Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Corsair on May 05, 2005, 10:32:23 pm
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/05/AR2005050501927.html
I think I might blow a fuse.
TOPEKA, Kan., May 5 -- Debating a question that the scientific establishment considers settled, Kansas education authorities put evolutionary theory on trial Thursday in a hearing marked by sharp exchanges over Earth's origins and what students should be taught in science class.
Scientists who support the idea of intelligent design, a set of assumptions that challenges established scientific thinking, told an approving Kansas State Board of Education subcommittee that modern Darwinian theory relies too much on unproven reasoning. Gaps in the science, they argued, leave open the possibility that a creator, or an unidentified "designing mind," is responsible for earthly development.
It would not be far-fetched, said William S. Harris, a Kansas City researcher who favors intelligent design, to conclude that DNA itself is the work of an intelligent being. Students, he said, should be told that.
-
When can we nuke the southern and central plains areas of the US? :sigh:
-
as soon as I don't live there...
well it's good to see this back, the exact same topic, does someone want to start right back were we left off?
creationism is not science.
and admins this is a perfict opertunity to try out that sudgestion :D
-
I think of teaching ID as teaching sci-fi. Basically the idea is some "unidentified" advanced intelligence created life. If this isn't taught on a religious basis then the only alternative is aliens.
Teaching to students that aliens may have come down millions of years ago and made animals is pretty ridiculous. While we're at it let's teach them about hyperdrive and lightsabers.
-
It would not be far-fetched, said William S. Harris, a Kansas City researcher who favors intelligent design, to conclude that DNA itself is the work of an intelligent being. Students, he said, should be told that.
**** no.
I can 'conclude' that the great pyramids of Egypt were built by space aliens by that logic. Nevermind that there's no real evidence, it just sounds like a nice theory.
Or hey! Everything at the atomic level and below is all a hoax, a mass conspiracy. After all, everything seems solid. I can feel stuff. I don't think no electrostatic fields are there or else I'd feel them.
Yeah, I think that about sums up my thoughts on teaching intelligent design as 'fact'.
-
Learn ID in church.
Learn evolution in science class.
We already have both, and they both have a purpose.
People are dumb.
-
My computer must have been created by god then, it's way too complex.
-
"Scientists who support the idea of intelligent design"
Now there´s a contradiction in terms, if i ever saw one...
-
right up there with "preists who suport the idea that there is no god"
in history class you don't have people asking for balence between those who say that the holocost didn't happen and those who say it did.
-
Scientists who support the idea of intelligent design, a set of assumptions that challenges established scientific thinking, told an approving Kansas State Board of Education subcommittee that modern Darwinian theory relies too much on unproven reasoning. Gaps in the science, they argued, leave open the possibility that a creator, or an unidentified "designing mind," is responsible for earthly development.
It would not be far-fetched, said William S. Harris, a Kansas City researcher who favors intelligent design, to conclude that DNA itself is the work of an intelligent being. Students, he said, should be told that.
I like how they deduce a fact from a possibility.
in history class you don't have people asking for balence between those who say that the holocost didn't happen and those who say it did.
Actually, I'd love to see that done for some of those conspiracy theories that things 'never happened'. Let both sides present the 'evidence'.
-
the moon does not exist!
-
click on me, I am important (http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/blackwater/Penn_Teller-Creationism.wmv)
-
Originally posted by Raa
When can we nuke the southern and central plains areas of the US? :sigh:
people down here(texas) say the same thing about our neck of the woods(new jersey/newyork)
edit: ()for clarification
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
click on me, I am important (http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/blackwater/Penn_Teller-Creationism.wmv)
After watching that massive ammount of scientific evidence, i have seen the light!!
No, wait... that was just the TV turning on.
-
I just wanted to make sure people would watch it given how I spent like an hour uploading it.
-
well as long as the quality isn't ****ty like the last one you uploaded.
-
I have a question for the creationists:
Since you want to see creation being tought in schools, how do you feel about giving the other religions an equal shot at it, uh?
How would you like if you had to sit in a class indoctrinating you with the muslim view of creation? Or how about the Jehovas view? Or the buddhists view? Or Timothy Leary´s view?
How come we don´t hear you demanding for those other "theories" to be tought in school too?
:doubt:
-
ID is an absouletley excelent theory...
...seriously, i am 100% in favor of it
(For the plot of a sci-fi series)
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
I have a question for the creationists:
Since you want to see creation being tought in schools, how do you feel about giving the other religions an equal shot at it, uh?
How would you like if you had to sit in a class indoctrinating you with the muslim view of creation? Or how about the Jehovas view? Or the buddhists view? Or Timothy Leary´s view?
How come we don´t hear you demanding for those other "theories" to be tought in school too?
:doubt:
If Judaeo-Christian creationism has to be taught, it makes logical sense for the creation beliefs of other major faiths in the world to be taught. Otherwise it would be state sponsorship of one faith over another.
So the Hindu and Buddhist creation beliefs should also be covered, perhaps along with some local native peoples.
I would not object to "Intelligent Design" if it meant that many religions had *equal* representation, not just one faith. Then move onto the purely scientific viewpoint.
-
I seriously question the belief that humanity was an "intelligent design". Considering all the horrors we commit against eachother, both in the here and now and in the past, I believe that humanity was a "defective design".
-
Just because someone 'intelligent' designs something doesn't mean it works perfectly.
Case in point, Windows (Or SCP. :p) ;)
Edit: Hmm, not that I'm conceited or anything... :nervous:
-
then theres the nihilistic view that intelegence does not exist. i dont think there is a way to scientifficaly test free will. can we decide how the vast chain reactions in our brain operate, or do they just run and create the illusion that we do? was technollogy invented or is it a natural evolution? does the scientiffic process work in a beyond 3 dimentional universe, a universe which works in many more dimentions according to quantum mechanics and string theory? by this reasoning one cant even confirm the existince of the universe.
another thing. all things being equil the way shcools teach greek, norse and egyptian 'mythology' (all of which were and still are practiced religions), they should teach christian 'mythology' as well. you can thank the christian churge for erasing thousands of years of pagan ideaology only to teach it as mythology in school and in a negative light. the church operates as a cult in some cases, they try to dictate personality, control what knoledge you can learn, how to interpret scripture, as well as punish and discredit anyone that thinks independantly. the first thing they should teach in school is that all human knoledge is not written in stone, and is subject to change. the focus needs to get away from the details and focus on creating a mindset that promotes more open and effietent learning process.
-
I think panda thumbs and the human urethra are examples that run contrary to the concept of intelligent design. IMO the creationist 'arguement' is simply a series of over-simplificiations or sheer untruths intended to attack existing evidence and conclusions, rather than to actually derive some factual scientific conclusion.
That's why I tend to get pissed off at it; it's an attempt to destroy something they don't like rather than actually examine it and see what the proveable / evidence-able alternatives are.
This, incidentally, I find very disturbing;
[q]
It would not be far-fetched, said William S. Harris, a Kansas City researcher who favors intelligent design, to conclude that DNA itself is the work of an intelligent being. Students, he said, should be told that.[/q]
That's not science (there's simply no evidence, no way proving it); that's religion, and should be taught in religious education. That's what RE is for, after all.
-
Originally posted by Night Hammer
people down here(texas) say the same thing about our neck of the woods(new jersey/newyork)
edit: ()for clarification
You nuke Jersey, you lose all your prescription drugs. You nuke New York--well, I don't think I need to finish that one. :p Oh hell, that goes for Jersey too, since most of us are former New Yorkers.
Jeez, you know this is serious when Penn and Teller get involved.
Ha! Intelligent design! As usual the Judaeo-Christians are trying to disguise something. One just needs to look at the origin of Christmas or Easter to see this. We'd be taking a step backwards if ID were taught as science. You might as well tell me not to go into the woods, because a dragon lives there. If it must be taught, teach it in religion. They don't belong together. Teaching it as science would be an insult to the entire field of study!
-
a universe which works in many more dimentions according to quantum mechanics and string theory? by this reasoning one cant even confirm the existince of the universe.
