Posted on 04/21/2008 7:23:01 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The people who opine things here that those involved in the debate within the academic community decide don't deserve equal time are going to tell you they still are. Some people's opinions are going to have to be excluded. The logical basis to decide which ones do and don't get considered is going to be based on who can provide evidence that their opinions have scientific merit. Until the ID proponents can at least propose some methodology to test for positive evidence of ID, that's going to be problematic.
Not too long ago. I think the reason is that the ACLU isn't just one monolothic organization, but a collection of smaller state organizations too. Some of them must not have the anti-Christian attitude of the national group or other state groups. Most of what the ACLU does disgusts me, but there are those exceptional cases.
You've not provided any evidence from the university outlining his substandard performance. In any case what did the opposition hope to achieve except something counter to academic freedom?
Your other questions are red herring.
No, it is your opinion that you demonstrated something. What you demonstrated is that your opinion fits your opinion.
You’re not getting the point.
Most of what we’re doing here is opinion, argument, debate, logic. The point is that I showed a slippery slope relating to proselytization with the elements necessary for it not to be a logical fallacy. Opinion comes into it as my opinion is that religion is not a good thing to teach in public schools, supported by that logical slippery slope.
I can see ... "The people .... are going to tell you they still are. That sure looks like another form of slippery slope or an assertion. In any case, part of the discussion would be methodology of testing satisfactory to all sides. That cannot be done without discussing it in the first place.
First your definition of slippery slope is not a logical definition, since "absurd" and "very far reach" are not logical terms. This is a logical definition, "The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question".
You did try to argue your erroneous definition by arguing in a method which would have satisfied logic and coverted an assertion into a logical argument which would not have been a logical slippery slope fallacy. However, your argument included further assertions or opinions which are not acceptable within a logical argument. I pointed that out in post 419. This is one of your assertions(or an opinion) ...ID is religious-based, no matter what the current sanitized propaganda is lately." You follow that by a mischaracterization and a strawman here. "You let ID be taught in its current religious, non-scientific state, you're proselytizing, telling a captive group of kids your religious beliefs are the correct ones. And continue the "argument" with a false conclusion based on the mischaracterization and strawman, Now once you start proselytizing your creation stories, other religions will want to also.
That is not an argument. It is a series of opinions and mischaracterizations.
I haven’t seen any recently. Only the anti-Christian agenda.
Here, but you'll need a subscription. It gives him high marks in publishing while doing postdoc at UT and UW, "It looks like it slowed down considerably. It’s not clear that he started new things, or anything on his own, in the period he was an assistant professor at Iowa State." The article also states his low grant rate and lack of graduate students completing their work.
In any case what did the opposition hope to achieve except something counter to academic freedom?
For the publications, academic excellence and prestige. For the students, well, students completing their doctoral work is kind of one of the reasons the school exists. For research grants, schools rely on those for income, plus big grants are likely to produce big results, which brings prestige, which brings more grants... That's how universities work. That's how the tenure system works. If he didn't like it then he shouldn't have been in that line of work.
Your other questions are red herring.
The other questions go straight to the heart. ID proponents are screaming persecution and don't want to see that he was denied tenure for solid academic reasons. It hurts your case. You also can't stand back and look at this rationally to see how this is just like a liberal playing the race card. It looks like IDers would like ID proponents to be a protected class, and I hate protected classes.
I think there’s a related causality for kicking God out of school...the Godless have indoctrinated and succeeding with squashing others’ freedoms to the point a knee-jerk reaction develops wherein people react to them the same way they behave in the first place AND their “success” has emboldened and allowed them to get away with no longer teaching but endocrinating, not to mention re-writing history. To the point if WW2 history (for instance) isn’t all together overlooked entirely, the US is to blame.
They just don't seem to hit the news. They defended a Christian protesting against Wal-Mart's favorable gay policies (which is diametrically opposed to the ACLU's gay rights mission). They defended a Mormon who was being penalized for doing his mission, when the school gave leave for other reasons. They defended a kid who wanted to sing a Christian song in a school talent show. They defended kids who wore anti-abortion shirts to school. And they defended at least two street preachers. This was all within the last few years.
There is the rather significant fact that no one involved in hiring and firing decisions can defend their position in public. Whatever their reasons, they cannot discuss them without violatint confidentiality. The “victims” are not bound by any such rules.
But if the victims really are victims, rather that people of diminished competence, let them take it to coure. Perhaps the evilutionists will face another Waterloo.
Like Dover.
But if you want to know whether discrimination is pervasive, there is a large population of PhD level people who signed the Discovery Institute’s statement on the inadequacy of evolution. Let’s see how their careers are going.
Until something gets proposed, what is there to discuss? You can't just come up with a hypothesis, and then someone else to figure out how to test it for you.
1. ID is based in religion. See the Wedge Document.
2. ID being religion, teaching with the intent that the students believe it is practically the definition of of religious proselyting.
3. The record clearly shows that other groups are starting to want what Christians have. They are even suing to get those same privileges.
4. Logical conclusion: ID in schools means more than just ID in schools.
It is a very short slippery slope.
Well, one of the people claimed to be blacklisted in the movie finished her teaching contract, held another university job, and even got another science job after having supposedly been blacklisted.
And here I thought blacklisted meant you couldn't get a job or get published.
I can see how you can think that, but I am always very wary of assigning causality in such a large system with millions of input factors.
I specifically asked for evidence from the university since it involves ISU. I don't think Richard Monastersky fits that description. In any case, why should I accept his opinion over yours?
It looks like IDers would like ID proponents to be a protected class, and I hate protected classes.
Well, I think your feelings color your view. I don't hate Darwinists, I just think they are wrong. I also think that they, the Darwinists, are protected.
Here the Georgia ACLU threatened the school board if they didn’t pull the word Christmas off the school calendars.
There are simply too many cases like these to defend them.
Unless of course one’s agenda is the same as theirs.
Not me, whenever Godless liberals are in charge of anything, it’s soon ruined, often permanently so.
Well, something has been proposed. That is that Darwinism fails to adequately explain certain things. I have given a link to analysis by Lynch. And of course you come up with a hypothesis before you decide how to test it. The other party comes into the picture in order to agree that the tests do in fact test the hypothesis.
As a simple analogy, let us say I find a rock(observation step 1). My hypothesis is that the rock is an arrowhead fashioned by an intelligence(hypothesis - step 2). Now tell me what I would have to prove to you that my hypothesis is correct?
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.