25 Oct 08
Originally posted by whodeyScience only says smoking is not good for your health. It doesn´t say stop smoking. Doctors say that. Science can´t say it as it has morality or good and bad have no place in science. They can not be tested. You even seem to agree. You mention interpretation of the data and interpretation is not science.
Not so. When science indicates that society as a whole is weakened or hurt by the "weak" of society, this is seen as a "bad" thing. How then can we remedy the "badness" of the weak influence?
As I said, science and morality are not mutually exclusive because we make interpretations from scientific data. For example, smoking and cancer scientifically a ...[text shortened]... rding eugical evidence that "inferior" gene pools are statistically counterproductive.
25 Oct 08
2 edits
Originally posted by mrstabbyI understand your position. You want your assumptions forced upon others at a young age so that they will be brainwashed to believe as you do.
Believe what you may, just keep those unfalsifiable beliefs away from science classes, unless you're showing an example of a theory that has none of the qualities required to define it as scientific (check the link I gave for the definition of a scientific theory).
You don't bother to question why any optic cells were connected to an optic nerve to begin with. You don't bother to question how the brain is able to take the information from the optic nerve and interpret it. These things are just to assumed to be there from the beginning.
You believe that science should assume that God does not exist because it can't be proven that God exists. You do not take the proper position that science can take no position on God. That's because you've consumed the Kool-Aid. Now you want to force young kids to do the same.
25 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by mrstabbyIt might interest you to hear another quote from Hitler.
I think Hitler was far more influenced by Christians and European settlers than Darwin... He cited the genocide of native americans as inspiration for his policies, he even admired their efficiency. Then there were the crusades, the holy roman empire separating christians and jews....
Does the misuse of ideas say more about the ideas or those who misuse the ideas?
"You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religions. Why did we not have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedian religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"
As for the Crusades, I will concede it was done in the name of Christ no matter how such a theology contradicted Christ's own theology, however, I draw the line at the US driving out the native Americans. The US has not been and never will be a theocracy and acts according to its own secular interests. At best, you could argue that Christianity was the prevailing religious influence in the US at the time and that some Christians took part in the persecution of native Americans.
Having said all that, the misuse of ideas will occur no matter the truth behind the reality of the situation. However, it is important, I think, to evaluate if these ideas are actually a misuse of the ideas at hand as well as try to discover how these misuses, if they exist, came to be.
25 Oct 08
Originally posted by WheelyYou are correct saying that the scientific data that shows something is bad for your health is meaningless unless you give it meaning. To give it meaning one would have to conclude that doing things that are "bad" for your health is not "good". In addition, if you are saying that doctors are required for this interpretation I will take issue with this presumption. It is simply disingenuous to suggest such a thing.
Science only says smoking is not good for your health. It doesn´t say stop smoking. Doctors say that. Science can´t say it as it has morality or good and bad have no place in science. They can not be tested. You even seem to agree. You mention interpretation of the data and interpretation is not science.
25 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarAre you talking to yourself about your feelings on religion or to me? Your presumptions as to my motives say a lot more about you than they do me.
I understand your position. You want your assumptions forced upon others at a young age so that they will be brainwashed to believe as you do.
You don't bother to question why any optic cells were connected to an optic nerve to begin with. You don't bother to question how the brain is able to take the information from the optic nerve and interpret it. T ...[text shortened]... t's because you've consumed the Kool-Aid. Now you want to force young kids to do the same.
You don't bother to question why any optic cells were connected to an optic nerve to begin with. You don't bother to question how the brain is able to take the information from the optic nerve and interpret it. These things are just to assumed to be there from the beginning.
Honestly, you seem to be affirming your own beliefs here rather than talking to me.
You are more than emphasising my point as to why ID should be kept away from SCIENCE classes (teach them ID in religious education if you want by all means). If it can't be proved or disproved, it ain't science. Since we can't take a position on God, we ignore it until we find a way to take a position. Ignoring something doesn't mean the same as saying it doesn't exist.
I suggest you educate yourself more on the scientific process to see why ID isn't considered science by the community. You appear to be very impatient with science, thinking it should know how everything works straight off...
Can you explain to me how you believe ID should be included in the curriculum, with appropriate justification?
25 Oct 08
Originally posted by mrstabbyMr Stabby,
Are you talking to yourself about your feelings on religion or to me? Your presumptions as to my motives say a lot more about you than they do me.
[i]You don't bother to question why any optic cells were connected to an optic nerve to begin with. You don't bother to question how the brain is able to take the information from the optic nerve and interpret ...[text shortened]... how you believe ID should be included in the curriculum, with appropriate justification?
If I understand you correctly, you stated "If it can't be proved or disproved, it ain't science.", and we seem to lack any scientific proof on exactly how life started, then neither ID or any other theroy should be taught in the classroom. Life starting on the backs of crystals of introduced by aliens are not valid either.
I think Bens point was at least put all theroys out there, and allow debate/discussion on the topic. Not to exclude one theroy because it is religion based.
25 Oct 08
Originally posted by Dace AceBut the current theories about the origin of live can be proven (or disproven), unlike ID. And that is the difference between science and pseudo-science like ID.
Mr Stabby,
If I understand you correctly, you stated "If it can't be proved or disproved, it ain't science.", and we seem to lack any scientific proof on exactly how life started, then neither ID or any other theroy should be taught in the classroom. Life starting on the backs of crystals of introduced by aliens are not valid either.
I think Bens ...[text shortened]... low debate/discussion on the topic. Not to exclude one theroy because it is religion based.
25 Oct 08
Originally posted by Dace AceSorry dude, but that's total BS, chemical theories to the origin of life can be proved or disproved. Many experiments have been performed, take a look at how many theories there are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#Current_models will get you started
Mr Stabby,
If I understand you correctly, you stated "If it can't be proved or disproved, it ain't science.", and we seem to lack any scientific proof on exactly how life started, then neither ID or any other theroy should be taught in the classroom. Life starting on the backs of crystals of introduced by aliens are not valid either.
I think Bens ...[text shortened]... low debate/discussion on the topic. Not to exclude one theroy because it is religion based.
We might not have a final answer as of yet and may never do, but we can go for the best guess.
Chemical theories and other things of this world can be proved or disproved... If ID were to be brought into science classes, it would be in the form of an example of a theory that is unscientific, untestable etc. If you want to debate a theory in a science class, you need to bring forms of evidence in the form of experimental data.
Consider it like a court case.
Look at the ideas in the link - they come from real world observations and experiments. These ideas could have been at the crime scene, though there are reasons to believe they might not have been.
ID comes along with no evidence for or against whatsoever. How much consideration would you expect a court to give it?
25 Oct 08
Originally posted by Dace AceI'm not so sure, especially after last night having witnessed several wide eyed short green men in my backyard carting around a few crystals. Next thing you know, I had grub problem, weed problem, and a few unidentifiable life forms I had never seen before. If you ask me, they are in cahoots with those lawn companies who go around spraying lawns for pests and weeds.
Life starting on the backs of crystals of introduced by aliens are not valid either.
25 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarShocking. An argument is offered and rather than rebut it, you simply reject it. You simply 'choose
You can believed contrived explanations if you wish, but I choose not to drink that Kool-Aid.
not to believe it.'
The argument offered is rational and as such, if it is flawed, it should be easy to expose where it
fails. You've offered no counter-argument, just rejection.
This is why the 'evolution of the eye' should be taught in science class: it exemplifies the best answer
we have for the question 'Where did our eyes come from?'
Nemesio
25 Oct 08
Originally posted by NemesioIt seems to me that if we are going to be intellectually honest, we should stick with facts.
No, merely the best available explanations for things we know for a fact exist.
Nemesio
Oh, but the best available explanation is considered fact. Almost forgot about the circular reasoning that I'm supposed to accept.
25 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarYou are the one saying the best explanation is considered fact, not science. There's nothing
It seems to me that if we are going to be intellectually honest, we should stick with facts.
Oh, but the best available explanation is considered fact. Almost forgot about the circular reasoning that I'm supposed to accept.
circular with making an observation and seeking to explain it. The explanation 'Evolution' fits the
observed facts overwhelmingly. The details in that explanation are constantly fluctuating as new
facts come to light and clarify that which we know already.
Again, if you want to offer a second explanation and provide the facts for that explanation, then
you're engaging in scientific discourse. If you are loath to do so, then you're not. It's really that
simple.
Nemesio