Mr. Stein goes to Jefferson City

[Jimbo07]

In case any of you missed it or would poo poo keeping up with what C/IDers are up to with the "they're liars so everything they say is a lie" rubric, this situation is a perfect example of why we need to keep up with what groups like DI are up to even if some of you chose not to read the B.S. propaganda pages they produce (copiusly) regarding the specifics of the Crevo debate.

Somehow, somewhere, we've managed to talk past each other. If Ben Stein, or DI were to come to town promoting some position or other, I wouldn't need to read it in order to guess that it's a wet sack of lies. This is because I have followed them in the past, and have read their statements before. I don't need to do any further astronomical observations, say, to assume that the sun will come up. This is a very specific list and includes (but is not limited to):

- The Discovery Insititute
- Ben Stein
- Michael Behe
- William Dembsky
- AiG
- etc.

Now, on the other hand, if some otherwise unknown MP tried to introduce some kind of private member's bill like, "Science Reform Act," or something, I would be very interested in knowing its contents, and that MP's agenda. For the above specific list, it is probably safe enough to assume that whatever they are doing contains lies...

 

[rcronk]

I think the general defensiveness we see from theists is that evolution (with abiogenesis at its foundation) indirectly teaches faith-based atheism at schools, and generally people don't want the faith of atheism taught to their kids since it goes against their faith-based theism.

Rather than inserting theism into schools, I think both faiths (theism and atheism) should stay out of schools and be taught by parents and/or churches instead.

I think schools should stick to teaching kids actual current provable usable truths, like 2+2=4, how to read, how fast a bowling ball and a feather fall in a vacuum, etc. with the goal of producing educated productive members of society who can count change at McDonald's - or whatever other job they choose.

But I'm probably completely wrong.

 

[Upchurch]

that evolution (with abiogenesis at its foundation) indirectly teaches faith-based atheism

I'm curious what you mean by "faith-based atheism".

I think schools should stick to teaching kids actual current provable usable truths, like 2+2=4, how to read, how fast a bowling ball and a feather fall in a vacuum, etc.

What makes you think evolution isn't a provable, usable truth?

 

[PrincessIneffabelle]

I think schools should stick to teaching kids actual current provable usable truths, like 2+2=4, how to read, how fast a bowling ball and a feather fall in a vacuum, etc.

Such as ...

... skin color has nothing to do with wickedness.
... modern Native Americans did not descend from Hebrews/Jews/Israelites.
... you can't use dust to make human beings.
... the Earth is not flat.
... the Earth revolves around the Sun.
... the Moon does not produce its own light.
... the Earth is not supported by pillars.
... women are not unclean and lesser beings.
... people don't live for hundreds of years.
... the notion of a world-wide flood is preposterous.
... the pain of childbirth is due to evolutionary factors, not divine punishment.
... human conscience does not reside in our kidneys (reins).
... human thinking does not occur in our hearts.
... women have the same number of ribs as men.
... rain does not come from "the windows of heaven".
... rainbows are caused by light refraction, not divine intervention.
... the different human languages did not happen suddenly.
... goats that conceive while looking at streaked rods do not have streaked baby goats.
... hares and coneys do not "chew the cud".
... bats are not birds.
... unicorns aren't real
... neither are dragons.
... neither are cockatrices
... the value of pi is not 3.
... ostriches are not cruel and inattentive parents.
... the mustard seed is not the smallest seed.
... mustard seeds do not produce trees.

Gosh, how I love The Skeptic's Annotated Bible.

 

[rcronk]

I'm curious what you mean by "faith-based atheism".

Agnostic atheism. People aren't sure if there's a God or not and so why teach either view (or theories that depend on these views) in schools? Neither are provable one way or the other in a scientific way so teach neither. Only teach things the kids can do themselves and test and experience. Leave beliefs or dis-beliefs up to parents, religions, etc.

What makes you think evolution isn't a provable, usable truth?

I think it's not natural selection and mutation, etc. that are at the core of the issue - I don't think anyone should have a problem with those things. I think it's the conclusions that are drawn from those things to the point of abiogenesis and atheism that creationists have a problem with.

I think evidence-based, repeatable, provable things should be taught in school. Abiogenesis is not currently reproducible or provable, so it's in the same class as theism in my view. Evolution ultimately implies and relies upon abiogenesis and so it's not on firm ground if you take it to its limits.

Taxpayers are paying for the teaching in schools, so why can't we only teach things that we can all generally agree upon as a society (because we can all see the repeatable experiments, etc.) as being true and as being of value? These things would be things like 2+2=4, etc.

Again, I could be wrong but I think these are valid points.

 

[WildCat]

Heh, Missouri...

I didn't know Ben Stein was a Creationist before.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

When I moved to Kansas City, Missouri, I thought the religious craziness was mostly in Kansas State proper.

Keep fighting the good fight Upchurch ....

Charlie (Ben Stein, professional actor acting Intelligently Designful) Monoxide

 

[Upchurch]

Agnostic atheism.

I assume that's what you consider "non-faith-based atheism".

People aren't sure if there's a God or not and so why teach either view (or theories that depend on these views) in schools?

Science, including evolution, does not speak to the existence of God one way or the other. How does teaching science teach that God does not exist?

Neither are provable one way or the other in a scientific way so teach neither.

Not true, but that is a topic for another thread.

Only teach things the kids can do themselves and test and experience. Leave beliefs or dis-beliefs up to parents, religions, etc.

To my knowledge, no one is suggesting teaching beliefs, only facts. However, if we consider only teaching things we can test and experience, do we give up teaching history?

I think it's not natural selection and mutation, etc. that are at the core of the issue - I don't think anyone should have a problem with those things. I think it's the conclusions that are drawn from those things to the point of abiogenesis and atheism that creationists have a problem with.

I think you are optimistic, but that is neither here nor there.

I think evidence-based, repeatable, provable things should be taught in school.

Again, there goes history class. As with many things in science, history is based on evidence that is the result of past events rather than direct observation.

Abiogenesis is not currently reproducible or provable, so it's in the same class as theism in my view. Evolution ultimately implies and relies upon abiogenesis and so it's not on firm ground if you take it to its limits.

Evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. Evolution does not speak to how life arose, only how it has changed based on raw data.

Taxpayers are paying for the teaching in schools, so why can't we only teach things that we can all generally agree upon as a society (because we can all see the repeatable experiments, etc.) as being true and as being of value? These things would be things like 2+2=4, etc.

Reality is not a democracy. You could just as easily argue that there is some disagreement on the holocaust, so why don't we leave that out of the history class?

 

[rcronk]

Upchurch - you make good points. This is a messy subject. History should be taught based on evidence and facts we have, but then again, there are revisionist histories and differences of opinion about evidence, etc. - you mentioned the holocaust, for example - there are people on both sides of that with differing views of the evidence. So you can either leave it out or teach both sides. Perhaps that's where creationists are coming from - teach both sides or teach neither - don't teach just one side or it becomes indoctrination. So I guess teaching evolution and teaching history have similar potential problems since none of us were around to witness it or write about it and the evidence we have in both situations doesn't paint the whole story.

But unfortunately people do take evolution and take it to abiogenesis or atheism. It's hard for a captive audience of children to not extend evolution to abiogenesis or atheism. I guess Atheists wouldn't have a problem with them doing that, but theists do. And that extension of evolution through abiogenesis to atheism cannot be fixed because speaking of any other possibility is currently banned in schools.

You say that reality isn't a democracy - true. But abiogenesis (or even evolution) isn't necessarily reality, it's a theory. I think we can agree as a society to leave theories alone in schools until proven true or provide opposing theories for the sake of balance. It would seem ok to allow more freedom of peoples' voices rather than silencing some because we don't believe in what they do. I think truth comes quicker with more voices than fewer.

I don't know - I'm just thinking out loud at this point, but I would like both groups to be able to see each other's points of view so they can stop arguing past each other.

 

[LibraryLady]

For those of you who don't frequent R&P, Stein's newest project is the latest evolution of the Creationism movement.

 

[LibraryLady]

For those of you who don't frequent R&P, Stein's newest project is the latest evolution of the Creationism movement.

 

[fuelair]

Holocaust revisionists have NO evidence that can support them.
Creationist have NO evidence that can support them.
Belief/Faith ARE NOT evidence.
Testimony, photographs, dug up trenches, buildings built like showers without water supplies feeding them, ovens with evidence of burned flesh/blood ARE EVIDENCE.
Fossils, geologic strata, Magnetic field records, isotope decay, Dna/RNA data ARE EVIDENCE.

You can't see or accept the point of view in education that says all views have equality. Only evidence belongs in learning - unless you plan to become a member of an organization that serves your religion exclusively.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I think evidence-based, repeatable, provable things should be taught in school. Abiogenesis is not currently reproducible or provable, so it's in the same class as theism in my view. Evolution ultimately implies and relies upon abiogenesis and so it's not on firm ground if you take it to its limits.

There are a lot of things we know related to abiogenesis that are provable and repeatable. But science class shouldn't be strictly about teaching a bunch of well proven rote facts. Science teaching should also include teaching how to go about finding out new information.

We certainly shouldn't keep abiogenesis as a subject out of science class simply because some desparate people need to hope that this will be the one time that "God did it" turns out to be the right answer.

 

[Upchurch]

History should be taught based on evidence and facts we have, but then again, there are revisionist histories and differences of opinion about evidence, etc. - you mentioned the holocaust, for example - there are people on both sides of that with differing views of the evidence. So you can either leave it out or teach both sides.

There is another consideration: that one side, namely holocaust deniers, are simply ignoring the evidence. Does such a position deserve equal consideration?

Perhaps that's where creationists are coming from - teach both sides or teach neither - don't teach just one side or it becomes indoctrination.

But why does creationism, a mythical religious construct, deserve equal consideration that it can force a sound scientific theory out of the science classroom? Why is teaching students about the physical world around them "indoctrination"?

So I guess teaching evolution and teaching history have similar potential problems since none of us were around to witness it or write about it and the evidence we have in both situations doesn't paint the whole story.

To a degree, yes. The difference is that for evolution and history anyone can review the given data and reverify the history. Creationism, on the other hand, requires faith.

But unfortunately people do take evolution and take it to abiogenesis or atheism.

That is why more education is necessary, not less.

You say that reality isn't a democracy - true. But abiogenesis (or even evolution) isn't necessarily reality, it's a theory.

This is another example of why more education is necessary. Evolution is reality. It isn't "just a theory". It is a scientific theory, just as the Theory of Gravity is or the Theory of Relativity is.

I think we can agree as a society to leave theories alone until proven true or provide opposing theories for the sake of balance.

Since evolution has been proven true, you then agree that it should be taught in schools?

I don't know - I'm just thinking out loud at this point, but I would like both groups to be able to see each other's points of view so they can stop arguing past each other.

So, I'm curious. What is my point of view, from your perspective?

 

[Upchurch]

Thanks. I thought it was funny.

 

[Jimbo07]

* Essentially double post with Upchurch *

 

[pgwenthold]

(g) Develop hiring, tenure, and promotion policies that protect individuals against viewpoint discrimination and track any reported grievances in that regard;

Heh, heh. "Viewpoint discrimination"?

Talk about a can of worms!

There's no way this type of statute could survive any challenges. Totally undefined concept, and, in the end, it will be very clear that the only "viewpoints" that they want protected are religious ones.

 

[Jimbo07]

it will be very clear that the only "viewpoints" that they want protected are religious ones.

... and specifically (if you needed to peel back one more layer of lies) conservative Christian viewpoints.

 

[pgwenthold]

... and specifically (if you needed to peel back one more layer of lies) conservative Christian viewpoints.

Good call. Time to unveil the Satanist perspective --- er... viewpoint

 

[Upchurch]

Did you watch the YouTube video i linked above? They make it very clear what ideas need protecting in the market place of ideas.