is disputed,
By scientists.
Not by schoolchildren, nor by under-educated parents.
Hear, hear!
--
Got a problem with CAIR and its dishonest tactics? Write your representatives!
<http://capwiz.com/lwv/dbq/officials/directory/directory.dbq?command=congdir>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Intelligent design' idiots spew their stone-age superstition in PA schools <= k00k alert! |
26 Sep 2005 09:07:56 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 21:19:22 +0000 (UTC), in alt.atheism , "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> in
<dh748p$1hu$2@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com> wrote:
" "- Prof. Jonez©"" <jonez@norcom.ca> wrote
The statement says: "The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students
to
learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a
standardized
test of which evolution is a part.
Here the intelligent design proponents have a point.
A creationist schoolchild faces a questionnaire
Man's closest relative is
A) Orang utan B) Rabbit C) Dog D) Chimpanzee E) E. coli
He knows full well that evolutionary theory says "chimpanzee", but to expect
him to tick that box would be unreasonable. The only sensible response is to
write "none of the above", or "this question is based on assumptions I
disagree with", but the automated marker won't accept such input.
Where scientific truth is disputed, the school board must abandon the
fatuity of standardised tests. Universities want students who can argue and
have an interest in the subject, not ones who fill in correct responses to
questions they have been taught.
There is no scientific dispute over evolution or common descent, not
more than there is in any other area of active established science.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Intelligent design' idiots spew their stone-age superstition in PA schools <= k00k alert! |
26 Sep 2005 03:46:11 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
There is no scientific dispute over evolution or common descent, not
more than there is in any other area of active established science.
There is no dispute by people recognised as qualified scientists.
If the argument from authority is good enough for you, that settles the
issue.
However we can't really blame the creationists for refusing to accept such
an argument.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charles & Mambo Duckman" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Intelligent design' idiots spew their stone-age superstitionin PA schools <= k00k alert! |
26 Sep 2005 04:50:02 PM |
|
|
Malcolm wrote:
There is no scientific dispute over evolution or common descent, not
more than there is in any other area of active established science.
There is no dispute by people recognised as qualified scientists.
If the argument from authority is good enough for you, that settles the
issue.
There is no argument of authority fallacy if the argument is actually
presented by the people who have legitimate authority on the subject.
However we can't really blame the creationists for refusing to accept such
an argument.
That's their fucking problem. And it does not permit them to change the
education system to suit their superstition.
--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood
Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shawn Hirn" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Intelligent design' idiots spew their stone-age superstition in PA schools <= k00k alert! |
27 Sep 2005 03:20:35 AM |
|
|
In article <ieSdnZth6cuW8KXeRVn-2A@comcast.com>,
Charles & Mambo Duckman <duckman@gfy.slf> wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
There is no scientific dispute over evolution or common descent, not
more than there is in any other area of active established science.
There is no dispute by people recognised as qualified scientists.
If the argument from authority is good enough for you, that settles the
issue.
There is no argument of authority fallacy if the argument is actually
presented by the people who have legitimate authority on the subject.
However we can't really blame the creationists for refusing to accept such
an argument.
That's their fucking problem. And it does not permit them to change the
education system to suit their superstition.
Actually, that's why they are in court now. If they win their case, the
pro-intelligent design camp will get their way and be able to change the
education system to suit their superstition. Stranger things have
happened.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Not So Brilliant Deductions" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Intelligent design' idiots spew their stone-age superstition in PA schools <= k00k alert! |
27 Sep 2005 07:20:03 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:46:11 +0000 (UTC), "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:
However we can't really blame the creationists for refusing to accept such
an argument.
We most certainly can!
There is an issue of responsibility here. Some love to say that
everyone is "entitled to their opinion" and to some degree, on some
topics, that is true.
But one is not entitled to an opinion that is based on a willful
ignorance. People who have not studied science and how it works, who
do not understand science and how it works may put forth an opinion,
but it is an *invalid* opinion.
