Religions > Bible > Two Straightforward Questions Looking For Straigthforward Answers
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"SJAB1958" |
| Date: |
17 Nov 2005 03:00:33 AM |
| Object: |
Two Straightforward Questions Looking For Straigthforward Answers |
So many of the bible literalists, creationists and other christian
fundamentalists I have encountered online insist that the following
points are true.
1 The universe is only about 6,000 years old.
2 Creation as described in Genesis is fact.
3 The Flood as described in Genesis is fact.
4 Mankind has free will.
Scientific studies of the physical world have revealed evidence that
the first three points are not true.
So can these christian fundamentalists provide evidence that science
has got it all wrong?
If people have free will, they have choice.
So why are these christian fundamentalists trying to force their
minority mindset on the rest of the world?
.
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Straightforward Questions Looking For Straigthforward Answers |
18 Nov 2005 05:17:38 PM |
|
|
On 17 Nov 2005 01:00:33 -0800, "SJAB1958" <balfres@hotmail.com> wrote:
1 The universe is only about 6,000 years old.
This Catholic says: definitely not.
2 Creation as described in Genesis is fact.
This Catholic says: Metaphorically speaking, some yes, and factually speaking,
some yes.
3 The Flood as described in Genesis is fact.
This Catholic says: No one knows for sure.
4 Mankind has free will.
This Catholics says: absolutely.
Scientific studies of the physical world have revealed evidence that
the first three points are not true.
Scientific studies have gotten no where's close to making such a determination,
except the age of the earth.
So can these christian fundamentalists provide evidence that science
has got it all wrong?
Science doesn't have it all right. Science is only hypothesizing.
If people have free will, they have choice.
Absolutely.
So why are these christian fundamentalists trying to force their
minority mindset on the rest of the world?
The salvation of your soul based on your erroneous free will determination.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Isaak" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Straightforward Questions Looking For Straigthforward Answers |
17 Nov 2005 09:38:25 PM |
|
|
On 17 Nov 2005 01:00:33 -0800, "SJAB1958" <balfres@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
So why are these christian fundamentalists trying to force their
minority mindset on the rest of the world?
They are trying to force their minority mindset on God, whom they most
disagree with. The rest of the world is just an innocent bystander.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thissteve" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Straightforward Questions Looking For Straigthforward Answers |
17 Nov 2005 04:10:37 AM |
|
|
SJAB1958 wrote:
If people have free will, they have choice.
So why are these christian fundamentalists trying to force their
minority mindset on the rest of the world?
It's called "arguing." I don't see any forcing going on, not even in
Dover. You'll have to show me examples of forcing.
If most people espoused young earth creationism and you were one of the
few who knew better, I have a feeling you'd be trying to "force" your
view on us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Two Straightforward Questions Looking For Straigthforward Answers |
17 Nov 2005 08:14:27 PM |
|
|
"thissteve" <thissteve@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1132222237.805592.173970@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SJAB1958 wrote:
If people have free will, they have choice.
So why are these christian fundamentalists trying to force their
minority mindset on the rest of the world?
It's called "arguing." I don't see any forcing going on, not even in
Dover. You'll have to show me examples of forcing.
Excuse me, but trying to have shameless appeals to superstition fobbed off
as science is forcing their views on us. These morons want to set science
back hundreds of years.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thissteve" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Straightforward Questions Looking For Straigthforward Answers |
18 Nov 2005 06:20:26 AM |
|
|
Tim K. wrote:
Excuse me, but trying to have shameless appeals to superstition fobbed off
as science is forcing their views on us. These morons want to set science
back hundreds of years.
It seems to be remarkably easy for you to disagree with them. It seems
remarkably easy for the Dover students too.
All these replies are "ID sucks." I realize that ID sucks, yet I still
don't see any forcing. What an odd dichotomy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Two Straightforward Questions Looking For Straigthforward Answers |
18 Nov 2005 08:55:00 AM |
|
|
"thissteve" <thissteve@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1132316426.029243.260860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Tim K. wrote:
Excuse me, but trying to have shameless appeals to superstition fobbed
off
as science is forcing their views on us. These morons want to set
science
back hundreds of years.
It seems to be remarkably easy for you to disagree with them. It seems
remarkably easy for the Dover students too.
All these replies are "ID sucks." I realize that ID sucks, yet I still
don't see any forcing. What an odd dichotomy.
Well, if everyone sees it but you...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron O" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Straightforward Questions Looking For Straigthforward Answers |
17 Nov 2005 06:25:31 AM |
|
|
thissteve wrote:
SJAB1958 wrote:
If people have free will, they have choice.
So why are these christian fundamentalists trying to force their
minority mindset on the rest of the world?
It's called "arguing." I don't see any forcing going on, not even in
Dover. You'll have to show me examples of forcing.
If most people espoused young earth creationism and you were one of the
few who knew better, I have a feeling you'd be trying to "force" your
view on us.
Dover isn't forcing? What reality do you live in? The teachers
wouldn't read the stupid statement so who did it? Arguing can happen
in venues like TO. Legislation and junk like Dover isn't arguing it is
forcing. The arguing would have happened during the board meetings.
In science the arguing is done long before the science gets into the
textbooks. What kinds of shades of gray are acceptable? How far can
the dishonesty go? Why do creationists have to lie to themselves about
these issues? Look at Kansas, they have seen how badly off ID is in
Dover, yet they claim that they can change the definition of science.
Why would you have to change the definition of science if your goal was
really science education? It sounds like you want to teach something
else, doesn't it? Why can't they be honest about it? These are the
guys that are claiming the moral high ground. Isn't that a joke after
the Dover perjury? If Dover was legitimate "arguing," why did the
board members have to lie so much to cover up what they were doing?
Most people were probably YEC in Western science at one time, but they
moved on. If you think that the current views are lacking, you just
have to look at the fact that we haven't stopped moving on. If you
don't like the direction, what are you going to do about it? Lie? How
far has that tactic gotten ID? It got them Dover and Ohio. Where is
the scientific theory of ID that they claimed to be able to teach?
ID's problem is that you can't argue about something that doesn't
exist. You can't lie about suppression when you don't have anything to
suppress. Put up the scientific theory of ID or some testable
hypotheses and we can talk about suppression. The problem with ID is
that it never made it to the arguing stage. Science can't evaluate it
at this time because it never made it to the level where science could
evaluate it. So the ID proponents are forced to do the dishonst junk
that they are doing.
Has Behe demonstrated that his type of IC exists in nature? How can he
claim to be able to make inferences from IC claims if he can't even
tell anyone if his type of IC even exists? What is his current
definition of IC? The more parts something has the more IC it is? How
IC does something have to be to be IC enough to make ID inferences
from? That is the kind of lameness that makes ID worse than astrology.
Do you think that Behe would have had to include astrology as science
if ID was better off than astrology?
Ron Okimoto
.
|
|
|
| User: "thissteve" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Straightforward Questions Looking For Straigthforward Answers |
17 Nov 2005 07:17:56 AM |
|
|
Ron O wrote:
Dover isn't forcing? What reality do you live in?
I live in a world where Dover students are not required to read Pandas
and People, are not required to learn ID, and are not tested on ID. I
live in a world where Dover students don't even have to hear the
statement about ID.
I also live in a world where a thread about free will can take a sharp
left turn to the quality of ID as a science. Forcing a belief on
someone, as in taking away their free will, means that you don't give
them a fair option to disagree. That isn't happening in Dover or
anywhere.
Do I need to make a few disparaging remarks about the low quality of ID
or YEC arguments/science so that I can get on your "team"? I shouldn't
have to: bad arguing is still arguing and is not forcing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Straightforward Questions Looking For Straigthforward Answers |
17 Nov 2005 08:15:46 AM |
|
|
"thissteve" <thissteve@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ron O wrote:
Dover isn't forcing? What reality do you live in?
I live in a world where Dover students are not required to read Pandas
and People, are not required to learn ID, and are not tested on ID.
Good.
I
live in a world where Dover students don't even have to hear the
statement about ID.
I also live in a world where a thread about free will can take a sharp
left turn to the quality of ID as a science. Forcing a belief on
someone, as in taking away their free will, means that you don't give
them a fair option to disagree. That isn't happening in Dover or
anywhere.
When the force of law gets involved in trying to produce an outcome,
then there *is* force involved. The fact that Creationists and their
allies, the IDists, routinely resort to law in their attempt to
undermine our education system *is* using force. Further, since in most
jurisdictions, attending school is *mandatory* up to a certain age, the
kids are being force to listen to what the teachers say.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
| User: "thissteve" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Straightforward Questions Looking For Straigthforward Answers |
17 Nov 2005 01:13:27 PM |
|
|
Stanley Friesen wrote:
When the force of law gets involved in trying to produce an outcome,
then there *is* force involved. The fact that Creationists and their
allies, the IDists, routinely resort to law in their attempt to
undermine our education system *is* using force. Further, since in most
jurisdictions, attending school is *mandatory* up to a certain age, the
kids are being force to listen to what the teachers say.
Under these conditions, evolutionists are forcing their beliefs on us.
Bill Rose wrote:
You imply that ID cult members are benign but look
around. See how they're infiltrating government
at all levels -- from local school boards to the
office of the president.
The president strenuously objects to your characterization. His
objective is to make his cronies rich and nothing more.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomS" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Straightforward Questions Looking For Straigthforward Answers |
18 Nov 2005 11:53:38 AM |
|
|
"On 17 Nov 2005 11:13:27 -0800, in article
<1132254807.293549.79490@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, thissteve stated..."
Stanley Friesen wrote:
When the force of law gets involved in trying to produce an outcome,
then there *is* force involved. The fact that Creationists and their
allies, the IDists, routinely resort to law in their attempt to
undermine our education system *is* using force. Further, since in most
jurisdictions, attending school is *mandatory* up to a certain age, the
kids are being force to listen to what the teachers say.
Under these conditions, evolutionists are forcing their beliefs on us.
[...snip...]
Do you recall your statement that led to Stanley's response:
"On 17 Nov 2005 02:10:37 -0800, in article
<1132222237.805592.173970@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, thissteve stated..."
[...snip...]
It's called "arguing." I don't see any forcing going on, not even in
Dover. You'll have to show me examples of forcing.
Do you agree that there are examples of forcing?
I suggest settling that point, before getting into a different
issue.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so
much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. ... The evidences ... of
Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under
limitations..." John Stuart Mill, "Theism", Part II
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Two Straightforward Questions Looking For Straigthforward Answers |
18 Nov 2005 12:14:13 PM |
|
|
"TomS" <TomS_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:142336418.000069dc.038.0001@drn.newsguy.com...
"On 17 Nov 2005 11:13:27 -0800, in article
<1132254807.293549.79490@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, thissteve
stated..."
Stanley Friesen wrote:
When the force of law gets involved in trying to produce an outcome,
then there *is* force involved. The fact that Creationists and their
allies, the IDists, routinely resort to law in their attempt to
undermine our education system *is* using force. Further, since in most
jurisdictions, attending school is *mandatory* up to a certain age, the
kids are being force to listen to what the teachers say.
Under these conditions, evolutionists are forcing their beliefs on us.
[...snip...]
Do you recall your statement that led to Stanley's response:
"On 17 Nov 2005 02:10:37 -0800, in article
<1132222237.805592.173970@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, thissteve
stated..."
[...snip...]
It's called "arguing." I don't see any forcing going on, not even in
Dover. You'll have to show me examples of forcing.
Do you agree that there are examples of forcing?
I suggest settling that point, before getting into a different
issue.
Placing non-science in a science class is forcing, period.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Two Straightforward Questions Looking For Straigthforward Answers |
17 Nov 2005 08:21:59 PM |
|
|
"thissteve" <thissteve@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1132254807.293549.79490@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Stanley Friesen wrote:
When the force of law gets involved in trying to produce an outcome,
then there *is* force involved. The fact that Creationists and their
allies, the IDists, routinely resort to law in their attempt to
undermine our education system *is* using force. Further, since in most
jurisdictions, attending school is *mandatory* up to a certain age, the
kids are being force to listen to what the teachers say.
Under these conditions, evolutionists are forcing their beliefs on us.
*****. Take a science class and guess what, you'll be exposed to
science. Go figure.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Morgan" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Straightforward Questions Looking For Straigthforward Answers |
18 Nov 2005 11:37:18 AM |
|
|
In article <1132254807.293549.79490@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
thissteve <thissteve@yahoo.com> wrote:
Stanley Friesen wrote:
When the force of law gets involved in trying to produce an outcome,
then there *is* force involved. The fact that Creationists and their
allies, the IDists, routinely resort to law in their attempt to
undermine our education system *is* using force. Further, since in most
jurisdictions, attending school is *mandatory* up to a certain age, the
kids are being force to listen to what the teachers say.
Under these conditions, evolutionists are forcing their beliefs on us.
Why isn't this true about everyone else taught in schools? Newtonians force
their "action at a distance, 1/r^2" beliefs on us. Chemistry teachers force
their "atomic theory" (hey, it's just a theory guys) on us. History teachers
force their "Millions of Jews died in the holocaust" theory on us.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
.
|
|
|
| User: "thissteve" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Straightforward Questions Looking For Straigthforward Answers |
18 Nov 2005 03:29:08 PM |
|
|
Alan Morgan wrote:
In article <1132254807.293549.79490@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
thissteve <thissteve@yahoo.com> wrote:
Stanley Friesen wrote:
When the force of law gets involved in trying to produce an outcome,
then there *is* force involved. The fact that Creationists and their
allies, the IDists, routinely resort to law in their attempt to
undermine our education system *is* using force. Further, since in most
jurisdictions, attending school is *mandatory* up to a certain age, the
kids are being force to listen to what the teachers say.
Under these conditions, evolutionists are forcing their beliefs on us.
Why isn't this true about everyone else taught in schools? Newtonians force
their "action at a distance, 1/r^2" beliefs on us. Chemistry teachers force
their "atomic theory" (hey, it's just a theory guys) on us. History teachers
force their "Millions of Jews died in the holocaust" theory on us.
All this is correct, showing that Stanley Friesen's understanding of
"forcing" is deficient.
I understand "forcing" as inhibiting someone from forming their own
opinion. Removing the teaching of evolution from school would be
forcing, as students no longer are able to form their own opinion on
the soundness of evolutionary theory. Teaching a unit on ID formally
in class would only be forcing to me if it's taught in a biased manner
creating a false impression of scientific legitimacy. Teaching ID
correctly (ie showing how dumb it is) would be awful educational
policy, but it wouldn't be forcing as students aren't inhibited in
forming their opinion. Telling kids there's a book in the library is
bad educational policy, but it isn't even in the same zip code as
forcing.
Now, since teaching ID in class in a biased way is (or was) the goal of
the Discovery Institute, I must concede the original point that
creationists are attempting to force their beliefs on us. However,
their attempt has not succeeded, and won't have succeeded even if the
Dover ruling goes bad. (The Kansas action will be quickly stricken
down.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Řien" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Two Straightforward Questions Looking For Straigthforward Answers |
17 Nov 2005 03:05:33 PM |
|
|
On 17 Nov 2005 11:13:27 -0800, "thissteve"
<thissteve@yahoo.com> wrote:
<>
<> Stanley Friesen wrote:
<> > When the force of law gets involved in trying
to produce an outcome,
<> > then there *is* force involved. The fact
that Creationists and their
<> > allies, the IDists, routinely resort to law
in their attempt to
<> > undermine our education system *is* using
force. Further, since in most
<> > jurisdictions, attending school is
*mandatory* up to a certain age, the
<> > kids are being force to listen to what the
teachers say.
<>
<> Under these conditions, evolutionists are
forcing their beliefs on us.
<>
<> Bill Rose wrote:
<> >You imply that ID cult members are benign but
look
<> > around. See how they're infiltrating
government
<> > at all levels -- from local school boards to
the
<> > office of the president.
<>
<> The president strenuously objects to your
characterization. His
<> objective is to make his cronies rich and
nothing more.
Don't tell me -- you're another person who lives
in a world of assertions and innuendos without an
opinion of your own that's worth offering up for
examination.
Say it isn't so. Say something significant to
show us you do have a viable mind.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SJAB1958" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Straightforward Questions Looking For Straigthforward Answers |
17 Nov 2005 03:19:48 PM |
|
|
thissteve wrote:
Stanley Friesen wrote:
When the force of law gets involved in trying to produce an outcome,
then there *is* force involved. The fact that Creationists and their
allies, the IDists, routinely resort to law in their attempt to
undermine our education system *is* using force. Further, since in most
jurisdictions, attending school is *mandatory* up to a certain age, the
kids are being force to listen to what the teachers say.
Under these conditions, evolutionists are forcing their beliefs on us.
Science doesnt deal in beliefs it deals in examining the facts of the
physical world.
Religion deals in beliefs and never in facts, thats the difference.
Facts are real and objective and real, beliefs are subjective and open
to doubt.
Bill Rose wrote:
You imply that ID cult members are benign but look
around. See how they're infiltrating government
at all levels -- from local school boards to the
office of the president.
The president strenuously objects to your characterization. His
objective is to make his cronies rich and nothing more.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Straightforward Questions Looking For Straigthforward Answers |
18 Nov 2005 05:41:24 AM |
|
|
thissteve wrote:
Stanley Friesen wrote:
When the force of law gets involved in trying to produce an outcome,
then there *is* force involved. The fact that Creationists and their
allies, the IDists, routinely resort to law in their attempt to
undermine our education system *is* using force. Further, since in most
jurisdictions, attending school is *mandatory* up to a certain age, the
kids are being force to listen to what the teachers say.
Under these conditions, evolutionists are forcing their beliefs on us.
Society is, in mandatory education, forcing its citizens to at least be
exposed to a certain level of learning on the grounds that the state
has an interest in education as enhancing the economic, military and
general social good of society. In conception, this is no different
than society requiring military service and conducting a draft on the
grounds that, if you reap the benefit of the society, you have a duty
to defend it. At least in a democracy, you are not forced to *believe*
that military service or wars are right. But you can be forced to
serve despite your beliefs, though society *may* make accommodations to
your beliefs.
Similarly, I know of no local school district that requires its
students to accept evolution as true (and, of course, private education
of various sorts are permitted). A "belief" is being forced on you only
to the extent that your religion requires, as an article of *faith*,
that its adherents must be ignorant of science. *If* such a religion
exists, you'll have to excuse me if I don't get exercised over
society's failure to make accommodations for it.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Creatures inveterately wrong in their inductions
have a pathetic but praiseworthy tendency to die
before reproducing their kind.
- Willard van Ormand Quine -
.
|
|
|
| User: "SJAB1958" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Straightforward Questions Looking For Straigthforward Answers |
18 Nov 2005 01:21:52 PM |
|
|
wrote:
thissteve wrote:
Stanley Friesen wrote:
When the force of law gets involved in trying to produce an outcome,
then there *is* force involved. The fact that Creationists and their
allies, the IDists, routinely resort to law in their attempt to
undermine our education system *is* using force. Further, since in most
jurisdictions, attending school is *mandatory* up to a certain age, the
kids are being force to listen to what the teachers say.
Under these conditions, evolutionists are forcing their beliefs on us.
Society is, in mandatory education, forcing its citizens to at least be
exposed to a certain level of learning on the grounds that the state
has an interest in education as enhancing the economic, military and
general social good of society. In conception, this is no different
than society requiring military service and conducting a draft on the
grounds that, if you reap the benefit of the society, you have a duty
to defend it. At least in a democracy, you are not forced to *believe*
that military service or wars are right. But you can be forced to
serve despite your beliefs, though society *may* make accommodations to
your beliefs.
Similarly, I know of no local school district that requires its
students to accept evolution as true (and, of course, private education
of various sorts are permitted). A "belief" is being forced on you only
to the extent that your religion requires, as an article of *faith*,
that its adherents must be ignorant of science. *If* such a religion
exists, you'll have to excuse me if I don't get exercised over
society's failure to make accommodations for it.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Creatures inveterately wrong in their inductions
have a pathetic but praiseworthy tendency to die
before reproducing their kind.
- Willard van Ormand Quine -
People often demand their 'right' to this or their 'right' to that, and
conveniently forget their obligations which go along with those rights.
Such as you are obliged to abide by the law of the land, you are
obliged to contribute to society, you are obliged to attend school for
a given number of years, there are many obligations and when you honour
those obligations you then earn your rights.
Demanding that you want a religiously oriented subject taught in a
science class, is not a right that fits in with the constitution of
america. And so it can only be interpreted as a fundamentalist minority
forcing their mindset on the rest of society.
This fundamentalist minority, is not being denied their right to
worship as they wish. Every religion - as far as I understand - is not
suppressed by the american government and its adherents are allowed to
worship in their own temples, are allowed to teach their children about
their religious beliefs either at home or in a privately funded school.
I have no problem with any follower of any faith 'doing their own
thing', but when they move to the centre stage and demand that their
belief be taught to others not of their faith that is out of order. If
I wanted to become a follower of any faith I would go to their place of
worship or seek out other followers within my community. That would be
me exercises my right to worship as I see fit.
However I live on the other side of the pond and may be wrong on some
of my assumptions about the american constitution and american society.
So if I am wrong, I would appreciate being corrected.
Thank you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Straightforward Questions Looking For Straigthforward Answers |
17 Nov 2005 08:03:26 AM |
|
|
thissteve wrote:
Ron O wrote:
Dover isn't forcing? What reality do you live in?
I live in a world where Dover students are not required to read Pandas
and People, are not required to learn ID, and are not tested on ID. I
live in a world where Dover students don't even have to hear the
statement about ID.
I also live in a world where a thread about free will can take a sharp
left turn to the quality of ID as a science. Forcing a belief on
someone, as in taking away their free will, means that you don't give
them a fair option to disagree. That isn't happening in Dover or
anywhere.
Do I need to make a few disparaging remarks about the low quality of ID
or YEC arguments/science so that I can get on your "team"? I shouldn't
have to: bad arguing is still arguing and is not forcing.
I think Steve does have a point here. No-one is actively saying that
Kids _have_ to become Christian or support ID or they will lose their
future right to education.
However there are a number of worrying trends that were highlighted
within the Dover trial that does indicate that given the opportunity
the ID advocates wouldn't be so scrupulous in excluding alternatives to
their own concepts. The school board systematically rail roaded and
excluded consideration of their own science experts, maintained a
distinct pattern of refusing to acknowledge any other path than finding
some method of incorporating religious elements (however obfuscated by
ID) into the school and of undermining the teaching of Biology through
those efforts. This was a very specific process indicated through the
boards own minutes and the broader public meetings which invited
readings from the Bible, comments about creationism etc. ... you've
all seen the transcripts.
I don't believe we can use the term 'argue' in this context as the
maneuvering is a political one designed to reduce or ignore opposition
and 'argument' doesn't even enter into this aspect of the situation.
An argument (however bad) would at least allow room for opposing views,
not simply ignoring them.
Through all this, had ID been introduced into the class, could we
describe it as being 'forced' on kids then we are close to saying that
'yes' it could possibly be described as such. If the process of
debate, advice, expert opinion and compromise is not part of a
political process (even at a minor level like school boards) then what
you have is autocratic decision making.
At an individual level the kids don't _have_ to accept ID et al.
However the manner in which it was proposed and pushed onto them was in
fact one that wasn't even discussed at an academic level with relation
to its validity. If it was forced into the school curriculum through a
biased process then it was forced, by default, onto the kids.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SJAB1958" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Straightforward Questions Looking For Straigthforward Answers |
17 Nov 2005 05:29:37 AM |
|
|
thissteve wrote:
SJAB1958 wrote:
If people have free will, they have choice.
So why are these christian fundamentalists trying to force their
minority mindset on the rest of the world?
It's called "arguing." I don't see any forcing going on, not even in
Dover. You'll have to show me examples of forcing.
If most people espoused young earth creationism and you were one of the
few who knew better, I have a feeling you'd be trying to "force" your
view on us.
Of course you would say it isnt forcing when they do it, so how would
it be forcing if I was doing the opposite as a minority?
Over the centuries many christians believed in YEC - although it didnt
go by that name until recently - but despite this they examined and
explored the world around them and discovered little by little that the
evidence available contradicted their belief.
So those of a scientific inclination attempted to devise explanations
for this discrepancy, and most of those explanations fit the evidence
very well. It was a gradual process of discovering and presenting what
they had found.
And they didnt go around demanding that this was fact and the Bible was
false, they offered up their evidence and explanations.
That is the difference between how science explores the evidence in the
physical world and how Creationists and IDers reject the evidence and
insist that theirs are the only true facts that matter.
That to me isnt arguing as you claim, that is forcing their mindset on
the majority, plain and simple.
.
|
|
|
| User: "R.D. Heilman" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Straightforward Questions Looking For Straigthforward Answers |
17 Nov 2005 06:09:13 PM |
|
|
SJAB1958 wrote:
thissteve wrote:
SJAB1958 wrote:
If people have free will, they have choice.
So why are these christian fundamentalists trying to force their
minority mindset on the rest of the world?
It's called "arguing." I don't see any forcing going on, not even in
Dover. You'll have to show me examples of forcing.
Not only is this true, but there is an axium: you can lead a horse
to water, but you can't make him drink. The fact is the ACLU
and other secularist are forcing secularism upon the nation
thru the courts.
If most people espoused young earth creationism and you were one of the
few who knew better, I have a feeling you'd be trying to "force" your
view on us.
Of course you would say it isnt forcing when they do it, so how would
it be forcing if I was doing the opposite as a minority?
Over the centuries many christians believed in YEC - although it didnt
go by that name until recently - but despite this they examined and
explored the world around them and discovered little by little that the
evidence available contradicted their belief.
So those of a scientific inclination attempted to devise explanations
for this discrepancy, and most of those explanations fit the evidence
very well. It was a gradual process of discovering and presenting what
they had found.
And they didnt go around demanding that this was fact and the Bible was
false, they offered up their evidence and explanations.
That is the difference between how science explores the evidence in the
physical world and how Creationists and IDers reject the evidence and
insist that theirs are the only true facts that matter.
That to me isnt arguing as you claim, that is forcing their mindset on
the majority, plain and simple.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Two Straightforward Questions Looking For Straigthforward Answers |
17 Nov 2005 08:16:58 PM |
|
|
"R.D. Heilman" <rdhsr@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1132272553.407053.198260@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Not only is this true, but there is an axium: you can lead a horse
to water, but you can't make him drink. The fact is the ACLU
and other secularist are forcing secularism upon the nation
thru the courts.
No one is forcing secularism on me - I want you to keep your god(s) to
yourself. I don't give a ***** about your religion or anyone else's but
mine. I, and many others like me, are sick and tired of having
superstitious dogma rammed down our throats.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Isaak" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Straightforward Questions Looking For Straigthforward Answers |
17 Nov 2005 09:44:49 PM |
|
|
On 17 Nov 2005 16:09:13 -0800, "R.D. Heilman" <rdhsr@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
SJAB1958 wrote:
thissteve wrote:
SJAB1958 wrote:
If people have free will, they have choice.
So why are these christian fundamentalists trying to force their
minority mindset on the rest of the world?
It's called "arguing." I don't see any forcing going on, not even in
Dover. You'll have to show me examples of forcing.
Not only is this true, but there is an axium: you can lead a horse
to water, but you can't make him drink. The fact is the ACLU
and other secularist are forcing secularism upon the nation
thru the courts.
