|
Grex > Agora56 > #84: Newspaper in Denmark prints cartoon pics of Mohammed | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 432 responses total. |
mcnally
|
|
response 63 of 432:
| 
Feb 6 17:27 UTC 2006 |
re #54:
> Theories are by definition not 'accurate', they are best guesses based
> on the evidence.
I disagree with you here. Accepted scientific theories are not, perhaps,
foolproof, but they *are* accurate -- as accurate as we can possibly make
them. To the extent that they prove inaccurate they are usually rejected
or revised in favor of more accurate theories whose predictions better
match the observable data.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 64 of 432:
|
Feb 6 17:38 UTC 2006 |
Unfortunately for them, the Democratic party hasn't been able to capture
very much of the left-wing religious nut job vote. Most of them voted
for Nader in 2000, for example. However it's not a big factor because
most left-wing nut jobs are not especially religious, while most
right-wing nut jobs are.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 65 of 432:
|
Feb 6 17:44 UTC 2006 |
What is the difference between a law (ie. The Law of Gravity) versus a
theory (ie. The Theory of Evolution)?
Also, I think you people are mistaking religious fundamentalism for
religious extremism. Although I suppose there are some of you who
believe that the former constitutes the latter.
|
tod
|
|
response 66 of 432:
|
Feb 6 17:44 UTC 2006 |
Ever since Colson was separated from Nixon, we've seen the religious nuts
swarming to the right more.
|
tod
|
|
response 67 of 432:
|
Feb 6 17:45 UTC 2006 |
re #65
Anytime someone thinks the 10 Commandments has a place in a courthouse then
I equate them as equal.
|
jep
|
|
response 68 of 432:
|
Feb 6 17:46 UTC 2006 |
Oh, nuts. I don't think anyone here really believes I don't respect
Democrats. If they do, I am sorry I've incorrectly conveyed my views.
I vigorously disagree with a lot of people on certain subjects without
any feeling of disrespect for any of them. And even most people here
for whom I don't have much respect, have demonstrated they deserve
respect in some areas. Grex gives all of us a chance to show some of
our best and some of our worst.
|
twenex
|
|
response 69 of 432:
|
Feb 6 17:51 UTC 2006 |
Re: #65.
Also, I think you people are mistaking religious fundamentalism for
religious extremism. Although I suppose there are some of you who
believe that the former constitutes the latter.
It does.
|
gull
|
|
response 70 of 432:
|
Feb 6 18:20 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:65: I'd say that fundamentalism is not a sufficient condition
for extremism, but it is a required condition. You never hear about
extremist Unitarians. ;)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 71 of 432:
|
Feb 6 18:39 UTC 2006 |
Re #65: "Laws" in science are mathematical functions relating observations
with considerable accuracy, even if they are not exact. Newton's three
laws of motion, Ohms Law, Kirchoff's Law, Maxwell's Laws, Einstein's
Law(s), etc. These different laws may address the same phenomena, such as
some of Newton's and Einstein's Laws, and Kirchoff's and Maxwell's Laws.
The general study and accumulated knowledge of these phenomena constitute
theories, such as the various Theories of Gravitation, which are expressed
in the various applicable laws. Scientific studies evolve theories, which
produce intermediate approximations called laws.
Even the "Law of Gravity" is still being worked on - look up <gravity
theory> on Google and you find plenty of links. One of the "Laws" is the
approximation F = GM1M2/R^2. The "Theory" (or "Theories") are trying to
explain where that comes from, and its exceptions.
"Law" is not applied yet to the Theory of Evolution because we are still
learning things about it at an enormous rate that have not as yet been
consolidated by encomposing mathematical relations. In addition to that,
Evolutionary Theory is tangled up with legalities (such as related to
teaching it, or not teaching it), so that a Google search of <evolution
law> finds only these issues and not specific ideas derived from the
theory.
|
richard
|
|
response 72 of 432:
|
Feb 6 18:41 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.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 73 of 432:
|
Feb 6 18:46 UTC 2006 |
Curl's last sentence was what I was talking about in #52. If you suggest that
gravity, or calculus, be taught as "a hypothesis which may or may not be true",
it's seen as generally harmless but you'll be laughed at. If you suggest the
same thing for Evolution (capital letter intended), and somebody notices,
you're guaranteed a lawsuit from the ACLU -- which is, I'm sure, what the
Islamic extremists we were talking about would be doing if a) they thought they
could win and b) their followers had an ounce more of respect for private
property.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 74 of 432:
|
Feb 6 18:50 UTC 2006 |
Re #73: huh? Are you saying the Islamic extremists favor ACLU lawsuits,
or are against evolution, or what?
I do draw a distinction between praying in the abstract for the murder of
others and actually recruiting and training somebody to go do it. Both
are stupid and irresponsible but there's still an important distinction.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 75 of 432:
|
Feb 6 18:55 UTC 2006 |
Re #74:
No. The Islamic extremist response (burnings, etc.) to "blasphemy"
(representations of Mohammed) that we were discussing before seemed to me
exactly the same as the ACLU response to suggestions that Evolution just
possibly ought not to be the only origins hypothesis taught in schools, with
the only difference being that the Islamic-extremist response had an iota less
respect for property rights. I think the ACLU might go that route if they
suddenly started losing every evolution-related lawsuit they filed :)
|
marcvh
|
|
response 76 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:02 UTC 2006 |
Um, oh. I see a huge distinction between pursuing legal remedy and
having an angry mob torch a building, and I see a huge distinction
between expression by the private press and expression by agents of the
state. But I suppose that blurring those distinctions serves your
agenda.
|
richard
|
|
response 77 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:04 UTC 2006 |
re #75 thats ridiculous, the ACLU simply said that schools ought not to teach
any hypothesis in SCIENCE class that cannot be backed up by science.
Is that so hard to understand? Evolution can and is backed up by science,
intelligent design is not.
how can you say wanting things taught that have a scientific basis
compares to islamic extremism, where they don't care what science says?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 78 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:05 UTC 2006 |
KLG writes "If you suggest that gravity, or calculus, be taught as "a
hypothesis which may or may not be true", it's seen as generally harmless
but you'll be laughed at."
Well, somewhat more than that. If you are *forced* to teach the hypothesis
that calculus may not be true, you would have to same negative response
from educators. Of course, the theory gravity is already taught as not
being a finished concept, just as evolutionary theory is also now taught
as being unfinished.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 79 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:05 UTC 2006 |
I see a distinction between their *methods* but not between their
*motivations*. (And which side (Islamic-extremists or the ACLU) are you calling
"agents of the state"?)
|
richard
|
|
response 80 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:07 UTC 2006 |
re #79 what similarity in methods? the aclu isnt burning down any embassies
or churches or advocating violence of any kind.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 81 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:10 UTC 2006 |
I'm calling public school teachers "agents of the state" (when they are
acting within their capacity as same.)
I suppose if you make everything sufficiently abstract then everyone has
similar motivations. Both the 9/11 hijackers and the firemen trying to
rescue WTC occupants were motivated by the belief that they were helping
people and making the world a better place. So what?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 82 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:13 UTC 2006 |
77: Evolution's detractors say that it isn't backed by science and that their
side is -- and all they're asking for is the chance to demonstrate it to the
students by showing them the data.
In a word: the commonality I was showing between the two (and your response,
too) is their "kneejerk-ness".
78:
The only thing anyone is *forced* to teach is *evolution*. Every "intelligent
design law" (as called by its detractors) that I've seen anytime recently has
been on the order of "in science classes students must examine data and draw
conclusions" -- after all, science is "make a hypothesis, gather data, examine
the data, draw conclusions" -- and the ACLU has jumped on all of them.
And who ever said anything about being "forced" to teach that calculus "may not
be true"? I merely said "may-or-may-not be" -- i.e., let's look and find out.
(And it wasn't KLG, it was me.)
79 was re 76.
|
richard
|
|
response 83 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:18 UTC 2006 |
re #82 there is no date, none whatsoever, that shows evolution is not backed
by science. On the other hand, there is no data to evaluate at all regarding
intelligent design, so there is nothing to study but "beliefs" You don't
study beliefs in science class. If you want to do that in humanities class
fine. But we are talking about science class here.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 84 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:20 UTC 2006 |
Sorry, sometimes I can't tell you and KLG apart.
The subject in biology is "evolution", which is taught as its science has
developed. "Intelligent design" theory has no support in observation and
contributes nothing to the understanding of biological processes, so it is
logical to omit it from science courses in which evolution is taught.
|
tod
|
|
response 85 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:21 UTC 2006 |
You think that stuff is so horrible? Try going to a public middle school where
the student body is referred to as "Crusaders".
|
rcurl
|
|
response 86 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:21 UTC 2006 |
My #84 was in response to Jon's #82: Richard slipped in. (Just in case anyone
misses that.....)
|
kingjon
|
|
response 87 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:22 UTC 2006 |
Re #83: (1st sentence)
And the laws that the ACLU jumps on only ask that *the data on every side be
clearly explained*. If there really isn't any data not pointing to evolution,
*why does the ACLU care* that no student in a public school ever see this
"fact"?
Note that it was in a reply to me that "intelligent design" was first
mentioned, and I've since used it in quotes since that's the straw man people
seem to be holding up.
|