mattseh

m.guardian.co.uk

__________________
You have a right to obey.

lukep

Go team!

Dawkins has some serious patience. I could never pull off such a change... My official argument to creationists would be:

"I'm sorry, you're already a lost cause because you were taught intelligent design, and you clearly don't have the mental capacity to understand why it's important to teach evolution. Can you direct me to someone with more intelligence than you to speak with?"

__________________

d_diggler

It's amazing what get's through and what doesn't.

What is Dawkins fighting against / for exactly. Surly if a person has any rights at all it's to choose the values which they give to their children. This isn't even a property right so the state surly isn't that interested in taking it?

It's not right that a small group of people decide for the rest, if people don't want their children being taught creationism they simply don't send them to that school. If things must be state funded then at least it should be done based on an imaginary market place and if the service a school provides is unwanted it'll fail. The fact these schools exist suggests it's not the case.

I love how all the haughty anti religious types shout so loud against people who are doing nothing more than following their beliefs - because these beliefs contradict with their oh so superior views - there must be a picture of Dick Dawkins next to irony in the dictionary.

Even if your views are proven to be 100% right by science that doesn't give you the right to enforce them on someone else. Being a stupid idiot doesn't bar you from having your own beliefs.

God, (pun intended) it's hilarious to see LukeP posting 300 times a day about the virtues of libertarianism and anti statism and then completely miss the point.

Freedom for all - as long as it's the freedom I believe in!

inb4 I get accused of being an offended Christian - this isn't the case.

__________________
I'm the devil, I love metal!

mattseh

The way I see it, the point of a school is to develop a well rounded adult that integrates well into society. Being taught lies doesn't work towards that goal. I think creationism should be discussed in RS lessons, but not taught as fact. Children need to be able to think rationally to do well in the modern world, so they should be able to logically discuss different ideas.

__________________
You have a right to obey.

lukep

Dear Moron Dickler,

Try reading the fucking article.

If you had the reading comprehension skills claimed by the average kindergartner, you would have noticed that Dawkins victory here was NOT that he got Evolution taught in school, but like your own speel, he got ID NOT taught as FACT in said schools.

Now go dickroll yourself 50 times as penance for this sad post above.

__________________

Kryt3n

d_diggler

And I agree with that 100% but it doesn't mean I should be able to force it onto another person.

I figured that would rouse you but I expected far more than a personal insult?

You're slipping and my response was not targeted towards the article.

__________________
I'm the devil, I love metal!

Deliguy

+1 for what lukep said.
Most importantly he got it out of science class. I've honestly never heard an ID lecture but I cant imagine it has any actual science in it. At least nothing that belongs in a textbook or in a state funded program. It's nothing more than a political vice pushing an agenda.

Clearly the people pushing ID in schools aren't concerned with actually improving education. If they were they'd be pushing to bring back lessons around some of the most important events in human history such as the Great Schism and the Christian Crusades. Which kids need to actually learn about, not on some desperately fabricated pseudoscience.

I'm pretty sure I went through my entire k12 education without hearing the word Quaker once. Yet it was kind of a big part of our American history. Wtf is wrong with these people. Leave science class alone and improve some history classes.

__________________

geomark

Seems like this fits in somewhere into one of these debates about religion

__________________
It means what I say it means - Thaksin Shinawatra

Imhotep

I wish I had the patience for morons that Dawkins has, he truly is a gentlemen when dealing with lesser minds...

lukep

Nope, not satisfactory. You're not getting out of this megafail so easily!

For the record, here's what just went down ITT:

1. Matt posted article stating a Victory for Dawkins. This victory was clearly spelled out by Dawkins doing a very Libertarian thing by stopping tax money going toward teaching Intelligent design in schools.

2. You make a sad, childish assumption that Dawkins' Victory must be by forcing Evolution on some school, EXACTLY the opposite of the facts given...

3. Then you make a big fuss here about how he's doing something I would be against due to my libertarian ideals.

4. I call you out on it.

5. You FURTHER don't read the article after being called out on it...

6. You respond to Matt's later response showing that you still think that Dawkins has somehow forced evolution onto others... (!)

7. Then you sadly say that I'm "slipping" and your "response was not targeted towards the article," as if that would help you out at all in your defense.

8. A worldwide, collective chuckle of WF member ensues at your expense.


Seriously dickler, Man the fuck up and read that tiny article! Otherwise you're going to keep making the same sad assumption over and over again.

__________________

BluuueJammm

You mean like parents forcing this shit on there kids?

__________________

mimoza3

That's pretty good news (the article) and makes a lot of sense...
Dawkins is simply trying to get things to be normal.
As for Atheism, I do not think that Atheists want to force change on anyone, I think it was the great Christopher Hitchens who said "believe whatever you want, just leave me (and everyone else) out of it"

JerseyJoe

he's fighting against the claim that beliefs in the supernatural are valid scientific ideas.

they are not. those ideas operate outside the realm of the real, testable, evidence-based world of science. want to learn ID/Creationism/et al? go discuss it in a religion or philosophy class.

Dark Cognitive

This isnt forcing anything upon anyone Diggler, Evolution is ALREADY taught in schools anyway.

The entire point of the article is that Intelligent Design can no longer be taught as Scientific fact. When kids go to science class, they should be taught science, not some garbage that has no scientific background to it whatsoever.

Funding is being withdrawn for those wishing to teach ID as fact, so your tax money will no longer go towards teaching kids fairy tails... unless thats what you want in your 'free' society is it?.... Freedom to me is being told the truth - not being lied to.

If they want to teach ID they can do it in religious education, or some other class, but they can keep it the hell out of the science class as it has no basis to be there.

__________________
Everytime someone insults me, God creates a kitten..

Imhotep

d_diggler is a fucking idiot and can't be reasoned with. The world works a lot easier when one realizes that certain people just can't be convinced with reason and logic. It's a waste of time arguing with a person or persons who simply believe what they want to rather than what is fact.

d_diggler

OK, let me put this another way - and again my comments above are not related to the article directly as I've stated.

(These aren't my personal views but to show the point)

<!-- hypothetical starts -->

Let's assume that I'm forced to pay tax which is used for a state education program and that I cannot afford private schooling on top of this for my children. My only option is to send my child to a state school and the Government dictates what they may and may not teach.

The article says does it not that said school cannot teach creationism as fact. (Again for the fucktards I'm not suggesting it is just making my point.)

Although I agree completly with evolution and certainly don't think there is a God (also male, think Gandalf the white style sitting on a cloud) science cannot explain the initial spark that started life but my religion suggests it was started by a greater power and I'm going with this, and that's what I want my children taught because I can't see any evil coming of it.

<!-- hypothetical ends -->

I don't see that a person should be stripped of this right anymore than any other right.

__________________
I'm the devil, I love metal!

d_diggler

Because my argument was that creationism is true and should be forced upon everyone?

Can you just quote me on that one.

__________________
I'm the devil, I love metal!

Kryt3n

Please tell me you're not this dumb...

jacky8

What's the point of hating? Why not agree to disagree over difference of opinion? Why not stay happily as buddies?

I'm sending out this message so maybe it will be taken up by humans within the next 200 years just like that guy talked about here

__________________

barman

Because creationism isn't real or true? It's a fucking story.

I went to Catholic school for a good number of years during grade school and some high school. Even as a child I understood that these stories in the Bible were just that ... stories. Stories to teach lessons but stories nontheless (Old Testament specifically ) It's like Aesop's Fables on steroids.

I don't see how you can justify spending taxpayer money teaching something that isn't real. Should we be teaching kids about bloodletting or witch hunting, or how to use typewriters? No. Because science progresses and now we know better.

__________________
Where Affiliate Marketers go for News. and Weed.

Rusky

We need the government to control what parents teach their kids. Maybe even send them to prison for being so stupid and closed minded.
I welcome my slightly more intelligent overlords; who figured out the universe before us mere mortals.

__________________
Green Green, Yellow.

Kiopa_Matt

But it does give us that right. That's the point. You can't go around saying the sky is neon pink, just because you believe it, because it's just not true. Same as can't go around believing the world is only 7000 years old, or some guy lived in a fishes mouth for 30 days, or the reason we have multiple languages is because some people were building a tower to heaven, and got so close God got worried and scrambles everyone's tongues.

How can we ever evolve as a species if there's people who believe shit like this? World peace, living in space, etc... we're going to have to come together for this, or we're going extinct, and religion is a huge barrier to doing this.

__________________
xMarkPro -- Ultimate Blog Network Management
Streamline your marketing operations. Centralize management of domains, pages, Wordpress blogs, sponsors, link codes, media items, sales and traffic statistics, plus more!

Rusky

Basically they look at DNA and how complex the code is. Then they compare to how we get complex structure and code today.

Example. If we find a rosetta stone in the desert


From what we know. Do you assume wind and sand made the inscriptions by accident or was this intended for a function by an intelligent body.
Its a question and there's nothing wrong with proposing a question. Classroom or not.

But in my opinion. Schools should focus on math, different trades, reading, writing, social development, history, non theory science/physics. They can choose to go deeper into theories in college by choice.

__________________
Green Green, Yellow.

mimoza3

I think its rather sad that anyone who believes something and expresses his/her belief should face any level of anger and contempt, everyone is free to believe whatever they want (as long as they do not harm any one in the process and keep it to themselves).

The real danger begins when people are afraid to voice their beliefs, when one voice is taking over the entire conversation is it already too late, and its called totalitarianism, try and understand the importance of different views - and appreciate it always.

mikeshinobi

The fallacy with the analogies made by ID is that living organisms are capable of evolution. Rocks, watches, and other inanimate objects are not.

__________________

Kryt3n

In the case of evolution/creationism it's got nothing to do with "belief", but rather facts based on evidence that is available (of which there is a huge amount). People's opinions are NOT equally valid as many people either lack the intellect to even understand evolution, or more commonly it seems have been indoctrinated or are simply ignorant.

Moxie

There are few absolute proofs in science, so you are basically saying that they should only be taught pure math. Our understanding of how the planets move, of how germs develop, of how earthquakes happen - it is all theories.

Dinosaurs are a theory, for example. Bones in the ground do not 100% prove that they existed. It's also technically possible that they did exist but that they all had fur. You can have a hypothesis that they all had fur, but there is no scientific theory saying that. In order for that to become a theory in science there first would have to be enough evidence pointing in that direction.

__________________

Ar Scion

Who says?

If a society is built on lies, teaching said lies will create well-integrated students while truth will create rebels.

Evolution is a work in progress. It's entirely possible that the entire theory could be overturned a few decades down the road. Science, when allowed free rein, tends to do that kind of thing.

What Dawkins and anti-intelligent design advocates are doing is the exact opposite. They hurt science and they hurt society by trying to quash any possible opposition. They end up looking committed to evolution like it were a religion.

That's why Dawkins' ideology is the dictionary definition of irony, and Dawkins is an idiot.

Fuck, what should a teacher do if a student has a legitimate, genuine question about what creationism/intelligent design is? Are they allowed to answer that question, or will they be censored by Dawkinism?

__________________
You are one matronly-ass mofo.

Kiopa_Matt

That's actually wrong. If you ask Dawkins or any of his buddies how the universe started, they simply say, "we don't know, but we're working on it, and learn more every year". That's fine, that's what science is.

Ask a creationist how the universe started, they'll say, "God! That's it, final answer. Case closed, no need to investigate further.". Ask for evidence to backup their claim, and it's, "well, something had to create the universe!".

__________________
xMarkPro -- Ultimate Blog Network Management
Streamline your marketing operations. Centralize management of domains, pages, Wordpress blogs, sponsors, link codes, media items, sales and traffic statistics, plus more!

Kryt3n

You should read Dawkins' book "The Greatest Show On Earth", which goes through most of the evidence for evolution in an easy to understand manner (amazon link ).

Ar Scion

"We're working on it. But we won't let anyone else work on it."

If you've actually read anything in ID, you'll find that they don't resort to God to explain anything.

There are enough unanswered questions that ID raises about non-intelligent evolution that convince me that they deserve a place at the table, even if it's still in its infancy.

__________________
You are one matronly-ass mofo.

greenleaves

@d_diggler
If you are too lazy to read the article, you should at least click the link to read the full headline:
"Free schools that teach 'intelligent design' as science will lose funding"
(highlighting by me)

You can teach kids 'intelligent design' as non-science (religion?), or even as science in your own home school, just not teach it as science on the public's dime.

Don't argue based on ignorance, it only makes you look like a jack-ass. The only one's arguing against this type of progress are religious zealots, and that is why you are being made fun of as one. If you actually read the article, you know the topic at hand, you'd realize this.

As a side note, I know people who do what you do; it has happened to me too. It is generally pure arrogance. The error in your situation (and I have been in it), is that we get to thinking that are thoughts are so awesome, that we don't even have to fully understand the topic at hand to give brilliant insights.

Whenever I catch myself doing something like this, I realize how much of a jackass I am being and I try to improve. The truth is that every event carries so many variables, speaking confidently without a thorough understanding of any given topic goes against the purpose of communication and exposes our egos as the shitty things they are.

__________________
Hit me up for bulk Herbal Incense. The potent kind that works. $2k/1000g - Sell it for $5-22/Gram, That's 1000% Profit! Much lower prices for bigger purchases.

No banned substances, 50 states legal, includes lab certificate. PM me for info.

If a trash collector can make 7 digits on this, you can too. To read more about this, view this bloomberg article.

Moxie

I suppose it is possible that the slower zebras will stop being more likely to be killed by lions, or that different races will stop breeding with each other, or that humans will start to choose their mates totally at random - but it's highly unlikely.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory


I assume they are open to people on their own coming up with hypotheses and looking for the necessary evidence to make them a theory. What they are not open to is hypotheses being treated and taught as if they are theories.

A teacher, for whatever reason, may personally believe that all dinosaurs had fur, but at the same time the teacher could recognize why that shouldn't be taught in school as if that was scientific theory.

__________________

Ar Scion

Since when did Dawkins become the arbiter of what is and what isn't a theory?

This is the sort of thing that is determined by the findings, and if they find that intelligent design isn't scientific, they ought to demonstrate the data supporting that claim.

__________________
You are one matronly-ass mofo.

Kiopa_Matt

But no, that's not how the scientific method works. You start with a hypothesis, gather evidence through research & testing, then it turns into a theory.

You can't start at a theory, then tell everyone to prove you wrong. That's not how it works. And as of right now, there's huge consensus throughout the worldwide scientific community that there's not enough evidence to backup intelligent design and call it a plausible theory. If you want to believe in intelligent design, then the onus is on you to come up with the evidence to backup that claim. Not the other way around.

__________________
xMarkPro -- Ultimate Blog Network Management
Streamline your marketing operations. Centralize management of domains, pages, Wordpress blogs, sponsors, link codes, media items, sales and traffic statistics, plus more!

Dark Cognitive

It's the other way around. If they want I.D to be taken seriously by the scientific community, THEY need to have scientific data to support their claim, of which there is a lack thereof, which is the entire point of the article. How can something be taught as science when the scientific evidence for it doesnt add up?

Evolution on the other hand has amassed a HUGE amount of data to support it over the years.... and it's not Dawkins who 'decided' it was a fact and not just a theory, it was the majority of the scientific community who have studied animals and species over the years and actually seen evolution happen. We've had plenty of time to actually see animals and species evolve, even ever so slightly, but its still evolution and it's a fact that can't really be refuted.

Humans have played a huge part in un-natural selection. We've evolved breeds of dogs to suit our own needs, breeding them with other dogs to gain the best traits. It's still evolution though, selective or not... and it's testable, verifiable, and the experiment can be reproduced over and over again with the same results.

Things evolve. FACT.

Edit: Kiopa Matt got in before me , but pretty much what he said.

__________________
Everytime someone insults me, God creates a kitten..

Imhotep

All theories huh? How germs develop? Dinosaurs are a theory... lol this is exactly what I meant when I said some people just can't be reasoned with...

Wattsy

It only seems plausible if you're already religious, I'm yet to see someone convert because the theory of ID seems solid, have seen many go the other way though (including myself).

Poking holes in parts of evolutionary theory isn't set aside for the religious community either, specifics of a theory have been and always should be debated by experts in the field, in this case biology. Thankfully we have moved on from the days of the Church condemning Galileo.

Also, any claims of holes I've read by creationism/ I.D supporters are usually wrong, particularly the claim that there is no evidence to indicate macro-evolution.

I love religious debate, it just doesn't have a place in the science classroom.

Moxie

You are apparently confusing the layman's use of the word "theory" with the scientific definition. The existence of what we call dinosaur bones is a fact. Our understanding of everything else about them is theory.

Germ Theory


It must be stressed that a hypothesis is never shown to be true. Repeated experimentation which supports a hypothesis and develops the hypothesis further leads to the hypothesis being accepted as a theory. Often a well supported theory will be referred to as a law or principle. It should be noted that in reality it is still a theory, just one that has stood the test of time fairly well.

Introduction and Brief History of Microbiology

__________________

guysmy

They should teach science in world religion class.

When discussing the bit in Genesis where God creates the earth, teachers also need to touch on the big bang theory.

__________________
“Eighty percent of success is showing up.” - Woody Allen

Imhotep

I was more referring to "Bones in the ground do not 100% prove that they existed", that is complete and utter foolishness.. bones of something not being proof... bones have DNA that have been tested. So by your logic if we dug up a dead person we could not prove he existed? You can quote all the sudo-intellect crap you want and be "technical" all you want but it merely convoluted the point that I was trying to make. And that point is that "technicalities" are not the issue when it comes to fact or fiction.

schockergd

Seems like they just want to de-fund religious schools.

I know in the US , private institutions that are non-religious or religious still get partial funding from the government.

__________________


Shut up and make some money already.

PM Me if you want a discounted PPC-Coach Subscription.

Kiopa_Matt

But no, because then you're dismissing the entire scientific method. Then you have to begin debating with yourself as to whether sunlight is actually real, or whether carbon dioxide actually consists of 1 carbon and 2 oxygen atoms, or if the earth actually revolves around the sun, or whether you've been breathing nitrogen or oxygen all your life, etc. After all, they're just a bunch of theories, right?

I'm curious, what makes people so petrified that they're willing to allow their minds to go to such depths? Rational folks who throw rationality completely out the window when it comes to religion.

__________________
xMarkPro -- Ultimate Blog Network Management
Streamline your marketing operations. Centralize management of domains, pages, Wordpress blogs, sponsors, link codes, media items, sales and traffic statistics, plus more!

Moxie

What passes as proof in a court of law is different than in science, and this thread was about science, which is all about technicalities.

Human bones would be evidence of a former human life, but no, they would not 100% scientifically prove it, and there is a reason for this. Proper science leaves things open for the tiny chance of other probabilities, but because of this there can always be another "side" to most science issues.

If we only teach science in school that everyone agrees on, then there wouldn't be much being taught. Some people think that dinosaur bones were placed there by the devil and some still think that the devil also is what causes disease. Both of those views cannot be disproved, but that doesn't mean that they should be taught in school, and that's sort of what I was pointing out.


No, there's differences between being 1%, 10%, 50%, 90%, or 99.99999999999999% sure of something.

Not sure if this was directed at me, but are you aware that I quoted that paragraph off of a science site?

__________________

REIMktg

I wish everyone would simply be honest and lay their cards on the table.

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" source I see no claim of a creator here, simply that the simplest explanation would be that there is an intelligent explanation.

Evolutionists need to state that they believe in micro evolution and then, without proof, extrapolate out that this includes macro-evolution. They should also stop showing drawings and modeled skeletons of transitional ape to human forms when the speculation is based on a femur, or single skull, of whatever. Where's the honesty in that?

All the fake BS from evolutionists that is taught as pure fact is ridiculous.

Students should be told what we know, what we do not know, and the conclusions we have made. Not simply, this is what is, when in fact, it isn't.

__________________

lukep

Sweet jebus, I step away from this thread for a few hours and it's degraded into another sad you-can't-prove-evolution-exists thread. So. Very. Disappointing.

For the record, I now feel about people who can't fully grasp macroevolution like I do the idiot commentors on your average CNN story. The vast hordes of stupidity will always win out; but I had hoped that wickedfire would be one of the last great strongholds.

Fuck this thread, I'm outta here.

__________________

emp

@lukep
Best decision ever.

::emp::

__________________
Your Logical Fallacies - know them to avoid them

That's because all programmers are also ninjas.(but not all ninjas are programmers) - LogicFlux

Blind Ape Seo

REIMktg

Spoken like a person that has no idea how to explain his position. Unless you are sticking to your theory from another thread that I should accept macro evolution because there is observable micro evolution, therefore, given enough time, it must exist.

__________________

craigmc

Which came first. The Chicken or the Egg?