creation museum (4 Viewers)

[Lili Marlene]

Well, because of the basic point - it's not science. By this logic, there could also be chapters on Racial Eugenics, Phrenology, Lysenkoism, ESP, Santa Claus, and more.

Well, how big are the groups who want these subjects to be taught as a science? The only reason i'd be in favour of teaching what creationism is about is that they APPEAR to have a huge number of people who agree with them. We've all heard statistics about what percentage of Americans believe this and that, whether they mean anything or not I don't know. However, if huge segments of society currently believe that Intelligent Design is a legitimate scientific theory then maybe they should be taught why it's not.

'Intelligent design' is the effort of evangelical christian extremists to batter their way onto science courses to advance their political agenda.

Sure but what goes on the school curriculum is inherently political anyway so really this is no surprise.

Well, that's what you'd be opening the door to, certainly..

I would say the opposite but neither of us actually know which would happen so we can hardly pursue it.

 

[ITalkShite]

Well, how big are the groups who want these subjects to be taught as a science? The only reason i'd be in favour of teaching what creationism is about is that they APPEAR to have a huge number of people who agree with them. We've all heard statistics about what percentage of Americans believe this and that, whether they mean anything or not I don't know. However, if huge segments of society currently believe that Intelligent Design is a legitimate scientific theory then maybe they should be taught why it's not.

Well, we're pretty much in agreement on all this then, apart from whether or not 'Intelligent design' should be taught as science. It's not science, so it can't be taught as science. Just like all the other bits of pseudoscience and irrational belief in the world aren't science, so they can't be taught as science either. That's pretty straightforward, isn't it?

Sure but what goes on the school curriculum is inherently political anyway so really this is no surprise.

Ah yeah, that's a whole other can of worms there though, isn't it?

I would say the opposite but neither of us actually know which would happen so we can hardly pursue it.

True.

 

[Lili Marlene]

right so, hugs?

 

[ITalkShite]

right so, hugs?

...not drugs.

:heart:

 

[avernus]

if Intelligent Design wants to present itself as a science why not put a chapter in the Science books treating it as so. Show how it presents itself as a science, show why it is criticised and how it defends itself etc.
At least people can make an informed decision and see WHY it's a load of bollocks rather than just being told 'it's bollocks'.

are you insane? put it in the science books? some people believe in santa claus - should he be discussed in the science class? seriously, if high forehead freakshow religious nuts get to decide what gets put into science curriculum and texts, the fucking rational world is lost.

It has nothing to do with science. it is about faith. the unexplained = god. believe that if you want, teach about it in an optional religion class if you like. Intelligent Design is what it is because christian lobbyists want it to be treated as a science. it isn't. so no, do not just put it in the science books for fucksake.

 

[Lili Marlene]

are you insane? put it in the science books? some people believe in santa claus - should he be discussed in the science class? seriously, if high forehead freakshow religious nuts get to decide what gets put into science curriculum and texts, the fucking rational world is lost.

It has nothing to do with science. it is about faith. the unexplained = god. believe that if you want, teach about it in an optional religion class if you like. Intelligent Design is what it is because christian lobbyists want it to be treated as a science. it isn't. so no, do not just put it in the science books for fucksake.

If it's about the unexplained and faith then why are they presenting themselves as scientists and criticising science. FOR FUCKS SAKE I've just had this conversation would you fucking read it??

Do you have figures as to how many people believe in intelligent design as opposed to santa claus. Is there anyone who believes in santa claus who attempts to explain him scientifically and if so are there enough of them to possibly want this to be taught in school. Is there currently a huge debate about whether or not santa claus should be taught as real in schools??

 

[avernus]

If it's about the unexplained and faith then why are they presenting themselves as scientists and criticising science. FOR FUCKS SAKE I've just had this conversation would you fucking read it??

Do you have figures as to how many people believe in intelligent design as opposed to santa claus. Is there anyone who believes in santa claus who attempts to explain him scientifically and if so are there enough of them to possibly want this to be taught in school. Is there currently a huge debate about whether or not santa claus should be taught as real in schools??

there is now. a huge debate doesn't matter. it has no scientific merit. it presents no new information. it simply credits the unexplained to god. the complexities of genetic makeup to god. how the fuck can that be scientific?!?!?!?!?

 

[Lili Marlene]

there is now. a huge debate doesn't matter. it has no scientific merit. it presents no new information. it simply credits the unexplained to god. the complexities of genetic makeup to god. how the fuck can that be scientific?!?!?!?!?

As far as I know it can't. I never said it could.
But would it kill you to have a page in a textbook like the introductory paragraphs on intelligent design's wikipedia entry?

 

[ITalkShite]

But would it kill you to have a page in a textbook like the introductory paragraphs on intelligent design's wikipedia entry?

Yes, it would 'kill me'. The page is "part of the series on Creationism" and states that "Intelligent design's advocates [...] seek a fundamental redefinition of science" - so, why should it be in a science textbook, yet other pseudoscience shouldn't be? Should there be a page on Phrenology as well?

 

[Lili Marlene]

Why? Is there a huge Phrenology movement right now or something?

 

[ITalkShite]

Why? Is there a huge Phrenology movement right now or something?

Well, Neo-nazis are fond of it. Does that make it science?

And as for the 'huge movement' that presumably is being implied as supporting Creationist pseudoscience, it simply doesn't exist, but it's very important for the Creationists to give the perception that it does. They're relying on the 'wedge strategy' (download it here) to get creationism into science through sheer brass neck.

 

[Lili Marlene]

Well, Neo-nazis are fond of it. Does that make it science?

haha, Godwin's law

And as for the 'huge movement' that presumably is being implied as supporting Creationist pseudoscience, it simply doesn't exist, but it's very important for the Creationists to give the perception that it does. They're relying on the 'wedge strategy' (download it here) to get creationism into science through sheer brass neck.

THANK YOU. I've asked so many times if there is a proper following behind this and all i've got is 'OMG YOU CAN'T QUESTION SCIENCE'. If there is no proper following and it really is just a bunch of mentalists then I don't think it should be worth mentioning in a textbook no.

But why is it even being debated in newspapers etc. if it's obviously just a bunch of nutters?

 

[avernus]

As far as I know it can't. I never said it could.
But would it kill you to have a page in a textbook like the introductory paragraphs on intelligent design's wikipedia entry?

yes. it is not science. it won't be science.

the fact that you can't understand that means you may as well be an advocate of ID - since, if you had any power in the matter, you'd allow it to be part of the science curriculum.

 

[Lili Marlene]

yes. it is not science. it won't be science.

the fact that you can't understand that means you may as well be an advocate of ID - since, if you had any power in the matter, you'd allow it to be part of the science curriculum.

Yeah ok.

 

[avernus]

THANK YOU. I've asked so many times if there is a proper following behind this and all i've got is 'OMG YOU CAN'T QUESTION SCIENCE'. If there is no proper following and it really is just a bunch of mentalists then I don't think it should be worth mentioning in a textbook no.

it's not that you can't question science, it's that you can't include matters of faith and god in science, because they are two mutually exclusive arenas.
in the same way you wouldn't allow a gorilla to replace the ball in a game of football, because the gorilla simply just doesn't belong there.

even if 10 million people were calling for it, it doesn't make it right or worthy of attention.

 

[avernus]

Yeah ok.

Ok then.

 

[ITalkShite]

haha, Godwin's law

Zing, indeed

Give this thread another few pages and it'll be nothing but links to different Wikipedia articles.

THANK YOU. I've asked so many times if there is a proper following behind this and all i've got is 'OMG YOU CAN'T QUESTION SCIENCE'. If there is no proper following and it really is just a bunch of mentalists then I don't think it should be worth mentioning in a textbook no.

Well, you're welcome - but wasn't it obvious all along?

But why is it even being debated in newspapers etc. if it's obviously just a bunch of nutters?

How about phase 2 of the wedge strategy: "Phase II: Publicity & Opinion-making"

 

[ITalkShite]

Ok then.

Yeah, ok then. Ok?

 

[avernus]

Yeah, ok then. Ok?

moekay.

 

[zebra heart attack]

yes. it is not science. it won't be science.

that should be the take home message from this thread. evolution is science. intelligent design is religion. they are not competing theories.