| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"fred" |
| Date: |
01 Oct 2005 02:16:14 AM |
| Object: |
Why are liberals so pro-choice when it comes to abortion but... |
Why are liberals pro-choice when it comes to abortion but then fight
tooth and nail to prevent school children from making up their own
minds about evolution vs irreducible complexity issues? Why can't
school children decide for themselves whether or not evolutionists have
been able to volunteer anything substantial with respect to refuting
Michael Behe's examples of irreducible complexity?
.
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are liberals so pro-choice when it comes to abortion but... |
01 Oct 2005 07:40:53 AM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Why are liberals pro-choice when it comes to abortion but then fight
tooth and nail to prevent school children from making up their own
minds about evolution vs irreducible complexity issues? Why can't
school children decide for themselves whether or not evolutionists have
been able to volunteer anything substantial with respect to refuting
Michael Behe's examples of irreducible complexity?
Who is stopping school children from making up their own minds on
anything.
The issue is whether government should be involved in the teaching of
what is merely a religious belief, and which is not in any way a
"scientific" explanation, in a science class.
And if it is to be taught in some other class, like comparative
religion or philosophy class, then "intelligent design" should be
taught along with a large number of other creation myths, and
students are perfectly free to make up their mind whether to believe
any of them.
They are NOT free to decide what is "science"; that is for scientists
to decide.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are liberals so pro-choice when it comes to abortion but... |
01 Oct 2005 02:22:27 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Why are liberals pro-choice when it comes to abortion but then fight
tooth and nail to prevent school children from making up their own
minds about evolution vs irreducible complexity issues? Why can't
school children decide for themselves whether or not evolutionists have
been able to volunteer anything substantial with respect to refuting
Michael Behe's examples of irreducible complexity?
Who is stopping school children from making up their own minds on
anything.
The issue is whether government should be involved in the teaching of
what is merely a religious belief, and which is not in any way a
"scientific" explanation, in a science class.
SHOW ME where I mentioned anything about religious beliefs.
I want evolutionists to show school children repeatable, scientific
method based experiments that refute Michael Behe's examples concerning
irreducible complexity. Evolutionists should have been prepared for
such challenges decades ago.
And if it is to be taught in some other class, like comparative
religion or philosophy class, then "intelligent design" should be
taught along with a large number of other creation myths, and
students are perfectly free to make up their mind whether to believe
any of them.
Again, I didn't mention anything about "intelligent design". So where
is this religious stuff coming from?
I'm arguing that since liberals insist that women should be able to
make up their own minds about abortion then school children should
likewise be allowed to decide for themselves if evolutionists have
reasonably refuted Michael Behe's concerns about irreducible
complexity.
They are NOT free to decide what is "science"; that is for scientists
to decide.
You're not making any sense because some of these school children are
eventually going to become scientists anyway.
The bottom line is that liberals are practicing double standards with
respect to who gets choices.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are liberals so pro-choice when it comes to abortion but... |
01 Oct 2005 10:17:10 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Why are liberals pro-choice when it comes to abortion but then fight
tooth and nail to prevent school children from making up their own
minds about evolution vs irreducible complexity issues? Why can't
school children decide for themselves whether or not evolutionists have
been able to volunteer anything substantial with respect to refuting
Michael Behe's examples of irreducible complexity?
Who is stopping school children from making up their own minds on
anything.
The issue is whether government should be involved in the teaching of
what is merely a religious belief, and which is not in any way a
"scientific" explanation, in a science class.
SHOW ME where I mentioned anything about religious beliefs.
I want evolutionists to show school children repeatable, scientific
method based experiments that refute Michael Behe's examples concerning
irreducible complexity. Evolutionists should have been prepared for
such challenges decades ago.
You have it backwards. Behe has to provide experiments to show that
his argument is testable. If he has defined the problem to be
untestable, then it isn't scientific.
Alternatively he has to provide experiments that show that claims of
the theory of evolution are incorrect. One cannot refute the theory
of evolution with "examples concerning irreducible complexity",
because it has not been proven that such examples ARE "irreducibly
complex", and it cannot be proven.
And if it is to be taught in some other class, like comparative
religion or philosophy class, then "intelligent design" should be
taught along with a large number of other creation myths, and
students are perfectly free to make up their mind whether to believe
any of them.
Again, I didn't mention anything about "intelligent design".
You mentioned Behe. Therefore you mentioned "intelligent design".
I'm arguing that since liberals insist that women should be able to
make up their own minds about abortion then school children should
likewise be allowed to decide for themselves if evolutionists have
reasonably refuted Michael Behe's concerns about irreducible
complexity.
One is a question of rights, and the other is a question of science.
But of course school children can decide what to do believe in any
event. They just cannot be taught Behe's religiously motivated
nonsense in a public school.
They are NOT free to decide what is "science"; that is for scientists
to decide.
You're not making any sense because some of these school children are
eventually going to become scientists anyway.
When they become scientists, then they can contribute.
The bottom line is that liberals are practicing double standards with
respect to who gets choices.
Anyone has the choice what to believe or disbelieve. That is a
religious question.
Science is about what aspects of reality are supported or refuted with
testable evidence. Testable reality doesn't care whether people
believe in it.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are liberals so pro-choice when it comes to abortion but... |
04 Oct 2005 12:10:11 PM |
|
|
fred wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Why are liberals pro-choice when it comes to abortion but then fight
tooth and nail to prevent school children from making up their own
minds about evolution vs irreducible complexity issues? Why can't
school children decide for themselves whether or not evolutionists have
been able to volunteer anything substantial with respect to refuting
Michael Behe's examples of irreducible complexity?
[snip]
I want evolutionists to show school children repeatable, scientific
method based experiments that refute Michael Behe's examples concerning
irreducible complexity. Evolutionists should have been prepared for
such challenges decades ago.
