Scientists to Texas BOE: Teach Evolution Right!

Meanwhile, Don McLeroy, everybody's favorite creationist-dentist-turned-state-board-head, is tending to a little pump priming in anticipation of tomorrow’s SBOE hearings on the subject.

He's got a guest columnist today in the Austin Statesman editorial pages, “Enlisting in the culture war”

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/03/25/0325mcleroy_edit.html

Enjoy, all.

Is anyone else disappointed so far? I basically have only heard Luskin, and a few real scientists, and I'm sad to admit it, but Luskin is a GOOD SPEAKER. Of course he's demonstrably a liar, but good speakers might matter more to some of these people. Has the NCSE gone yet?

Also, I basically did a spit-take when one of the creationist "witnesses" used the flagellum as "proof" of irreducible complexity. Haven't we been down that road before?

Ames said: Also, I basically did a spit-take when one of the creationist "witnesses" used the flagellum as "proof" of irreducible complexity. Haven't we been down that road before?

If these guys get their way there will be a lot of law suits and they will lose them all. I recommend holding each and every one of them personally responsible for the financial consequences. Will they never learn?

DS said: If these guys get their way there will be a lot of law suits and they will lose them all. I recommend holding each and every one of them personally responsible for the financial consequences. Will they never learn?

McLeroy said: With the new definition, both the naturalist and the supernaturalist are free to make "testable" explanations.

Ames said: Is anyone else disappointed so far? I basically have only heard Luskin, and a few real scientists, and I'm sad to admit it, but Luskin is a GOOD SPEAKER. Of course he's demonstrably a liar, but good speakers might matter more to some of these people. Has the NCSE gone yet?

Yes, NCSE has been involved. Duh. Who do you think collected those statements from science and education societies! http://ncseweb.org/news/2009/03/texas-needs-to-get-it-right-004695 As John reports, we also solicited societies to pass on information to their TX members and encourage them to express their opinions to the SB members. We got a good response.

Josh testified today, and did a good job. I assumed I wouldn't testify because I was way down the list of testifiers; I had testified in January. But one of the SB members asked me to speak during the final session, when the SB members can nominate speakers as a point of personal privilege. So both of us got to speak.

There's live blogging going on variously.

http://tfnblog.wordpress.com/ reports that yet another person at the hearing claims the New Scientist article on Darwin is a weakness of evolution. It would be funny if it weren't so outrageously lame.

Genie,

My new friend from Texas forwarded an NCSE e-mail to me. Made for some intriguing reading, though I've seen the links to the board members before, and I've been tempted, as a Republican, to give them a piece of my mind with regards to their woeful understanding of science (IMHO they could start by reading Judge Jones's decision again.).

Best,

John

PS OOPS, am repeating myself here (see above). Am keeping my fingers crossed that the Texas Board of Education might consider too what has transpired recently in Iowa.

Am striking out twice tonight. I meant New Mexico, not Iowa, as noted here:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/03/another-discove.html#more

The controversy exists because evolutionists, led by academia's far-left, along with the secular elite opinion-makers, have decreed that questioning of evolution is not allowed, that it is only an attempt to inject religion or creationism into the classroom.

— Don McLeroy

Ames said: Is anyone else disappointed so far? I basically have only heard Luskin, and a few real scientists, and I'm sad to admit it, but Luskin is a GOOD SPEAKER. Of course he's demonstrably a liar, but good speakers might matter more to some of these people.

Where does he advocate lying to students?
When he says "it shouldn't raise any objections from those who say evolution has no weaknesses" as a reason not to be terrified of letting students look at the fossil record?

....terrified of letting students look at the fossil record?

— novparl

Novparl,

Just like you are terrified of actually reading any scientific literature?

If science were trying to hide the truth they wouldn't have journals and textbooks with references from journals. That's why creationists don't publish in journals, because then everyone could see that they had absolutely nothing of substance.

Meanwhile, Don McLeroy, everybody's favorite creationist-dentist-turned-state-board-head, ... He's got a guest columnist today in the Austin Statesman editorial pages, “Enlisting in the culture war” http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/03/25/0325mcleroy_edit.html

He says there used to be 700 but now 1000 scientists who signed the DI Darwinism statement that say there are problems, weaknesses, and controversies.

Has anyone stopped to think that McLeroy, DI, et al., are getting exactly what they want and need from this?

— Mike

WooT to Texans for Freedom - and Texas today:
(from the live blog)
http://tfnblog.wordpress.com/2009/03/26/live-blogging-the-science-debate/#comments

10:09 - Board member Ken Mercer of San Antonio moves to add “strengths and weaknesses” back into the science standards.

11:13 - Mr. Mercer’s motion fails 7-7!!!

in between - a counter proposal was offered
"add to the expectation that students analyze and evaluate scientific explanations: “including discussing what is not fully understood so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.”

this was also voted down- but discussion over the counter proposal reveals that the change in the standards isn't about academic freedom or about students' ability to ask questions - the ID advocates on the BOE want (IMO) the 'weaknesses' language in the standards specifically to smuggle in creationism/ID

there is still hope for Texas!

mrg said:

Ames said: Also, I basically did a spit-take when one of the creationist "witnesses" used the flagellum as "proof" of irreducible complexity. Haven't we been down that road before?

Aw, geez, they cheerfully recycle far older bogus arguments than that. After all, if they gave up arguments simply because they had been shot full of holes, they wouldn't have much left to say.

This situation won't change until people are prepared to give up or at least recognize the biases they see with. It is impossible to change the mind of someone whose ego is shoring up their viewpoint.

@DS. Interesting. You don't look up the references I suggest. You shamelessly have failed to read the 1st sentence of the article on E & SR. You deal with this by accusing me of exactly waht you're guilty of. Interesting mechanism.

As no-one can show me where Mr McLeroy advocated lying (as DS does), I must reasonably assume he's innocent.

Incidentally, I also note that no-one takes up his challenge re Gould & stasis.

Novparl,

Once again, the only one who is lying is you. I never requested any references from you. You never provided me with any references. The only thing that you did cite was a Wiki article that wasn't scientifically authoratative, so why bother with that? You made factual claims that were demonstrably false. When I pointed this out and provided references from the scientific literature as proof you refused to look at them, even though I provided free links. You are the shameless liar.

And by the way, I doubt that you have "looked at the fossil record" either. If you had you wqould realize that the totality of the fossil record is exactly what one would predict if Darwin was right and descent with modification is true. No one is afraid to look at this evidence except the willfully ignorant, including your ignoble self. I could provide references, but why bother doing that for the willfully ignorant?

@DS

Who says I didn't look at the links? I did, but they were irrelevant. One of the drawbacks of the wondrous Internet is people who provide any old link, however irrelevant. They remind me of preachers who provide irrelevant references to Bible passages. You still haven't read the 1st line of the article on E & SR. Shameless.

KP said:

mrg said:

Ames said: Also, I basically did a spit-take when one of the creationist "witnesses" used the flagellum as "proof" of irreducible complexity. Haven't we been down that road before?

Aw, geez, they cheerfully recycle far older bogus arguments than that. After all, if they gave up arguments simply because they had been shot full of holes, they wouldn't have much left to say.

To wit: a couple of days ago my local paper ran yet another letter against the footprint find where the author recycled the Piltdown Man hoax and the Nebraska Man error as if these mistakes somehow make all of the valid, verifiable evidence out there magically go away.

Novparl,

Way to deal with the issues man. Your logic has absolutely convinced me. You are absolutely right after all. I agree one hundred percent. Oh wait, you haven't actually made any point. All you have done is state that you don't want to believe something and then demonstrated that you indeed refuse to believe it. OK, I guess I agree with you there.

What you haven't done is provide any evidence, any hypothesis or even any reasoning. Now if you want to have a real discussion about scientific issues just prresent some evidence from a real scientific reference. Just post a link, I'll read it, I promise. Then I will tell you exactly what I think about it. Fair enough?

Why are the references I cited irrelevant? What claim were you making? How do the papers fail to address that claim? What evidence would you consider relevant? What references do you have to support your view? Do you have any point to make at all about anything?

You can trade meaningless insults with strangers forever and it won't get you anywhere. Why not discuss the real science? Or is that too hard for you to do?

DS said: You can trade meaningless insults with strangers forever and it won't get you anywhere. Why not discuss the real science? Or is that too hard for you to do?

My experience in teaching a general biology course for nonscientists at the college level, is that many students have trouble understanding basic concepts, like "natural selection." Although I think that students should be strongly encouraged to think critically and to question what their textbooks and instructors say, it it ludicrous to imagine that high school students can learn enough and are sophisticated enough in their thinking to "weigh the evidence" and come to a conclusions about the validity of evolution.

@ Stanton & DS. Did you read the 1st line of the E&SR article you recommended?

@ DS. My standpoint is quite simple. It's the argument from complexity. Evolietionists rubbish it because they don't have an answer. An example I've used before : how long did it take the 100 trillion (100 000 000 000 000)connections in the brain to evolve? Now pretend you don't understand this.

Evolutionists rubbish the argument from complexity because it's rubbish.

"how long did it take the 100 trillion (100 000 000 000 000)connections in the brain to evolve?"

Certainly over 500 million years, depending on definition of "connection" and "brain". Here's one for you: why would "all of a sudden" be a better answer?

Certainly over 500 million years, depending on definition of “connection” and “brain”. Here’s one for you: why would “all of a sudden” be a better answer?

— Dave Luckett

Bill DeMott said: My experience in teaching a general biology course for nonscientists at the college level, is that many students have trouble understanding basic concepts, like "natural selection."

I don't particularly expect any school school system to teach any subject right.

That's why I seek knowledge on my own and don't rely on other people to determine what is appropriate for me to read, in a school, or any other place.

I think people who are interested in Intelligent Design have a right to learn it whether it is considered a science or not a science.

What's the "right way to teach evolution" anyway?

Animals evolve to adapt to their environment. that's it in a nutshell.

People who haven't studied the Bible or other sources they would like to attack, couldn't even begin to decide anything about it simply because they don't understand it.

Can one of the administrators please ban lissa's IP before she adds another 240+ posts of useless and tediously boring commentary?

If Stanton would mind his own business Lissa would not respond to Stanton.

It's not up to Stanton to decide whether Lissa's Post was useful or not useful,

It might have been useful to someone having Acute or Chronic stress to deal with,

But if it was useful at all, it got lost in the Shuffle because Stanton can't mind his own business.

Get used to it, Stanton. TS doesn't seem to be paying any attention to the matter.

Hi mrg.

How's your sister's moose bite?

LOL

Why should TS bother with it? I was posting a very serious post about the effects of stress on the brain and my experience with it as it related to the specific topic being discussed.

Just because your buddy thinks these problems aren't serious they are quite serious problems, both socially and medically.

Every person in the world is suffering from stress, it's just a matter of a person's threshold before they bend or break. I personally can tolerate a lot of it, but as I get older I can get less tolerance for it, perfectly normal. That's why everybody should be practicing these things to reduce their stress.

lissa said: I don't particularly expect any school school system to teach any subject right.

That's why I seek knowledge on my own and don't rely on other people to determine what is appropriate for me to read, in a school, or any other place.

I think people who are interested in Intelligent Design have a right to learn it whether it is considered a science or not a science.

What's the "right way to teach evolution" anyway?

Animals evolve to adapt to their environment. that's it in a nutshell.

People who haven't studied the Bible or other sources they would like to attack, couldn't even begin to decide anything about it simply because they don't understand it.

p.s. said: It's not up to Stanton to decide whether Lissa's Post was useful or not useful, It might have been useful to someone having Acute or Chronic stress to deal with, But if it was useful at all, it got lost in the Shuffle because Stanton can't mind his own business.

Oh I 100% agree with you that Science instruction should be legitimate. I was just saying Intelligent Design (Science or not) should be an OPTION for students would like to study it. Not an "ALTERNATIVE" to Evolution though.

