BlackBerry Forums Support Community

BlackBerry Forums Support Community (http://www.blackberryforums.com/index.php)
-   Sensitive Discussions (http://www.blackberryforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=129)
-   -   President Obama and Evolution (http://www.blackberryforums.com/showthread.php?t=172128)

dmead 01-24-2009 01:56 PM

i don't want the government involved at all personally. unfortunately the government became involved long before even i started school myself. I think you have a choice though. If you want to teach your child creationism or intelligent design then send them to a school that teaches those "theories". if you don't like what is being taught to you kids then don't send them there. it is pretty simple. you always have a choice.

mriff 01-24-2009 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DallasFlier (Post 1258762)
mriff, to see some of how it is taught or comes across, look no further than this thread.

"the bible is as much fairy tale"

your own reference to "You forgot the Flying Spaghetti Monstors. :smile:" with the URL to the site which is pretty much in its entirety an attack on Christianity and clearly labels Christians as fools.

"please keep your hyprocricy out of my schools. and that is aimed at the entire christian right"

"evolution is fact" (hmm, but the scientific community calls it a theory)

Now, let me put my engineer hat on for a moment and call you out on one thing.


So you really are claiming that evolution explains why the starting point (apes) remains, but any and all midpoints have disappeared? Enlighten me! ;-)

Well, I'm not even sure where to start. First of all, the scientific community cites Darwins conjecture that natural selection causes forms to evolve a theory. The theory studies and promotes research on how forms evolve. Not if they evolve. Do you deny that biological forms evolve? If so, then you should go to your medicine cabinet and throw out every antibiotic that you have and just stick with penicillin. Forms evolve, there's no dispute about that.

Sorry for posting on the Flying Speghetti Monsters. But that site is simply an illustration that teaching ideas that cannot be backed up by science is wrong and was started as a hoax.

And you clearly have not studied the fossil record or the science thereof. Human evolution has been studied and reported on extensively! Midpoints exist throughout the fossil record. The starting point was not Apes. I never said it was. Nor has any scientist studying human evolution.

JSanders 01-24-2009 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmead (Post 1258782)
if you don't like what is being taught to you kids then don't send them there. it is pretty simple. you always have a choice.

Of course that is my choice. And as long as my tax dollars are being spent in public education, I have a right (more so a duty) to voice my opinion on what those tax dollars are spent teaching.

djm2 01-24-2009 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1258751)
There's a very fine line test. It should be ideas that can be tested. That's what science is all about. Testable, researchable ideas turn into hypotheses. Hypotheses can be rigorously tested and proven over time to fit within a framework of ideas. If an idea has merit, then researchers will test it, plain and simple. This is clearly where the evolution of form sits now. Down to the molecular level. There's just nothing that can be tested with the notion of intelligent design. If there was, and proof could be achieved, there would be Nobel prizes in order.

I haven't spent as much time investigating this as I perhaps should have, but isn't this largely a function of the tautological reasoning that is used to create the arguments underlying that approach. Note that I won't even call it a theory, because theories IMHO must be testable to qualify.

mriff 01-24-2009 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DallasFlier (Post 1258766)
And you wish to have the government support and fund those that teach what you wish, but not any others?

I wish to have the government support and fund those that teach science in the science class room. And that teach philosophy in the philosophy classroom.

JSanders 01-24-2009 02:31 PM

Just more examples of far left liberal censorship tactics and small-minded thinking.

djm2 01-24-2009 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanders (Post 1258815)
Just more examples of far left liberal censorship tactics and small-minded thinking.

How so? Sounds like Rush talking to me.

mriff 01-24-2009 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djm2 (Post 1258806)
I haven't spent as much time investigating this as I perhaps should have, but isn't this largely a function of the tautological reasoning that is used to create the arguments underlying that approach. Note that I won't even call it a theory, because theories IMHO must be testable to qualify.

I don't know. But resort to tautological reasoning they have. And believe me, it's working in some cases. Check out the recent 'freedom of education' law passed by the state of Louisiana. A similar law was almost passed last year in FL. It didn't quite work in Dover however. The school board that passed laws that creationism should be taught alongside the theory of evolution was repudiated to say the least. The Discovery Institute calls it the Wedge Strategy. Scary stuff.

mriff 01-24-2009 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanders (Post 1258815)
Just more examples of far left liberal censorship tactics and small-minded thinking.

Not even worth a reply.

JSanders 01-24-2009 02:39 PM

The left hates to admit they've become what they fought in the past.

It all comes full circle.

mriff 01-24-2009 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanders (Post 1258823)
The left hates to admit they've become what they fought in the past.

It all comes full circle.

I've been a registered Republican for 30 years.

Here's the question, plain and simple. Do you think the theory of evolution should be taught in public school?

JSanders 01-24-2009 03:00 PM

Being a registered Republican in Florida means nothing other than what party declaration sits beside your name on the voter roll. I know Florida politics (and I work in them quite often, closer than I care to share here) enough to know what being a registered R or D means in that state. Nothing. And it certainly doesn't make any declaration of your base ideology. It is simply a label to define which ballot you get in a primary election.

As for teaching evolution in public schools, if it is explained that is another theory, not a fact, in regard to the origin of living things. I am willing to approach anything with an open mind, study it carefully, and consider it carefully. And taught along side creationism, yes. It's perfectly fine for me for the teachers to explain there is conflict here. Because there certainly is conflict. To ignore the conflict of thought is sticking your head in the sand. To censor what you don't believe is wrong, as well.

Many in this thread have a great intolerance to others' beliefs, and even a greater intolerance of the Judeo-Christian beliefs, and that is the small-mindedness I refer to.

mriff 01-24-2009 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanders (Post 1258858)
Being a registered Republican in Florida means nothing other than what party declaration sits beside your name on the voter roll. I know Florida politics (and I work in them quite often, closer than I care to share here) enough to know what being a registered R or D means in that state. Nothing. And it certainly doesn't make any declaration of your base ideology. It is simply a label to define which ballot you get in a primary election.

What the hell does that mean? I have no idea.
Quote:

As for teaching evolution in public schools, if it is explained that is another theory, not a fact, in regard to the origin of living things. I am willing to approach anything with an open mind, study it carefully, and consider it carefully. And taught along side creationism, yes. It's perfectly fine for me for the teachers to explain there is conflict here. Because there certainly is conflict. To ignore the conflict of thought is sticking your head in the sand. To censor what you don't believe is wrong, as well.
Creationism has no basis in fact and cannot be tested. It's not science. A scientific theory only becomes a theory after it has been rigourously tested and found to fit all arguments surrounding the hypothesis. That simply cannot be said of creationism. So it shouldn't be taught as science. It is not science.

Quote:

Many in this thread have a great intolerance to others' beliefs, and even a greater intolerance of the Judeo-Christian beliefs, and that is the small-mindedness I refer to.
I don't have intolerance to others beliefs or to Judeo-Christian beliefs. I happen to be a member of a church that has no problem with the theory of evolution. I just like my science served up without interferance.

mriff 01-24-2009 03:38 PM

Here's a good description of what it means to be a Scientific Theory. The idea of creationism cannot pass this test. But the theory of evolution can and does.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that a theory never becomes a law unless it was very narrow to begin with. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science. Here is an oversimplified example of the development of a scientific theory:

JSanders 01-24-2009 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mriff (Post 1258898)
What the hell does that mean? I have no idea.

You're the one who stated you've been a "registered Republican for 30 years". I see now you really don't know what it means. :)

djm2 01-24-2009 03:55 PM

Mriff, that is an excellent delineation of some of the basics of scientific theory.

Oh, and just as an FYI to others in this thread, I have voted Libertarian for the past 36 years -- and don't go assuming that translates into liberal/leftist. Go read some Hayek. I recommend The Road to Serfdom. In my opinion, that reflects true conservative thinking, not what we have seen in the US in the past 20 years.

mriff 01-24-2009 03:56 PM

Quote:

You're the one who stated you've been a "registered Republican for 30 years". I see now you really don't know what it means.

I was referring to your blathering spew about FL politics.

djm2 01-24-2009 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JSanders (Post 1258909)
You're the one who stated you've been a "registered Republican for 30 years". I see now you really don't know what it means. :)

Some of us are convinced that Republicans don't know what true conservatives are.

mriff 01-24-2009 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djm2 (Post 1258926)
Mriff, that is an excellent delineation of some of the basics of scientific theory.

I like to use that when someone says 'it's just a theory'. Theory in the dictionary is not the same as theory as outlined in the Scientific Method.

DallasFlier 01-24-2009 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmead (Post 1258782)
i don't want the government involved at all personally. unfortunately the government became involved long before even i started school myself. I think you have a choice though. If you want to teach your child creationism or intelligent design then send them to a school that teaches those "theories". if you don't like what is being taught to you kids then don't send them there. it is pretty simple. you always have a choice.

I completely agree, as long as I also have a choice to fund those schools which I feel are the best choice for my kids. That's why I'm in favor of school vouchers. Its currently not as "pretty simple" as you say, since those who "choose" to send their kids to other schools also have to continue paying for those they don't choose - which the other side doesn't have to do.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.