[quote=“irishstu”]Signing out.
Stu[/quote]
That seems like a sensible move. Posting in IP is like lining up for a hitting on the head lesson.
Next…
[quote]
Do let us know how that multiculturalism works out when the Muslims are burning down your cities in the Midlands. [/quote]
Shrill exaggeration. That’s just a few of the lads out on the town on a Friday night. Britain is indeed a multicultural society; and continues to benefit much from being so. A model, if you like, that can be emulated.
If you reject multiculturalism, what do you suggest as an alternative? A model along the lines of what the Islamic fanatics advocate?
Back to topic. This arguement boils down to the following: Do you believe in God or do you believe that Earth, animals, and man are just the outcome of numerous, random, discrete events.
Kids should, IMHO, be presented with both these views.
I believe in God not as some father figure but as some unknowable formula underlying the universe.
Second, I think that the US is based on Judaeo-Christian culture, ditto for many nations in the West. That is what has made us strong. It is not for us to cater to or understand newcomers though we will welcome their traditions but for them to understand and adapt to us. If that is unacceptable, then they know where they can go. I adapted to live in Taiwan. I made that choice. When I go around demanding that everyone in Taiwan speak American damn it. Though it should be said that English as an international language and certain norms of business behavior will make sense no matter where you are.
So, if women from Muslim countries are in the US, they are US citizens first with the same rights and protections as any other American citizen, their children will go to the same schools and learn the same curriculum. There will be no “we can beat our women because we are Muslim first and Americans second.” That is an extreme example, but I think it has been seen that this has been a problem more in Europe.
Another point. In my view, studying African, Asian, South Pacific Islander, Aboriginal history is fine as an elective but not a substitute to the core Western traditions that delivered our system of government and prosperity. WE did not get our Constitution from Nigeria, nor the Solomon Islands nor Ecuador so I resent very much this watering down of our core beliefs and underpinnings of our civilization because it is seen as being only about dead white men. Au contraire. Without an understanding of that philosophy and those ideas, how can we continue to enjoy the fruits of the system. WE are not going to get that by becoming more Muslim, more African, more Arab, more Sicilian, etc. I think we need a return to the balance with the main classes being on these traditions.
Intelligent Design is NOT science.
Hence it should NOT be taught in Science classes.
If I could use the loose basis on which Intelligent Design is built on, I could then declare that Jesus is the son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster…
Since you can’t disprove it scientifically, are you thinking that it should probably be taught then? Hrm?
[quote=“ShrimpCrackers”]Intelligent Design is NOT science.
Hence it should NOT be taught in Science classes.
…
Since you can’t disprove it scientifically, are you thinking that it should probably be taught then? Hrm?[/quote]
I agree. Ultmately the debate between evolution and “intelligent design” comes down to one question: did things evolve 1) randomly or 2) through the influence of God. As someone who believes firmly in God, I must also accept that science will not be able to prove or disprove His existence.
Since this is essentially a question of faith, it belongs with similar questions in the realms of philosophy, theology, and religion. Science is the realm of proofs, not just beliefs.
You must be from Europe. I hear this all the time from Europeans. This fear and contempt for religious figures like this in the States. Don’t worry about it. Whatever your media is writing about that gives you this impression is probably 90 percent exaggeration. Take it from me. I know.[/quote]
Sure, Fred, whatever you say, he sounds perfectly reasonable to me (as do you).
brainyquote.com/quotes/autho … rtson.html
[quote]“You say you’re supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense, I don’t have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don’t have to be nice to them.”
–The 700 Club, January 14, 1991
“Individual Christians are the only ones really—and Jewish people, those who trust God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob–are the only ones that are qualified to have the reign, because hopefully, they will be governed by God and submit to Him.”
–Defending his stance that only Christians and Jews are fit to hold public office, The 700 Club, January 11, 1985
“If anybody understood what Hindus really believe, there would be no doubt that they have no business administering government policies in a country that favors freedom and equality.”
–The New World Order, page 219
“To see Americans become followers of, quote, Islam, is nothing short of insanity Terry, you know, I’ve been in Africa many, many, many, many times, and you see people over here learning Swahili, for example. Swahili was the language of the slave traders. The Islamic people, the Arabs, were the ones who captured Africans, put them in slavery, and sent them to America as slaves. Why would people in America want to embrace the religion of the slavers, and the language of the slavers?”
–The 700 Club, October 27, 1997
“There will never be world peace until God’s house and God’s people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world. How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?”
–The New World Order, p.227
“The strategy against the American radical left should be the same as General Douglas MacArthur employed against the Japanese in the Pacific… bypass their strongholds, then surround them, isolate them bombard them, then blast the individuals out of their power bunkers with hand-to-hand combat. The battle for Iwo Jima was not pleasant, but our troops won it. The battle to regain the soul of America won’t be pleasant either, but we will win it.”
–“Pat Robertson’s Perspective,” April-May 1992
“Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It’s no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history.”
–Interview with Molly Ivins, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, September 14, 1993
“The radical left is doing everything they can to destroy the moral fiber of America. They want to do away with the family. I am absolutely persuaded one of the reasons so many lesbians are at the forefront of the pro-choice movement is because being a mother is the unique characteristic of womanhood, and these lesbians will never be mothers naturally, so they don’t want anybody else to have that privilege either.”
–The 700 Club, May 18, 1993[/quote]
gainesvillehumanists.org/patr.htm
[quote]“There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that sanctifies the separation of church and state.”
“Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals–the two things seem to go together.” “The 700 Club,” 1/21/93, ADL report on Religious Right, page 131
“A lasting peace will never be built upon man’s efforts, because man is sinful, vicious, and wicked.”
“If you go all the way back to the days just following creation, men lived nine hundred years or more.”
“My personal feeling is that oral sex is against nature.”
“The key in terms of mental ability is chess. There’s never been a woman Grand Master chess player. Once you get one, then I’ll buy some of the feminism…” (According to the Chess Federation of the U.S. there were already two women Grand Masters at that time, both from Georgia. Since Robertson’s gaffe, three more women became Grand Masters) [/quote]
intercom.net/~dayna/evil.html
Mightychip makes the right call here. The question of whether evolution is a guided or random progression is outside the realm of what science has been able to address so far, and therefore should be addressed in a philosophical, rather than scientific setting. In other words, insofar as the scientific method is applied, evolution should be taught. When the debate moves outside of that realm, the discussion should take place in another forum.
Spacetime bends baby. Before the big bang… well there wasn’t really a ‘before’ as we understand it here and now. Time started with the big bang, as did the 3D area between me and the bottle of Taiwan Pijiu on my coffee table we call ‘space’ (or between the earth and the moon, etc). Before that, nothing existed. Einstein, relativity theory, nearly a hundred years of physics since then that support and expand the idea…
Yeah, I know, it’s too early to be drinking. I had a BBQ planned originally, but for some reason forgot to cook the meat.
MT:
My, my for such a tolerant person, you certainly do have all the time in the world for murderers like Che Guevera who is passionate and enthusiastic and young and handsome but you really have it out for Pat Roberts who the last time I checked hadn’t even killed anyone. Why isn’t he handsome enough for you to respect?
Other comments. Science cannot prove anything regarding the beginning of the world. Why then should creationism be kept out.
Yeah, space bends big time baby but that does not change the fact that any empirical assumptions regarding the Divine are unprovable by the very ineffable nature of said Divine which cannot be defined or put into empirical forumlae.
Face it. Science has its place but it has become a religion or the religion since the Enlightenment. Maybe it needs to be put back into its place a bit as well. I am not talking about mixing religion into science but I would like some honesty regarding what we do not and cannot ever know or claim to know.
That’s not good enough Fred. No one was discussing Che. Stu said Pat Roberts is a nutter and you claimed that’s untrue and Stu doesn’t know what he’s talking about because he’s a European.
Roberts believes the Nazis were homosexuals and satan worshippers; people lived to 900 years old in biblical times; women are dumber than men; feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children and practice witchcraft; only Christians are fit to govern; liberals are doing to America what the Nazis did to the Jews; and there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that sanctifies the separation of church and state.
It would be more dignified if you were to simply admit that you did not know, that you were wrong, that Stu was correct and Roberts is a nutter, rather than to continue with your trademark strategy of launching personal attacks and smart alec quips to distract from the fact that you’re wrong, again.
thanks Fred,
we can always count on you to inject your paranoia/.
your stances are at about the same keel as the character played by George C. Scott in Dr. Strangelove…
perhaps the best course of action for you is to grab your loved ones and live out the rest of your days in your bomb shelter???
[i]Mod note: heavily editted due to several rule violations: including but not limited to calling someone a racist, which is a big no-no. But you know this. Consider this a warning.
Jdsmith
IP co-mod[/i]
The reason is pretty simple. Science can, in principle, prove “the beginning of the world.” But Creationism can not.
Science appeals to natural, physical processes. But creationism appeals to supernatural causes. Supernatural causes, if they even exist, are not repeatable or reliable in such a way that you can test their accuracy.
But because science appeals only to natural, physical processes, it can prove anything that has a natural, physical origin.
The fact that science does not yet have an answer for any given (natural) question, that doesn’t mean science is not capable of answering this question. It only means that we do not have the data to provide a reliable explanation.
EDIT: I should clarify by saying that I do not think creationism should be kept out of schools altogether. Intelligent Design, creationism, whatever has it’s place in a classroom. The issue here is whether it belongs in a science classroom. If it isn’t science, it does not belong.
Pat Robertson is a nutter, no disagreement there, but he’s a useful nutter in a way. I have a number of hard working, intelligent, conservative religious friends and family members, and they all agree that Pat is a nutter. It’s the folks who agree with Pat that I worry about and stay clear of.
I.D.? what of it? Another poorly thought out quasi-scientific idea gets a fair public hearing and then bites the dust, so what? Based on what Ive read, it’s been fairly evaluated by the scientific community and has been rejected based on a lack of testable evidence and lack of a mechanism: it’s simply an hypothesis.
Here’s what I actually said.
Looks like I will be the one waiting for that apology…
More from my original quote…
[quote]So… we come to the age old question: Just what are we going to teach in our schools given the limited time frame involved. This is the question we will have to decide. The multicultis are mad because the Religious Right is energizing its base and taking over former “territories” of this group? But they in fact “conquered” this area during the 1970s. “My heart will not bleed” to see them lose it. I would rather have creationism with these whackos like Roberts than the soulless multiculti crap that we have been force fed since the 1970s if it means getting the spirit of our nation back. If we want to end up like France… with its unassimilated, unFrench, unwilling to become French hordes, then no thank you. And I am quite confident that the “scientific” aspects of “evolution” can be incorporated into such theories and teaching methods without putting a damper on what can and should be learned about biological evolution, which is happening each and every day, each and every moment as we speak.
How is this any worse than the delusion that is being taught currently in our schools? Does “science” have all the answers? Does it even have all the questions? Yet, it has been paraded as being the one and only one true way to gain knowledge. And for certain areas, it does. We cannot have a religious Math, Chemistry, Physics, Astrophysics, Biology, etc. or we would be back in the Dark Ages or we would be Islam BUT let’s not pretend that the religious in our nation do not have a right to point out that no one knows how the universe was created and even if they have theories purporting as to how it came to being, many quite plausible, it does not in fact answer the age-old questions, which form the basis of faith and belief among these religious adherents. And is their faith any more contemptible or laughable than the “faith” that is required to believe in the scientific theories that we have been presented with?[/quote]
Finally, a final point: Europeans worry excessively about the religious Right in the US as some dark, evil, ignorant force. That is a gross stereotype that would have you howling MT if it were made regarding any of your “pet brown people and their causes” but since it is White Americans and Southerners who mostly vote Republican, it’s open season on the name calling and bashing and prejudice, eh? Too bad we cannot find a more handsome, passionate, good looking, young, studly, manly, virile standard bearer for the Religious Right who was responsible for killing 10,000 to 20,000 so MT would have less of a problem with the Religious Right. Perhaps, even one who rides motorcyles and looks “ripping” in cut jeans? That would be a slam dunk then I suppose?
Paranoid? Moi? No, I am pointing out that the European press is paranoid regarding religion in general and Christians in the US in particular except of course when it comes to Islamofascists who must be “understood” because of the “root causes” of their rage. Invariably, even well-educated Europeans fall for this hook, line and sinker, many of them have never been to the US nor have they met religious Christians. So rather than stereotype, how about less prejudice and more understanding and tolerance. After all, it ain’t the religious right that is keeping people from having their rights. Right?
So. I believe in evolution, but I also believe that creationism while not based on “science” is in fact something that we can never prove and if some suggest believing in the science-based universe (on faith of course since it cannot be proved) then why not the faith-based faith in creationism. Again, read my words. I am not suggesting that we stop teaching evolution but let’s not pretend that science has all these answers either.
[quote=“plotch”]Pat Robertson is a nutter, no disagreement there, but he’s a useful nutter in a way. I have a number of hard working, intelligent, conservative religious friends and family members, and they all agree that Pat is a nutter. It’s the folks who agree with Pat that I worry about and stay clear of.
[/quote]
Ironman, the quotation above is similar to what I was telling you earlier today, but using percentages to make my point.
For some strange reason, this thread, which was at one time really good (as Part I) came to an abrupt halt. Odd. Wonder why that could be?
In any case, I happened to be looking over some personal notes that I made back in 2001. Doing a little life assessment at the time. Something I wrote on religion was actually linked to the intelligent design topic, so even though it isn’t all that exciting, I thought I’d share it:
“[Although I do not believe in Christianity], I do believe there is a design to the world that I live in. To the eye of an analyst and designer of process and device, most everything in the natural world looks so purposefully designed that I cannot deny the probability of purposeful design. What I do not know is the purpose and origin of that design, and whether it was singularly directed or simultaneously and incrementally developed over time ala evolution, or some combination of those two methods.”
[quote=“seeker4”]
In any case, I happened to be looking over some personal notes that I made back in 2001. Doing a little life assessment at the time. Something I wrote on religion was actually linked to the intelligent design topic, so even though it isn’t all that exciting, I thought I’d share it:
“[Although I do not believe in Christianity], I do believe there is a design to the world that I live in. To the eye of an analyst and designer of process and device, most everything in the natural world looks so purposefully designed that I cannot deny the probability of purposeful design. What I do not know is the purpose and origin of that design, and whether it was singularly directed or simultaneously and incrementally developed over time ala evolution, or some combination of those two methods.”[/quote]
Of course evey (living) thing (or most things, anyway) look designed- they were designed- the Designer is called Natural Selection, and the purpose is to keep that which is designed alive long enough to reproduce more successfully than other, competing designs.
As for ID: The Theory of Incompetent Design-
[quote]So is there intelligence in the design?
Yes! No, no there isn’t. The thing that perhaps is closest to all of us is our own skeleton, and there are certainly all kinds of stupidity in our design. No self-respecting engineering student would make the kinds of dumb mistakes that are built into us.
All of our pelvises slope forward for convenient knuckle-dragging, like all the other great apes. And the only reason you stand erect is because of this incredible sharp bend at the base of your spine, which is either evolution’s way of modifying something or else it’s just a design that would flunk a first-year engineering student.
Look at the teeth in your mouth. Basically, most of us have too many teeth for the size of our mouth. Well, is this evolution flattening a mammalian muzzle and jamming it into a face or is it a design that couldn’t count accurately above 20?
Look at the bones in your face. They’re the same as the other mammals’ but they’re just squashed and contorted by jamming the jaw into a face with your brain expanding over it, so the potential drainage system in there is so convoluted that no plumber would admit to having done it!
So is this evolution or is this plain stupid design?[/quote]
[quote=“MikeN”]
So is there intelligence in the design?
Yes! No, no there isn’t. The thing that perhaps is closest to all of us is our own skeleton, and there are certainly all kinds of stupidity in our design. No self-respecting engineering student would make the kinds of dumb mistakes that are built into us.[/quote]
Agree. And that is another main issue that I have noticied, but didn’t include in my statement. Numerous examples of this lack of comprehensive intelligent design in humans have occurred to me over the years.
Another example keeps popping up on TV and other places now with the advertisement of the lastest display of Hollywood’s true lack of creativity, the new “King Kong” movie. In the trademark stand-off scene, there’s King Kong staring over the helpless damsel in distress at a tyrannosaurus rex. This dinosaur is the epitome of a predator: tremendous size, incredibly strong legs, powerful jaws full of large flesh-ripping teeth, a ferocity second to none, and tiny, useless, 1/4-scale arms hanging limply at its side. Not even children would add the last feature to a design. They’d either give it arms that worked or no arms at all.
So to me, the appearance of highly functional if not purposeful design, mixed with glaring design problems, argues persuasively against each step being guided by superior designers, but instead for the incremental, trial and error method of evolution.
[quote=“MikeN”]
So is there intelligence in the design?
Yes! No, no there isn’t. The thing that perhaps is closest to all of us is our own skeleton, and there are certainly all kinds of stupidity in our design. No self-respecting engineering student would make the kinds of dumb mistakes that are built into us.[/quote]
for one: i think it’s important to note that no self respecting engineering student would be stupid enough to put the waste disposal in the same place as the entertainment center.
How strange that MT has not bothered to apologize yet for mischaracterizing my argument. No doubt he will be here any minute to apologize… no? hmmm such a surprise?
Science is empirically based. Yet, science also (at least from a philosophical point of view) makes basic premises that are syllogistic. We must refer back to basic concepts that are not proved but are the underpinning for the subsequent empirical “findings” of science. Now, while I am more than happy to accept those for the physical sciences and would relish even more being made known about our universe, the fact is (irony) that science cannot prove the beginning of the universe and it certainly cannot tell us what existed before that and what will come after. So, why is it so “ignorant” to assume that there must be an underlying form to the universe (not some old man with a white beard) that we might term “God?” Feel free to use any other term that satisfies you. Sartre made much of the subjectivity of God and the belief in God as the creator and how it could not be a force to create the world because of incompatibilities in the subjective vs. objective conditions of consciousness that he belived were present. Fine, but then… would you rather be alone in the world or believe that there is some purpose. No one has been able to prove that there is not a God so even if we accept existentialist beliefs and attempt to make the most of our life now, it surely is better than falling into the poisonous nihilism that nothing matters. That kind of a life to me would be Hell on Earth. I think many others have found that this is the case to their great, but highly “sophisticated” dismay.
[quote=“fred smith”]How strange that MT has not bothered to apologize yet for mischaracterizing my argument.[/quote]Good for the goose, good for the gander.