Barack Obama on Science

The Sinister Minister
Retired Forum Staff
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Messages
3,637
Best answers
0
So you want Christianity taught, what make YOUR religion so special. Why not teach Atheism then too, or Voodoo, or Buddhism. Those are all perfectly valid religions as well, what makes Christianity any more important to teach in schools. I'm sure Muslim parents don't want their learning verses from the bible any more than you would want your kids reading from the Koran. Remember just like Christianity there's no proof AGAINST any of these religions right? So why shouldn't they be taught in schools?
I think you've misread the statement he made. He didn't say "I think Christianity should be taught in schools". He said, and I quote:

J-Dude said:
I don't want ID taught in schools because I want to teach all the children Christianity, I want to see it taught because higher beings have NOT been ruled out, and shouldn't be, no matter how much high figures and science try to say otherwise.
Or, if you'll allow me to clean it up so as to make his point more salient, "The reason I want ID taught in schools has nothing to do with wanting to teach all of the children about Christianity". If you read the whole sentence, it is evident that he's saying he DOESN'T advocate teaching about Christianity in all schools. What he is saying is that he advocates the teaching of Intelligent Design because it is, technically, not possible to disprove at this point in time.


I'm not aiming this comment at tolore, but at everyone intending to address J-Dude's comments: please be certain that you understand his entire opinion before you begin to make your own point. What tolore did is a good example of what happens when you take a sentence (read: sentence fragment) completely out of context. Try not to let it happen again, as it, simply put, isn't fair to the person you're trying to rebut.
 

MC

New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 24, 2003
Messages
3,989
Best answers
0
tolore said:
My only problem with ID is that the biggest evidence I ever hear FOR it is that evolution is not proven. If they had any actual evidence behind then it could be taught in schools.
That's the thing many people don't seem to understand.

In all the debates I've read, seen and heard, it's always about, "what's wrong with Evolution?" rather than, "what evidence is there to support Intelligent Design?"

That's because there is no evidence to support Intelligent Design or at least there hasn't been any evidence presented. So, they attack Evolution by claiming that it's "flawed", "incomplete", "controversial amongst the scientific community", "a theory in crisis" - in short, unreliable.

By making Evolution seem inferior, they make Intelligent Design seem superior. Though, they haven't been too successful.

-Origin said:
The theory of evolution is just as "proven" as the existence of God.
Yes, a theory is just as "proven" as a belief.

Just like how mitosis is just as "proven" as spontaneous generation. Or how heliocentrism is just as "proven" as geocentrism.

-Origin said:
All we can do is suspect and choose our preference for either choice, but the truth is none of us know and chances are none of us will ever know.
All we can do is educated ourselves, ask questions, be skeptical and choose our preference for either choice based upon observations, studies and evidence of others and of ourselves.

-Origin said:
I'd say take an objective stance on it and teach both, but enforce neither. But that's probably wishful thinking on my part.
I don't have a problem with Intelligent Design being taught, given that it's taught in the appropriate subject (religious studies or philosophy) rather than one it doesn't belong in (science).
 
Active Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 27, 2004
Messages
2,462
Best answers
0
Ooooh, Majin_You is right. I thought J-Dude meant he wanted Christianity taught in all schools, but was stating the opposite.

Blegh. Sorry about that, I misread it.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
2,904
Best answers
0
So MC.. I have no idea what you just said. I .. I don't know if you agree with me or not or if I just worded it wrong.

/run
 

sub

Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,961
Best answers
0
I don't want to speak for MC so I'll just say that this is my interpretation of his post:

He disagrees with the idea that "The theory of evolution is just as "proven" as the existence of God."

He disagrees with the idea that "All we can do is suspect and choose our preference for either choice, but the truth is none of us know and chances are none of us will ever know." on the basis that that's not all we can do. We can ask questions and figure out if evolution is true or not (and based on all current observations, sign point to very true)

He sort of agrees with you when you say "I'd say take an objective stance on it and teach both, but enforce neither. But that's probably wishful thinking on my part." He's all for teaching ID, provided it's not in a science class.

Feel free to correct me if I"m wrong o_O
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
2,904
Best answers
0
Oh, cool. But I guess I did word it wrong though, as MC said what I wanted to say so much better.

It's why I usually stay out of these topics. :(
 
Active Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Mar 13, 2005
Messages
3,877
Best answers
0
I dont care what he does. As long as he fixes America from how ****ed up it is...

I really was for McCain, but Obama winning was nice too. Personally as a Republican, I think we did need the change. He seems to be doing Good so far and has many reliable ideas to look forward too. Maybe he can fix it.
 
Force Pit Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
495
Best answers
0
I disagree with whatever the hell sub is talking about just to disagree.

You're an ass for not playing CoD4 with me. Yes, I'm making this personal.
 

sub

Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,961
Best answers
0
If you buy me CoD4, I'll play with you.
 
New Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2004
Messages
397
Best answers
0
good call majin_you, that was an epic fail of reading comprehension on my part. the only reason I quoted that specific part was because I hate having super long quotes in my posts, but it definitely lead to misunderstanding here.
 
Force Pit Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
495
Best answers
0
I'm going to say this, I'm going to say this once, and I'm not going to argue with anyone who questions what I'm about to say, because really, I'm a lover, not a fighter. I'm not Zeo, I don't shoot people from 500 yards away. I **** them from 500 yards away.

Anyway, onto the topic at hand: Science. Schools. And the teaching of science in schools.

Here is my opinion, and my philosophy. I'm all for scientific funding. Stem-cell research. Awesome. New kick ass inventions that bring the future of tomorrow, today. Cool.

In school, science classes teach you the theory of evolution, they also teach you the theory of the big bang.

There are some Christian/ private schools that teach all about God creating the Earth in 7 days and that's fine, and creationism, and that's fine too. Which brings me to my point.

Right now, science has a lot of theories out there.

Let's define theory:

Theory: 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
(Dictionary.com)

a theory is essentially an educated guess based on evidence supporting the theory. The theory of evolution. It's a theory, not a law. Law's are stated, in the book, cold hard facts, that won't ever change. Theory, there is some wiggle room, and we don't have all the evidence we need yet to make it a law.

Now, why mention all this? Here is my opinion. I have no problem with any school teaching about science theories, such as evolution, and teaching about creationism, or how the world was created. Whether it be religious or scientific. As long as they let the students decide for themselves what they want to believe and don't force them to believe anything they don't want.

I know people who are bent on the fact that the world is 6,000 years old, the dinosaurs are here to test our faith, and that God created the universe. I believe otherwise, but I don't say "NO! THATS NOT TRUE!".

I know this girl who would choose God over her husband/boyfriend any day of the week. Yet I know people who of course, believe the world is 4.6 billion years old and dinosaurs roamed the earth and we evolved from apes, which is also fine.

Long story short, teach both and let people decide for themselves.
 

MC

New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 24, 2003
Messages
3,989
Best answers
0
Reminds me of the following picture I came across a few weeks ago:



One of the reasons many oppose the teaching of Intelligent Design is because they see it as religion "getting a foot in the door".
 
Last edited:
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
I really don't want to enter the arena, so I'll just say this and leave it at that. Teaching creationism/intelligent design in school places these bogus and completely unfounded "theories" on the same level as hard science. I'm against that. Evolution, as a theory, has done its time. It's been torn apart, rebuilt, torn apart, rebuilt again and so on for just about as long as its existed. I don't tear apart and attempt to rebuild intelligent design (not the concept that a supreme being had a hand in the creation of all that is; just the Christian interpretation of it) for the same reasons I don't tear apart The Little Engine That Could or The Grinch Who Stole Christmas.

Want to teach Creationism? Go for it. At home. Or some other private area, where religion and all of its offshoots should be kept. Don't wear religion on your sleeve and all that. I forgot who said that. Or hell, if you want to go the religious route, take a page out of the Pope's book. He pretty much said, "You know that evolution thing? It ain't bad." not too long ago. In the eyes of some, that only further serves to invalidate evolution, but what doesn't, right?

Did I mention I shot expert?

Edit: On topic: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/louisiana_boycotts_science_sci.php
 
Last edited:

MC

New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 24, 2003
Messages
3,989
Best answers
0
Speaking of Pharyngula:

A professor at the University of Vermont, Nicholas Gotelli, got an invitation to debate one of the clowns at the Discovery Institute. Here's what they wrote.

Dear Professor Gotelli,

I saw your op-ed in the Burlington Free Press and appreciated your support of free speech at UVM. In light of that, I wonder if you would be open to finding a way to provide a campus forum for a debate about evolutionary science and intelligent design. The Discovery Institute, where I work, has a local sponsor in Burlington who is enthusiastic to find a way to make this happen. But we need a partner on campus. If not the biology department, then perhaps you can suggest an alternative.

Ben Stein may not be the best person to single-handedly represent the ID side. As you're aware, he's known mainly as an entertainer. A more appropriate alternative or addition might be our senior fellows David Berlinski or Stephen Meyer, respectively a mathematician and a philosopher of science. I'll copy links to their bios below. Wherever one comes down in the Darwin debate, I think we can all agree that it is healthy for students to be exposed to different views--in precisely the spirit of inviting controversial speakers to campus, as you write in your op-ed.

I'm hoping that you would be willing to give a critique of ID at such an event, and participate in the debate in whatever role you feel comfortable with.

A good scientific backdrop to the discussion might be Dr. Meyer's book that comes out in June from HarperCollins, "Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design."

On the other hand, Dr. Belinski may be a good choice since he is a critic of both ID and Darwinian theory.

Would it be possible for us to talk more about this by phone sometime soon?

With best wishes,
David Klinghoffer
Discovery Institute
You'll enjoy Dr Gotelli's response.

Dear Dr. Klinghoffer:

Thank you for this interesting and courteous invitation to set up a debate about evolution and creationism (which includes its more recent relabeling as "intelligent design") with a speaker from the Discovery Institute. Your invitation is quite surprising, given the sneering coverage of my recent newspaper editorial that you yourself posted on the Discovery Institute's website:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/02/

However, this kind of two-faced dishonesty is what the scientific community has come to expect from the creationists.

Academic debate on controversial topics is fine, but those topics need to have a basis in reality. I would not invite a creationist to a debate on campus for the same reason that I would not invite an alchemist, a flat-earther, an astrologer, a psychic, or a Holocaust revisionist. These ideas have no scientific support, and that is why they have all been discarded by credible scholars. Creationism is in the same category.

Instead of spending time on public debates, why aren't members of your institute publishing their ideas in prominent peer-reviewed journals such as Science, Nature, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? If you want to be taken seriously by scientists and scholars, this is where you need to publish. Academic publishing is an intellectual free market, where ideas that have credible empirical support are carefully and thoroughly explored. Nothing could possibly be more exciting and electrifying to biology than scientific disproof of evolutionary theory or scientific proof of the existence of a god. That would be Nobel Prize winning work, and it would be eagerly published by any of the prominent mainstream journals.

"Conspiracy" is the predictable response by Ben Stein and the frustrated creationists. But conspiracy theories are a joke, because science places a high premium on intellectual honesty and on new empirical studies that overturn previously established principles. Creationism doesn't live up to these standards, so its proponents are relegated to the sidelines, publishing in books, blogs, websites, and obscure journals that don't maintain scientific standards.

Finally, isn't it sort of pathetic that your large, well-funded institute must scrape around, panhandling for a seminar invitation at a little university in northern New England? Practicing scientists receive frequent invitations to speak in science departments around the world, often on controversial and novel topics. If creationists actually published some legitimate science, they would receive such invitations as well.

So, I hope you understand why I am declining your offer. I will wait patiently to read about the work of creationists in the pages of Nature and Science. But until it appears there, it isn't science and doesn't merit an invitation.

In closing, I do want to thank you sincerely for this invitation and for your posting on the Discovery Institute Website. As an evolutionary biologist, I can't tell you what a badge of honor this is. My colleagues will be envious.

Sincerely yours,

Nick Gotelli

P.S. I hope you will forgive me if I do not respond to any further e-mails from you or from the Discovery Institute. This has been entertaining, but it interferes with my research and teaching.
Source: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/how_to_respond_to_requests_to.php#more
 

sub

Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,961
Best answers
0
He was being kind of a ****.
 
New Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2001
Messages
692
Best answers
0
I'm going to say this, I'm going to say this once, and I'm not going to argue with anyone who questions what I'm about to say, because really, I'm a lover, not a fighter. I'm not Zeo, I don't shoot people from 500 yards away. I **** them from 500 yards away.

Anyway, onto the topic at hand: Science. Schools. And the teaching of science in schools.

Here is my opinion, and my philosophy. I'm all for scientific funding. Stem-cell research. Awesome. New kick ass inventions that bring the future of tomorrow, today. Cool.

In school, science classes teach you the theory of evolution, they also teach you the theory of the big bang.

There are some Christian/ private schools that teach all about God creating the Earth in 7 days and that's fine, and creationism, and that's fine too. Which brings me to my point.

Right now, science has a lot of theories out there.

Let's define theory:

Theory: 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
(Dictionary.com)

a theory is essentially an educated guess based on evidence supporting the theory. The theory of evolution. It's a theory, not a law. Law's are stated, in the book, cold hard facts, that won't ever change. Theory, there is some wiggle room, and we don't have all the evidence we need yet to make it a law.

Now, why mention all this? Here is my opinion. I have no problem with any school teaching about science theories, such as evolution, and teaching about creationism, or how the world was created. Whether it be religious or scientific. As long as they let the students decide for themselves what they want to believe and don't force them to believe anything they don't want.

I know people who are bent on the fact that the world is 6,000 years old, the dinosaurs are here to test our faith, and that God created the universe. I believe otherwise, but I don't say "NO! THATS NOT TRUE!".

I know this girl who would choose God over her husband/boyfriend any day of the week. Yet I know people who of course, believe the world is 4.6 billion years old and dinosaurs roamed the earth and we evolved from apes, which is also fine.

Long story short, teach both and let people decide for themselves.
Actually, in science, the truthfulness of a theory does not depend on whether a theory is called a law.. For example, Moore's law is just an observation of computing power over the past years, Fits' law is a gross simplification of human pointing behavior, Hooke's law is a gross simplification of how springs work, Newton's laws hold only for macroscopic objects in everyday conditions, etc etc..
 

guest

G
Guest
Oh, I get it, so Obama is exactly the kind of liberal scum I've anticipated, working overtime to destroy religion and turn the world against anyone who might question the unfeeling machine that is science, further enforcing evolution as being the ONLY unimpeachable answer there is. Not even allowing alternate theories to exist in a system and educational system that SUPPOSEDLY promotes free inquiry. In short, being no less closed-minded to alternate ideals today than the Catholics were to the ideas of Galileo half a millennium ago.

And so we trade one sort of tyrant for another sort of tyrant. I knew I could see a dark purpose lurking behind the popularity that is Obama's regime...
You're being close minded yourself man, you don't need to be so constantly defensive. However the enemy of my enemy is my friend, so I'll happily fuel the fires of anger at Obama.
First off, his "Stimulus Package" is a re-named "Bailout" for some crappy government industries, most of which will achieve nothing. His campaign was mostly paid for by big business and his inauguration was entirely paid for by big business. Also, there's the obvious aspect that he's a Media shill elected because he's good at standing on a podium and spouting baseless rhetoric. HOPE, HOPE, HOPE, CHANGE, HAPPINESS OF SOME VAGUE FORM. I AM YOUR MESSIAH, CLING TO ME.

As for Religion, I love Pat Condell. That's all I'll say.
 

sub

Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,961
Best answers
0
Actually, his campaign was funded by countless small donations, certainly more so than any previous president.
 
New Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
652
Best answers
0
Oh, I get it, so Obama is exactly the kind of liberal scum I've anticipated, working overtime to destroy religion and turn the world against anyone who might question the unfeeling machine that is science, further enforcing evolution as being the ONLY unimpeachable answer there is. Not even allowing alternate theories to exist in a system and educational system that SUPPOSEDLY promotes free inquiry. In short, being no less closed-minded to alternate ideals today than the Catholics were to the ideas of Galileo half a millennium ago.

And so we trade one sort of tyrant for another sort of tyrant. I knew I could see a dark purpose lurking behind the popularity that is Obama's regime...
Stop being such a radical. Yes, im on your side about this, i too believe in creationism, not evolution. But thats our personal belief.. if others aren't believing in what we believe, it doesn't make them wrong. They're just as entitled to their beliefs as you are, and if that includes evolution.. so be it. In your eyes, what you believe is the right belief. Isn't that enough for you?

It's up to the parents to educate their kids on religion. NOT the schools. If a parent feels their kid should be raised on the belief that humanity as a whole was created, not evolved; then its the parents job to enlighten their children on that belief, and accept evolution as nothing more than a scientific explanation for the development of other species.

I'm indifferent about Obama. I want to like him, but the entire thing about him appointing people who didn't pay taxes to important positions in government had be disturbed (yes, he apologized, but we still have a secretary of tresuary who cheated on his taxes.)

Also, there'sthis, which I'm pretty upset about.
What upsets me about Barack Obama is his whole method of restarting the economy. Not only does he want to spend gargantuan amounts of money that we DON'T have.. but he also wants to cut the flow of money going in by giving the largest group of people tax breaks.

Those tax breaks to the 95% of people or whatever are the same 95% that give the majority of money to the United States government. Its stupid.

He want's to spend money, and reduce the amount of money coming in. It's a double whammy, i don't understand his logic.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top