Quote :

"Their goals are to assert the world is one way"

This is the goal of science as well... to assert that the world works in a certain way. Again, you're looking at this from a societal standpoint, not a philosophical one. And as far as I was aware, we were discussing philosophy. You are often referring to the definitions and intents of people in general or "agreed upon" definitions, though such definitions are actually instable or invalid in the context of philosophy.

Quote :

"The word "factual" itself only has a fuzzy meaning"

Yeah, I know, but I really couldn't think of a more applicable word, which is still bugging me... fuzzy or not, though, refer to my next point.

Quote :

"but in any case, being factual/not-factual is a pretty drastic difference (see: Child rapist/conservative)."

There is a distinct difference between these two differences, though... they're not the "same difference":
** Factual/Not-factual is a direct contradiction. A theory or idea cannot be both factual and not-factual, it is an exclusive OR statement. This is why religion and science come into conflict with one another.
** Rapist/Conservative is not a direct contradiction. A person can be both of these things, they can be one, they can be the other, or they can be neither. These two things do not come into conflict with one another... they are unrelated in terms of contradiction.

9/21/2008 2:08:26 AM

Quote :

"This is the goal of science as well... to assert that the world works in a certain way"

Science doesn't "assert." Assert implies baseless presumption. Saying that the Earth revolves around the sun is not an "assertion," it's an observation for example. Saying that life evolved is a presumption, but it is not baseless. Saying that the Earth is only 10,000 years old is baseless, and a presumption.

9/21/2008 2:46:45 AM

Fine, not "assert". "Describe", "define", "prove", "tell"... pick something. Whatever the terminology, it comes down to the fact that they both "say" through some means that the world works in a certain way.

9/21/2008 3:23:54 AM

Yes, but that's a pretty critical difference, particularly for the purposes of this thread.

The reason that we allow one to "say" what it says in a science classroom and one NOT to say it in a science classroom is precisely what this debate is about. Science mandates logic and thrives on critical thinking. Teaching these things theoretically allows students to go and use them for the benefit of society. Religion doesn't require, and often shuns, those qualities, and don't have the same benefit educationally. The fact that religion and science might discuss similar issues is has no bearing on the issue of teaching religion in a scientific context. Religion can exist in a scientific context if it chooses to hold itself to a rational standard, but if it did that, it wouldn't be called religion.

And the goal of science isn't to "prove" the world works a certain way, beyond building a base for future scientists to build on. Scientist don't do what they do in order to gain followers in society, they do it to advance the overall understanding of the world, any societal effects are byproducts to this goal.

9/21/2008 5:14:04 AM

Quote :

"Granted, the "claims" in that definition are also qualified by the words "supernatural" and "moral," but I'd argue that any claim that says "this is totally natural" is, in effect, a claim of morality, but I digress."

Ahahahaha I just hit this gem, and now I know there's no way you're not trolling.

I just realized it's going to take a hell of a long time to wade through this mountain of stupid, but I'll do my best.

Quote :

"You have science, which has a set of tenets and practices (observation is truth, the scientific method) and you have religion, which also has a set of tenets and practices."

Observation is truth? Man you really have no clue about science and its purpose, do you? The method itself (including its demand for repeatability) is meant to weed out inherent error in the "observation = truth" line of thinking. In essence, it seeks to purify our observations of subjectivity by applying some rational standards to data collection and analysis.

Quote :

"The HELL it doesn't. What do you think the phrase "that's not scientific" means?"

It's a straight-forward factual claim that certain methodology isn't isomorphic to scientific methodology. If you set up any method or recipe explicitly enough, and you can objectively measure whether or not other methods or recipes follow it. "Blasphemy," on the other hand, is not a failure to follow religious methodology, broadly construed, but a failure to accept specific religious conclusions. Contention in science, on the other hand, is not considered "unscientific" and the fact that you think it is merely demonstrates you have never read a scientific journal.

Quote :

"You are absolutely correct. And one of those behaviors is, SHOCKER, science. That is one of the reasons that the notion that science is a religion is so uncomfortable to a lot of people."

"Religion" this broadly construed is a meaningless distinction.

Quote :

"Saying something isn't "scientific" is almost equivalent to saying it is "wrong" today"

Wrong, wrong, wrong, completely fucking wrong. Ethical and moral claims aren't scientific. However, ethical and moral claims are either true or false (or if they have no truth value, then the fact stating that is debatable and surely has a truth-value). Jesus dude, you sorely need an education. If you're comfortable spending this much time thinking about stuff, why aren't you comfortable spending a little bit of time and effort reading the thousands of pages dedicated to this subject (written by people of all persuasions). You're so damn eager to argue that you aren't even getting the accounts straight before criticizing them.

Quote :

"^ I think you'd be hard pressed to say that math or history are religions."

Not according to your wide definition. Math talks about unseen objects accessible only to our intuition. What the hell would you call that, under your definition, other than a religion? It's a religion with a specific methodology, sure. Some ancient Greeks had religions centered upon math, and thought meditation was doing geometric proofs. Does that mean somebody doing real analysis nowadays is like a monk in any meaningful sense? You continuously shock me with how clueless you are about math, science, history, philosophy, and yes, religion. I mean damn.

Quote :

"nope. the application of mathematics to nature would be the religious part of it."

If this were the case (under your assumptions) then claims about God himself that had nothing to do with God's interaction with nature would NOT be religious in nature. I mean holy fuck, it's like you throw darts at a board to pick your arguments and never examine the whole for internal consistency.

Do you really see the religious everywhere? Do you honestly think this is a profound philosophical conclusion? I mean damn. Group behavior is not the same thing as religion. There is such a thing as sociology of science and sociology of philosophy, you know. It studies these sorts of properties that you clumsily label as religion. You can call it "religion" if you'd like, but it holds no weight as there no actual similarity (not of the type you're trying to demonstrate at least).




[Edited on September 21, 2008 at 12:21 PM. Reason : .]

9/21/2008 11:57:47 AM

You would think the Christian spiritual leaders would have learned their lesson after all the times they have been pwned since the renaissance. They should just accept the bible is not a historical database that has managed to stay 100% accurate after countless copying and translations. What makes more sense is while preserving the "message", moral-frame, and spiritual guidance offered from Jesus, to accept that science helps "clarify" the way in which god works.

Hell 400 years ago the catholic church would have burned you at the stake for declaring the earth to not be flat and for the earth to not be in the center of the universe.

I have actually heard that at the turn of the 20th century the prevalence of acceptance of evolution was pretty wide spread. Following WW1 and the rise of Nazi Germany that used social darwinism to justify their actions; a evangelical backlash in America fought to reestablish creationism as the "true" theory. Not until the cold war with Russia launching Sputnik did the federal gov't under fear that US science education was falling behind did the evolution debate spark back up.

9/21/2008 1:04:54 PM

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/other/discovery-textbook-review.ars/1

9/25/2008 12:31:29 AM

We (NC) may be off the hook
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20080929/ARTICLES/809290288/1004

I think we found out who arronburro really is, though - a middle aged black man with a daughter in southeast NC!

Quote :

"“It just amazes me some of those responses, how venomous they have been,” said Fanti, who sparked the debate by proposing at the board’s Sept. 16 meeting that the teaching of creationism share classroom time with evolution. “I don’t even know what their definition of religion is. I can argue their views on evolution are a religion, too, because it can’t be proven.”"

and of course the local pastor has to weigh in on it....

Quote :

"The Rev. Brad Ferguson, Fanti’s pastor at New Beginnings Community Church in Shallotte, said he supports Fanti’s views. “There is some scientific evidence supporting creationism,” the Southern Baptist minister said. “Kids should be presented both sides. … You can’t isolate disciplines. Science and faith – they go together.”"

but in the end

Quote :

"“The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go,” La Chapelle said, echoing the words of his e-mail to the board. “We don’t take the Bible literally, or as a history or science book. It’s a faith document. Evolution is not a religious question. It’s a scientific question. It doesn’t go against my belief that God created the world.” The school system has enough lawsuits to deal with and is misdirecting its energies discussing adding a subject that is not even allowed by the state, the church’s e-mail to the board says."

9/30/2008 5:46:45 PM

That kind of looks like Xzibit.

9/30/2008 8:00:27 PM

awww what the fuck is all this?

I grew up in Brunswick Co. The positive news out of that section of the woods just continues to flow.

First the sheriff, now this shit.

9/30/2008 10:32:37 PM

Perg were you taught Creationism in school?

10/1/2008 12:27:53 PM