Posted on 10/11/2005 6:21:59 PM PDT by gobucks
The most frustrating thing about following the Dover school board trial is seeing both sides maneuver for a legal advantage with arguments that not only seem disingenuous, but miss the point.
Dover school board members may deny it, but religion did influence the vote to introduce intelligent design into science class. Lawyers for the plaintiffs jump on the legal requirement demanding a “secular purpose” for science curriculum by lining up witnesses who denounce intelligent design as religion. Slam-dunk case, right?
Not really, because the plaintiffs’ argument is built on faulty premises. Their witnesses insist that Darwinism is pure fact, that it is neutral in regard to religion. Then they roll out the old chestnut that science and religion are two entirely different realms of knowledge — separate but equal. We’ve heard that before.
Intellectual honesty
The truth is that anyone who’s being intellectually honest will admit that science can never be divorced from religion, that a person’s philosophical outlook will always affect how he or she interprets nature’s phenomena. Honest people will also admit that Darwinism supports a definite philosophy about nature, one that is hostile to theistic faith held by many Americans.
This is why I find the Dover plaintiffs’ arguments disingenuous. Their witnesses, like many adherents to Darwinism, insist modern science respects religion when in reality it marginalizes it and usurps its authority.
Consider how many leading scientists frame the issue. The late Harvard biologist Stephen Jay Gould went further than many of his colleagues in allowing that religion has the right to pursue “questions of ultimate meaning and moral value.” But then he undercut the credibility of religion by stating that only science deals with actual facts.
In other words, science examines reality; religion deals in fantasies.
Hard to take
This implicit disdain for religion makes it hard to take the Dover plaintiffs’ argument at face value, such as when theology professor John Haught explained why he does not consider intelligent design science.
Science, Haught said, is supposed to address the question of “how;” while religion answers “why.” They are two different schools of thought, he said.
What Haught did not say was that this alleged restriction fails to prevent some scientists from encroaching upon subjects supposedly reserved for religion.
Physicists argue that miracles are impossible. Behaviorists equate human morality with the instinctive reactions of laboratory rats. Oxford professor and prominent atheist Richard Dawkins insists that an evolutionary view of life and the cosmos makes God “gratuitous.”
The late biologist Julian Huxley even went so far as to call for “an evolutionary and humanist religion” to replace faiths such as Christianity he considered either dead or outmoded.
Does this kind of agnostic evangelism sound like the product of a field of study that restricts itself to answering certain kinds of questions? It does not, and to suggest otherwise is absurd.
Second-class status
But even if Haught is right, what does that say about the priorities of public education? If religion answers the question “why” — why we are here, why evil exists, why any choice we make matters at all — wouldn’t you think religion would be considered indispensable to the curriculum?
But as far as public education is concerned, religion is quite dispensable. Religion courses, if they’re offered at all, certainly are not presented as students’ best chance to learn about divine truth. How much “ultimate meaning” can you expect to get out of an elective, anyway?Science courses, by contrast, are usually mandatory. And don’t forget about those standardized tests.In reality, the separate-but-equal standard works about as well for religion in public education as it did for minorities during Jim Crow.
Belief in nothing
What does this means for students? It means that explicitly and implicitly they’re taught that science trumps faith.
It means they learn that men in white lab coats — the ones who offer medicines, iPods and weapons of mass destruction — speak with greater authority than pastors, rabbis and priests. It means they’ll be told the reason they exist is no reason at all, just chance, mutation and blind law.
And chances are they’ll believe it, because after all, it’s based on science.
Dave Dentel is a copy editor for the York Daily Record/Sunday News. Reach him at ddentel@ydr.com or by calling 771-2043.
On crack - no. Just defending my ground. You say I did something which is demonstrably not true. You say I provided calculations - answers as it were when anyone with the capacity to read can see by #56 that I did no such thing. Ask yourself your question - "are you on crack?" Begging incredulity is no replacement for being right. You blew it and are trying to cover your hide by grasping at straws and being untruthful. How many of us here know the first thing one does when caught in a lie? One gets mad and one goes for yet another lie to cover the first one. It's human nature. What is spunkets doing - getting mad and going for another lie to cover his first one. This is the level of their debate.
Read the reply again Sherlock.
I read the reply, and I responded accordingly. Thank you. And I'll again ask you to stop being dishonest.
Indeed! Sober up before you start lecturing folks and calling them liars!
