This is why Bobby Jhindal is a fool

Umm, no. You are putting words in my mouth. I am advocating the ID not be taught science class, because it is not science. Period. Evolution has nothing to do with the question of God vs No God. Science and philosophy are two very different disciplines. Evolution is not a tool to be used to fight anything, it is a description of an observable process. If this conflicts with peoples superstitions, that's just how it is. Science has butted up against superstition for most of history.

Selective quoting? You said "you are pushing an agenda which seeks to replace faith and belief with science. That encroachment is no different than trying to insert creation into science without letting it stand the rigors of the scientific method."

To which I said "I don't get your comparison. Trying to rid the classroom of superstition is the same as allowing the superstition to be taught as fact?"

Where is the selective quoting? Responding to what you wrote? Stand by your words. They are my only device to determine what you mean.

I'm not trying to turn god into anything. How is god anything more than a hypothesis? Is he a theory, or a law? Please show me the physical evidence for god and we will talk. But since you can't, then yes, he is a hypothesis.

Define religious tenet? How does science get turned into it? Can you give an example?

Can you point to my incivility? Criticizing concepts is not the same as attacking a person. I'm not going to add "If I may please say, and this is just my opinion" to everything I argue.

 

That second link says: Various skulls are shown along with the current best educated guess as to where they fit on the tree of primate descent.

And yes, it is convincing evidence, I never said it wasn't, but as the link states, it the best educated guess, not 100% proof. That's what I was saying, "proof" is usually an over interpretation of the data.

 

My "wow" was aimed at the "male-dominated" statement. If you believe that, you haven't met my wife. :shock:

It is an attempt to find meaning in life. I wouldn't say it is pathetic, it is simply a different path then mine. Some beliefs attributed to god can seem ignorant to me, but overall belief in God is definitely not beneath me, as long as it doesn't intrude on my life against my will. That is not the case with much of Christian culture.

I'm a big boy. And I know that you always come through as very nice and respectful in your posts. I admire civility and try to use it in my conversations. Typed words don't convey tone very well, and can make one sound differently than intended. I'm naturally a bit sarcastic in my personality, more than I should, but I am also a very nice, caring person in real life.

I've been there, believed it, shared it, rejoiced in it. So I see the point of view. The problem is that without any proof, claims of god are just... claims. I also believe that much of the god concept is very harmful to humans and humanity, and is actually a very pessimistic and bitter way of looking at the world. We are all doomed to suffer for eternity for what Adam and Eve did? I don't see the joy in that, or why God is so great to create such an existence.

Science is there to lay out facts, and when baseless concepts are presented as an alternative to facts, you are only spreading ignorance.

Again, I go back to the fueling of ignorance. If something is an established fact, there is no reason to teach alternatives. This is to keep children from being too rigidly stupid and illogical. Progress in science, medicine, technology, etc is based on establishing facts, and then building on them. If you don't establish facts, there is nothing to build on.

Agreed

We divide philosophy and science for the reasons I mentioned above; building new discoveries on the backs of established facts. Philosophy argues the way things should be, science argues the ways things are. Both are valuable.

True as a blanket statement, not so true in specific instances, like ID vs Evo.

 

An attempted explanation from an "expert" is hardly evidence. Others agree. So what. Other so called experts disagree. You have not proved or disproved anything except that they are looking at it and coming up with all kinds of hypothesis.

You gave me a few hypothesis among many. Hardly evidence. There's an array of hypothesis of what existed before the big bang. What leads you to believe that you are able to choose which hypothesis is correct?

My argument is that there's no scientific proof to back up your claims. Only hypothesis and speculation from experts. I say science doesn't know the origins pf pre Big Bang ingredients. You already gave evidence to my claim by pointing out several different hypothesis of these origins. If science knew then there would be one across the board accepted theory of the origins of the pre Big Bang ingredients. Instead we having nothing more than hypothesis that differ drastically from one another.

If you presented me with facts and not hypothesis and science fiction then I would be glad to take the effort to dispute them.

I'll come back when you supply me with real evidence.

 

If I am reading to much into your statements then I apologize. I agree ID is not science and does not belong in science class.

The attempt to turn god into a scientific hypothesis is applying scientific principles to the immaterial world where they do not belong and do not have merit. This is just as silly as trying to place creation into science when it cannot stand up to the rigors of that discipline. Is that stated any better? You left off the first half of the paragraph which takes away the meaning and changes the modifiers.

Again applying concepts designed to learn about the material world do not make sense when applied to the immaterial.

I edited my post. I must have done this while you were responding. Maybe you can revisit and we can move on.

Describing 5 or so billion believing people as irrational crazies with imaginary friends and without reason is condesending and rude. It is one thing to say "you cannot prove God does not exist, so I do not believe in him", but it is an entirely other thing to say "God does not exist, so I do not believe in him, and it is foolish for you to believe in him." Your tone and word choice approaches the latter.

I can discuss these type topics with most people, but some are just incapable of doing this without getting overly personal. I have seen it from both ways. I find Fundementalist Christians and big Richard Dawkins fans to be the worst.

 

We aren't in Rome, we're in the US.

I'm not really a proponent of ID, and I don't fear science. But I do believe a person can be too scientific and logical without a balance of other human components and I've had my share of teachers who leaned strongly to the former.

Is it really necessary to keep everything compartmentalized? The real world is full of overlap, why should we raise our children as if everything is neat and tidy? It really doesn't seem like such a bad idea to teach that things intermingle.