And I agree with you also that we "should" be able to trust the education, just stating simply that I don't.

The Bible doesn't have much to do with "science"

Intelligent Design, however isn't based on the bible it's more related to How the Universe came into being (which nobody could do anything about but theorize on the subject)

lissa said: Oh I 100% agree with you that Science instruction should be legitimate. I was just saying Intelligent Design (Science or not) should be an OPTION for students would like to study it. Not an "ALTERNATIVE" to Evolution though.

And I agree with you also that we "should" be able to trust the education, just stating simply that I don't.

The Bible doesn't have much to do with "science" Intelligent Design, however isn't based on the bible it's more related to How the Universe came into being (which nobody could do anything about but theorize on the subject)

Yeah.

The same thing could be said about a History Class.

Basically the "bible" is a record of the Jewish People's History as recorded by them.

Like a lesson on WW2 is a record of what happened as recorded by whomever from their perspective.

The ORIGIN OF SPECIES
The BIBLE

Whatever.

It's just a matter of how a person wants to interpret.

lissa said: Yeah. The same thing could be said about a History Class. Basically the "bible" is a record of the Jewish People's History as recorded by them. Like a lesson on WW2 is a record of what happened as recorded by whomever from their perspective. The ORIGIN OF SPECIES The BIBLE Whatever. It's just a matter of how a person wants to interpret.

As I already stated. The origin of the Universe can only be theorized about.

Who's the apathetic idiot?

Why don't we just wipe out all theories on the subject then, instead of just the one's we want to wipe out?

Why don’t we just wipe out all theories on the subject then, instead of just the one’s we want to wipe out?

First of Christians aren't the only people in the world that believe in a first or Primal Cause.

A lot of the "principles" that are taught in an ID course are scientifically valid as far as the springing of life out of somewhere, and the physics of the whole thing HAVE been tested and are fallible.

A lot of it is based on Newton's Third law.

It has nothing to do with the BIBLE per se to begin with.

Lissa, allow me to put it more plainly:

ID is crap.

The only people who swallow it are the self-righteous stealth creationists who don't have the balls to admit their a priori commitment to the Bible, credulous new-age flakes with the critical thinking skills of four-year-olds, and burned-out po-mo ex-hippie acid-casualties with a tenuous grip on reality.

lissa said: First of Christians aren't the only people in the world that believe in a first or Primal Cause. A lot of the "principles" that are taught in an ID course are scientifically valid as far as the springing of life out of somewhere, and the physics of the whole thing HAVE been tested and are fallible. A lot of it is based on Newton's Third law. It has nothing to do with the BIBLE per se to begin with.

A lot of the “principles” that are taught in an ID course are scientifically valid as far as the springing of life out of somewhere, and the physics of the whole thing HAVE been tested and are fallible.

First off there are ID courses available, somewhere otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Yes, it is a religious doctrine, I never said it wasn't a religious doctrine in fact.

I suggested it should be OPTIONAL and not an ALTERNATIVE to BIOLOGY.

Of course life sprung from somewhere. That's the whole point.

What a person wants to call where it came from is completely up to them.

If they want to call it Fred, I suppose that's there right.

First off there are ID courses available, somewhere otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Of course life sprung from somewhere. That’s the whole point.

lissa said: Yes, it is a religious doctrine, I never said it wasn't a religious doctrine in fact.

I suggested it should be OPTIONAL and not an ALTERNATIVE to BIOLOGY.

Of course life sprung from somewhere. That's the whole point. What a person wants to call where it came from is completely up to them. If they want to call it Fred, I suppose that's there right.

how long did it take the 100 trillion (100 000 000 000 000)connections in the brain to evolve?

Henry J said:

how long did it take the 100 trillion (100 000 000 000 000)connections in the brain to evolve?

All of the neurons in a brain inherited copies of the same genes. They did not have to each evolve on its own separately from the others. Henry

most people just call it CONCIOUSNESS though.

Actually, ps, people call one of its products "consciousness". The neural net is a physical thing, a biological construct. "Consciousness" is one of the things it does.

Yeah, I agree with you that a Religious Doctrine isn't a Science.

Physics however is a Science.

An MD would probably be better able to explain it to you.

It's a matter of the conscious mind, the subconscious mind, etc.

Thanks Dave.

I know.

lissa said: Of course life sprung from somewhere. That's the whole point. What a person wants to call where it came from is completely up to them.

Dan said: This is an extraordinary claim that opinion trumps fact.

lissa said: Yeah, I agree with you that a Religious Doctrine isn't a Science. Physics however is a Science. An MD would probably be better able to explain it to you. It's a matter of the conscious mind, the subconscious mind, etc.

“DESIGNERDIDIT! Nothing more to study.”

Intelligent design is not an Anathema to all Science.

It is a method of healing the body naturally as well as medically.

The "cure" SCIENCE would prefer is taking the chemicals and doing with what they please.

There isn't a "cure" for genetic diseases anyway, disease is caused by stress on an organism with a genetic susceptibility to that particular disease.

PREVENTION is the best way to approach it.

And if that doesn't work, then a GOOD ATTITUDE helps.

lissa said: Intelligent design is not an Anathema to all Science.

It is a method of healing the body naturally as well as medically.

The "cure" SCIENCE would prefer is taking the chemicals and doing with what they please.

Since I've been dealing with these things all my life I think I know very well how SCIENCE works.

you must be the one who doesn't have a clue.

It looks like a last second blitz of amendments (typical political tactic) effectively scuttled the standards recommended by the science community. Not unexpected, given Texas politics.

While some of the creationist pseudo-teachers may try to capitalize on this confusion, the real teachers can use it to build a rogues gallery of pseudo-science pretenders and the misinformation they push.

There is such a large cache of material now available on the misinformation peddled and tactics used by the sectarian antievolutionists that one could put up an organizational chart much like a mafia organizational chart.

There could be a list of key misconceptions, where they originated, how they were politically pushed, and who the pushers were/are.

If this is done thoroughly and precisely, the discussions taking place in the hallways and after school could expose the pretensions of the creationist pseudo-teachers.

If authorities start attempting to force the teaching of pseudo-science, the real teachers can ask for this in writing and can forward these to the National Center for Science Education and to the ACLU. No teacher can be required to teach misinformation and pseudo-science and any official who attempts to push this crap should be immediately exposed.

If any of these sectarians insist on going to war, they should understand that it is the science community that has the “nuclear option” and will use it in court.

It is also time to start directing these law suits at some of the instigators of these ID/Creationist hoaxes. They need to be hit in their own wallets.

Yeah, you gotta use the chemicals, in some form. But you don't necessarily have to make them as toxic as you possibly can before administering it to the patients.

O.K.

If you say so.

You obviously don't know anything about Holistic Medicine.

That's all I have to say about that.

You obviously don’t know anything about Holistic Medicine. That’s all I have to say about that.

There is plenty of evidence of an Intelligent Design, plenty, plenty, plenty.

If someone says a proponent of ID has never done anything for the medical profession then yes that is the statement I am making.

lissa said: There isn't a "cure" for genetic diseases anyway, disease is caused by stress on an organism with a genetic susceptibility to that particular disease. PREVENTION is the best way to approach it. And if that doesn't work, then a GOOD ATTITUDE helps.

@ Lissa

You may be amused to know that Stanton recommended me to an article on Wikipedia, Evolution & Sexual Reproduction, to evidence how the sperm & ovum evolved at the same time (Lucky, eh!). As usual, she (you'd never guess) hadn't even read the 1st sentence. She/he also cited articles on Isogamy and Anisogamy with no mention of evolution. All she does is bellow abuse. Quite shameless.

Good luck to ya!

lissa said: Since I've been dealing with these things all my life I think I know very well how SCIENCE works. you must be the one who doesn't have a clue.

lissa said: There is plenty of evidence of an Intelligent Design, plenty, plenty, plenty. If someone says a proponent of ID has never done anything for the medical profession then yes that is the statement I am making.

novparl said: @ Lissa You may be amused to know that Stanton recommended me to an article on Wikipedia, Evolution & Sexual Reproduction, to evidence how the sperm & ovum evolved at the same time (Lucky, eh!). As usual, she (you'd never guess) hadn't even read the 1st sentence. She/he also cited articles on Isogamy and Anisogamy with no mention of evolution. All she does is bellow abuse. Quite shameless. Good luck to ya!

Lissa, your unpleasant experiences with psychoactive pharmaceuticals are irrelevant to the point:

The ID scam was an attempt to get one particular sect's version of Christianity taught in high school science classes.

If you don't understand this, you have not been paying attention.

Maybe that's not how you define ID, because you seem to have your own personal definitions for everything, but that's what the evidence shows. Though it seems you think that whatever you want to believe trumps whatever evidence exists that you don't want to look at.

There is plenty of evidence of an Intelligent Design, plenty, plenty, plenty.

novparl said: As usual, she (you'd never guess)

Furthermore, when did I ever say I was a female?

stevaroni said: Stantonette? Of the famous Marie Stantonettes?

lissa said: Intelligent design is not an Anathema to all Science. It is a method of healing the body naturally as well as medically.

In other words, they think that intelligent design is a method of explaining, not a method of healing.

Once again Novpari displays his willful ignorance. The Wiki article he cites lists two hypotheses regarding the origin of the mechanisms of sexual reproduction and four different hypotheses regarding the origin of sexual reproduction. Furthermore, the Maynard Smith book I recommended two months ago describes the evolution and maintenance of anisogamy and the articles I recommended from scientific journals prove that much is known about the evolution of anisogamy. Of course he claimed that these references were irrelevant without ever bothering to explain why. One got the distinct impression that he never actually read them, imagine that.

If Novpari wishes to argue that we know nothing about the evolution of sex or the origin of anisogamy he is sadly mistaken. If he wishes to argue that we cannot conclusively domonstrate which hypothesis is most explanatory he would be correct, but then again there is no reason why the hypotheses need be mutually exclusive. If he wishes to suggest that we don't know everything about the evolution of sex he would once again be correct, but in that case he would be making absolutely no rational point at all.

Of course Novpari wishes to do none f these things. He merely wishes to cast aspersions and doubts on evolution and to remain ignorant of all of the discoveries of science. In the latter endeavor at least he has succeeded admirably. Oh and by the way, I did request that he cite a scientific reference regarding whatever point it was that he thinks that he was trying to make. Still no response to that one. I wonder why that is?

ID is a pirahna to all science.

Henry J said: ID is a pirahna to all science.

Ah. I guess you didn't follow that thread on AtBC where the anti-evolution poster referred to herself that way (presumably at the time she intended to say "pariah").

Henry

Still blinking at hagfish slime egg substitute... it is April 1st...

jasonmitchell said: WooT to Texans for Freedom - and Texas today: (from the live blog) http://tfnblog.wordpress.com/2009/03/26/live-blogging-the-science-debate/#comments 10:09 - Board member Ken Mercer of San Antonio moves to add “strengths and weaknesses” back into the science standards. 11:13 - Mr. Mercer’s motion fails 7-7!!! in between - a counter proposal was offered "add to the expectation that students analyze and evaluate scientific explanations: “including discussing what is not fully understood so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.” this was also voted down- but discussion over the counter proposal reveals that the change in the standards isn't about academic freedom or about students' ability to ask questions - the ID advocates on the BOE want (IMO) the 'weaknesses' language in the standards specifically to smuggle in creationism/ID there is still hope for Texas!

novparl said: @ Lissa You may be amused to know that Stanton recommended me to an article on Wikipedia, Evolution & Sexual Reproduction, to evidence how the sperm & ovum evolved at the same time (Lucky, eh!). As usual, she (you'd never guess) hadn't even read the 1st sentence. She/he also cited articles on Isogamy and Anisogamy with no mention of evolution. All she does is bellow abuse. Quite shameless. Good luck to ya!

If you were railroaded by the "authorities" on the subject, you'd be bellowing abuse also.

So, I think your critique of what I've said is a little off the mark.

lissa said: I don't condone excluding evolution from an ID course, that's a bit ridiculous.

ps said: If you were railroaded by the "authorities" on the subject, you'd be bellowing abuse also. So, I think your critique of what I've said is a little off the mark.

If you could demonstrate that I DON'T understand the subject, I'd be less hostile.

lissa said: If you could demonstrate that I DON'T understand the subject, I'd be less hostile.

Stanton said:

lissa said: I don't condone excluding evolution from an ID course, that's a bit ridiculous.

I hate to break it to you, but there are no schools that teach "Intelligent Design" courses. Why? That's because Intelligent Design never intended to be an explanation, and it was certainly never intended to be a "method of healing," as per your warped redefinition of it. Intelligent Design was intended to be nothing more than an underhanded trick to slip religious doctrine into science classrooms. Or, perhaps you can tell us where Intelligent Design is defined as a "method of healing," and you can explain to us why "GODDESIGNERDIDIT, so we should stop studying" should be taught as an "option" in a science class.

lissa said:

Stanton said:

lissa said: I don't condone excluding evolution from an ID course, that's a bit ridiculous.

I hate to break it to you, but there are no schools that teach "Intelligent Design" courses. Why? That's because Intelligent Design never intended to be an explanation, and it was certainly never intended to be a "method of healing," as per your warped redefinition of it. Intelligent Design was intended to be nothing more than an underhanded trick to slip religious doctrine into science classrooms. Or, perhaps you can tell us where Intelligent Design is defined as a "method of healing," and you can explain to us why "GODDESIGNERDIDIT, so we should stop studying" should be taught as an "option" in a science class.

Of course there are schools that teach ID, mostly it's taught from a Religious, Philosophical or a Psychological point of view.

lissa said: Of course there are schools that teach ID, mostly it's taught from a Religious, Philosophical or a Psychological point of view.

Fred designed it.

Just kidding.

Like I said in the beginning, if people don't understand the bible, (or other sources of information) they shouldn't be "deciding" about whether it is a valid scientific argument.

Dave Luckett said:

lissa said: Of course there are schools that teach ID, mostly it's taught from a Religious, Philosophical or a Psychological point of view.

There are certainly schools (the urge to use scare quotes there is almost overpowering) that teach that ID is an explanation for the variety of life on Earth. This is because they are religiously or philosophically motivated, and psychologically incapable of accepting the factual evidence, as you imply. But even these schools do not actually teach ID. They can't. There's nothing to teach. No theory, no evidence, no fact, no explanation, no research, no fieldwork, no predictions, no extrapolation, nothing. All ID says is that some unknown designer - a deity or some agency with the same powers - made and installed at least some of the structures of life, at some unknown time, in some unknown way, for some unknown purpose, and may do so again. ID proponents have made no effort to discover any of these vital details and appear to regard questions about them as impertinent or unanswerable. I'm fairly sure you have ID confused with something else. It has nothing to do with any form of healing, heathcraft or medicine. Nobody, not even its most earnest proponents, think it could be used to heal anyone of anything.

Stanton said:

lissa said:

Stanton said:

lissa said: I don't condone excluding evolution from an ID course, that's a bit ridiculous.

I hate to break it to you, but there are no schools that teach "Intelligent Design" courses. Why? That's because Intelligent Design never intended to be an explanation, and it was certainly never intended to be a "method of healing," as per your warped redefinition of it. Intelligent Design was intended to be nothing more than an underhanded trick to slip religious doctrine into science classrooms. Or, perhaps you can tell us where Intelligent Design is defined as a "method of healing," and you can explain to us why "GODDESIGNERDIDIT, so we should stop studying" should be taught as an "option" in a science class.

Of course there are schools that teach ID, mostly it's taught from a Religious, Philosophical or a Psychological point of view.

So how come you've never bothered to name any of these alleged schools, and how come you haven't defined how Intelligent Design is a "method of healing"?

lissa said: If you could demonstrate that I DON'T understand the subject, I'd be less hostile.

LOL. I have demonstrated that I understand the subject perfectly. Medical Practicioners have used these methods forever and ever and ever.

ID is about Astronomy, Physics, Biology, and Chemistry.

Not hard to understand.

lissa said: I never bothered to name them or define how it's a method of healing, because anybody knowledgeable on the subject would already know it.

I haven't suggested that I am the only one knowledgeable on the subject, others have seemed to be suggesting that I'm not knowledgeable on the subject though.

There are many sources actually. Carl Jung would be one.

Here's another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_medicine

Dave lovell said:

lissa said: I never bothered to name them or define how it's a method of healing, because anybody knowledgeable on the subject would already know it.

As you seem to have already established that you are the only person here who is knowledgeable on the subject, may I politely ask that you share this Knowledge with the rest of us?

lissa,

Posting under different names is a violation of the rules here. If you want to have a conversation wth anyone you could at least do them the courtesy of not using more than one name.

Now how about providing a referenece, or any type of documentation regarding your claims that ID is a method of healing. The Wiki article you cite does not contain the term "Intelligent Design" as far as I can see. It does claim that ancient Chinese medical practices were influenced vby Toaism and Buddism. I'm sure that thoee guy will be happy to hear that they have been practicing ID all along!

You are apparently talking about something completely different than anyone else. Unless you can demonstrate that you know what you are talking about, no one here will take you seriously. How about providing a course description of how Intelligent Design is used to heal people. It can be from a course in a "faith-based" school if you like. How about a quote from Jung using the term "Intelligent Design"? Now that would be swell.

You are aware that the ID luminary Dr. Michael Egnor claims that evolutionary theory is not important for medicine aren't you? If you claim that ID is important for medicine, I'm sure that he would love to hear from you. That would show those "Darwinist" bastards once and for all now wouldn't it?

Dan said: lissa, you're not being hostile, you're being funny.

lissa said: LOL. ... Not hard to understand.

lissa said: LOL.

lissa said: LOL. Dave, I don't think I'm the only one knowledgeable on the subject, just others are assuming I am not.

DS said: lissa, Posting under different names is a violation of the rules here. If you want to have a conversation wth anyone you could at least do them the courtesy of not using more than one name. Now how about providing a referenece, or any type of documentation regarding your claims that ID is a method of healing. The Wiki article you cite does not contain the term "Intelligent Design" as far as I can see. It does claim that ancient Chinese medical practices were influenced vby Toaism and Buddism. I'm sure that thoee guy will be happy to hear that they have been practicing ID all along! You are apparently talking about something completely different than anyone else. Unless you can demonstrate that you know what you are talking about, no one here will take you seriously. How about providing a course description of how Intelligent Design is used to heal people. It can be from a course in a "faith-based" school if you like. How about a quote from Jung using the term "Intelligent Design"? Now that would be swell. You are aware that the ID luminary Dr. Michael Egnor claims that evolutionary theory is not important for medicine aren't you? If you claim that ID is important for medicine, I'm sure that he would love to hear from you. That would show those "Darwinist" bastards once and for all now wouldn't it?

Of course Chinese Traditional Medicine is a form of ID.

It is based on the same concept as many other ID forms of medicine.

The Sun, The Moon, The Stars, How it relates to the body.

You clearly don't understand ID all too well yourself.

Lissa, Traditional Medicines, including Traditional Chinese Medicine, which I happen to be studying, have nothing to do with "Intelligent Design."

That you claim they are a part of Intelligent Design does not make it so. That you arrogantly refuse to explain yourself nor do you make even a paltry attempt to support your claim makes us not believe you.

I mean, honestly, if Traditional Chinese Medicine adheres to "Intelligent Design," then how come, for example, the functions of the Large Intestine Meridian have very little to do with the physical functions of the Large Intestines?

lissa said:

DS said: lissa, Posting under different names is a violation of the rules here. If you want to have a conversation wth anyone you could at least do them the courtesy of not using more than one name.

1. I haven't posted under more than one name.

2. I'm not exactly required to name every one of my sources of information to a person, I just offered a few to dave becaue he politely asked me to. Many books have been written on the subject.

ps said: Of course Chinese Traditional Medicine is a form of ID. It is based on the same concept as many other ID forms of medicine.

The Sun, The Moon, The Stars, How it relates to the body.

You clearly don't understand ID all too well yourself.

Stanton said: Lissa, Traditional Medicines, including Traditional Chinese Medicine, which I happen to be studying, have nothing to do with "Intelligent Design." That you claim they are a part of Intelligent Design does not make it so. That you arrogantly refuse to explain yourself nor do you make even a paltry attempt to support your claim makes us not believe you. I mean, honestly, if Traditional Chinese Medicine adheres to "Intelligent Design," then how come, for example, the functions of the Large Intestine Meridian have very little to do with the physical functions of the Large Intestines?

lissa said: ID says that at some point in time a "Creation" process began, that's all it says. If you want to name it FRED, name it FRED, the Jewish People call it by many names.

Those "Darwinist" Bastards are just Arrogant fools who want to think they have all the answers, they obviously couldn't have them any more than anybody else has them.

Darwinists aren't the problem, misunderstanding the entire concept is the problem.

lissa said: I believe I did explain myself, Stanton. If you don't understand it that's your problem I suppose.

Dave explained it, I responded to it, what don't you understand about it?

ID says that at some point in time a "Creation" process began, that's all it says. If you want to name it FRED, name it FRED, the Jewish People call it by many names.

ps said: Those "Darwinist" Bastards are just Arrogant fools who want to think they have all the answers, they obviously couldn't have them any more than anybody else has them. Darwinists aren't the problem, misunderstanding the entire concept is the problem.

Stanton said:

lissa said: I believe I did explain myself, Stanton. If you don't understand it that's your problem I suppose.

Claiming that Intelligent Design encompasses traditional medicines, then refusing to explain why that is so does not make for an explanation. Besides, if it's so easy to explain, then why are you so hesitant, if not terrified to explain yourself, again, allegedly?

Dave explained it, I responded to it, what don't you understand about it?

Dave explained how Intelligent Design is used as a useless fable in some religious schools to explain the diversity of life on earth, and then went on to point out how vacuous it is to teach Intelligent Design, as it does not encourage investigation.

ID says that at some point in time a "Creation" process began, that's all it says. If you want to name it FRED, name it FRED, the Jewish People call it by many names.

So tell me again why you want a vague appeal to a vague, mystical "Creation" taught as an "option" in science, or worse yet biology classes?

lissa said: I did explain why also. It promotes positivity is what I said. I didn't say they had to be taught in a "biology" class, I said right from the start it's a THEORY about the ORIGIN of the UNIVERSE. Cosmic Forces of an unknown kind, etc etc. It's more of a physics thing than a "biology" thing. The LIFE force within us and all living creatures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi

This is what DAVE said:
"All ID says is that some unknown designer - a deity or some agency with the same powers - made and installed at least some of the structures of life, at some unknown time, in some unknown way, for some unknown purpose, and may do so again. ID proponents have made no effort to discover any of these vital details and appear to regard questions about them as impertinent or unanswerable."

Read it for yourself again. I'm not going to keep spelling it out to you.

Dave Luckett said: ID proponents have made no effort to discover any of these vital details and appear to regard questions about them as impertinent or unanswerable.

Dave Luckett also said: I'm fairly sure you have ID confused with something else. It has nothing to do with any form of healing, healthcraft or medicine. Nobody, not even its most earnest proponents, think it could be used to heal anyone of anything.

I'm fairly sure I DID read that part and responded that he was mistaken, I'm fully aware that's what's ID says, and agreed with him.

Need a physics lesson now?

here ya go.

http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html

lissa said: I'm fairly sure I DID read that part and responded that he was mistaken, I'm fully aware that's what's ID says, and agreed with him.

Gee whiz. It's called MIND over MATTER. That's the simple way to put it.

And it was in that article. Did you even read it?

