About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 7:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I guess I will never understand the hysteria over this issue.

One, schulers have lots of time. 

Education progresses at such a petty pace that if a few people want to talk about aliens performing naughty genetic experiments on earth apes, there is plenty of time for it.

Two, all arguments should have at least one counter argument as precaution against complacency or orthodoxy. 

If ID is intrinsically evil, find another opposing argument. As near and dear as the "big bang"  is to every lab coated heart, opposing arguments are found and permitted without resorting to the guillotine. (see Hannes Alfen)

Three, get some fire retardant hair gel.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 8:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There are a lot of ways to look at this, and none of them are very encouraging. It's hard to get anywhere with people who, if religious, can't get past the simple fact that evolution is not incompatible with all religion. The only thing it is incompatible with is if you are a literalist about the creation story, which, of course, is goofy.   Religious fundamentalists will never give up on this, because they are either ignorant of exactly what the Bible is, or because they are too busy using it as a manipulative tool. It's the same old thing- getting caught in between the metaphor instead of experiencing its effect. These stories were evolved over a very long period of time and draw from many sources. These people never go outside their box- if they did, they'd find out things like the fact that there are hundreds of stories similar to the virgin birth, and the resurrection story, all over the world. It is about transformation.

All this is very interesting, but you study it when you take a world religion class, art classes, anthropology, and even psychology. You sure as shit don't introduce it into a science class.

A main problem, as I see it, is that philosophy is never taught as a primary, from the jump. How can kids learn about "stuff" when they don't know what their relationship to reality is? It would make too much sense to teach kids what the major belief systems are, with the understanding that they are free to choose their own. If parents object to display of available knowledge, and pluralistic freedom of thought in general, quite frankly they need to invest in parochial school, or be quiet.

The religious right is very organized and effective, much more effective than most special interest groups because they have a moldable flock to work with, a flock built from years of tradition. A flock that, if they do possess critical thinking skills, are very often willing to abandon them in these types of scenarios. Often, they can play off of general frustrations parents hold with their school systems- one reason charter schools were so well-accepted.  

If you have ever seen one of these public board of ed hearings about bringing in ID into schools, it is very unsettling. The ignorance and disdain is very unsettling. It is also usually a shutout in favor of the religious right. Ignorance and fear triumph.

I understand why people appreciate ID. They will see the order of the fabric of the universe, and say "there is a plan to it". Well, yes. But it doesn't necessarily mean the universe isn't planning itself. ID is a way of looking at existence, and that's fine. It is not science. Evolution is science, and it is science that does not conflict with religion, unless you are very rigid, and ignorant.


Post 2

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 9:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There is nothing outright evil with the ID idea, but it just has no use in science classes and btw isn't even a new idea.
The problem is that they sell it as a scientific fact that is equally possible like evolution theory and this is just plainly wrong.

It is a purely religious idea and can only be debated in religious classes.


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 10:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If children must be forced to attend government schools, then let's not add insult to injury by expecting them to accept mythology as scientific theory.

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 10:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rich Engle noted:"Religious fundamentalists will never give up on this, because they are either ignorant of exactly what the Bible is ..."

To them, it is the literally true, revealed word of God.  So, discussion ends there.  For others, like me, it just starts there.

First off, the fundamentalist Protestants cut four books out of the Bible.  That original Book is now called "the Catholic Bible," except, of course, by Catholics, who call it "the Bible" as they had for 1500 years before the Protestants came along.

Within the realm of rational Biblical scholarship (pardon the contradiction there), it is not clear who wrote which books.  If you look at the ancient Greek manuscripts, there are problems with consistency.  Logical consistency, contextual consistency, physical consistency and theological consistency are all lacking at various points, sometimes, several of them at the same point.  To give just one example that should be clear to Objectivists because we share in this tradition -- is there a higher law than the law of the state?  Well, of course there is!  It is all through the Bible.  However, there is this sticking point in the epistle of Paul to the Romans.  Paul says in Romans 13 that we should obey civil authority because God says so.

Here is a fundamentalist who says that Paul really means something else:
"Furthermore, we believe Paul, in Romans 13:1-7, is referring to the spiritual leaders of the Body of Christ, not the civil authorities of this world."
http://romans13.embassyofheaven.com/spiritualauthority.htm

Enter Paul Romans 13 or Paul Romans obedience authority into Google and read all you can stand.  Do not give up until you read this: http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1162  Serious Christian scholars suggest that the "obedience to authority" stuff was added later by someone else.

Many of these problems plague the Bible.  In fact, devoted born-again Christians often prefer the King James Version, even though it was constructed from later manuscripts.  They argue that the earlier manuscripts were theologically flawed.  That may or may not be, but you can see the problem.  (Christians are not alone in this.  The 5800-year history of recorded Jewish culture actually dates to about 800 AD.  There are no earlier records.) 

As for the Catholic view of "the" Bible.  Of course, it was translated from Koine Greek into Vulgar Latin by Saint Jerome in the 4th century AD.  (Jerome also counted Popes backwards until he got to 1 and set the birthyear of Jesus.  He then counted forward, creating Anno Domini dating.)  Most Catholics of my generation just assume that God speaks Latin.  In fact, oddly enough in Aaron Sorkin's The West Wing, President Barlett curses God in Latin and the director's instructions gave that as the reason.  Some simple plot-twisting could have given the brainy President the ability to speak Hebrew -- which is really God's own language -- but to Catholics, God speaks Latin of course.  Fiat lux!



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 10:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
More on topic, allow me to note:

1. The New Republic has not been a leftwing publication for many years.  I consider it libertarian-conservative.  I do not read it.  I only know how I read it commonly described and what quotes I see taken from its articles.

2. If it were leftwing, you would expect it to denounce "intelligent design."  They might toe the line for Lysenko or something, but they would not endorse a religious explanation for the physical world. Socialism -- especially "scientific socialism" -- is one of several Enlightenment philosophies, which are man-centered, materialist, rationalist, reductionist, humanist, and secular.  Objectivism is another.


Post 6

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 12:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If children must be forced to attend government schools, then let's not add insult to injury by expecting them to accept mythology as scientific theory.
Why not, what difference does it make in light of the crap they are already taught?


Post 7

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 12:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good points on the Bible, Michael. I'd also make mention that the gnostic scriptures are interesting to read, as well (and all available online). We're really never going to know how much the Bible got manhandled. That Paul quote could've been just about anything before it was shaped into what it was. The bottom line, be it civil authority or relgious authority, people wanted to Bible to say listen to authority. It's a mess. And Fundamentalists say they are taking scripture (whether or not it was manhandled or not they would do the same thing) literally, but they aren't. They put spin on it. Even if there were a God (I use that word here in the typical Fundamentalist sense- guy in the sky sort've thing), I'm thinking he didn't offer procedural manuals.
These Fundamentalist think tanks (sic) and action groups are a bunch of crazy, dangerous fuckers. They want institutionalized, government sanctioned religion. Their religion. Make no mistake about this. As I've said in other writing, they don't even care if they eat their own kind. There is so much malevolence in what they do, these misguided Christians. They are not Christians. I thought Constantine really fucked up the mix, but he was a piker compared to what's going on now. Of course, he set up a very strong base for them.

rde
"Language is a virus, from outer space." - William S. Burroughs


Post 8

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 12:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rich,

A main problem, as I see it, is that philosophy is never taught as a primary, from the jump. How can kids learn about "stuff" when they don't know what their relationship to reality is? It would make too much sense to teach kids what the major belief systems are, with the understanding that they are free to choose their own. If parents object to display of available knowledge, and pluralistic freedom of thought in general, quite frankly they need to invest in parochial school, or be quiet.
 Too bad.



Post 9

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 12:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Max,

There is nothing outright evil with the ID idea, but it just has no use in science classes and btw isn't even a new idea.
The problem is that they sell it as a scientific fact that is equally possible like evolution theory and this is just plainly wrong.

It is a purely religious idea and can only be debated in religious classes.
Are you denying being an alien simian hybrid?

(Edited by Robert Davison on 8/12, 12:46pm)


Post 10

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 12:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rich, 

These Fundamentalist think tanks (sic) and action groups are a bunch of crazy, dangerous fuckers. They want institutionalized, government sanctioned religion. Their religion. Make no mistake about this. As I've said in other writing, they don't even care if they eat their own kind. There is so much malevolence in what they do, these misguided Christians. They are not Christians.
Sounds like Objectivist Forum or ARI. ;-)

 


Post 11

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 1:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I am a what? A Monkey? Yeah, pretty evolved monkey, I hoped. One that can turn wheels and make metal fly through the air for hours or years, I hope :)

But there is no evidence that God has engineered myself, so I deny that some Creator or Intelligent Alien gave me a big pack of Duracell to get me going.

However, if other people want to believe it, they may do so, I am not to be held responsible for their believes. So, yes, ID or CD can be taught, but not in disguise of being scientific.

@Michael:

The New Republic (as far as I have read it for the last few months) is leftist leaning rather than libertarian conservative. It has some libertarian colours here and there, but mostly it is endorsing more "democratic" (Articles like "Rove's dubious Defenders" or "Condi's Blurred Vision" are not very conservative ;) ) - So either you made a joke, or I am viewing the wrong issues of the New Republic.

2. They denounced ID in this article as a scientific idea, so that's my point. :)


Post 12

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 1:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert Davison

Why not, what difference does it make in light of the crap they are already taught?

You're right. Given the insults and injuries that prisoners of the public schools already endure, having them deal with ID in science class won't make much difference. Personally, the question I'd like to ask ID advocates is this:

If God was so fucking intelligent, then why do men have to wait at least half an hour after they've ejaculated before they can fuck again?

I'm serious: the male refractory period is a real pain in the ass.

Post 13

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 1:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael wrote:
 
The New Republic has not been a leftwing publication for many years.  I consider it libertarian-conservative.  I do not read it.  I only know how I read it commonly described and what quotes I see taken from its articles.
 
Perhaps it's just from which side of the political spectrum you're viewing it from.  To me, any publication that has a section called "Democrats: The Road Back" on it's Home Page qualifies as 'leftwing'.
 


Post 14

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 2:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Matt-

Because then we would starve, just like rats pressing levers wired to their brain's pleasure center.


Post 15

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 2:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Aaron, I don't know about you, but either I would get chafed, or my wife would -- long before I'm in danger of ending up like those wired rats. At the very least, the AstroGlide would run out.

Post 16

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 6:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Matthew - it's for procreational purposes, not pleasure.!!!


And please, folks, get it right - while both are primates, we came from apes, not monkeys... there is a difference.

(Edited by robert malcom on 8/12, 6:56pm)


Post 17

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 7:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If God was so fucking intelligent, then why do men have to wait at least half an hour after they've ejaculated before they can fuck again?
To instill self discipline in the ladies. ;-) But seriously folks,  it's a lot of work.  Strap a dildo on sometime and try getting some chick off.  It may be fun but it isn't quick and it isn't easy.





Post 18

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 7:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
we came from apes, not monkeys
What is your proof? (that you are decended from an ape not a monkey) It was a joke.

(Edited by Robert Davison on 8/13, 10:58am)


Sanction: 30, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 30, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 30, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 7:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
From http://www.forwardbiased.com/forward_biased/images/teach20both20theories3.gif :

(Edited by Adam Reed
on 8/12, 8:00pm)


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.