Anti-Science Bills Weighed in Four States

[PaulConventionWV]

ID is sometimes presented in a scientific notion, sometimes not. When people claim the earth is a few thousand years old and state that this is a falsifiable theory that can be falsified by our common means of testing (which has been done) it has always been falsified. But then sometimes the same people, sometimes others, turn around and say that our means of aquiring evidence or testing theories don't apply to ID. Then it's not scientific anylonger.

Except it has not been falsified. You believe it has, but you happen to be wrong. Now where do we go from here? What you want to do is tell me that only your view should be taught because you believe that my view has been falsified. You don't even consider the idea that you are wrong about my idea being falsified. There are plenty of well-qualified scientists who dispute the evolutionary version of the age of the earth, and yet you have the audacity to say that your side is the only one that should be taught.

What's really surprising is that people don't see the problem with promoting only what the current research supports. The current research, including the research that supposedly falsifies all of my theories, could very well be wrong, no matter how sure you are. What's more, you think falsifying my theories justifies eliminating my theories from scientific discussion and depriving students of the ability to find that out for themselves. Fools believe that their children should only be taught things that their parents believe are correct. Present the students with ALL of the options and let them decide. It doesn't matter if it's a public school or a private school. Freedom is still a good thing even when public schools are supported by stolen money. You MUST ERR on the side of freedom. Always.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

What's wrong with it is that a government employee is using his official position to promote his individual religious belief, which not only violates the First Amendment but is also horrible policy.

The last thing a religious believer should want is for the government to be allowed to promote a particular religious belief through the public schools. If you're going to have public schools in the first place, they have to be neutral on religious matters and can't favor one belief over another or promote theism in general. And it's no answer to say that the failure to teach a particular religious viewpoint is in itself a religious viewpoint. It should be obvious, but I'll say it again: the failure to teach p is not equivalent to teaching that p is false.

Is religious faith so unpersuasive that it needs the power of the State to promote itself to a captive audience? I know you'll probably say that we should keep government out of education, but that's not the point. IF we will have public schools, do we want to allow every teacher to proselytize his or her own religious beliefs?

You must have misunderstood. Nobody is promoting a religious belief. We are simply allowing teachers the freedom to discuss alternatives to the secularist propaganda that we have in schools now. Do you not support freedom and choice and the ability to reach one's own conclusions?

 

[Natural Citizen]

We are simply allowing teachers the freedom to discuss alternatives to the secularist propaganda that we have in schools now.

What is this secularist propaganda you reference. Explain please.

Are you referencing the actual material? Because if you are then you should specifically point it out. Where is it?

 

[dancjm]

Science provides us only with our current best wrong answer.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Science provides us only with our current best wrong answer.

Is true, huh.

Of course there is also a difference in subscribing to a theoretically complete body of knowledge and an actual way of thinking. Which is what science is in scope. It's a way of thinking.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Is your faith is science so unpersuasive that you have to use a straw man argument to promote it?

Why did you change it? It would have been more hard-hitting if you had used the same "power of the state" line that he used, IMO. It really is ironic that he is asking US why WE need the power of the state when that is exactly what the state is doing to support HIS beliefs. Whether he calls them religious or not is irrelevant. I would really like to get an answer from Sonny Tufts on this. Why do you not see the irony in this? It's almost comical the amount of cognitive dissonance that is going on by the atheist statist apologists in here.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Just because they don't teach creationism or promote your favorite religious faith doesn't mean they're teaching secular humanism.

Except they are. What do you think secular humanism is? It is secular, and it teaches that humans are the masters of their own destiny. There is no alternative to this belief. That is exactly what is being taught, by definition.

 

[Sola_Fide]

What is this secularist propaganda you reference. Explain please.

Seriously? The official state religions taught in our state schools are secular humanism, Darwinism, and statism (which all compliment each other and condition us all for a lifetime of slavery to elitism).

That you can't see this as propaganda is evidence of your own religious bias.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Seriously? The official state religions taught in our state schools are secular humanism, Darwinism, and statism (which all compliment each other and condition us all for a lifetime of slavery to elitism).

That you can't see this as propaganda is evidence of your own religious bias.

S_F, I'll be the first to tell you that I don't welcome in any way, shape or form any kind of religious indoctrine into any classroom where the sciences are applied.

Why do you believe that it should be?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

What is this secularist propaganda you reference. Explain please.

Are you referencing the actual material? Because if you are then you should specifically point it out. Where is it?

The idea that we must rule out God as a source of scientific thought. The idea that God cannot be included in science is a religious notion itself. Things like the Big Bang Theory, abiogenesis, not to mention evolution itself.

You are arguing that we should not allow creationism or ID to be discussed and then you tell me there's no secularist propaganda? The very fact that you want to ban religious discussion makes it secularist propaganda. Under the current system, we are not allowed to question evolution with anything non-secular, so that means the state-run education is supporting the teaching of a secular study of origins, one that does not require God. If the government supports a secular teaching of origins, then it is engaging in secularist propaganda because it is not allowing opposing viewpoints except those with secular roots to be taught.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

S_F, I'll be the first to tell you that I don't welcome in any way, shape or form any kind of religious indoctrine into any classroom where the sciences are applied.

Why do you believe that it should be?

A better question is, why do you believe he believes that? Where did that notion come from?

 

[Sola_Fide]

S_F, I'll be the first to tell you that I don't welcome in any way, shape or form any kind of religious indoctrine into any classroom where the sciences are applied.

Yes you do. You are so blinded by your religion of Darwinism, you can't see it. You actually think you are neutral. You're not neutral. There is no neutrality.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Why did you change it? It would have been more hard-hitting if you had used the same "power of the state" line that he used, IMO. It really is ironic that he is asking US why WE need the power of the state when that is exactly what the state is doing to support HIS beliefs. Whether he calls them religious or not is irrelevant. I would really like to get an answer from Sonny Tufts on this. Why do you not see the irony in this? It's almost comical the amount of cognitive dissonance that is going on by the atheist statist apologists in here.

Note, SA (in case you stumble across this thread). This is the model I was referencing regarding the false paradigm that I saw in the book snippet. What we see here is a clear direction to argue two generic opposing principles (irrelevant to the issue as they may be in scope) whereas the genuinely active and capable platform isn't even contemplated. So it's not the author of the book that creates the paradigm as much as it is the base that tries to. Is futile to try but do get one to chuckling.

So, yeah. There it is. Live and in living color. I'm still not going to take advantage of it and point out why it can exist in these kinds of debates because I really don't want to tinker with the other thing (now with it's equally relevant problem regarding the same basic vision) and put in in a bad light but just pointing it out.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Yes you do. You are so blinded by your religion of Darwinism, you can't see it. You actually think you are neutral. You're not neutral. There is no neutrality.

Nope. You're wrong. And in timely fashion too. Too many like to turn it into a "atheist statist apologists" (more ad hominem) vs their interpretation of the science community model. This is a false paradigm. What do you think "neutral" means in the context of the argument (the social one), S_F? Careful now. You can get stung here.

And there is still the argument that I haven't seen anyone even touch on except for sunny. What's the problem with the curriculum in these science classrooms outside of your social biases? Is there one?

 

[Natural Citizen]

The idea that we must rule out God as a source of scientific thought. The idea that God cannot be included in science is a religious notion itself. Things like the Big Bang Theory, abiogenesis, not to mention evolution itself.

You are arguing that we should not allow creationism or ID to be discussed and then you tell me there's no secularist propaganda? The very fact that you want to ban religious discussion makes it secularist propaganda. Under the current system, we are not allowed to question evolution with anything non-secular, so that means the state-run education is supporting the teaching of a secular study of origins, one that does not require God. If the government supports a secular teaching of origins, then it is engaging in secularist propaganda because it is not allowing opposing viewpoints except those with secular roots to be taught.

Yeah, nobody is ruling out "God" as a scientific thought. In fact, when it comes to "God" science tolerates the unknown in a way that religion simply does not. I had mentioned elsewhere that my issue wasn't with people who go looking for "God" but those who think they already have all of the answers and that no more questions need asking.

Now as far as your argument regarding the state, I can't particularly disagree with much of what you say.

 

[Natural Citizen]

A better question is, why do you believe he believes that? Where did that notion come from?

I don't know that I do. Ironically enough, I was begging the question.

 

[Dr.3D]

Yeah, nobody is ruling out "God" as a scientific thought. In fact, when it comes to "God" science tolerates the unknown in a way that religion simply does not. I had mentioned elsewhere that my issue wasn't with people who go looking for "God" but those who think they already have all of the answers and that no more questions need asking.

Now as far as your argument regarding the state, I can't particularly disagree with much of what you say.

Those are the people who won't view the video I posted further up in this thread. They feel they already know all of the answers so they can't learn anything.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Those are the people who won't view the video I posted further up in this thread. They feel they already know all of the answers so they can't learn anything.

I don't know what video you're talking about. I'll look and go watch it.

As long as it's not one of those hour long ones.

Edit... I looked through it and see a Genesis video. I guess that's the one? I'll tell you what, I've got some serious issues with Genesis but not in Genesis itself. Genesis is profound and I read it a little differently than many. Cetrtainly ask a different set of questions than the usual list. Don't know whether to share my spew on it first or watch your video. Hm...

 

[Dr.3D]

I don't know what video you're talking about. I'll go watch it.

As long as it's not one of those hour long ones.

Well, it's not quite an hour long. You can cut to the chase if you want, but starting it at 28:02.
Here is the post I put it in.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-Four-States&p=4969185&viewfull=1#post4969185

 

[Natural Citizen]

Well, it's not quite an hour long. You can cut to the chase if you want, but starting it at 28:02.
Here is the post I put it in.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-Four-States&p=4969185&viewfull=1#post4969185

I already started listening to it from scratch. Am up to arounf 15 minutes or so. I hate when they replace atom for Adam though. That's where they start to lose me with the storyline taking over the science model.