The ID people have failed in their responsibilities to truly seek
knowledge, to learn even what "knowledge" might mean, how it is found,
how it is revised. The first step for them would be to extensively
study epistemology, philosophy of science, etc.
The whole ID-Evolution thing comes down to this *fact*: order does not
imply design. Sorry. Order and design are not the same things.
Plus, for those ID people who claim to believe in "God" it is actually
an anthropomophizing of God with your "arguments". And if you can't
figure out what that means and why it is true you've got a long way to
go before you can legitimately, validly, sensibly opine on the topic.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Intelligent design' idiots spew their stone-age superstition in PA schools <= k00k alert! |
27 Sep 2005 09:06:06 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:46:11 +0000 (UTC), in alt.atheism , "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> in
<dh9mmi$1bn$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
There is no scientific dispute over evolution or common descent, not
more than there is in any other area of active established science.
There is no dispute by people recognised as qualified scientists.
If the argument from authority is good enough for you, that settles the
issue.
Do you understand the difference between argument from qualified
authority, a valid argument, and the fallacious argument from
authority? If not, can I take our your appendix? You really need it
done. I am an expert in some field, so my word should be good enough
for you.
That said, I made no argument for authority of any type though I can
see why you might think so. You had made a claim about a dispute, I
was simply explaining that the dispute did not exist in a certain
area. You are free to argue that non-scientists have the standing to
demand their ideas get taught in science classes. If so, there is a
large number of non-scientific claims that would get taught. If you
really want pig ignorant American student you should say so.
However we can't really blame the creationists for refusing to accept such
an argument.
They also have the option of studying the evidence and learning the
science for themselves. Remarkably few have done that. The one that I
know of what a follower of Rev. Moon before and after. Do you think
you understand the science well enough to comment on it? If so, I have
a little quiz. Scientists claim their are four distinct lines of
evidence for common descent. Can you list them and provide a short
summary of the scientific arguments regarding them?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Intelligent design' idiots spew their stone-age superstition in PA schools <= k00k alert! |
27 Sep 2005 04:31:23 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
If the argument from authority is good enough for you, that settles the
issue.
Do you understand the difference between argument from qualified
authority, a valid argument, and the fallacious argument from
authority? If not, can I take our your appendix? You really need it
done. I am an expert in some field, so my word should be good enough
for you.
The "argument from authority" is a problematic fallacy.
Generally when beginner's books give examples they use an authority that
isn't really an authority, e.g.
"bumblebees are unable to fly according to the laws of physics, because I
read it in Titbits".
However you cannot adopt a policy of radical scepticism to everything
Titbits says. It's a professional magazine produced by educated journalists,
after all. Everyone needs information from the general domain of discourse
to build up their picture of the world.
Now let's take
"The human brain can foretell the future by a few milleseconds, because
Behavioural and Brain Sciences said so."
Behavioural and Brain Sceinces is a respected peer-reviewed publication, and
there is article in its pages concerning an experiment with moving dots of
light and electrocardiographs, which suggests that the brain can prepare for
a conscious decision (to move the light) before it is actually taken.
Now you would be very foolish to dismiss these studies as nonsense. However
the implications are quite far-reaching. Also, there was no flood of other
studies exploring this phenomenon. It is quite likely that Brain Behaviour
had it wrong, and in fact the results are some kind of artifact. It has been
estimated that about half of published papers contain erroneous conclusions.
If the information appeared in a New Age magazine mainly about tarot cards
and paganism, rather than Brain Behaviour, then it would be reasonable to
just ignore it.
Finally, no one can be an expert on every field. I "know" that the speed of
light is the maximum speed at which anything can travel, or to be more
accurate, I know that the physicists say this, there is some sort of
argument about two clocks in a spaceship which I can kind of follow, and
that there is no body of physicists disputing this.
More insidiously, I "know" that DNA is composed of four bases in a double
helix. I work with sequence data. We have built up such a picture of how
genetic information is stored and translated in the cell that I don't see
how this could be wrong. But I'm not a crystallographer - I've seen the
famous X ray diffraction photo taken by Rosalind Franklin, but I couldn't
tell you how to interpret it. The question is, at what point can I claim to
be an authority myself? How can we know that we are not building a vast
intellectual structure on false axioms?
That said, I made no argument for authority of any type though I can
see why you might think so. You had made a claim about a dispute, I
was simply explaining that the dispute did not exist in a certain
area. You are free to argue that non-scientists have the standing to
demand their ideas get taught in science classes. If so, there is a
large number of non-scientific claims that would get taught. If you
really want pig ignorant American student you should say so.
I think that if non-scientists disagree with what the scientists are saying,
then they have right to insist that the science teacher doesn't teach by
authority (fill in the box that says humans are most closely related to
chimpanzee, or I knock a mark off).
As a general teaching practise, this would be nice, but isn't practical. It
would be a really good exercise to present the theory of the four elements,
and the modern atomic theory, and ask pupils to devise experiments to
distinguish between them. However there simply isn't time or resources to do
this for every scientific proposition, and in the nature of things, some of
the experiments will show that maybe the four element theory is correct
(almost every substance available to schoolchildren will contain some water,
for example, as predicted by the four element theory but not by the atomic
theory). You cannot let children go very far with this erroneous conclusion,
before you have to explain why their experiment gave the wrong result.
If so, I have
a little quiz. Scientists claim their are four distinct lines of
evidence for common descent. Can you list them and provide a short
summary of the scientific arguments regarding them?
I'm a biologist.
You've obviously seen some sort of summary by apologists which I am not
familiar with, since I can think of many lines of evidence for evolution,
but I wouldn't sum them to four.
For instance one vital piece of evidence is that we know that spontaneous
generation does not take place. I doubt that this will be listed as one of
your four, but common descent collapses without it, and it wasn't
conclusively demostrated until the nineteenth century.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Intelligent design' idiots spew their stone-age superstition in PA schools <= k00k alert! |
27 Sep 2005 09:27:54 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:31:23 +0000 (UTC), in alt.atheism , "Malcolm"
<regniztar@btinternet.com> in
<dhcdn9$kun$4@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com> wrote:
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
If the argument from authority is good enough for you, that settles the
issue.
Do you understand the difference between argument from qualified
authority, a valid argument, and the fallacious argument from
authority? If not, can I take our your appendix? You really need it
done. I am an expert in some field, so my word should be good enough
for you.
The "argument from authority" is a problematic fallacy.
Generally when beginner's books give examples they use an authority that
isn't really an authority, e.g.
"bumblebees are unable to fly according to the laws of physics, because I
read it in Titbits".
However you cannot adopt a policy of radical scepticism to everything
Titbits says. It's a professional magazine produced by educated journalists,
after all. Everyone needs information from the general domain of discourse
to build up their picture of the world.
Now let's take
"The human brain can foretell the future by a few milleseconds, because
Behavioural and Brain Sciences said so."
Behavioural and Brain Sceinces is a respected peer-reviewed publication, and
there is article in its pages concerning an experiment with moving dots of
light and electrocardiographs, which suggests that the brain can prepare for
a conscious decision (to move the light) before it is actually taken.
Now you would be very foolish to dismiss these studies as nonsense. However
the implications are quite far-reaching. Also, there was no flood of other
studies exploring this phenomenon. It is quite likely that Brain Behaviour
had it wrong, and in fact the results are some kind of artifact. It has been
estimated that about half of published papers contain erroneous conclusions.
If the information appeared in a New Age magazine mainly about tarot cards
and paganism, rather than Brain Behaviour, then it would be reasonable to
just ignore it.
Finally, no one can be an expert on every field. I "know" that the speed of
light is the maximum speed at which anything can travel, or to be more
accurate, I know that the physicists say this, there is some sort of
argument about two clocks in a spaceship which I can kind of follow, and
that there is no body of physicists disputing this.
More insidiously, I "know" that DNA is composed of four bases in a double
helix. I work with sequence data. We have built up such a picture of how
genetic information is stored and translated in the cell that I don't see
how this could be wrong. But I'm not a crystallographer - I've seen the
famous X ray diffraction photo taken by Rosalind Franklin, but I couldn't
tell you how to interpret it. The question is, at what point can I claim to
be an authority myself? How can we know that we are not building a vast
intellectual structure on false axioms?
That said, I made no argument for authority of any type though I can
see why you might think so. You had made a claim about a dispute, I
was simply explaining that the dispute did not exist in a certain
area. You are free to argue that non-scientists have the standing to
demand their ideas get taught in science classes. If so, there is a
large number of non-scientific claims that would get taught. If you
really want pig ignorant American student you should say so.
I think that if non-scientists disagree with what the scientists are saying,
then they have right to insist that the science teacher doesn't teach by
authority (fill in the box that says humans are most closely related to
chimpanzee, or I knock a mark off).
Science should not teach by authority whether or not someone has a
religious reason to object to the material.
[snip]
If so, I have
a little quiz. Scientists claim their are four distinct lines of
evidence for common descent. Can you list them and provide a short
summary of the scientific arguments regarding them?
I'm a biologist.
You've obviously seen some sort of summary by apologists which I am not
familiar with, since I can think of many lines of evidence for evolution,
but I wouldn't sum them to four.
I did not say evolution, I said common descent.
For instance one vital piece of evidence is that we know that spontaneous
generation does not take place.
Not an argument for evolution. Not even an argument having to do with
the origin of life.
I doubt that this will be listed as one of
your four, but common descent collapses without it, and it wasn't
conclusively demostrated until the nineteenth century.
Common Descent was established before Pasteur did his work. If we
lived in a world with evidence for Common Descent and we had evidence
of spontaneous generation we would have serious problems understanding
what we see. The lack is not evidence for common descent, the
existence would not refute common descent, it would confuse us all.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Intelligent design' idiots spew their stone-age superstition in PA schools <= k00k alert! |
25 Sep 2005 12:22:58 PM |
|
|
In article <gfAZe.18$hJ5.3374@news.uswest.net>, says...
The three-paragraph statement read to students is unconstitutional, they say,
because it implicitly endorses a superhuman creator, and that breeches the
church-state separation wall. Thompson argues it's ironic that a group
advocating civil liberties would endorse the censorship of a particular idea.
Thompson is a typically dishonest moron to falsely allege "censorship"
here. They are not censoring the idea, like churches have been wont to
do over the ages. Rather they are saying that the state has no authority
to explicitly endorse it as the official position of the government,
which is what the dover public school board is attempting to do by
ordering that their religious beliefs be force fed to students under the
guise of creation "science". They are the one's censoring evolution by
demanding that it be officially condemned in the curriculum and declaring
idiotic design to be the true explanation of origins.
The trial, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, begins tomorrow in
Harrisburg, under the supervision of U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones
III. Media from around the globe are expected to attend, anticipating that this
will be the latest episode in America's longest-running cultural soap-opera:
Should public school students be taught, along with evolution, other ideas about
how life and humanity came to be?
Students should be reminded that they have freedom to believe in any
religion, including the option of rejecting religion altogether and that,
as a consequence they are personally free to not believe what they learn
in science class. However, that doesn't mean that they do not have to
learn about evolution, or that they can substitute their own myths and
label them alternative scientific theories.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phaedrine" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Intelligent design' idiots spew their stone-age superstition in PA schools <= k00k alert! |
26 Sep 2005 02:18:41 PM |
|
|
In article <MPG.1da08ae05e5ca886989683@news.readfreenews.net>,
quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote:
Students should be reminded that they have freedom to believe in any
religion
That can be taught in any class on American government--- not in a
science class.
--
Got a problem with CAIR and its dishonest tactics? Write your representatives!
<http://capwiz.com/lwv/dbq/officials/directory/directory.dbq?command=congdir>
.
|
|
|
|
|
