Discrimination On Scientists That Back ID

[Annie]

I was a firsthand victim of the theory of evolution (which included the theory of man's descent from apes) being forcefed to us in school back in the late 60s. I never really understood the carnival-like atmosphere that surrounded the subject. My grandfather, a teetotalling Southern Baptist put it to me in a simple manner I could understand .....

You don't have to believe it. You just have to "render unto Ceasar what is his."

Too many closed minds on the subject and I argue against THAT more than anything else.

The more I hear of other's education, the more I think I was so lucky! Which is saying a lot, considering I had the hitting nun! :shocked:

I was taught evolution, btw so was my father and mother in the 1920's. Go figure. Catholic schools all of us. At the same time, catholics being what we are, the idea that there was a 'guiding hand' an 'unmoveable mover' a 'prime force' was taught in religion classes. No proof required, faith of a gigantic magnitude. A duty and honor and requirement for salvation.

Not quite so heavy handed in today's curriculum, yet the message is still there. God started, ours is to make the best of we can.

 

[Gunny]

This is all nonsense and douchebaggery. You do not understand that a theory in science is different than just some theory that you make up. If you've got a theory you're doing really well. It's not the same as a hypothesis.

Actually, YOU are all nonsense and douchebaggery. You are about as objective as a brick.

 

[Gunny]

The more I hear of other's education, the more I think I was so lucky! Which is saying a lot, considering I had the hitting nun! :shocked:

I was taught evolution, btw so was my father and mother in the 1920's. Go figure. Catholic schools all of us. At the same time, catholics being what we are, the idea that there was a 'guiding hand' an 'unmoveable mover' a 'prime force' was taught in religion classes. No proof required, faith of a gigantic magnitude. A duty and honor and requirement for salvation.

Not quite so heavy handed in today's curriculum, yet the message is still there. God started, ours is to make the best of we can.

What I find very telling is the fact that most people with religious upbringing, whether or not they are still religious at all, are much more moderate and open-minded than the anti-religious crowd who speak in absolutes and view any opposing arguments through coffee stirs.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I was a firsthand victim of the theory of evolution (which included the theory of man's descent from apes) being forcefed to us in school back in the late 60s. I never really understood the carnival-like atmosphere that surrounded the subject. My grandfather, a teetotalling Southern Baptist put it to me in a simple manner I could understand .....

You don't have to believe it. You just have to "render unto Ceasar what is his."

Too many closed minds on the subject and I argue against THAT more than anything else.

Its actually quite amazing how closed minded the liberals of today are. ANd they think they are progressive and more open minded than conservatives. Talk about self delusionary.

Today I was playing baseball, and this girl mentioned another girl has a nice butt. I commented my wifes butt is the nicest in the world. The 2nd baseman started asking me questions about my wife. I stated she is filipina, and she, like many filipinas, dont buy into American feminists ideas, and they LIKE the idea of staying home, being mom and wifey, taking care of the man, letting him be the leader of the household. THEY BELIEVE it is better for EVERYONE involved.

Of course the most liberal person in our group had to quip, "ron, you should be back in the 40's" and went on to mumble something about women being slave, unable to vote, etc. etc.

Well, fact is, some of the things that were prevaliant in the 40's, and have been tossed out nowadays, are actually better. JUST NOT ALL OF THEM. Like I explained to the 2nd baseman, I do not expect, nor will my wife ever tolerate me treating her like a second class person, a slave, or any such nonsense. Its quite simple, we both try to outdo each other at making the other one happy, we agree on basic principles and values and the way a house should function, and we give each other tremendous amounts of freedom, and unconditional trust. I love my wife dearly, and will never let her go, untill death do us part.

Point is, our, my wife and I, conservative point of view leaves open both possibilities, however, the "open minded" enlightened liberals of our day consider any woman who thinks traditional roles are good, to be brainwashed. and are in fact bigotted about the subject, along with many others. Quite ironic. But their self delusion doesnt allow them to see that, or consider its possibility.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

What I find very telling is the fact that most people with religious upbringing, whether or not they are still religious at all, are much more moderate and open-minded than the anti-religious crowd who speak in absolutes and view any opposing arguments through coffee stirs.

Ha!, I was typing post # 64 while you were posting #63. I hadnt read your post yet. I guess we are on the same page . Were you a twin adopted at birth ??? hahahahha

 

[Annie]

What I find very telling is the fact that most people with religious upbringing, whether or not they are still religious at all, are much more moderate and open-minded than the anti-religious crowd who speak in absolutes and view any opposing arguments through coffee stirs.

Something I've noticed too Gunny. In spite of the hitting nuns, we had a pretty open upbringing as far as thinking went. It was encouraged at home and at school, truth to tell, was so when I switched to public schools in jr. high, to get away from the hitting nuns! The curriculum was more difficult in 70's, in jr. high we read Scarlet Pimpernel and Scarlet Letter. In one case we had to understand the French Revolution, in the other Puritan closemindedness. We got both.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Something I've noticed too Gunny. In spite of the hitting nuns, we had a pretty open upbringing as far as thinking went. It was encouraged at home and at school, truth to tell, was so when I switched to public schools in jr. high, to get away from the hitting nuns! The curriculum was more difficult in 70's, in jr. high we read Scarlet Pimpernel and Scarlet Letter. In one case we had to understand the French Revolution, in the other Puritan closemindedness. We got both.

I use to have a skewed view on many historical things religous. And this continued even while I became a Christian. However, some people have educated me on the subjects. Mike Medved is fascinating and brilliant. Photographic mind.

Subjects, I have been enlightened on.

Crusades
Vietnam war
History of religion in general
History of Catholocism. SOme of it has show the Catholic chruch to be better than I previously thought, some of it has shown the Church to be less than I thought.

 

[Gunny]

Its actually quite amazing how closed minded the liberals of today are. ANd they think they are progressive and more open minded than conservatives. Talk about self delusionary.

Today I was playing baseball, and this girl mentioned another girl has a nice butt. I commented my wifes butt is the nicest in the world. The 2nd baseman started asking me questions about my wife. I stated she is filipina, and she, like many filipinas, dont buy into American feminists ideas, and they LIKE the idea of staying home, being mom and wifey, taking care of the man, letting him be the leader of the household. THEY BELIEVE it is better for EVERYONE involved.

Of course the most liberal person in our group had to quip, "ron, you should be back in the 40's" and went on to mumble something about women being slave, unable to vote, etc. etc.

Well, fact is, some of the things that were prevaliant in the 40's, and have been tossed out nowadays, are actually better. JUST NOT ALL OF THEM. Like I explained to the 2nd baseman, I do not expect, nor will my wife ever tolerate me treating her like a second class person, a slave, or any such nonsense. Its quite simple, we both try to outdo each other at making the other one happy, we agree on basic principles and values and the way a house should function, and we give each other tremendous amounts of freedom, and unconditional trust. I love my wife dearly, and will never let her go, untill death do us part.

Point is, our, my wife and I, conservative point of view leaves open both possibilities, however, the "open minded" enlightened liberals of our day consider any woman who thinks traditional roles are good, to be brainwashed. and are in fact bigotted about the subject, along with many others. Quite ironic. But their self delusion doesnt allow them to see that, or consider its possibility.

Well, they know what's best for us .... just ask .... :scratch:

 

[MissileMan]

Much of the reason evolution has been given leading status, is because the only other alternative is religous. The seperation theorists, have had their way in eliminating any possiblity of God to be removed from the classroom. This removal gives evolution leading status.

I disagree, it's the amount and quality of the evidence that supports it...period!

I think this is wrong. The POSSIBILITY of a God creator should be EXPLORED side by side with evolution. If you teach the possibility of evolution, without any competing theories, then you are by default declaring there are no other theories, or, that your class is closed minded and not really up to snuff.

As you yourself has stated, any "proof" that might be offered in support of a God creator would be anectdotal hearsay. That's not sufficient evidence to include it as an alternate theory.

Now, we also know, that if kids are taugh only one thing, by the time they are old enough to question its validity on its own, may be too late, it may already be too engrained in their heads. Many parents dont, wont, cant give their kids exposure to ID unless it is given in the classroom. If you believe in seperation of Church and state, then I would suggest you either, make an exception for ID to be taught as a theological alternative to scienctific evolution, or, eliminate both from the classroom. Neither would be devastating, and would be more equitable and lacking in any "double standards".

Baloney! All a parent has to do to introduce their kids to ID is take them to any Sunday School at any local Christian church. This is where it's teaching is appropriate in the first place.

 

[Gunny]

Something I've noticed too Gunny. In spite of the hitting nuns, we had a pretty open upbringing as far as thinking went. It was encouraged at home and at school, truth to tell, was so when I switched to public schools in jr. high, to get away from the hitting nuns! The curriculum was more difficult in 70's, in jr. high we read Scarlet Pimpernel and Scarlet Letter. In one case we had to understand the French Revolution, in the other Puritan closemindedness. We got both.

LOL .... I read Frankenstein in jr high, and quite a few other books I doubt HS seniors could comprehend nowadays, so I know what you mean. When the Legends Die was another.

I was appalled when I saw my daughter's HS history homework. They teach stuff in 11th grade we had in 7th. Not to mention a lot of seems to have been rewritten since I learned it.

 

[Annie]

LOL .... I read Frankenstein in jr high, and quite a few other books I doubt HS seniors could comprehend nowadays, so I know what you mean. When the Legends Die was another.

I was appalled when I saw my daughter's HS history homework. They teach stuff in 11th grade we had in 7th. Not to mention a lot of seems to have been rewritten since I learned it.

Do NOT get me started on revisionist history! Egads. Have to hit me before 7pm!

 

[MissileMan]

I was appalled when I saw my daughter's HS history homework. They teach stuff in 11th grade we had in 7th. Not to mention a lot of seems to have been rewritten since I learned it.

They had to rewrite it you old fart! The stone tablets wouldn't fit in the backpacks! :funnyface

 

[Bullypulpit]

Okay, so now you are for throwing out discussion within the scientific community? I'm not pro-ID, certainly not within the science curriculum. With that said, I do believe that academic publications should be free forums for issues of their time. You already said you didn't read, just condemn-so let's all raise one to Joe McCarthy, but from the left.

Funny how you are so quick to join the sheep! I'm much more surprised at Bully, who normally is quite thoughtful.

Mr. Sternberg was simply tryin to bring the issue to the table for rational discussion, and his colleagues over-reacted. in turn, he over-reacted to their criticism...Bunch of thin-skinned academics. But the issue doesn't really lend itself to rational discussion as ID is clearly rooted in the irrational.

 

[no1tovote4]

Mr. Sternberg was simply tryin to bring the issue to the table for rational discussion, and his colleagues over-reacted. in turn, he over-reacted to their criticism...Bunch of thin-skinned academics. But the issue doesn't really lend itself to rational discussion as ID is clearly rooted in the irrational.

While not rooted strongly in the scientific process it is clearly not irrational to suggest that maybe something designed our particular form of life and to look for evidence of such. While I personally believe that God would be smart enough to hide his tracks and such evidence will be limited to Faith it doesn't seem irrational to think that there might be evidence of such design, suggesting such seems petty and irrational to me.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

While not rooted strongly in the scientific process it is clearly not irrational to suggest that maybe something designed our particular form of life and to look for evidence of such. While I personally believe that God would be smart enough to hide his tracks and such evidence will be limited to Faith it doesn't seem irrational to think that there might be evidence of such design, suggesting such seems petty and irrational to me.

Someone's rational is someone else's irrational.

 

[no1tovote4]

Someone's rational is someone else's irrational.

Rational is a definable term that we can agree on. The assumption that since it isn't based in the scientific process it cannot be rational is simply incorrect.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Rational is a definable term that we can agree on.

Rational is a relative term, not a definitive one.

The assumption that since it isn't based in the scientific process it cannot be rational is simply incorrect.

True.

 

[no1tovote4]

Rational is a relative term, not a definitive one.

Which is why I said we could agree on the term, not that there is a cemented definition that would easily end all argument.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Which is why I said we could agree on the term, not that there is a cemented definition that would easily end all argument.

Come on, let me find something to argue with you about Do you have any other hairs I can split?

 

[no1tovote4]

Come on, let me find something to argue with you about Do you have any other hairs I can split?

I guess I am just a uniterist and not a dividerist....

:teeth: