• 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?

  • No; there are limits to religious freedom when that is contradicted by science

    Votes: 5 21.7%

  • Science cannot limit an American's freedom of religion

    Votes: 5 21.7%

  • Sometimes. Kids should be taught whatever their parents want, but not abused.

    Votes: 2 8.7%

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

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • What I do in my private life is my own business, and I can raise my kids however I like

    Votes: 10 43.5%

  • No opinion or undecided

    Votes: 1 4.3%
  • Total voters
    23
Tigger said:
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.
Click to expand...

Irony?



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.
Click to expand...

They're all out to get you.
 
PirateMk1 said:
We dont need national standards, thats what got us into this mess in the first place. Everybody is argueing about what should go into them and be left out. The market can sort that out. Schools should be funded and controlled locally. I mean real localy. Each school should be its own entity supported by its users. That way the people who use have the most say in what goes on in it.
Click to expand...

As I have said before local control is not a good idea from the standpoint of ciriculum. My example was that where I live two high schools less than 5 miles apart will and do have entirely different ciriculums for students. There must be a standardized method so that what is taught as a core course in Virginia is also a core course in Alaska. This way kids transferring within states or between states will be able to have the same courses. The present system is arbitrary, confusing and many times does not meet the requirememts for various universities within or without a state if that is the direction the kid is going.
 
wolfman24 said:
As I have said before local control is not a good idea from the standpoint of ciriculum. My example was that where I live two high schools less than 5 miles apart will and do have entirely different ciriculums for students. There must be a standardized method so that what is taught as a core course in Virginia is also a core course in Alaska. This way kids transferring within states or between states will be able to have the same courses. The present system is arbitrary, confusing and many times does not meet the requirememts for various universities within or without a state if that is the direction the kid is going.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that you believe that standardization is preferable, and you would like to impose this belief on others?
 
To me, science is a blind faith as much as religion, so sure, people have a right to their own science just so long as they do not impose it upon others,
 
PirateMk1 said:
That last 3 lines of yours is so true. I am glad you said it. I wish I had put it as sucincly as you have. I see this in the Global Warming debate and am seeing this more in the harder sciences now. Its a shame really. I love science and the rigour it imposses on your thought process. It requires flexible thinking and ingenuity and curiosty and all of our mental muscle to use scienticfic method correctly. To bad there are scientists not so constrained. Flexibility and curiosty are not in favor in large parts of the scientific communitie these days, and that is sadning.
Click to expand...

Your last sentence is untrue. Curiosity is the hallmark of science it is how theories and ideas are made. We do not work on an assembly line. Flexibility is a vague term. If you are saying thinking outside the box, I must also disagree with you there. A scientist who practices good science MUST be able to be flexible. If his idea or experiment does not work he must be flexible enough to discard it and flexible enough to think of a new way to deal with it. If you are talking about flexibility within the scientific method or ethic then I will say that yes there is no flexibility here because these concepts are necessary for doing good science
 
Pinkie said:
Again, I have no quarrel with anyone who is skeptical about a new scientific theory. I am impatient with people who still want to debate whether evolution or global warming are real, but they can believe whatever they like -- as long as my tax dollars are not going into funding these mistakes in thinking.

I do not want to give out taxpayer dollars as grants to look for the Holy Grail, etc.
Click to expand...

I am confused are you saying evolution and GW are not real?
 
Fisher said:
To me, science is a blind faith as much as religion, so sure, people have a right to their own science just so long as they do not impose it upon others,
Click to expand...

Blind faith? Lol. No my man. Blind faith is saying that God will protect you if you jump off a building. Science is telling you that when you hit the floor, the force of gravity will make sure you don't survive without broken bones as a minimum. Quit putting the two on the same standard. Still think science is blind faith? Jump off a building. See which one is more likely to happen. Broken bones or God saving you.
 
ReformCollege said:
Science isn't a belief... :(
Click to expand...



As I've already said... there are scientific things that are self-evident, like the existence of gravity.

OTOH, there are scientific things that are subject to debate, such as exactly what gravity/inertia IS (curved spacetime, gravitons, field effects, theories differ), or whether global warming is anthropogenic and constitutes a disaster, or whether evolution actually disproves the possibility of a Creator.
 
clownboy said:
Do you? Do you know that it's the Theory of Evolution we're talking about. Why in the world would you teach science and not teach them how a theory works?
Click to expand...

Except that Evolution is not a theory and should not be taught as much. What most people think is evolution is based on the writings of an Anglican deacon in the mid 19th century. Science and evolution are so far beyond that its ridiculous. I know of no ecologist, Wildlife Biological, Global Ecologist or any other scientist today who accepts what Darwin says as modern evolutionary thought.

If people would take their heads out of the sand and realize the modern version I think there would be much less of a argument unless they were die in the wool creationists. So teaching kids in school something that is readily visible in the natural and physical world cannot possibly be considered a theory scientific or otherwise.
 
Goshin said:
As I've already said... there are scientific things that are self-evident, like the existence of gravity.

OTOH, there are scientific things that are subject to debate, such as exactly what gravity/inertia IS (curved spacetime, gravitons, field effects, theories differ), or whether global warming is anthropogenic and constitutes a disaster, or whether evolution actually disproves the possibility of a Creator.
Click to expand...

... Subject to debate... by whom? Look dude, there's little doubt in the scientific community about evolution. A few stray cats here and there do not disprove the mountains of information proving evolution is a fact at both the macro and micro levels. The only people that are still discussing this are the people who don't work in science. The laymen. Scientists? No. They're pretty much all in lock step about it as a fact.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Yes. It's your bolding of the word 'theory' implies that you are stressing it, in order to disenfranchise it.



Of course we teach what a sceintific theory is. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. It significantly differs from a laymans term "theory".
Click to expand...

This is also called science visa vie the Scientific method.
 
Pinkie said:
Maybe so, but his point is a valid one: it is not irrational to reject a scientific breakthrough that appears to me to lack a solid basis.
Click to expand...

If that basis is from the scientific community then I would doubt it. IF it was from a persons own perspective then it would depend on what the so called breakthrough was.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I agree with this. I actually believe that creationism, et al. should be taught in all schools along with principles from all the major religions. However, I think that they should be taught in their proper place - religious class and not science class. Students ought to know about religion and thus, religion should not be entirely eliminated from the public school system. However, they need to learn about in a way that does not confuse it with scientific knowledge.
Click to expand...

Can I get an Amen to that brother AMEN
 
wolfman24 said:
Except that Evolution is not a theory and should not be taught as much. What most people think is evolution is based on the writings of an Anglican deacon in the mid 19th century. Science and evolution are so far beyond that its ridiculous. I know of no ecologist, Wildlife Biological, Global Ecologist or any other scientist today who accepts what Darwin says as modern evolutionary thought.

If people would take their heads out of the sand and realize the modern version I think there would be much less of a argument unless they were die in the wool creationists. So teaching kids in school something that is readily visible in the natural and physical world cannot possibly be considered a theory scientific or otherwise.
Click to expand...

This is what most people don't seem to get. Nobody today looks at Darwin's work to validate their theories regarding the evolution of birds. Darwin's book, was obsolete in its own field by the time the 20th century rolled along. 100 years later? It no longer mattered as anything more than a historical understanding of how modern scientists arrived at their understanding of evolution.

The conservative/religious mind doesn't understand this fact for the simple reason that they do not believe in progress. The bible, regardless of all of its mistakes, contradictions and fallacies is still "true" to them to some degree. To the extremist, it's literal, to the moderate, it's allegorical, to the wish-washy, it's god's work as understood by men. However, they all retain that the tenets laid out by it are true. Science does not work in this way. It adapts to changes in methodology. Which religion has none so to speak.
 
Goshin said:
As I've already said... there are scientific things that are self-evident, like the existence of gravity.

OTOH, there are scientific things that are subject to debate, such as exactly what gravity/inertia IS (curved spacetime, gravitons, field effects, theories differ), or whether global warming is anthropogenic and constitutes a disaster, or whether evolution actually disproves the possibility of a Creator.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that doesn't mean that the theory of evolution shouldn't be taught as a fact.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
No, actually, scientists sometimes believe before they create or use the tools required to acquire knowledge as I said. This is just a fact merely because they are human. I'm sure there are scientists who believe in their hypotheses before they test them and believe in the possibility of finding vaccines before they discover or create them.
Click to expand...

This is very true fortunately they are in a very small minority and are caught rather quickly. the scientiifc community as a whole has our own punishment for them
 
Federalist said:
So you are saying that you believe that standardization is preferable, and you would like to impose this belief on others?
Click to expand...

My post has nothing to do with beliefs if you read what i said. I was talking about STANDARDIZING CORE SUBJECTS. How many math classes, science classes, lit classes. I will ask you a similar question are you saying I am not entitled to an opinion on the matter?

What I am talking about is making sure that the basic courses taught in virginia are the same as in Alaska for the EXACT reasons I stated. NONE other. If you were more aware of the chaos that was out there you would not have asked such a foolish question.
 
Goshin said:
As I've already said... there are scientific things that are self-evident, like the existence of gravity.

OTOH, there are scientific things that are subject to debate, such as exactly what gravity/inertia IS (curved spacetime, gravitons, field effects, theories differ), or whether global warming is anthropogenic and constitutes a disaster, or whether evolution actually disproves the possibility of a Creator.
Click to expand...

When I was in college a Theology Student from Madison and I got into a conversation and he said that in his opinion Science was mans attempt to prove the existence of God by rationale means. I have never heard a better explanation as a person of faith.
 
Hatuey said:
This is what most people don't seem to get. Nobody today looks at Darwin's work to validate their theories regarding the evolution of birds. Darwin's book, was obsolete in its own field by the time the 20th century rolled along. 100 years later? It no longer mattered as anything more than a historical understanding of how modern scientists arrived at their understanding of evolution.

The conservative/religious mind doesn't understand this fact for the simple reason that they do not believe in progress. The bible, regardless of all of its mistakes, contradictions and fallacies is still "true" to them to some degree. To the extremist, it's literal, to the moderate, it's allegorical, to the wish-washy, it's god's work as understood by men. However, they all retain that the tenets laid out by it are true. Science does not work in this way. It adapts to changes in methodology. Which religion has none so to speak.
Click to expand...

Here's a thought to entertain. Lets say you are an "educated" person living 5000 years ago and most of the people around you were ignorant nomadic tribesman who thought God was in the lightening and a comet meant disaster. How would you explain how the world or for that matter the universe was created so that they would understand? GENESIS.
Thats another thing the religious right does not understand they cannot put themselves in the context of when this stuff was written they think it was yesterday.

By the way. Did you notice my refence to the Anglican Deacon. Darwin as a deacon of his local church just like his uncle Erasmus who was also a naturalist. So much for atheist science.
 
wolfman24 said:
My post has nothing to do with beliefs if you read what i said. I was talking about STANDARDIZING CORE SUBJECTS. How many math classes, science classes, lit classes. I will ask you a similar question are you saying I am not entitled to an opinion on the matter?
Click to expand...
Of course you are entitled to your opinions and beliefs. Everyone is.

What I am talking about is making sure that the basic courses taught in virginia are the same as in Alaska for the EXACT reasons I stated. NONE other. If you were more aware of the chaos that was out there you would not have asked such a foolish question.
Click to expand...

You believe that it is important to standardize courses across the country, and it appears you wish to impose this belief on others.
 
Federalist said:
Of course you are entitled to your opinions and beliefs. Everyone is.



You believe that it is important to standardize courses across the country, and it appears you wish to impose this belief on others.
Click to expand...

Yes of course I do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom