You did not answer the question

Post #133,846

1/6/04 10:56:53 AM

Please answer the yes or no question. Given the current state of our knowledge, should Creationism be taught as part of science?

When Science meets Religion, yes. Because the two do meet whether you admit it or not.

I see that it is an item of faith for you that eventually science will meet your personal religion. However they do not in the present, and there are no signs that I can see of a convergence at any point in the forseeable future.

In this present, should Creationism be taught as part of science?

The fact that you have no interest in learning this history or the evidence that was accumulated doesn't change it. And further even without going through the history, there is no question that the Creationist viewpoint is not now scientifically accepted. And therefore I maintain that Creationism shouldn't be taught as science.

Enough.

My views and beliefs of how the universe came about are not so well-defined as to pigeon-holed as "Creationism", irrespective of what you think you know about me. I would also not say I have "no interest" but rather "little interest". Whilst I find the subject interesting, I also realized it was less important to my personal faith than the majority of those who would advocate "Creationism".

I'll accept that you have little interest rather than no interest. The difference is not discernable from here, and you know yourself better than I can.

In other words, I have far better things to devote my time to. I certainly don't need to be your personal punching bag on the topic.

Then don't express an uninformed opinion that you know invites response.

I'm serious. I didn't bring this topic up, and I didn't single you out. If you had not left a [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=133320|snide remark] dangling as an open challenge, I would have never have tried to get a yes/no answer to whether you think that Creationism should be taught in science. (Which was my way of getting at what kind of compromise you think should be accepted between science and creationism.) By your own admission, you have little interest in educating yourself on the topic. And surely you had to realize as you were posting that your post invited response.

That means that you were expressing an uninformed opinion which invited response. At which point it seems disingenuous to complain that you got exactly the kind of response that anyone here could have predicted.

Regards,
Ben

"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]

Post #134,034

by static

1/7/04 5:56:30 AM

1/7/04 6:16:33 AM

I rather thought I did.

But that is neither here nor there.

Then don't express an uninformed opinion that you know invites response.

I'm serious. I didn't bring this topic up, and I didn't single you out.

Bullshit. If I can't post an oblique comment about a discussion in progress regarding Origins without you putting me in your crosshairs, then you are singling me out. I'm equally serious.

My initial remark was a fairly carefully worded comment mirroring, as I understood it, the unaligned views between PEER and the publishers of the literature they disliked. Given the recent fracas, I would claim more than informed experience, thank you. If I must expect a lecture from you whenever I so much as breathe about the topic, then I must suspect a distinctly unfriendly agenda. I don't want to suspect that.

Wade.

Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed

Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please

-- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne.

Edited by static Jan. 7, 2004, 06:16:33 AM EST

Expand All History

Post #134,077

by ben_tilly

1/7/04 11:21:00 AM

Bullshit

The question that you answered was whether Creationism should be taught as part of science if Creationism and science converged. Which is, of course, a justified yes.

But they manifestly have not done so in the present, and you never answered the question of whether Creationism should be taught as part of science in the present.

As for whether I have an agenda, you're being disingenuous and you know it. I would have reacted in much the same way if any other person had posted the same thing. You are only singled out in that you were the one who decided to single yourself out.

Let me side-track a little. There is a classic negotiating tactic where you let one person state their desired position accurately, and then you state your baseline as one where they have given you everything that you want and more. Then you start to negotiate, and lean heavily on them for the fact that they aren't willing to compromise.

This is a tactic that comes up a lot with Creationism.

Knowingly or unknowingly, the way that you put your post matches a common Creationist debating technique. Many Creationists stake out a position where they claim that it is only fair that their views get equal time in science classrooms. After all scientists claim that Creationism is wrong, Creationists believe that science is wrong, what is a fair compromise?

Scientists who point out that in a science classroom you should teach science are painted as unwilling to compromise. They are being unfair, they should bend a little. Which really translates into saying that scientists should accept teachers lying about what science is and isn't. This after scientists already have to put up with having most of evolution cut from classrooms because of manipulations of local schoolboards.

Hence I raised exactly the issue that I thought you were trying to slime around without ever coming out and saying it. And after broad discussion, you still haven't been willing to state your opinion is on this. Why not? You are pushing buttons, you know that you're pushing buttons, and you're refusing to admit it. That is your choice, and that that is your choice is obvious to anyone who is bothering to follow this discussion.

Let's discuss how well informed you you are. By your own admission, you have little interest in educating yourself. When we last actually discussed evolution versus Creationism, it was a rather one-sided affair. As I recall, it wound up with you unconvinced but admitting that your sources were not as accurate as you thought that they were. You said that you'd have to do a lot more research before talking about it again, but weren't that interested in doing so.

Which tells me that you don't know the evolution vs Creationism evidence in any detail, don't care to know it, and yet claim to be well-educated on that point. What doesn't fit in that?

Now again. Will you please answer the yes or no question that you haven't answered, and know very well that you have avoided answering. Given the present state of affairs, should Creationism be taught as part of science?

Regards,
Ben

"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]

Post #134,421

by static

1/8/04 10:36:13 PM

I made a mistake.

I should have never replied to you at the top of this thread. As you yourself pointed out, I said at the termination of a previous discussion that I would not discuss this with you before I had done more research. I have still not done this research which should explain to you why you think I have not answered your question. (I also said I had some experience being in the conflict surrounding your question, which you have misread.)

I deeply resent being painted into corners like that, Ben. It tells me you want me to give up my current faith and beliefs and place them where you place yours which I know is absolutely not your motive so perhaps you might think about how I got that impression. Or not, because right now I don't care.

Wade.

Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed

Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please

-- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne.

Post #134,514

by ben_tilly

1/9/04 12:08:33 PM

How you should interpret my actions

It is my belief that you have strongly held beliefs about what should happen in classrooms that run exactly counter to what I want to happen. When you (or anyone really) makes snide remarks hinting at those positions, I want to verify this, and want to better understand how someone can reasonably hold those beliefs.

As you note, I'm not interested in telling you what faith you have, etc. I'm instead interested in the practical question that affects people I care about, namely What should we do in science classrooms? It may feel to you that I'm challenging your belief system, but I really am trying to divorce that one question from your belief system. To the extent that the two don't get divorced, I may come across as challenging your faith. But I'm honestly not trying to.

Perhaps I should clarify. To me it is quite possible to say, "I think that schools should teach X." while also saying, "I think that X is wrong." For instance while subject admissions tests remain what they are, I think that schools should teach much of the current math curriculum even though I think that the way that it is taught sucks, and the priorities for choosing subject matter are horribly off. Or in something closer to the instance under discussion, I think that schools should give students perspective about what fraction of the public believes various things, even though many of the things which are widely believed I don't accept.

To me that isn't promoting religion. That is giving students perspective on the society that they will enter and live in.

Cheers,
Ben

"good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not"
- [link|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html|Stefano Mazzocchi]

Welcome to IWETHEY!