Similarly, controversial new healing techniques such as visualization may work so well because in the holographic domain of thought images are ultimately as real as "reality". Even visions and experiences involving "non-ordinary" reality become explainable under the holographic paradigm. In his book "Gifts of Unknown Things," biologist Lyall Watson discribes his encounter with an Indonesian shaman woman who, by performing a ritual dance, was able to make an entire grove of trees instantly vanish into thin air. Watson relates that as he and another astonished onlooker continued to watch the woman, she caused the trees to reappear, then "click" off again and on again several times in succession. Although current scientific understanding is incapable of explaining such events, experiences like this become more tenable if "hard" reality is only a holographic projection. Perhaps we agree on what is "there" or "not there" because what we call consensus reality is formulated and ratified at the level of the human unconscious at which all minds are infinitely interconnected.

Actually, it's more like what is the matter with your mind?

ID has nothing to do with medicine, mind over matter or disappearing trees. You must be confused.

Or maybe you are just trying to ressurect the old invisible magic hologram hypothesis. Now that was an oldy but a goody. Or maybe you are trying to describe the infamous photons getting information from the magnetic field of the earth routine. That really brings back memories. Believe me, we have already had our share of nuts around here.

Now, do you have any comments about the Texas BOE or not? If not then kindly piss off.

DS said: Actually, it's more like what is the matter with your mind? ID has nothing to do with medicine, mind over matter or disappearing trees. You must be confused. Or maybe you are just trying to ressurect the old invisible magic hologram hypothesis. Now that was an oldy but a goody. Or maybe you are trying to describe the infamous photons getting information from the magnetic field of the earth routine. That really brings back memories. Believe me, we have already had our share of nuts around here. Now, do you have any comments about the Texas BOE or not? If not then kindly piss off.

lissa said:

DS said: Now, do you have any comments about the Texas BOE or not? If not then kindly piss off.

The whole article was about intelligent design, if you don't comprehend intelligent, then why don't you kindly piss off?

Stanton said:

lissa said:

DS said: Now, do you have any comments about the Texas BOE or not? If not then kindly piss off.

The whole article was about intelligent design, if you don't comprehend intelligent, then why don't you kindly piss off?

Not even William Dembski, Michael Behe or even Michael Egnor are desperate or stupid enough to tie magic dancing and disappearing and reappearing trees into medicine and then into Intelligent Design, yet. To say of nothing that you have yet to explain how this ties into the Texas Board of Education's commitment to destroying the educations of all the children in Texas on behalf of the Discovery Institute.

lissa said: I never suggested that people do a magic dance, if you want to take one little thing out of an entire article about ID and bash it, go right ahead, it doesn't make the entire article invalid, it just makes you appear stupid.

lissa, you're in over your head. What you're saying is making less and less sense. I have the feeling that it means something to you, but either you're not communicating the meaning, or else the meaning you think it has is itself an illusion.

I've gone over your posts with care. As far as I can make out, in the first place you think that intelligent design is the same as theistic evolution. It isn't.

Theistic evolution is the idea that there is a God (or some such) who made the Universe, framing its fundamental laws so that it would in time produce life and that the life would evolve according to those laws, and diversify into many different forms. Such a God, being omniscient, would not need to intervene in the natural laws he made, or in the processes that these laws govern. We would not, therefore, be able to see His hand in the process. (In fact, there's an interesting theological argument: to say that God would need to meddle with the processes of His Universe is both to limit Him, and to say He isn't perfect. Both of those statements would be heretical to Christians, and I suspect to Jews and Muslims, too.)

That to one side, theistic evolution isn't what "intelligent design" proposes. ID proponents believe that "a designer" (who can only be God, really) has intervened repeatedly over time to guide evolution. They believe this, because they think that there are structures in various living things that could not have evolved; some of them also appear to believe that some living things (us, for example) are too complex and too ordered to have evolved.

Both of those beliefs are false, so far as anyone knows. There is no evidence for either one, and a great deal of evidence that all living things evolved from earlier and generally simpler forms by natural processes alone, and further evidence that these natural processes were sufficient to do the job without invoking divine (or whatever) intervention. And the intelligent design crowd aren't looking for evidence, which is why what they're doing isn't science. Science looks for evidence, first, before trying to explain it.

But in the second place, this is, as I remarked before, nothing whatsoever to do with any of the other stuff you've been going on about. It has nothing to do with medicine or healing. It has nothing to do with the debate about what is real and what is thought, a philosophical conundrum that goes back to Plato via Descartes, Spinoza, Duns Scotus and others. I realise that debates about ontology delight many people (including me, in a guilty sort of way) but they've got no application here.

Placebos do work, sometimes; nobody knows why, exactly. What you call visualisation sometimes works. Any therapy, no matter what it is, has some success if the patient believes it is helping. Fancy vocabulary like "holographic paradigm" helps, too. It sounds profound and learned and impressive.

Sure, shamans and magicians can do astonishing things. Making trees disappear is simple stuff, by comparison. People have made the Statue of Liberty disappear. One bloke made the entire Suez Canal disappear and reappear somewhere else. Wonderful stuff. But it has nothing to do with the diversity and development of life on Earth, which is what the Theory of Evolution explains, and intelligent design doesn't.

Now, I'll accept that you can see some sort of connection. But you haven't explained what that connection is. Nobody but you can see it, either. So you've got to explain. That is, you have to tell us what the connection is between intelligent design and healing therapy of any kind, and this has to make sense to other people besides you, or nobody here is going to take you seriously.

Dave Luckett said: What you're saying is making less and less sense.

thanks Dave.

No I don't think Intelligent Design is the same as Theistic Evolution.

That's the whole point I've been trying to make all along.

Stanton has been INSISTING that ID is the same as THEISTIC EVOLUTION, I've been trying to get the message across to him that it is NOT.

Basically, the idea is that astrophysics has an effect on our bodies, and what we perceive is a result of what is going on in the BRAIN, there is no reason to believe that we cannot control it and make a change (for better or worse)

The entire thing was misconstrued.

lissa said: thanks Dave. No I don't think Intelligent Design is the same as Theistic Evolution. That's the whole point I've been trying to make all along. Stanton has been INSISTING that ID is the same as THEISTIC EVOLUTION, I've been trying to get the message across to him that it is NOT.

ps. said: Basically, the idea is that astrophysics has an effect on our bodies, and what we perceive is a result of what is going on in the BRAIN, there is no reason to believe that we cannot control it and make a change (for better or worse) The entire thing was misconstrued.

Stanton said:

lissa said: thanks Dave. No I don't think Intelligent Design is the same as Theistic Evolution. That's the whole point I've been trying to make all along. Stanton has been INSISTING that ID is the same as THEISTIC EVOLUTION, I've been trying to get the message across to him that it is NOT.

I have not said, nor have I insisted that Intelligent Design is the same as Theistic Evolution, lissa. I have been saying that Intelligent Design is anathema to science because its proponents insist that life as we know it is too complicated to have arisen through evolution, and that Intelligent Design proponents insist that "We don't understand this" = "GODDESIGNERDIDIT" = "No further study needed." If you insist on putting words in my mouth, then expect me to point out that you're a shameless liar as well as a clueless bullshitter.

Stanton said:

ps. said: Basically, the idea is that astrophysics has an effect on our bodies, and what we perceive is a result of what is going on in the BRAIN, there is no reason to believe that we cannot control it and make a change (for better or worse) The entire thing was misconstrued.

Tell us again how this directly applies to the fact that the Texas Board of Education is trying to destroy the education of the children of Texas, please.

lissa said: You've put plenty of words in my mouth, now haven't you.

Basically, I believe it IS too complicated to understand, because it CAN'T be understood, nobody ever said "no further study needed" though.

lissa said: You've put plenty of words in my mouth, now haven't you.

Stanton said:

lissa said: You've put plenty of words in my mouth, now haven't you.

This coming from the person who posts a link to a story about a magic dance demonstrating Intelligent Design.

Basically, I believe it IS too complicated to understand, because it CAN'T be understood, nobody ever said "no further study needed" though.

If it is too complicated to understand, and "CAN'T" be understood, then how can anyone study it further? You contradict yourself when you say this, then claim that no one ever said "no further study needed." And then there's the fact that the Intelligent Design proponents of the Discovery Institute also contradict what you say about Intelligent Design, both in their confessions that Intelligent Design is intended to be neither a science or an explanation, and by the fact that no Intelligent Design proponent has ever bothered to do research about it.

lissa said: The point was how our atoms are interconnected, perceptions being just perceptions as a result of our infinitely connected atoms and whatnot.

If you want to make an issue about what a person perceived and what they made of it and miss the whole point, that's too bad I guess.

lissa said: Cosmic Forces of an unknown kind, etc etc. It's more of a physics thing than a "biology" thing.

http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html

It can be studied further, but it can't really be understood. It can be understood from a mathematical or a physical point of view, but our intellects don't have the capacity to completely understand it, that's why people just make up theories about it.

ID says that at some point a creation process began, and some day may do so again.

"He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something."

That is a suggestion of an intelligent design at work. It doesn't have to call it "intelligent design" to know it is an "intelligent design"

ps. said: Basically, the idea is that astrophysics has an effect on our bodies, and what we perceive is a result of what is going on in the BRAIN, there is no reason to believe that we cannot control it and make a change (for better or worse) The entire thing was misconstrued.

lissa, I, too, don't want to put words in your mouth. You seem to be saying that life is too complicated to understand, but that further study is needed and useful. Have I got that right?

If so, it's right, in one sense. I think most people, and most scientists, accept that there will always be things we don't understand; and life, being the most complex thing we know of in the Universe, is likely to contain many of them.

But you wouldn't be accepting the need for further study if you thought that no aspect of life could be understood. Therefore, I think you mean that some of the processes and structures of life are well understood, some are not well understood now, but may be better understood with further study (scientists would say "research", but let that go), and some - the precise processes that produce self-awareness and consciousness, for example - may never be well understood.

Fair enough. But, lissa, the processes of evolution are quite well understood now, and the evidence for them is well-established. It is true that there are details not known, and research continues into them, but the main lines are now unimpeachable. All living things have common ancestry. Descent with modification, plus natural selection and other natural means, explains the origin of all the species, including us. It is simply not true to say that these things are not understood. They are well understood, and attested by mountains of evidence. The Theory of Evolution is the only factually tested explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

That's the point, here. Some members of the Texas Board of Education are attempting to mislead the public into thinking that there are other explanations that should be taught, or that there is some sort of 'controversy' over this. There are no such other explanations, and no such controversy. Those Board members are merely attempting to force their religious beliefs on to other people's children.

If you accept that much, then we can all get along. If not, you're in for a fight, and I'm afraid you're well outnumbered here.

It can be studied further, but it can’t really be understood ... our intellects don’t have the capacity to completely understand it, that’s why people just make up theories about it.

Not to mention unarmed. Oh, I guess I just mentioned it.

I'll just throw in my minarchist two cents here and note that a lot of the controversy associated with the teaching of evolution goes away when the state's role in education is minimized.

Seward said: I'll just throw in my minarchist two cents here and note that a lot of the controversy associated with the teaching of evolution goes away when the state's role in education is minimized.

fnxtr,

First, off I would just note that I think science education before college is not very spectacular in the U.S. generally. It is one of the reasons why home schooling is such an appealing option to me.

As for public schools, their mandate is far too expansive, IMHO.

"Or is it okay with you if the god-botherers clutter young minds with lies?"

In a free society have a right to voice their varying opinions on matters and people get to exercise choice as regards to such.

Ultimately I think this whole debate about creationism vs. evolution in the public classroom has far less to do with science and far more to do with competing views on how to create and structure a "good" society where people live the appropriate "good life." As a free market type I try to stand outside that dichotomy and argue that a good society and a good life is based on choice.

Dan said:

ps. said: Basically, the idea is that astrophysics has an effect on our bodies, and what we perceive is a result of what is going on in the BRAIN, there is no reason to believe that we cannot control it and make a change (for better or worse) The entire thing was misconstrued.

Well, I have studied astrophysics extensively, and I can assure you that it hurt my brain, so "ps." is sure right on that point

Dave Luckett said: lissa, I, too, don't want to put words in your mouth. You seem to be saying that life is too complicated to understand, but that further study is needed and useful. Have I got that right? If so, it's right, in one sense. I think most people, and most scientists, accept that there will always be things we don't understand; and life, being the most complex thing we know of in the Universe, is likely to contain many of them. But you wouldn't be accepting the need for further study if you thought that no aspect of life could be understood. Therefore, I think you mean that some of the processes and structures of life are well understood, some are not well understood now, but may be better understood with further study (scientists would say "research", but let that go), and some - the precise processes that produce self-awareness and consciousness, for example - may never be well understood. Fair enough. But, lissa, the processes of evolution are quite well understood now, and the evidence for them is well-established. It is true that there are details not known, and research continues into them, but the main lines are now unimpeachable. All living things have common ancestry. Descent with modification, plus natural selection and other natural means, explains the origin of all the species, including us. It is simply not true to say that these things are not understood. They are well understood, and attested by mountains of evidence. The Theory of Evolution is the only factually tested explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. That's the point, here. Some members of the Texas Board of Education are attempting to mislead the public into thinking that there are other explanations that should be taught, or that there is some sort of 'controversy' over this. There are no such other explanations, and no such controversy. Those Board members are merely attempting to force their religious beliefs on to other people's children. If you accept that much, then we can all get along. If not, you're in for a fight, and I'm afraid you're well outnumbered here.

Wow. Where to start.

First of all, plenty of "other cultures" understand the fact(s) of evolution.

You can play obscure connect-the-dots all you want, but undermining evolution education is what the Intelligent Design "movement" (in the proctological rather than musical sense) actually is.

Again, this may not be your personal definition of Intelligent Design, but that's how the rest of the known universe uses it.

You are right in one sense about the (manufactured) debate, it is "has no bearing on what is factual". Evolution is a fact, whether ID is taught as a cowardly excuse for biblical literalism or not.

Your new-age flakery is another matter all together.

First, off I would just note that I think science education before college is not very spectacular in the U.S. generally. It is one of the reasons why home schooling is such an appealing option to me.

fnxtr said: Wow. Where to start. First of all, plenty of "other cultures" understand the fact(s) of evolution. You can play obscure connect-the-dots all you want, but undermining evolution education is what the Intelligent Design "movement" (in the proctological rather than musical sense) actually is. Again, this may not be your personal definition of Intelligent Design, but that's how the rest of the known universe uses it. You are right in one sense about the (manufactured) debate, it is "has no bearing on what is factual". Evolution is a fact, whether ID is taught as a cowardly excuse for biblical literalism or not. Your new-age flakery is another matter all together.

Lissa, you were the one that insisted there were ID courses and then went off the rails about alternative medicine and astrophysics. Do you agree now that these have nothing to do with what the rest of the world understands by ID?

Sorry, "the one who insisted". What would Safire think.

IMPERTINENT:

1. intrusive or presumptuous, as persons or their actions; insolently rude; uncivil: a brash, impertinent youth.
2. not pertinent or relevant; irrelevant: an impertinent detail.
3. Archaic. inappropriate, incongruous, or absurd.
4. Obsolete. (of persons) trivial, silly, or absurd.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So far lissa has said there are plenty of ID books without naming one, plenty of ID course without naming one, plenty of evidence for ID without divulging any. Since most people here are quite extensively familiar with the literature and practice of ID, these claims ring very hollow absent anything other than specious assertions.

But lissa is correct that ID has been clearly defined. It is the claim that somehow, somewhere, something designed life as we know it, by means nobody has yet been able even to suggest any test for. The sum total of "evidence" for ID has consisted of negative (and invariably false) allegations about "problems" with evolutionary theory, with the implicit presumption that if evolution is false, magic must somehow be true.

I suppose it would be incomplete to omit that support for the validity of ID comes almost exclusively from one particular religious sect, on the self-evident grounds that if evolution is correct, this religious faith must be wrong, which cannot be countenanced.

Flint said: So far lissa has said there are plenty of ID books without naming one, plenty of ID course without naming one, plenty of evidence for ID without divulging any. Since most people here are quite extensively familiar with the literature and practice of ID, these claims ring very hollow absent anything other than specious assertions. But lissa is correct that ID has been clearly defined. It is the claim that somehow, somewhere, something designed life as we know it, by means nobody has yet been able even to suggest any test for. The sum total of "evidence" for ID has consisted of negative (and invariably false) allegations about "problems" with evolutionary theory, with the implicit presumption that if evolution is false, magic must somehow be true. I suppose it would be incomplete to omit that support for the validity of ID comes almost exclusively from one particular religious sect, on the self-evident grounds that if evolution is correct, this religious faith must be wrong, which cannot be countenanced.

lissa said:

Flint said: So far lissa has said there are plenty of ID books without naming one, plenty of ID course without naming one, plenty of evidence for ID without divulging any. Since most people here are quite extensively familiar with the literature and practice of ID, these claims ring very hollow absent anything other than specious assertions. [snip]

I have offered plenty of sources of information actually. Make of them whatever you would like to make of them. Want some more? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocrates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_medicine

• ID Books
• ID courses
• evidence for ID

fnxtr,

"Some would suggest another solution: improve public science education."

Exactly how much more money are we supposed to pour into that project?

Public education is for so many students failure in significant part because in the U.S. at least because most education is monopolized by the state. More public instruction isn't going to solve that.

"Improving education for everyone makes a stronger country, does it not?"

Perhaps, or much of it might simply be a misallocation or overallocation of resources. I will state that I think that the assumption that everyone must complete a K through 12 standard education as it exists today is a debatable one. This illustrates one of the primary problems with the sort of formal and informal centralization, mandates, etc. that we see with public education; namely it poorly serves anyone who is at the margins of what we might call the average student population. It sucks for the especially bright children and for those who are not as bright as the majority of their classmates. It also fails to bring to fruition the diversity of aptitudes that one would naturally find in a student population.

fnxtr,

Anyway, I am pretty enthusiastic about home schooling. Translating Virgil and reading the Pre-Socratics; oh the joys. :)

Seward, you are right, public education is far from ideal. I was very nearly sent to an enriched school, but apparently there was an issue with bus routes. Not everyone has the resources (i.e. time and/or money) for private education or home schooling, especially now that it seems to take more and more dual incomes to support a family. I see teachers as a resource like nurses and doctors, there never will be enough money, ever, anywhere, to pay the good ones what they're worth. I find it odd that after railing against the 'expansiveness' of public education you extol the joys of reading in Latin. Nice work if you can get it, I guess.

"A good society based on choice", you say. Who gets to choose? Where's the line between democracy and anarchy? There needs to be some kind of social contract, a set of common goals, for a society to function at all. I think a basic education is an important goal and should be part of the social contract.

lissa said:

Flint said: So far lissa has said there are plenty of ID books without naming one, plenty of ID course without naming one, plenty of evidence for ID without divulging any. [snip]

I have offered plenty of sources of information actually. Make of them whatever you would like to make of them. Want some more? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocrates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_medicine

I am getting it. Are you getting it? the "Quacks" and the "Charlatans" are the ones who would like to suppress all Creation Theories as a means of understanding Intelligent Design.

Every word I have said has been deliberately misconconstrued.

Meditation has health benefits, like it or not.

The Hebrews interpret the bible in various ways, they even state that some of their beliefs were borrowed from other societies. If you haven't studied it yourself, you don't exactly have the right to suggest it isn't valid.

lissa said: I am getting it. Are you getting it? the "Quacks" and the "Charlatans" are the ones who would like to suppress all Creation Theories as a means of understanding Intelligent Design.

Every word I have said has been deliberately misconconstrued.\

Meditation has health benefits, like it or not.

The Hebrews interpret the bible in various ways, they even state that some of their beliefs were borrowed from other societies. If you haven't studied it yourself, you don't exactly have the right to suggest it isn't valid.

Yoga has health benefits, Tai Chi has health benefits, Pilates has health benefits.

Just keep on insulting me. It doesn't bother me a bit.

fnxtr said:

lissa said: I am getting it. Are you getting it? the "Quacks" and the "Charlatans" are the ones who would like to suppress all Creation Theories as a means of understanding Intelligent Design.

No. Try again: "Intelligent Design" is a particular, specific scam, perpetrated by specific individuals, to smuggle biblical literalism into high school science classes. Now repeat that back to me so I know you understand it. Sure, other creation myths will get expunged if the dominionists have their way, but their target is the science of evolution. Clearly, you still do not understand this, apparently, to you, Intelligent Design is any kind of supernatural explanation of life. No one else means this when they say "Intelligent Design". You are the only one using the term as you do. You can play Humpty-Dumpty with your credulous friends (using words to mean whatever you want them to mean), but not here.

Every word I have said has been deliberately misconconstrued.\

Because you keep harping on your alternative medicine schtick as if it had anything to do with the Intelligent Design scam and the undermining of science education, which is the topic of this thread. It does not.

Meditation has health benefits, like it or not.

Probably. SFW? How does this have anything to do with Creationism for Cowards, aka Intelligent Design?

The Hebrews interpret the bible in various ways, they even state that some of their beliefs were borrowed from other societies. If you haven't studied it yourself, you don't exactly have the right to suggest it isn't valid.

Again, so what? What on earth is the connection between the source of Hebrew myths and what Intelligent Design actually means (stealth creationism), as opposed to what you want it to mean?

I meant it's YOUR problem, not MINE of course.

Can you play connect the dots? It's pretty easy actually, especially if the dots have numbers on them.

1. In the beginning
2. And the earth was without form, and void;
3. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
4.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

and so on.

I'll try once more, but I don't suppose I'll do any better this time.

lissa, nobody is deliberately misconstruing you. We just don't understand what you're talking about, but this isn't because you're too deep or learned for us. It's because what you say is so disconnected and so vague and so self-referential as to make no sense at all.

For the last time, there is no connection between Intelligent Design and any sort of health therapy. We are not talking about health therapies. That there may be therapeutic benefits to meditation, or placebos, or whatever, is undoubted, but it has nothing to do with teaching the Theory of Evolution and not teaching Intelligent Design in the public schools, which is what we ARE talking about.

We want the former and not the latter because the Theory of Evolution is supported by evidence, and Intelligent Design is not. ID is no more than a religious idea dressed up with scientific-sounding words, and no evidence exists for it. It is not science, and it should not be taught as science. At all. Ever. Anywhere. And certainly not in the public schools at the taxpayer's charge.

OK?

You could learn something from "humpty dumpty" if you had an open mind about it, but apparently some people refuse to have an open mind.

LOL

And now I've read lissa's last post, which appears to confirm that she is a biblical literalist and a creationist. And here I was, naively assuming that she was simply a little flaky.

She's a lot worse than flaky.

Dave Luckett said: And now I've read lissa's last post, which appears to confirm that she is a biblical literalist and a creationist. And here I was, naively assuming that she was simply a little flaky. She's a lot worse than flaky.

Dave Luckett said: I'll try once more, but I don't suppose I'll do any better this time. lissa, nobody is deliberately misconstruing you. We just don't understand what you're talking about, but this isn't because you're too deep or learned for us. It's because what you say is so disconnected and so vague and so self-referential as to make no sense at all. For the last time, there is no connection between Intelligent Design and any sort of health therapy. We are not talking about health therapies. That there may be therapeutic benefits to meditation, or placebos, or whatever, is undoubted, but it has nothing to do with teaching the Theory of Evolution and not teaching Intelligent Design in the public schools, which is what we ARE talking about. We want the former and not the latter because the Theory of Evolution is supported by evidence, and Intelligent Design is not. ID is no more than a religious idea dressed up with scientific-sounding words, and no evidence exists for it. It is not science, and it should not be taught as science. At all. Ever. Anywhere. And certainly not in the public schools at the taxpayer's charge. OK?

