Posted on 11/07/2004 4:51:32 PM PST by Jo Nuvark
(Vanity) MY SPOUSE JUST TRIED TO VOTE YES IN CNN'S POLL RE: SHOULD CREATIONISM BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOL? CNN DID NOT ACCEPT HIS VOTE. THE POST READS 2:1 AGAINST TEACHING CREATIONISM IN SCHOOL.
FREEPERS SHOULD TAKE THIS POLL NOW!
"Has not fully" isn't the same as "cannot". Consciousness is a tangable observable property that can be experimented with and manipulated. It is certainly within the realm of scientific inquiry.
Those already are allowed. It is creationism that isn't anymore. Evolution is fine though, as is Satanism.
No, consciousness is not an observable. It is subjective. Everybody know what it is, everybody knows they are conscious, but it is not possible to experience another persons consciousness. Just because something behaves as you expect a conscious entity to behave does not imply that it is conscious; just because something does not react they way you would expect a conscious entity to react does not imply that it is not conscious. Science will never explain consciousness become it is beyond the realm of science in spite of the fact that it is so fundamental.
How is it possible? Each are taken, by some, as valid means to knowledge of the world. They must and always have clashed. We can only hope people continue to reinterpret their religion to fit reasonably persuasive scientific evidence.
BTW, why group philosophy with religion? Philosophic inquiry should be open to the same skepticism and logic as science, and not be taken as fiat truth. If education in philosophy teaches nothing else, it should teach scrutiny and reason as a process of gaining understanding.
There is rational skeptical inquiry on one side (science, mathematics, philosophy) and fiat knowledge, tradition, faith, Kierkegaardian teleology, or whatever you want to call it on the other side (religion). That is to say, the methods of persuasion are distinctly divided into two categories.
Well then I'm on your side here. If your school teaches alchemy, astrology, augury, and satanism, then it might as well toss in creationism as well.
I can't find the poll. However, if I could, I'd vote that it should not be taught.
Hello DM...
The point isn't that Creationism should or should not be taught. The point is, a Yes vote was rejected in the poll.
I don't think evolution should be taught either. It's just not good science.
You concoct absurd limitations. Indirect evidence of others' consciousness IS just that--EVIDENCE OF OTHERS' CONSCIOUSNESS. Both your own and other people's consciousnesses can be manipulated chemically, surgically, and through observation of many different disease processes. Stereotypical and predictable patterns emerge making it quite amenable to study.
You fall into the Kantian nihilistic fallacy of the noumena. That you and I can even give it a name ("consciousness"), let alone discuss it, shows that we know something of it. And what we speak of, we know from our experiences with it. Those experiences (observations) are the subject of scientific enquiry.
As a Scientist 1) I believe it should and 2) becuase it is.
Oh Please. You mean you fell for "Lucy" too?
According to creationists, science is only "good" science if it supports their beliefs.
I couldn't tell you how many times I've seen a creationist on this forum write that the laws of physics support creationism. As I have a degree in physics, I've just got to laugh.
Don't fall off the edge.
The poofists strike again.
*LOL* Me too.
But more seriously, they give the Conservatism a bad name.
Show me anywhere in observable science where order comes from chaos? Show me. Huh? Just show me!
But is it alive????
If you let a few dozen other posts accumulate before you move the goalposts like that, it becomes much less obvious to the casual reader that you're trying to pull a fast one. Just FYI.
I presume you are being facetious. If not, I first weep for you, then simply refer you to read about the second law of thermodynamics. Oh, and for an example, crystal formation will do. Of course the examples are virtually limitless.
This is order. It has a design. Design must have a designer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.