|
Grex > Agora56 > #84: Newspaper in Denmark prints cartoon pics of Mohammed | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 432 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 104 of 432:
| 
Feb 6 19:49 UTC 2006 |
In the islamic world, they are taught "intelligent design", they are not
taught evolution. Evolution is against islamic law. We are taught evolution
in this part of the world. You decide which is better. We don't have suicide
bombers here because are youth are not indoctrinated that their lives belong
to "god" and they must do god's will.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 105 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:59 UTC 2006 |
#94: You're the one who brought in "intelligent design". I'm not. All
I'm saying is that *if* Evolution *is* true and every alternative
*isn't*, then it sure doesn't look good for every attempt to offer a
chance to its detractors to have their say *so that the students can
decide* to be squashed by an ACLU lawsuit.
#95: Then why isn't "civil rights crusader" an oxymoron, then?
"Crusader" means to me "one who uses even force to achieve a holy end."
#97: Richard brought up English as a lowest-common-denominator, to be
used as a parallel to evolution. My point is that the Academy in France
might, according to evolution's detractors, be a better parallel.
Richard brought it up, not I.
#98: Many of evolution's detractors claim to be scientists and claim
that evolution's backers aren't. Without laying *all* the data on the
table *we can't tell* -- and that's *all* the laws the ACLU jumps on
(the ones I've seen recently, anyway) have mandated.
102: So we've had a state church from the beginning, then? I think
there's been a chaplain for the Congress since the beginning, and the
Supreme Court begins (I've heard) with "God save the honorable Court!"
103: Like I said, that's the first few that Google popped up. On all
sides you have to dig deeper.
#104: In the Islamic world they are taught one thing and not taught to
investigate further. Here, we *used* to be taught to investigate. It
seems to me that we are now being taught to take evolution as axiomatic
fact and not investigate further -- your parallel can be made to work
exactly in reverse.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 106 of 432:
|
Feb 6 20:05 UTC 2006 |
There are laws which mandate presenting *all* of the data for or against
evolution? That would completely fill all 13 years of public school
education and would not leave time for any other scientific ideas, English,
math, music, or nap time. Is that really what anybody wants?
|
richard
|
|
response 107 of 432:
|
Feb 6 20:08 UTC 2006 |
you are only taught to investigate further because the schools are secular,
what the right wing wants is every one to go to parochial schools and such,
where they would only give lip service to the words "investigate further"
|
kingjon
|
|
response 108 of 432:
|
Feb 6 20:10 UTC 2006 |
106: No. But there are no laws which *permit* letting evidence against
evolution be presented as part of a curriculum in the public schools,
thanks to the ACLU. The laws which I've seen merely required additions to
the curriulum that seemed to be shortenable to "in this course, we will do
science by [insert description of scientific method here]." Of course,
because one of the main criticisms of evolution by its detractors (who
*include* but are not limited to the not-identical groups of some IDers
and some religious fundamentalists) is that it isn't science, the ACLU
(and similar groups) file lawsuits (or merely *threaten* to file
lawsuits), and the curriculum changes go away.
107: Not the case *at all*. In fact, in secular schools (evolution's
detractors claim) you are taught *not* to investigate further *unless
your investigations give data supporting your axioms*.
|
klg
|
|
response 109 of 432:
|
Feb 6 20:16 UTC 2006 |
Right. They are so afraid of ID that they don't even want to hear it
mentioned. Kind of like they think evolution is a straw house that
will crumble under the slightest breeze.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 110 of 432:
|
Feb 6 20:18 UTC 2006 |
I really don't think "axiom" is the word you want here.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 111 of 432:
|
Feb 6 20:24 UTC 2006 |
Isn't it? Something that's assumed to be true henceforward but not given a
logically rigorous proof? In practice it's given even more special treatment
than Euclid's geometric axioms; you see non-Euclidean geometries mentioned as
possibilities all the time, but breathe a word of the possibility of something
outside of Evolution (with the capital letter) and you face the threat of a
lawsuit.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 112 of 432:
|
Feb 6 20:35 UTC 2006 |
re #79: You're going to have to elaborate on that a little if you don't
want us to consider you a kook because for the majority of us here there's
a very stark and readily apparently contrast betweeen the motivations of
the ACLU and the motivations of radical Islamic extremists.
|
other
|
|
response 113 of 432:
|
Feb 6 20:38 UTC 2006 |
The current interpretation of the establishment clause has evolved
logically. It has not been reshaped, but it has been applied. In each
application, the courts have (ultimately) determined how it should be
applied based on logically consistent interpretation of the
Constitution.
Our whole system of laws is based on the fact that the few words of the
Constitution cannot be universally and unequivocally understood as to
their application is every specific dispute. That is why the courts are
set up to arbitrate those disputes, and their rulings establish
precedent in the application of Constitutional principles to specific
situations. If the framers could have foreseen every eventuality then
the Constitution would have taken an eternity to write and no court
system would have been needed.
So, the claim that the ACLU has "twisted," bent, broken, altered, or
otherwise affected the establishment clause is indicative only of the
ignorance (or at best, political agenda) of anyone who would make such a
statement. The same can be said of anyone who promotes the idea that
judges legislate from the bench. All judges do is interpret the law
as they see it, attempting to insure that laws are applied and enforced
in a manner consistent with the principles on which this country was
founded. (As well as settling disputes that individuals or corporations
are incapable of resolving without resorting to some higher authority.)
You can quote all the partisan "authorities" you want on the intent of
the framers of ther Constitution, but no matter what they say, it
doesn't change the reality that the current interpretations of the
Constitution have evolved mostly over extended periods of significant
debate in courtrooms across the land, and nothing they can say will
change it unless they are sufficiently persuasive in arguing their
positions in the courts.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 114 of 432:
|
Feb 6 20:39 UTC 2006 |
An axiom is something which is accepted as true either because it is
universally recognized as true, or because one is assuming it is true
for the sake of argument. Evolution is not an axiom (and neither, in
general, are Newton's Laws of Motion or the Fundamental Theorems of
Calculus, although they could be within a particular context.)
From a pedagogical standpoint, the fear behind ID is that it opens the
door to pretty much any other religious idea to try to wrap itself up in
scientific language and push its way into the schools. Today the
Discovery Institute, tomorrow the Foundation for the Advancement of
Science and Education (FASE), which will require all biology classes to
teach Thetan Theory.
|
other
|
|
response 115 of 432:
|
Feb 6 20:49 UTC 2006 |
Opponents of the teaching of ID in public schools are not afraid that
Evolution will not stand up comparison. They are afraid of the loss of
valuable time and resources in the education of children because of the
fact that THERE IS NO COMPARISON. ID has no scientific foundation,
period. It is a conclusion based on lack of evidence, which in itself
is a contravention of the very scientific process by which the theory of
evolution was developed, along with every other theory that science has
produced. ID is itself an attack on the scientific process, and that is
why its opponents protest so vigorously its inclusion in any scientific
curriculum.
Teaching ID in a science class is nothing more than a statement of
profound and *willful* ignorance on the part of its proponents.
|
richard
|
|
response 116 of 432:
|
Feb 6 20:51 UTC 2006 |
they are not AFRAID of intelligent design, they are simply against teaching
it in science class because there is no basis for it whatsoever in science.
There is no logical reason to accept it as an alternative scientific theory
therefore. You dont teach mythology in science class. This is like saying
you want Aesop's fables or Grimms Fairy Tales taught as fact in biology class.
Its ridiculous.
|
richard
|
|
response 117 of 432:
|
Feb 6 20:54 UTC 2006 |
Satanists want their version of intelligent design taught in schools, whereby
we were "created" by intelligent design to serve Satan. Is that an
alternative theory kingjon and klg want taught in science class?
|
gull
|
|
response 118 of 432:
|
Feb 6 22:20 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:77: There are two problems with "intelligent design theory."