No, lissa, it's not a political thing, and you clearly don't understand, no matter how much you say you do. I suspect you don't want to understand, or you want to give the impression that you don't understand.

The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with politics, just as Intelligent Design has nothing to do with health, or healing, or therapy, or theory of mind. Nor is the Theory of Evolution a consensus of opinion, nor does it matter whether it is "socially acceptable" or unacceptable. Those are irrelevant. The Theory of Evolution should be taught, and no other explanation for the diversity of life should be, because the evidence supports the Theory of Evolution, and no evidence supports any other explanation.

You don't seem to get this. You've gone back over this time and time again. A description of reality is not accurate just because someone says it is, not even if many people say it is. It is accurate if the testable evidence supports it, and only then.

No politics. No alternative health therapies. No mystical experiences. No personal opinions. No quotes from ancient texts. No personal anecdotes. No ifs, buts or maybes. No ideas from religious thought, no matter whether Jewish, Islamic, Christian or any other. No faith statements. None of that stuff. Testable, repeatable evidence drawn from nature, rigorously analysed in ways designed to eliminate observer bias. Nothing else counts in science.

Now I've said it as plainly as I can. After this, if you come back with something irrelevant or nonsensical - as you have done three or four times at least - I'll know you're only a troll, and you're only trying to annoy us. That's when I stop responding.

it's a form of censorship. Y'all can call it whatever y'all want to call it.

I call things like I see them.

Dave Luckett said: No, lissa, it's not a political thing, and you clearly don't understand, no matter how much you say you do. I suspect you don't want to understand, or you want to give the impression that you don't understand. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with politics, just as Intelligent Design has nothing to do with health, or healing, or therapy, or theory of mind. Nor is the Theory of Evolution a consensus of opinion, nor does it matter whether it is "socially acceptable" or unacceptable. Those are irrelevant. The Theory of Evolution should be taught, and no other explanation for the diversity of life should be, because the evidence supports the Theory of Evolution, and no evidence supports any other explanation. You don't seem to get this. You've gone back over this time and time again. A description of reality is not accurate just because someone says it is, not even if many people say it is. It is accurate if the testable evidence supports it, and only then. No politics. No alternative health therapies. No mystical experiences. No personal opinions. No quotes from ancient texts. No personal anecdotes. No ifs, buts or maybes. No ideas from religious thought, no matter whether Jewish, Islamic, Christian or any other. No faith statements. None of that stuff. Testable, repeatable evidence drawn from nature, rigorously analysed in ways designed to eliminate observer bias. Nothing else counts in science. Now I've said it as plainly as I can. After this, if you come back with something irrelevant or nonsensical - as you have done three or four times at least - I'll know you're only a troll, and you're only trying to annoy us. That's when I stop responding.

lissa wrote:

"No, I’m not just trying to annoy you at all. I think something can be learned from it regardless of how it is “taught” Of course it’s about politics, it’s always been about politics, division of lands/wars/attempts to “convert” others, persecuting others, enslaving others, killing others even."

Well, finally something we can agree on. That describes creationism exactly. Now evolution on the other hand IS all about the science. Scientists don't do any of the things that creationists do, why would they? Creationists don't do any of the things that scientists do, why would they?

The thing is lissa, this site is about the SCIENCE. If you are unwilling or unable to discuss the science, than quite frankly no one will care abput your personal problems with the medical establishment. That simply has nothing to do with ID, no matter how much you try to make it so. There are plenty of other sites where you can discuss holistic medicine or herbal remedies or whatever you like, this isn't one of them.

"observing" is the only way to test something, I agree with you there.

But what ONE person observes, is not necessarily what another has observed.

Therefore, one would HAVE to be biased in there views.

Just because "Darwin" observed one thing, and "Black Elk" "Moses" "Albert Einstein" or "Kris Kringle" observed something else doesn't make it irrelevant to "science"

ps said: "observing" is the only way to test something, I agree with you there. But what ONE person observes, is not necessarily what another has observed. Therefore, one would HAVE to be biased in there views. Just because "Darwin" observed one thing, and "Black Elk" "Moses" "Albert Einstein" or "Kris Kringle" observed something else doesn't make it irrelevant to "science"

DS said: lissa wrote: "No, I’m not just trying to annoy you at all. I think something can be learned from it regardless of how it is “taught” Of course it’s about politics, it’s always been about politics, division of lands/wars/attempts to “convert” others, persecuting others, enslaving others, killing others even." Well, finally something we can agree on. That describes creationism exactly. Now evolution on the other hand IS all about the science. Scientists don't do any of the things that creationists do, why would they? Creationists don't do any of the things that scientists do, why would they? The thing is lissa, this site is about the SCIENCE. If you are unwilling or unable to discuss the science, than quite frankly no one will care abput your personal problems with the medical establishment. That simply has nothing to do with ID, no matter how much you try to make it so. There are plenty of other sites where you can discuss holistic medicine or herbal remedies or whatever you like, this isn't one of them.

Dave Lovell said:

ps said: "observing" is the only way to test something, I agree with you there. But what ONE person observes, is not necessarily what another has observed. Therefore, one would HAVE to be biased in there views. Just because "Darwin" observed one thing, and "Black Elk" "Moses" "Albert Einstein" or "Kris Kringle" observed something else doesn't make it irrelevant to "science"

Moses allegedly observed something and others believed his stories. Darwin observed something and told others where they could observe it for themselves. See the difference between Science and Faith?

lissa said: Yes, I know the site is about science. Medicine is about science, Holistic Approaches are also about science.

Dave Lovell said:

lissa said: Yes, I know the site is about science. Medicine is about science, Holistic Approaches are also about science.

Good medicine is validated by Science. "Alternative" medicine, if shown by science to work, is no longer "alternative", otherwise it is Bullshit.

Dave Lovell said:

lissa said: Yes, I know the site is about science. Medicine is about science, Holistic Approaches are also about science.

Good medicine is validated by Science. "Alternative" medicine, if shown by science to work, is no longer "alternative", otherwise it is Bullshit.

The whole thing is almost as stupid as this article.
http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/parenting/quot-i-never-encouraged-parents-to-let-their-babies-cry-it-out-quot-439901/
"It's flattering that my name is out there, but it suggests a misunderstanding of what I've been teaching for so long that it concerns me. I've always believed that there are many solutions to sleep problems, and that every family and every child is unique. People want one easy solution, but there's no such thing. I never encouraged parents to let their babies cry it out, but one of the many treatment styles I described in my book is gradual extinction, where you delay your response time to your baby's wakings. I went to great pains in the second edition to clarify that that treatment is not appropriate for every sleep issue, of which there are many. So if someone tells me they tried my "method," I know they only read one small part of my book"

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Lissa asks: Can you play connect the dots? It’s pretty easy actually, especially if the dots have numbers on them. 1. In the beginning 2. And the earth was without form, and void; 3. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 4. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

LOL. Only YOU KNOW WHO knows.

stevaroni said:

Lissa asks: Can you play connect the dots? It’s pretty easy actually, especially if the dots have numbers on them. 1. In the beginning 2. And the earth was without form, and void; 3. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 4. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Well, Lissa, first, how about you objectively demonstrate that any of these dots actually exist. That's the the problem with ID. They insist on arguing about everything - except, of course, about anything that could establishing their story, which, is always sort of there, to be accepted as if by magic. Or dare I say, by "poof".

ps said: "observing" is the only way to test something, I agree with you there. But what ONE person observes, is not necessarily what another has observed. Therefore, one would HAVE to be biased in there views. Just because "Darwin" observed one thing, and "Black Elk" "Moses" "Albert Einstein" or "Kris Kringle" observed something else doesn't make it irrelevant to "science"

Yeah, I see the difference.

It's an explanation of a tribe (sect if you want to call it that) of people making a set of laws for themselves to live by, and establishing a military for themselves to protect themselves against others who would like to abolish them.

Not much wrong with that as far as I can tell.

I might add that our "Separation of the Church" thing has become just a means of our government to establish an "Anti-Church"

I don't really see it much different than that. Our culture is primarily Christian. We have people of other religions too of course, but as far as I can figure out only ATHEISTS do the most complaining about things.

It makes for a bland society IMO.

lissa said: I might add that our "Separation of the Church" thing has become just a means of our government to establish an "Anti-Church"

I don't really see it much different than that. Our culture is primarily Christian. We have people of other religions too of course, but as far as I can figure out only ATHEISTS do the most complaining about things. It makes for a bland society IMO.

lissa,

Congratulations, you have finally approached actually making a comment about the topic of the thread. See, that wasn't so hard now was it?

Now, exactly which religion do you think that the government should have preached in public schools? If you answer Christianity, which brand? Should it be decided by majority vote? What if your religion isn't in the majority, would that be OK regardless of what religion won the election? Would it be OK with you if atheists became the majority in this country, then would you allow them to be free of religious indoctrination?

And what should we teach in science class if some scientific finidings do not conform to the majority religious view? And what exactly should we do with the Constitution? If you want to do away with it, remember that you will automatically lose your freedom of religion.

Oh well, at least we're not discussing imaginary "ID medicine" anymore.

lissa,

Congratulations, you have finally approached actually making a comment about the topic of the thread. See, that wasn't so hard now was it?

Now, exactly which religion do you think that the government should have preached in public schools? If you answer Christianity, which brand? Should it be decided by majority vote? What if your religion isn't in the majority, would that be OK regardless of what religion won the election? Would it be OK with you if atheists became the majority in this country, then would you allow them to be free of religious indoctrination?

And what should we teach in science class if some scientific finidings do not conform to the majority religious view? And what exactly should we do with the Constitution? If you want to do away with it, remember that you will automatically lose your freedom of religion.

Oh well, at least we're not discussing imaginary "ID medicine" anymore.

lissa said: I might add that our "Separation of the Church" thing has become just a means of our government to establish an "Anti-Church" I don't really see it much different than that. Our culture is primarily Christian. We have people of other religions too of course, but as far as I can figure out only ATHEISTS do the most complaining about things. It makes for a bland society IMO.

Lissa says: I can be as objective as the next person, I believe people who say they DON’T exist aren’t being objective about it.

DS said: lissa, Congratulations, you have finally approached actually making a comment about the topic of the thread. See, that wasn't so hard now was it? Now, exactly which religion do you think that the government should have preached in public schools? If you answer Christianity, which brand? Should it be decided by majority vote? What if your religion isn't in the majority, would that be OK regardless of what religion won the election? Would it be OK with you if atheists became the majority in this country, then would you allow them to be free of religious indoctrination? And what should we teach in science class if some scientific finidings do not conform to the majority religious view? And what exactly should we do with the Constitution? If you want to do away with it, remember that you will automatically lose your freedom of religion. Oh well, at least we're not discussing imaginary "ID medicine" anymore.

Stanton said:

lissa said: I might add that our "Separation of the Church" thing has become just a means of our government to establish an "Anti-Church" I don't really see it much different than that. Our culture is primarily Christian. We have people of other religions too of course, but as far as I can figure out only ATHEISTS do the most complaining about things. It makes for a bland society IMO.

Furthermore, lissa, if you actually bothered to get a clue, if the government would enforce "Separation of Church and State" appropriately and effectively, we wouldn't be seeing creationists and their political cronies trying to water down then totally destroy this country's educational systems by legally mandating the teaching of Creationism in science classrooms, like how the Texas Board of Education is trying to do right now.

stevaroni said:

Lissa says: I can be as objective as the next person, I believe people who say they DON’T exist aren’t being objective about it.

Well, I'm a pretty objective guy (I have to be, I'm an engineer in a field where I do not have the luxury of pretending that the physical laws of nature are anything other than what I can objectively measure). So let's be objective about this, Lissa. Evolution had boatloads of evidence which seems to support it. Historically, of course, there has been the fossil record (notably the ancestral primate fossils), but Darwin reached his conclusions based on a different tack, physical morphology. That's two. Of course, then in the 50's genetics opened up as a field,and produced results that dovetailed precisely with the generally accepted model. That's three different strands of evidence, all of which lead to the same conclusion. And over the same 200 years, armed with access tot he same data, Intelligent Design (which for millenia had been the undisputed leading theory) has produced the following evidence... Um... Well, exactly none. So, let's be objective here, Lissa, as you suggest. I objectively state that ID is vacuous because it contains no evidence. And considering that we're talking about a model where the fingerprint of God should literally be everywhere, the total, complete, unrelenting absence therof is damning. Objectively, The emperor has no clothes.

lissa,

So you want to do away with the Constitution and let the religion with the most people run the country and the school system. Good luck with that. You let me know how that works out for you. That has certainly never been tried before, Oh wait...

And I guess that means that everyone gets to vote on what science to teach as well. After all, the majority always wins in science right?

By the way, everyone is perfectly free to practice their religion anywhere they want. They just aren't free to force it on others. If you don't want that kind of freedom, then I demand that you bow down and pray toward Mecca three times a day.

DS said: lissa, So you want to do away with the Constitution and let the religion with the most people run the country and the school system. Good luck with that. You let me know how that works out for you. That has certainly never been tried before, Oh wait... And I guess that means that everyone gets to vote on what science to teach as well. After all, the majority always wins in science right? By the way, everyone is perfectly free to practice their religion anywhere they want. They just aren't free to force it on others. If you don't want that kind of freedom, then I demand that you bow down and pray toward Mecca three times a day.

DS said: lissa, So you want to do away with the Constitution and let the religion with the most people run the country and the school system. Good luck with that. You let me know how that works out for you. That has certainly never been tried before, Oh wait... And I guess that means that everyone gets to vote on what science to teach as well. After all, the majority always wins in science right? By the way, everyone is perfectly free to practice their religion anywhere they want. They just aren't free to force it on others. If you don't want that kind of freedom, then I demand that you bow down and pray toward Mecca three times a day.

That's it, I give up. Good luck with this nutjob.

lissa said: NO children are punished for practicing their religion in sschool all the time, don't tell me it doesn't happen, because I know it does.

Yeah, The “EMPOROR” has no clothes, should not be personified, is only Depicted as a Person in Mythology. Have these “Mythological” Figures ever existed? How could one Imagine them if they didn’t exist? They were depicted everywhere in Art.

that doesn’t mean there is nothing to learn from studying the “EMPOROR’S” Character.

Right, there's a certain logic to it all. Basically I don't particularly care one way or another what the "source" of information is.

Imaginination is the ONLY way to ackomplish anything. If Dragons exist in a DREAM, it is there whether someone else says it doesn't exist or not, they can't dispute what another person's brain perceived.

All sources of information are vital to the further development of our race. Perhaps we will just be destroyed by our ARROGANCE of interfering with nature to begin with. Why should I care?

lissa,

Thanks for answering all my questions. Now, as for satan worshippers practicing their religion in school, why exactly would they want to do that? How exactly would they want to do that? Why do you want them to do that? Do you think that the Texas BOE is going to go along with that? You better give them a call right away.

Basically the whole thing is too absurd to even debate about.

I might have heard what sounded like a choir of angels, or I might have heard voices telling me they were here to help me, or something.

Who is anyone else to say I DIDN'T hear it? It's called an auditory hallucination, the SOURCE of it was the chemistry in my brain.

Just like many people prior to dying see loved ones. Or people who know somebody that just died saw a loved one.

Who can dispute that that the person saw it? NOBODY.

DS said: lissa, Thanks for answering all my questions. Now, as for satan worshippers practicing their religion in school, why exactly would they want to do that? How exactly would they want to do that? Why do you want them to do that? Do you think that the Texas BOE is going to go along with that? You better give them a call right away.

lissa,

I see. So your position is that satan worshipers bring their Bibles to school and read them with no problem, but Christians are persecuted and are not allowed to read their Bibles in school. Right, got it.

Seems like the christians on the Texas BOE are so persecuted that they are trying to inject their own religious beliefs into science classes. If they have their way, do you really think that the satan worshippers will still be safe to practice their religion in school?

Now what about human sacrifice? If that is part of your religion should you be allowed to do that in a public school?

As for what you reportedly heard and saw, nobody has disputed that, NOBODY.

DS said: Seems like the christians on the Texas BOE are so persecuted that they are trying to inject their own religious beliefs into science classes. If they have their way, do you really think that the satan worshippers will still be safe to practice their religion in school?

lissa said: Basically the whole thing is too absurd to even debate about.

Right, there’s a certain logic to it all. Basically I don’t particularly care one way or another what the “source” of information is.

stevaroni said:

Right, there’s a certain logic to it all. Basically I don’t particularly care one way or another what the “source” of information is.

Uh huh. I suspect that when there's actually something you perceive as valuable riding on it, the veracity of the source matters a lot. The BS tends to walk in tose situations. For instance, since we're talking about Texas, let's imagine that you're visiting the Lone Star state here, and you befriend a cute little armadillo orphan and take it home. (they are quite cute, I can tell you that from personal experience). Some weeks later, you notice a tingling in fingers and go to the doctor. Turns out that armadillos are often symptomless carriers Mycobacterium Leprae and you are now the proud owner of a brand-new case of leprosy. Now, you have two choices. The drug clofazimine has been shown to be totally effective at curing the disease in a week, It's been in use since the 40's so there are reams of factual evidence for it's safety and efficiacy. On the other hand, the book of Leviticus is extremely specific about another good cure for leprosy, you splash the blood of a dove on your left ear for a similar length of time. Fortunately, Texas has a good population of mourning doves, I see them every day at my bird feeder, so that should be easy enough to arrange. So, um, if both of these treatments are reported as effective in their associated literature (and you do claim to be a biblical literalist) you have a choice here Lissa. Which treatment would you choose for your case of leprosy. And why?

Stanton said:

DS said: Seems like the christians on the Texas BOE are so persecuted that they are trying to inject their own religious beliefs into science classes. If they have their way, do you really think that the satan worshippers will still be safe to practice their religion in school?

Or would Jews, Muslims and Atheists be safe to practice or not practice their religions, either, for that matter?

Dan said:

lissa said: Basically the whole thing is too absurd to even debate about.

I agree. So why do continue to do so?

stevaroni said:

Right, there’s a certain logic to it all. Basically I don’t particularly care one way or another what the “source” of information is.

Uh huh. I suspect that when there's actually something you perceive as valuable riding on it, the veracity of the source matters a lot. The BS tends to walk in tose situations. For instance, since we're talking about Texas, let's imagine that you're visiting the Lone Star state here, and you befriend a cute little armadillo orphan and take it home. (they are quite cute, I can tell you that from personal experience). Some weeks later, you notice a tingling in fingers and go to the doctor. Turns out that armadillos are often symptomless carriers Mycobacterium Leprae and you are now the proud owner of a brand-new case of leprosy. Now, you have two choices. The drug clofazimine has been shown to be totally effective at curing the disease in a week, It's been in use since the 40's so there are reams of factual evidence for it's safety and efficiacy. On the other hand, the book of Leviticus is extremely specific about another good cure for leprosy, you splash the blood of a dove on your left ear for a similar length of time. Fortunately, Texas has a good population of mourning doves, I see them every day at my bird feeder, so that should be easy enough to arrange. So, um, if both of these treatments are reported as effective in their associated literature (and you do claim to be a biblical literalist) you have a choice here Lissa. Which treatment would you choose for your case of leprosy. And why?

lissa,

Exactly what do you think would happen if the most popular religion got to run the public school system? Do you really think that science, including evoution would be taught properly? Read the material at the top of this post if you want a clue as to what the fundamentalists have in mind for science education.

Please document exactly who told kids that they couldn't pray in school or who told them that they couldn't bring their Bibles to school. Exactly how do you think that anyone can stop another person from praying? There are many things that are illegal because of the Consittution, these are not among them. Crying persecution is not going to help your argument of religious bigotry and intolerance.

DS said: lissa, Exactly what do you think would happen if the most popular religion got to run the public school system? Do you really think that science, including evoution would be taught properly? Read the material at the top of this post if you want a clue as to what the fundamentalists have in mind for science education. Please document exactly who told kids that they couldn't pray in school or who told them that they couldn't bring their Bibles to school. Exactly how do you think that anyone can stop another person from praying? There are many things that are illegal because of the Consittution, these are not among them. Crying persecution is not going to help your argument of religious bigotry and intolerance.

Humiliating kids because of their religion is BS. Whether you want to think it's a non-issue or not.

Let's hope we never find out. Here is a hint, political parties are not trying to throw out the Constitution and political parties are not trying to replace science education with religious indoctrination, the fundamentalists are. Is that really the kind of country you want to live in? If so, what's stopping you from moving there?

And once again you have completely ignored all of my other questions. But that's OK, I'm getting used to it. Your made up persecution complex isn't going to fool anyone anyway.

DS said: Let's hope we never find out. Here is a hint, political parties are not trying to throw out the Constitution and political parties are not trying to replace science education with religious indoctrination, the fundamentalists are. Is that really the kind of country you want to live in? If so, what's stopping you from moving there? And once again you have completely ignored all of my other questions. But that's OK, I'm getting used to it. Your made up persecution complex isn't going to fool anyone anyway.

It IS the kind of country I live in. I don't have a choice in the matter. I gave up lobbying a long time ago actually it turned out to be more detrimental to my health than helpful.

lissa said: And some diseases can be reversed simply by practicing stress reduction techniches.

lissa said: I never said that they should changing facts and inject unproven things into a Science class Stanton. I said all along evolution should be taught properly. However Christians do get bothered all the time, and other people get bothered by Christians too but not in the same sense. Telling kids they can't pray in school, or telling them to leave their bibles at home is against the law.

lissa,

I never claimed that polictical parties were doing a good job, I merely claimed that if the country were run by any one religious faction things would most likely be much worse. You apparently disagree, especially when it comes to education. Well you can always home school if you don't like the public school system. You do have that right in this country.

Now, if you don't like the way things are run in this country just move. But don't try forcing your religious beliefs on others using tax dollars. It won't work, never did, never will.

DS said: Let's hope we never find out. Here is a hint, political parties are not trying to throw out the Constitution and political parties are not trying to replace science education with religious indoctrination, the fundamentalists are. Is that really the kind of country you want to live in? If so, what's stopping you from moving there? And once again you have completely ignored all of my other questions. But that's OK, I'm getting used to it. Your made up persecution complex isn't going to fool anyone anyway.

DS said: lissa, I never claimed that polictical parties were doing a good job, I merely claimed that if the country were run by any one religious faction things would most likely be much worse. You apparently disagree, especially when it comes to education. Well you can always home school if you don't like the public school system. You do have that right in this country. Now, if you don't like the way things are run in this country just move. But don't try forcing your religious beliefs on others using tax dollars. It won't work, never did, never will.

Stanton said:

lissa said: And some diseases can be reversed simply by practicing stress reduction techniches.

So tell us how a cancer patient can cure himself by imagining his cells back to health, and tell us how one can cure an infection of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, already.

lissa said: I never said that they should changing facts and inject unproven things into a Science class Stanton. I said all along evolution should be taught properly. However Christians do get bothered all the time, and other people get bothered by Christians too but not in the same sense. Telling kids they can't pray in school, or telling them to leave their bibles at home is against the law.

The thing is, lissa, there are other people out there who want religious superstition taught in place of facts in a science class, namely creationists and their political cronies, such as those who run the Texas Board of Education, who have said so. Among things, too, lissa, they would also very much like to see every student in the country either converted to their specific sect of Christianity, or run out on a rail.

Cancer would probably be very difficult to heal purely through imagining it healed. The genetic changes that happen in cancer are very complex, I wouldn't recommend it for Cancer.

lissa,

So you wants the most popular religion to run the school system but you also want science and evolution to be taught properly. You wants to do away with the Constitution and separation of church and state but you wants your own religious freedom. Well good luck with that, let me know how it works out for you.

As for the evidence you cite, students were suspended for not saluting the flag and students were asked not to have Bible study on school grounds during recess. No one was prevented from praying and no one was asked not to bring thir Bibles to school. (I can't really be sure because your third link didn't work, but considering the source I strongly suspect bias anyway). So you think that putting the church in charge of education will make the situation better? Try again.

lissa said: I never tried to force my religious beliefs on others, not once, all I demand is that people have respect for others who DO have religious beliefs, and I don't think it's unreasonable.

Why should I move when I can just decide it ain't a battle worth fighting because it can't be won?

Yes I know Stanton, I've repeatedly said that I oppose religious doctrine being taught as SCIENCE

This particular science is still in it's infancy but here it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity

ps said: Cancer would probably be very difficult to heal purely through imagining it healed. The genetic changes that happen in cancer are very complex, I wouldn't recommend it for Cancer.

Stanton said:

ps said: Cancer would probably be very difficult to heal purely through imagining it healed. The genetic changes that happen in cancer are very complex, I wouldn't recommend it for Cancer.

Then tell us how imaginary imagining healing will cure leprosy or even influenza. How superior is imagining healing to other treatments like vaccinations? What tests have you done to demonstrate this?

DS said: lissa, So you wants the most popular religion to run the school system but you also want science and evolution to be taught properly. You wants to do away with the Constitution and separation of church and state but you wants your own religious freedom. Well good luck with that, let me know how it works out for you. As for the evidence you cite, students were suspended for not saluting the flag and students were asked not to have Bible study on school grounds during recess. No one was prevented from praying and no one was asked not to bring thir Bibles to school. (I can't really be sure because your third link didn't work, but considering the source I strongly suspect bias anyway). So you think that putting the church in charge of education will make the situation better? Try again.

DS said: lissa, So you wants the most popular religion to run the school system but you also want science and evolution to be taught properly. You wants to do away with the Constitution and separation of church and state but you wants your own religious freedom. Well good luck with that, let me know how it works out for you. As for the evidence you cite, students were suspended for not saluting the flag and students were asked not to have Bible study on school grounds during recess. No one was prevented from praying and no one was asked not to bring thir Bibles to school. (I can't really be sure because your third link didn't work, but considering the source I strongly suspect bias anyway). So you think that putting the church in charge of education will make the situation better? Try again.

I don't think they are trying to FORCE their beliefs on others anyway, I think they are just proposing to offer a different perspective on the matter.

Why don't we INSIST they teach OTHER subjects right also? They don't teach ANY of them right for the pure simple reason that there isn't enough TIME to.

lissa said: Separation of Church and State was intended to PREVENT this whole problem. And UNTIL some atheist intervened it was going along just fine the way it was, nobody forced her kids to pray in school, she was just a troublemaker and ever since then it's been utter Chaos.

And on I didn't say putting the Church in Charge of education would make it better, but I think people minding their own damned business about what others believe would make the situation better.

At 4:27 on Apri 4 lissa wrote:

I think it should be decided by majority vote,

At 4:28 on April 5 lissa wrote:

Again I NEVER said I want the most popular religion to run our school system

Now she will complain about how everyone is misconstruing all of her ambiguous and misleading statements. For example, she apparently thinks that it is violation of the principle of separation of church and state to allow Bible study on school grounds during school hours and her way to fix this aggregious state of affairs is to put the church in charge of the school system. Terrific.

lissa said: Vaccinations aren't proven safe and/or effective to begin with because the incidence was declining prior to the invention and diseases of a different kind are related to vaccines, but that's a whole other topic.

Stanton said:

ps said: Cancer would probably be very difficult to heal purely through imagining it healed. The genetic changes that happen in cancer are very complex, I wouldn't recommend it for Cancer.

Then tell us how imaginary imagining healing will cure leprosy or even influenza. How superior is imagining healing to other treatments like vaccinations? What tests have you done to demonstrate this?

DS said: At 4:27 on Apri 4 lissa wrote: I think it should be decided by majority vote, At 4:28 on April 5 lissa wrote: Again I NEVER said I want the most popular religion to run our school system Now she will complain about how everyone is misconstruing all of her ambiguous and misleading statements. For example, she apparently thinks that it is violation of the principle of separation of church and state to allow Bible study on school grounds during school hours and her way to fix this aggregious state of affairs is to put the church in charge of the school system. Terrific.

lissa said: It's a violation of Religious Freedom to not allow bibles on a playground, of course it is, the fact that it was initiated by ONE nosy person complaining is even WORSE. Where the hell else would they read their bible, and what would be the point of bringing it to school if they aren't allowed to read it?

lissa said:

Stanton said:

ps said: Cancer would probably be very difficult to heal purely through imagining it healed. The genetic changes that happen in cancer are very complex, I wouldn't recommend it for Cancer.

Then tell us how imaginary imagining healing will cure leprosy or even influenza. How superior is imagining healing to other treatments like vaccinations? What tests have you done to demonstrate this?

Stanton, many tests have been done to demonstate it. The tests I'VE done aren't pertinent to the topic. It's a NATURAL phenomenon, a pure simple quantum physics matter, it has nothing to do with anything "imaginary" People can even communicate with each other psychically if they want to, and put their minds to it. Why wouldn't they be able to if this is was correct? http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html

It was merely a response to YOUR FALSE claim that people can practice their religion wherever they want.

A REBUTTAL of what YOU SAID that I KNOW to be INCORRECT.

lissa,

So, no one was prevented from praying and no one was prevented from reading their Bible, they just couldn't have a Bible study on school grounds during school hours. Wow, what persecution. Tell us again how discriminating against atheists will help with this earth shattering problem.

You lied about not claiming that the most popular religion should run the school system and the evidence for that is there for all to see. None of your many wacky claims have any substance whatsoever. Please just go away before somebody gets really rude.

Stanton said:

lissa said:

Stanton said:

ps said: Cancer would probably be very difficult to heal purely through imagining it healed. The genetic changes that happen in cancer are very complex, I wouldn't recommend it for Cancer.

Then tell us how imaginary imagining healing will cure leprosy or even influenza. How superior is imagining healing to other treatments like vaccinations? What tests have you done to demonstrate this?

Stanton, many tests have been done to demonstate it. The tests I'VE done aren't pertinent to the topic. It's a NATURAL phenomenon, a pure simple quantum physics matter, it has nothing to do with anything "imaginary" People can even communicate with each other psychically if they want to, and put their minds to it. Why wouldn't they be able to if this is was correct? http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html

Then how come you can't produce any research articles on psychic healing in medical and scientific journals like The Lancet or Nature?

Stanton said:

lissa said: It's a violation of Religious Freedom to not allow bibles on a playground, of course it is, the fact that it was initiated by ONE nosy person complaining is even WORSE. Where the hell else would they read their bible, and what would be the point of bringing it to school if they aren't allowed to read it?

Can you name some names, or are you bullshitting as usual?

And if psychic healing really works, then how come none of these psychic healers have thought to present their work to James Randi and claim the $1 million prize he's offering to anyone with irrefutable proof of psychic ability?

lissa said:

Stanton said:

lissa said: It's a violation of Religious Freedom to not allow bibles on a playground, of course it is, the fact that it was initiated by ONE nosy person complaining is even WORSE. Where the hell else would they read their bible, and what would be the point of bringing it to school if they aren't allowed to read it?

Can you name some names, or are you bullshitting as usual?

The principal of my cousin's school for ONE. And I haven't been Bullshitting at all, just been dare I say it MISCONSTRUED..

DS said: lissa, So, no one was prevented from praying and no one was prevented from reading their Bible, they just couldn't have a Bible study on school grounds during school hours. Wow, what persecution. Tell us again how discriminating against atheists will help with this earth shattering problem. You lied about not claiming that the most popular religion should run the school system and the evidence for that is there for all to see. None of your many wacky claims have any substance whatsoever. Please just go away before somebody gets really rude.

Stanton said:

lissa said:

Stanton said:

lissa said: It's a violation of Religious Freedom to not allow bibles on a playground, of course it is, the fact that it was initiated by ONE nosy person complaining is even WORSE. Where the hell else would they read their bible, and what would be the point of bringing it to school if they aren't allowed to read it?

Can you name some names, or are you bullshitting as usual?

The principal of my cousin's school for ONE. And I haven't been Bullshitting at all, just been dare I say it MISCONSTRUED..

In the 50s?

Stanton said: And if psychic healing really works, then how come none of these psychic healers have thought to present their work to James Randi and claim the $1 million prize he's offering to anyone with irrefutable proof of psychic ability?

You said some "nosy atheist in the 50's" or 60's screwed up the whole separation of Church and State.

And when asked to name who it was for the 3rd or 4th time, you finally said it was the principal of your "cousin's school."

Around 2000, you claim.

So, can you please get your facts straight?

I'm tired of this thread. I'm closing tomorrow morning, so hurry up and say your piece.

lissa said:

Stanton said: And if psychic healing really works, then how come none of these psychic healers have thought to present their work to James Randi and claim the $1 million prize he's offering to anyone with irrefutable proof of psychic ability?

Basically because like the article said it's ALREADY proven, and PERSONAL proof of the ability CAN'T be demonstrated to morons who misconstrue the physical principles behind them.

Reed A. Cartwright said: I'm tired of this thread. I'm closing tomorrow morning, so hurry up and say your piece.

Stanton said: You said some "nosy atheist in the 50's" or 60's screwed up the whole separation of Church and State. And when asked to name who it was for the 3rd or 4th time, you finally said it was the principal of your "cousin's school." Around 2000, you claim. So, can you please get your facts straight?

Stanton said:

lissa said:

Stanton said: And if psychic healing really works, then how come none of these psychic healers have thought to present their work to James Randi and claim the $1 million prize he's offering to anyone with irrefutable proof of psychic ability?

Basically because like the article said it's ALREADY proven, and PERSONAL proof of the ability CAN'T be demonstrated to morons who misconstrue the physical principles behind them.

Bullshit. If it is already proven, then how come we're not seeing widespread usage of psychic healing in hospitals?

Stanton said: Thank you. Would it be possible to put a muzzle on lissa's IP so she can't move to another thread to repeat the accursed process?

lissa said: Oh for god's sake, they use all kinds of things in hospitals to make patients comfortable during surgeries and such, because SOUNDS have an effect on the BRAIN also. So they play soothing music and stuff like that. If you want to keep making statements that are impertent to what I've said about it and calling me a bullshit liar then I'm afraid YOU are the ONE whose IP should be muzzled.

Stanton said:

lissa said: Oh for god's sake, they use all kinds of things in hospitals to make patients comfortable during surgeries and such, because SOUNDS have an effect on the BRAIN also. So they play soothing music and stuff like that. If you want to keep making statements that are impertent to what I've said about it and calling me a bullshit liar then I'm afraid YOU are the ONE whose IP should be muzzled.

a) Playing soothing music and presenting a calming atmosphere is not "psychic healing." That you constantly confuse and coopt things in order to support your New Age psychobabble, then get angry when we point out that the reality of the situation is contrary to what you claim is the primary reason why I consider you to be a bullshitting liar. b) I'm not the one who went on for 220+ tediously boring and off-topic posts about how you and your ex's family were victimized by alleged laws and medical care providers.

what makes you think I am ANGRY? Are you a mind-reader? LOL

I'm pretty good at that art myself, it's not exactly hard unless you simply READING a MESSAGE in PRINT, in that case it's hard to pick up a vibration from someone.

ps said: what makes you think I am ANGRY? Are you a mind-reader? LOL

I'm pretty good at that art myself, it's not exactly hard unless you simply READING a MESSAGE in PRINT, in that case it's hard to pick up a vibration from someone.

lissa said: SOUNDS have an effect on the BRAIN also.