[quote=“TainanCowboy”]It is amzing the intolerance that is exposed on topics like this.
Also the dis-jointed connections that are put forth.
AND
Oh…and “seperation of church and state” was in regards to The Government NOT establishing a State Religion. Can you say…strawman? Sure…I knew ya could.[/quote]
Strawman, Strawman?? No, but I know a Scarecrow. The guy from the Wizard of Oz! Thanks for reminding me of that great film.
" …
With the thoughts he’ll be thinkin’ he could be another Lincoln
If Bush only had a brain."
On to your comments:
Intolerance: I find it so strange that the most religious people, those whose beliefs are normally built upon a conceptual foundation of tolerance, are the least tolerant of all. That is your prize-winning “disjointed connection” or contradiction. The actual concept of tolerance surrounds accepting the viewpoints of others to the extent that you peacefully allow them to have the viewpoints. It does not extend to the acceptance of a practice shown repeatedly by history to eviserate good government and subjugate human beings. Which brings me to the next point below.
Church and State: On the face of it, not a complex issue. The idea is that the State (government) should not involve itself in the creation, organization, or operation of a religion. The idea behind that is the prevention of government-mandated beliefs and all of the damage that causes to societies. No one’s religious beliefs, regardless of creed, should be advocated by the government or forced into public school textbooks by any level of government. That would constitute one of the stepping stones of the path toward state-sponsored religion.
Oh dear Christ, not that old chestnut again. Total ignorance of what “theory” in the scientific context means. In science a theory is much more than simply a guess or hypothesis. It is an established paradigm that explains all or most of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory can never be proven true, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified slightly. So until you can offer an equivalent scientific theory based on data and which is potentially falsifiable, don’t even try to say that Creationism (or Intelligent Design, if you want to be a pussy about it) is a “theory” in the same way evolution is a “theory”.
[quote]Those who’ve taken a few college science courses aren’t fooled by the dual meaning of “theory”.[/quote]Such a patronizing statement. How about some reality -
[quote]theory - noun
hypothesis, possibility, theory
a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; “a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory”; "he proposed a fresh theory
a belief that can guide behavior; “the architect has a theory that more is less”; “they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales”
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; “theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypothes” wordreference.com/definition/theory
theory_of_evolution - noun
1 theory_of_evolution, theory_of_organic_evolution
(biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals. wordreference.com/definition … +evolution
[/quote]As good as needed. Its a theory. Not a fact proven by scientific method. As are Intelligent Design and Creationism
seeker4-
Not exacrly sure what you are posting about.
As to intolerance - look at the thread.
Seperation of Church and State-
[quote]Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. A copy of the Danbury letter is available here. The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature - as “favors granted.” Jefferson’s reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion - only that on the national level. The letter contains the phrase “wall of separation between church and state,” which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: “Separation of church and state.”
The letter was the subject of intense scrutiny by Jefferson, and he consulted a couple of New England politicians to assure that his words would not offend while still conveying his message: it was not the place of the Congress or the Executive to do anything that might be misconstrued as the establishment of religion. usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html[/quote]Pretty simple - "Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. “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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This does not discriminate against religion. It forbids the establishment of a state religion. Proven time & again in the Supreme Court.
Tetsuo-
[quote]So until you can offer an equivalent scientific theory based on data and which is potentially falsifiable,
don’t even try to say that Creationism (or Intelligent Design, if you want to be a pussy about it) is a “theory”
in the same way evolution is a “theory”.[/quote]
You spend your time trying to prove a negative. And whats up with the “if you want to be a pussy about it” comment?
tsk tsk tsk Danimal-
Bullshit. LIke it or not, TC, evolution is a scientific theory, and therefore properly taught in science classes, while Creationism and its cowardly renaming as ID are religious beliefs, not respectible scientific theories, and belong only in religious “education”.
Quite simple, really, and not at all a matter of tolerance or intolerance, even though you’re striving to misconstrue it that way.
The “if you want to be a pussy about it” is directed solely at the fact Intelligent Design is a term coined to try and obfuscate the whole God thing. At least Creationists are honest about it.
And go on, show us the data - and some book written centuries upon centuries ago is not data - that backs up the “theory” that God created the Earth and all life upon it.
[quote=“Tetsuo”]
And go on, show us the data - and some book written centuries upon centuries ago is not data - that backs up the “theory” that God created the Earth and all life upon it.[/quote]
The advocates of Intelligent Design that I’ve read don’t say “God created the Earth and all life upon it”.
And how hard is it for you to simply understand that science should be taught in science classes. Would you advocate the teaching of Spanish in a math class? After all, people should be exposed to a range of ideas.
Which ones? Have any percentages? And to refresh your memory, all scientists used to believe the Sun revolves around the Earth. Dogma, whether scientific or theological is still dogma.[/quote]
[quote]Intelligent design - Wikipedia
the National Academy of Sciences has said, intelligent design “and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life” are not science because their claims cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own, instead they find gaps within current evolutionary theory and fill them in with speculative beliefs.
[/quote]
Actually scientists were persecuted for not saying that the Earth was at the center of the universe.
I think faith is wonderful. There are many scientists that believe in God. If you want to do science, you have to use the scientific method. The US supreme court ruled against teaching Creationism a few years back saying that science was something that scientists do, and that since scientists don’t do creationism, it wasn’t science.
And how hard is it for you to simply understand that science should be taught in science classes. Would you advocate the teaching of Spanish in a math class? After all, people should be exposed to a range of ideas.[/quote]
An unproven theory is not science simply because it’s the current flavor of the month.
CS, thank you for bringing up that very important point and excellent example of the need to maintain the separation of church and state, and otherwise avoid the hyperinfluence of any religion on society. What scientists believe improves with time and technology. However, due to this very issue that we are discussing, it was hard to know what scientists really thought around the timeframe that you
I’m enjoying the theoretical showdown, but if we’re talking US and Bush specifically, we can theorize all we want, the scientific world can prove till they’re blue in the face (not that they’ve proved, mind you). The only argument that counts in US are numbers.
Just to remind you of something we all know:
Gallup [quote]
Only about a third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence, while just as many say that it is just one of many theories and has not been supported by the evidence. The rest say they don’t know enough to say. Forty-five percent of Americans also believe that God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago. A third of Americans are biblical literalists who believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word.[/quote] http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=14107
Tetsuo’s definition of “theory”, applied to this discussion, was most accurate. While poking around for a source more credible than Wikipedia (which I think is great, BTW), I stumbled across something called AAAS - American Association for the Advancement of Science (named edited to correct - typing too fast - sorry). They are the organizatin that puts out the journal “Science”.
Take a look at their definition of “theory” (2nd question down in the list of Q&A):
