ID - was 'censorship sux' - Page 5

xelasnave · #81 19-11-2005, 08:21 PM

Bert I am happy to see the push is not going un noticed. I dont care what anyone believes just lets preserve a school environment where fairy tales are for kindergarden, religion is for Sunday School and above all science is practiced with the aid of a Lab. and proven facts and observations.
alex

fringe_dweller · #82 19-11-2005, 08:29 PM

Yes Alex, this thread did come about as a result of your original one - and everyone have tried to keep this thread along the same guidlines that you originally intended - hopefully evryone agree's

I am pretty confident that we Australians pride ourselves on our religious tolerance in this country (as most modern countries do) In fact SA was built on that ideal - City of Churches and all that - some peoples came here mainly because they were being persecuted for their beliefs in their homelands - and it offered a haven to practice their faith in peace and safety.
But the reverse flipside to that idyllic situation is a quasi-religous run state - and that is surely not an Australian Ideal?
But yes Religion bashing should not, and wont be tolerated on this forum, I am sure of that.

xelasnave · #83 19-11-2005, 09:03 PM

Thanks for that information Kearn, I have been in the bush and missed the fun, but I was a little confused, in truth I missed seeing 3 of the pages posted, made my first post today ,came back and could not see it, I thought that one was deleted also, it was in this context I was trying to work out what was it I said that was different to the general grift of the thread.. I see it all clearly now.
May I take this opportunity to appologise if I offended anyone. I can be "over the top" and I truthfully can not recall my exact words but I was fired up so perhaps I came over anti religion. That is not the case..but I am not pro religion either. I cant abide subdifuge to grind an axe however and I think it is lamentable that ID is mentioned in the same breath as science. Of prime concern is Mr Brendon Nelson's position I have not got all his words but the ones I have heard seems to suggest he thinks its OK. I hope that is not his posssition as to me he seems a very well educated man, and personally impressive, It would be dangerous if he offers even tacit support.
For me I will take action to write letters to the polies and not let it wash over me. I have a daughter (7) so I guess that is why I respond to this issue with such passion. I see ID as a real and dangerous threat to her future education. What would you say to your daughter if she came home happy that she got an "A" in intelligent design?
alex

fringe_dweller · #84 20-11-2005, 12:51 AM

No worries, i hope you enjoyed your trip mate, Mike and the moderaters (sounds like a good name for a band?

i think that been suggested before?) agreed to the thread coming back after they realised what we were on about, and that we werent just randomly attacking religion like jackboot johnnies - i am grateful they agreed

I visited the thread on astromydaily you mentioned earlier - man I was in serious tears reading some of those posts

I was impressed by some of the links put forward - in particular the one from Dave Mitsky (i know that name!)
It is the one with the response from "Conservative Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson" on the outcome of a ruling on the topic of ID in the U.S recently

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/11/10/rel...obertson.reut/

is this a rational person? this is one of their premier spokesman!! Man those guys in PA are seriously cursed now!!! wouldnt want to be them

I wonder what the next euphenism will be for creationism after is finally discredited this time around - the next time they want to give it a sexy new name

and sell this gobbledygook "Theory"

xelasnave · #85 20-11-2005, 01:50 AM

Yes it was thanks to Dave posting re Mr Pat Robertson and reading about him that fired me up ( as you probably gathered from my go at him ) I hope your tears were of joy and happiness not tears of dispair and frustration. I take joy and happiness that others see thru this guy and what he represents but I do dispair and become frustrated to think someone can be so outlandish and frightening folk with fire brimstone and retribution. I have however discovered there are two approaches to truth in this world. The first presumably that which most of us enjoy is truth from fact and scientific observation the second that is out there is the truth someone holds by virtue of their desire that their belief doth become the truth...tradgically it is the second "truth" that we are asked to accept if we accept ID. Well I have to relax and settle so I guess I have to accept that there is in fact two approaches to the truth both very real its just I dont like one of the approaches. I am trying to impress Mr Pat Roberston with practicing what he should be preaching ..tolerance.
alex

fringe_dweller · #86 20-11-2005, 04:39 AM

yep I agree Alex - seems like a lot of good people caught up in a bad idea

what upsets me a little about these groups also - is the Elders and Leaders were widely reported to have instructed their congregations on who to vote for in federal and so forth elections en masse - this is a substantial amount of people when focussed in that way
(George Bush was widely reported to have got over the line in the last U.S election thanks to these type of instructions)
that changes evrything when they become pro-active political animals - starting political parties, seeking earthly power, seeking influence on public policy ect. -
( indeed even putting the current leader of the free world in his job ) - then they enter the public arena and are fair game like evryone else.
I dont remember my brand X instructing people who to vote for from the pulpit, and that they would go to hell if they didnt? sure you knew what their political bent was, if you looked hard enough - but they didnt shove it down your throat
I thought voting was sacricant in a democracy and was purely a matter between ones own conscience and the ballot box - not an organised group - isnt that almost unconstitutional?
I only mention this to point out we are not talking about some suffering, persecuted bunch of powder puffs that cant defend themselves really

Orion · #87 20-11-2005, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xelasnave

What would you say to your daughter if she came home happy that she got an "A" in intelligent design?
alex

I have two daughters 9 and 12 years old and if they came home with an A on ID I would be extremely happy and if they also came home with an A in Science I would also be happy, what is wrong in knowing about what other people think or believe? (Creation or Evolution) It will only add to there knowledge of life!
It is us as parents that create the confusion. We want our sons and daughters to believe in what we believe.

netwolf · #88 20-11-2005, 09:52 AM

Orion, exactly right, we want our children to be clones of us.. And forget that we rebeled from the same thing being done to us when we were children. Free thinking is what we need to encourage, with the limit of do no harm. My dad used to give an example about freedom. A man walks down the street swinging his umberella, another man from behind walks up quickly and stops the first and slaps him. The first man says why did you do that, the second says because you are swinging your umberella. The firs says i have the freedom to do that, and the second responds your freedom is over when your umberella touches my nose.

The moral i guess is that any Freedom has its limits, but within these limits there is much that can be learned. When you are lost and you have a map, the first thin you look for is where you are. Most maps around shopping centres and in the city's will say "you are here". In the same way our children need to know abou the world around them, in all its infinite diversity. Weather it is belifs or science. Such that the can then look for the infinite combintations.

Regards
Netwolf

xelasnave · #89 20-11-2005, 10:05 AM

Thanks Ed for a hint of the other side of the discussion. I hope you have not taken my stand as anti religion as that is not the case. I respect all humans freedom of thought and have not sort to offend.
What is wrong with knowing what other people think or believe...nothing as such and that is I imagine the reason we study history, social science, philosophy, marketing, etc etc. However to give credibility to a particular philosophy and call it science is the danger. I have no problem with a desire by any parent to have their children believe what they believe how ever there are simple realities to be observed here, paramount of which is the need to preserve science as a respected area of study with a credibility supported by proven fact. I was raised as a Christian and I sincerely try on a day to day basis to follow the teachings of Jesus the man, wonderful principles to help one relate to other humans and these wonderful things I learnt in Sunday School. When I sit and wonder "what came before the big bang" I answer myself "well maybe it was the pure energy of the entity we humans refer to as God and claim for our own". Other explanations enter and they all live happily in an area of nil understanding. There are times when I feel that my inspiration has come from only one source and that source has built the whole thing for me to enjoy. I understand faith. My point is I am not unsypathetic to religion or the possibility of a power beyond our comprehension. But education of science should be confined to established fact and matters established via proof. I was educated in science only to the end of High School I was then educated in Law. Interestingly even Law requires this nasty little thing we call evidence. A plaintiff or Defendant when seeking the judgement of the court must present evidence, in the case of Criminal matters, beyond a reasonable doubt and in a Civil matter, the evidence must be such that "on the balance of probabilities a reasonable man would accept". If you wish to teach something that is unsupported by our scientific community using a standard of proof not acceptable by our courts there is only one place to do it I respectfully suggest that place be Sunday School or Church.
And trying to deal with the practicality of teaching ID what qualification must the tutor give to identify belief on the one hand and established fact on the other.
Truth is fact not what we want to believe.
alex

xelasnave · #90 20-11-2005, 11:29 AM

Sorry Netwolf I did not see or acknowledge your post until now. And indeed freedom is the thing. How nice is it that we can discuss issues without fear of persecution or ridicule but you are right.. dont stick your umbrella in anothers face as that is abuse of your freedom.
alex

gaa_ian (Ian) · #91 20-11-2005, 01:50 PM

An intersting addition to this discussion is a quote from Darwin himself:
"I imagine that probably all organic beings which ever lived on earth, descended from some primitive form which was first called to life by the creator"
Quote from "After its kind" by Nelson
This still does not make the earth 6 to 10 K Y.O

Science & faith require two different qualities:
Science requires us to use our (God given IMO) free will to apply critical analysis & testing to a question.
Faith requires us to submit our free will in humility, to our creator to get the answers we seek.
Neither is invalid, and each will give us different solutions to different questions.
"Seek and you will find, ask and you will receive"
Works for both

xelasnave · #92 20-11-2005, 02:42 PM

My faith has never let me down and all my prayers have been answered so I can not complain. Thinking about it I think it is the folk I identify like Mr Pat Robertson who makes true believers look stupid that gets me going. I am generally tolerant just cant get past the prospect of religion as science. Mr Dawin fortunately was able to use his intelligence to assess the process. It is nice to see that his faith was not shaken but that he could still approach the matter with a detactement one would like to associate with scientific method. But still it boils down to a question of qualification.I D theory is not science, no matter how hard one wishes it to be so, I feel that if I.D. theory is to be introduced into our schools perhaps it is a matter best taught in a "scripture" class. If so there could be no riddicule as will follow if ID is paraded as science.
Thank you for your interest and input these are matters that need balance and although I have my possition it does no good not to understand all the views available.
alex

fringe_dweller · #93 20-11-2005, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orion

, what is wrong in knowing about what other people think or believe? (Creation or Evolution) It will only add to there knowledge of life!

Orion, interestingly when ID theory or creationism fever reaches its logical conclusion, as we have seen in examples from the U.S over many years - it is actually Darwin's theory (amongst others) that are eventually banned!!!? how is this a balanced view outcome?

...also how do you explain to a child who comes home and says ' in science class today we learnt at first that earth is 6-10 k old, but then we also learnt it is 4.5 billion years old?' is this a not a conflicting and confusing arrangement?

fringe_dweller · #94 20-11-2005, 08:05 PM

I worked with a bloke for a long while, who was convinced that it was a conspiracy and simply not true that you could tell the age of a tree from its tree rings once you cut it down (nothing to do with religous beliefs either).
He was a normal smart guy in everyway, but there was nothing i could say or do to convince him that he was wrong and that it was an irrational belief. Since then, nothing surprises me about peoples beliefs.

xelasnave · #95 20-11-2005, 09:06 PM

There is a clear desire by certain members of the community who have the need to see their beliefs supported to include ID in the education of their children.
If ID is taught as science one of the unforeseen consequences must be the elimination of religious dominations for surely we can not expect in addition to have different denominations of ID. Further what will each individual school teach as the "true" designer?? I see this as a further divisive issue. Such a proposition must logically see ID in a scripture class. The other concern is does science currently constitute a compulsory subject? If it does this is means that ID will be compulsory, if so, this is indeed a backhanded way of making religious teaching compulsory. I recall scripture classes being optional which surely must be a keystone of a free democracy.
Further given our mix of people from all parts of the world there will no doubt be others outside the field of science who finds ID classes contrary to their beliefs. As an opponent of the concept of ID being taught as science in school I would be happy to compromise to see optional scripture classes where in those whoes parents wishes to bring their children up to enjoy similar beliefs to their own can have their children attend those classes. I would like to think that is reasonable whilst catering to the needs of the ID view.
alex

#96 21-12-2005, 01:30 PM

Dont mean to bring up an old topic, but thought some might be interested
in this

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/2...ign/index.html

regards,CS

fringe_dweller · #97 21-12-2005, 05:23 PM

yes, its all over the news again! it sure has legs! its like lazurus himself this story

good to see commonsense override emotion isnt it. What I find strange is that Darwins theory isnt the only theory or science in their sights - the Big Bang theory is also in the firing line amongst others - but you never hear them mentioned?
I note the judge saying he thought it was odd that decent proud christians are involved in something so stealthy and not completely open?
A friend of mine also thinks its interesting that they have no trouble believing in complex theories like DNA, (as long as it supports their view) - but cant accept basic stuff like carbon dating!!! weird