Kansas Evolution Fight Escalates...

[Z]

You forgot FSM in your mentions above...he deserves an equal playing field!

You mean... like a platter?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It doesn't compute that the Dali Lama would be trying to sneak the Bible in by the back door. Thus pointing out that he is a religious leader doesn't refute HypnoPsi argument.

Point taken.

This is about nothing more than sneaking god(s) in the back door.

~~ Paul

 

[Z]

If I were arguing for the legalization of drugs would that you think me a heroin addict?

Not heroin, specifically, but certainly some kind of druggie.

Why argue for a point of view that doesn't apply to you, especially one that allows people to hurt each other callously?

Just because I argue that people should have certain rights does not automatically imply that I think they are right if choose to exercise those rights.

Obviously you are - if you say 'People should have the right to...' you are saying they ARE right to do so. People should have the right to teach their children outright lies and keep them ignorant is the same as saying they ARE right to do so.

Only that I consider it more important that they be allowed to make "wrong" choices over being forced to make what the majority thinks is the "right" choice.

Who said anything about the majority? This is about fact versus fantasy, plain and simple. Has nothing to do with majority versus minority.

Please don't assume anything about what I do or do not teach my children, or how I raise them. You really don't know anything about that because I prefer not to discuss my personal life in forums such as this. I prefer not to do so precisely because people make statements like yours.

Nor did I make such assumptions. I never specifically said what I thought you actually teach your kids. I said that IF this is what you believe in - teaching children faith over reality - that I felt sorry for them. Obviously, if that's not what you believe in, then there's no need to bother with the rest of the paragraph. If, on the other hand, you took offense BECAUSE that is what you teach your kids, then the statement applies.

I don't sugar-coat my opinions to protect other people's feelings. I generally don't believe in tact. And in a way, that relates to how I feel about this issue - that religious nuts are wanting schools to 'apply tact' and 'worry about people's feelings' because the facts they teach run contrary to some people's faiths.

IMO: Screw tact. Save it for tea or business dinners. Education time is cold, hard fact time. Leave your faith at the door.

Good-bye.

Ah, if only that meant what it implied.... 'cuz I'm not leaving...

 

[Mojo]

In Norwegian, 'survival of the fittest' has always been translated to 'survival of the strongest'. Very very very bad translation, a shame we can't seem to get rid of it.

"Survival of the fittest", as far as the current theory of evolution is concerned, is really a contraction of something along the lines of "survival of those best fitted to their environment."

Does that translate better?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Obviously you are - if you say 'People should have the right to...' you are saying they ARE right to do so. People should have the right to teach their children outright lies and keep them ignorant is the same as saying they ARE right to do so.

How do you figure? There are many things I think people should have the right to do, but would be making a mistake if they did so.

~~ Paul

 

[Bronze Dog]

How do you figure? There are many things I think people should have the right to do, but would be making a mistake if they did so.

~~ Paul

For the most part, I think people have the right to gamble. Of course, I consider it a bone-headed decision, unless, maybe, you're one of those people likely to end up on "Breaking Vegas."

 

[Z]

How do you figure? There are many things I think people should have the right to do, but would be making a mistake if they did so.

~~ Paul

You might be right about that... it just sounds wrong for some reason.

I have to think about this one.

It really does sound wrong, though. "I think you should have the right to do X, but I think if you choose to do X, you're wrong." See, it just doesn't sound right to me.

Maybe because I think people shouldn't have the right to be stupid.

 

[Dr Adequate]

By the way, could someone ask Beth to take me off ignore?

 

[Dr Adequate]

And optics (the rainbow is a miracle --- it says so in the word of God, y'know).

Oh, I'd forgotten --- these people actually exist too. Living, breathing human beings, and often US citizens, whose rights must be protected.

Unless we apply the hammy test and decide that this religious view is just too nuts.

 

[Euromutt]

Point taken.

This is about nothing more than sneaking god(s) in the back door.

~~ Paul

Eh. Buddhism doesn't necessarily posit the existence of a god, either. I'd say it's about sneaking creation myths in the back door. Of course, the nice thing about ID, as opposed to Creationism, is that as long as the Designer remains unspecified, it's not just adherents of the Abrahamic Three who can get behind it.

 

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Beth :
If I were arguing for the legalization of drugs would that you think me a heroin addict?

Not heroin, specifically, but certainly some kind of druggie.

This is just plain falacious reasoning. There is no "certainly" about it.

I advocate for the legalization of drugs because I think the "War on Drugs" has done more harm to our civil liberties than anything else (prior to the equally inane "War on Terrorism"). But I, a child of the 60s and 70s, have NEVER done any drugs AT ALL. Well, unless you consider Coors a drug. I think your conclusion that Beth is "some kind of druggie" is way off base. You need to rethink the logic of your argument.

 

[PatKelley]

Originally Posted by Beth
If I were arguing for the legalization of drugs would that you think me a heroin addict?


This is just plain falacious reasoning. There is no "certainly" about it.

I advocate for the legalization of drugs because I think the "War on Drugs" has done more harm to our civil liberties than anything else (prior to the equally inane "War on Terrorism"). But I, a child of the 60s and 70s, have NEVER done any drugs AT ALL. Well, unless you consider Coors a drug. I think your conclusion that Beth is "some kind of druggie" is way off base. You need to rethink the logic of your argument.

Agreed. Ad hominem and dismissal through claiming vested interest in outcome are not really arguments; they are attempts to dismiss arguments without addressing them.

It's really possible to argue these things without resorting to name-calling or accusations.

 

[Z]

Of course it is. And of course, you're both right.

But that's my neurotic opinion.

Personally, I'm for legalizing some recreational drugs. I've never done drugs, other than alcohol or tobacco, but that's because I've never been exposed to them while I was only responsible for myself, and since becoming a father, I really don't have a safe time or place to try them.

Eh, let's face it: I'm being grumpy and irritable.

Sorry, Beth - you're not, necessarily, a druggie. Oh, well.

But you wanted my opinion - and, in my opinion, if you're willing to argue for a given point of view, then you think that point of view is, in some way, right. If you argue that people should be able to smoke pot, then you think pot-smoking is OK. If you think people should be allowed to educationally abuse their children, then you think abuse is OK. That's my opinion, and that opinion makes it hard for me to see you as anything more than an apathetic sheep, only a few steps above actual criminals on the stairs of scum.

Yep - ad hominem, all the way. At least I'll tell it to your face.

 

[supercorgi]

Governmental tyranny is very difficult to overthrow or escape. OTOH, one can escape family tyranny quite easily. Just grow up and leave. So, given a choice between the two, I prefer family tyranny. Thus, while you are right to an extent, I think on the whole, I'll maintain my opinion that it is better to allow parents the power to make those decisions than for the government to have the power make those decisions for them.

I disagree. Childhood brainwashing can be very difficult to escape because it forms an essential part of a person's identity. How can you escape that type of indoctrination if you're never exposed to other points of view through education?

 

[Z]

I disagree. Childhood brainwashing can be very difficult to escape because it forms an essential part of a person's identity. How can you escape that type of indoctrination if you're never exposed to other points of view through education?

You know, you're right, supercorgi... I had missed this tidbit.

'Family tyranny' - aka upbringing - is a foundational part of who you are. The studies are all out there (for those who were lucky enough to learn to read). Look at studies of child abuse, child molestation, etc... most of them demonstrate a clear link to history of abuse as a contributing factor. If you watched your father beat your mother all of your life, there's a strong chance you'll beat your wife. If you were raised to eat dinner at the table every night, odds are you'll want to do the same. 'Family tyranny' is almost inescapable, because when you 'grow up and leave', you still carry all of that with you - especially if your contact with other ways of life has been limited.

On the other hand, government tyranny has never been all-encompassing or all-oppressive. Regularly, what people practice at home is in direct opposition to what the government demands. Opposing ideologies survive, simply because governments are not all-penetrating, all-knowing bodies. And in a country as varied as the U.S., there are places to escape government interference to a large degree - though those places are dwindling rapidly. And not a single person is going to stand in your way if you want to go there.

Demanding that schools teach facts, though, is not government tyranny; it's good common sense. Demanding that parents be allowed to miseducate their children AGAINST standard curriculum material is poor sense, and familial tyranny.

 

[Beth]

I disagree. Childhood brainwashing can be very difficult to escape because it forms an essential part of a person's identity. How can you escape that type of indoctrination if you're never exposed to other points of view through education?

Okay, you're entitled to disagree. Yes, childhood brainwashing can be difficult to escape, but few parents are actually trying to brainwash their children. Governments, OTOH, certain do. Further, parents will only have such an affect on a few children - their own - and they are entitled to attempt to inculcate their own beliefs in their children. The affect of governmental control of education is far more widespread. Finally, children grow up and can easily seek out other sources of information beyond what their parents allow as they mature. Governments can, and often do, effectively censor information to all citizens, children and adults alike.

In the end, my conclusion is that it's better to let a few families make choices for themselves that the rest of us may object to than to allow a few citizens, even if they are elected officials such as a state BOE, make those decisions for everyone. What happens when they decide to require subjects such as ID? Or forbid certain subjects, such as ID, to be taught? Then they are imposing their beliefs on everyone.

However, as I said at the beginning, you are entitled to disagree. In fact, few people agree with me. I realize that. But it's a free country and I am allowed to hold a differing point of view and expound on it in a public forum. Personally, I like that.

 

[PatKelley]

I disagree. Childhood brainwashing can be very difficult to escape because it forms an essential part of a person's identity. How can you escape that type of indoctrination if you're never exposed to other points of view through education?

Absolutely. I'm fighting like hell to avoid doing what my father and mother did, but it's hard. It's really really hard, and I almost had the opportunity to have the government intervene, but my dad pressured me to lie to the social worker.

In my case, it would have definitely helped about twenty years of my life had the government intervened. There is some truth to the bit "it takes a village" - we just have a larger village with its hands thoroughly tied.

 

[ardee]

Intelligent Design - but what about implementation?

So much talk of intelligent design but no talk whatsoever of implementation?

Let's say people WERE designed intelligently. How was that design IMPLEMENTED?

Evolution through natural selection explains both (apparent) design AND implementation.

ID "explains' design (not really, of course) but doesn't even attempt to explain implementation. (Miracles? Magic? Supernatural?)

I'm just surprised this is never brought up in discussions of ID.

The other big omission is, of course, that the designer must be even more complex than the designee (assuming you believe in ID). Who designed THAT magnificent being??

-ardee (glad to finally be able to post here).

 

[Bronze Dog]

Welcome to the forum, and yes, that's one of the other good points: ID doesn't make predictions. Science does.

 

[ardee]

I think my point here is bigger than just ID's lack of ability to make predictions (which is an excellent point but fairly frequently discussed).

I suppose an ultra-intelligent being COULD conceivably design another being well. But that doesn't even begin to address how that blueprint, if you will, went from paper to flesh and blood. There's not a whiff of a method for transforming concept into material, from design to matter and energy. To me, that's AT LEAST as big a deal as the design itself, yet it is completely unaddressed. Worse, those of us who have a problem with ID never seem to bring this up. Why??

And, we can never forget the other facet: these ultra-intelligent beings had to come from somewhere, too!

-ardee (mid-40s MIT grad and voracious reader).