String theory is far from being accepted science. It still doesn't hold water too well; it's a big, clumsy, over-complicated idea.
As for proving our existence, all I have to say is: Cogito ergo sum.
-
You know whats funny? People fussing about this even tho most e'm don't live in that state.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
click on me, I am important (http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/blackwater/Penn_Teller-Creationism.wmv)
Y'know, that's the first time I've EVER seen P&T's show. Is it still aired?
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
You know whats funny? People fussing about this even tho most e'm don't live in that state.:rolleyes:
:wtf:
Don't even get started on this...
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
You know whats funny? People fussing about this even tho most e'm don't live in that state.:rolleyes:
So are you promising us that stupidity and ignorance in Kansas would stay there? The have the internet in Kansas too you know.
Of course the various random hottie threads would probably get HLP branded as pornographic and we wouldn't have to see them :D
-
Originally posted by karajorma
So are you promising us that stupidity and ignorance in Kansas would stay there? The have the internet in Kansas too you know.
Naw, I'm just saying that it is the people in Kansas' choice I would think.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
You know whats funny? People fussing about this even tho most e'm don't live in that state.:rolleyes:
Precedence.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
So are you promising us that stupidity and ignorance in Kansas would stay there? The have the internet in Kansas too you know.
Of course the various random hottie threads would probably get HLP branded as pornographic and we wouldn't have to see them :D
Not in my school. We, instead, get HLP under the category "Games" and "Violence."
What violence they mean, I'll never know :wtf:
Originally posted by karajorma
Naw, I'm just saying that it is the people in Kansas' choice I would think
Irrelevant, since Creationism is religion and not Science.
It's kinda like cancer. First they teach it in some form of Religious Education, then Science, and next, it'll be World History.
-
So apparently there's some kind of law against teaching the evolutionary theory that Gil Gerard used a time machine, went back in time, and ejaculated in the primordial ooze?
-
Originally posted by Annorax
So apparently there's some kind of law against teaching the evolutionary theory that Gil Gerard used a time machine, went back in time, and ejaculated in the primordial ooze?
Yep. The F**k Rogers in the -10,000,000th Century theory was disproved a few years back. Didn't you see the paper in Nature?
-
Here's how I see it.
Science class teaches science. Theories, practices, concepts, etc. History class teaches history. English teaches English. Religion teaches religion.
Some people get that religious perspective from their school (if its say a Catholic school or whatever) and some people get that from church. And some people don't get it at all...which works too. But lets not confuse them.
These schools must not have a terribly multicultural background either as teaching just one creation concept as taught by religion is bound to make someone annoyed. I find the science version sufficiently neutral from any religious belief so that people can either use it or integrate it or not.
I like from what I read in this instance that there is at least an attempt to use integration. They aren't denying DNA or evolution...they are mostly offering a way to incorporate their religious beliefs into practical science. Which is fine...on an individual level...
-
Originally posted by IceFire
Here's how I see it.
Science class teaches science. Theories, practices, concepts, etc. History class teaches history. English teaches English. Religion teaches religion.
Some people get that religious perspective from their school (if its say a Catholic school or whatever) and some people get that from church. And some people don't get it at all...which works too. But lets not confuse them.
These schools must not have a terribly multicultural background either as teaching just one creation concept as taught by religion is bound to make someone annoyed. I find the science version sufficiently neutral from any religious belief so that people can either use it or integrate it or not.
I like from what I read in this instance that there is at least an attempt to use integration. They aren't denying DNA or evolution...they are mostly offering a way to incorporate their religious beliefs into practical science. Which is fine...on an individual level...
but in the science classroom?
-
Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
It's kinda like cancer. First they teach it in some form of Religious Education, then Science, and next, it'll be World History.
Kinda what happened to evolution.:p
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Kinda what happened to evolution.:p
Eh?
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
String theory is far from being accepted science. It still doesn't hold water too well; it's a big, clumsy, over-complicated idea.
As for proving our existence, all I have to say is: Cogito ergo sum.
