Meet Your Neighbors - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Nov 28, 2005

Meet Your Neighbors

Date: Nov 28, 2005

How can everyone not agree that the "struggle against ignorance" is an endeavor all educators must share?

Date: Nov 28, 2005

Consensus Building wrote:

How can everyone not agree that the "struggle against ignorance" is an endeavor all educators must share?

Interesting, becasue some would say that the "struggle against ignorance" is an introspective issue for many educators.

Date: Nov 28, 2005

Seeker wrote:

Consensus Building wrote: How can everyone not agree that the "struggle against ignorance" is an endeavor all educators must share?

Seeker wrote: Interesting, becasue some would say that the "struggle against ignorance" is an introspective issue for many educators.

Welcome back, Seeker. But I don't understand your comment. Explanation please.

Date: Nov 28, 2005

The famous "Dummies" wrote:

Seeker wrote: Interesting, becasue some would say that the "struggle against ignorance" is an introspective issue for many educators.

Welcome back, Seeker. But I don't understand your comment. Explanation please.

De profs I had were dummer dan sh*t. Der, yah understan now?

Date: Nov 28, 2005

Seeker Interpreter wrote:

De profs I had were dummer dan sh*t. Der, yah understan now?

And the college you attended was _______________.

Date: Nov 29, 2005

Not Dead Horse wrote:

Reese column on creation shows ignorance over evolution http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051128/OPINION/511280317/1009

The original column can be found at

http://www.showmenews.com/2005/Nov/20051120Comm003.asp

Charley isn't a neighbor here in MS, he would raise the intelligence quotient too much if he was here.

Though I disagree with his stand on this topic, he is right on in many other areas. A full dose of Charley can be found at -

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese-arch.html

Date: Nov 29, 2005

Son of Shmoo wrote:

The original column can be found at http://www.showmenews.com/2005/Nov/20051120Comm003.asp Charley isn't a neighbor here in MS, he would raise the intelligence quotient too much if he was here. Though I disagree with his stand on this topic, he is right on in many other areas. A full dose of Charley can be found at - http://www.lewrockwell.com/reese/reese-arch.html

Thanks for the interesting links, Son of Shmoo. I've read some of Reese and found most of what he writes to be sensible. However, he identifies himself as a biblical literalist. He makes many errors in the article in question. For example:

"...Charles Darwin’s theory that many people accept it as scientific fact when there is no scientific proof of evolution whatsoever.

True, there is no scientific proof of intelligent design, either. We cannot know for certain at the present time how life originated. "

It has been stated over and over that scientific theories can't be proven. But Reese is also confusing

Abiogenesis, the field of science dedicated to studying how life might have arisen, with Evolution. As far as I know there is presently no scientific theory of Abiogenesis. I don't think the speculations of how life began is at the stage of a theory. (I'm not sure science has a good enough definition of what "life" is.)

Date: Nov 30, 2005

Intelligent design also rational explanation based on study

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051130/OPINION/511300302/1009

Date: Nov 30, 2005

From the letter: "What we have is a difference of outcomes as two groups evaluate and try to explain the same evidence from differing perspectives. That does not, in and of itself, make one of them illegitimate."

It would be difficult for even a scientist to dispute this and still remain scientifically objective.

Date: Nov 30, 2005

Objectivity wrote:

From the letter: "What we have is a difference of outcomes as two groups evaluate and try to explain the same evidence from differing perspectives. That does not, in and of itself, make one of them illegitimate." It would be difficult for even a scientist to dispute this and still remain scientifically objective.

Well, Objectivity, let me try to dispute this. It depends on the meaning of the words "explain", "evidence" and "perspective".

The I.D. folks do not use the word "explain" in a way science uses it. Their argument is really a lack of explanation. It consist of, "things are too complicated for me to explain scientifically so it must have occurred by an Intelligent Design." In other words, they introduce an even more complicated and undefined concept. That doesn't explain anything as far as science is concerned.

Evidence is anything in I.D. because anything can be explained by saying, " That is the way the Designer did it." I.D. is not falsifiable because it makes no predictions.

The perspectives of scientists don’t determine the outcome of experiments or the prediction of theories. Both theist and atheist, Christians and Hindus, Muslims and Jews will get the same answers when the apply science theories or performs experiments.

In short, the statement is only true if you are not speaking of science, but rather of religion or philosophy. Then I agree with your statement that it would be difficult to dispute, but that is true of any religion or philosophy.

Date: Dec 1, 2005

One can believe in evolution, God http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051201/OPINION/512010323/1009

Evolution secular fairy tale at best http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051201/OPINION/512010308/1009

Many scientists Christians, so let creation truth come out http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051201/OPINION/512010307/1009

Date: Dec 1, 2005

3 in One Day wrote:

One can believe in evolution, God http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?

What a great letter! What a timely analogy! Clear. Brief. Free of jargon.

Date: Dec 1, 2005

Not Dead Horse wrote:

Intelligent design also rational explanation based on study

"Study" Biblical? Just think of the "creativity" options that students our students will have. Anything they find too difficult to grasp they can legimately answer "and then a miracle occurred" , or "God willed the chromosome to ..." or "In the beginning God made this reaction to proceed..."

Harris would have a field day with this concept! (http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/gallery.htm) .

Others beyond the "Intelligent Design" crew make good arguements based on "study". I guess we need to ask CoST to include their work in the "Science" curriculum.

http://pw1.netcom.com/~rogermw/square_earth.html http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm http://www.jir.com/

There are many things we didn't know a generation ago, would they have been considered Divine? There are many more things that we don't understand now, what happens when something attributed to Divine guidance is found to come be a rational process?

The beginnings of modern scientific thought in European society started with the Renaissance, when brave individual began challenging the concept of a flat earth at the center of the cosmos. This was immediately denounced as heresay and threw many into the Inquisition's dungeons. Where would we be if Galileo, Tyco Brahe, Kepler and Copernicus had not struggled with the apparently unexplainable and that the movements of the celestial bodies was irreducibly complex?

Date: Dec 1, 2005

3 in One Day wrote:

Many scientists Christians, so let creation truth come out http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051201/OPINION/512010307/1009

'In order for something to be a real scientific theory, it must meet at least two criteria: It must explain and fit the known empirical data, and it must predict the results of repeated laboratory experiments.

Creationism cannot predict the results of repeated laboratory experiments since the creation cannot be duplicated even once.

Incidentally, evolution has the identical problem: The creation cannot be repeated to confirm the predictions of the so-called "theory of evolution." Therefore, evolution does not meet the requirements of a scientific theory."

Date: Dec 1, 2005

Replication Rowena wrote:

...Creationism cannot predict the results of repeated laboratory experiments since the creation cannot be duplicated even once. Incidentally, evolution has the identical problem: The creation cannot be repeated to confirm the predictions of the so-called "theory of evolution." Therefore, evolution does not meet the requirements of a scientific theory."

This confuses many issues. First, Abiogenesis, not Evolution, is the study how life might have arisen. Second, evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen. Evolution makes predictions about the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming. The Theory of Evolution explains and organizes these facts.

These mistakes have been pointed out over and over. So it must be intentional lying for the I.D. people to keep saying "Evolution deals with origins of life and that hasn't been repeated so Evolution is not science, but a belief like I.D." This is not a good image for Christians to have.

Date: Dec 1, 2005

Obviousman wrote:

Not Dead Horse wrote: Intelligent design also rational explanation based on study "Study" Biblical? Just think of the "creativity" options that students our students will have. Anything they find too difficult to grasp they can legimately answer "and then a miracle occurred" , or "God willed the chromosome to ..." or "In the beginning God made this reaction to proceed..." Harris would have a field day with this concept! (http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/gallery.htm) . Others beyond the "Intelligent Design" crew make good arguements based on "study". I guess we need to ask CoST to include their work in the "Science" curriculum. http://pw1.netcom.com/~rogermw/square_earth.html http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm http://www.jir.com/ There are many things we didn't know a generation ago, would they have been considered Divine? There are many more things that we don't understand now, what happens when something attributed to Divine guidance is found to come be a rational process? The beginnings of modern scientific thought in European society started with the Renaissance, when brave individual began challenging the concept of a flat earth at the center of the cosmos. This was immediately denounced as heresay and threw many into the Inquisition's dungeons. Where would we be if Galileo, Tyco Brahe, Kepler and Copernicus had not struggled with the apparently unexplainable and that the movements of the celestial bodies was irreducibly complex?

Thanks for the great links, Obviousman. You made my afternoon.

Date: Dec 6, 2005

But what about 'minority rights'?
http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051206/OPINION03/512060329/1014/OPINION

Date: Dec 7, 2005

On many points, Bible and science agree about creation

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051207/OPINION/512070302/1009

Date: Dec 7, 2005

Daily Message wrote:

On many points, Bible and science agree about creation http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051207/OPINION/512070302/1009

A nice analysis. Now just watch somebody come in here and try to dissect each word.

Date: Dec 8, 2005

Faculty protest creation speech

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1134037343160350.xml&coll=2&thispage=3

Date: Dec 8, 2005

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1134037343160350.xml&coll=2&thispage=1

Date: Dec 8, 2005

Link Correction wrote:

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1134037343160350.xml&coll=2&thispage=1

"A planned lecture by intelligent design proponent John Lennox has upset Samford University faculty who don't want the Baptist-affiliated school to be seen as endorsing teaching alternatives to evolution."

"A resolution introduced in the College of Arts and Sciences' faculty senate describes intelligent design as a political movement, not science."

Samford University is a Southern Baptist school. This seems to be the position of most of the strong Southern Baptist colleges and universities.

Date: Dec 8, 2005

I like the theory of "Incompetent Design."

http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2005/11/the_other_id.php

Date: Dec 8, 2005

Direct and to the point wrote:

Link Correction wrote: http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1134037343160350.xml&coll=2&thispage=1 "A planned lecture by intelligent design proponent John Lennox has upset Samford University faculty who don't want the Baptist-affiliated school to be seen as endorsing teaching alternatives to evolution." "A resolution introduced in the College of Arts and Sciences' faculty senate describes intelligent design as a political movement, not science."

Samford University is a Southern Baptist school. This seems to be the position of most of the strong Southern Baptist colleges and universities.

With all due respect, "Direct and to the Point", the "POINT" that is being missed is that there is only one science. It doesn't make any difference what people's beliefs are. Belief doesn't affect experiments and theories of science. Baptist theology is not the point. If a Baptist University teaches non-science and calls it science they are lying to the students and public.

The "POINT" is lying is wrong for both atheists and theists. This lying does so much damage to Christianity, I’m amazed that more Christian groups don’t speak out against this behavior.

Date: Dec 8, 2005

Direct and to the point wrote:

Samford University is a Southern Baptist school. This seems to be the position of most of the strong Southern Baptist colleges and universities.

Many mainstream Southern Baptist congregations have long taken the position that attempts to mandate the teaching of sectarian religion in public school science classrooms constitutes a dangerous abridgement of separation of church and state.

That's the twist that a lot of "religious" people miss in the creation/evolution brouhaha. If a particular group is able to legislate its beliefs into science curricula, pretty soon it will be able to legislate against the beliefs of others in the broader public arena.

Date: Dec 8, 2005

Scientist wrote:

With all due respect, "Direct and to the Point", the "POINT" that is being missed is that there is only one science. It doesn't make any difference what people's beliefs are. Belief doesn't affect experiments and theories of science. Baptist theology is not the point. If a Baptist University teaches non-science and calls it science they are lying to the students and public. The "POINT" is lying is wrong for both atheists and theists. This lying does so much damage to Christianity, I’m amazed that more Christian groups don’t speak out against this behavior.

Scientist, I resisted saying this as I viewed your previous posts, but your response to "Direct and to the Point" takes the cake. So I'll say now what I've wanted to say all along: You'd argue with a doorpost. What could you possibly disagree with here: "Samford University faculty don't want the Baptist-affiliated school to be seen as endorsing teaching alternatives to evolution." "A resolution introduced in the College of Arts and Sciences' faculty senate describes intelligent design as a political movement, not science."

Date: Dec 8, 2005

Invictus wrote:

Many mainstream Southern Baptist congregations have long taken the position that attempts to mandate the teaching of sectarian religion in public school science classrooms constitutes a dangerous abridgement of separation of church and state.

And the same is true for mandated prayer in the public schools. Many mainstream Southern Baptist congregations have long taken the position that attempts to mandate prayer in the public schools also constitutes a dangerous abridgment of separation of church and state.

Date: Dec 8, 2005

Yes & No wrote:

Scientist, I resisted saying this as I viewed your previous posts, but your response to "Direct and to the Point" takes the cake. So I'll say now what I've wanted to say all along: You'd argue with a doorpost. What could you possibly disagree with here: "Samford University faculty don't want the Baptist-affiliated school to be seen as endorsing teaching alternatives to evolution." "A resolution introduced in the College of Arts and Sciences' faculty senate describes intelligent design as a political movement, not science."

"Yes & No", you shouldn't have held it in so long. They say that isn't good got you.

My response was to the comments of make by "Direct and to the Point" and not the quote you have above. The quote was "Samford University is a Southern Baptist school. This seems to be the position of most of the strong Southern Baptist colleges and universities."

From this comment and the poster name I took the poster to be supporting the notion that a college with a religious affilation can "interpretate" their own science. It appead from "Invictus'" post he/she also read the message that way.

I hope I explained my post and it now doesn't upset you as much.

Date: Dec 8, 2005

Direct and to the point wrote:

Invictus wrote: Many mainstream Southern Baptist congregations have long taken the position that attempts to mandate the teaching of sectarian religion in public school science classrooms constitutes a dangerous abridgement of separation of church and state. And the same is true for mandated prayer in the public schools. Many mainstream Southern Baptist congregations have long taken the position that attempts to mandate prayer in the public schools also constitutes a dangerous abridgment of separation of church and state.

"Direct and to the Point", this comment makes me think I misinterpreted your previous post. If that is the case please ignore my rant. As "Yes & No " said, "I will argue with a doorknob".