Louisiana Science Textbook

[Chris in London]

Creationsim can be scientifically disproven. The only instances where this becomes trickier are the ones where creationists have essentially taken the proven scientific elements of evolution and tagged God on superfluously. So, creationism isn't a possible theory. It's an attempt by religious people to either disregard scientific fact completely, or to obfuscate it by aligning it with God.

You come very close to equating 'possible' with 'plausible', which is precisely the opposite of the way in which I was using the word. Since you are taking issue with something I said, if you don't mind me saying so that isn't especially sensible (as it amounts to disagreeing with something I haven't said.)

Take a simple example from those you give above, like intelligent design. As you know, in its simplest form this argument goes "the earth is only a few thousand years old, but God has created it so that it looks like its actually millions of years old. Why? To test our faith! And yes, scientists fail this test." Can you disprove that? No, nobody can, just as nobody can disprove the theory that we are all microbes in a dewdrop at the end of a giant's nose. So it is a possible theory.

You are entitled to your opinion that creationism, intelligent design, and monotheistic religion generally is specious crap. You are entitled to your opinion that (say) intelligent design is at best disingenuous (having your theological cake and eating it), at worse a paper thin attempt to defend the indefensible. You are entitled to your opinion that there are none so blind as those who will not see. I may even share those views myself. This does not mean others are not entitled to adhere to other opinions or beliefs.

For my part, whatever personal beliefs I hold about creationism, God and the universe generally, I try not to do is ram my opinions down the throats of others who perhaps have not had the benefits of my education or background. Nor, in relation to an issue which simply cannot be resolved by debate or by the use of emprical evidence, do I think that ridiculing the beliefs of others is in any way a productive use of anyone's time.

Quite a lot of people who have posted on the religion threads on both sides of the debate seem to have a remarkable lack of tolerance for the beliefs or opinions of others. I find that disappointing.

Damocles, are you seriously saying that you reject the entitlement of anybody to hold any belief other than yours on the grounds that it is crap?

 

[The Flash]

Creationsim can be scientifically disproven. The only instances where this becomes trickier are the ones where creationists have essentially taken the proven scientific elements of evolution and tagged God on superfluously. So, creationism isn't a possible theory. It's an attempt by religious people to either disregard scientific fact completely, or to obfuscate it by aligning it with God.

You come very close to equating 'possible' with 'plausible', which is precisely the opposite of the way in which I was using the word. Since you are taking issue with something I said, if you don't mind me saying so that isn't especially sensible (as it amounts to disagreeing with something I haven't said.)

Take a simple example from those you give above, like intelligent design. As you know, in its simplest form this argument goes "the earth is only a few thousand years old, but God has created it so that it looks like its actually millions of years old. Why? To test our faith! And yes, scientists fail this test." Can you disprove that? No, nobody can, just as nobody can disprove the theory that we are all microbes in a dewdrop at the end of a giant's nose. So it is a possible theory.

You are entitled to your opinion that creationism, intelligent design, and monotheistic religion generally is specious crap. You are entitled to your opinion that (say) intelligent design is at best disingenuous (having your theological cake and eating it), at worse a paper thin attempt to defend the indefensible. You are entitled to your opinion that there are none so blind as those who will not see. I may even share those views myself. This does not mean others are not entitled to adhere to other opinions or beliefs.

For my part, whatever personal beliefs I hold about creationism, God and the universe generally, I try not to do is ram my opinions down the throats of others who perhaps have not had the benefits of my education or background. Nor, in relation to an issue which simply cannot be resolved by debate or by the use of emprical evidence, do I think that ridiculing the beliefs of others is in any way a productive use of anyone's time.

Quite a lot of people who have posted on the religion threads on both sides of the debate seem to have a remarkable lack of tolerance for the beliefs or opinions of others. I find that disappointing.

Damocles, are you seriously saying that you reject the entitlement of anybody to hold any belief other than yours on the grounds that it is crap?

Nobody is saying you don't have the right to hold your beliefs. What is being stated is that others have the right to state that those beliefs are fucking idiotic when the evidence is there that disproves the whole shooting match.

 

[Chris in London]

[Nobody is saying you don't have the right to hold your beliefs. What is being stated is that others have the right to state that those beliefs are fucking idiotic when the evidence is there that disproves the whole shooting match.

I'm not defending my own beliefs, please don't ascribe to me views I have not expressed and which I do not hold.

I simply regard a significant number of the people (on both sides of the argument) who post in the religion threads as being remarkably intolerant of the views of the other side of the discussion. Read the thread again and you'll see what I mean.

This strikes me as being particularly crass in the context of a debate that neither side can ever win, (except according to their own rules, by which they have won already).

Whether I regard someone else's beliefs as fucking idiotic or not does not mean that it is necessary either to ridicule them or to show the lack of respect for the views of others as is often displayed in these threads.

But if you feel that it is a bad thing to be tolerant towards others who hold opinions which you regard as crap, that I suppose is up to you.

 

[Matty]

Creationsim can be scientifically disproven. The only instances where this becomes trickier are the ones where creationists have essentially taken the proven scientific elements of evolution and tagged God on superfluously. So, creationism isn't a possible theory. It's an attempt by religious people to either disregard scientific fact completely, or to obfuscate it by aligning it with God.

You come very close to equating 'possible' with 'plausible', which is precisely the opposite of the way in which I was using the word. Since you are taking issue with something I said, if you don't mind me saying so that isn't especially sensible (as it amounts to disagreeing with something I haven't said.)

Take a simple example from those you give above, like intelligent design. As you know, in its simplest form this argument goes "the earth is only a few thousand years old, but God has created it so that it looks like its actually millions of years old. Why? To test our faith! And yes, scientists fail this test." Can you disprove that? No, nobody can, just as nobody can disprove the theory that we are all microbes in a dewdrop at the end of a giant's nose. So it is a possible theory.

You are entitled to your opinion that creationism, intelligent design, and monotheistic religion generally is specious crap. You are entitled to your opinion that (say) intelligent design is at best disingenuous (having your theological cake and eating it), at worse a paper thin attempt to defend the indefensible. You are entitled to your opinion that there are none so blind as those who will not see. I may even share those views myself. This does not mean others are not entitled to adhere to other opinions or beliefs.

For my part, whatever personal beliefs I hold about creationism, God and the universe generally, I try not to do is ram my opinions down the throats of others who perhaps have not had the benefits of my education or background. Nor, in relation to an issue which simply cannot be resolved by debate or by the use of emprical evidence, do I think that ridiculing the beliefs of others is in any way a productive use of anyone's time.

Quite a lot of people who have posted on the religion threads on both sides of the debate seem to have a remarkable lack of tolerance for the beliefs or opinions of others. I find that disappointing.

Damocles, are you seriously saying that you reject the entitlement of anybody to hold any belief other than yours on the grounds that it is crap?

By the rational highlighted in bold we can never disprove anything ever and as such we must tolerate all possible viewpoints on everything. That's simply a ridiculous position for us to take. Can you disprove that the universe is actually a chewy dog toy for a six headed Chihuahua called Bernard? No, so therefore anyone putting that viewpoint forward should be treated with the same level of tolerance and respect as a qualified scientist who explains with minutia of data how evolution works. Not only that but we should allow the teachings of Bernardists to exist, and be treated with equal validity as astronomy, biology and geology, in schools. There comes a point where possible and plausible are so indistinguishable as to be one and the same thing.

 

[Damocles]

Damocles, are you seriously saying that you reject the entitlement of anybody to hold any belief other than yours on the grounds that it is crap?

Anybody can hold any position they like. They just aren't allowed to claim it as accepted truth.

You see, truth is not a democracy. It doesn't matter whether something is popular, appealing to common sense, is a very nice idea, etc. None of this confirms truth. Truth is what can be proven to match reality. It doesn't matter if 99.99999% of the world's population believes that the Earth is the centre of the Universe, it doesn't change the fact that it isn't.

When you reject reality, you are either stating that your experience of reality is completely different from the rest of the Universe which is literally madness, or you are stating that you don't care what reality is because you know better which is arrogant delusion.

 

[dazdon]

Teaching religion in schools is akin to teaching children as fact that the Loch Ness monster exists or that Fairies actually do live at the bottom of the garden.

It shouldn't be allowed.

 

[Chris in London]

Creationsim can be scientifically disproven. The only instances where this becomes trickier are the ones where creationists have essentially taken the proven scientific elements of evolution and tagged God on superfluously. So, creationism isn't a possible theory. It's an attempt by religious people to either disregard scientific fact completely, or to obfuscate it by aligning it with God.

You come very close to equating 'possible' with 'plausible', which is precisely the opposite of the way in which I was using the word. Since you are taking issue with something I said, if you don't mind me saying so that isn't especially sensible (as it amounts to disagreeing with something I haven't said.)

Take a simple example from those you give above, like intelligent design. As you know, in its simplest form this argument goes "the earth is only a few thousand years old, but God has created it so that it looks like its actually millions of years old. Why? To test our faith! And yes, scientists fail this test." Can you disprove that? No, nobody can, just as nobody can disprove the theory that we are all microbes in a dewdrop at the end of a giant's nose. So it is a possible theory.

You are entitled to your opinion that creationism, intelligent design, and monotheistic religion generally is specious crap. You are entitled to your opinion that (say) intelligent design is at best disingenuous (having your theological cake and eating it), at worse a paper thin attempt to defend the indefensible. You are entitled to your opinion that there are none so blind as those who will not see. I may even share those views myself. This does not mean others are not entitled to adhere to other opinions or beliefs.

For my part, whatever personal beliefs I hold about creationism, God and the universe generally, I try not to do is ram my opinions down the throats of others who perhaps have not had the benefits of my education or background. Nor, in relation to an issue which simply cannot be resolved by debate or by the use of emprical evidence, do I think that ridiculing the beliefs of others is in any way a productive use of anyone's time.

Quite a lot of people who have posted on the religion threads on both sides of the debate seem to have a remarkable lack of tolerance for the beliefs or opinions of others. I find that disappointing.

Damocles, are you seriously saying that you reject the entitlement of anybody to hold any belief other than yours on the grounds that it is crap?

By the rational highlighted in bold we can never disprove anything ever and as such we must tolerate all possible viewpoints on everything. That's simply a ridiculous position for us to take. Can you disprove that the universe is actually a chewy dog toy for a six headed Chihuahua called Bernard? No, so therefore anyone putting that viewpoint forward should be treated with the same level of tolerance and respect as a qualified scientist who explains with minutia of data how evolution works. Not only that but we should allow the teachings of Bernardists to exist, and be treated with equal validity as astronomy, biology and geology, in schools. There comes a point where possible and plausible are so indistinguishable as to be one and the same thing.

No you can't disprove the chewy dog toy theory, nor are there to my knowledge any adherents of it. If several billion people adhered to that theory, perhaps it is one that would be afforded a certain degree of respect, especially if generations of people had held it for centuries. It isn't necessary to agree with someone else's opinion, or even think that it has the slightest merit, in order to treat it with respect. It isn't necessary for a belief you don't hold to have the slightest validity for you to tolerate the viewpoint of its proponent.

It's a matter of common courtesy, really.

Damocles, are you seriously saying that you reject the entitlement of anybody to hold any belief other than yours on the grounds that it is crap?

Anybody can hold any position they like. They just aren't allowed to claim it as accepted truth.

You see, truth is not a democracy. It doesn't matter whether something is popular, appealing to common sense, is a very nice idea, etc. None of this confirms truth. Truth is what can be proven to match reality. It doesn't matter if 99.99999% of the world's population believes that the Earth is the centre of the Universe, it doesn't change the fact that it isn't.

When you reject reality, you are either stating that your experience of reality is completely different from the rest of the Universe which is literally madness, or you are stating that you don't care what reality is because you know better which is arrogant delusion.

So you accept the right of others to hold opinions different to yours, you just regard anyone who disagrees with you as either mad or suffering from arrogant delusion?

What was I saying about intolerance?<br /><br />-- Thu Nov 22, 2012 6:11 pm --<br /><br />

[Nobody is saying you don't have the right to hold your beliefs. What is being stated is that others have the right to state that those beliefs are fucking idiotic when the evidence is there that disproves the whole shooting match.

I'm not defending my own beliefs, please don't ascribe to me views I have not expressed and which I do not hold.

I simply regard a significant number of the people (on both sides of the argument) who post in the religion threads as being remarkably intolerant of the views of the other side of the discussion. Read the thread again and you'll see what I mean.

This strikes me as being particularly crass in the context of a debate that neither side can ever win, (except according to their own rules, by which they have won already).

Whether I regard someone else's beliefs as fucking idiotic or not does not mean that it is necessary either to ridicule them or to show the lack of respect for the views of others as is often displayed in these threads.

But if you feel that it is a bad thing to be tolerant towards others who hold opinions which you regard as crap, that I suppose is up to you.

Intolerance of beliefs and views about religion is ok by me, i love being intolerant for what in my mind is a moron and a brainwashed fool.

fuck tolerance over religion

the human race deserves better

By the same yardstick, fuck any sort of respect for anyone whose view differs from yours?

 

[pauldominic]

Damocles, are you seriously saying that you reject the entitlement of anybody to hold any belief other than yours on the grounds that it is crap?

Anybody can hold any position they like. They just aren't allowed to claim it as accepted truth.

You see, truth is not a democracy. It doesn't matter whether something is popular, appealing to common sense, is a very nice idea, etc. None of this confirms truth. Truth is what can be proven to match reality. It doesn't matter if 99.99999% of the world's population believes that the Earth is the centre of the Universe, it doesn't change the fact that it isn't.

When you reject reality, you are either stating that your experience of reality is completely different from the rest of the Universe which is literally madness, or you are stating that you don't care what reality is because you know better which is arrogant delusion.

We've been over this territory before.

For example, Catholicism is guilty of many instances when it comes to obstructing science but has stayed true to the principle that science and religion complement and inform one another.

No serious scientist questions the heliocentric view anymore.

Creationism is an interesting historical phenomenon. None of the serious religions or mainstream churches give it any credence.

The best explanation I've heard relates to the presence of an American Diplomat to Berlin in the 1870s.

German philosophical thinking led by people like Nietszche in response the Origin of Species was starting to develop their ideas of an aryan master race.

Hitler's "Mein Kampf" was a continuation.

The diplomat returned to washington and creationism is the American response.

It's understandable, but unfortunate that as the excessive interpretation of evolution has disappeared, creationism has remained.

 

[BulgarianPride]

Lol......Louisiana

The Earth is not a thousand years old mate I know that you know that, science knows that and God knows that

This is not taught within the Church of England or Mainline Christian thought

Stop cherry picking, do you want me to find a strange non religious science textbook that got it all wrong ?

It won't take me long ...

Please do find me a science textbook written in the last 10 years that has "got it all wrong". But first define what your definition of wrong when it comes to science.

Edit: To expand your search, you can search for any textbook written in the last 50-100 years, and point out what is "wrong" with it.

 

[TFC]

I believe everything that is written on those glorious few pages, in fact I want more of the same.

Goddamn evolutionists.


;)