[snip]
Actually, in science classes in K-12, the purpose is to teach
the history and current state of science (current being about 15- 20
years
old really). We actually teach theories and concepts we know to
be inaccurate. We still teach Newtonian physics, despite the known
limitations. We teach various "valence level" chemistry as well.
Heck, we still teach euclidian geometry, even though it isn't
used anymore for deep space navigation. In 20 - 30 years, if
any consistent, well developed scientific theories are developed
about complexity, and they are simplified into concepts which can
be taught at the highschool level, they'll make their way in.
But much like fractals, calculus, and quantum mechanics, it is
dubious that anyone but the most gifted of students will be
taught these concepts. The simplier forms will sustain
for a long time, just like we still do with newtonian physics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are liberals so pro-choice when it comes to abortion but... |
04 Oct 2005 12:45:47 PM |
|
|
In article <1128445811.309501.75890@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com" <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> writes:
fred wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Why are liberals pro-choice when it comes to abortion but then fight
tooth and nail to prevent school children from making up their own
minds about evolution vs irreducible complexity issues? Why can't
school children decide for themselves whether or not evolutionists have
been able to volunteer anything substantial with respect to refuting
Michael Behe's examples of irreducible complexity?
[snip]
I want evolutionists to show school children repeatable, scientific
method based experiments that refute Michael Behe's examples concerning
irreducible complexity. Evolutionists should have been prepared for
such challenges decades ago.
[snip]
Actually, in science classes in K-12, the purpose is to teach
the history and current state of science (current being about 15- 20
years
old really). We actually teach theories and concepts we know to
be inaccurate. We still teach Newtonian physics, despite the known
limitations. We teach various "valence level" chemistry as well.
Heck, we still teach euclidian geometry, even though it isn't
used anymore for deep space navigation. In 20 - 30 years, if
any consistent, well developed scientific theories are developed
about complexity, and they are simplified into concepts which can
be taught at the highschool level, they'll make their way in.
But much like fractals, calculus, and quantum mechanics, it is
dubious that anyone but the most gifted of students will be
taught these concepts. The simplier forms will sustain
for a long time, just like we still do with newtonian physics.
I'm afraid you may have a bit of trouble getting this across.
Fred appears to have a kind of cartoon conception of the way
science works; he seem to think that theories are proved --
and proven exclusively by experimantation -- at which
point they become Scientific Truth, or are at least claimed
to be such. Talking about the ways in which theories are
actually vetted in real science, concepts such as explanatory power
and plausibility and parsimony, will only get you told that
these as something akin to lawyerly tomfoolery.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are liberals so pro-choice when it comes to abortion but... |
04 Oct 2005 03:08:38 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 12:45:47 -0500, Cary Kittrell
wrote
:
In article <1128445811.309501.75890@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
"oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com" <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> writes:
fred wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Why are liberals pro-choice when it comes to abortion but then fight
tooth and nail to prevent school children from making up their own
minds about evolution vs irreducible complexity issues? Why can't
school children decide for themselves whether or not evolutionists have
been able to volunteer anything substantial with respect to refuting
Michael Behe's examples of irreducible complexity?
[snip]
I want evolutionists to show school children repeatable, scientific
method based experiments that refute Michael Behe's examples concerning
irreducible complexity. Evolutionists should have been prepared for
such challenges decades ago.
[snip]
Actually, in science classes in K-12, the purpose is to teach
the history and current state of science (current being about 15- 20
years
old really). We actually teach theories and concepts we know to
be inaccurate. We still teach Newtonian physics, despite the known
limitations. We teach various "valence level" chemistry as well.
Heck, we still teach euclidian geometry, even though it isn't
used anymore for deep space navigation. In 20 - 30 years, if
any consistent, well developed scientific theories are developed
about complexity, and they are simplified into concepts which can
be taught at the highschool level, they'll make their way in.
But much like fractals, calculus, and quantum mechanics, it is
dubious that anyone but the most gifted of students will be
taught these concepts. The simplier forms will sustain
for a long time, just like we still do with newtonian physics.
I'm afraid you may have a bit of trouble getting this across.
Fred appears to have a kind of cartoon conception of the way
science works; he seem to think that theories are proved --
and proven exclusively by experimantation -- at which
point they become Scientific Truth, or are at least claimed
to be such. Talking about the ways in which theories are
actually vetted in real science, concepts such as explanatory power
and plausibility and parsimony, will only get you told that
these as something akin to lawyerly tomfoolery.
-- cary
Or - as Brother Dave was wont to say: "If it
weren't for Thomas Edison, we'd all be sitting
around watching teevee by candlelight."
Gray Shockley
-----------------------
Although we all know it was
Nickie Tesla and the three-
phases of divine power.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are liberals so pro-choice when it comes to abortion but... |
01 Oct 2005 04:51:26 PM |
|
|
fred wrote:
Why are liberals pro-choice when it comes to abortion but then fight
tooth and nail to prevent school children from making up their own
minds about evolution vs irreducible complexity issues? Why can't
school children decide for themselves whether or not evolutionists have
been able to volunteer anything substantial with respect to refuting
Michael Behe's examples of irreducible complexity?
Who is stopping school children from making up their own minds on
anything.
The issue is whether government should be involved in the teaching of
what is merely a religious belief, and which is not in any way a
"scientific" explanation, in a science class.
SHOW ME where I mentioned anything about religious beliefs.
I want evolutionists to show school children repeatable, scientific
method based experiments that refute Michael Behe's examples concerning
irreducible complexity. Evolutionists should have been prepared for
such challenges decades ago.
The very concept of 'irreducible complexity' is
circular reasoning.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are liberals so pro-choice when it comes to abortion but... |
01 Oct 2005 05:19:20 PM |
|
|
wrote:
fred wrote:
Why are liberals pro-choice when it comes to abortion but then fight
tooth and nail to prevent school children from making up their own
minds about evolution vs irreducible complexity issues? Why can't
school children decide for themselves whether or not evolutionists have
been able to volunteer anything substantial with respect to refuting
Michael Behe's examples of irreducible complexity?
Who is stopping school children from making up their own minds on
anything.
The issue is whether government should be involved in the teaching of
what is merely a religious belief, and which is not in any way a
"scientific" explanation, in a science class.
SHOW ME where I mentioned anything about religious beliefs.
I want evolutionists to show school children repeatable, scientific
method based experiments that refute Michael Behe's examples concerning
irreducible complexity. Evolutionists should have been prepared for
such challenges decades ago.
The very concept of 'irreducible complexity' is
circular reasoning.
Thank you for your opinion about irreducible complexity. But the fact
remains that evolutionists evidently never did their homework with
respect to verifying evolution concepts at the molecular level of
biological systems. Otherwise they should have easily been able to
refute Michael Behe's assertions about irreducible complexity by means
of repeatable experiments based on the scientific method. And I'm
merely pointing out that if woman are allowed to choose whether or not
to have an abortion then school children should likewise be able to
make up their minds with respect to deciding whether or not
evolutionist arguments really refute Michael Behe's assertions about
irreducible complexity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are liberals so pro-choice when it comes to abortion but... |
02 Oct 2005 12:38:06 PM |
|
|
fred wrote:
The very concept of 'irreducible complexity' is
circular reasoning.
Thank you for your opinion about irreducible complexity.
It's not an 'opinion'. It's a fact:
This is too complex to have come about naturally,
therefore there must have been a designer.
Problem is, you can argue the same thing about
anything. The Onion actually did a parody called
"Intelligent Falling".
But the fact
remains that evolutionists evidently never did their homework with
respect to verifying evolution concepts at the molecular level of
biological systems. Otherwise they should have easily been able to
refute Michael Behe's assertions about irreducible complexity by means
of repeatable experiments based on the scientific method.
Why use experiments, when it's easier to just
point out that Behe's assertions are illogical
and unfalsifiable? Here we get to the
unfalsifiable part; at what point is complexity
'irreducible'?
And I'm
merely pointing out that if woman are allowed to choose whether or not
to have an abortion then school children should likewise be able to
make up their minds with respect to deciding whether or not
evolutionist arguments really refute Michael Behe's assertions about
irreducible complexity.
Except that there are moral issues with
abortion. There's no ambiguity whatsoever
with deliberate misinformation, e.g.
creationism or abstinence education.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are liberals so pro-choice when it comes to abortion but... |
02 Oct 2005 01:31:22 PM |
|
|
wrote:
fred wrote:
The very concept of 'irreducible complexity' is
circular reasoning.
Thank you for your opinion about irreducible complexity.
It's not an 'opinion'. It's a fact:
This is too complex to have come about naturally,
therefore there must have been a designer.
Problem is, you can argue the same thing about
anything. The Onion actually did a parody called
"Intelligent Falling".
But the fact
remains that evolutionists evidently never did their homework with
respect to verifying evolution concepts at the molecular level of
biological systems. Otherwise they should have easily been able to
refute Michael Behe's assertions about irreducible complexity by means
of repeatable experiments based on the scientific method.
Why use experiments, when it's easier to just
point out that Behe's assertions are illogical
and unfalsifiable? Here we get to the
unfalsifiable part; at what point is complexity
'irreducible'?
Here's the problem with the way that people are trying to prove
evolution! Evolutionists and atheists are inadvertently putting on
lawyer's thinking caps and relying on persuasive arguments as if they
needed to convince a jury in order to win their case concerning
evolution. But relying on courtroom drama to prove their evolution
ideas contrasts sharply with proving evolution on the basis of
repeatable experiments based on the scientific method.
And I'm
merely pointing out that if woman are allowed to choose whether or not
to have an abortion then school children should likewise be able to
make up their minds with respect to deciding whether or not
evolutionist arguments really refute Michael Behe's assertions about
irreducible complexity.
Except that there are moral issues with
abortion. There's no ambiguity whatsoever
with deliberate misinformation, e.g.
creationism or abstinence education.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are liberals so pro-choice when it comes to abortion but... |
02 Oct 2005 03:23:58 PM |
|
|
fred wrote:
Here's the problem with the way that people are trying to prove
evolution! Evolutionists and atheists are inadvertently putting on
lawyer's thinking caps and relying on persuasive arguments as if they
needed to convince a jury in order to win their case concerning
evolution. But relying on courtroom drama to prove their evolution
ideas contrasts sharply with proving evolution on the basis of
repeatable experiments based on the scientific method.
Um, no. The matter is evolution has already been
proven. Ever heard of polyploidy? The simple fact
of the matter is, creationists haven't produced
enough evidence to the contrary. Scientists, real
scientists, not creationists, simply hold that
nothing is 'true', just a 'theory', meaning it's
the best explanation for X based on observations
until something discredits it.
But in order to even be a hypothesis, something
must be logical and falsifiable. Creationism
is neither.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are liberals so pro-choice when it comes to abortion but... |
01 Oct 2005 11:19:25 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Why are liberals pro-choice when it comes to abortion but then fight
tooth and nail to prevent school children from making up their own
minds about evolution vs irreducible complexity issues? Why can't
school children decide for themselves whether or not evolutionists have
been able to volunteer anything substantial with respect to refuting
Michael Behe's examples of irreducible complexity?
Who is stopping school children from making up their own minds on
anything.
What rock have you been hiding under? Special interest groups are
using the courts to prevent ideas other than evolution from being
presented in the classrooms. How can school children decide between
these various ideas when only one idea is being presented to them?
The issue is whether government should be involved in the teaching of
what is merely a religious belief, and which is not in any way a
"scientific" explanation, in a science class.
Speaking of religious beliefs, you have failed to SHOW ME where I have
mentioned anything about religion in this particular thread. You keep
on mentioning religious beliefs probably because you have a phobia
about religion.
And if it is to be taught in some other class, like comparative
religion or philosophy class, then "intelligent design" should be
taught along with a large number of other creation myths, and
students are perfectly free to make up their mind whether to believe
any of them.
SHOW ME where I mentioned anything about intelligent design in this
thread. You definitely have a phobia concerning religion.
They are NOT free to decide what is "science"; that is for scientists
to decide.
You've already volunteered this argument and are ignoring the point
that I mentioned that some of those children are going to become
scientists anyway.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "c-bee1" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are liberals so pro-choice when it comes to abortion but... |
02 Oct 2005 02:37:10 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128226765.015921.55690@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Why are liberals pro-choice when it comes to abortion but then fight
tooth and nail to prevent school children from making up their own
minds about evolution vs irreducible complexity issues? Why can't
school children decide for themselves whether or not evolutionists have
been able to volunteer anything substantial with respect to refuting
Michael Behe's examples of irreducible complexity?
Who is stopping school children from making up their own minds on
anything.
What rock have you been hiding under? Special interest groups are
using the courts to prevent ideas other than evolution from being
presented in the classrooms. How can school children decide between
these various ideas when only one idea is being presented to them?
All their parents and churches are dead?
The issue is whether government should be involved in the teaching of
what is merely a religious belief, and which is not in any way a
"scientific" explanation, in a science class.
Speaking of religious beliefs, you have failed to SHOW ME where I have
mentioned anything about religion in this particular thread. You keep
on mentioning religious beliefs probably because you have a phobia
about religion.
He may have seen your other posts, or seen you mention Behe, a religious
creationist.
And if it is to be taught in some other class, like comparative
religion or philosophy class, then "intelligent design" should be
taught along with a large number of other creation myths, and
students are perfectly free to make up their mind whether to believe
any of them.
SHOW ME where I mentioned anything about intelligent design in this
thread. You definitely have a phobia concerning religion.
"Behe."
They are NOT free to decide what is "science"; that is for scientists
to decide.
You've already volunteered this argument and are ignoring the point
that I mentioned that some of those children are going to become
scientists anyway.
Which has nothing to do with now. Nothing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are liberals so pro-choice when it comes to abortion but... |
02 Oct 2005 03:10:59 PM |
|
|
c-bee1 wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128226765.015921.55690@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Why are liberals pro-choice when it comes to abortion but then fight
tooth and nail to prevent school children from making up their own
minds about evolution vs irreducible complexity issues? Why can't
school children decide for themselves whether or not evolutionists have
been able to volunteer anything substantial with respect to refuting
Michael Behe's examples of irreducible complexity?
Who is stopping school children from making up their own minds on
anything.
What rock have you been hiding under? Special interest groups are
using the courts to prevent ideas other than evolution from being
presented in the classrooms. How can school children decide between
these various ideas when only one idea is being presented to them?
All their parents and churches are dead?
The issue is whether government should be involved in the teaching of
what is merely a religious belief, and which is not in any way a
"scientific" explanation, in a science class.
Speaking of religious beliefs, you have failed to SHOW ME where I have
mentioned anything about religion in this particular thread. You keep
on mentioning religious beliefs probably because you have a phobia
about religion.
He may have seen your other posts, or seen you mention Behe, a religious
creationist.
And if it is to be taught in some other class, like comparative
religion or philosophy class, then "intelligent design" should be
taught along with a large number of other creation myths, and
students are perfectly free to make up their mind whether to believe
any of them.
SHOW ME where I mentioned anything about intelligent design in this
thread. You definitely have a phobia concerning religion.
"Behe."
That's your connection, your phobia of religion, not mine. Irreducible
complexity is a genuine, scientific concern.
They are NOT free to decide what is "science"; that is for scientists
to decide.
You've already volunteered this argument and are ignoring the point
that I mentioned that some of those children are going to become
scientists anyway.
Which has nothing to do with now. Nothing.
To the contrary. The scientific concern of irreducible complexity
would be great for stimulating thoughts in the minds of young, would-be
sciencists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "c-bee1" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are liberals so pro-choice when it comes to abortion but... |
02 Oct 2005 04:08:57 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128283859.269725.103620@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
c-bee1 wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128226765.015921.55690@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Why are liberals pro-choice when it comes to abortion but then
fight
tooth and nail to prevent school children from making up their own
minds about evolution vs irreducible complexity issues? Why can't
school children decide for themselves whether or not evolutionists
have
been able to volunteer anything substantial with respect to
refuting
Michael Behe's examples of irreducible complexity?
Who is stopping school children from making up their own minds on
anything.
What rock have you been hiding under? Special interest groups are
using the courts to prevent ideas other than evolution from being
presented in the classrooms. How can school children decide between
these various ideas when only one idea is being presented to them?
All their parents and churches are dead?
The issue is whether government should be involved in the teaching
of
what is merely a religious belief, and which is not in any way a
"scientific" explanation, in a science class.
Speaking of religious beliefs, you have failed to SHOW ME where I have
mentioned anything about religion in this particular thread. You keep
on mentioning religious beliefs probably because you have a phobia
about religion.
He may have seen your other posts, or seen you mention Behe, a
religious
creationist.
And if it is to be taught in some other class, like comparative
religion or philosophy class, then "intelligent design" should be
taught along with a large number of other creation myths, and
students are perfectly free to make up their mind whether to believe
any of them.
SHOW ME where I mentioned anything about intelligent design in this
thread. You definitely have a phobia concerning religion.
"Behe."
That's your connection, your phobia of religion, not mine.
rofl What a transparent liar! Please name Behe's main claim to fame for us
here.
Irreducible
complexity is a genuine, scientific concern.
Nope, it's a made-up magic number someone with their own vested interests
pulled out of their ***** and said "anything more complex than this was a made
object".
They are NOT free to decide what is "science"; that is for
scientists
to decide.
You've already volunteered this argument and are ignoring the point
that I mentioned that some of those children are going to become
scientists anyway.
Which has nothing to do with now. Nothing.
To the contrary. The scientific concern of irreducible complexity
would be great for stimulating thoughts in the minds of young, would-be
sciencists.
About as much as my saying that all redheads are closet satanists would
be, yep. One example of a baseless prejudice is as good as another.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are liberals so pro-choice when it comes to abortion but... |
02 Oct 2005 04:18:26 PM |
|
|
c-bee1 wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128283859.269725.103620@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
c-bee1 wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128226765.015921.55690@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Why are liberals pro-choice when it comes to abortion but then
fight
tooth and nail to prevent school children from making up their own
minds about evolution vs irreducible complexity issues? Why can't
school children decide for themselves whether or not evolutionists
have
been able to volunteer anything substantial with respect to
refuting
Michael Behe's examples of irreducible complexity?
Who is stopping school children from making up their own minds on
anything.
What rock have you been hiding under? Special interest groups are
using the courts to prevent ideas other than evolution from being
presented in the classrooms. How can school children decide between
these various ideas when only one idea is being presented to them?
All their parents and churches are dead?
The issue is whether government should be involved in the teaching
of
what is merely a religious belief, and which is not in any way a
"scientific" explanation, in a science class.
Speaking of religious beliefs, you have failed to SHOW ME where I have
mentioned anything about religion in this particular thread. You keep
on mentioning religious beliefs probably because you have a phobia
about religion.
He may have seen your other posts, or seen you mention Behe, a
religious
creationist.
And if it is to be taught in some other class, like comparative
religion or philosophy class, then "intelligent design" should be
taught along with a large number of other creation myths, and
students are perfectly free to make up their mind whether to believe
any of them.
SHOW ME where I mentioned anything about intelligent design in this
thread. You definitely have a phobia concerning religion.
"Behe."
That's your connection, your phobia of religion, not mine.
rofl What a transparent liar! Please name Behe's main claim to fame for us
here.
Irreducible
complexity is a genuine, scientific concern.
Nope, it's a made-up magic number someone with their own vested interests
pulled out of their ***** and said "anything more complex than this was a made
object".
They are NOT free to decide what is "science"; that is for
scientists
to decide.
You've already volunteered this argument and are ignoring the point
that I mentioned that some of those children are going to become
scientists anyway.
Which has nothing to do with now. Nothing.
To the contrary. The scientific concern of irreducible complexity
would be great for stimulating thoughts in the minds of young, would-be
sciencists.
About as much as my saying that all redheads are closet satanists would
be, yep. One example of a baseless prejudice is as good as another.
Irreducible complexity is a bona fide scientific concern very much
relevant to evolution concepts. The only reason that evolutionists
have not been able to scientifically refute concerns about irreducible
complexity is that they've been lying to us for the past several
decades with respect to how much they really understand evolution
concepts. Right now evolution can be regarded as believable science
fiction.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are liberals so pro-choice when it comes to abortion but... |
02 Oct 2005 10:04:05 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
That's your connection, your phobia of religion, not mine. Irreducible
complexity is a genuine, scientific concern.
Not to any genuine scientists.
No such thing has been shown to exist.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sid9" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are liberals so pro-choice when it comes to abortion but... |
02 Oct 2005 10:08:45 PM |
|
|
fred wrote:
c-bee1 wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128226765.015921.55690@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Why are liberals pro-choice when it comes to abortion but then
fight tooth and nail to prevent school children from making up
their own minds about evolution vs irreducible complexity issues?
Why can't school children decide for themselves whether or not
evolutionists have been able to volunteer anything substantial
with respect to refuting Michael Behe's examples of irreducible
complexity?
Who is stopping school children from making up their own minds on
anything.
What rock have you been hiding under? Special interest groups are
using the courts to prevent ideas other than evolution from being
presented in the classrooms. How can school children decide between
these various ideas when only one idea is being presented to them?
All their parents and churches are dead?
The issue is whether government should be involved in the teaching
of what is merely a religious belief, and which is not in any way a
"scientific" explanation, in a science class.
Speaking of religious beliefs, you have failed to SHOW ME where I
have mentioned anything about religion in this particular thread.
You keep on mentioning religious beliefs probably because you have
a phobia about religion.
He may have seen your other posts, or seen you mention Behe, a
religious creationist.
And if it is to be taught in some other class, like comparative
religion or philosophy class, then "intelligent design" should be
taught along with a large number of other creation myths, and
students are perfectly free to make up their mind whether to
believe any of them.
SHOW ME where I mentioned anything about intelligent design in this
thread. You definitely have a phobia concerning religion.
"Behe."
That's your connection, your phobia of religion, not mine.
Irreducible complexity is a genuine, scientific concern.
They are NOT free to decide what is "science"; that is for
scientists to decide.
You've already volunteered this argument and are ignoring the point
that I mentioned that some of those children are going to become
scientists anyway.
Which has nothing to do with now. Nothing.
To the contrary. The scientific concern of irreducible complexity
would be great for stimulating thoughts in the minds of young,
would-be sciencists.
Here's proof of evolution:
In the beginning it was
"Creationism" then it morphed to
"Intelligent Design" now it's
" irreducible complexity "
What's next? I can't wait...this is real PHD stuff (Piled high and deep)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are liberals so pro-choice when it comes to abortion but... |
02 Oct 2005 09:08:32 AM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Why are liberals pro-choice when it comes to abortion but then fight
tooth and nail to prevent school children from making up their own
minds about evolution vs irreducible complexity issues? Why can't
school children decide for themselves whether or not evolutionists have
been able to volunteer anything substantial with respect to refuting
Michael Behe's examples of irreducible complexity?
