|
Post by echnaton on Mar 24, 2010 9:37:27 GMT -4
I don't think one set of ideas should be excluded simply because they might be religious in origin. If what we're talking about is science textbooks then I do think it's reasonable to exclude ideas that are religious in origin. Jason is up to his usual MO of slightly misinterpreting what is said in order make his own points. It is pretty innocuous to say that a idea, like "thou shall not kill" should not be rejected because it has a religious origin. It is suspect when he tries to apply that generalism to ID, because it carries an unstated assumption that religious origin is the reason for rejection. The US courts saw straight through that fallacy. Jason's definition of establishment is so limited that religion could be nearly fully ingrained in government without violating the Constitution. The problem with religious displays in courtrooms is not that all judges will be biased, but that some will become more emboldened to use extrajudicial religious principles in the application of law. I don't want Arabic script quotes from the Koran in a courtroom because I do not want to be concerned that a judge will base a decision on the sharia. To get that, I am willing to give up the placement of all religious items, even those that I might agree with. Our courts are secular and best left that way. Similar reasoning follows for schools or any other government institution, and scrupulously so where government maintains a monopoly or attendance in compulsory.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 24, 2010 11:32:36 GMT -4
It is pretty innocuous to say that a idea, like "thou shall not kill" should not be rejected because it has a religious origin. It is suspect when he tries to apply that generalism to ID, because it carries an unstated assumption that religious origin is the reason for rejection. Are you sure that isn't the reason for the rejection? I have heard that at least some of ID's critics have said that they would find the idea more acceptable if the Intelligent Designer in question were not the Christian God. If it were, say, an alien civilization instead (presumably an alien race which had themselves evolved). Lunar Orbit's primary objection, for instance, seems to be that it's a "gateway drug" to Creationism. What exactly do you mean by "fully ingrained"? I mentioned several practices that I feel would be over the line, and several that I felt would be acceptable. Were we talking about religious displays in courtrooms? In any case, aren't there measures to remove judges who act on their own principles instead of the law?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 24, 2010 12:32:09 GMT -4
I have heard that at least some of ID's critics have said that they would find the idea more acceptable if the Intelligent Designer in question were not the Christian God. If it were, say, an alien civilization instead (presumably an alien race which had themselves evolved). If there was some evidence that that was the case then I'd be more accepting of it. But something tells me few ID supporters would accept the idea that somewhere down the line natural evolution had to take place (if not for us then for our creators) because they often say evolution is too far-fetched to believe. Yeah, pretty much. Especially since it is mostly religious people who want to see ID in textbooks. If you give ID credibility by putting it into textbooks it makes it easier to accept biblical creationism. Never mind that there is no evidence that we were created by gods or aliens.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Mar 24, 2010 12:50:57 GMT -4
Lunar Orbit's primary objection, for instance, seems to be that it's a "gateway drug" to Creationism. Yeah, pretty much. Especially since it is mostly religious people who want to see ID in textbooks. If you give ID credibility by putting it into textbooks it makes it easier to accept biblical creationism. Never mind that there is no evidence that we were created by gods or aliens. Did you read the accounts of the Dover trial? One of the really damning bits of evidence was the demonstration that some of the ID literature had been produced by taking creationist literature and doing a search and replace of "ID" for "creationism".
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Mar 24, 2010 13:17:57 GMT -4
Are you sure that isn't the reason for the rejection? I have heard that at least some of ID's critics have said that they would find the idea more acceptable if the Intelligent Designer in question were not the Christian God. If it were, say, an alien civilization instead (presumably an alien race which had themselves evolved).ID is a not so subtle way to undermine the scientific theory of evolution by creating doubt based on a non scientific principle. ID was itself designed to be superficially scientific in an effort to get around the charges of creationism. The courts saw through that in rejecting ID. ID fails on at least two issues, it requires a supernatural creator. If life on earth were seeded form another place, ID fails to add anything to our understanding. The second place it fails is it that proponents state that life could not have evolved on earth to its current extent without supernatural intervention. Although they have failed abysmally to show why this must be true. What exactly do you mean by "fully ingrained"? I mentioned several practices that I feel would be over the line, and several that I felt would be acceptable.I think the establishment comes along way before "devoting tax income to a particular sect, or requiring that you belong to a certain religion to hold political office" are proposed. Such as teaching religious or pseudo-religious doctrine in the classroom. Were we talking about religious displays in courtrooms? The topic in the post of mine that you responded to was a statement of being glad we have separation of church and state. It applies equally to courts and classrooms In any case, aren't there measures to remove judges who act on their own principles instead of the law? In Texas this is the ballot box or impeachment. The ballot box doesn't protect minorities from majority opinion, or pressures from overactive minorities. Impeachment is a crude tool used only in the most egregious cases. There is also appeal to mitigate the damage, but that is expensive and not realistically open to most. The best course for operating a judicial system is to work toward an environment that promotes equal application of the law. To my thinking, a major principle of fairness is judges that do not prejudice themselves in the courtroom.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 24, 2010 13:28:25 GMT -4
ID fails on at least two issues, it requires a supernatural creator. From what I've seen, ID theory doesn't make any conclusions about the designer, including whether it might be termed supernatural. If ID crticisms are proven to be well-founded then it might in fact be an indication that panspermia is correct. It would then have added to our understanding, even if ID itself proves unfalsifiable. Again, I don't think they state that the intervention has to have been supernatural. So in your view teaching any religious doctrine in a classroom would be "fully ingraining" religion into our government, and a violation of the First Ammendment? I'm trying to get to the bottom of what "fully ingrained" is supposed to mean.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Mar 24, 2010 13:37:52 GMT -4
I'm trying to get to the bottom of what "fully ingrained" is supposed to mean.
The words I wrote were "more fully ingrained," implying that separation is violated before the full integration ideas you mentioned are achieved.
ID fails because mostly it doesn't really state anything that can be tested. It is the non-scientific musings of the a religious movement. If it proves to have some value to human knowledge it will become science at that point. Until then, it should stay out of science classrooms.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 24, 2010 14:09:50 GMT -4
The words I wrote were "more fully ingrained," Actually you said, "Jason's definition of establishment is so limited that religion could be nearly fully ingrained in government without violating the Constitution." So it my definition is too limited in your view I wanted to see what you thought the definition should be. This seems to presuppose that religious thought is not of value to human knowledge, only science. That seems a debatable assumption.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Mar 24, 2010 15:15:10 GMT -4
The words I wrote were "more fully ingrained," Actually you said, "Jason's definition of establishment is so limited that religion could be nearly fully ingrained in government without violating the Constitution." So it my definition is too limited in your view I wanted to see what you thought the definition should be. You are correct, I said "nearly fully ingrained" rather than "more". My point remains the same, that separation is violated long before "devoting tax income to a particular sect, or requiring that you belong to a certain religion to hold political office" come into play. If you are looking for a specific line, I don't have one or think one can be specifically drawn for all circumstances. This seems to presuppose that religious thought is not of value to human knowledge, only science. That seems a debatable assumption. Once again you are misreading what I write. I am not sure how you can make that interpretation from a statement shat says untestable religious notions should not be taught in a science classroom.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 24, 2010 15:20:36 GMT -4
You said that if an idea (ID specifically) has value to human knowledge, then it will be accepted as science. That implies that theories or thoughts that are not accepted as science are not of value.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Mar 24, 2010 19:19:55 GMT -4
You said that if an idea (ID specifically) has value to human knowledge, then it will be accepted as science. That implies that theories or thoughts that are not accepted as science are not of value. There are many non scientific ideas that can bring value, weather they can be proven or not. What I was speaking of is science and ID is presented as science. Although it really isn't. More specifically, the notion that evolution could not and did not occur without some hypothesized force acting on life at a molecular level to control evolution is not scientific. If someday that idea is redefined in a scientific fashion and gains the support of evidence it will begin to add value and gain support as science. Until that point it is not science
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 25, 2010 10:56:09 GMT -4
You said that if an idea (ID specifically) has value to human knowledge, then it will be accepted as science. That implies that theories or thoughts that are not accepted as science are not of value. There are many non scientific ideas that can bring value, weather they can be proven or not. What I was speaking of is science and ID is presented as science. Although it really isn't. More specifically, the notion that evolution could not and did not occur without some hypothesized force acting on life at a molecular level to control evolution is not scientific. If someday that idea is redefined in a scientific fashion and gains the support of evidence it will begin to add value and gain support as science. Until that point it is not science Very good. I think we generally agree.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 25, 2010 14:23:40 GMT -4
So you agree that ID shouldn't be taught in schools?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 25, 2010 15:25:32 GMT -4
So you agree that ID shouldn't be taught in schools? I agree that there are many non-scientific ideas that have value. I agree that ID is not especially scientific at this point. I agree that it may one day be improved to the point that it is scientific. I wouldn't mind seeing students being given an overview of the criticisms ID has against evolutionary theory, but the issue is too politically controversial currently to expect that to happen.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Mar 25, 2010 19:37:56 GMT -4
All of it should be taught (evolution, creationism, ID). Just don't do it in a science class. Students should be exposed to all these theories, both pro and con.
|
|