Descartes was full of ****. that statement cant really be scientiffically proven.you cant correlate thinking to existing, we cant even define thinking and existing scientiffically. i find it a shame that it is the anthem for so many scientists. as for string theory being overcomplicated, it is, and to a simmilar degree as theology. you shouldnt teach what to think you should teach how to think. the context is irrelevant.
-
"Cogito ergo sum" is a philosophical proof. Simply the act of thinking is, in and of itself, something. It doesn't prove that we exist in the sense we assume we exist, but our experiences are self-evident. The basic fact that we experience, in and of itself, means that something, in some way, shape, or form, exists.
-
What Prefect said.
-
Descartes' argument is full of holes. We pulled it to pieces in debate class one night... it's really a rather poor argument.
Anyway, on topic.
Yeah, I think this is all ridiculous... doesn't anybody remember when William Jennings Bryan made a fool of himself the first time around? I mean sure, maybe the Protoss are these intelligent beings that are being referred to here, but somehow I doubt it. And if it's not the Protoss, then it must be God and that means we're teaching the Bible in public schools... oops! I'm pretty sure the country already dealt with that one too.
-
It's such an absurdly simple conclusion, though. If there is thought, something has to exist! You can wonder all you want about whether it's all an illusion or whether we're living in a giant's nose, but no matter what, thought must exist in order for it to exist.
-
the problem is that we dont know what thought really is, nor do we know what existance really is. to assume corelation or causation between the two is an act of lunacy.
-
I always thought that Descartes was referring to the idea of conscioussness/existence.
You think, therefore your thoughts must...be.
Otherwise you couldn't think.
-
WMCoolmon WINS THE PRIZE! That is exactly what it means! The debate is difficult not because of the nature of existence but because of the limitations of our grammatical structures. The verb "to be" does not describe the state in which something "is". It is simply a logical tool that says, "The void contains something." Whether we are all in a dream or plugged into machines or whatever the hell you believe, to think is to be able to positively prove to oneself that something "is". It is the most maddeningly, grammar-defyingingly self-evident concept there is.
-
do people really think, or is thinking just a random proscess no different that say nuclear fusion or fire. the apearance that i think doesnt give me the faintest clue that i actually exist. my willfull attempts at failure always tend to fail. if my thoughts controled what i do i would have certainly have failed by now. the universe in itself, when all equations are drawn will alwayse come out to the same constant. an unchanging thing is as good as nothing
-
It doesn't matter! It's still a process! It's still a thing to which we assign pronouns and place in sentences! If it did not exist we could not assign it operative terms or even discuss it because it would not be! It simply proves itself.
-
process is a fallacy, change is a fallacy
-
So don't call it a process. Call it a thing, a widget, a agioejhwapogiejwp! Words are just the way we bring about the existence of a concept.
-
words are indeed meaningless.
-
As is this thread.
-
This is called philosophy, Raa. It's one of the few things that truly separate us from the animals.
-
and the rest of the so called universe
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
This is called philosophy, Raa. It's one of the few things that truly separate us from the animals.
actually my cat is a nihilist too.
-
Really? I've been getting transcendentalist vibes from mine.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
This is called philosophy, Raa. It's one of the few things that truly separate us from the animals.
Tis still pointless, since we're all flogging the dead horse. :p
-
so we killed the horse, bbq anyone ?
-
I think, therefore I am. This can be taken on many different levels.
My cat is a hedonist. :)
-
Hell yes! I think we can all agree that nothing beats hedonism.
-
I don't entirely agree with hedonism. What if I liked to kill people? Then I should do it? We seem to equate hedonism to sex, but there's more to it than that. Isn't there? :nervous: Other than that, it's pretty high up there. I'm quite cynical however.
-
If you were hedonistic and enjoyed killing people, it would suck for other people, but for you it would be the best possible existence.
-
Oh yes, it would. Personally, I'd rather *content deleted*.
-
This is totally OT and not really science... but heck.
Unless you subscribe to dualism (i.e. thoughts and body are separate, non-physical consciousness exists) then a thought will manifest itself in something. In a human this is electrons jumping from neuron to neuron. If we're computer simulations then it would be bits in the computer.
If one thinks, then something exists to represent that thinking.