They ARE required to actually talk about the subjects they are dealing with and not just hand-wave the subjects aside.
***So a guy with a BS in Art History will need to know how much math in order to be qualified to discuss it on a school board? None. He doesn’t even need to have that Art History degree. He handwaves when the technical stuff comes along. If you want to set up a system where only people who have certain knowledge can enter the debate, by all means do so and get it posted. But I don’t see that on FR. I don’t see GWB getting a biochem degree overnight, but he was able to discuss policy decisions. You guys are trying to set up a priesthood.
If the school board is debating which Math text to use, don't you think they should debate the merits of the competing texts?
***What can I say other than ABSOLUTELY. And if enough parents want 2 sets of math books to be presented to their kids, for whatever goofy reason, it should be allowable as long as it doesn’t cause harm to society.
You don't want to do that; you just want to say *Evolution make people do bad things, evolution bad* without ever talking about whether or not evolution is true.
***Show me where there is that requirement here on FR and I will follow it. This appears to be some unwritten rule that you guys have been following, and you’ve been ridiculing anyone who can’t stand up to some nebulous technical standard. You folks are acting like religionists in so many ways that it has become obvious to some.
A basic understanding of the subject and a willingness to discuss some of the details of that subject are a definite requirement. If school boards and other policy makers don't want to talk about the specifics of a theory they appose, then they have no leg to stand on.
***If a school board is made up of all art history majors, they’ll tend to handwave on any of the scientific stuff. That’s just human nature. That is analogous to the situation you have here. If this is a definite requirement for entering crevo threads, show me where it is written by the mods or JimRob and I will follow whatever is considered to be the correct norm. Until then, I’m gonna stick around.
"The real scary thought is that there are a lot more OJ level jurors than PhD biochem guys."…They'll be a lot more if we lie to students and teach them that creationism is a scientific theory.
***There will be a lot fewer if we teach both sides congruently.
Your ignorance should not be the level we strive to.
***Oh, that’s a good, zippy one liner. Your callousness should not be the level we strive to when we teach our children. Sorry, I’m just not as crisp as you when it comes to one liners.
Explain yourself. You keep saying how horrible evolution is for morality yet you haven't shown where in the theory it makes any claims to be a moral guide.
***Ok. A garden left to itself will grow weeds. This area of concern, where kids will process the evo information in an unhealthy manner by default, is due to the fact that Science stops right at the point where the moral implications start to arise. The lack of a moral guide is like having the lack of a gardener, the default position is moral weeds.
A willingness to actually discuss the policy under consideration. You refuse.
***I am discussing this soulless policy that you guys want taught to our children. But like the art history laden school board, the level of expertise has its limits.
"I had trouble with thermodynamics, but that doesn’t mean I suggest that others shouldn’t learn it."
Yes you did.
***Um, no I didn’t.
You said ""And if someone like me can't understand the theory, why are you folks trying to teach it to our kids? ". Just because you're ignorant, doesn't mean our kids have to be too.
***I’m not ignorant. I know enough about the theory to have gotten this far and close down a couple of crevo threads. I just don’t agree with you. Is your assumption that just because someone doesn’t agree with you, they’re ignorant? What do you think happened when the eggheads tried to get into the finer points of protein sequencing with GWB? He probably handwaved it, said he didn’t have the time, and said that as long as both sides are using science to bolster their points, it appears to be a scientific controversy. That works for me.
What affects? You refuse to discuss the theory, why should we take your word there are *negative spiritual effects*. Explain them, with reference to what the theory says.
***I did explain a few of them, from my own personal experience. I know they exist because I experienced them for myself. You’re right, you shouldn’t just take my word that there are negative spiritual effects, you should investigate this with some vigor. You might find that that 2/3 majority has a few things to say along these lines. I imagine that this is the area where I have a lot of work ahead of me.
Ok, you want science by polls.
***Again. BORING. Over & over. You keep telling me what I want and I know that it isn’t what I want, it is even posted. If I post three more times that it isn’t what I want, will that take care of the next 3 reiterations? Do you want a godless, soulless religion that the bible calls “mystery, Babylon” to be the forced creed that every school kid in the world must follow? I didn’t see that you wrote that, but hey, as long as you can tell me what I want then why can’t I tell you what you want?
By votes. You want people who don't wish to know anything about a theory decide whether that theory is sound or not.
***Once again, NO.
You pride yourself in not caring about the science.
***No. I wish I had the time. I actually like science. I don’t like scientism.
You think it is a good thing that most people don't know what evolution is, and you are working to make sure even less do. Your denials are baloney.
***Time for a bran muffin and decaf. Geez, get ahold of yourself. You presume to tell me what I think?
"He designed his own atom bomb. Now, was it Einstein’s fault? No. Is there something so inherently dangerous to the subject matter that it demands legitimate control so that society does not get harmed? Yes"….No, there isn't. You want to limit the teaching of the theory of relativity, you do it with your kids. Let the rest of the countries children know about it.
***Wow, you’ve really gone off the deep end here. Are you incapable of reasoning from an analogy, even one that you introduced?
Please tell us, what other theories that you have very little knowledge of do you deem too *dangerous* to be taught?
***Oh, ok, thanks for asking ;-) That Lyndon Larouche stuff seemed dangerous to me. Scientology. . Zero point energy. est. Islamofascism. That comet/spaceship thingie. Electrogravitics might be on the listAstrology. Satanism. That’ll do for starters.
What spiritually dangerous teaching? E=mc^2?
***The spiritually dangerous teaching is that kids are told they evolved from animals and that some animalistic behavior is most likely genetic or pre-programmed or that we can’t control certain urges or whatever. That sex is just an exchange of bodily fluids. There’s more, but I’m running out of time.
"
You refuse to expand on the *scientific* controversy, after repeated pressing.
***And I will probably never expand on the scientific controversy surrounding global warming because the subject is too vast to tackle for me at this point in time. That doesn’t stop people from engaging in discussions about SUVs and pollutants. Same goes for certain areas of the evo controversy.
Put up or shut up. That's the scientific method. BTW, Bush's science adviser has come out against teaching ID.
***I know Bush’s science advisor came out against teaching ID. That’s why it caught me by surprise when GWB came out with his position. Apparently there was not enough evidence to sway George from his confirmatory bias. I find that very intriguing. Do you think it’s because the science advisor didn’t give him enough information on protein sequencing? Or maybe it was that fine structure constant thingie, maybe he wasn’t up to speed on that? I guess it’s possible that even top-level PhD science advisors might not know enough to sway some VIP’s opinion, so I figure I’m in the clear for awhile. Perhaps you think that since the president doesn't hold a science degree, his opinion is invalid? That's where you're wrong, and he's gonna drive a truck right through that opening you leave him. I find it fascinating to view your thinking process as you grasp that the rules have changed in the ID debate, and yet you still don't get it.
And you saying there are *spiritual problems* without addressing how specifically the theory produces them is just smoke blowing from your butt.
***I imagine I’ll get around to those spiritual issues when it seems like the right time.
The average kid is a lot smarter then you.
***I’ll keep that in mind.
Don't use your admitted ignorance as a yardstick for what other's can do.
***Pretty good one liner. That’s others, no apostrophe.
"Bringing out character as a subject matter without addressing the points mentioned is a form of ad hominem argumentation. "…Do you know how ironic your above statement is?
***Glad you caught that. But when did I question your character?
"I was very explicit when I pointed out that the NAMBLA stuff is hyperbole."…Yet you just happened to bring them in to the conversation. Riiiight.
***I guess I don’t see your point here. I saw an analogous parallel and went with it. You can see the obvious spiritual consequences if we were to allow NAMBLA to teach our kids, so I think my point was actually well made. Now the spiritual consequences for evo aren’t as obvious, but you can see how someone might view it as dangerous to teach our children.
Yes, a patently disgusting and ludicrous analogy.
***And yet you do not address the points brought up in the analogy, even though you’ve been shown to be wrong that I wasn’t using Association. But your colorful language is enjoyable, keep up the good work.
Nonsense. I appealed to no authority.
***Sure you do. The authority of knowledge in the subject matter, that someone who doesn’t know as much as [whatever yardstick, note that this isn’t written down anywhere I can find] should not be engaging in these social policy debates.
You HAVEN'T engaged in discourse on this subject, you have evaded the core of the debate, which is the scientific merits of evolution and ID. Utterly pathetic.
***The core of the debate is what should we teach our children, and I have engaged. The core is not how much I know about evolution, thus I choose not to engage there for the most part. If you want to engage others on what you consider to be the core, go ahead.
You guys are trying to set up a priesthood.
You folks are acting like religionists in so many ways that it has become obvious to some.
I am discussing this soulless policy that you guys want taught to our children.
You’re right, you shouldn’t just take my word that there are negative spiritual effects, you should investigate this with some vigor.
Do you want a godless, soulless religion that the bible calls “mystery, Babylon” to be the forced creed that every school kid in the world must follow?
The spiritually dangerous teaching is that kids are told they evolved from animals and that some animalistic behavior is most likely genetic or pre-programmed or that we can’t control certain urges or whatever. That sex is just an exchange of bodily fluids. There’s more, but I’m running out of time.
I find it fascinating to view your thinking process as you grasp that the rules have changed in the ID debate, and yet you still don't get it.
You can see the obvious spiritual consequences if we were to allow NAMBLA to teach our kids, so I think my point was actually well made. Now the spiritual consequences for evo aren’t as obvious, but you can see how someone might view it as dangerous to teach our children.
Guess where this guy stands on the TOE?