That is one of the Fundametalists' lies. The ACLU is trying to force
secularlism upon the U.S. Government, as the Constitution demands, and
as any patriotic American would do. A non-secular government means
religion is straightjacketed. The people should be free to be as
religious as they wish, which would not be possible without the ACLU's
stopping the government's attempts to restrict religion.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Straightforward Questions Looking For Straigthforward Answers |
17 Nov 2005 07:30:14 PM |
|
|
R.D. Heilman wrote:
SJAB1958 wrote:
thissteve wrote:
SJAB1958 wrote:
If people have free will, they have choice.
So why are these christian fundamentalists trying to force their
minority mindset on the rest of the world?
It's called "arguing." I don't see any forcing going on, not even in
Dover. You'll have to show me examples of forcing.
Not only is this true, but there is an axium: you can lead a horse
to water, but you can't make him drink. The fact is the ACLU
and other secularist are forcing secularism upon the nation
thru the courts.
So you want the Confederacy to be restored?
Constitution of the Confederate States of America
http://americancivilwar.com/documents/confederate_constitution.html
March 11,1861
We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its
sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent
federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity,
and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity~invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God~do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.
If most people espoused young earth creationism and you were one of the
few who knew better, I have a feeling you'd be trying to "force" your
view on us.
Of course you would say it isnt forcing when they do it, so how would
it be forcing if I was doing the opposite as a minority?
Over the centuries many christians believed in YEC - although it didnt
go by that name until recently - but despite this they examined and
explored the world around them and discovered little by little that the
evidence available contradicted their belief.
So those of a scientific inclination attempted to devise explanations
for this discrepancy, and most of those explanations fit the evidence
very well. It was a gradual process of discovering and presenting what
they had found.
And they didnt go around demanding that this was fact and the Bible was
false, they offered up their evidence and explanations.
That is the difference between how science explores the evidence in the
physical world and how Creationists and IDers reject the evidence and
insist that theirs are the only true facts that matter.
That to me isnt arguing as you claim, that is forcing their mindset on
the majority, plain and simple.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Two Straightforward Questions Looking For Straigthforward Answers |
17 Nov 2005 08:17:51 PM |
|
|
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1132277414.896447.323320@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its
sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent
federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity,
and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity~invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God~do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.
Was that the same god that told them it was OK to own other humans?
Idiot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Straightforward Questions Looking For Straigthforward Answers |
18 Nov 2005 12:39:24 AM |
|
|
Tim K. wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1132277414.896447.323320@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its
sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent
federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity,
and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity~invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God~do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.
Was that the same god that told them it was OK to own other humans?
Idiot.
That's why there was a Civil War.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Two Straightforward Questions Looking For Straigthforward Answers |
18 Nov 2005 06:03:11 AM |
|
|
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1132295964.358906.323480@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Tim K. wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1132277414.896447.323320@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its
sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent
federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity,
and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity~invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God~do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.
Was that the same god that told them it was OK to own other humans?
Idiot.
That's why there was a Civil War.
Wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Two Straightforward Questions Looking For Straigthforward Answers |
18 Nov 2005 06:15:27 AM |
|
|
Tim K. wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1132295964.358906.323480@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Tim K. wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1132277414.896447.323320@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its
sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent
federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity,
and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity~invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God~do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.
Was that the same god that told them it was OK to own other humans?
Idiot.
That's why there was a Civil War.
Wrong.
The North thought otherwise.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim K." |
|
| Title: Re: Two Straightforward Questions Looking For Straigthforward Answers |
18 Nov 2005 08:54:26 AM |
|
|
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1132316127.868250.106840@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Tim K. wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1132295964.358906.323480@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Tim K. wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1132277414.896447.323320@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its
sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent
federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity,
and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity~invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God~do ordain
and
establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.
Was that the same god that told them it was OK to own other humans?
Idiot.
That's why there was a Civil War.
Wrong.
The North thought otherwise.
S t a t e s R i g h t s
revisionist moron
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