Who is stopping school children from making up their own minds on
anything.
What rock have you been hiding under? Special interest groups are
using the courts to prevent ideas other than evolution from being
presented in the classrooms.
So what?
How can school children decide between
these various ideas when only one idea is being presented to them?
Who says that only one idea is being presented to them? They have
parents. Some have churches. All of them have a life outside the
schools. The right of an individual to decide what to believe does
not require that the schools provide a choice of beliefs on any issue.
Public education isn't a cafeteria.
You won't find math classes presenting an alternative belief that
2+2=5 either, but no one complains that the students aren't being
offered a choice to decide which idea to believe. Why must science
classes offer non-scientific viewpoints if math classes need not offer
non-mathematical viewpoints.
The issue is whether government should be involved in the teaching of
what is merely a religious belief, and which is not in any way a
"scientific" explanation, in a science class.
Speaking of religious beliefs, you have failed to SHOW ME where I have
mentioned anything about religion in this particular thread.
The alternative to science which you keep presenting is a religious
alternative. That you do not use the word "religion" doesn't mean
that the alternative you wish presented is fundamentally religious.
You keep
on mentioning religious beliefs probably because you have a phobia
about religion.
Actually, I am quite religious. I am not fundamentalist, however.
And if it is to be taught in some other class, like comparative
religion or philosophy class, then "intelligent design" should be
taught along with a large number of other creation myths, and
students are perfectly free to make up their mind whether to believe
any of them.
SHOW ME where I mentioned anything about intelligent design in this
thread.
You have mentioned Behe's argument, which has no meaning absent the
context of intelligent design, which is a religious concept.
Behe's argument is not scientific. It is an argument not based on any
experiments, and not proposing any.
They are NOT free to decide what is "science"; that is for scientists
to decide.
You've already volunteered this argument and are ignoring the point
that I mentioned that some of those children are going to become
scientists anyway.
When they become scientists, then they will gain some authority to
help contribute to the delineation of what constitutes science. Not
until then.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are liberals so pro-choice when it comes to abortion but... |
02 Oct 2005 10:01:14 AM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Why are liberals pro-choice when it comes to abortion but then fight
tooth and nail to prevent school children from making up their own
minds about evolution vs irreducible complexity issues? Why can't
school children decide for themselves whether or not evolutionists
have
been able to volunteer anything substantial with respect to refuting
Michael Behe's examples of irreducible complexity?
Why are many conservatives so ignorant that they can't even understand
that
the option of "pro-choice" can apply to SOME things, but not ALL things -
while the concept of "pro-life" applies to the death penalty, war, and
anything that includes the ending of a life?
Michael Behe's "I.C." is not a theory.
Scientists CANNOT and, intelligently, WILL not answer to every
anti-science
kook assertion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sid9" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are liberals so pro-choice when it comes to abortion but... |
02 Oct 2005 11:05:24 AM |
|
|
ZenIsWhen wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Why are liberals pro-choice when it comes to abortion but then
fight tooth and nail to prevent school children from making up
their own minds about evolution vs irreducible complexity issues?
Why can't school children decide for themselves whether or not
evolutionists have been able to volunteer anything substantial
with respect to refuting Michael Behe's examples of irreducible
complexity?
Why are many conservatives so ignorant that they can't even understand
that
the option of "pro-choice" can apply to SOME things, but not ALL
things - while the concept of "pro-life" applies to the death
penalty, war, and anything that includes the ending of a life?
Michael Behe's "I.C." is not a theory.
Scientists CANNOT and, intelligently, WILL not answer to every
anti-science
kook assertion.
I know when "Creationism" morphed to "Intelligent Design"
But when did it emerge as " irreducible complexity " ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are liberals so pro-choice when it comes to abortion but... |
03 Oct 2005 11:31:14 AM |
|
|
In article <pvT%e.2628$9K2.1589@bignews1.bellsouth.net> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> writes:
ZenIsWhen wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Why are liberals pro-choice when it comes to abortion but then
fight tooth and nail to prevent school children from making up
their own minds about evolution vs irreducible complexity issues?
Why can't school children decide for themselves whether or not
evolutionists have been able to volunteer anything substantial
with respect to refuting Michael Behe's examples of irreducible
complexity?
Why are many conservatives so ignorant that they can't even understand
that
the option of "pro-choice" can apply to SOME things, but not ALL
things - while the concept of "pro-life" applies to the death
penalty, war, and anything that includes the ending of a life?
Michael Behe's "I.C." is not a theory.
Scientists CANNOT and, intelligently, WILL not answer to every
anti-science
kook assertion.
I know when "Creationism" morphed to "Intelligent Design"
But when did it emerge as " irreducible complexity " ?
About the time that the courts indicated that they
weren't about to be duped into failing to recognize
"Intelligent Design" as as a wordy euphemism for "Creationism".
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are liberals so pro-choice when it comes to abortion but... |
03 Oct 2005 12:24:19 PM |
|
|
Sid9 wrote:
ZenIsWhen wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Why are liberals pro-choice when it comes to abortion but then
fight tooth and nail to prevent school children from making up
their own minds about evolution vs irreducible complexity issues?
Why can't school children decide for themselves whether or not
evolutionists have been able to volunteer anything substantial
with respect to refuting Michael Behe's examples of irreducible
complexity?
Why are many conservatives so ignorant that they can't even understand
that
the option of "pro-choice" can apply to SOME things, but not ALL
things - while the concept of "pro-life" applies to the death
penalty, war, and anything that includes the ending of a life?
Michael Behe's "I.C." is not a theory.
Scientists CANNOT and, intelligently, WILL not answer to every
anti-science
kook assertion.
I know when "Creationism" morphed to "Intelligent Design"
But when did it emerge as " irreducible complexity " ?
Questions concerning irreducible complexity are based on respectable,
scientific concerns about evolution concepts. Such questions are
essentially a request for detailed verification of evolution concepts
at the molecular level of biological systems. However, evolutionists
are evidently unprepared to deal with such requests.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are liberals so pro-choice when it comes to abortion but... |
03 Oct 2005 12:45:05 PM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
I know when "Creationism" morphed to "Intelligent Design"
But when did it emerge as " irreducible complexity " ?
Questions concerning irreducible complexity are based on respectable,
scientific concerns about evolution concepts.
What qualifies YOU as a judge of "respectable" much less "scientific"?
Such questions are
essentially a request for detailed verification of evolution concepts
at the molecular level of biological systems. However, evolutionists
are evidently unprepared to deal with such requests.
"Uninterested" is a better word. Scientists investigate questions
that are scientifically interesting. Religious arguments against
evolution are not scientifically interesting, especially when they are
unverifiable.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are liberals so pro-choice when it comes to abortion but... |
04 Oct 2005 04:00:26 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Why are liberals pro-choice when it comes to abortion but then fight
tooth and nail to prevent school children from making up their own
minds about evolution vs irreducible complexity issues? Why can't
school children decide for themselves whether or not evolutionists have
been able to volunteer anything substantial with respect to refuting
Michael Behe's examples of irreducible complexity?
Who is stopping school children from making up their own minds on
anything.
What rock have you been hiding under? Special interest groups are
using the courts to prevent ideas other than evolution from being
presented in the classrooms.
So what?
How can school children decide between
these various ideas when only one idea is being presented to them?
Who says that only one idea is being presented to them? They have
parents. Some have churches. All of them have a life outside the
schools. The right of an individual to decide what to believe does
not require that the schools provide a choice of beliefs on any issue.
Public education isn't a cafeteria.
Free speech is being supressed in the public schools because of a
twisted interpretation of the establishment clause:
"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and
under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the
press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary
which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky
Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382
You won't find math classes presenting an alternative belief that
2+2=5 either, but no one complains that the students aren't being
offered a choice to decide which idea to believe. Why must science
classes offer non-scientific viewpoints if math classes need not offer
non-mathematical viewpoints.
The issue is whether government should be involved in the teaching of
what is merely a religious belief, and which is not in any way a
"scientific" explanation, in a science class.
Speaking of religious beliefs, you have failed to SHOW ME where I have
mentioned anything about religion in this particular thread.
The alternative to science which you keep presenting is a religious
alternative. That you do not use the word "religion" doesn't mean
that the alternative you wish presented is fundamentally religious.
You continue to ignore that 10th Amendment gives the states the power
to authorize public schools to lead classroom discussions concerning
religious topics. Although I don't agree with him, Jefferson himself
indicated that religious instruction should be mandatory:
"Thus we have teachers of languages, teachers of mathematics, of
natural philosophy, of chemistry, of medicine, of law, of history, of
government, etc. Religion, too, is a separate department, and happens
to be the only one deemed requisite for all men, however high or low."
--Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815.
You keep
on mentioning religious beliefs probably because you have a phobia
about religion.
Actually, I am quite religious. I am not fundamentalist, however.
And if it is to be taught in some other class, like comparative
religion or philosophy class, then "intelligent design" should be
taught along with a large number of other creation myths, and
students are perfectly free to make up their mind whether to believe
any of them.
SHOW ME where I mentioned anything about intelligent design in this
thread.
You have mentioned Behe's argument, which has no meaning absent the
context of intelligent design, which is a religious concept.
To the contrary, evolutionists have fallen flat on their faces with
respect to refuting Behe's claims of irreducible complexity.
Behe's argument is not scientific. It is an argument not based on any
experiments, and not proposing any.
You're not being honest with yourself again. Behe's claims are
logically related to evolution concepts.
They are NOT free to decide what is "science"; that is for scientists
to decide.
You've already volunteered this argument and are ignoring the point
that I mentioned that some of those children are going to become
scientists anyway.
When they become scientists, then they will gain some authority to
help contribute to the delineation of what constitutes science. Not
until then.
You're simply not being honest with yourself about the issue.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are liberals so pro-choice when it comes to abortion but... |
05 Oct 2005 06:54:48 AM |
|
|
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Free speech is being supressed in the public schools because of a
twisted interpretation of the establishment clause:
"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and
under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the
press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary
which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky
Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382
If you are going to cherry-pick quotes from Jefferson, try this one.
<" An Act For Establishing Religious Freedom... I. Where as Almighty
< God hath created the mind free... II. be it enacted by the General
< Assembly, that no man be compelled to frequent or support any
< religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, not shall it be
< enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor
< shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or
< belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to
< maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same
< shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil
< capacities."
You continue to ignore that 10th Amendment gives the states the power
to authorize public schools
In another post you claimed that the 10th amendment didn't "give"
anything to the states. Make up your mindlessness.
"Thus we have teachers of languages, teachers of mathematics, of
natural philosophy, of chemistry, of medicine, of law, of history, of
government, etc. Religion, too, is a separate department, and happens
to be the only one deemed requisite for all men, however high or low."
--Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815.
Per the above:
<no man be compelled to frequent or support any
< religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, not shall it be
< enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor
< shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or
< belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to
< maintain, their opinion in matters of religion,
SHOW ME where I mentioned anything about intelligent design in this
thread.
You have mentioned Behe's argument, which has no meaning absent the
context of intelligent design, which is a religious concept.
To the contrary, evolutionists have fallen flat on their faces with
respect to refuting Behe's claims of irreducible complexity.
You have fallen flat on your face at proving this extraordinary claim.
