Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

The War on Reason

javaguru

Banned
It seems the theists have decided to start another wave of attacks against the scientific community.
Religion seems to be important at the republican debates.

I saw an interview with a biologist that claims to have been fired from a job, doing research into evolution, because he doesn't believe in common descent and is a creationist.

Ben Stein has teamed up with other creationists to make a documentary about intolerance in higher education for those that want to teach intelligent design in Biology classes.
This is Stein promoting the movie on O'Reilly, Ben may be a smart guy but obviously doesn't understand science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWMGD1Dg6L8

Trailer for the "documentary"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxGyMn_-J3c

It seems to be another "chop job" entertainment piece passed off as a legitimate documentary with a theocratic agenda. Theology should not be taught in science classes.
 
What reasoning?
 
rea·soned, rea·son·ing, rea·sons

v. intr.

1. To use the faculty of reason; think logically.
2. To talk or argue logically and persuasively.
 
javaguru said:
It seems the theists have decided to start another wave of attacks against the scientific community.
Religion seems to be important at the republican debates.

I saw an interview with a biologist that claims to have been fired from a job, doing research into evolution, because he doesn't believe in common descent and is a creationist.

Ben Stein has teamed up with other creationists to make a documentary about intolerance in higher education for those that want to teach intelligent design in Biology classes.
This is Stein promoting the movie on O'Reilly, Ben may be a smart guy but obviously doesn't understand science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWMGD1Dg6L8

Trailer for the "documentary"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxGyMn_-J3c

It seems to be another "chop job" entertainment piece passed off as a legitimate documentary with a theocratic agenda. Theology should not be taught in science classes.
Both sides of the coin should be presented and the student left to draw their own conclusions. Ideally education should be aimed more at developing cognitive ability than indoctrination.
 
JayC9 said:
Both sides of the coin should be presented and the student left to draw their own conclusions. Ideally education should be aimed more at developing cognitive ability than indoctrination. person the ability to question, think and reason for themselves.

Intelligent design is NOT science and should be part of the curriculum of a theology class and not a science class. Based on the definition of science the ID people put forward, then astrology should be taught in science. Biology class isn't about promoting a theology, it's about teaching science. Students and teachers only have X amount of time to cover the material
 
2layq8n.jpg
 
javaguru said:
Intelligent design is NOT science and should be part of the curriculum of a theology class and not a science class. Based on the definition of science the ID people put forward, then astrology should be taught in science. Biology class isn't about promoting a theology, it's about teaching science. Students and teachers only have X amount of time to cover the material
I don't care what particular class it's represented in. Science covers all areas of life and questions pertaining to life, you can't dictate what can or cannot be included in a person’s education.
 
JayC9 said:
I don't care what particular class it's represented in. Science covers all areas of life and questions pertaining to life, you can't dictate what can or cannot be included in a person’s education.


"IF" there was some empirical evidence to intelligent design.....it would be valid to present it in science class. THe only argument FOR intelligent design is incomplete evidence for evolution. You can't use that as rational criteria for designing a curriculum. Otherwise why not just teach the flying sphaghetti monster. I have no problem with faith........just keep it where it belongs.
 
JayC9 said:
I don't care what particular class it's represented in. Science covers all areas of life and questions pertaining to life, you can't dictate what can or cannot be included in a person’s education.
You can and should dictate what is taught in a class. You don't teach sculpture in a calculus class.
 
javaguru said:
You can and should dictate what is taught in a class. You don't teach sculpture in a calculus class.
You're missing the point, and I have not the patience to exchange patronizing comments or pick straws with you. Have a Merry Xmas.
 
JayC9 said:
You're missing the point, and I have not the patience to exchange patronizing comments or pick straws with you. Have a Merry Xmas.
No, you're missing the point. Science is science and theology is theology. Science is not about supernatural explanations. Why not present alternative imaginations for every other scientific theory?

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

Rev. Gabriel Burdett explains Intelligent Falling.
"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."
 
what does hitler have to do with this? the pics are funny, but I don't see the connection.
 
Smurfy said:
lol@ Intelligent Falling and basing scientific reason on scriptures from the Bible.


bwahahahhahahah
"People give ear to an upstart astrologer [Copernicus] who strives to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun or the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

– Martin Luther, Tischreden, ed Walsch XXII, 2260
 
javaguru said:
No, you're missing the point. Science is science and theology is theology. Science is not about supernatural explanations. Why not present alternative imaginations for every other scientific theory?

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

Rev. Gabriel Burdett explains Intelligent Falling.
"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."


That can't be a serious article. Was it in the Onion?

These people need to prove the existance of god before they venture into trying to debunk science based on their beliefs.
 
mountain muscle said:
That can't be a serious article. Was it in the Onion?

These people need to prove the existance of god before they venture into trying to debunk science based on their beliefs.
Yes, that was from The Onion
 
As a firm believer in evolution, I still don't see why it would be so hard to incorporate some kind of "higher being" thinking into evolutionary theory. If people of faith want to reconcile the massive gap between the literal interpretation of biblical creation and the theory of evolution (which still has gaps, but not irreconcilable ones), then why not let them?

Like gravity... as far as I know, we still don't understand it do we? (my college physics is 15 years old now... so I may be outdated). I'm sure theories to explain gravitational attraction are being presented in physics class but if they can't be proven, aren't we misleading students? How is presenting the concept of a gravitino particle that we haven't found yet (that's one theory presented at Vandy many years ago) any different than presenting the concept of intelligent design which we can't "prove" either?
 
Sorry but I find it incredibly hard to believe a biologist would be fired for researching evolution - actually I don't believe it. You're going to have to provide a link if you're going to post something that leading and provocative. I'd like to know the context, where he worked, responses from his employers, etc.
 
Last edited:
mrplunkey said:
Like gravity... as far as I know, we still don't understand it do we? (my college physics is 15 years old now... so I may be outdated). I'm sure theories to explain gravitational attraction are being presented in physics class but if they can't be proven, aren't we misleading students? How is presenting the concept of a gravitino particle that we haven't found yet (that's one theory presented at Vandy many years ago) any different than presenting the concept of intelligent design which we can't "prove" either?

It's called the graviton now, a massless spin-2 particle that's the propagator of the gravitational force that we cannot find. High-energy physics isn't my area, but we've pretty much found every massive particle that we're going to without being able to achieve energies from a Earth-radius sized accelerator. We're going to need other experimental methods to achieve these energies.

And the propagator of the gravitational force has never been presented to students, to my knowledge, since it's always been a very advanced topic, now or then. We understand very well, however, gravitational forces on classical levels. The theories explaining gravitational attraction at this level are very well proven, lol, and have been for many decades.



:cow:
 
JayC9 said:
Both sides of the coin should be presented and the student left to draw their own conclusions. Ideally education should be aimed more at developing cognitive ability than indoctrination.
cosign
 
JayC9 said:
Both sides of the coin should be presented and the student left to draw their own conclusions. Ideally education should be aimed more at developing cognitive ability than indoctrination.
Damn right. WW2? Present the theory that the holocaust doesn't exist and let the student make up their mind. Orange juice? Present the theory that it's an evil plot by GW to control the minds of black people and let the student make up their mind. China? Present the theory that they are all clones of each other and let the student make up their mind.
 
EnderJE said:
Damn right. WW2? Present the theory that the holocaust doesn't exist and let the student make up their mind. Orange juice? Present the theory that it's an evil plot by GW to control the minds of black people and let the student make up their mind. China? Present the theory that they are all clones of each other and let the student make up their mind.
If I were a science teacher forced to teach "intelligent Design" in biology class then I would find the most crazy, obscure and outright bat shit crazy sounding theory to someone raised in a juedo-christian-Islamic society.

"The Discovery Institute" a Christian Evangelical organization is befind intelligent design and has laid out a strategy in their "wedge document" to roll back scientific thought to pre-Darwin.

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

"The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God", and thereby "renew" American culture to reflect conservative Christian values will be achieved."
 
javaguru said:
If I were a science teacher forced to teach "intelligent Design" in biology class then I would find the most crazy, obscure and outright bat shit crazy sounding theory to someone raised in a juedo-christian-Islamic society.

"The Discovery Institute" a Christian Evangelical organization is befind intelligent design and has laid out a strategy in their "wedge document" to roll back scientific thought to pre-Darwin.

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

"The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God", and thereby "renew" American culture to reflect conservative Christian values will be achieved."
If I was a science teacher forced to teach Intelligent Design, then I'd be sure to also teach the about the Church Of The Flying Spagetti Monster.
 
the washington kicker just tackled the minnesota guy on the return
that's a miracle
lock her up
 
Top Bottom