• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

My intelligently designed petition

struct24 said:
Thank you so much for you kind words. It's heartening to know that there's other principled rationalists out there who also want to fight the good fight... We rationalists must step up to the plate and make a proactive case for Science.
Click to expand...
Hey, guess how many votes you lose every time you call yourself a "rationalist". Never say that ever again. Stick to "excellence in science".

What you actually need is a short pamphlet explaining that science is not against religion and that the "atheist science" mantra of the fundies is nonsense. Tell me how many words it should be, and I'll even write it for you.
... and it needs to part of a grassroots pro-science movement.
Click to expand...
There already is one!

Texas Citizens For Science

Step 1 in your plan should probably be to join it.

They have some experience in fighting fundie legal initiatives (they were amicus curiae in the Cobb County case). This may be useful.
 
Dr Adequate said:
Hey, guess how many votes you lose every time you call yourself a "rationalist". Never say that ever again. Stick to "excellence in science".
Click to expand...

But of course, Doc. I know that my target demographic are those in the middle of the road. However, on this board, I prefer to cut loose and call a spade a spade.

Oh, and I am familiar with TCFS -- IINM, one of the honchos of that org recently challenged a high-profile creationist to an online debate. The TCFS honcho has posted his opening statement, and the creationist to date has not responded.

If I can talk TCFS into something proactive rather than reactive, then I'm on-board with them pronto.

What you actually need is a short pamphlet explaining that science is not against religion and that the "atheist science" mantra of the fundies is nonsense.
Click to expand...

I'm composing a FAQ on the issue that will contain some Q&A's addressing that very subject. Something along the lines of...

Q: Is it true that science discriminates against people of faith and discourages belief in God?
A: It is absolutely false to say that science is in any way opposed to religion or faith. Like with many professions, some scientists are atheistic or agnostic, but many scientists have religious beliefs and attend worship services regularly. Several prominent scientists, including Albert Einstein, [insert list of other scientists who have expressed religious beliefs here] have proudly professed their religious convictions. Not one single "proof that God doesn't exist" has ever been published in any legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Q: Why then is the scientific community against teaching "alternative" theories to our schoolchildren?
A: Again, it is absolutely false to say that the scientific community is unconditionally against teaching "alternative" theories in the classroom. Many of those who advocate for science are also want our children to be taught values-based topics, but they want those topics placed where they belong: in subjects like Philosophy, English, or Comparative Religions.
Q: So why is it wrong to teach "intelligent design", "creation theory" or other "alternatives" in a Biology class?
A: Because "alternatives" like "intelligent design" or "creation theory" are not scientific in nature. They are religious or philosophical theories, and belong in a completely different classroom. Teaching Religion or Philosophy as Science, or teaching Science as Religion or Philosophy, is inappropriate, dishonest, and ultimately harmful to the student body of Austin.
Q: How so?
A: Faith and Science are both important matters, but they are not the same thing, and each has their appropriate place. It is imperative that the children of Austin receive an education that does not leave them confused and ill-prepared to pursue higher education and a meaningful career. If Austin's students are not given a solid background in legitimate science, they will be much less likely to get into a top-flight college and their lifetime earning potential will be drastically reduced. Teaching our students unscientific theories in a science classroom is morally and ethically wrong.
 
You might replace the word "legitimate" in the last paragraph with "established". If you're aiming for a moderate approach, saying that your opponents' view is not legitimate is a rather harsh point that may push others away. As you said your language is different in this community as compared to the target demographic, I think this is one case where it could use softening.
 
ranson said:
You might replace the word "legitimate" in the last paragraph with "established". If you're aiming for a moderate approach, saying that your opponents' view is not legitimate is a rather harsh point that may push others away. As you said your language is different in this community as compared to the target demographic, I think this is one case where it could use softening.
Click to expand...

Well, my first use of the word "legitimate" was in a point that threw a bone to the religious or spiritual: "Not one single 'proof that God doesn't exist' has ever been published in any legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journal." Now that I'm looking that sentence over, though, I realize that's it's possible to misread it as "Not one single 'proof that God exists' has ever been published in any legitimate scientific journal." A rephrasing is called for: "There is no valid scientific proof that God is non-existent, and no reputable scientist has ever published a formal peer-reviewed paper to that effect."

As for my second use of the word "legitimate" in the phrase "If Austin's students are not given a solid background in legitimate science": being diplomatic is important, but it's equally important to take a firm stand. The fact of the matter is, evolution is legitimate science, and creationism/ID is not. I'm not saying that alternative beliefs are illegitimate in any sphere, but they are absolutely not legitimate science, and that is a point that cannot and must not be debated (at least until such time as the fundies provide evidence to support their unsubstantiated hypotheses).

Using the word "established" is conceding way too much to the fundamentalist opposition, especially since religion has at least a 1500 year leg up on science as far as being part of the societal establishment. The bedrock of legitimate science is not popularity, politics, resonance, or respect: it is cold, hard, objective evidence. Science by its very nature is antiestablishmentarian: not only will the scientific canon be rewritten if evidence is found contradicting it, but the scientific method itself begs for scrutiny and invites criticism! The antithesis is fundamentalism, which abhors dissent and will go to any length to stifle non-conformity with its established dogmatic precepts. Establishment is the lifeblood of institutional religion, and the bane of the academy.
 
"Well, my first use of the word "legitimate" was in a point that threw a bone to the religious or spiritual: "Not one single 'proof that God doesn't exist' has ever been published in any legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journal." Now that I'm looking that sentence over, though, I realize that's it's possible to misread it as "Not one single 'proof that God exists' has ever been published in any legitimate scientific journal." A rephrasing is called for: "There is no valid scientific proof that God is non-existent, and no reputable scientist has ever published a formal peer-reviewed paper to that effect.""

Wow, that is a great paragraph to read, I think. ~y and ~x and (x is correlated with y). How many total religionists are familiar with logic? "~" means not, so the last thing I wrote meant "not y and not x, and (x might imply y)"... jeez this is now tough. There is no x" becomes a statement, let's call it A. A and 'no reptutable scientist" becomes the next statement, so now all we have is "A and B."

I don't spout it much but if anyone has read the Dodgson, as opposed to Carroll, and it is like the "Froggy" problem. You have to get your "nots" sorted from your "ands" and such. Please don't flame or even reply to this. You have done the right thing by inspiring me to remember the logic world.
 
I personally think the best way to defend Evolution is to point out that it does not deny God. Nor does Earth Science deny god--its concerns are testable propositions about the past. It doesn't ask whose idea was it, it just looks at how it seems to have happened based on looking at evidence. The only thing it conflicts with is the literal truth of the story of Genesis.

By that you're reducing the opposition to bible literalists, and they aren't going to change their mind anyway. But at least then they can't claim all people of faith on their side.
 
gnome said:
By that you're reducing the opposition to bible literalists, and they aren't going to change their mind anyway. But at least then they can't claim all people of faith on their side.
Click to expand...

The thing is, not even the "Biblical literalists" are Biblical literalists! First of all, it's literally impossible to be a Biblical literalist, since the Bible's fraught with all sorts of internal contradictions and inconsistencies. Notwithstanding that, however, the fundies selectively pick and choose from their so-called "absolute authority" just as badly as -- if not worse than -- the rest of Christianity.

For instance, the fundies love using the Epistles of St. Paul to justify their anti-gay hateful bigotry, but you don't hear one peep from them about people who divorce and remarry... even though Jesus himself had not one word to say about gay persons in the Bible, but roundly condemned second marriages as sinful and adulterous.

You're absolutely right that fundamentalists won't change their mind. They're immune to logic because they're absolutely fanatical and insane. They may claim the moral high ground, but they have zero moral validity.
 
struct24 said:
You're absolutely right that fundamentalists won't change their mind. They're immune to logic because they're absolutely fanatical and insane. They may claim the moral high ground, but they have zero moral validity.
Click to expand...

Then the task is to show the others that they don't have to stand with the avowed literalists and extreme fundamentalists in order to retain their faith.
 
I'm not much of a fan of the Bible, but I will conceed that it does have a couple of points worth quoting. For instance, Luke 14:28 "For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?"

Please be aware that you will have a lot of work ahead of you. A 2004 Gallup poll reported that "almost half of the U.S. population believes that human beings did not evolve, but instead were created by God -- as stated in the Bible -- essentially in their current form about 10,000 years ago"
 
Sorry to rain on your parade...but Austin does not have petition and referendum...


So, no, you will never get enough signatures to put it on the ballot.


Edited to add: neither does the state.
 
mjv said:
Sorry to rain on your parade...but Austin does not have petition and referendum...


So, no, you will never get enough signatures to put it on the ballot.


Edited to add: neither does the state.
Click to expand...

What on Earth are you talking about?!? Austin just passed a ballot initiative to ban smoking in bars and other public accommodations! Please read the following, and then apologize for posting misinformation:

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/law/lgchta4.htm
 
Ladewig said:
I'm not much of a fan of the Bible, but I will conceed that it does have a couple of points worth quoting. For instance, Luke 14:28 "For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?"

Please be aware that you will have a lot of work ahead of you. A 2004 Gallup poll reported that "almost half of the U.S. population believes that human beings did not evolve, but instead were created by God -- as stated in the Bible -- essentially in their current form about 10,000 years ago"
Click to expand...

Great quote, thanks for that. Good reminder that we rationalists must be neither naive nor arrogant in combating the blight of ignorance that is plaguing our great nation.

I do have a lot of work ahead of me, and if I am indeed the sole voice of reason in a wilderness of fundamentalism, then I will lay down my flag. I'm no martyr, and I can't do this alone, but a movement has to start somewhere. I'm going to start this struggle, but I hope that a throng will help me finish it.
 
gnome said:
Then the task is to show the others that they don't have to stand with the avowed literalists and extreme fundamentalists in order to retain their faith.
Click to expand...

Exactly. "Science versus faith" is a false choice and a false battle...

...and bing, just like that, the light bulb goes off over my head. Thank you for inspiring a great idea, Gnome. I'm going to get in touch with the progressive religious institutions in the area and organize a multi-faith prayer service celebrating Science. If I could actually pull that off, that would be killer!
 
Logic as a tool for real life

Well, now I like this sort of thing!!

And
Or
Not
Nor = (not A and not B)

So if I say there is no God I am saying, say, A. So I say (for the sake of argument only) A.
If I say there is war, pestilence and suffering I call that B

So I say ~A and B. Or is it A must then mean ~B? Or is the relation between A and B more nuanced than that, even? Like B requires A, or A requires B? If and only if? When and only when? Ouch, the equation becomes more complex.

But others might say that B implies a ~(A) which is supposed to make me impressed with the mighty power.

This is where the "if and only if" or "if/then" loops become necessary.

~A help me, this sounds like something from a programming class where we had to hand simulate the code.

:-)
 
maybe some studies should be done of how students cope in the real world with regards to jobs, status and earning potential after being taught religious dogma as truth instead of real science.
Publish that data.
or maybe we should just let the US descend into fundamentalism, so it is no longer the world power it used to be, due to the drop in qualified scientists and rational thinkers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom