Michagan decides on Evolution, not ID

Pages

http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/10...

"The intent of the board needs to be very clear," said board member John Austin, an Ann Arbor Democrat. "Evolution is not under stress. It is not untested science."

Exactly.

Thank friggin goodness ... I was going to start up a topic on this subject (science under attack) but I will piggy back on this one if you don't mind my good doctor.

http://www.defendscience.org/stateme...

Science is like a blabber mouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. Well, I say that there are some things we don't wanna know. Important things!

And by "we", you mean ...? I would think science is more like the annoying child who keeps asking what is going on. Not intent to let things play out for themselves but wanting to know right then how it's gonna end. And for the record ... I want to know these important things. ASAP. If I gotta start going to church then I'd like to know that sooner than later.

If folks so desire, Intelligent Design could be taught alongside Greek Mythology and Crystal Therapy for all I care. Just keep it the hell out of science classes.

Paleocon wrote:

If folks so desire, Intelligent Design could be taught alongside Greek Mythology and Crystal Therapy for all I care. Just keep it the hell out of science classes.

I completely agree and I think it was Illum (whatever happened to that wonderful gent?) who went on to espouse the British schools handling of such things by offering a Religious Studies course. Smashing idea in my book.

CNN Article wrote:

Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who is Roman Catholic, said Michigan schools need to teach evolution in science classes and not include intelligent design. She said school districts can explore intelligent design in current events or comparative religions classes.

I know who I'd be voting for in the Michigan gubernatorial race...

Maybe we should be teaching "faith based" physics classes as well.

Paleocon wrote:

Maybe we should be teaching "faith based" physics classes as well.

Student: What is gravity?
Teacher: Gravity is how God shows us that we are not yet ready to be judged in the afterlife.

Note: This is just a joke

Haakon7 wrote:
CNN Article wrote:

Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who is Roman Catholic, said Michigan schools need to teach evolution in science classes and not include intelligent design. She said school districts can explore intelligent design in current events or comparative religions classes.

I know who I'd be voting for in the Michigan gubernatorial race...

If the race was a one issue matter it would be that easy.

Sam Harris in his book Letter to a Christian Nation brought up the point that a political candidate expressing a sincere belief in the efficacy of crystal therapy or the existance of the Olympian gods would almost necessarily be excluded from serious political consideration because his views would, quite correctly, be viewed as evidence of irrationality. We should apply the same lens to all folks who passionately espouse fantastic claims that are either incorrect or unprovable.

Have your religion if you like, but if you insist that it governs your behavior and will be the basis of your governing decisions as an elected official, stay off the ballot and leave the job to rational folks.

Have your religion if you like, but if you insist that it governs your behavior and will be the basis of your governing decisions as an elected official, stay off the ballot and leave the job to rational folks.

Reason is a tool, and as such can be used for either good or bad. One of the reasons why people use religion as a basis for selecting elected officials is that, theoretically, it means you share a common code of ethics. It should never be the driver, but neither is it something to shy away from.

a political candidate expressing a sincere belief in the efficacy of crystal therapy or the existance of the Olympian gods would almost necessarily be excluded from serious political consideration because his views would, quite correctly, be viewed as evidence of irrationality.

Actually, it's more likely they'd be excluded for choosing a religion with few voting constituents. Rationality doesn't play into it at all, unless you include demographics.

Well, in a similar vein, will we ever have an atheist or agnostic elected to major public office?

The fact of the matter is that right now religion is shaping public policy more than ever. Dispensationalists, the Left Behind believers, are trying through policy to bring Jesus back. There are groups that openly support Israel and settlements into Gaza and the West Bank purely to make sure that that part of Biblical prophecy is fulfilled.

Because, of course, that an omnipotent, all-seeing, all-knowing God can only return according to a very specific script. He can't just return whenever he wants.

And for the record I am a Christian. I just believe the Rapture, Armageddon and other Biblical prophecy is silly and especially a silly thing to base public policy on.

JohnnyMoJo wrote:
Have your religion if you like, but if you insist that it governs your behavior and will be the basis of your governing decisions as an elected official, stay off the ballot and leave the job to rational folks.

Reason is a tool, and as such can be used for either good or bad. One of the reasons why people use religion as a basis for selecting elected officials is that, theoretically, it means you share a common code of ethics. It should never be the driver, but neither is it something to shy away from.

When voting of course the elected official should pass whatever litmus test you choose as a voter. Ethics should indeed be one.

However, I think we've soon proof that being Christian, Jewish, whatever doesn't prevent you from being unethical. Thus choosing a candidate based on their religion is about as accurate as choosing them based on throwing darts.

JohnnyMoJo wrote:

One of the reasons why people use religion as a basis for selecting elected officials is that, theoretically, it means you share a common code of ethics. It should never be the driver, but neither is it something to shy away from.

I can appreciate this to some extent. For instance, an Asian American candidate would give me reason to examine his/her positions more critically than I would just anyone. Part of this might be because I hold certain assumptions about his/her experiences and how the assumed commonality might affect his/her views.

That said, I would still insist on clear limits to the advantage of that commonality. As Zsa Zsa Gabor put it "It's not enough to be Hungarian. You must also know how to act.". It isn't enough to be Asian. You must also be competent and represent my interests.

The problem I see in American politics (and in particular religious politics) is that political competence, experience, and the demonstration of rationality seem to be irrelevant. It appears that a public affirmation of faith is a prerequisite to running for office and that a public statement that faith plays little or no role in one's life is the equivalent of political suicide. I, for one (and maybe the only one), find that incredibly disturbing.

Paleocon wrote:

I can appreciate this to some extent. For instance, an Asian American candidate would give me reason to examine his/her positions more critically than I would just anyone. Part of this might be because I hold certain assumptions about his/her experiences and how the assumed commonality might affect his/her views.

That said, I would still insist on clear limits to the advantage of that commonality. As Zsa Zsa Gabor put it "It's not enough to be Hungarian. You must also know how to act.". It isn't enough to be Asian. You must also be competent and represent my interests.

The problem I see in American politics (and in particular religious politics) is that political competence, experience, and the demonstration of rationality seem to be irrelevant. It appears that a public affirmation of faith is a prerequisite to running for office and that a public statement that faith plays little or no role in one's life is the equivalent of political suicide. I, for one (and maybe the only one), find that incredibly disturbing.

I'm reminded of that scene in Contact when Tom Skeritt's character decides to act as a devout Christian in order to swing votes to his favor as being the one who got to go through the machine.

Rat Boy wrote:

I'm reminded of that scene in Contact when Tom Skeritt's character decides to act as a devout Christian in order to swing votes to his favor as being the one who got to go through the machine.

I loved how it was a nutty Abrahamic suicide bomber that ruined his day.

Paleocon wrote:

The problem I see in American politics (and in particular religious politics) is that political competence, experience, and the demonstration of rationality seem to be irrelevant. It appears that a public affirmation of faith is a prerequisite to running for office and that a public statement that faith plays little or no role in one's life is the equivalent of political suicide. I, for one (and maybe the only one), find that incredibly disturbing.

You're not the only one. I'm one. And I know others who believe that electing an atheist, agnostic or even someone who professes to be a lazy believer would be a bigger accomplishment for this country than electing someone of a different race or gender.

Science shmience!

DSGamer wrote:

You're not the only one. I'm one. And I know others who believe that electing an atheist, agnostic or even someone who professes to be a lazy believer would be a bigger accomplishment for this country than electing someone of a different race or gender.

I agree 100%.

I would go even further and state that the very concept of "atheism" and the very need for such a word in our language is bizarre to me. We don't have specific words to describe folks who don't believe in the efficacy of tin foil hats or the authenticity of alien abductions (unless "rational" counts). Why must we have a word to describe folks who apply rationality and the need for evidence for extraordinary claims when it comes to people's imaginary (and purportedly omnipotent) friends?

Would an AElvisist be someone who does not believe in the divinity of Elvis?

Would an ACrystalist be someone who has no faith in the efficacy of crystal therapy?

Both of the above irrational beliefs have easily as much "evidence" to support them than any claims of the divinity of Allah or Yeshuach bin Yusef.

Paleocon wrote:

I would go even further and state that the very concept of "atheism" and the very need for such a word in our language is bizarre to me. We don't have specific words to describe folks who don't believe in the efficacy of tin foil hats or the authenticity of alien abductions (unless "rational" counts). Why must we have a word to describe folks who apply rationality and the need for evidence for extraordinary claims when it comes to people's imaginary (and purportedly omnipotent) friends?

