ID - was 'censorship sux'

fringe_dweller · #1 14-11-2005, 03:49 PM

Viva democracy!

#2 14-11-2005, 03:53 PM

Hola Police State!

h0ughy (David) · #3 14-11-2005, 07:55 PM

Ok you got our attention, so what is so bad as to cry foul?

fringe_dweller · #4 14-11-2005, 08:00 PM

Houghy - I cant say, the Thought Police are inside my head ( oh sorry thats a cheap trick song hehe) actually if you read my signature that will give you a hint

fringe_dweller · #5 14-11-2005, 08:03 PM

actually it is very serious an important, it is about an unprecedented attack on the 400 years of the age of reason and science

fringe_dweller · #6 14-11-2005, 08:25 PM

...And the people behind this very serious and highly organised and funded, highest level possible connected movement are protected by a type of political correctness - even though they are generally the most vocal opponents of PC I have ever heard - ironic?. I just dont like seeing the laid back attitude, and "she'll be right" and all that of Aussies being taken advantage of by - again! - by this stealthy thin edge of the wedge stuff

h0ughy (David) · #7 14-11-2005, 08:42 PM

The forum rules are quite clear on the topic of religions and debates on that subject, but this one is a little grey. Because this is being integrated into school curriculums for science I agree that there should be some definition of the boundaries of the topic. Bagging religion for being just that, religion is wrong. But bagging science because it is just that pure science is also wrong.

The views expressed by the members in contributing to this type of topic should be just that their views.

But it is easy to offend, I seem to be good at doing that on occations. And with different viewpoints there is an easy cop out to blame the neanderthals for not understanding the reasons given for an arguement. This leads to heated posts and divisions within the forum community.

For this reason I can see why it was pulled, however Mike et Al (mods) the fact is this is going to be official curriculum for science, there must be some discussion.

Ambermile · #8 14-11-2005, 09:02 PM

We have a little of the same problem here - not that there are calls to bring it into the curriculum (it already it was there though the RE subject matter) but there prolly soon will be. I have no problem with it being included as long as the full meaning of the word "THEORY" is stressed - for all sides of the debate. I don't have issues with it - but I do have issues with the "fall down and worship" part, whichever side of the debate is talking. Intelligent design is an elegant solution, but one bound to instill deep inferiority in people if true. Darwinian is also elegant - and can be seen in action, but also bound to instill inferiority in some. (having said that I look around me and sometimes have to think that natural selection for the fittest to survive is *not* working, but that's maybe getting too political).

Arthur

fringe_dweller · #9 14-11-2005, 09:04 PM

Well said! thats right - this is to be taught IN science classes (and taken seriously) AS science - that changes evrything IMO, they cant hide behind that greyness as they so like to do on this occassion. The theory and its reasons for being taken seriously must be out in the full light of day. and don't forget we are talking about a view that isnt seriously held to be gospel by probably maybe, who knows - 80% of christians - certainly not the biggest ones do - this should be in relegious education classes - i would have no problem with that

asimov (John) · #10 14-11-2005, 09:07 PM

The 'thought police' belong to George Orwell's novel 1984....The 'dream Police' was cheap shot's......I mean cheap Trick's song...

fringe_dweller · #11 14-11-2005, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asimov

The 'thought police' belong to George Orwell's novel 1984....The 'dream Police' was cheap shot's......I mean cheap Trick's song...

thanks for pointing that asi - dream police - thought police same diff

i think ID is a cheap shot

fringe_dweller · #12 14-11-2005, 09:58 PM

Arthur, it sounds like your a little partial to the idea perhaps? yes I like elegant theories, for example - Erich von Daniken's "Chariots of the Gods?" was a popular theory held by UFO enthuisiasts - it reached fantastic acceptance in the '70's, but should it be taught as science in schools? hhmm ...I am sure the road to perdition is paved with elegant theories alongside the path of good intentions - if I we were allowed to examine the details of an article of faith that is presented as a verbatim irrefutable fact, than maybe I could explain myself better? But i cant at this stage.

fringe_dweller · #13 14-11-2005, 10:10 PM

also I feel that a great deal of the ID thrust comes from great uncomfortableness and an unease and inferiority some people feel with being descended from monkeys -

avandonk · #14 14-11-2005, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fringe_dweller

also I feel that a great deal of the ID thrust comes from great uncomfortableness and an unease and inferiority some people feel with being descended from monkeys -

No I am afraid it is much worse than that!We are descended from gutless spineless flatworms!This explains alot!

Bert

#15 14-11-2005, 10:37 PM

QUE???!!!

avandonk · #16 14-11-2005, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exfso

QUE???!!!

Sorry for the confusion.

I was just pointing out at what point do you stop saying what we evolved from.Why stop at a monkey.The reality is we are all made of the remnants of stars and supernovae and so is everything around us (apart from the Hydrogen and Helium and some of the Lithium).It just took a long time for working arrangements of these atoms to produce life and then self awareness.

Bert

gaa_ian (Ian) · #17 14-11-2005, 11:32 PM

A very interesting discussion !
So who says that ID is going to be taught in our schools?
I thought this was something that has been thrown out of every education board in Aust, when it has been suggested ID become part of the SCIENCE Curriculum ?
Entirely appropiate to be taught in the RE classes, or as a scientificlly unproven theory in the science classes perhaps?

jmb · #18 14-11-2005, 11:44 PM

I agree, this is a very interesting discussion. I certainly would like to have a better grasp of the issues involved. I think religion and science can benefit greatly from each other.

Anyway, I think any discussion which allows different opinions to be expressed should be encouraged..

fringe_dweller · #19 14-11-2005, 11:49 PM

Ian, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10...ligent_design/ it is not definite yet of course - but the fact that none less than the Australian federal education minister Dr. Brendan Nelson is a another very vocal pro-active proponent of it - in fact it seems to be one of his fields of special interest, that doesnt reassure me very much that it will never happen - I dont think now but who knows in the new police state they might be able to do it easy?
I took from the tone of most media outlets (now that George Dubya is a beleiver an backer) that they are taking it all quite seriously - its like everyones going "like yeah why not? - i didnt like being descended from monkeys - thats brilliant" the fact that it is even contemplated seriously for a millisecond in the media, and in my face 24/7 - absolutely blows my mind - and scares the living beegeezus out of me - I mean werent the Taliban specialists at that sort of stuff?

avandonk · #20 15-11-2005, 12:14 AM

ID is no more a theory than the existance of the tooth fairy.Niether is testable.

Science on the other hand cannot prove or disprove any superstitious belief that is untestable.
Evolution is testable and is now incontrivertible.
All people are allowed to believe anything they like no matter how preposterous.
So keep beliefs based on faith where they belong, in religous classes.

Bert