Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
Posted on 09/06/2005 5:11:42 AM PDT by billorites
I'd probably go a bit further: freedom of belief is one thing, freedom to prosletyse might be something else again. Freedom of speech, as somebody said, isn't the right to stand up in crowded theater and shout "Fire!"
I get awfully dubious about 'relativism,' at least as it is commonly applied. The whole title of this thread is what hooked my interest: one side really can be wrong in this one, I really don't hold with a woolly "what A believes is as valid as what B believes" bit of fluff here at all.
Thanks for your posts; I appreciated the points you made
Troll it is.
Your premise is flawed, in that it says one must allow an unsupported argument to automatically receive undeserved credence because if someone challenges its validity, it wins legitimacy simply by being refuted.
Using this logic, if someone claimed the moon might be made of cheese so it should be taught as an alternate theory, and someone else opposed teaching this on the basis that it is a ridiculous claim without merit, then would the very act of opposing the Cheese Moon Theorytm make the notion that the moon is made of rock 'suspect'?
Because ID'ers and creationists are attempting an illegitimate (and intellectually lame) "end run" around the normal process of professional review to which any other scientific idea, or proposed curricula item, is subject.
As any consultation of the research literature will objectively indicate, evolutionary theory is compelling and convincing to professional scientists actively engaged in relevant research. BTW, if ID, or any other approach, should prevail over evolutionary theory in that venue it would only be for the good. A new approach would only be adopted if genuinely superior, or offering some unique advantages, in delineating and solving research problems or otherwise advancing knowledge.
The problem is that ID'ers and creationists lack either the patience or confidence (and many of us believe the integrity) to achieve a place in the curricula the same every other scientific principle has -- by first succeeding in the market place of scientific ideas. Instead they have adopted popular and political pressure tactics, demanding that schools teach a "controversy" that doesn't exist (at least yet) in science itself.
There are multiple reasons that all persons (even, if not especially, creationists and ID'ers themselves!) should resist this approach.
The very fact that ID required a special exemption from normal vetting, and was included in curricula prior to peer acceptance, will tend to mark it as illegitimate, lacking in merit, and tag it as crankery or pseudo science. Indeed this effect is already operative from decades of creationists attempting to oust evolution or impose antievolutionary views by political means. That doesn't justify the continuation of such approaches, UNLESS of course ID'ers and creationists somewhere deep down recognize that their ideas don't have any real prospect of prevailing on merit; unless the whole thing isn't really about science at all; unless, IOW, the critics of ID and creationism are essentially correct.
I happen to think that the critics are obviously correct. No scientist who genuinely believed in their ideas, however marginal they might be initially, would ever adopt the patently stupid and counterproductive strategy which ID'ers and creationists energetically pursue.
Anything of this type will ultimately benefit leftist-extremists, multiculturalists, identity group victimologists, social relativists and advocates of pop-culture-oriented dumbed-down curricula. They are the ones who most commonly use arguments of "fairness," "equal time," the importance of covering "controversy," the (contradictory) importance of not subjecting identity group members to controversial doctrines that might make them uncomfortable, and a plethora of similar excuses to justify inclusion of material into the curricula that could never make it on objective merit.
Conservatives are the ones who traditionally have opposed such nonsense, and have principally and most effectively done so by insisting on hard-nose, merit based, objective curricula of the highest academic standard.
It is extremely damaging -- and damaging far beyond the science curricula -- for conservatives themselves to adopt the same approach, particularly on a high profile issue, and particularly to invest so much effort in making it a high profile issue. It undermines our efforts to limit incursions of leftism into the social science curricula and other areas.
See point 2 in my msg #164, written before I read yours. Great minds.... :)
I really like the expression you wrote: "intellectial affermative action." That sums up beautifully what the creationist/ID mindset has to appeal to in order to be heard. And it sums up beautifully why ID should not be a core conservative belief. It requires government intervention in order to promote a woefully inadequate theory to the status of science.
"Festival of the Cognitively broken-down Troll" placemarker
Yes, but these guys claim there are only six.
This is so utterly nonsensical that I have to vote troll.
I vote troll too. He/She/It's posts are so nonsensical and irrational it's the kindest explanation.
Great minds indeed, Stultis -- thanks!
Not true! I actually love creation stories. And here's one now!
People did not always live on the surface of the earth. At one time people and animals lived underneath the earth with Kaang, the Great Master and Lord of All Life. In this place people and animals lived together peacefully. They understood each other. No one ever wanted for anything and it was always light even though there wasn't any sun. During this time of bliss Kaang began to plan the wonders he would put in the world above.
First Kaang created a wondrous tree, with branches stretching over the entire country. At the base of the tree he dug a hole that reached all the way down into the world where the people and animals lived. After he had finished furnishing the world as he pleased he led the first man up the hole. He sat down on the edge of the hole and soon the first woman came up out of it. Soon all the people were gathered at the foot of the tree, awed by the world they had just entered. Next, Kaang began helping the animals climb out of the hole. In their eagerness some of the animals found a way to climb up through the tree's roots and come out of the branches. They continued racing out of the world beneath until all of the animals were out.
Kaang gathered all the people and animals about him. He instructed them to live together peacefully. Then he turned to the men and women and warned them not to build any fires or a great evil would befall them. They gave their word and Kaang left to where he could watch his world secretly.
As evening approached the sun began to sink beneath the horizon. The people and animals stood watching this phenomenon, but when the sun disappeared fear entered the hearts of the people. They could no longer see each other as they lacked the eyes of the animals which were capable of seeing in the dark. They lacked the warm fur of the animals also and soon grew cold. In desperation one man suggested that they build a fire to keep warm. Forgetting Kaang's warning they disobeyed him. They soon grew warm and were once again able to see each other.
However the fire frightened the animals. They fled to the caves and mountains and ever since the people broke Kaang's command people have not been able to communicate with animals. Now fear has replaced the seat friendship once held between the two groups.
Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
Be careful wallcrawlr, these people on this thread are not rational thinkers.
The point was made Dimensio. Sorry you didn't develop your reading comprehension skills when you had the chance.
Moving on... You folks injoy your little love fest here k? ;^D
Not me personally. Other people have, yes.
Please identify one modern textbook that does this.
Ah, so you made a claim you can't substantiate. Why am I not surprised?
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.