I don't need to sober up. You keep saying 14C isn't used to date the earth. The only thing I can do is guess at why you keep saying that as if it has any relevance. I proffered that the equilibrium of it in the atmosphere has not been reached and you then jump in and say "well that's not used." - What's your point other than to make mine for me? And how do I thusly respond to your quack response of "that's not used." You Lie about what I've said and then use my responses as though they were my original treatment. Again, dishonesty. And again, you illustrate my point. You cannot be honest. You cannot deal forthrightly and you can't but try to confuse the discussion with your tangents and irrationalities. So, I ask again not caring whether you use 14C or not - how long does it take for 14c to reach equilibrium in the atmosphere? I could have asked a litany of questions and still can. I chose two and you can't deal forthrightly on them. I can imagine the circus this thread would become if we bothered treating the rest of the subjects openly where people can understand them and think for themselves.
Wrong. 14C accumulates at a known rate, decays at a known rate and is otherwise broken down by radiation at a known rate. So we know its "comings and goings" and are thusly able to equate how long it takes to reach equilibrium. Hint, this has been done.
Secondly, we aren't talking about 14C radiocarbon dating - that was an attempt to see if you were mistaking the equilibrium issue for radiocarbon because you weren't paying attention. As for whether the levels of 14C are in flux, they are not. They are accumulating at a known and measurable rate. And it's only recently that science had to admit this after "ASSUMING" it was constant. We're used to science assuming themselves into mistatements of fact. So lets stick with the record, shall we.
Somebody else posting in your name?
"Wrong. 14C accumulates at a known rate, decays at a known rate and is otherwise broken down by radiation at a known rate. So we know its "comings and goings" and are thusly able to equate how long it takes to reach equilibrium."
You didn't list the sinks. Nor did you address neutron flux, or [C]. I really don't care about your equillibrium nonsense. I told you it was useless.
"Hint, this has been done."
Hint, I don't give a damn. Post it if you want. Show your work if you do. Otherwise it's BS like your other posts.
Hey spunkets. Suppose he missed post 80 where you said there was no equilibrium, noted folks use calibrations to determine the conc at some time and posted an authoritative site?
Hey spunkets, do you think he knows what equilibrium even means? There is none here, because it's not a reversible process. Quasi steady state is what folks look for and that depends on the neutron flux, CO2, atmospheric decays and the various sinks for CO2.
I understand you don't care about equilibrium. That's my underlying point. You excuse yourself from data you don't like. That is the point. How much more clear does one have to state it.
Hint, I don't give a damn. Post it if you want. Show your work if you do. Otherwise it's BS like your other posts.
I know you don't. That's why we're here. You don't care but the information is relevant and people are sick to death of being manipulated with the information you like and lied to about the information you don't. People are tired of being abused by your pronouncements on the EVO side which have all the credibility of "bleeding" people to cure them. And no more than that. It isn't that the data isn't relevant - it disproves your erroneous dates, just as do things like Salination levels of the ocean which build at a known rate and yet are below 4% if memory serves. Billions of years would have salination levels so high in the oceans that they would be like the dead sea. But, again, not something we care to discuss - irrelevant - and "not used". No kidding. Not used in the same way we know the rate of Earth's rotation slows by 1/1000th of a second every day, reversing this does damage far sooner than "billions of years". Do the math. Sure, I know it isn't used. Neither is the known rate of decay of earth's magnetic field, when reversed gives you another problem. Not used - we know. When we start adding all these "not used" things up to cumulative effect we get a picture of a planet that not only isn't "billions" or even "millions" of years old - it isn't supportable. That's why these things "aren't used". It isn't bs, it just isn't convenient to your claims. I won't call them arguments..
Right, how many years ago was it that 14C production was considered to be constant to allow for radiocarbon dating..
14C is produced at a known rate and decays at a known rate etc. It isn't a difficult thing to understand. Equilibrium doesn't require a process to be reversable. Equilibrium only requires that something be gaining at a known rate and losing at a known rate. If you pour water into a drum, poke holes in it and continue pouring water in, at some place within a near stable level will develope. No one need know how long the water has been pouring in - only it's known rate of fill vs it's known rate of exit. Equilibrium is the point at which the increase and decrease rates seem to stableize. 14C has not stablized in the atmosphere. It is not in flux and it is graphed moving in a steady direction
over time. You're handwringing.
So instead of organizing and posting your enlightening equilibrium data and calculations, you came back and posted more rubbish.
I said calibrations are used. See the link for the original paper. I'm sure their instuments were calibrated and specimen data corrected for period concentrations, or otherwise noted.
"14C is produced at a known rate"
No.
"Equilibrium doesn't require a process to be reversable. Equilibrium only requires that something be gaining at a known rate and losing at a known rate."
