Creationist Bill Signed by Jindal

LGF ^ | June 27, 2008

[EveningStar]

Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal has signed a stealth creationist bill into law, and American educational standards take a huge step backward: Science law could set tone for Jindal.

The creationist front group called the Discovery Institute is quietly crowing, and maintaining the fiction that the bill is not religiously-based.

[editor-surveyor]

Bookmarked

[El Cid]

...but I've yet to meet a dumb math PhD...

I don't disagree ... but Ted Kaczynski was a math PhD who apparently had trouble using his words ...
I'm just sayin' ... you can't trust these guys with all their equations and stuff...

(although I suppose Al Gore's book, 'Earth in the Balance' book, and Ted's 'manifesto', seemed to have been written in a similar manner - so perhaps it is a bit unfair for me to call Ted 'communication-ally' challenged...Seeing how Al Gore's version of the same tome was a 'best seller'...)

[GourmetDan]

"There is definite evidence against the idea that man was formed whole. There is definite evidence against the idea that the Earth...and Universe are only a few thousand years old."

You tell me what you think that evidence is and I will explain how you confuse evidence with interpretation of evidence.

[GourmetDan]

"I think our biggest problem is that we are not going off the same definitions."

Well, that's always the trick, isn't it? If you can craft the definitions so that your position is true 'by definition', then it's 'true', right?

I'm trying to explain how the philosophy of naturalism infects all of science (both methodological and metaphysical) such that it can only return a 'natural' answer and excludes a supernatural explanation 'by definition'. This is making your position 'true' by definition and excluding all other answers by definition. That is a philosophical position, however, not an empirical one.

"I guess you could try to call this problem one of philosophy, but I just call it laziness."

You still aren't seeing it. It's not which model will prevail, it's that some naturalistic model will always prevail. Always. Always. This is due to the 'a priori' commitment to the philosophy of naturalism, nothing more.

"Ellis' model explained very well why we would see redshift due to gravitation. But where does Andromeda blueshifting fit into this?"?

Here you make the assumption that redshift/blueshift is a function of recession/approach velocity that is probably not correct. Halton Arp did a lot of work noting objects with physical connections and different redshifts until they took away his telescope for heresy. (reference back to Ellis' statements) Such is science.

[antiRepublicrat]

Well, that's always the trick, isn't it? If you can craft the definitions so that your position is true 'by definition', then it's 'true', right?

Hey, if it works for you...

I'm trying to explain how the philosophy of naturalism infects all of science

I guess you haven't noticed that all of these terms include the word "naturalism." And it's a good idea. Even the highly-religious Francis Bacon knew it was a good idea because it frees you of the corruptive influences of what he called "idols." Rather than being an infection, it is a purification.

Here you make the assumption that redshift/blueshift is a function of recession/approach velocity that is probably not correct.

First of all, we know redshift and blueshift can be functions of relative speed and direction, just as we know the pitch of a train whistle gets higher at it approaches and lower as it goes away. It's the same phenomenon in both cases. However, we also know gravity can produce red shift in our views of stars.

The currently accepted model explains Andromeda's blueshift through approach. His model has everything with gravitational redshift, yet Andromeda is blue.

[GourmetDan]

"Hey, if it works for you..."

Hey, if it works for you...

"I guess you haven't noticed that all of these terms include the word "naturalism." And it's a good idea. Even the highly-religious Francis Bacon knew it was a good idea because it frees you of the corruptive influences of what he called "idols." Rather than being an infection, it is a purification."

Francis Bacon was referring to methodological naturalism which I have previously said must be natural. Now you are back to trying to justify metaphysical naturalism by pointing to methodological naturalism, just as I said you would. Hey, if it works for you...

"First of all, we know redshift and blueshift can be functions of relative speed and direction, just as we know the pitch of a train whistle gets higher at it approaches and lower as it goes away. It's the same phenomenon in both cases. However, we also know gravity can produce red shift in our views of stars."

First of all, we know that redshift and blueshift can be other than functions of relative speed and direction, like intrinsic properties of astronomical objects. You don't know that it is the same phenomenon in both cases, but it's easier to go along w/ the crowd because of that laziness you referred to earlier. There's cover there for being wrong, but hey, if it works for you...

"The currently accepted model explains Andromeda's blueshift through approach. His model has everything with gravitational redshift, yet Andromeda is blue."

If Ellis can construct a model that you cannot disprove through observation, then observing the blueshift of Andomeda would be included. Maybe Ellis is a liar, but hey, if it works for you...

[antiRepublicrat]

Now you are back to trying to justify metaphysical naturalism

You still haven't pointed out where I have supported metaphysical naturalism. This even started when I said science shouldn't lay claim to "truth," which is what metaphysical naturalism does, supposing to know the truth about the supernatural.

like intrinsic properties of astronomical objects. You don't know that it is the same phenomenon in both cases

But you haven't put forth a better scientific explanation. The expanding universe model fits better than the others. You need to come up with a good reason other than "maybe it has an intrinsic property of being blue."

I am absolutely willing to throw out the expanding universe model if something better comes along. I've also volunteered here on FR to be the one who comes forth with science disproving evolutionary theory. This is because I know two things: 1) science is improved when newer, better theories replace old ones, and 2) I'd be rich and famous.

[GourmetDan]

"You still haven't pointed out where I have supported metaphysical naturalism. This even started when I said science shouldn't lay claim to "truth," which is what metaphysical naturalism does, supposing to know the truth about the supernatural."

I already explained this.

"But you haven't put forth a better scientific explanation. The expanding universe model fits better than the others. You need to come up with a good reason other than "maybe it has an intrinsic property of being blue."

I already gave you all the information you need to answer this one too.

"I am absolutely willing to throw out the expanding universe model if something better comes along. I've also volunteered here on FR to be the one who comes forth with science disproving evolutionary theory. This is because I know two things: 1) science is improved when newer, better theories replace old ones, and 2) I'd be rich and famous."

You don't seem capable of understanding what I've been telling you.

Maybe some other time...

[Stultis]

Well, first of all, and I know you know this, what you call “Darwinism” (or correctly, the Theory of Evolution) makes no statement whatsoever regarding the origin of life.

Actually I don't know that... That's kind of bizarre. An alleged 'scientific description' of the origin of life, but it declares 'off-limits' any discussion of origins? That doesn't make sense.

Of course it doesn't make sense; any more than it would make sense to claim that the germ theory of disease declares the discussion of genetic diseases "off-limits".

IOW it is you not making sense. Every scientific theory has "boundary conditions," a specific domain in which it is relevant, a certain class of phenomena to which it is relevant. This doesn't lead a theory to assert or imply that questions falling outside of its domain are illegitimate. It just means they would need to be addressed by some other theory or theories.

As to why, specifically, the TOE only concerns living things, consider the final paragraph of Darwin's Origin:

It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

IOW Darwin's theory, and it's modern descendants, are only applicable to entities with these characteristics:

Growth, development, and one might add death -- because growth and development render the organism dependent on an environment to draw the necessary energy and other resources, and lead to a competition for such resources which allows for selective effects.

Reproduction and Variation -- the relevance of this to natural selection particularly should be obvious, but it's also relevant to other evolutionary mechanisms.

Ration of Increase -- modern biologists usually use the term, "superfecundity," which simply means the tendency, or at least capability, of organisms to produce far more offspring than the environment could support, were all to live to maturity and themselves reproduce. Again the relevance to natural selection should be obvious. This provides the excess of population among which selection "selects". But again it's also relevant to other mechanisms.

So evolutionary theory can only apply to entities which possess all these attributes, and the only entities that do are living organisms. Therefore the TOE of is only operative once living things exist. The TOE cannot explain the origin of life. There is nothing unusual about that. No scientific theory can explain it's own boundary conditions. If it could it would be a BAD thing.

