Page 9 of 30 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 300

Thread: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

  1. #81
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Want to teach Creationism/ID? Fine. Put it in a philosophy or comparative religions class.
    Public schools have philosophy and comparative religion classes?

    You know, I disagree with you that ID is inherently unscientific. Although it is usually just a cover for religious fundamentalists, there is still a falsifiable hypothesis in there somewhere. If it is approached scientifically I think ID can be perfectly sound science. Of course, the ID hypothesis might not last to long if it is subjected to real science, but that is yet to be determined. I don't really think there is much ID science at all, so to my mind the jury is still out.

    But even at our most charitable, you're right, ID is not yet a science. At worst, it is pseudoscience. Either way, it is situated on the fringes of real science, and certainly doesn't belong in a primary or secondary science class. We should be teaching our kids established science. I never hear anybody whine that the steady state theory isn't given equal treatment as the big bang theory.

  2. #82
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Public schools have philosophy and comparative religion classes?

    You know, I disagree with you that ID is inherently unscientific. Although it is usually just a cover for religious fundamentalists, there is still a falsifiable hypothesis in there somewhere. If it is approached scientifically I think ID can be perfectly sound science. Of course, the ID hypothesis might not last to long if it is subjected to real science, but that is yet to be determined. I don't really think there is much ID science at all, so to my mind the jury is still out.

    But even at our most charitable, you're right, ID is not yet a science. At worst, it is pseudoscience. Either way, it is situated on the fringes of real science, and certainly doesn't belong in a primary or secondary science class. We should be teaching our kids established science. I never hear anybody whine that the steady state theory isn't given equal treatment as the big bang theory.
    The great thing about ID, or creationism, is that you can attribute any evidence of whatever period as "*insert entity here* wanted it that way, and it was so."

    On the other hand, I think some mention of the various views counter to evolution should be mentioned in any situation where evolution is being taught.

    Sort of a "this is what most scientists are behind, but here are a few opposing/differing views", and leave it at that.

    An in-depth discussion of the varied views and such would be better suited for a philosophy or history class, or more likely, college.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  3. #83
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,508

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Her tax stance is bog standard "LOWER TAXES." I don't think I've heard her say we should repeal the 16th.... has she?

    I think her support for having public schools teach religious doctrine is the scary part. She said it's about supporting "the local school board." Five bucks says if a local school wanted to teach children about something Islamic, she would go back to "INDOCTRINATING OUR KIDS." ID? Oh that's ok! Yeah, somehow for her it's ok for the school to teach my kids a religion I don't follow. Christianity gets a pass from her, and many Americans, but would you think the same way if it was Buddhism being taught to your kids?

    It's horse****. Intelligent Design is just Creationism with pseudo-scientific terminology tacked on. There's no scientific basis for Creationism or Intelligent Design. They're religious philosophies. Period. They do not belong in a science classroom. Ever. Calling Intelligent Design a "theory" is deliberately misleading people in an attempt to put it on the same footing as evolution, because when most people say "theory" they really mean "hypothesis." There's an enormous difference.

    Evolution is a scientific theory with a tremendous amount of evidence supporting it. The hardcore religious types might tell you otherwise, they'll spout bull**** about carbon dating being a lie, about how there's no "transitional forms." They're wrong. 100%, unequivocally wrong.

    Want to teach Creationism/ID? Fine. Put it in a philosophy or comparative religions class, and put it along side other cultures'/religions' creation stories. (eastern cultures, norse, greek/roman, etc.) Keep it the **** out of the science class because those things are not in the least bit scientific.
    That part of the debate really bothered me too.

    There is the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution..

    Everybody (expect O Donnell) knows micro evolution and adaption is observable and is accepted by EVERYBODY in the science community.. Evolution is even an acceptable scientific term to describe the adaptation of viruses and bacteria.. and in everything from incests to mammals

    O Donnell's lack of brains really shined through on this one.. I hated how she tried to argue it's just a theory, like it shouldn't be taught in a classroom because it's a THEORY.

    Theories are commonly taught in science classrooms.. such as the THEORY of Plate Tectonics (one of my favorite theories). The point of studying scientific theory in a classroom is to learn about the scientific method.

    Science is about theories, hypothesis, and laws.. It's about thinking, logic, and being critical.

    If O'Donnell isn't afraid of people being critical, then she shouldn't have a problem with classrooms continuing to teach theory.. lol

  4. #84
    Ivan The Terrible > All
    Ivan The Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    In your mind
    Last Seen
    02-14-12 @ 08:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,346

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    That part of the debate really bothered me too.

    There is the fact of evolution and the theory of evolution..

    Everybody (expect O Donnell) knows micro evolution and adaption is observable and is accepted by EVERYBODY in the science community.. Evolution is even an acceptable scientific term to describe the adaptation of viruses and bacteria.. and in everything from incests to mammals

    O Donnell's lack of brains really shined through on this one.. I hated how she tried to argue it's just a theory, like it shouldn't be taught in a classroom because it's a THEORY.