I have absolutely no idea what you mean here. Why shouldn't there be a word to describe someone who does not believe in God? After all, there is a word to describe someone who does believe in God: "theist". Are you saying that we should not have words to describe concepts we don't like or agree with?

Or are you saying that we should favor a word's connotations over its actual definition? After all, there is nothing in the definition of "atheist" that implies logic, rationality or the search for evidence to prove extraordinary claims. Those are the word's connotations. But as for the word itself? It just means someone who doesn't believe in God.

The fact that you do not believe there is a God does not make God any less of a relevant idea in the human psyche. We need words to approach that idea, to distill it and digest it. "Atheism" just happens to be a useful term in that quest for meaning. I'm taken aback that, in your apparent zeal for atheism, you appear to be suggesting that we should be thinking so little about whether or not God exists that we should not have the adequate words to describe our ideas on the matter.

KaterinLHC wrote:

A Defense of Words

Well said.
If for no other reason than to promote an efficient and clear dialectic, there need to be words that differentiate between those who believe in the existence or non-existence of God.

Paleocon wrote:

Both of the above irrational beliefs have easily as much "evidence" to support them than any claims of the divinity of Allah or Yeshuach bin Yusef.

Now, that's just inflammatory. Are you seriously suggesting that you place Crystal therapists and 'Elvis Lives!' believers on the same level as people of faith?

Haakon7 wrote:

Now, that's just inflammatory. Are you seriously suggesting that you place Crystal therapists and 'Elvis Lives!' believers on the same level as people of faith?

That is precisely what I'm saying. Neither is supported by evidence and "faith" allows for both (as well as any number of bizarre and likewise unsupported "beliefs"). I would even point out that the derision you "faithful" reserve for folks like Scientologists and FLDS nuts was once heaped on your religion as well.

Paleocon wrote:
Haakon7 wrote:

Now, that's just inflammatory. Are you seriously suggesting that you place Crystal therapists and 'Elvis Lives!' believers on the same level as people of faith?

That is precisely what I'm saying. Neither is supported by evidence and "faith" allows for both (as well as any number of bizarre and likewise unsupported "beliefs"). I would even point out that the derision you "faithful" reserve for folks like Scientologists and FLDS nuts was once heaped on your religion as well.

Name-calling and insults, even if they aren't directed toward anyone in particular, are a good way to ensure that nobody will want to have a rational or thoughtful argument with you. If you would dial it back a touch, maybe there's an interesting discussion to be had here. If not, then I agree with Haakon; you're just saying stuff to be inflammatory.

Why IS Christianity any more legitimate a belief than, say Fundamentalist Mormonism? Certainly, it is no more grounded in rationality. There is no more evidence of its claims than there is of alien abduction, the resurrection of Elvis, or the efficacy of crystal therapy.

If we are going to deride any "belief" at all, why are some exempted?

Paleocon wrote:

Why IS Christianity any more legitimate a belief than, say Fundamentalist Mormonism? Certainly, it is no more grounded in rationality. There is no more evidence of its claims than there is of alien abduction, the resurrection of Elvis, or the efficacy of crystal therapy.

If we are going to deride any "belief" at all, why are some exempted?

Assuming you are genuinely asking, I think the only reason that Christianity gets a so-called 'free pass' - even though it doesn't, not really - is because more people do it. Zoroastrianism, for instance, was once the world's major religion; now it's only something a few nutjobs in what used to be Persia do, right? And paganism, a form of religion which has sprouted up in every major historical civilization across the globe, is now only the domain of a very small subset of the world's population. It's all about what's most popular right now, I guess. I think that's more a factor of human nature and the idea of "majority rule" than it is a condemnation of any given religion.

But I wanted to address something else you said: "There is no more evidence of its claims..." I think you misunderstand what the difference between 'fact' and 'belief' is. I know I've said this before, but I'll say it again. A fact is something that can be proven true; therefore, it has evidence to prove its veracity. A belief is something that, by definition, cannot be proven true or false; therefore, by definition, it will never have any evidence (at least not in the scientific sense we know of). As soon as you get hard, proof-worthy evidence, then you start delving into the realm of fact, and moving away from belief.

Religion is not a system of facts. It is a system of beliefs. And I think that one of the major problems regarding spirituality today is that many people have confused the two. God is not a fact. If God was a fact, we could prove God did or did not exist, once and for all. God is a belief. That doesn't make God irrelevant, or somehow less important or resonant within the human experience.

There are two ways to experience reality: through logic, rationality and fact; and through poetry, metaphor and belief. Neither one negates or annihilates the other. In fact, to get the whole picture, you need to experience both. And I think that's really what the crux of the whole Evolution vs. ID debate comes down to. The problem, of course, is in the details: ID does not belong in a science classroom, because it is not a scientific theory. It's just confusing the issue. But wanting to understand the origins of life in a metaphorical or spiritual way is no less valid than wanting to understand the origins of life in a scientific way. Each method has its purposes.

Am I saying that we should pick between creationism and evolution? Of course not. But you can understand the origins of life through evolution and also understand it within the context of, say, Genesis - and neither one negates the other. I'd argue it actually gives you a more complete and total understanding.

I can accept that folks want their own mythologies and that they might help them put cultural norms in context. That said, I still see nothing that can support the idea of one belief being "true" and another being "false" (or even nuttier than another).

Furthermore, the separation of one's "morality", if you will, from its effect on the natural in the service of the supernatural (and unsupported) serves to create a barrier to truly ethical behavior.

If, for instance, someone holds to the unnegotiable belief that all people are damned to eternal punishment unless they receive salvation through submission to Allah, how does this NOT affect his ability to act both rationally AND ethically? The evidence is rampant. "Belief" is what makes it possible for otherwise compassionate people to oppose HPV vaccines in the pursuit of "godly punishment" for lack of abstinence. Someone lacking "belief" who would pursue such policies would, rightly, be viewed as a dangerous sociopath. With "belief", their arguments are legitimated as "morally valued".

An atheist is not one that does not believe in God. An atheist is one that believes in the absence of God. There's a difference. Someone that simply doesn't believe is Agnostic.

Or as Penn Gillette says, "An Agnostic is an Atheist that doesn't want to argue with you."

LobsterMobster wrote:

An atheist is not one that does not believe in God. An atheist is one that believes in the absence of God. There's a difference. Someone that simply doesn't believe is Agnostic.

Or as Penn Gillette says, "An Agnostic is an Atheist that doesn't want to argue with you."

I prefer his statement about folks who say "This is my sincere, heartfelt belief and nothing you say or do can shake my faith in it.". He says that's just a blowhard's way of saying "shut up or two words the FCC likes even less".

Paleocon wrote:

That said, I still see nothing that can support the idea of one belief being "true" and another being "false" (or even nuttier than another).

Beliefs are not 'true' or 'false'. One can be more widely accepted than another. But that does not make the other 'false' or 'true'.

If, for instance, someone holds to the unnegotiable belief that all people are damned to eternal punishment unless they receive salvation through submission to Allah, how does this NOT affect his ability to act both rationally AND ethically? The evidence is rampant. "Belief" is what makes it possible for otherwise compassionate people to oppose HPV vaccines in the pursuit of "godly punishment" for lack of abstinence. Someone lacking "belief" who would pursue such policies would, rightly, be viewed as a dangerous sociopath. With "belief", their arguments are legitimated as "morally valued".

For every negative action that you accredit to 'belief' (which, by the way, I think you're confusing 'belief' with 'zealotry'), I could come up with a positive one. For instance, "belief" is what drives Jewish children to volunteer at soup kitchens on Christmas, or "belief" is what drives Christian missionaries to set up schools and hospitals in war-torn countries in Africa and South America, and "belief" is what makes ordinary people open their doors to refugees who were perfect strangers in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Of course beliefs affect the way we act. They wouldn't much use as beliefs otherwise. We use our beliefs as a way to figure out what our behavior should be in a given situation. To say that any action based on 'belief' and belief alone is necessarily a negative action is ridiculously one-sided, just as saying that any action based on science and science alone is necessarily a positive action. There's more that goes into deciding the rationality of a given action than whether or not it is based on one's religious beliefs.

You believe that, for instance, that anyone who believes in God is a fool who prances about with imaginary friends. How does that unnegotiable belief not impact your ability to remain rational and ethical in all situations? Particularly in social situations, where you are dealing with people who believe in God?

Pages