Behe's argument is not scientific. It is an argument not based on any
experiments, and not proposing any.
You're not being honest with yourself again. Behe's claims are
logically related to evolution concepts.
I thought you *opposed* scientists arguing like lawyers. If his
claims are science, then he could support them by scientific method.
Provide evidence that he did so.
When they become scientists, then they will gain some authority to
help contribute to the delineation of what constitutes science. Not
until then.
You're simply not being honest with yourself about the issue.
Your opinion is unsubstantiated, not worthy or note, and wrong.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are liberals so pro-choice when it comes to abortion but... |
06 Oct 2005 05:25:10 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
Free speech is being supressed in the public schools because of a
twisted interpretation of the establishment clause:
"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and
under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the
press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary
which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky
Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382
If you are going to cherry-pick quotes from Jefferson, try this one.
<" An Act For Establishing Religious Freedom... I. Where as Almighty
< God hath created the mind free... II. be it enacted by the General
< Assembly, that no man be compelled to frequent or support any
< religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, not shall it be
< enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor
< shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or
< belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to
< maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same
< shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil
< capacities."
You continue to ignore that 10th Amendment gives the states the power
to authorize public schools
For nearly 60 years, since the decision in MCCOLLUM V. BOARD OF
EDUCATION in 1948, it has been clear that religious instruction cannot
be conducted in publicly funded schools:
"This is beyond all question a utilization of the tax- established and
tax-supported public school system to aid religious groups to spread
their faith. And it falls squarely under the ban of the First Amendment
(made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth) as we interpreted it
in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 . There we said: 'Neither
a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can
pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one
religion over another. 6 Neither can force or influence a person to go
to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to
profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be
punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or
disbeliefs, for church attendance or nonattendance. No tax in any
amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious
activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever
form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. 7 Neither a state
nor [333 U.S. 203 , 211] the Federal Government can, openly or
secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or
groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against
establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of
separation between Church and State." Id., at pages 15, 16 of 330 U.S.,
at page 511 of 67 S.Ct"
-- the above applies exactly to the teleological "intelligent design"
argument. "Intelligent Design" has been a philosophical argument for
the existence of God for centuries -- it's only being trotted out now
because it's other name -- "creationism" -- has a negative connotation
of backwardness and ignorance. Hey -- we can SELL this name -- it says
"intelligent" right in it!!
In another post you claimed that the 10th amendment didn't "give"
anything to the states. Make up your mindlessness.
"Thus we have teachers of languages, teachers of mathematics, of
natural philosophy, of chemistry, of medicine, of law, of history, of
government, etc. Religion, too, is a separate department, and happens
to be the only one deemed requisite for all men, however high or low."
--Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815.
That's a great quote from Jefferson -- here's the next paragraph from
the same letter (emphasis added):
"Collections of men associate together, under the name of
congregations, and employ a religious teacher of the particular sect of
opinions of which they happen to be, and contribute to make up a
stipend as a compensation for the trouble of delivering them, at such
periods as they agree on, lessons in the religion they profess. ****If
they want instruction in other sciences or arts, they apply to other
instructors; and this is generally the business of early life. But I
suppose there is not an instance of a single congregation which has
employed their preacher for the mixed purposes of lecturing them from
the pulpit in chemistry, in medicine, in law, in the science and
principles of government, or in anything but religion exclusively.****
Whenever, therefore, preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put
them off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical
affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or
conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract,
depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are
salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or,
if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art
or science. In choosing our pastor we look to his religious
qualifications, without inquiring into his physical or political
dogmas, with which we mean to have nothing to do. I am aware that
arguments may be found which may twist a thread of politics into the
cord of religious duties. So may they for every other branch of human
art or science.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are liberals so pro-choice when it comes to abortion but... |
04 Oct 2005 11:35:36 AM |
|
|
EVEN EASIER,
Why can't liberals teach evolution as another way that life might have
originated instead of THE way?
Another or the, that's all we need to decide. If it's another, then when
kids go to church and learn creation, they are not faced with a government
proclomation that they are wrong. They are faced with a challenge to compare
what they learn in church with what they learn in school, and that challenge
is perfectly reasonable. But they are not faced with the absolute statement
that their religion is wrong. .
"fred" <clarma1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1128150974.230519.291600@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Why are liberals pro-choice when it comes to abortion but then fight
tooth and nail to prevent school children from making up their own
minds about evolution vs irreducible complexity issues? Why can't
school children decide for themselves whether or not evolutionists have
been able to volunteer anything substantial with respect to refuting
Michael Behe's examples of irreducible complexity?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kinia Surrat Mugab" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are liberals so pro-choice when it comes to abortion but... |
04 Oct 2005 12:35:14 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qd2dnbARp-PCMt_eRVn-hQ@ez2.net...
EVEN EASIER,
Why can't liberals teach evolution as another way that life might have
originated instead of THE way?
What makes you think it's only liberals?
Do you think all scientists are liberals, that all conservatives want
creation taught as science, and that all liberals and scientists and
teachers that teach evolution are atheists?
Are you that dumb.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sid9" |
|
| Title: Re: Why are liberals so pro-choice when it comes to abortion but... |
04 Oct 2005 03:47:21 PM |
|
|
Kinia Surrat Mugab wrote:
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qd2dnbARp-PCMt_eRVn-hQ@ez2.net...
EVEN EASIER,
Why can't liberals teach evolution as another way that life might
have originated instead of THE way?
What makes you think it's only liberals?
Do you think all scientists are liberals, that all conservatives want
creation taught as science, and that all liberals and scientists and
teachers that teach evolution are atheists?
Are you that dumb.
Yes he/she is that dumb and worse yet a religious fundamentalist in the
style of the Taliban.
Only the clothing it different.
The attitude is the same
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