The origin of life as such would have to be explained by some other theory (or theories). Such a theory may -- or may not -- have certain analogical similarities to the theory of biological evolution, but it would be a separate and distinct theory.

[antiRepublicrat]

I already explained this.

I haven't seen where, except where you broadly paint entire areas of science as "philosophical."

I already gave you all the information you need to answer this one too.

Not even close. You just put Andromeda as an unexplained exception. Remember, this isn't about what model is "true" or "false," but what model best explains.

You don't seem capable of understanding what I've been telling you.

You have been telling me I take a "philosophical" approach, while I've been showing you I take a methodological approach. You simply don't want to accept that, because according to you anyone who disagrees must be taking a "philosophical" approach. It is a convenient way of avoiding those things that methodological science has produced that you disagree with.

[El Cid]

...Of course it doesn't make sense; any more than it would make sense to claim that the germ theory of disease declares the discussion of genetic diseases "off-limits"...

I think the proper analogy would be to declare that the germ theory of disease declares the discussion of the origin of germs to be "off-limits"...Which, of course, it should not be...

...The TOE cannot explain the origin of life. There is nothing unusual about that. No scientific theory can explain it's own boundary conditions. If it could it would be a BAD thing...

"TOE" will never explain the origin of life -- albeit we are supposed to trust its explanation of the 'development' of life -- thus discussion is not allowed...
I'll pass.

[Dinsdale]

The signal to noise ratio of your post is zero.

You think this makes a case for your side to get a turn at the podium in public schools?

It would be funny if it wasn’t sad.

[WVKayaker]

You think this makes a case for your side to get a turn at the podium in public schools?

Yes. It is called America. We have a Constitution which gives us that right. I was posting in the hopes that somebody may understand God's ways. It requires an open mind, and you have fully demonstrated how yours is closed.

America has a background with God, in case you missed it, and no matter how much you wish us to go away, we will be here. We are the ones paying for the schools, and it is our children you wish to indoctrinate. I hope you pay your share, since you want control of the students minds..

You can tout your TOE as a science, and get some people to agree. I say it is nothing more than an educated guess, surrounded by mountains of faith, and pushed as gospel, by its acolytes. It is your religion, or philosophy, as you may prefer. IMO, your TOE is just another junk science, looking for a buck, and for some reason, it is always OPM. For reference, see: AGW.

The podium belongs to the people, in case you missed that part, too. In the State of Louisiana, the people don't agree with you...

Would you deny them their liberty and freedoms? Never mind, that was a rhetorical question.

If anything is sad, FRiend, it is that a supposed conservative, would champion the gag! Have a good life. I will continue to pray that God will soften your heart.

[WVKayaker]

....Simply take the Parable of the Mustard Seed. It has a good theological lesson, and the seed is as stated probably the smallest seed known to those people at the time. So the Bible is correct in meaning and correct in that limited context. But there's an orchid with a seed much smaller than mustard, and the giant sequoia probably has the biggest difference between seed and final plant size than mustard and thus would have been more appropriate for the parable, but Jesus would have known of neither of these plants growing across the Atlantic.

It's easy to reconcile if you sit back and be rational rather than sticking to inerrancy dogma.

Rational? Hahahahahahahahaaaaaaa (deep breath) hahahahahahahahahahahahaha, help me.... hahahahahahahahahahahaha...

[antiRepublicrat]

Rational? Hahahahahahahahaaaaaaa (deep breath) hahahahahahahahahahahahaha, help me.... hahahahahahahahahahahaha...

I must bow down before such superior logic, carefully crafted rebuttal and rhetorical skills.

[WVKayaker]

I must bow down before such superior logic, carefully crafted rebuttal and rhetorical skills.

Bow down to God. But, with that trash, you have earned certain rights.

Your representation of ignorance is quite well demonstrated, when you took the time to build that straw pile. Your "logic" is so good, it recommends talking English to Hebrews.

That is the same as positing Jesus should use an unknown "seed" to demonstrate something to people who would have no point of reference, and then leap on that with saying therefore God knows nothing....

Oh, that's right. We are supposed to use our own assumptions to explain things. It doesn't matter if nobody HEARD of the New World (except all those scientists He was preaching to, right?)...

Absurd or Logical? Inquiring people want to know...

[antiRepublicrat]

That is the same as positing Jesus should use an unknown "seed" to demonstrate something to people who would have no point of reference

You are so sensitive that you think my defense of the Bible (that it stands up under a rational, non-inerrant, non-literal reading) is somehow an attack because it is a view of the Bible that doesn't match yours. BTW, I believe your inerrant, literal view of the Bible is shared by a minority of Christians.

, and then leap on that with saying therefore God knows nothing....

I thought that Jesus didn't know he was God. At least this is how the importance of his sacrifice was explained to me in opposition to the idea that his sacrifice would mean nothing if he knew new was God (crucifixion with mortal death is an infinitely small inconvenience to an omnipotent, eternal deity). Thus Jesus can't be expected to have godly omniscience and thus can't know about the seeds in the New World -- the parable remains scientifically accurate within in its context. You open a huge can of worms if you state otherwise.

[WVKayaker]

...Thus Jesus can't be expected to have godly omniscience and thus can't know about the seeds in the New World -- the parable remains scientifically accurate within in its context. You open a huge can of worms if you state otherwise.

You assume many facts not in evidence, to support this bogus argument. Try reading it for Truth, as opposed to seeking error. Jesus proclaims Himself throughout the New Testament, and points to Scripture affirming His role, in the Old. maybe we have a different Bible?

You are so sensitive that you think my defense of the Bible...

I am sorry you place such little faith in God. You are again placing straw men into the dialog. Why do feel it necessary to make me the subject? The subject is "should God be taught in the schools"?

My position is simple. This is America. We have freedom of religion, just as you have freedom FROM religion. You wish to place your doctrine as THE TRUTH, and all others as heresy. Sorry, but that is just like the rest of the cults!

Got carbon credits?

[antiRepublicrat]

Jesus proclaims Himself throughout the New Testament, and points to Scripture affirming His role, in the Old. maybe we have a different Bible?

The sacrifice of the crucifixion, and thus the basis for Christianity, means nothing if Jesus knew he was God, eternal, all-powerful. To such a being the crucifixion would be infinitely less convenient than a mosquito bite would be to us. What I wrote was a Christian apology given to me for this problem. It also explains away the factual inaccuracy of the mustard seed parable.

Try reading it for Truth, as opposed to seeking error.

I am a skeptic by nature.

Why do feel it necessary to make me the subject?

You are the one who went from debate to meaningless insult.

The subject is "should God be taught in the schools"?

To me the subject is "Should theology be taught as science in schools?" The answer is, of course, no.

This is America. We have freedom of religion, just as you have freedom FROM religion.

Many Christians disagree with you on the latter part of that statement, but I agree. However, having God taught in schools as indoctrination violates any freedom from religion. It is also opposed by many Christians who are afraid of their version of God not being taught. There has been a deadly riot in this country just over which version of the Bible would be used, Protestants vs. Catholics.

Me, I actually have no problem with religious courses in school as long as they stick to the educational aspect and stay away from indoctrination. There are many aspects of religion and the Bible that are perfectly valid areas of academic study, and to deny those is to deny a fully rounded education.

ou wish to place your doctrine as THE TRUTH, and all others as heresy.

Why must you misrepresent my position this way? It is either dishonesty or misunderstanding on your part. Several times in this thread I have stated that science can make no claim to "THE TRUTH" and that I disagree with those who say it does.

Got carbon credits?

I still think it sucks that I was too honest to get into this racket of relieving guilty rich people of their money. I could have been a millionaire by now.

[WVKayaker]

I think I will go eat some Oreo's. I can contemplate BravoSierra justifications better while eating the middles... and figure out the meaning of all those ridges on the edge of the cookies. They must have a purpose.

I'll just forget about where Oreo's came from, and enjoy the middles!

Got milk?