Equilibrium is not steady state. Equilibrium is a condition where the forward reaction equals the reverse reaciton. It requires a reversible process. Steady state is the condiition of the process you're looking for, but there will only be a quasi steady state in this irreversible process. That means the concentration varies slow enough over a narrow enough range to be a good approximation. The error bars indicate the how good.
"If you pour water into a drum, poke holes in it and continue pouring water in, at some place within a near stable level will develope. No one need know how long the water has been pouring in - only it's known rate of fill vs it's known rate of exit."
You need to know the size of the tank and how long the water's been flowing also. If the input is greater than the output, you'll overflow the tank. How soon depends on the flow rate and vessel size. If the flows are reversed the level will never go higher than the hole in the tank. Your tank scenario ain't even close to modeling a 14C steady state.
" Equilibrium is the point at which the increase and decrease rates seem to stableize.
No.
"14C has not stablized in the atmosphere. It is not in flux and it is graphed moving in a steady direction over time."
See the link I posted for 14C vs t.
If you actually knew and understood the process, you never would have written this. I used the word flux to describe the neutron flux That flux drives the 14C flux to and through the various sinks.
* Was he sitting on a throne at the time, of standing on a cloud?
* Did he shout some godly incantation, or just furrow his brow?
* Did the angels help? If so, how many>
(rolls eyes in disgust)
Ah, the old "you're stupid if you believe in God, and let me make some ignorant statements that belittle your God to make my point argument."
Your disgust is indicative of hostility to religion, which is where we began my part of the thread. You make my point that many science folks that think Man is powerful unto himself and able to figure it all out (even though our best efforts always seem to fall short as anomalies pop up all the time) are in fact hostile to religion. If you can't comprehend it, you belitle it because you think so highly of yourself that even God pales beside you. I guess your version of scientific examination precludes looking at areas that disagree with your own pet theories - that's called "putting in the fix" so you can prove your ideas (even if some of them seem to have some of those irritating anomalies) without having to disprove what you disagree with.
Tell me what the exact "harm" is to give both sides of the story. How many kids have been "harmed" by hearing that some of believe in an all-powerful God?
You haven't answered my question. You obviously don't agree with too much of what ID promotes. Why then would you want ID taught in schools?
But it isn't science, it's theology.
Why does that preclude it from being taught as a theory in school? Granted, it conflicts with a scientific theory, but it can't be proven wrong any more than evolution can be conclusively proven right. Are there any indications (other than generally fatal mutations) that we are still "evolving"? Should there be if we actually evolved? How about the seeming fact that, without modern medicine, our lifespans would be getting shorter instead of longer? God said I will make man scarcer than pure gold, more rare than the gold of Ophir. If you look at declining fertility rates in many of the "developed" countries, it would seem that this prophesy might be in the process of being fulfilled. Is it all theological bunk? Hundreds of Biblical prophesy have been fulfilled and there are only a few left that fit neatly into what is going on now. Biblical prophesy has a better percentage record than science; why be so quick to deny this "theology" a place in the classroom? Are you as adamant about the teaching of the gay agenda and other government trash?
What a steaming pile. Nothing scribbled by this guy has any relevance to the bottom line: science addresses the particular facts of the universe, religion addresses how one ought to respond to them.
Precisely.
I am reminded of an old Kudzu comic strip in which Reverend Will B. Dunn announces that God told him to run for President. One of the assembled reporters asks him if he is seriously asserting that the Creator of the Universe, the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Alpha and the Omega, [etc for a few panels] specifically selected him. He answers "Yes" and the assembled reporters crack up laughing.
In the final panel, he thinks, "Ain't it awful how these secular humanists scoff at religion?"
??? These have nothing to do with the topic at hand: evolution.
Why does that preclude it from being taught as a theory in school?
1) ID can't be taught as a *scientific* theory because IS *isn't* a scientific theory, just a collection of alleged criticisms against evolution.
2) ID could be offered as a philosophical/theological idea, although with the disclaimer that there isn't a particle of concrete evidence to support it.
Don't waste our time with this pathetic intellectual cheat. You are stuck right back where you started, unable to refute the notion that the Moon is maintained in its orbit by an invisible strand of spaghetti -- sure, "microgravitational" therory has been tested with lead balls in a lab, but nobody has done any "macrograviational" tests with entire celestial objects.
Puh-leeze. Even you aren't this ignorant -- the replenishment mechanism of C14 can be looked up easily enough.
Funny, I've never seen plate tectonics reproduced in the lab, either. Why do YOU think the eastern side of S. America fits so well next to the western side of Africa?
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.