Comments on: The Sheep Report In http://tomchappell.com/blog/2005/08/the-sheep-report-in.html Yet Another Media Spotlight Sat, 19 May 2012 04:06:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Tom Chappell http://tomchappell.com/blog/2005/08/the-sheep-report-in.html#comment-114 Tom Chappell Wed, 07 Sep 2005 15:04:58 +0000 http://tomchappell.com/blog/2005/08/the-sheep-report-in.html#comment-114 > lady be good: No, I needn't have sworn to argue my point. But really, your arguments are fairly incoherent, and it is tiring to refute them point by individual point. I can do it for a few of them, though: 1. What is this "seperation" that you so abhor? The "wall of separation between Church and State" that Thomas Jefferson argued for? 2. How could you possibly approach <em>Intelligent Design</em> without a religious twist? Its only purpose for existence is make religious people who are uncomfortable with evolution comfortable. No unreligious person argues for it, therefore its motive is religious, therefore it can't be approached without a religious twist, right? 3. "Did God create dinosaurs?" What are you saying? Are you seriously trying to diminish God's importance, just so Intelligent Design will work out for you? By reducing The Lord of All Creation to some Parish President? That makes you more comfortable than saying, as the Catholics have said, that there is no conflict between Christianity and Evolution? Why does every single word in the Bible have to be literal truth? Can't some parts be allegorical, but illustrative of some Higher Truth? 4. F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote that "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." So, look, the world is billions of years old. This is a fact. No amount of you calling me "biased" is going to sway me on this. And humans appeared on the world much, much later. So clearly the story of Adam and Eve cannot be the literal truth; at the very least, you have to make the length of the days go all funny. Whatever you argue, if you want to argue it here, has to accommodate that not-the-literal-truth aspect. You're totally welcome to still be religious, even though I'm not, but if you seriously want to argue for the teaching of Intelligent Design <em>in Science class</em> here, please be prepared to marshall some serious weight in your arguments, and not just say, "Well, they're both just theories, aren't they? Who can say which is better?" Well, the one that has testable hypotheses is better, <em>as far as Science class</em> is concerned. > lady be good: No, I needn’t have sworn to argue my point. But really, your arguments are fairly incoherent, and it is tiring to refute them point by individual point. I can do it for a few of them, though:

1. What is this “seperation” that you so abhor? The “wall of separation between Church and State” that Thomas Jefferson argued for?

2. How could you possibly approach Intelligent Design without a religious twist? Its only purpose for existence is make religious people who are uncomfortable with evolution comfortable. No unreligious person argues for it, therefore its motive is religious, therefore it can’t be approached without a religious twist, right?

3. “Did God create dinosaurs?” What are you saying? Are you seriously trying to diminish God’s importance, just so Intelligent Design will work out for you? By reducing The Lord of All Creation to some Parish President? That makes you more comfortable than saying, as the Catholics have said, that there is no conflict between Christianity and Evolution? Why does every single word in the Bible have to be literal truth? Can’t some parts be allegorical, but illustrative of some Higher Truth?

4. F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote that “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” So, look, the world is billions of years old. This is a fact. No amount of you calling me “biased” is going to sway me on this. And humans appeared on the world much, much later. So clearly the story of Adam and Eve cannot be the literal truth; at the very least, you have to make the length of the days go all funny. Whatever you argue, if you want to argue it here, has to accommodate that not-the-literal-truth aspect. You’re totally welcome to still be religious, even though I’m not, but if you seriously want to argue for the teaching of Intelligent Design in Science class here, please be prepared to marshall some serious weight in your arguments, and not just say, “Well, they’re both just theories, aren’t they? Who can say which is better?” Well, the one that has testable hypotheses is better, as far as Science class is concerned.

]]> By: Steve Ring http://tomchappell.com/blog/2005/08/the-sheep-report-in.html#comment-113 Steve Ring Wed, 07 Sep 2005 00:42:43 +0000 http://tomchappell.com/blog/2005/08/the-sheep-report-in.html#comment-113 One problem is just English. Because of the excellent quality of science education in this country, people are confused by the word theory. In general usage, theory basically equals idea. So, any idea that you have about how things work, is your theory about how things work. In science, the word theory, has specific limitations. It, like a general idea, is a way of explaining a set of facts or assumptions, but it has to be possible to disprove the theory. It must be possible to design an experiment, the result of which can be used to disprove the theory. So, what experiment would you design to disprove creationism, or “Intelligent Design”? If there isn’t one, then these “theories” don’t belong in a science class, because they aren’t science. Early in the century Bertrand Russell was giving a public talk on gravity in London, and as he was explaining how gravity held the world in orbit, he was interrupted by an old woman. She said that he was wrong, and that everyone knew that the world was held up by a giant turtle. He asked her what held up the turtle? She replied that he was silly and that it was turtles all the way down. Theory – perhaps. Science – no. How do you prove a turtle isn’t there? One problem is just English. Because of the excellent quality of science education in this country, people are confused by the word theory. In general usage, theory basically equals idea. So, any idea that you have about how things work, is your theory about how things work. In science, the word theory, has specific limitations. It, like a general idea, is a way of explaining a set of facts or assumptions, but it has to be possible to disprove the theory. It must be possible to design an experiment, the result of which can be used to disprove the theory.

So, what experiment would you design to disprove creationism, or “Intelligent Design”? If there isn’t one, then these “theories” don’t belong in a science class, because they aren’t science.

Early in the century Bertrand Russell was giving a public talk on gravity in London, and as he was explaining how gravity held the world in orbit, he was interrupted by an old woman. She said that he was wrong, and that everyone knew that the world was held up by a giant turtle. He asked her what held up the turtle? She replied that he was silly and that it was turtles all the way down. Theory – perhaps. Science – no. How do you prove a turtle isn’t there?

]]> By: lady be good http://tomchappell.com/blog/2005/08/the-sheep-report-in.html#comment-112 lady be good Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:25:27 +0000 http://tomchappell.com/blog/2005/08/the-sheep-report-in.html#comment-112 ouch. do you have to be so nasty and biased and use the f word?? because last time i checked, creationism wasn't such a wishful thinking and there is quite a bit of scientific evidence to support it. shall i attach some of that in a comment? and make sure you let me know when you find the neanderthal man. ouch. do you have to be so nasty and biased and use the f word?? because last time i checked, creationism wasn’t such a wishful thinking and there is quite a bit of scientific evidence to support it. shall i attach some of that in a comment? and make sure you let me know when you find the neanderthal man.

]]> By: Tom Chappell http://tomchappell.com/blog/2005/08/the-sheep-report-in.html#comment-111 Tom Chappell Sat, 03 Sep 2005 08:43:11 +0000 http://tomchappell.com/blog/2005/08/the-sheep-report-in.html#comment-111 Well, because one is Science, and one So Totally Isn't. My complaint is that they're teaching 'Intelligent Design' in the fucking Science class, rather than the Religion class ghetto where it belongs. While both are called 'theories', one [evolution] has abundant support from the evidence, while the other is just a lot of wishful thinking, a means to an end. And it's spelled 'separation'. Well, because one is Science, and one So Totally Isn’t. My complaint is that they’re teaching ‘Intelligent Design’ in the fucking Science class, rather than the Religion class ghetto where it belongs. While both are called ‘theories’, one [evolution] has abundant support from the evidence, while the other is just a lot of wishful thinking, a means to an end.

And it’s spelled ’separation’.

]]> By: lady be good http://tomchappell.com/blog/2005/08/the-sheep-report-in.html#comment-110 lady be good Fri, 02 Sep 2005 07:04:47 +0000 http://tomchappell.com/blog/2005/08/the-sheep-report-in.html#comment-110 Why shouldn't creationism be taught along side evolutionism? No one is more against seperation than I, but when it comes to this issue, both are theories and just because you teach them doesn't mean you are forcing students to believe in them and you can approach it educationally without a religious twist. I am a christian who believes in creation and in order to receive what I considered an accurate scientific education I went to private christian school (so I got to pay for school twice, how fair is that). But even there, my teachers taught us about the theory of evolutionism so that we would know the theories and be able to speak about the intelligently. As far as I am concerned, it is simply balance. It seems proposterous to me to completely base scientific education on one theory that is just that- a theory. It affects the way you look at datings, adaptation, etc. but even within creationism there are too many conflicting theories- how old the earth is, did God create dinosaurs, etc. It just proves that the way we treat education and present it needs a complete over haul. Too much of what we learn is being filtered through someone elses 'ok'. Reminds me of Russians handling WWII education in Eastern Europe, and new truths are still surfacing. ladybegood1@hotmail.com Why shouldn’t creationism be taught along side evolutionism? No one is more against seperation than I, but when it comes to this issue, both are theories and just because you teach them doesn’t mean you are forcing students to believe in them and you can approach it educationally without a religious twist.

I am a christian who believes in creation and in order to receive what I considered an accurate scientific education I went to private christian school (so I got to pay for school twice, how fair is that). But even there, my teachers taught us about the theory of evolutionism so that we would know the theories and be able to speak about the intelligently.

As far as I am concerned, it is simply balance. It seems proposterous to me to completely base scientific education on one theory that is just that- a theory. It affects the way you look at datings, adaptation, etc. but even within creationism there are too many conflicting theories- how old the earth is, did God create dinosaurs, etc. It just proves that the way we treat education and present it needs a complete over haul. Too much of what we learn is being filtered through someone elses ‘ok’. Reminds me of Russians handling WWII education in Eastern Europe, and new truths are still surfacing. ladybegood1@hotmail.com

]]>