• 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!

Judges rule for teacher who called creationism "superstitious nonsense"

Should public school teachers be able to call creationism "superstitious nonsense"?

  • Yes; they have freedom of speech and academic freedom

    Votes: 27 54.0%

  • No; this amounts to the state picking sides on a religious matter

    Votes: 12 24.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 11 22.0%
  • Total voters
    50
scourge99 said:
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"
Click to expand...

Oscar "demands" for definitions for commonly used figures of speech managed to distract the discussion so off the course that the point seems to have forgotten. Thanks for bringing it back.
 
OscarB63 said:
seems, you were wrong and can't bring yourself to admit it, so you deflect. color me surprised
Click to expand...

I deflected? I just gave you the definition that you've been asking for over and over, and you call that a deflection so you can hide the fact that you can't refute what I said? :roll:

My point was, as scourge has so effectively pointed out, that theplaydrives reference to "absolutely proven" is a standard of no significance because NOTHING can be "absolutely proven" by science. That's why I've been referring to "scientifically proven" which is basically a reference to the standards that science uses to test hypotheses in order to assess their value in describing how things work.
 
Redress said:
That would kinda be the point though. Since "proven" does not apply, claiming that evolution is proven is false.
Click to expand...

Only for the pedantic fools who think that commonly used figures of speech have no place in discussion. Such fools insist of quibbling over well understood forms of speech, not to further the discussion, but to "win" in a debate and bolster their self-esteem.
 
sangha said:
Only for the pedantic fools who think that commonly used figures of speech have no place in discussion. Such fools insist of quibbling over well understood forms of speech, not to further the discussion, but to "win" in a debate and bolster their self-esteem.
Click to expand...

Some of us feel that words have meanings, and when you use a word like "proven", which means one thing, trying to use it to mean something completely different is foolish. Evolution is not proven, nor is relatively, nor quantum theory. This is not a negative.
 
Redress said:
Some of us feel that words have meanings, and when you use a word like "proven", which means one thing, trying to use it to mean something completely different is foolish. Evolution is not proven, nor is relatively, nor quantum theory. This is not a negative.
Click to expand...

And the rest of KNOW that words have several meanings, and which is used depends on context.

According to the dictionary, the word proven has several definitions, one of which defines the words pretty much the way I've been using it. Your claim that the word "proven" means one thing is a FAIL
 
sangha said:
And the rest of KNOW that words have several meanings, and which is used depends on context.

According to the dictionary, the word proven has several definitions, one of which defines the words pretty much the way I've been using it. Your claim that the word "proven" means one thing is a FAIL
Click to expand...

So what definition of proven means not proven?
 
Redress said:
So what definition of proven means not proven?
Click to expand...

Only for the fools who think "proven" has only one definition. I count 8 different meanings

Proven | Define Proven at Dictionary.com

verb (used with object)
1. to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument: to prove one's claim.

2. Law . to establish the authenticity or validity of (a will); probate.

3. to give demonstration of by action.

4. to subject to a test, experiment, comparison, analysis, or the like, to determine quality, amount, acceptability, characteristics, etc.: to prove ore.

5. to show (oneself) to have the character or ability expected of one, especially through one's actions.


verb (used without object)
10. to turn out: The experiment proved to be successful.

11. to be found by trial or experience to be: His story proved false.

12. (of dough) to rise to a specified lightness: Leave covered until it has proved.
Click to expand...
 
Redress said:
Yes, I know it has multiple definitions. I also know that the general meaning does not apply to evolution, nor is it what you meant when you said evolution was proven.
Click to expand...

You said that the word has one meaning. Now, you're claiming that "it has multiple meanings"

And of the 8 definitions I posted, all but 2, 5 and 12 could possibly apply to evolution
 
sangha said:
You said that the word has one meaning. Now, you're claiming that "it has multiple meanings"

And of the 8 definitions I posted, all but 2, 5 and 12 could possibly apply to evolution
Click to expand...

Redress said:
Some of us feel that words have meanings, and when you use a word like "proven", which means one thing, trying to use it to mean something completely different is foolish.
Click to expand...

There is what I actually said. Let me clarify: the general usage for proven, including as you used it, it means definition definition 1. Further, you are wrong in that definition 1 does not work for evolution, nor does 3, nor does 5 through 12. In fact, the only one that remotely comes close to your claim is 4, and that form is not used as you used the word.
 
Redress said:
There is what I actually said. Let me clarify: the general usage for proven, including as you used it, it means definition definition 1. Further, you are wrong in that definition 1 does not work for evolution, nor does 3, nor does 5 through 12. In fact, the only one that remotely comes close to your claim is 4, and that form is not used as you used the word.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't mean #1 only. All but three of those definitions could be used in a discussion about evolution, depending on the intent and context
 
sangha said:
No, it doesn't mean #1 only. All but three of those definitions could be used in a discussion about evolution, depending on the intent and context
Click to expand...

I did not say it meant one only. Try being honest please. The first definition however would not work for evolution since the truth of evolution is not established.
 
Redress said:
I did not say it meant one only. Try being honest please. The first definition however would not work for evolution since the truth of evolution is not established.
Click to expand...

No, you didn't say it meant one only :roll:



Redress said:
Some of us feel that words have meanings, and when you use a word like "proven", which means one thing, trying to use it to mean something completely different is foolish. Evolution is not proven, nor is relatively, nor quantum theory. This is not a negative.
Click to expand...

Redress said:
There is what I actually said. Let me clarify: the general usage for proven, including as you used it, it means definition definition 1. Further, you are wrong in that definition 1 does not work for evolution, nor does 3, nor does 5 through 12. In fact, the only one that remotely comes close to your claim is 4, and that form is not used as you used the word.
Click to expand...
 
its been thoroughly explained what "proven" means in a scientific context. other definitions or personal definitions do not apply. continue to be pedantic if you wish.
 
scourge99 said:
its been thoroughly explained what "proven" means in a scientific context. other definitions or personal definitions do not apply. continue to be pedantic if you wish.
Click to expand...

Actually, in a scientific context, it is not proven. It's not being pedantic, it is being right. Sangha decided to overstate the case, and as always happens when some one does that, actually hurts his point and those who are accurate. Scientists do not consider evolution to be proven. They do consider it to be a true model however, which is a small but important distinction. When you attempt to overstate a point, either through dishonesty or ignorance, you actually make your point weaker. You will not find many people on this board either more strongly supportive of the theory of evolution, nor much more knowledgeable on the topic. I am not trying to discount the strength of the theory in any way. I am simply trying to be accurate so that those who will attempt to discount the theory have as little ammunition as possible.
 
So your each trying to show that you have proven your definition of "proven"....am I the only one who sees the futility in this?
 
Redress said:
Actually, in a scientific context, it is not proven. It's not being pedantic, it is being right. Sangha decided to overstate the case, and as always happens when some one does that, actually hurts his point and those who are accurate. Scientists do not consider evolution to be proven. They do consider it to be a true model however, which is a small but important distinction. When you attempt to overstate a point, either through dishonesty or ignorance, you actually make your point weaker. You will not find many people on this board either more strongly supportive of the theory of evolution, nor much more knowledgeable on the topic. I am not trying to discount the strength of the theory in any way. I am simply trying to be accurate so that those who will attempt to discount the theory have as little ammunition as possible.
Click to expand...

YOu claim that I overstated the case, but I never claimed that it was a statement designed to create epiphanies or that it was meant to rock your world. In fact, I described it as a truism.

And scientists do consider it to be proven, just not "absolutely proven" beyond any reasonable doubt. In this case, I think you have repeatedly overstated your case, with your claim that the word "proven" to have only one meaning being the clearest example of this.
 
Tucker Case said:
The logic behind the concepts (in depth, such as pointing out fallacious reasoning as this teacher did). A simple description of what is believed and by whom would more than suffice for a history class.
Click to expand...

Then you don't teaching understanding of such concepts. Sorry, I have higher expectations of my students than that...
 
Jerry said:
Creationism is a specific doctrine within a religion. Creationism is not a complete religion of it's own.



Exactly, it's a religious view, not a religion.

Speaking against creationism in the context of instructing an advanced placement history class is not religious persecution.
Click to expand...

This distinction between "religious view" and "religion" is entirely subjective. Religions are just complex religious views...how complex must a religious view be before you think it qualifies as a religion? Are you suggesting that it's wrong for the state to say that Christianity is false, but it's perfectly OK for the state to say that the virgin birth, the trinity, the divinity of Christ, Jesus' miracles, the crucifixion, and the resurrection are false? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

To look at it another way, suppose that someone had no complex religious views at all apart from a belief in creationism. Would it not be fair to say that that was their religion?
 
Kandahar said:
This distinction between "religious view" and "religion" is entirely subjective. Religions are just complex religious views...how complex must a religious view be before you think it qualifies as a religion?
Click to expand...

I liken it to biology. A religion is a complete organism, while any specific religious view is but a part of of the greater whole, not a complete whole in and of it's self.

When I speak out against Creationism, I am not speaking out against Christianity.

Kandahar said:
Are you suggesting that it's wrong for the state to say that Christianity is false, but it's perfectly OK for the state to say that the virgin birth, the trinity, the divinity of Christ, Jesus' miracles, the crucifixion, and the resurrection are false?
Click to expand...

The teacher (who is not the State and is entitled to certain immunities especially withing his honor's history class) was not speaking against Christianity. He was speaking against Creationism, which is not unique to Christianity. Had the teacher said "religion is superstitious rubbish", well that's something else entirely. But he did not. He said Creationism is superstitious rubbish, and many religious folks including myself agree with him, so his statement is not uniquely secular either.

If, at the time, the topic in this honors history class was woman's suffrage, and the teacher said something like "burkas are oppressive", that would be an equally allowable statement. That's not anti-Muslim, that's anti-burka, and many Muslims would agree with his position.

Kandahar said:
To look at it another way, suppose that someone had no complex religious views at all apart from a belief in creationism. Would it not be fair to say that that was their religion?
Click to expand...

Going back to my biology analogy, if someone had only a large intestine and no other body part at all, I would not say they had a body. They have a part only.
 
Last edited:
OscarB63 said:
It had been as rigorously tested as technology and method of the day allowed. :shrug: hindsight is 20/20. just ask the guys who fell for "piltdown man"
Click to expand...

The difference is that the Piltdown Man idea was tested and found to be false, and the same for spontaneous generation.

Evolution was tested and found to be solid.
 
The supreme court will always rule in favor of free speech. I don't think the teacher should have said that and should be fired for unprofessional conduct, but not sued.

Dittohead not! said:
The difference is that the Piltdown Man idea was tested and found to be false, and the same for spontaneous generation.

Evolution was tested and found to be solid.
Click to expand...

Quick evolution leads to quiet crickets
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
Actually, in a scientific context, it is not proven. It's not being pedantic, it is being right. Sangha decided to overstate the case, and as always happens when some one does that, actually hurts his point and those who are accurate. Scientists do not consider evolution to be proven. They do consider it to be a true model however, which is a small but important distinction. When you attempt to overstate a point, either through dishonesty or ignorance, you actually make your point weaker. You will not find many people on this board either more strongly supportive of the theory of evolution, nor much more knowledgeable on the topic. I am not trying to discount the strength of the theory in any way. I am simply trying to be accurate so that those who will attempt to discount the theory have as little ammunition as possible.
Click to expand...

BTW, if you want to be so pedantic, the word evolution refers to the scientific study of the distribution of genes within a population of a species, how that distribution changes over time and how those changes affect the species (and sometimes leads to the development of new species). Since scientists do study this, my statement that evolution is scientifically proven is true in the pedantic sense. Genes are distributed within a population of a species (science has proven this), this distribution does change (science has proven this too) and these changes do affect the species (again, science has proven this)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom