Barak Hussein Obama? or Barak Hussein Osama?

Scott Seidman wrote:
wrote in news:ans0o2tjpmnhntqmashl448skfu4b8k63s@
4ax.com:

But I don't think that trying to hide the idea that it is
the way life came about is conducive to education,

No, YOU believe that this is the way life came about, and your absolute
statement using the phrase "is" speaks well to your faith.

Now, now, Scott.....no need to resort to that sort of thing to beat up
on a punching bag. dicklet may well believe that.....it would be
thoroughly consistent with his perpetually demonstrated
muddle-headeness.....if he had anything resembling beliefs at
all.....but there is nothing in his sentence to support your
contention. Best to just beat him up in the usual fashion.

Others, in fact
many others, don't believe this to be the case, and have a variety of
hypothesis that all fall under the general class of "evolution".

Here's a good place to use that much belabored word, "about." There
are many theories "about" the mechanisms that drive evolution.
Biological evolution itself is NOT theoretical. Biological evolution
is a FACT! Moreover, it is just "about" the best documented and
supported FACT in all of science. And what makes the whole continuing
"debate" endlessly hilarious is that the first great proponent of the
correct model got it right in all of its essential details on the very
first try alomst a hundred-fifty years ago, and the vast majority on
BOTH sides of the question STILL don't get it!! What could possibly be
funnier?.......well, o.k., yeah, there's dicklet.

The
hypotheses are close to, if not actually testable and demonstrable, are
very consistent with current concepts of genetics,

Many hypothoses concerning evolutionary mechanisms are most assuredly
testable.....and have been tested.....repeatedly.....and have passed
brilliantly.

and none of them call
for the precendent "and then a miracle occurred". For me, that last phrase
really encompasses the difference between science and religion.

Oh, it's all miraculous enough. The trouble is that most folks don't
understand what "miracle" means any more than they do "evolution."

Wolfgang

wrote:
On 13 Dec 2006 21:34:05 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in news:u0r0o25h0d94dedjp6qvpubkb4c82jj7m3@
4ax.com:

On 13 Dec 2006 20:46:43 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:


Inquisitors teach this kind of intelligent design crap and call it
science. The enlightened do not.

That's pretty bold, calling something "crap" when you don't know
anything whatsoever about it.


Decades of my scientific training, including federal grant review
responsiblities, all teach me that an untestable hypothesis expounded as
"truth"is shoddy science (aka, crap). Therefore, when we teach something
like this, we don't make believe that it is good science.

IOW, that's your "untestable hypothesis expounded as truth"...

In fact, we try to make it clear that its not science at all.

I don't think it is "science" and I don't suggest it be called
"science." But I don't think that trying to hide the idea that it is
the way life came about is conducive to education, and I certainly don't
think that all information provided in a general "science" class must be
universally agreed as "science."

Theologans and religious instructors are perfectly free to discuss such
matters all they want, with whoever I want. If its taught as science in a
school system supported by my tax dollars, I'll be at the top of the class
action suit.

Now there's an open-minded attitude AND a great use of the court system!

You know what I think would be a lot of fun? I think it would be a lot
of fun to sit in a dark corner of an absinthe bar sometime and listen
to you and Bubba Jim and Earl Bob practice these junior high schoolyard
debate tactics on one another.

Wolfgang
yeah, that would be a WHOLE lot of fun!

wrote:

... I certainly don't
think that all information provided in a general "science" class must be
universally agreed as "science."

Say goodnight, Dick.

--
Ken Fortenberry

wrote in message
...
On 13 Dec 2006 21:34:05 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

But I don't think that trying to hide the idea that it is
the way life came about is conducive to education, and I certainly don't
think that all information provided in a general "science" class must be
universally agreed as "science."

HTH,
R

Why is failing to teach ID in the schools anymore hiding the idea that it
may be the way life came about anymore so than failing to teach any of the
myriad other faith based explanations of the origin of life? Just because
there may be more fundamentalists - who literally interpret those parts of
the Bible that suit their mindset (but conviently ignore those that don't)-
than there are say Navajos who believe in their version of the origin of
life and humankind, does not make ID any more likely to be true than the
Navajo belief. For that matter what makes it more likely to be true than
even beliefs that are no longer espoused, such as those of the ancient
Egyptians.


Bob Weinberger La Grande,OR

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 04:26:25 GMT, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On 13 Dec 2006 21:34:05 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

But I don't think that trying to hide the idea that it is
the way life came about is conducive to education, and I certainly don't
think that all information provided in a general "science" class must be
universally agreed as "science."

HTH,
R

Why is failing to teach ID in the schools anymore hiding the idea that it
may be the way life came about anymore so than failing to teach any of the
myriad other faith based explanations of the origin of life?

Who said it was, other than my position that it can't be "taught" as
such? I don't suggest that _every_ conceivable topic need, or even
could, be covered. My position is attempting to outlaw such subject
matter from schools is an attempt at hiding it.

Just because
there may be more fundamentalists - who literally interpret those parts of
the Bible that suit their mindset (but conviently ignore those that don't)-
than there are say Navajos who believe in their version of the origin of
life and humankind, does not make ID any more likely to be true than the
Navajo belief. For that matter what makes it more likely to be true than
even beliefs that are no longer espoused, such as those of the ancient
Egyptians.

The "truth" or likelihood of truth of any of those are not at issue. I
don't suggest that _any_ idea, theory, belief, etc. be presented as an
absolute fact, only that the information be presented in a factual,
unbiased manner. IOW, inform kids that current scientific information
indicates that evolution is by far and away the most likely accurate
theory as to the origin of current life on Earth and of the reasoning
behind that theory, but also inform them that many people currently
believe in this origin or that origin, and in the past, many have
believed this or that, and a general background of those beliefs, if
known.

And speaking of "ancient Egyptians," I find it hypocritical that not
only do few decry informing children of what ancient Egyptians believed
but would actually argue for doing so, yet these same people find it
worthy of legal intervention should someone wish to inform them of what
a great many of their contemporaries believe.

Within the bounds of common sense, a proper education should include
alternative sides of issues, and information should be readily
available. What does within the bounds of common sense mean? Obviously,
14 year-olds shouldn't be taught (see how that works) such physically
dangerous things as manufacturing explosives from household chemicals,
illegal things such as identity theft or other electronic fraud
techniques, or age-inappropriate things such as sexual techniques. But
that doesn't mean they shouldn't be taught about chemistry, computers,
and biology.

R


Bob Weinberger La Grande,OR

wrote in message
...

Who said it was, other than my position that it can't be "taught" as
such? I don't suggest that _every_ conceivable topic need, or even
could, be covered. My position is attempting to outlaw such subject
matter from schools is an attempt at hiding it.

Okay, seriously, who said anyone was "outlawing" ID?

The only thing that U.S. District Judge John E. Jones said was that the
Dover, PA school board's attempt to "insert intelligent design into the
science curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and
state." Additionally, "Jones decried the "breathtaking inanity" of the
Dover policy and accused several board members of lying to conceal their
true motive, which he said was to promote religion." Furthermore, "the
issue yielded "overwhelming evidence" establishing that intelligent design
"is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a
scientific theory," said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to
the federal bench three years ago."

Finally, "Jones wrote that he wasn't saying the intelligent design concept
shouldn't be studied and discussed, saying its advocates "have bona fide and
deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors.""
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/

So where does "outlawing" ID show up?

The "truth" or likelihood of truth of any of those are not at issue. I
don't suggest that _any_ idea, theory, belief, etc. be presented as an
absolute fact, only that the information be presented in a factual,
unbiased manner. IOW, inform kids that current scientific information
indicates that evolution is by far and away the most likely accurate
theory as to the origin of current life on Earth and of the reasoning
behind that theory, but also inform them that many people currently
believe in this origin or that origin, and in the past, many have
believed this or that, and a general background of those beliefs, if
known.

Do you believe that all of these other beliefs should be taught in a science
class?

And speaking of "ancient Egyptians," I find it hypocritical that not
only do few decry informing children of what ancient Egyptians believed
but would actually argue for doing so, yet these same people find it
worthy of legal intervention should someone wish to inform them of what
a great many of their contemporaries believe.

"Legal intervention" only occurred when a religiously biased school board
attempted to refute science with a religious interpretation of how life came
about.

Within the bounds of common sense, a proper education should include
alternative sides of issues, and information should be readily
available. What does within the bounds of common sense mean? Obviously,
14 year-olds shouldn't be taught (see how that works) such physically
dangerous things as manufacturing explosives from household chemicals,
illegal things such as identity theft or other electronic fraud
techniques, or age-inappropriate things such as sexual techniques. But
that doesn't mean they shouldn't be taught about chemistry, computers,
and biology.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with the dicussion at hand. No one has said
that ID couldn't be taught, only that it can't be taught within the context
of science, as it is not a scientific theory, but a religious
interepretation.

Would you think it logical to suggest that students in a class teaching the
religious aspects of creationism also have to study the theory of
evolution, as part of that class?

Example: The teacher say to the class, "today we will discuss the biblical
story of creation in the chapter entitled. Genesis, and tomorrow we will
discuss an alternative view of the creation of life, the theory of
evolution."

Op

R


Bob Weinberger La Grande,OR

wrote in news:c3l1o2tl5dkm8p1ua9fb61obhci3pdpsc3@
4ax.com:

And speaking of "ancient Egyptians," I find it hypocritical that not
only do few decry informing children of what ancient Egyptians believed
but would actually argue for doing so, yet these same people find it
worthy of legal intervention should someone wish to inform them of what
a great many of their contemporaries believe.


We don't teach the theories of the ancient Egyptions while making believe
that they are true. We either teach it in a social studies classroom, or
in the context of the history of science. You and I have contemporaries in
this world that fully believe they are spending their lives gathering
karma, which will directly impact upon their reincarnation and/or
enlightenment, yet we don't spend valuable time in the science classroom
instructing the students in how to avoid spending their next life as a
centipede. Perhaps we should??

I have no trouble teaching children these beliefs in the proper context,
which is in a framework of comparative religion, social studies, or history
of science. I have tremendous issues with teaching faith as science.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Scott Seidman typed:
snip
You and I
have contemporaries in this world that fully believe they are
spending their lives gathering karma, which will directly impact upon
their reincarnation and/or enlightenment, yet we don't spend valuable
time in the science classroom instructing the students in how to
avoid spending their next life as a centipede. Perhaps we should??

By golly, you may have just revealed the path to the next anti-drug program.
"Just say 'No'" was a non-starter and "Officer DARE" is certainly pabulum,
but "DO YOU WANT TO LIVE YOUR NEXT LIFE AS A CENTIPEDE?" has wings, IMHO.
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

"Tim J." wrote in
:

Scott Seidman typed:
snip
You and I
have contemporaries in this world that fully believe they are
spending their lives gathering karma, which will directly impact upon
their reincarnation and/or enlightenment, yet we don't spend valuable
time in the science classroom instructing the students in how to
avoid spending their next life as a centipede. Perhaps we should??

By golly, you may have just revealed the path to the next anti-drug
program. "Just say 'No'" was a non-starter and "Officer DARE" is
certainly pabulum, but "DO YOU WANT TO LIVE YOUR NEXT LIFE AS A
CENTIPEDE?" has wings, IMHO.

This gets better. Perhaps the Intelligent Designer would actually build a
centipede with wings! The Unification Hypothesis unfolds.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply