• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Judiciarchy

Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I.D. is a theory that in a sense takes new scientific discoveries combined with the flaws in evolution and unites them under a new theory. Now its the most supported alternative to evolution that I have seen proposed, and there are many 'non-relgious' arguemnts backing it up, so wht not present them in the classroom? ALSO secular humanism is refferred to as a relgion by the supreme court, if you would like the case i will gladly give it to you. thats why i dont believe in seperation between church and state to the poitn where some ppl want/have it. yes some seperation is nessacary, but were gettting to the point were we want NO religion in schools, not a signel mention of it by anyone, despite our rich cultural history that has relgion infused in it.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Busta said:
I want I.D. in the science class because it is a scientific subject, no more religious then evolution.
The trial in dover proves you wrong. it also shows that ID does not show evidence developed through the Scientific Method. Hence, calling it science is a lie.
There are a number of holes in evolution as it pertains to the origin of the species,
Such as?
and I believe that excluding scientific evidence which supports I.D. as a valid scientific theory is propagandic, arrogant and ignorant.
But then, any evidence supporting ID is velcome in science class. It just so happens that there isn't any to exclude.
[quoteSince my school neglected to teach the scientific theory of I.D., I am now forced to homeschool myself on the subject.
As a result, I am not yet ready to argue I.D.[/quote]Yet you claim to know that it is science and should be taught in science class? That sounds fishy.
If teaching the theory of I.D. violates the Wall of Separation, then so does teaching the theory of evolution (Scientology).
Sophistic nonsense. Scientology believs that humans come from another planet and such does NOT go for Evolution. Your claim is false
Even if I were to teach my sons that God folded his arms, wiggled his nose and blinked the universe into existence, they are not in danger, and thus my fundamental Constitutional right "in the care, custody, and control" of my children superseeds the state's intrest in them as citizens.
Yes, you have the right to lie to your kids all you want at home. You can even teach them the lies of creationism and ID if you want to.
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Blizzard Warrior said:
It has a very liberal reputaion you cant deny that, and fourth place is NOT that good a rank, by the way i would like a refernce for taht information.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511090012


I.D. is a theory that in a sense takes new scientific discoveries combined with the flaws in evolution and unites them under a new theory. Now its the most supported alternative to evolution that I have seen proposed, and there are many 'non-relgious' arguemnts backing it up, so wht not present them in the classroom? ALSO secular humanism is refferred to as a relgion by the supreme court, if you would like the case i will gladly give it to you. thats why i dont believe in seperation between church and state to the poitn where some ppl want/have it. yes some seperation is nessacary, but were gettting to the point were we want NO religion in schools, not a signel mention of it by anyone, despite our rich cultural history that has relgion infused in it.

Ask a scientist. There is no support in the scientific community for I.D., and it does not meet the criteria required for it to be considered a scientific theory. Like I said before, there has not been a single peer-reviewed paper published supporting I.D.. There is simply no evidence for it.

And, even though it is irrelevant, how could secular humanism be a religion? The word secular, by definition, discards religion.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Blizzard Warrior said:
Ever heard of Michael Behe?
Yes, he testified in the recent trial in Dover, where his claims were proven non-scientific to the point where he had to ADMIT that per his definition of science, astrology would be considered science.

He was also proven to have outright lied about the scientific peer-review for his books and articles, and it was PROVEN that the one study he actually did where he set up the design to disprove evolution, evolution actually HAPPENED.

I don't think we will hear much from the liar Behe in the near future.
I recall reading in a magazine that 58% of medical doctors something that flies in the face of evolution, ill have to find the magazine and look it up for you.
No kidding, Yes you must look that up for us and provide the reference because that flies in the face of the reality of medicine. Antibiotic resistence is the result of evolution, and 58% of medical doctors are not killing off their patients because they ignore bacterial resistance.
Like over a period of time species slowly change to adapt to their environment and variations in different species occur.
Huh? What do you mean?
I am surprised that you have never heard of the terms micro and macro evolution,
I have heard the terms, but generally, when the creationists try to define the dividing line and find out that there then actually is evidence for what they called "macro-evolution," then the definitions suddenly change. So I am asking you ahead of time what YOU mean with these terms, so you can't pull that dishonest trick later.
but then again not many people use it. Macro evolution is the idea that in a chemical pool in ideal conditions evolved protein molecules which eventually evolved into singular celled organisms and which in turn evolved in multi cellular organisms et cetera.
Really? That would mostly be abiogenesis, which is not evolution at all. The Scientific Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with how life came to be in the first place.

Typically, when I initially talk with creationists, they claim high and low that "macro-evolution" is the emergence of new species, which they then claim has never been shown to occur. I shall hold further comments on this until you clarify and confirm. Because YOUR explanation certainly is utter nonsnese. Abiogenesis is Organic Chemistry which is not even in the field of Biology and hence has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution to begin with.
I do believe that evolution teaches that humans and apes share a common lineage, thus a common ancestors so like ogn. A evolved into 3 variations ogn. B. C. and D. B is like gorillas C. is chimpanzees, and D. are humans (homo sapiens sepia).
Well, that is to SOME extend true. Not exactly as you describe it, though. And it is Homo sapiens sapiens, just FYI)
Well if you think about it a lot of evolution is faith in a sense,[/quot]Nope. If you think about it, evolution is about the data and the evidence, not about faith. So your claim is false, showing extreme ignorance of Evolution, biology and even the very basic concepts of all science itself. Almost NOTHING that you have said about Evolution or Science has been true so far.
I know your going to hate this, but there are LARGE gaps in the fossil record,
Are there? "large gaps"? How large? Could you please document this? Or do you not have any actual knowledge of this, relying on fundie moral fervor and "just because I say so" postulations?
and wholes in the theory
Such as?
(notice how it’s called a theory)
AND WE HAVE A WINNER!!!! ding, ding, ding.
You have just shown complete and utter ignorance of the steps of the Scientific Method, the most basic aspect of Science.

The ones who really and truly have NO idea at all what they are talking about, they are the ones who come up with this silly and stupid claim

It is incredibly insulting that people like you will come and spew falsehoods and lies and couldn't even be bothered to have even the tiniest clue of what you are talking about. You know absolutely NOTHING about what science even is, when you can make such a remark.

Go read up on the SCIENTIFIC METHOD before being more insultive by spewing outright falsehoods without having ANY knowledge whatsoever of what you are talking about. Such behavior is incredibly insulting. You should be ashamed of yourself. You have basically now showed that every word you have posted is a lie, a deliberate misrepresentation.
and animals that defy evolution.[/quoteThere are no such things. Your claim is false.
I don’t know any evolutionists who believe this, but then again I always try to avoid labels because they are very general and you get different ‘sects’ in a label.
I don't need a label here. Rather, you, by your very own display of extreme ignorance even of the Scientific Method, have shown yourself dishonest and your claims thus not worth bothering with.
You are aware that many scientific principles were derived and supported from the Catholic church,
Tell THAT to Gallileo.:rofl
as a matter of fact modern education as we know it wouldn’t be around if it weren’t for the Catholic church.
Ah, another false claim. You are full of those today.
By the way I found this:

The Catholic Church has always taught .....
And so what? You don't even know what science is, so why does this have any relevance to your arguments?
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
You state in a previous post that it has 76% turnover rate, and the national average is 77%, well the reference you have me said this “During its 2004-05 term, the Supreme Court reversed 84 percent of the cases it chose to hear from appeals of 9th Circuit decisions, compared to a 73 percent average reversal rate for all circuit courts of appeals.*” So I am not sure if I am reading the wrong part, please correct me if I’m wrong. Now yes it does have a less of a ratio but it DOES have the highest number of turnover cases…period. You can water down the point of my argument, but you shouldn’t be calling me ‘silly’ and trying to skew the truth. I would think that the reason for no peer-review evidence is that it’s a brand fresh new theory from the scientific community, and sure many people are against Michael Behe and one of his many books, but the same can be said for Richard Dawkins right? I found a great article on the religion behind secular humanism, if you wish I can get it for you. And I would say it is relevant, because in a sense we learn secular humanistic values in school, and although they should be taught, along side other morals and principles, I am not enforcing morals onto anybody simply teaching them about different viewpoints, so liberals are either too closed minded to learn different perspectives, or scared of the truth. Just because they aren’t theistic there are very few complaints from the left about them, but as soon as you add theism then liberals lash out in every direction.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Busta said:
You're so cute, steen.
I love you.
<bashful, seductive batting of eye lids> :3oops:
Waite, waite, let me guess......."Dishonest Pro. I.D. revisionist linguistic hyperbole, sophistry, and intellectual enslavement of children".....right?
Well, they were shown to lie, but yes there is an argument for each of the above terms.
But to answer your question, no. When parents wish to push lying non-science on the Science teacher, they should not be listened to.
When parents wish to push secular, logical science on the science teacher, then they should be listened to.
Which is what happened in Dover, PA. The lying, non-scientific claims of the ID movement was dumped.
I believe that the fatal blunder of those who wish for I.D. to be in the science class made recently, is that they wanted a religious element in the curriculum. Within an I.D. curriculum, the question of "who" or "what" the intelligence is should be left open for the student to answer personally.
Only scientific evidence which supports an intelligent design should be presented.
Agreed. Here is the SCIENTIFIC evidence that supports ID:

" "
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Blizzard Warrior said:
Great point Busta, and that is EXACTLY why the case is mostly likely en route to be over turned. by either the eitire 9th circuit OR the supreme court.
What an ignorant claim. Dover, PA is NOT on the westcoast, and as such an appeal would not go to the 9th.

That aside, the voters of Dover kicked out the fundies from the school board and are not going to appeal. So it won't reach the US Supreme Court.
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Blizzard Warrior said:
You state in a previous post that it has 76% turnover rate, and the national average is 77%, well the reference you have me said this “During its 2004-05 term, the Supreme Court reversed 84 percent of the cases it chose to hear from appeals of 9th Circuit decisions, compared to a 73 percent average reversal rate for all circuit courts of appeals.*” So I am not sure if I am reading the wrong part, please correct me if I’m wrong. Now yes it does have a less of a ratio but it DOES have the highest number of turnover cases…period. You can water down the point of my argument, but you shouldn’t be calling me ‘silly’ and trying to skew the truth. I would think that the reason for no peer-review evidence is that it’s a brand fresh new theory from the scientific community, and sure many people are against Michael Behe and one of his many books, but the same can be said for Richard Dawkins right? I found a great article on the religion behind secular humanism, if you wish I can get it for you. And I would say it is relevant, because in a sense we learn secular humanistic values in school, and although they should be taught, along side other morals and principles, I am not enforcing morals onto anybody simply teaching them about different viewpoints, so liberals are either too closed minded to learn different perspectives, or scared of the truth. Just because they aren’t theistic there are very few complaints from the left about them, but as soon as you add theism then liberals lash out in every direction.

Really? Because in the "aims" of the Council for Secular Humanism website, I fail to see anything that has anything to do with religion. In fact, it says that one of the precepts of the philosophy is that they search for objective truth.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=what

And no, you are entirely wrong about Intelligent Design and it's status as being peer-reviewed. You clearly have no knowledge about how the scientific community works. The idea of Intelligent Design has been around for years, and generally a paper is published on a subject before it enters mainstream scientific discussion. The only reason that Intelligent Design is being mentioned at all is because religious groups have forced it into the public sphere, not because it has any genuine scientific merit.
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Reference: please to the Behe accusation. Im getting to the medical thing, bball has really made free time other then online hard to get. Ok the basic pillars of evolution that I am being taugh in 9th grade science right now in my biology class is exactly what I am telling you. Now I haven’t bothered to look up or back up what I am saying about evolution because I figured my teacher having a masters in biology wouldn’t “spew lies of falsehood et cetra”. I will double check what my biology textbook says about evolution though. Hey man take it easy this is a civilized debate, don’t hurt yourself. Of course there are a examples of the Catholic church trying to avoid the advance of science, but again you only look at one side of things. Look at Mendel for example: Mendel, the first person to trace the characteristics of successive generations of a living thing, was not a world-renowned scientist of his day. Rather, he was an Augustinian monk who taught natural science to high school students. He was the second child of Anton and Rosine Mendel, farmers in Brunn, Moravia. Mendel's brilliant performance at school as a youngster encouraged his family to support his pursuit of a higher education, but their resources were limited, so Mendel entered an Augustinian monastery, continuing his education and starting his teaching career. - http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Gregor_Mendel.html

Look at this picture >>>>> http://www.mendelweb.org/CollText/homepage.html
I don’t know about you but I see a bunch of intelligent Catholic scientists.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Blizzard Warrior said:
I.D. is a theory
Well it is pure speculation, so it certainly is not a Scientific Theory.
that in a sense takes new scientific discoveries
Which new scientific discoveries are you talking about? I haven't seen any documented anywhere. I think that you are just dishonest and are making this up.
[
combined with the flaws in evolution
What flaws? The ones you listed earlier weren't even part of Evolution, so I doubt you can justify your wild claim.
and unites them under a new theory.
But not a Scientific Theory.
Now its the most supported alternative to evolution that I have seen proposed,
What do you mean with "supported"? By evidence? Would you mind listing this supportive evidence?
and there are many 'non-relgious' arguemnts backing it up,
"arguments"? But not evidence, so WTF does that matter? There are people who "ARGUE" that the Earth is flat also.
so wht not present them in the classroom?
Because they are creationist lies.
ALSO secular humanism is refferred to as a relgion by the supreme court, if you would like the case i will gladly give it to you.
How irrelevant, as that has nothing to do with science. Could you please start coming accross as having even a tiny clue what you are talking about? Otherwise you are not worth the time.
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Blizzard Warrior said:
Reference: please to the Behe accusation. Im getting to the medical thing, bball has really made free time other then online hard to get. Ok the basic pillars of evolution that I am being taugh in 9th grade science right now in my biology class is exactly what I am telling you. Now I haven’t bothered to look up or back up what I am saying about evolution because I figured my teacher having a masters in biology wouldn’t “spew lies of falsehood et cetra”. I will double check what my biology textbook says about evolution though. Hey man take it easy this is a civilized debate, don’t hurt yourself. Of course there are a examples of the Catholic church trying to avoid the advance of science, but again you only look at one side of things. Look at Mendel for example: Mendel, the first person to trace the characteristics of successive generations of a living thing, was not a world-renowned scientist of his day. Rather, he was an Augustinian monk who taught natural science to high school students. He was the second child of Anton and Rosine Mendel, farmers in Brunn, Moravia. Mendel's brilliant performance at school as a youngster encouraged his family to support his pursuit of a higher education, but their resources were limited, so Mendel entered an Augustinian monastery, continuing his education and starting his teaching career. - http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BC/Gregor_Mendel.html

Look at this picture >>>>> http://www.mendelweb.org/CollText/homepage.html
I don’t know about you but I see a bunch of intelligent Catholic scientists.

No one is talking about Catholicism, stop bringing it up.

Go ahead, read up on Intelligent Design and Behe's sham of a book:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Today is the official release date for my new book, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. From the role of the monks (they did much more than just copy manuscripts) to art and architecture, from the university to Western law, from science to charitable work, from international law to economics, the book delves into just how indebted we are as a civilization to the Catholic Church, whether we realize it or not.
By far the book’s longest chapter is "The Church and Science." We have all heard a great deal about the Church’s alleged hostility toward science. What most people fail to realize is that historians of science have spent the past half-century drastically revising this conventional wisdom, arguing that the Church’s role in the development of Western science was far more salutary than previously thought. I am speaking not about Catholic apologists but about serious and important scholars of the history of science such as J.L. Heilbron, A.C. Crombie, David Lindberg, Edward Grant, and Thomas Goldstein.
It is all very well to point out that important scientists, like Louis Pasteur, have been Catholic. More revealing is how many priests have distinguished themselves in the sciences. It turns out, for instance, that the first person to measure the rate of acceleration of a freely falling body was Fr. Giambattista Riccioli. The man who has been called the father of Egyptology was Fr. Athanasius Kircher (also called "master of a hundred arts" for the breadth of his knowledge). Fr. Roger Boscovich, who has been described as "the greatest genius that Yugoslavia ever produced," has often been called the father of modern atomic theory.
In the sciences it was the Jesuits in particular who distinguished themselves; some 35 craters on the moon, in fact, are named after Jesuit scientists and mathematicians.
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
By the eighteenth century, the Jesuits
had contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics and electricity. They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter’s surface, the Andromeda nebula and Saturn’s rings. They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon effected the tides, and the wave-like nature of light. Star maps of the southern hemisphere, symbolic logic, flood-control measures on the Po and Adige rivers, introducing plus and minus signs into Italian mathematics – all were typical Jesuit achievements, and scientists as influential as Fermat, Huygens, Leibniz and Newton were not alone in counting Jesuits among their most prized correspondents [Jonathan Wright, The Jesuits, 2004, p. 189].
Seismology, the study of earthquakes, has been so dominated by Jesuits that it has become known as "the Jesuit science." It was a Jesuit, Fr. J.B. Macelwane, who wrote Introduction to Theoretical Seismology, the first seismology textbook in America, in 1936. To this day, the American Geophysical Union, which Fr. Macelwane once headed, gives an annual medal named after this brilliant priest to a promising young geophysicist.
The Jesuits were also the first to introduce Western science into such far-off places as China and India. In seventeenth-century China in particular, Jesuits introduced a substantial body of scientific knowledge and a vast array of mental tools for understanding the physical universe, including the Euclidean geometry that made planetary motion comprehensible. Jesuits made important contributions to the scientific knowledge and infrastructure of other less developed nations not only in Asia but also in Africa and Central and South America. Beginning in the nineteenth century, these continents saw the opening of Jesuit observatories that studied such fields as astronomy, geomagnetism, meteorology, seismology, and solar physics. Such observatories provided these places with accurate time keeping, weather forecasts (particularly important in the cases of hurricanes and typhoons), earthquake risk assessments, and cartography. In Central and South America the Jesuits worked primarily in meteorology and seismology, essentially laying the foundations of those disciplines there. The scientific development of these countries, ranging from Ecuador to Lebanon to the Philippines, is indebted to Jesuit efforts.
The Galileo case is often cited as evidence of Catholic hostility toward science, and How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization accordingly takes a closer look at the Galileo matter. For now, just one little-known fact: Catholic cathedrals in Bologna, Florence, Paris, and Rome were constructed to function as solar observatories. No more precise instruments for observing the sun’s apparent motion could be found anywhere in the world. When Johannes Kepler posited that planetary orbits were elliptical rather than circular, Catholic astronomer Giovanni Cassini verified Kepler’s position through observations he made in the Basilica of San Petronio in the heart of the Papal States. Cassini, incidentally, was a student of Fr. Riccioli and Fr. Francesco Grimaldi, the great astronomer who also discovered the diffraction of light, and even gave the phenomenon its name.
I’ve tried to fill the book with little-known facts like these.
To say that the Church played a positive role in the development of science has now become absolutely mainstream, even if this new consensus has not yet managed to trickle down to the general public. In fact, Stanley Jaki, over the course of an extraordinary scholarly career, has developed a compelling argument that in fact it was important aspects of the Christian worldview that accounted for why it was in the West that science enjoyed the success it did as a self-sustaining enterprise. Non-Christian cultures did not possess the same philosophical tools, and in fact were burdened by conceptual frameworks that hindered the development of science. Jaki extends this thesis to seven great cultures: Arabic, Babylonian, Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu, and Maya. In these cultures, Jaki explains, science suffered a "stillbirth." My book gives ample attention to Jaki’s work.
Economic thought is another area in which more and more scholars have begun to acknowledge the previously overlooked role of Catholic thinkers. Joseph Schumpeter, one of the great economists of the twentieth century, paid tribute to the overlooked contributions of the late Scholastics – mainly sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Spanish theologians – in his magisterial History of Economic Analysis (1954). "t is they," he wrote, "who come nearer than does any other group to having been the ‘founders’ of scientific economics." In devoting scholarly attention to this unfortunately neglected chapter in the history of economic thought, Schumpeter would be joined by other accomplished scholars over the course of the twentieth century, including Professors Raymond de Roover, Marjorie Grice-Hutchinson, and Alejandro Chafuen.
The Church also played an indispensable role in another essential development in Western civilization: the creation of the university. The university was an utterly new phenomenon in European history. Nothing like it had existed in ancient Greece or Rome. The institution that we recognize today, with its faculties, courses of study, examinations, and degrees, as well as the familiar distinction between undergraduate and graduate study, come to us directly from the medieval world. And it is no surprise that the Church should have done so much to foster the nascent university system, since the Church, according to historian Lowrie Daly, "was the only institution in Europe that showed consistent interest in the preservation and cultivation of knowledge."
The popes and other churchmen ranked the universities among the great jewels of Christian civilization. It was typical to hear the University of Paris described as the "new Athens" – a designation that calls to mind the ambitions of the great Alcuin from the Carolingian period of several centuries earlier, who sought through his own educational efforts to establish a new Athens in the kingdom of the Franks. Pope Innocent IV (1243–54) described the universities as "rivers of science which water and make fertile the soil of the universal Church," and Pope Alexander IV (1254–61) called them "lanterns shining in the house of God." And the popes deserved no small share of the credit for the growth and success of the university system. "Thanks to the repeated intervention of the papacy," writes historian Henri Daniel-Rops, "higher education was enabled to extend its boundaries; the Church, in fact, was the matrix that produced the university, the nest whence it took flight."
As a matter of fact, among the most important medieval contributions to modern science was the essentially free inquiry of the university system, where scholars could debate and discuss propositions, and in which the utility of human reason was taken for granted. Contrary to the grossly inaccurate picture of the Middle Ages that passes for common knowledge today, medieval intellectual life made indispensable contributions to Western civilization. In The Beginnings of Western Science (1992), David Lindberg writes:
t must be emphatically stated that within this educational system the medieval master had a great deal of freedom. The stereotype of the Middle Ages pictures the professor as spineless and subservient, a slavish follower of Aristotle and the Church fathers (exactly how one could be a slavish follower of both, the stereotype does not explain), fearful of departing one iota from the demands of authority. There were broad theological limits, of course, but within those limits the medieval master had remarkable freedom of thought and expression; there was almost no doctrine, philosophical or theological, that was not submitted to minute scrutiny and criticism by scholars in the medieval university.
"cholars of the later Middle Ages," concludes Lindberg, "created a broad intellectual tradition, in the absence of which subsequent progress in natural philosophy would have been inconceivable."
Historian of science Edward Grant concurs with this judgment:
What made it possible for Western civilization to develop science and the social sciences in a way that no other civilization had ever done before? The answer, I am convinced, lies in a pervasive and deep-seated spirit of inquiry that was a natural consequence of the emphasis on reason that began in the Middle Ages. With the exception of revealed truths, reason was enthroned in medieval universities as the ultimate arbiter for most intellectual arguments and controversies. It was quite natural for scholars immersed in a university environment to employ reason to probe into subject areas that had not been explored before, as well as to discuss possibilities that had not previously been seriously entertained.
The creation of the university, the commitment to reason and rational argument, and the overall spirit of inquiry that characterized medieval intellectual life amounted to "a gift from the Latin Middle Ages to the modern world…though it is a gift that may never be acknowledged. Perhaps it will always retain the status it has had for the past four centuries as the best-kept secret of Western civilization."
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Blizzard Warrior said:
I would think that the reason for no peer-review evidence is that it’s a brand fresh new theory
\No, it isn't. It has been around for decades.
from the scientific community,
No, it isn't. There are no scirentific arguments for ID. Your claim is false.
and sure many people are against Michael Behe and one of his many books,
Irrelevant. It is not about who is against or not. It is about what the evidence is. You REALLY have no clue what science is, do you?
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
steen said:
What an ignorant claim. Dover, PA is NOT on the westcoast, and as such an appeal would not go to the 9th.

That aside, the voters of Dover kicked out the fundies from the school board and are not going to appeal. So it won't reach the US Supreme Court.

Dear steen i was talking about the case of the 9th circuit court of appeals
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Engimo said:
Really? Because in the "aims" of the Council for Secular Humanism website, I fail to see anything that has anything to do with religion. In fact, it says that one of the precepts of the philosophy is that they search for objective truth.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=what

And no, you are entirely wrong about Intelligent Design and it's status as being peer-reviewed. You clearly have no knowledge about how the scientific community works. The idea of Intelligent Design has been around for years, and generally a paper is published on a subject before it enters mainstream scientific discussion. The only reason that Intelligent Design is being mentioned at all is because religious groups have forced it into the public sphere, not because it has any genuine scientific merit.


Interesting, did you know that the kansas school board has iniated I.D. Also most of the sources that i am using to do my research paper on for my bio project are very scientific, now i am not scientist, but more people are acception I.D. as an alternative, at least from what i can see in my school and local schools, NOTE that i live in mass....so yea
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Blizzard Warrior said:
Interesting, did you know that the kansas school board has iniated I.D. Also most of the sources that i am using to do my research paper on for my bio project are very scientific, now i am not scientist, but more people are acception I.D. as an alternative, at least from what i can see in my school and local schools, NOTE that i live in mass....so yea

Too bad that the Dover decision has set a pretty clear precedent (not a legal one, but an ideological one) about how the government should deal with I.D.. The judge declared rather unequivocally that I.D. is not science and has absolutely no place in our schools. Hopefully a case will come before the Supreme Court to make this judicial precedent.
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
is the JUDGE a scientist? his suppose to interpet the laws of the land, not scientific theory. also Catholism is relvent to what steen was saying about how he didnt care about a Catholic church or any other "non-scientific" organization. I was just ginving him countless counter examples to his "ask gallileo" thing

and can everyone stop saying im 'spewing flasehood' and that i 'dont know what i am talking about' becuase i am simply typing what my biology textbook is saying and what my bio teacher teaches us in class.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Blizzard Warrior said:
Reference: please to the Behe accusation.
http://www.ydr.com/doverwestyork/ci_3219285
HARRISBURG - Dr. Michael Behe, leading intellectual light of the intelligent design movement, faced a dilemma.

In order to call intelligent design a "scientific theory," he had to change the definition of the term. It seemed the definition offered by the National Academy of Science, the largest and most prestigious organization of scientists in the Western world, was inadequate to contain the scope and splendor and just plain gee-willigerness of intelligent design.
So he devised his own definition of theory, expanding upon the definition of those stuck-in-the-21st-century scientists, those scientists who ridicule him and call his "theory" creationism in a cheap suit.
He'd show them. He'd come up with his own definition.
Details aside, his definition was broader and more inclusive of ideas that are "outside the box." So, as we learned Tuesday, during Day 11 of the Dover Panda Trial, under his definition of a scientific theory, astrology would be a scientific theory.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html
Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes.
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Im getting to the medical thing, bball has really made free time other then online hard to get.
Iwill gladly wait for that one. ;)
Ok the basic pillars of evolution that I am being taugh in 9th grade science right now in my biology class is exactly what I am telling you.
Evolution is the change in alleles in a population over generationsl time.

THAT is evolution. Did you know that?
Now I haven’t bothered to look up or back up what I am saying about evolution because I figured my teacher having a masters in biology wouldn’t “spew lies of falsehood et cetra”.
Did your teacher tell you that a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, instead of being the end product of the Scientific Metod, instead is "only a theory"? Is THAT were you got that outright misrepresentation form?

OR did you enter a debate about science without even knowing what science is to begin with?

Look at Mendel for example: Mendel, the first person to trace the characteristics of successive generations of a living thing, was not a world-renowned scientist of his day.
And so what? Haven't you figured out that it is not the person but rather the DATA and EVIDENCE that matters?
 

Engimo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
1,042
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Blizzard Warrior said:
is the JUDGE a scientist? his suppose to interpet the laws of the land, not scientific theory. also Catholism is relvent to what steen was saying about how he didnt care about a Catholic church or any other "non-scientific" organization. I was just ginving him countless counter examples to his "ask gallileo" thing

and can everyone stop saying im 'spewing flasehood' and that i 'dont know what i am talking about' becuase i am simply typing what my biology textbook is saying and what my bio teacher teaches us in class.

No, the judge is not a scientist, but he is going on weeks of testimony from actual scientists as well as people like Behe who advocate Intelligent Design. Believe me, this case was pretty well discussed.

As to your last bit, I present you with two explanations:

1. You misunderstand/misread your teacher and textbook.
2. Your teacher/textbook are wrong.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Blizzard Warrior said:
Today is the official release date....
Generally, when you copy text from a webpage, especially if you copy the entire page, you need to site the source. Otherwise, you are plagiarizing and very likely violating copyright.

That aside, your post is utterly irrelevant and completely without connection to what we are talking about. Are you trying to distract from the conversation to not having to show that you truly are utterly and completely ignorant of science?
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Blizzard Warrior said:
Interesting, did you know that the kansas school board has iniated I.D.
Yes, they are next in big fat lawsuits. Unless KS AGAIN kick out the fundie idiots that they elected, KS is the next lawsuit, and another paycheck for the ACLU lawyers. Dover now have to come up with $ 1 mill. How much do you think KS has to pay? And then on to Ohio and SC.
Also most of the sources that i am using to do my research paper on for my bio project are very scientific,
Really? How did you know?
now i am not scientist, but more people are acception I.D. as an alternative, at least from what i can see in my school and local schools,
So you claim there is scientific evidence? Or are you saying that religious dogma and "just because I say so" fervent postulations is sufficient in your area for something to be taught as science? Well, that will just mean that none of your peers will get into science fields, leaving more room for everybody else.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Blizzard Warrior said:
is the JUDGE a scientist?
He listened to the evidemnce.
his suppose to interpet the laws of the land, not scientific theory.
He was asked to decide whether ID was a Scientific theory. He looked at the evidence and clearly saw that it wasn't.
also Catholism is relvent to what steen was saying about how he didnt care about a Catholic church or any other "non-scientific" organization. I was just ginving him countless counter examples to his "ask gallileo" thing
Ah, when you utterly irrelevantly brought up catholicism as a red herring?
and can everyone stop saying im 'spewing flasehood' and that i 'dont know what i am talking about'
Well, it is true, isn't it? We have documented how it is true.
becuase i am simply typing what my biology textbook is saying and what my bio teacher teaches us in class.
OK, you are being lied to by your teachers. I would suggest you switch school so you can get a science education where you are not being lied to. And then call the state school board, as your fellow students are also being lied to. You can be a hero and save them from the lies by turning in the teachers and their false textbooks.

What school district are you in, BTW? Just so we can check up on the curriculum plan?
 
Top Bottom