• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Texas Bill Would Protect College Professors Who Question Evolution

tumbleweed41

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
Come on MoF,
Show me ID in the lab, I dare you.
Show me one shred of empirical objective evidence in support of ID.

If you can, I will go to Texas and lobby for this bill.
 
T

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
tumbleweed41 said:
Come on MoF,
Show me ID in the lab, I dare you.
Show me one shred of empirical objective evidence in support of ID.

If you can, I will go to Texas and lobby for this bill.
Click to expand...

If I.D. had one shred of evidence, it wouldn't be lobbying, it would be providing evidence to the rest of the scientific community.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
I think that proponents of creationism / ID "theory" shouldn't compare themselves to evolution or science at all. Creationism / ID does not follow the scientific method, so the inevitable result of such a comparison is moot, useless, and clearly shows a lack of credibility - scientifically speaking, of course - to the beliefs.

By attempting to place itself within the realm of science and place itself on the same footing of evolution, which is the single unifying theory of the sciences (other than the philosophical belief that the scientific method works), the already irrational view of creationism/ID becomes ultimately useless.

Then the fighting about irrationality and "evidence" subsumes, but creationism/ID have no standard for evidence other than naked observation (not the the scientific sense) without constraint (like the scientific method).

However ID is fun as a type of cryptozoology - amateurs can prank the public into thinking something silly (like the Bigfoot scams) - by pretending to have evidence that proves what they think is evidence for an intelligent designer.

Creationists, hopefully, can be reformed by an honest, methodologically and philosophically sound observation.

It truly is unfortunate that creationism has such a hold on Kansas and Texas.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Tristesse said:
No, I.D. asserts there was, and I.d. isn't science, so, if you wanted to follow where the science leads, you'd be better off asking what real scientists have to say.
Click to expand...

haha real scientists believe what MoF believes.

(there a handful, but they are hard to find)
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Man of Faith said:
It doesn't have to be a problem in Texas before it is addressed. The link in the OP has two examples of problems in other states. Sometimes it is good to learn from other peoples issues and fix it ahead of time.
Click to expand...
The two examples the article cites are:

"In 2007, Baylor University shut down an evolutionary informatics lab by professor Robert Marks after administrators learned he was doing pro-ID research. The lab was forced to move from the university server to a third-party server."

First, those two statements are contradictory. If the "lab" was moved to a thrid server, it wasn't shut down. Second, Robert Marks set up the "lab" without prior approval from Baylor officials. When officials became aware of it (after Marks and other ID creationists were going around proclaiming Baylor now supported ID creationism), they temporarily stopped the site on their servers while they negotiated terms with Marks. Marks refused the University's terms and moved it to a third party server.

The second example they cite:

"Another incident at Baylor a few years ago involved the Michael Polanyi Center, considered to be the first intelligent design think tank at a major research university. Headed by leading ID-theorist William Dembski, a senior fellow of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, the center was also shut down due to intolerance of the pro-ID viewpoint."

First, the Polanyi Center incident took place in 1999, hardly a "few years ago". Second, the incident set the stage for Baylor being leery of Marks' "lab", described above. Bill Dembski and one other person set up the "Polanyi Center", which was nothing more than a think tank and wasn't associated with Baylor's science department. In 2000, it was moved to Baylor’s Institute for Faith and Learning and Dembski was demoted for not "working collegially with other faculty".

So once again, we see the facts aren't as the creationists attempt to portray them, which leads me to wonder for the umpteenth time....Why is it that those claiming to be on the side of the Christian God need to lie to make their case?
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Skwim said:
Yesterday, having paged through several creationists sites---I was bored---I ran into just this thinking. Several of the sites had no trouble stating right up front their rational for attacking evolution. First they claim there are only two options for explaining the diversity of life. 1)it was created as is by a supernatural being, and 2) it evolved. Because they can't prove #1 to be true, they go after #2. So an ID researcher would no doubt frame his goal using a null hypothesis to show evolution to be false, and thereby letting the default answer, #1, surface as the truth. The questionable aspect here is why any reputable university or college would grant anyone the time and money for a project whose goal is nothing more than to let a lack of evidence (showing evolution to be false) suggest an undemonstrable, untestable, alternative (a sky daddy). It would be like initiating a project to show that all the forces that operate to keep our planet in orbit are false just to prove that it's turtles all the way down. Wanna get payed for such a project? then take it to a religious institution that believes in turtles all the way down.

Universities and colleges have no obligation to back or fund any particular project, and are within there rights to refuse employment to anyone who would use their payed time and university resources for it, including its promotion among students.
Click to expand...
It's called "contrived dualism" and is a fallacy the Supreme Court chided the creationists for over two decades ago....

...and they still haven't learned.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Revoltingest said:
Watches, just like electric motors, don't sexually reproduce...at least not any of the watches or motors I've owned.
So the attempted analogy fails.
Click to expand...

I've got a wristwatch - a Citizen ecodrive - that just gave birth to three healthy watches.
 
Oneatatime

Oneatatime

Huh?
Man of Faith said:
Texas - :bow:

I hope the rest of the country follows suit, but I'm not holding my breath. Real science is winning out in Texas. :yes:

"The measure from Republican state Rep. Bill Zedler would prohibit public institutions of higher education from discriminating against or penalizing faculty members or students, in regard to employment or academic support, based on their "conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms."

Texas Bill Would Protect College Professors Who Question Evolution, Christian News, The Christian Post
Click to expand...

ID/Creationist proponents previously made a similar move in the US by claiming that teachers in lower education should have the right of academic freedom as a means of promoting ID/Creationism alonside evolution in the classroom. This approach failed because its purpose was to promote sectarian beliefs rather than serve a secular purpose, failed to benefit the students academically and also introduced apparant contraversy at a level where students aren't sufficiently trained to deal with it. The targeting of higher education is a slightly different approach but its still fundamentally about the promotion of sectarian beliefs and has little or no academic benefit for the students, university or wider scientific community.

The key to the ID/Creationist approach is making their position appear to be reasonable and their opponents position unreasonable by focusing on academic freedom which is something that most people are generally supportive of and plays an important role in science. The ID/Creationists are banking on their sectarian agenda being overlooked but I doubt that this will happen because its rather hard to miss.

Fundamentally ID/Creationism fail to qualify as sciences because they are incapable of generating testable hypothesis therefore any claim that ID/Creationist proponents are protecting academic freedom fails from the outset. It is appropriate for academic institutes dedicated to the promotion and advancement of science to disciminate against those who seek to promote sectarian views.
 
Last edited:
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Normally I hate repeating myself, but I adore being right.
 
tumbleweed41

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
angellous_evangellous said:
I've got a wristwatch - a Citizen ecodrive - that just gave birth to three healthy watches.
Click to expand...
Caution! Adult content!








Mating Watches....

omega-watches.jpg
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
Oneatatime said:
ID/Creationist proponents previously made a similar move in the US by claiming that teachers in lower education should have the right of academic freedom as a means of promoting ID/Creationism alonside evolution in the classroom. This approach failed because its purpose was to promote sectarian beliefs rather than serve a secular purpose, failed to benefit the students academically and also introduced apparant contraversy at a level where students aren't sufficiently trained to deal with it. The targeting of higher education is a slightly different approach but its still fundamentally about the promotion of sectarian beliefs and has little or no academic benefit for the students, university or wider scientific community.

The key to the ID/Creationist approach is making their position appear to be reasonable and their opponents position unreasonable by focusing on academic freedom which is something that most people are generally supportive of and plays an important role in science. The ID/Creationists are banking on their sectarian agenda being overlooked but I doubt that this will happen because its rather hard to miss.

Fundamentally ID/Creationism fail to qualify as science because they are incapable of generating testable hypothesis so any claim that ID/Creationist proponents are protecting academic freedom fails from the outset. Therefore it is appropriate for academic institutes dedicated to the promotion and advancement of science to disciminate against those who seek to promote sectarian views.
Click to expand...
And what's really telling, and rather amusing when one thinks about it, is how creationists tried to cover up their religious motivated agenda by adopting the label "Intelligent Design," a failed attempt exposed in the Of Pandas and People textbook debacle. It's one of my favorite creationist gaffes.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Alceste said:
Hypothesis: God did it.
Experiment: read Genesis.
Conclusion: God did it.
Click to expand...

Assumption: God created cosmos according to Genesis.

Hypothesis: Everything in the cosmos proves the assumption.

Experiment: Fake evidence, lie, cheat, steal, beg.

Conclusion: I'm right all the time
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top