Either Thom or I are missing something here. Thom's position is (if I understand it correctly) "A religion is a group or individual that has a world view & tries to convince others that it is the correct one". Have I got it? By that definition a Science teacher that holds the world view that the laws of science rule the universe and that using science one can make predictions that in fact do come to pass and tries to convince students that this is the case they are then a religious evangelical. Two words: Horse Dung.

Oh perhaps a few more. I don't believe in the supernatural. I don't parcticularly care if anyone agrees with me. I am confident I am right and those that believe otherwise are wrong. If some Evangelical dimwit tried to change my mind I will be happy to debate the issue. If I convince them great! if not, So what. I am not a member of FFRF. I'm not a joiner.

Peace

Comments

Jkirk3279's picture
Jkirk3279 7 years 34 weeks ago
#1

Actually Thom included the word "deities".

Apparently you missed that.

So an Atheist that preaches that "there is no God" is following his religion, but a Science teacher is following his craft.

kleppermaster's picture
kleppermaster 7 years 32 weeks ago
#2

Jkirk,

Thanks for pointing out the word "deities"

Since there are no deities involved with my atheism I guess I can preach all I want about it and I'm not following a religion. How am I different than a teacher?

I can buy; if someone preaches in support of a concept that requires deity or deities they are following a religion.

If I disseminate information (supported by experiment and data) that inevitably leads to an origin story that requires no deity or deities then I am not necessarily religious.

The LHC still supports my position. I never bought string theory anyway.

Jim (Don't confuse me with Reverend Jim) LOL

Caleb's picture
Caleb 7 years 32 weeks ago
#3

Science excludes on a functioning, day-to-day basis appeals to the supernatural, including God/Godesses/etc. Over the centuries Science has never shown a downside for excluding the supernatural in its focuses. (Chemistry is not improved by invoking the supernatural, etc.)

The Dover Trial (decided by a judge that Bush had appointed) found that Intelligent Design proponents were violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The ID people wanted to allow aspects of the supernatural in the science curriculum and Judge Jones soundly criticized that.

My own two cents.

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html for more details.

I believe strongly (as does Thom, I believe) that science is required to lead us out of the problems we face, and that a scientifically illiterate public is dangerously miseducated and easily duped. 40% of the American people are creationists, and that's scary. One of the reason they have such inane beliefs is that there are few counter-arguments made publicly that take these superstitious beliefs on, while in churches throughout this country, on TV, etc., there are those claiming the Bible as the "true word of God!" These yahoos are now taking over positions of power in the Republican congress and not many people are challenging their very, very extreme views.

The following is from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328366/John-Shimkus-Global-warming-wont-destroy-planet-God-promised-Noah.html#ixzz19tvKvKLl

"A Republican congressman hoping to chair the powerful House Energy Committee refers to the Bible and God on the issue of global warming.

"Representative John Shimkus insists we shouldn't concerned about the planet being destroyed because God promised Noah it wouldn't happen again after the great flood."Speaking before a House Energy Subcommittee on Energy and Environment hearing in March, 2009, Shimkus quoted Chapter 8, Verse 22 of the Book of Genesis."He said: 'As long as the earth endures, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, will never cease.'"The Illinois Republican continued: 'I believe that is the infallible word of God, and that's the way it is going to be for his creation."'The earth will end only when God declares its time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood."
How nice to have a beneficial outcome declared ahead of time so we don't have to worry about global warming, acidification of the oceans, extinction of species, etc.! And also how incredibly fortuitous that these beliefs coincide with the desires of the people giving money to these know-nothings!

kleppermaster's picture
kleppermaster 7 years 32 weeks ago
#4

Nothing fails like prayer.

You sound like a kindred spirit!

My (tongue in cheek) position on teaching Intelligent design and/or creationism in the science class is an enthusiastic, "go ahead, lets teach it!

Science education is all about the scientific process:

A phenomena is observed.

A Hypothesis is formed that explains the phenomena.

Experiments are designed that could falsify the hypothesis.

The experiments are run. If they falsify the hypothesis it is rejected or modified.

If the experiments do not falsify the hypothesis it may graduate to theory status.

At this point a paper is written, published and every scientist in the field get's a chance to tare it apart.

The rules for the experiments used to falsify are they must be Repeatable and Universal. That means the experiments must always work not just in your lab, but in my lab or any other lab in the universe as long as the proper setup and conditions can be created.

Let us apply the scientific process to creationism; In 15 minutes of class time we can falsify the failed hypothesis of creationism and move on to far more successful theories.

Before we leave the topic let me repeat a story of an actual event that happened to me:

An acquaintance of mine that happens to be a born again fundamentalist christian once told me this:

A woman he knows had a dog that died. She prayed to god that the dog come back to life, and guess what. The dog re-animated and is still living, breathing, eating and pooping to this day. I said, What a great opportunity to prove tour hypothesis!

Give her a call! Have her bring her dog over here (to my lab). I'll get a veterinarian over here and we can repeat the experiment. I'll off the dog. Once the vet verifies the dog is actually dead, she can pray it back to life. If the dog is re-animated, I will sit up and take notice.

He wasn't even willing to call her. Imagine that! What a missed opportunity. Here we had the makings of a repeatable, universal experiment the could falsify the god hypothesis which if it did not would have convinced me that not only is there a god, but it is the god of Abraham.

Like I said before; Nothing fails like prayer.

Peace,

Jim

Caleb's picture
Caleb 7 years 32 weeks ago
#5

Good point! As you probably know, Intelligent Design does not make any testable propositions.

A prominent proponent of ID several years ago was asked what research would support his views, and he couldn't think of any.

The ID people rely on "the God of the gaps" fallacy -- that is the belief that, because we can't explain it at this time so it is attributable to God. Never mind what God (Zeus? Mithra? etc.), but what was thought to be due to divine intervention in the past is more and more explainable, controlled, predicted by science.

The ID people already know the answer to any question -- "read the bible!" No additional research is needed! Or wanted!

Add comment

Login or register to post comments

Democrats Should Steal Trump's Thunder on Trade

It's time to run bigger, better and harder on trade policies.