[buddyholly]

The best predictor of the election result is the result of the Washington Redskins game on the Sunday before the election. They lost today. Romney wins!

[Jimnik]

Originally Posted by buddyholly

But you don't say why the crazy ones should be taught. Such as Creationism.

Theories are tested on whether they stand up to scientific observation. But since there has not been a scrap of evidence offered for Creationism it can't be tested. But this is where the fundamentalists shine. They challenge you to prove it wrong. And if you can't prove it wrong, they claim it must be true.

I think you are the proponent of brainwashing, proposing the teaching of illogical theories based on imagination and nothing else. Why put that nonsense in a kid's head?

Name ONE republican that has proposed religious theories to be taught in science classes. I really can't think of any but if they exist, a priest would be the first to denounce it.

Evidence is always subjective. Religion considers the bible and "the miracle of life" to be evidence. Atheists consider science journals and publications as the only reliable evidence. In both cases you're trusting one group more than the other.

You can label religious theories "crazy fantasies" all you want but it's never more than a subjective opinion.

[MachineGun]

Originally Posted by Jimnik

Name ONE republican that has proposed religious theories to be taught in science classes. I really can't think of any but if they exist, a priest would be the first to denounce it.

Evidence is always subjective. Religion considers the bible and "the miracle of life" to be evidence. Atheists consider science journals and publications as the only reliable evidence. In both cases you're trusting one group more than the other.

You can label religious theories "crazy fantasies" all you want but it's never more than a subjective opinion.

Isn't it the real problem, hm? Science is all about objectivity; it's not what we think is true, but what is true, with materialized proof.

[Lopez]

Echoes going overboard as usual. Define general theory please? Every religious person I know laughs about the idea of teaching anything but evolution in schools. Of course, we do have religion classes where religion is taught . However, even those classes never dispute evolution.

Originally Posted by Jimnik

Name ONE republican that has proposed religious theories to be taught in science classes. I really can't think of any but if they exist, a priest would be the first to denounce it.

Evidence is always subjective. Religion considers the bible and "the miracle of life" to be evidence. Atheists consider science journals and publications as the only reliable evidence. In both cases you're trusting one group more than the other.

You can label religious theories "crazy fantasies" all you want but it's never more than a subjective opinion.

Check out the video I posted, you can see a Republican strategist/spokesperson advocating this. It's really difficult to understand in Europe and we don't have such a problem in Finland except maybe within certain sects of the church. There are also people who are campaigning on teaching "the alternative" in science classes, don't know whether they're republican or not though. However, there were MANY republican presidential candidates that deny evolution.

Look, there is of course room for faith in this world and I wouldn't take it away from anyone. The beginning of the universe, how it all got here... there are philosophical arguments (and could be discussed in philosophy class !). I personally don't buy the religious ones but some people do and it's ok. However, evolution isn't debatable and it creates a lot of unnecessary friction between the scientific community and religion.

[buddyholly]

Originally Posted by Jimnik

Name ONE republican that has proposed religious theories to be taught in science classes. I really can't think of any but if they exist, a priest would be the first to denounce it.

Evidence is always subjective. Religion considers the bible and "the miracle of life" to be evidence. Atheists consider science journals and publications as the only reliable evidence. In both cases you're trusting one group more than the other.

You can label religious theories "crazy fantasies" all you want but it's never more than a subjective opinion.

Unless you want to nitpick over the difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design, then I name George Bush.

I am not sure why it has to be a Republican. The teaching of Creationism in science class has been a public issue in the US for some time.

Science journals and publications publish evidence on the subject discussed (observations made) and may go on to theorise based on that observed evidence. The same can not be said for the bible because there is no evidence offered to substantiate the claims made. Also, science journals don't publish anonymous articles.

[Echoes]

Originally Posted by buddyholly

But you don't say why the crazy ones should be taught.

Sometimes ideologies are so fanatical and harmful that I can't play the game/charade of democratic debate anymore. I fight them.

Dismissing some of the great philosophers and philosophical/theological doctrines of the past + every great literary movement because they do not fit with your ideas and no longer teach them to children/students is such a horrible Orwellian tabula rasa that I can't even discuss it. It's the basics of every totalitarian regime.

Every sane, open-minded and culturally knowledgeable person reading this thread can realize that.

Originally Posted by Lopez

Every religious person I know laughs about the idea of teaching anything but evolution in schools.

I'm getting really tired now. It's unbelievable I have to repeat myself all the time. Perhaps the language is a problem but I can't speak Finnish.

Let's try Dutch:

ELKE theorie moet onderwezen worden.


Yes I had to add general because some rascals would go on details such as: 'even the theory that black is white' or 'how to grow salad', 'how to play tennis', 'how to wipe your arse'.

[Lopez]

Originally Posted by Echoes

I'm getting really tired now. It's unbelievable I have to repeat myself all the time. Perhaps the language is a problem but I can't speak Finnish.

Let's try Dutch:

ELKE theorie moet onderwezen worden.


Yes I had to add general because some rascals would go on details such as: 'even the theory that black is white' or 'how to grow salad', 'how to play tennis', 'how to wipe your arse'.

If it's a language issue I'm pretty sure it's not mine .

Anyways, I'm definitely not against talking about religious philosophy in philosophy class, so maybe we don't differ as much.

[Har-Tru]

Originally Posted by Jimnik

Name ONE republican that has proposed religious theories to be taught in science classes. I really can't think of any but if they exist, a priest would be the first to denounce it.

Evidence is always subjective. Religion considers the bible and "the miracle of life" to be evidence. Atheists consider science journals and publications as the only reliable evidence. In both cases you're trusting one group more than the other.

You can label religious theories "crazy fantasies" all you want but it's never more than a subjective opinion.

Try again.

Evidence is "that which attests to the truth of an assertion". Subjectivity plays a role in borderline cases, but that is not the same as saying "all evidence is subjective" which is what you are saying. The more subjective a piece of evidence is, the worse the evidence. Good evidence is evidence that is independent of personal interpretation.

Take the statement "I can juggle five balls at a time". I can provide a wide arrange of evidence attesting to the veracity of that claim. I can try to show that is true by:

a) Stating that my mother says I can.
b) Showing that it says so in a book (my diary).
c) Performing the act.

c) is a better piece of evidence than a) or b). It is not 100% conclusive evidence (there is no such thing as that). I could have hypnotised you; it could be that I have an identical twin brother, unknown to all of those involved, who can do it; I could be an all-powerful, mind-bending alien... but if confronted with such a situation, we would all agree c) is undoubtedly more solid than a) and b).

A piece of evidence will be solid if it succeeds at offering proof for the veracity of a claim, and it will be shaky evidence if it doesn't.

Religious "evidence" has a formidable track record of being wrong about the things that we can subject to scrutiny. Its realm has been confined to the space occupied by untestable, unsupported propositions about things the veracity of which we can't determine.

Science's strength is that it works. Its evidence pays up, it is accessible to all, it is palpable. The proof that quantum mechanics works is the fact that you're reading these lines right now on a computer. The proof that the theory of relativity works is in every GPS navigator in cars all over the world. That is not subjective, it is objective. And on account of it being objective, it is better.

For there is no good tree that brings forth rotten fruit; nor again a rotten tree that brings forth good fruit.

[Har-Tru]

Originally Posted by Echoes

Sometimes ideologies are so fanatical and harmful that I can't play the game/charade of democratic debate anymore. I fight them.

Dismissing some of the great philosophers and philosophical/theological doctrines of the past + every great literary movement because they do not fit with your ideas and no longer teach them to children/students is such a horrible Orwellian tabula rasa that I can't even discuss it. It's the basics of every totalitarian regime.

Every sane, open-minded and culturally knowledgeable person reading this thread can realize that.




I'm getting really tired now. It's unbelievable I have to repeat myself all the time. Perhaps the language is a problem but I can't speak Finnish.

Let's try Dutch:

ELKE theorie moet onderwezen worden.


Yes I had to add general because some rascals would go on details such as: 'even the theory that black is white' or 'how to grow salad', 'how to play tennis', 'how to wipe your arse'.

Again, I agree!

In addition to the already mentioned proposals about teaching astrology and witchcraft to children in school, may I add also the proposal that the Flat Earth theory and the Lunar Effect theory be added to geology classes, Psychich Surgery to biology (and medical school!) and the Perpetual Motion theory in physics.

More to come.

After all, they're all general theories with sophisticated rationales and many followers worldwide.

[clandis]

Originally Posted by Jimnik

Name ONE republican that has proposed religious theories to be taught in science classes. I really can't think of any but if they exist, a priest would be the first to denounce it.

Evidence is always subjective. Religion considers the bible and "the miracle of life" to be evidence. Atheists consider science journals and publications as the only reliable evidence. In both cases you're trusting one group more than the other.

You can label religious theories "crazy fantasies" all you want but it's never more than a subjective opinion.

Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman, many more. Google it

[buddyholly]

Originally Posted by Echoes

Sometimes ideologies are so fanatical and harmful that I can't play the game/charade of democratic debate anymore. I fight them.

Dismissing some of the great philosophers and philosophical/theological doctrines of the past + every great literary movement because they do not fit with your ideas and no longer teach them to children/students is such a horrible Orwellian tabula rasa that I can't even discuss it. It's the basics of every totalitarian regime.

.

I thought we were talking about evolution versus creationism here. I am not aware of any of the great philosophers that espoused creationism. The large majority of religious people are quite happy with the evidence of evolution. So I am in no way dismissing philosophica/theological doctrines of the past - unless of course they have been 100% disproved. As is the case of a young earth. It is harder to disprove Creationism because there is no evidence to test.
It is only the extreme fringe that claims a literal view of religious texts and tries to impede every scientific fact that comes along. It is obvious to me by now that every scientific advance in chemistry and genetics continues to prove that evolution is a fact. If you believe in Creationism and a young earth as a matter of faith then just come out and proudly say so and there will be nothing more to discuss. Right now you are hiding behind the vagueness of terms like ''all general theories.''

[habibko]

LOL teaching psychic surgery in medical school, too good

quite the apt comparison, creationism has precisely as much evidence backing it up in Biology as psychic surgery in Medicine

there's a reason someone like Echoes doesn't single out much besides creationism and goes out of his way to justify teaching it on equal footing as proper science, and it has all to do with their blind faith to which they dearly and desperately hold onto, a total waste of time trying to reason with them as that's exactly what they are battling against

[HoorayBeer]

Originally Posted by buddyholly

The best predictor of the election result is the result of the Washington Redskins game on the Sunday before the election. They lost today. Romney wins!

That is the exact predictor that landed President Kerry in the whitehouse

[Har-Tru]

Originally Posted by HoorayBeer

That is the exact predictor that landed President Kerry in the whitehouse

The rule was "redefined" after the 2004 fiasco as referring to the last winner of the popular vote (Gore won in 2000).

[Echoes]

Originally Posted by buddyholly

I thought we were talking about evolution versus creationism here.

Headline says "US presidential election 2012"

Originally Posted by buddyholly

So I am in no way dismissing philosophica/theological doctrines of the past - unless of course they have been 100% disproved.

Originally Posted by buddyholly

There are churches for teaching faith based, non-scientific theories.

So do you know what you mean?

Philosophical doctrines are faith based and non-scientific: existentialism, stoicism, epicurianism, ...
Political ideologies: even more clearly faith-based.
Literary movement: romanticism, classicism, naturalism: non-scientific theories.
And of course religions ...

You want this to be taught at schools or not? If not, then it's just ... frightening. Some kind of Brave New World ...

Originally Posted by buddyholly

If you believe in Creationism and a young earth as a matter of faith then just come out and proudly say so and there will be nothing more to discuss. Right now you are hiding behind the vagueness of terms like ''all general theories.''

Amazing! So I'm forced to give an opinion. Why should I?

I'll repeat my answer for the 4th and - this time I hope it's - the last time:

Do you believe the theory of Evolution? Regardless, all theories should be taught in school (I add that they should be taught in the framework of strict neutrality, even those that seems the most extreme and it's also valid for political, theological or philosophical doctrines.)


Perhaps I'll have to make clear that this was a formated answer proposed by the webmaster of the test, in case you did not get that ...

I have no guarantee to give you on the matter. I don't give a damn about it. I am no biologist and I let other 'competent' people debate on it without me. And I don't think it would be the role of the state to impose an opinion on anyone on this. It's a matter for scientists. Just like no legislators cannot impose a view on history on its people (as is the case in France, e.g.). It's a matter for historians. Hence, my response to the question was immediate (and I really thought this was crystal clear but apparently not and I hope it's over now.)