• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

You Have No Constitutional Right To Your Own Science

Does An American Have Freedom Of Science?

  • I think my religion explains the world and I have no use for science

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    23
True, but beliefs that are obviously bat**** shouldn't be pushed around as science. Young Earth Creationism for one. We have TWO count them, TWO YECs on the House Science Committee. That is insane.

What is insane is that 10 to 20% of us accept this YEC , but as we have a Representative democracy, the 15% should be repped..
As to being on a committee, it would be interesting as to how this happened..The YECers have their supporters, I think...
 
AND if you chose a private school for your child, don't ask taxpayers to buy textbooks for that private school that replace science with religion.

I understand where you're coming from Pinkie, but why not? You admitted they have the right to educate their children alternatively and their tax dollars pay for everyone elese's children to have the texts that suit them.
 
No Tigger, you are incorrect.

Ok, so you can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, EXACTLY what happened at the beginning of time, or at least this universe, correct? You can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that mankind evolved from another species, correct?

Until you can PROVE IT, it's a THEORY and holds no more water in my mind than the "fairy tales" and "mythology" that I put my FAITH in.
 
What is insane is that 10 to 20% of us accept this YEC , but as we have a Representative democracy, the 15% should be repped..
As to being on a committee, it would be interesting as to how this happened..The YECers have their supporters, I think...

They do. But YEC specifically comes into conflict with measurement, which at that point it's reality (measurement) or fantasy (YEC). There can be a lot of YEC believers out there, it's just that none of that should find its way into law.
 
Why should every public HS kid be taught a survey class on comparative religion, TPD? I can think of 100 classes they need more.

I don't want to mollycoddle the fundies one damn bit with taxpayers dollars.
This has nothing to do with "moddycoddling the fundies." It has to do with the knowledge people must have in order to be effective students and citizens as well as critical thinkers. A nation as ignorant as it is about religion now is self-defeating. People's ignorance about Islam has caused them to support foreign policy that might decrease our national security. People's ignorance about Christianity has much of the population supporting laws based on that religion that many would not if they actually knew anything about the Bible and religion they claim allegiance to.

Religion classes might, in some sense, seem needless, but considering that beliefs about religion significantly impact much of the countries social, political and personal views, such classes are actually quite important.
 
I understand where you're coming from Pinkie, but why not? You admitted they have the right to educate their children alternatively and their tax dollars pay for everyone elese's children to have the texts that suit them.

That is not how taxation works. Can I earmark my income tax dollars for law and order only? No?

Then the fundies have to pay taxes to buy science textbooks that contain actual science. If they choose to keep them away from their kids, that's their right, but they don't get money from my taxes to buy "science" textbooks full of religious fairy tales.

Fundies do not have any right to their own reality.
 
My POV is that religion needs to shove over for reality AKA science in certain areas of our public life.

Public life, FINE. However, what I teach my children if I homseschool them is NOT public life. Yet, I read and hear about parents being abused by the educational system in this state and others all the time because they are not teaching the state prescribed curriculum related to history or science, and not including enough art/music/etc.... in their curriculums.
 
Sólo tomé españoles en la secundaria, y no recuerdo mucho de él.

I believe that requires translation, according to the rules. Cool it, or I'll consider binging forth the authoritah.
 
Evolution is not in doubt, though. THIS is where I think you and I disagree -- I don't want public school kids taught "we don't know what actually happened, but one theory is evolution".

Ehhh, it's not completely understood either, especially where we're talking macro evolution. There are still many significant questions to say we know exactly what happened.
 
Ok, so you can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, EXACTLY what happened at the beginning of time, or at least this universe, correct? You can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that mankind evolved from another species, correct?

We can prove it up until denying it is compltely irrational. Tigger, as far as you know, I'm just a robot that is secretely plotting to destroy the world. If you can't see me, can't hear me, could it be true?

Until you can PROVE IT, it's a THEORY and holds no more water in my mind than the "fairy tales" and "mythology" that I put my FAITH in.

There is a massive defference between faith and scientific theory.

I understand you are waging an all-out war on reason and logic, but your efforts are at best, pitiful.
 
No, not at all -- and Goshin seems not to agree with me. (I'm not 100% sure what his POV is.)

My POV is that religion needs to shove over for reality AKA science in certain areas of our public life.
Which was exactly my point to Goshin. Your OP rests on the premise that science is not equal to religion in terms of its "truth value." Goshin's response equates religion with science, thereby missing the entire point of your OP that they aren't equal in terms of their claims about reality.
 
This has nothing to do with "moddycoddling the fundies." It has to do with the knowledge people must have in order to be effective students and citizens as well as critical thinkers. A nation as ignorant as it is about religion now is self-defeating. People's ignorance about Islam has caused them to support foreign policy that might decrease our national security. People's ignorance about Christianity has much of the population supporting laws based on that religion that many would not if they actually knew anything about the Bible and religion they claim allegiance to.

Religion classes might, in some sense, seem needless, but considering that beliefs about religion significantly impact much of the countries social, political and personal views, such classes are actually quite important.

TPD, I'm in Cleveland. We are struggling to graduate kids who can read.

Get back to me when my public schools have gotten off their knees.
 
Which was exactly my point to Goshin. Your OP rests on the premise that science is not equal to religion in terms of its "truth value." Goshin's response equates religion with science, thereby missing the entire point of your OP that they aren't equal in terms of their claims about reality.

If that's what Goshin meant, then I agree with you.
 
TPD, I'm in Cleveland. We are struggling to graduate kids who can read.

Get back to me when my public schools have gotten off their knees.
And I'm in Chicago, where students have equally similar problems. But those problems do not reduce the importance of religion classes.

It's funny that you ask me why I think religion classes are necessary and then when I give you my answer, rather than actually addressing the points I made, you just dismiss them with a red herring, "oh, some kids can't read." Give me a break. Don't ask questions and waste my time if you aren't even going to bother to give a serious answer.
 
WTH? You'd prefer to live among mostly illiterate people?


Actually if you look at history you will find before public schools that the US had one of the highest trending to the highest literacy rates in the world. Public schools only started becoming compluserary in the late 1840's and most states did not have compulserary schools until about the 1900's. Public schools did not really start becoming a major phenominom till abou the 1900's as well though there were public schools even before the revolution.

To be honest with you you cannot survive very well in todays world without being literate. If the public schools were eliminated today the literacy rate would probaly remain the same. It would be that way out of simple nessecity. You cannot operate a computer without knowing how to read. Education would probaly improve a bit as people would take it much more serious than they do now as they would have shoulder much more expence. I would prefer that schools if they are public be funded stricktly at the local level. If we lowered taxes to a minimal amount I think you would see a growth in schools being funded by charitable organizations and philanthopists. Not to mention corperation looking for good press and an educated work force. I have as part of my retirment plans a goal of starting a k-12 school here in California to compete directly against the crapy public institution they have here. Thats a ways a way for me yet. But it is a long term goal.
 
What is insane is that 10 to 20% of us accept this YEC , but as we have a Representative democracy, the 15% should be repped..
As to being on a committee, it would be interesting as to how this happened..The YECers have their supporters, I think...

This is the corrosive effect of the Religious Right on our government, IMO. Which I also believe has nothing whatsoever to do with religion and everything to do with power.

When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag and waving a cross.

~~Sinclair Lewis, and later Huey Long

 
Está bien, mi español es igualmente pobre.

cartman-authoritah.jpg





.
 
That is not how taxation works. Can I earmark my income tax dollars for law and order only? No?

Then the fundies have to pay taxes to buy science textbooks that contain actual science. If they choose to keep them away from their kids, that's their right, but they don't get money from my taxes to buy "science" textbooks full of religious fairy tales.

Fundies do not have any right to their own reality.

Yes, that's how taxation works, and it works to benefit the group. If the local group doesn't want your textbooks then they should have the right through representation to have their own. Yes, no?

And the so-called fundies would say exactly the same about you.
 
Actually if you look at history you will find before public schools that the US had one of the highest trending to the highest literacy rates in the world. Public schools only started becoming compluserary in the late 1840's and most states did not have compulserary schools until about the 1900's. Public schools did not really start becoming a major phenominom till abou the 1900's as well though there were public schools even before the revolution.

To be honest with you you cannot survive very well in todays world without being literate. If the public schools were eliminated today the literacy rate would probaly remain the same. It would be that way out of simple nessecity. You cannot operate a computer without knowing how to read. Education would probaly improve a bit as people would take it much more serious than they do now as they would have shoulder much more expence. I would prefer that schools if they are public be funded stricktly at the local level. If we lowered taxes to a minimal amount I think you would see a growth in schools being funded by charitable organizations and philanthopists. Not to mention corperation looking for good press and an educated work force. I have as part of my retirment plans a goal of starting a k-12 school here in California to compete directly against the crapy public institution they have here. Thats a ways a way for me yet. But it is a long term goal.

"How to improve public schools" is a vastly different convo from "no taxpayer dollars should be spent on educating children", Pirate.
 
Yes, that's how taxation works, and it works to benefit the group. If the local group doesn't want your textbooks then they should have the right through representation to have their own. Yes, no?

And the so-called fundies would say exactly the same about you.

NO.

In any public school, all Americans have contributed tax dollars and no child should be taught nonsense.

It is not in our nation's best interests to allow parents to render their children ignorant and unemployable.
 
We can prove it up until denying it is compltely irrational. Tigger, as far as you know, I'm just a robot that is secretely plotting to destroy the world. If you can't see me, can't hear me, could it be true?

It could very well be true. That's part of why I don't put much stock in discussions I have with people online unless I know them in person. It's also why no online discussion with ever change my mind on anything.

There is a massive defference between faith and scientific theory.

No, really there isn't. The reason you think so is that you're unwilling to look with anything other than your eyes, to hear with anything other than your ears, or feel with anything other than your hands.

My youngest brother and his wife both hold PhD's in a form of genetic microbiology that is so far over my head that I stopped trying to understand it years ago. They play with fruit flies is the best way that I can describe it. I got a chance to see their lab at Columbia University in 2005. Very interesting place. Lots of cool gadgets and machines, but no soul whatsoever to the building, the people or the work.

I understand you are waging an all-out war on reason and logic, but your efforts are at best, pitiful.

No. I'm waging a war on one group of people being allowed to hold up their mythology and demand it be recognized as TRUTH while denouncing everyone else's mythology.

]
 
The difference that comes into play is whether it actually lacks a solid base or people percieve that it lacks a solid base.
Exactly. It's fine, and in fact necessary, to have a healthy skepticism when it comes to science because as new technology emerges, we often find out things we'd never imagined and sometimes have to revise entire, long held concepts. However, that skepticism must be based on something rational and all too often people confuse "I don't like it" or "my God says it isn't true" with rational reasons to reject scientific theories, discoveries, etc..

The problem, however, is that the vast majority of people, in my experience, who base their skepticism on irrational things don't realize that they're being irrational so you can't actually tell them to stop being irrational because they can't even begin to understand where they went wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom