|
Grex > Agora56 > #84: Newspaper in Denmark prints cartoon pics of Mohammed | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 432 responses total. |
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.
|
richard
|
|
response 88 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:23 UTC 2006 |
evolution is overwhelmingly accepted by scientists around the world. It is
"forced" to be taught in the same manner that students are "forced" to learn
english, because the overwhelming majority of people in our country speak it.
You are taught what is widely accepted, held and used.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 89 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:24 UTC 2006 |
Re #85: "Crusaders" seems no worse than any other violent-imagery school
mascot. If you're objecting to violence, or wanton violence, I can sympathize,
but the only mascots I've seen that haven't been like that have been at
Christian schools (except for one that my high school geology teacher and quiz
bowl coach told me about -- the "Banana Slugs").
|
kingjon
|
|
response 90 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:27 UTC 2006 |
Re #88:
And in English classes everywhere students are asked to critically analyze the
language. In science classes everywhere, evolution's detractors claim, students
are indoctrinated into Evolution (with the capital letter; they often make a
distinction between two kinds of "evolution" and agree to one but deny the
other) without a chance to see the data. Even if this claim is false, denying
these detractors a chance to have their say is at best inconclusive and (to my
minds) lends no credence to evolution's backers.
|
richard
|
|
response 91 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:30 UTC 2006 |
btw the ACLU protects religious freedoms, because those re protected in the
bill of rights of course. The ACLU has in the past represented groups like
the Mormons when states passed laws that infringed on their rights to practice
their beliefs. In fact I know aclu members who are devoutly religious.
|
tod
|
|
response 92 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:34 UTC 2006 |
Why isn't the ACLU trying to overturn Executive Order 11246, then?
GW should have been impeached for that.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 93 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:34 UTC 2006 |
There are no scientific data supporting "intelligent design" so why even
consider teaching it in science courses? (The answer is obvious - to bring
in religious doctrine, as unscientific as it is.)
Evolution is taught in science classes with full attention to its
uncertainties - its *scientific* uncertainties.
|
richard
|
|
response 94 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:35 UTC 2006 |
kingjon, if there WERE a rational and widely accepted scientific theory based
pure science, that was an alternative, it would be taught. There is not.
There is NO SCIENCE that backs up intelligent design.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 95 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:38 UTC 2006 |
"Crusader" specifically refers to a Christian fighting against infidels,
primarly Muslims. You might as well have a team named "The Pogroms";
that's no worse than any other violent term, right?
|
jadecat
|
|
response 96 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:39 UTC 2006 |
resp:62 well, nut jobs certainly, but generally not of the religious
ilk. Though perhaps some of the pagan/nature religious ilk.
resp:68 and some of the silly. ;) Though that often gets lost in
translation. I, for one, really appreciate the level of respect and
courtesy you bring to discussions here.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 97 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:39 UTC 2006 |
Re #990: Jon writes "And in English classes everywhere students are asked
to critically analyze the language."
Not in the sense of bringing it into question. The only "analysis" done in
English classes is of grammatical, syntactical and semantic construction,
and their evolution (!).
By the way, English IS a consequence of "intelligent design" - but the
designers can be identified and themselves studied, unlike the "designer"
in evolutionary "intelligent design".
|
richard
|
|
response 98 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:39 UTC 2006 |
In fact we see in the islamic world now what happens when you don't teach
science, when you teach beliefs and train your youth to accept beliefs, no
matter how irrational, over reality.
To teach intelligent design, or any theory not rooted in science, is
DANGEROUS.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 99 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:40 UTC 2006 |
Well as soon as anyone can tell me what a Chemic is... That would be the
name of my HS's rivals. We were the Chargers!
|
marcvh
|
|
response 100 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:43 UTC 2006 |
Used as a noun, it's an archaic term for an alchemist. That's another
minority theory which presumably deserves mandated inclusion in chemistry
classes.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 101 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:44 UTC 2006 |
Re #91: I know that -- but its detractors (who I'm at least playing
devil's-advocate for) claim that it's blowing up the Establishment Clause up
into something to take our freedoms away.
The first few quotes to come up on Google, just to give you a feel for what
they're trying to say (no weight at the moment):
"The founders simply meant that the government could not set up a national
church or compel its citizens to attend one church over another or to even
compel them to attend church at all. It has nothing to do with a judge wearing
a cross or any other religious symbol on their lapel. It has nothing to do with
the Ten Commandments on a stone monument in front of a courthouse. But the ACLU
has twisted the establishment clause to try to make it say what it clearly does
not."
"In modern U.S. society, we've twisted the establishment clause of the
constitution to mean 'separation of church from state', or, more appropriately,
'elimination of any religious expression from any public venue'" (That was from
a blog that, based on this one taste, I'll leave a URL to:
http://photoninthedarkness.blogspot.com/2005/11/mea-culpa.html)
"They have also twisted the Establishment Clause, which was intended to prevent
Congress from establishing an official state Church, as barring public nativity
scenes, or prayers before a a highschool football game."
"Liberal judges and lawyers have twisted the Establishment Clause to mean
freedom from religion. The Founders had in mind to guarantee freedom of
religion."
"It has twisted the Establishment Clause into a disestablishment clause, wholly
subverting original intent."
|
richard
|
|
response 102 of 432:
|
Feb 6 19:48 UTC 2006 |
You cannot prevent establishment of an official state church if you start
allowing open religous displays in courtrooms and government buildings. That
is tantamount to our elected officials and leaders sanctioning one religion
over others, and that is unconstitutional.
,
|