The first is that it's simply a rephrasing of the Judeo-Christian
religious belief of Creationism. There's been little attempt to hide
the fact that this is just a way of trying to get around church-state
separation by subtracting overt references to the Christian God from
Creationism while leaving the rest of the idea intact. Religious
indoctrination should not be the job of public schools.
The second problem with "presenting both sides and letting the students
decide" is it can get pretty confusing when views that aren't really
backed by mainstream, peer-reviewed science are being presented.
Should we also allow flat-earthers to give lectures to students? How
about people who believe in spontaneous generation, or people who
believe that the moon landing was faked? There are people who consider
all of these things to be valid "scientific" positions. Are you
prepared to argue they should be taught in schools, too?
Re resp:101: If you allow the state to give special privileges to a
particular religion, by displaying its imagery on public property and
teaching its beliefs in schools, aren't you, in effect, creating an
established state religion?
|
bru
|
|
response 119 of 432:
|
Feb 6 22:24 UTC 2006 |
the right wing in islamic countries either want or have a theocracy. The far
right wing in the u.s. wants a theocracy. Bush isn't interested in
Constitutional law, he is interested in God's law (just listen to many of his
speeches) Same holds true for Osama Bin Laden.
Richard, this just shows your paranoia.
|
twenex
|
|
response 120 of 432:
|
Feb 6 22:32 UTC 2006 |
Just because he's paranoid doesn't mean the religious right aren't after him.
|
tod
|
|
response 121 of 432:
|
Feb 6 22:35 UTC 2006 |
re #119
I agree. I think he should be impeached for dumping all those millions into
Faith Based organizations. His executive orders piss all over our
Constitution.
|
richard
|
|
response 122 of 432:
|
Feb 6 22:40 UTC 2006 |
re #119 it isn't paranoia bru, if you can't see the similiarities in religious
extremism around the globe you aren't paying attention. What Bush wants is
to follow the laws of "god" That is the same thing the muslim extremists
want. Allah and "God" are the same old testament deity. The islamic
fundamentalists don't like the liberal media, they don't like god or allah
taken in vain or insulted in literature. They promote censorship. Which are
the same things the Bush administration is doing here.
|
twenex
|
|
response 123 of 432:
|
Feb 6 23:01 UTC 2006 |
Bru makes Ray Charles look like Superman.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 124 of 432:
|
Feb 7 00:15 UTC 2006 |
Here's an interesting take on the cartoon controversy (to wit: the
Saudis stirred up the pot in an attempt to divert attention from the
yearly death toll during the Hajj, kinda like when Reagan invaded
Grenada after the bombing of the marine barracks in Lebanon):
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/5/13149/60748
|
bru
|
|
response 125 of 432:
|
Feb 7 05:07 UTC 2006 |
Actually, taken in as a whole, Intelligent Design would not support
Christianity any more than it would hinduism, or Shintoism, or North American
Indian creation theory, ir judaism, or islam, or even being visited by aliens
from another planet.
and then again, new theories appear all the time...
http://www.stanford.edu/~afmayer/docs/Lecture2Signed.pdf
|
gull
|
|
response 126 of 432:
|
Feb 7 07:19 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:125: Maybe so, but Intelligent Design is largely being pushed
by Christian creationists.
|
klg
|
|
response 127 of 432:
|
Feb 7 11:55 UTC 2006 |
re: EtP "Opponents of the teaching of ID in public schools are not
afraid that Evolution will not stand up comparison. They are afraid of
the loss of valuable time and resources in the education of children"
The time in public schools is so tight that it can't find the 2 minutes
it would take to read the Dover, PA statement on ID?
What public school did you attend???? And how were they able to keep
your mind so closed??
|
fudge
|
|
response 128 of 432:
|
Feb 7 12:26 UTC 2006 |
my real concern would be that kids that are not really into science, and who
will not put much thought into it, will be left with the absurd notion that
ID has anything to do with science ( which incidentally is a method, not
another fucking religion ), thus growing into misinformed adults, ready to
join the herd...
|