Posted on 10/13/2009 8:10:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
O’Reilly told Dawkins”
you insist you can’t even mention it, that is fascism, sir.
Was he right? Is it constitutional/scientific to insist that only materialistic evolution can be taught?
See: O’Reilly vs. Atheist Author Richard Dawkins...
(Excerpt) Read more at uncommondescent.com ...
Where is the research?
The link you gave is a petition to sign. There are no scientific references.
Biomedical research cannot be done without the underpinning of evolution. Didn’t you read my post #83 to metmom?
1. Following the discussion on FR give me some insight into the YE (Young Earth) creationists minds. With all respect to you, there is a lot of ignorance. Evolutionism is not a single theory within a single discipline. It's a nexus of material evidence derived from biology, physics (radioisotope dating), mathematics (probability and statistics), paleontology, genetics, and probably some more disciplines. These disciplines provide inputs that fit the theory of evolution and complement/corroborate each other. I have NOT seen any creationist discussing such facts in an exhaustive, non-ideological fashion, so I think I can accurately extrapolate the observed level of knowledge to the likely level of education provided to their kids.
2. For example, not understanding the mechanism of evolution (understanding, btw. usually means accepting, because the theory makes sense) makes it difficult to understand the mechanism of emergence of drug resistance, and to propose strategies for combating it. I can claim some expertise with respect to this, because I contribute to several such projects (one as a collaborator, some more as the project leader). I would NEVER hire anyone spewing the kind of nonsense that can be found on some creationist web pages. Not because I am mean, or because I want to promote atheism, but because the said nonsense is the evidence of unacceptable ignorance.
“1. Following the discussion on FR give me some insight into the YE (Young Earth) creationists minds. With all respect to you, there is a lot of ignorance.”
Disagreement is not ignorance.
“Evolutionism is not a single theory within a single discipline. It’s a nexus of material evidence derived from biology, physics (radioisotope dating), mathematics (probability and statistics), paleontology, genetics, and probably some more disciplines.”
Evolution is a single theory that has tried to co-opt these fields.
“These disciplines provide inputs that fit the theory of evolution and complement/corroborate each other. I have NOT seen any creationist discussing such facts in an exhaustive, non-ideological fashion,”
We do not believe your “facts” therefore we wouldn’t present them as such.
“so I think I can accurately extrapolate the observed level of knowledge to the likely level of education provided to their kids.”
You can extrapolate all you like. I have taught my children evolution and it’s shortcomings along with it’s mathematical impossibilities and its inability to produce the complexity of the code we see written in the genome of a simple animal much less a human being. We have discussed that life comes from life and that it is impossible without supernatural intereference for life to come from non life.
“2. For example, not understanding the mechanism of evolution (understanding, btw. usually means accepting, because the theory makes sense)”
Understanding does not mean accepting. I understand the Muslim religion but I do not accept it.
“makes it difficult to understand the mechanism of emergence of drug resistance,”
I believe in mutations and natural selection.
“and to propose strategies for combating it. I can claim some expertise with respect to this, because I contribute to several such projects (one as a collaborator, some more as the project leader). I would NEVER hire anyone spewing the kind of nonsense that can be found on some creationist web pages.”
So you can’t think of any jobs that require you to believe in evolution to actually do the job. You just aren’t willing to hire someone to work for you if they don’t believe in evolution.
“Not because I am mean, or because I want to promote atheism, but because the said nonsense is the evidence of unacceptable ignorance.”
It is not ignorant to be learned about a subject and reject it as inaccurate. I know all about revisionist history and I reject it. If I was quizzed on it, I could give correct answers on the test. I am not ignorant of it. I just don’t believe the test writers interpretation of it.
I don’t understand the LOL sentiment. I haven’t been writing about the socialist nature of public education.
I agree with the questioning of the whole concept of the public school system. Why do we accept that there is some Constitutional basis for pooling private money for everyone’s education? Anyone want to chime in with information on the beginnings of public schooling in the United States?
This appears to be a different question then,”how is it Constitutional that I should pay for you to choose religious-based school? Do you think someone should get a tax break if they home school their children?
Creationist view: “Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?”