    Theories are commonly taught in science classrooms.. such as the THEORY of Plate Tectonics (one of my favorite theories). The point of studying scientific theory in a classroom is to learn about the scientific method.

    Science is about theories, hypothesis, and laws.. It's about thinking, logic, and being critical.

    If O'Donnell isn't afraid of people being critical, then she shouldn't have a problem with classrooms continuing to teach theory.. lol
    Unfortunately, she has no idea how the word "Theory" is used in science. In this sence of the word it doesn’t mean speculation. It is not a derogatory term.
    Last edited by Ivan The Terrible; 10-19-10 at 11:54 PM.
    "Miss quote? It's an outright fabrication!" Myself in response to Iriemon's post.

  5. #85
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    Everybody (expect O Donnell) knows micro evolution and adaption is observable and is accepted by EVERYBODY in the science community.. Evolution is even an acceptable scientific term to describe the adaptation of viruses and bacteria.. and in everything from incests to mammals
    Please provide some form of evidence that she doesn't believe that micro evolution happens. When people say they don't believe in evolution, they almost always mean macro evolution - the evolving of one species into another.

  6. #86
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,508

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by buck View Post
    Please provide some form of evidence that she doesn't believe that micro evolution happens. When people say they don't believe in evolution, they almost always mean macro evolution - the evolving of one species into another.
    Coons said it was a fact, and she correct him "it's a theory, not a fact"... rather condescending too.

    YouTube - Christine O'Donnell ignorant of the Constitution (go to 7:03, 2:37, 3:35) fameappeal.com

    1:50 mark

    And I brought up micro because it's the easiest to understand.. but even macro evolution is widely accepted. Such things like speciation are observable in nature and created in labs, biodiversity is also explained by marco evolution and is widely accepted..

    THE EVOLUTION LIST: Macroevolution: Examples and Evidence

    But the theories proposed by Darwin are the most controversial.. they involve both micro and macro concepts as foundations for his theories.

  7. #87
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,821

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    Public schools have philosophy and comparative religion classes?

    You know, I disagree with you that ID is inherently unscientific. Although it is usually just a cover for religious fundamentalists, there is still a falsifiable hypothesis in there somewhere. If it is approached scientifically I think ID can be perfectly sound science. Of course, the ID hypothesis might not last to long if it is subjected to real science, but that is yet to be determined. I don't really think there is much ID science at all, so to my mind the jury is still out.

    But even at our most charitable, you're right, ID is not yet a science. At worst, it is pseudoscience. Either way, it is situated on the fringes of real science, and certainly doesn't belong in a primary or secondary science class. We should be teaching our kids established science. I never hear anybody whine that the steady state theory isn't given equal treatment as the big bang theory.
    There's not a single study or peer-reviewed paper that supports ID, because ID is not science. ID and creationism, by definition, require the existence of something that can't be measured. God.

    The jury is not "still out" because there isn't anything to talk about. Read any discussion on ID. They make statements that can't be backed up by any evidence, but rather focus on trying to lead you to some conclusion in absence of evidence because it "makes sense."

    edit: The other thing they'll do is try to poke holes in evolution (again, without any real evidence), usually by attacking Darwin himself. As if Darwin came up with the theory of evolution and nobody bothered to do further research in the last hundred and thirty years.
    Last edited by Deuce; 10-20-10 at 12:48 AM.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  8. #88
    Sage
    SheWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,508

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    There's not a single study or peer-reviewed paper that supports ID, because ID is not science. ID and creationism, by definition, require the existence of something that can't be measured. God.

    The jury is not "still out" because there isn't anything to talk about. Read any discussion on ID. They make statements that can't be backed up by any evidence, but rather focus on trying to lead you to some conclusion in absence of evidence because it "makes sense."
    If they want it in a science class as a mention or a side note, I wouldn't care.. As long as it's not presented as a scientific theory, or attempted to be taught as a science. It can't be tested, so I am not even sure if it even qualifies as a hypothesis.. lol.. def not a scientific hypothesis

  9. #89
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,821

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by SheWolf View Post
    If they want it in a science class as a mention or a side note, I wouldn't care.. As long as it's not presented as a scientific theory, or attempted to be taught as a science. It can't be tested, so I am not even sure if it even qualifies as a hypothesis.. lol.. def not a scientific hypothesis
    No. It doesn't belong in a science classroom because nothing about it is scientific. It's an insult to centuries of scientific progress to put it in the same classroom or textbook.

    It belongs in a philosophy or religion class, because it's a religious topic. You've fallen prey to exactly what the creationism supporters wanted: confusing the issue to get their religious doctrine taught in public schools.

    (ID is creationism)
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  10. #90
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    04-27-17 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,782

    Re: O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

    Yah....she mostly sounds like an idiot. It's amazing that she wouldn't be better prepared.
    Anyone else hear Rush today? He used the one quote that SoCS wasn't in the Constitution to defend her. Which she is right about. it's not in the Constitution.
    But he just "happened" to leave out the rest.
    The evolution part is not even relevant. Neither can do anything about that!
    I'd still vote for her over Coon.
    From the ashes.

Page 9 of 30 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •