- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
- Messages
- 30,545
- Reaction score
- 14,775
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
So, you're saying that your argument is not dependent on the definition?Again, asking for a definition is not asking for evidence to back up an argument.
So, you're saying that your argument is not dependent on the definition?Again, asking for a definition is not asking for evidence to back up an argument.
So, you're saying that your argument is not dependent on the definition?
Again, asking for a definition is not asking for evidence to back up an argument.
In this case, actually it is. You made a claim that is dependent on a definition.
\
Ok, so lets say if a park ranger makes a controversial statement. Should the courts get involved, or should his superiors fire him for it if they see fit to do so? Freedom of speech means you are free to express yourself how you want to (other than something like yelling fire in theater) without fear of reprisal by the government. It does not mean that your employer, public or private, cannot fire you for it.
As we have observed before, there are heightened concerns with protecting freedom of conscience from subtle coercive pressure in the elementary and secondary public schools. Our decisions in [Engel] and [Abington] recognize, among other things, that prayer exercises in public schools carry a particular risk of indirect coercion. The concern may not be limited to the context of schools, but it is most pronounced there. What to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable request that the nonbeliever respect their religious practices, in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy.
High school teacher guilty of telling the truth…oh, and Chad Farnan is an idiot : PharyngulaFirst of all, he told the truth: creationism is religious, it is a product of superstition, and it is nonsense — it doesn't fit any of the evidence we have about the history of the world or life on it. We have to have the right to tell students not only that something is wrong, but that it is stupidly wrong.
Secondly, we are being told over and over again that Christianity is not equivalent to creationism. This teacher has specifically said that creationism is nonsense, and this judge has equated a dismissal of a weird anti-scientific belief with making a rude remark about Christianity. So…where are all the Christians rising in outrage at the slander of their faith?
I thought this was an interesting ruling because it isn't specifically about evolution versus creationism. (On that issue, schools should obviously teach evolution and not creationism, because one is a matter of scientific fact and the other is a matter of religion.) But in this case, you have a teacher who specifically called creationism "superstitious nonsense." Some people had a problem with this and sued the school, on the grounds that the state should not establish a religion. The judge ruled that the teacher should be able to voice that opinion in the classroom if he wanted to.
I'm actually on the plaintiff's side on this. While I think there is plenty of good reason to be hostile toward creationism, that's no reason for the teacher to make a statement like this. For those who disagree, ask yourself if you would be OK with a teacher saying the same thing about some other doctrine of religious faith: "Judaism is superstitious nonsense," or "the virgin birth is superstitious nonsense," or "not believing in God is superstitious nonsense." I think that whether one agrees with those statements or not, it's a bad precedent to allow government employees to express their personal religious views to a captive audience.
What do you think?
If teachers cannot call creationism "superstituous nonsense" then they cannot be allowed to call natural phenomena we understand "superstituous nonsense" which includes explaining how lighting is not caused by Zeus.
The First Amendment also states that the government shall establish no religion, so it isn't quite that simple. Government employees are entitled to freedom of speech like everyone else, but they aren't necessarily entitled to it when they're acting in an official capacity. It's why a teacher can't lead his class in prayer, for example. Or why a federal judge can't have a plaque of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. They have freedom of speech on their own time, but they cannot act in a way that suggests that the state favors one religion over another. Which is why I'm siding with the plaintiffs on this case.
wrong, as usual. you are confusing "scientifically accepted" with "scientifically proven". they are not the same.
LOLNo it wasn't
Again, asking for a definition is not asking for evidence to back up an argument.
If teachers cannot call creationism "superstituous nonsense" then they cannot be allowed to call natural phenomena we understand "superstituous nonsense" which includes explaining how lighting is not caused by Zeus.
I might like his definition. Who knows?It is obvious to everyone here that what you are calling "scientifically proven" is not what we all consider proof.
It prob'ly would have taken less effort than than the run around that has taken it's place.asking for you to provide your definition for the term is perfectly reasonable.
it is when your entire arguement hinges on the definition of the term.
It is obvious to everyone here that what you are calling "scientifically proven" is not what we all consider proof. asking for you to provide your definition for the term is perfectly reasonable.
*yawn* blah, blah, blah blah blah
bottom line: the theory of evolution is an accepted scientific explanation, it has not and will never be proven. barring the invention of a time machine.
That might work until you realize Creationism is not a religion.
I'm Christian and I say Creationism is superstitious rubbish.
bottom line: the theory of evolution is an accepted scientific explanation, it has not and will never be proven. barring the invention of a time machine.
SO you asked for a definition, and when I provided it and you can't refute it, you just repeat something I did not disagree with?
It seems that my suspicions (about your not wanting to discuss the issue) were true
as much is sangha is a dishonest debater, he is arguing on the right path. nothing can be proven absolutely. not by math, logic or anything else. math and logic rest on the assumed truth of premises that cannot be demonstrated as infallible and absolute. with this in mind its silly to define "proven" as "absolutely true" or "fact" because nothing we know of is proven and facts are an entirely different matter. So if we drop the pointless notion that "proven" is something that cannot ever be wrong and that in regards to science, "proven" is a scientific theory that explains a large body of evidence, has undergone rigerous testing without fail, and is accepted by the scientific community. in this context, the theory of gravitation, disease, and evolution are all "proven"
i have already explained that the way you define "proven" doesn't apply no matter whether the context is math, physical sciences, or philosophy. Only ignoramuses such as yourself define "proven" in such a way.i guess, if you want to redefine the term "proven" :shrug:
i have already explained that the way you define "proven" doesn't apply no matter whether the context is math, physical sciences, or philosophy. Only ignoramuses such as yourself define "proven" in such a way.
It certainly is. It explicitly invokes a deity.
Good for you. So what? What does YOUR opinion have to do with someone ELSE holding that religious view?
the point is that defining "proven" as "absolutely true" is stupid in the context of math, science, and even philosophy.That would kinda be the point though. Since "proven" does not apply, claiming that evolution is proven is false.