“Do you think someone should get a tax break if they home school their children?”
Your question presumes alot. It presumes that I think the government should fund education. I dont think I should get a tax BREAK because I homeschool my children but of course I don’t think I should have to pay taxes to school other people’s children. I think schooling my children is MY responsibility. In kind, I think that it is EVERY parents responsibility to school their own children whether it be homeschool or anywhere else. How did it come the responsibility of my neighbor to provide a free education to my children?
“I don’t understand the LOL sentiment. I haven’t been writing about the socialist nature of public education.”
In an earlier post you wrote “If you choose not to use it, you shouldn’t get rewarded for not using it.
Do people with no children get a break on their property tax because they have no children using the public school resource?”
That mentality is the very nature of socialism. I thought it was funny that you were were defending your position that a homeschool family should not get a tax break because people with no children do not get a tax break. Exactly the point. A parent is responsible for the financial responsibilities that their children incur. A parent that uses the public education system is getting free services from the government on the taxpayers dime. It is educational welfare. Some conservatives have a logical disconnect when it comes to public education. I don’t see you making the argument for free public healthcare.
Fine. Want to discuss the subject of radioisotope dating with me? Primarily I do research, but there are also periods when I teach. So, let us imagine that I am supposed to evaluate someone's knowledge. What is the source of the radioactive carbon in the living organisms? What happens after the organism's death? What is the C-14's half life? What can be the practical use of this? What is the time frame for possible dating using this isotope? How does the accuracy correlate with numbers obtained using other methods? Et caetera. KNOWING the answers to these questions UNAVOIDABLY leads to certain conclusions, and these conclusions are NOT COMPATIBLE with the notion of a 6,000 years old Earth. Conversely, NOT KNOWING is, at certain level, called ignorance. I used the example of radioisotope dating involving carbon isotopes, but there are similar facts, independently leading to similar answers within other disciplines.
"Evolution is a single theory that has tried to co-opt these fields."
Nonsense.
We do not believe your “facts”
That's the whole point. Good night to you and other Discussants.
Feel free to use the post.
There is a more concise answer: this tax break is simply a refund. If christianhomeschoolmommaof3 does not use the particular government-provided service, she shouldn't be required to pay for it.
Way to totally miss my entire point.
It is the view of God as the creator of an ordered universe that made Jewish and Christian individuals and cultures such fertile grounds for scientific advancement.
It is a view of an incompetent “designer” that ID posits.
The fact that you chose to use your tagline to denigrate a methodology for gaining knowledge shows your agenda. How tpathetic to hate and fear what you cannot understand.
Sure you can, especially at the high school level.
you seen what passes for high school education these days?
If they didn't address the ToE, I doubt that most kids would even know it.
The monopoly that evolution has had in the public education system has been of no benefit to it. For all the years evolution has been taught, the worse our ranking in the world in the sciences has become.
If it were the panacea that evos claim, that wouldn't be happening.
There's plenty of biology that can be learned without knowing how one animal got from point A to point B, as happened historically before and at the time Darwin was proposing his theory.
Where did I say that?
Why are you accusing me of things I didn’t say and misrepresenting that as fact?
Provide the post or own the lie.
Likewise, we studied evolution along with creation in our homeschool.
For that matter, Abeka curriculum addresses evolution alongside creation, and does a good job of it.
Their curriculum is used nationwide in private schools and it must contain the correct treatment of the ToE for the kids in NY to pass that section of the NY Biology Regents exam.
When my oldest daughter took the Biology regents, she got a 90% on the evolution section based on the Abeka curriculum.
It's a complete fallacy that creationist homeschoolers and private Christian schools don't teach evolution properly.
Matter of fact, knowing homeschoolers as well as I do, I'd have to say that your average homeschool student has a better grasp of what the ToE teaches than you average public school student.
Christians and creationists understand the ideological war going on and the use of the ToE in that conflict. They study it to be well informed and be able to debate the evolutionists.
Public school kids, OTOH, if the teachers even teach it correctly, or the textbooks present if correctly, have no reason to pay attention during the few days that it's addressed in class. Just because they are physically in the classroom is no guarantee that they understood it, stayed awake for it, weren't doing homework for the next class in it, or were even there instead of being out sick.
The idea that just because the ToE is legally required to be covered in class means that it was taught and taught well and learned is a presumption of a a high degree.
Hmm.. if there is a “ToE”,
then there also must be a “FToC”.
(fairy tale of creation)
That was used in the context of:
1. present system of public paying for public school system.
2. those that wanted to opt out of the public school and send kids to religious based school and receive tax break compensation.
I think it's an interesting idea to visit the underpinnings of #1. It's amazing how many socialist ideas that are taken for granted as being part of the whole cloth of our Constitutional Republic. So I agree that public schooling fits into the category of a socialist idea. So why do the states mandate that everyone must send their children to public schools (or some other acceptable alternative-which strikes the question, why do they assume the authority to decide which alternatives are acceptable? And where did states get the delegated authority to mandate that we all pay for public schools? My brother used to posted here for a long time. He used to speak of a pay-to-play municipality. Like a buffet of services, you pick which service you wanted and paid-fire, police, trash, etc. Which brings another question-if I'm on well & septic, shouldn't I get a tax break on the part of my property tax that goes to water treatment & disposal? anyway . . .
I didn't suggest a homeschool family should not get a tax break. I asked the question. I would think that those without children in the school system and those that homeschool should have the first axe to grind about paying a portion of their property tax to pay for a public utility that they do not use.
I don't know much about the beginning of the public school structure in the United States. If anyone has a link to a good source I'd appreciate it, because I find these days on the internet is like walking through the statist minefield of websites, full of re-written history and blaring agendas. If you google-time over to the PBS site about the beginning of public schools in the United States, you get from the very start-”a noble experiment.” Which is verbiage that says to me-yet another idea with merit hijacked by leftist agenda.
That is the thing about ignorance. Most ignorant people don't know how ignorant they are.
If it were the panacea that evos claim, that wouldn't be happening.
Then with your logic the schools should be turning out children who can read and write and do basic algebra? I have never claimed that the schools do a good job teaching.
There's plenty of biology that can be learned without knowing how one animal got from point A to point B, as happened historically before and at the time Darwin was proposing his theory.
Are you saying that schools should go back to teaching spontaneous generation? LOL Hmm, I think that is the Bibles version of creation isn't it.
Wow that is quite a list of questions.
“What is the source of the radioactive carbon in the living organisms?”
C14 is created in the atmosphere, combines with oxygen to create C02. Plants take in the CO2 and animals and humans eat the plants.
“What happens after the organism’s death?”
It stops taking in C14 and the C14 in it begins to decay.
“What is the C-14’s half life?”
the current half life of C14 is 5730 years
“What can be the practical use of this?”
I am not sure I understand the question. Obviously you think that this can be used to accurately date fossils and elements like diamonds.
“What is the time frame for possible dating using this isotope?” Presumably you can’t date anything over 50,000 or so years using C14.
“How does the accuracy correlate with numbers obtained using other methods?” I don’t think it is accurate. Explaination below.
Dating of any kind presumes things about the past that cannot be proven. You have to assume the amount of carbon that is present in the organism when it died. Obviously when the earth was covered all over with green vegetation the earth would have had ALOT more C14 in it than it does today.
You have to assume that the rate of decay has been constant (uniformitarian views have been long disproven). Dating has yielded LOTS of unpredicatable/incorrect results in rocks with KNOWN ages but we “ignorants” are supposed to believe that rocks of unknown ages can be dated accurately. What about fossils that are supposedly millions of years old that still have carbon 14 in them? That shouldn’t be there! Evolutionist start with a presupposition. Creationist start with a presupposition. Don’t call me ignorant because I don’t believe your presuppostion. I understand your position firmly. I just don’t agree with it. .
With the exception of small deviations in reactions involving electron capture by the nucleus, the constants are constants. That's a perfect example of the quality of "creationist" science. We know that the laws of exponential decay apply to radioactive decay of unstable isotopes. We know why. Yet you people look for any semblance of an argument to create entirely new science for the sole purpose of making it agree not with the observed (and mathematically justified) phenomena, but with your interpretation of the Bible...
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.