Multiverse theory—unknown science or illogical raison d’être? (multiverse invented to replace God?)

CMI ^ | Gary Bates

[starlifter]

they are indeed a coven wascally wabbits.

[freedumb2003]

>>Is that anything like when the evos tell creationists how God did everything in the book of Genesis by using evolution and lots of time, and telling creationists that they’re wrong if they read it differently and that they’re cultists if they do?<<

But that isn’t what people who understand TToE say. We/they say that the idea of creation is a philosophical/theological argument and is not scientific.

[freedumb2003]

>>Is not science an imposition of the limitations and constraints of human comprehension on the creation of God? <<

It is an acknowledgment of them. Science is based on the idea the Universe operates on a set of rules which can be discovered. But all scientists will tell you they don’t expect to ever really discover them all.

[Glenn]

Fool.

[GodGunsGuts]

...for Christ.

[freedumb2003]

>>Science is being used and misused by those with an agenda against Christianity and all we hear from the evos on this forum is support for the efforts of the ACLU and big government control of public schools.
<<

*sigh* We merely ask that science be taught as science and theology taught as theology and the two not be conflated.

[Glenn]

...for Christ

If you were, you would understand that He is the Alpha and Omega.

That's a long, long time.

Long time and your Creation theory just don't gee-haw.

[metmom]

That’s your excuse. Just because you think you have a better reason to have it your way than anyone else, doesn’t mean that it’s OK to use the force of law to force on the unwilling majority what the self-appointed elite choose.

And the polls show that people want creation and ID taught in addition to evolution, not instead of.

We’ve been through this before. Demonstrate with any kind of statistics you can find that teaching creation and ID in addition to evolution will in any way hurt science education in this country.

[freedumb2003]

>>That’s your excuse. Just because you think you have a better reason to have it your way than anyone else, doesn’t mean that it’s OK to use the force of law to force on the unwilling majority what the self-appointed elite choose.<<

No, it is the reason and since 99.9% of all of the scientific community agree, that is hardly a sliver. There, wasn’t that nice of me to address your appeal to authority?

>>And the polls show that people want creation and ID taught in addition to evolution, not instead of.<<

So if polls showed that people wanted astrology to be taught instead of astronomy that would mean we should? There, wasn’t that nice of me to address your argumentum ad populum?

>>We’ve been through this before. Demonstrate with any kind of statistics you can find that teaching creation and ID in addition to evolution will in any way hurt science education in this country.<<

This isn’t a “harm” case. This is a “teaching incorrect facts” case. I am sure if we taught astrology as science there would be no “harm” done. But that wouldn’t make it science and that wouldn’t make it right. There, wasn’t that nice of me to address your false dilemma?

(N.B. And thank God there are no such statistics since we have successfully kept instruction in the proper framework.)

[metmom]

No, it is the reason and since 99.9% of all of the scientific community agree, that is hardly a sliver.

So, do you think that it's OK for them to dictate through force of law what is to be taught in the public schools? Cause that sure is what's coming across that you're advocating.

Nice evading of the request and answers there.

IOW, you have nothing. So there's no reason in the world to not have creation and ID taught alongside evolution in public schools if that's what the parents wish.

[freedumb2003]

>>So, do you think that it’s OK for them to dictate through force of law what is to be taught in the public schools? Cause that sure is what’s coming across that you’re advocating.<<

Please reread my answer. The law was brought in when religion was brought into the classroom, in violation of the 1st Amendment and in the face of all logic. Behe himself likened ID to astrology, for goodness sake.

>>Nice evading of the request and answers there. <<

You have never had a more direct answer. As a service, I even supplied the logical fallacies you were using when I directly refuted them.

>>OW, you have nothing. So there’s no reason in the world to not have creation and ID taught alongside evolution in public schools if that’s what the parents wish.<<

Repeating something doesn’t make it so. Religion is not nor shall it ever be science. If the parents want to dumb down and confuse their own kids, there is nothing stopping them from the confines of their own home.

[goodusername]

“Can you recommend a couple of good websites on Smolin and lvl2 vs. lvl3 multiverses?”

This is an article from Scientific American that gives an overview of the classication of multiverses (the author is actually the person that created the classification scheme):
http://www.krabach.info/astro/parallel_universe/parallel_universe.html

I found a lot of sites that mention Smolin, but unfortunately nothing more in depth than what can be found in this short description in wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecund_universes#Fecund_universes
I’m tempted to read the book that Smolin wrote on the idea.

“Short on time, long on interest.”

—I know the feeling!

[metmom]

The law was brought in when religion was brought into the classroom, in violation of the 1st Amendment and in the face of all logic.

Religion in the classroom is not a violation of the First Amendment. If it had been the Founding Fathers would have put a stop to it then and there. They knew what they meant when they wrote it and if they felt that Bible reading and prayer were in violation of it, they had every opportunity to not only correct it but specifically put it in writing then, and they didn't, even knowing that it was going on.

Religion was in the classroom since the inception of this country. It wasn't until the last several years that it has been removed. So it wasn't in violation of the Constitution.

You need to learn a whole lot more about history and what went on in classrooms before the ACLU got to them.

If the parents want to dumb down and confuse their own kids, there is nothing stopping them from the confines of their own home.

Kids who are taught to think for themselves are the ones who are not dumbed down nor confused. Homeschoolers, who by and large teach evolution and creation, consistently outperform their public school counterparts. Public education was historically better when creation was taught in public schools.

There is not one shred of evidence that you can supply that would lead anyone to conclude that keeping creation out of public schools is going to improve the students science education. The ToE has had a monopoly for decades and the US standing in the sciences continues to tank.

All that aside, there is still no excuse or justification for advocating for federal government control of education or restriction of religious freedom. If the parents and local school boards want both taught, they should both be taught. That's their prerogative in a free country.

Freedom also means the freedom to be wrong.

If the ToE is all it's cracked up to be anyway, then there shouldn't be any concern about creation being taught. It ought to be able to stand up to it.

Interesting quote from Thomas Jefferson applies to the use of the force of law to mandate only evolution. "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.

If the evo only crowd doesn't like having both taught, THEY can pull their kids from the public schools and teach them at home. The scrap that evos throw to creationists in a futile effort to justify their liberal big government control of education position, can work for them as well.

They could easily opt their kids out of that section of the class. There's no need for lawsuits to force their views on everyone else against their will.

Keeping God out of school is not a neutral position. It's advocating for a religious belief system and by forcing religion out puts the government in the position of preventing the free exercise of religion.

You are taking a liberal position on the issue. Wear the label then.

[freedumb2003]

>>You are taking a liberal position on the issue. Wear the label then.<<

You want to replace facts with belief. It is you who is taking the liberal position. Repeating inanities over and over is not debate — it is just what liberals do in the hope that something will stick.

And you really need to work on your anger issues.

Well, enough thread drift on this one. Until you showed up with your pursed mouth, this was a fun thread. I should have known you would ruin it and I should have demurred.

[metmom]

You want to replace facts with belief. It is you who is taking the liberal position.

That is not what defines a liberal.

But if that's what you feel it takes to excuse yourself from wearing the label you deserve, you'll convince yourself of that.

Advocating for government control of education or anything else for that matter, no matter how good a reason you think you have and how much you think you can justify it, is a liberal position.

Conservative values are freedom OF and for religion, not freedom FROM religion and freedom from federal government control.

You've also provided absolutely no evidence that teaching creation would harm science education in this country. You've completely ducked the question, instead again, trying to change the topic and get the focus off your failure by attacking me again.

I find it rather amusing that evos, who appeal to statistics and *mountains of evidence*, totally ignore the mountains of evidence that teaching creation will NOT hurt science education. So much for being objective.

[MrB]

Anyone want to bet on the outcome of science testing an

average homeschooler taught from the standpoint of creationism

vs

an average public schooler taught nothing but evolution?

Didn’t think so.

So, who’s harming “science education”?

[metmom]

There isn’t anything the government can’t ruin once it gets its hands on it.

For the life of me, I can’t understand why ANYONE would advocate for government control of anything.

[metmom]

I’d dare any public school kid to go toe to toe with mine, and they’re all creationists.

[goodusername]

I’ll bet on the public schooler in that situation

[wendy1946]

You’d lose money on that one at least 90% of the time. The one thing you know up front about any home-schooled kid is that at least one other person on the planet gives a rat’s *** about him or her and that guarantee does not exist for the government schools.