I think it's a bit trickier when we talk about whether or not ID should be taught in schools. Clearly it should not be, but what should we base that judgment on?

Religion should not be promoted in public schools. ID is a thinly veiled attempt by the Discovery Institute to promote Christian-flavored Creationism, and if I'm not mistaken they want ID taught in science class. Clearly, (to me anyway) that's not right. There is nothing wrong, in my view, in discussing ID in religious studies or sociology classes, or in places of worship. But ID proponents are asking for "equal time" against Evolution.

camilo wrote:So now I am confused. How can you be a libertarian and still rail against liberals?

It never gets less confusing, Sir. My sincere advice is to not let it bother you.




Naked Raygun and Silver Abuse were/are awesome.

newberry wrote:

I think it's a bit trickier when we talk about whether or not ID should be taught in schools. Clearly it should not be, but what should we base that judgment on?

Religion should not be promoted in public schools. ID is a thinly veiled attempt by the Discovery Institute to promote Christian-flavored Creationism, and if I'm not mistaken they want ID taught in science class.

They will argue that ID is not specific to any one religious sect, won't they?

I mean, we all know it is, but they could plausibly argue that, couldn't they?

...but it's true that "scientific findings" with a religious slant that come from sections scientific community are often discouraged.

Could you please provide an example? I don't think that scientific research that has to do with religion is necessarily discouraged. I do think that many religious topics are not scientific--they aren't evidence-based--and therefore are not scientific topics. But there has been research about the efficacy of prayer, and whether or not there is a "god gene," etc.

I don't think that there is an unfair bias against religious topics in the world of science; I think the issue is that usually those topics can't be properly discussed in scientific ways because they are beliefs that require a leap of faith. In science you don't have the luxury of having gaps filled in by speculation or blind faith.

NerblyBear wrote:

newberry wrote:

I think it's a bit trickier when we talk about whether or not ID should be taught in schools. Clearly it should not be, but what should we base that judgment on?

Religion should not be promoted in public schools. ID is a thinly veiled attempt by the Discovery Institute to promote Christian-flavored Creationism, and if I'm not mistaken they want ID taught in science class.

They will argue that ID is not specific to any one religious sect, won't they?

I mean, we all know it is, but they could plausibly argue that, couldn't they?

Well, there is evidence that shows the folks behind ID support a Christian God. I would ask them, "who is the designer?" I'm sure they can argue til the cows come home, but ID does not stand up as science, and that's what they call it.

Here's the opening paragraph from the Discovery Institute article at Wikipedia--you can go there to follow the footnotes.

The Discovery Institute is a think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design and its Teach the Controversy campaign to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses.[1][2][3][4][5] A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis" by incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.[6][7][8] A federal court recently ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions",[9] and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy, describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."[10][11]

newberry wrote:

...but it's true that "scientific findings" with a religious slant that come from sections scientific community are often discouraged.

Could you please provide an example? I don't think that scientific research that has to do with religion is necessarily discouraged. I do think that many religious topics are not scientific--they aren't evidence-based--and therefore are not scientific topics. But there has been research about the efficacy of prayer, and whether or not there is a "god gene," etc.

I don't think that there is an unfair bias against religious topics in the world of science; I think the issue is that usually those topics can't be properly discussed in scientific ways because they are beliefs that require a leap of faith. In science you don't have the luxury of having gaps filled in by speculation or blind faith.

I probably should have made it that the "religious slant" I'm referencing is not a part of the work, but rather the motive of whoever is publishing or orating the theory. Someone trying to disprove aspects of our understanding of the world that come into conflict with their Christian view without explicitly stating that as their intention.

My point is if James Watson wants to go on a lecture tour with his "evidence" for the intellectual inferiority of the people living on the African continent he should be able to, how ever ridiculous his findings (and the research behind them) are.

My point is if James Watson wants to go on a lecture tour with his "evidence" for the intellectual inferiority of the people living on the African continent he should be able to, how ever ridiculous his findings (and the research behind them) are.

Whom is stating otherwise? Is anyone here, or Dawkins or other atheists saying that people don't have the right to free speech? Again, this is one of the straw men of "Expelled," that there is a movement to stifle discussion of ID.

ETA: I'm sure Christians wouldn't appreciate it if I went into churches and started preaching Islam or atheism or something. That's because it wouldn't be an appropriate venue for that speech. Like the science classroom isn't the proper venue for ID. But no one is saying that ID proponents shouldn't have the right to speak their mind, are they?

Heliotropic wrote:My point is if James Watson wants to go on a lecture tour with his "evidence" for the intellectual inferiority of the people living on the African continent he should be able to, how ever ridiculous his findings (and the research behind them) are.

If anyone disagrees with this, they should simply YouTube some video clips on Kent Hovind talkin' Creation Science and dinosaurs. These people should not be censored because they provide me no end of entertainment with their hilarity and hijinkery.

Those Kent Hovind clips are indeed hilarious and should be seen by anyone who isn't yet aware of how crazy and dishonest these people are.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &plindex=5