Tell me about your mother....
Very interesting post, docs.
That's like saying...'That an intersting taste...'
Sig,
Thanks for participating. It's always interesting to hear different viewpoints.
I'm working on a few posts today, this whole discussion will likely take a while.
But, what makes this ID debate interesting, and different than previous Creation vs. Evolution arguments is the attack on the scientific method itself.
ID proponents are claiming that science is inherantly flawed and biased against the inclusion of God (stated in their essay as 'supernatural explanation') as a scientific explanation for naturally observed phenomena.
This ID argument is precisely about god.
Nothing more, nothing less.
The ID argument should have been about whether or not ID is a valid scientific idea that should be presented in Science class.
It is not.
And, this "debate" will likely not accomplish anything other than anger large groups of people.
In a way, the ID crowd does in fact attack the scientific method- but only where they see 'projection'- that is, where science has has yet to 'prove it's case.'
That is a flawed approach- and a learned one. The attacks on faith are no less illegitimate.
The loudest voices that attack faith aren't scientific voices- they are rather, agenda based voices that for whatever reason, have religion in their sights.
There are those that have become the Jihadis who claim the fight against God in the name science.
Clearly, there are many voices of science that do not repudiate God. They just don't mix science and faith.
I agree.
It is important, I think, for the general public to realize that creation and evolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Nor are science and religion.
I mean, there are intense differences between science and religion (the main one being 'testability' vs. faith), but I don't believe that it is Science's goal to disprove the existence of God.
They are two separate entities that happen to overlap in some cases.
When they overlap, the 'discussions' get blown out of proportion, get agendized, become so polarized that almost no compromise will be able to be reached.
It's this way with a lot of things.
Your Hillary Clinton abortion example, for instance. People get so worked up about "not giving in" on EITHER side, it becomes pointless to even discuss the issue.
Terry Schiavo is another case.
But, it's happened for centuries.
Why is it so difficult for people, normally rational, to discuss matters of religion, faith (and/or the lack thereof) without becoming irrational?
The difficulty is is by reason of agenda.
Agendas are deemed reason enough to allow for deceit and deception.
As I said, the most loudest voices- and most rabid- against ID, in schools and elsewhere, doesn't originate in the scientific community.
Those voices are agenda based.
Take teachers unions, for example. They are dead set against teaching ID- yet they won't allow for teacher compentency exams, or even for holding teachers accountable for classroom results, or merit pay.
What's wrong with this picture?
Yeah, Rebekah and I get into that argument ALL the time.
Here in CA, the Governator wants to add teacher competancy testing.
I'm all for it. Obviously.
In (almost) any other profession, your competancy is usually your basis for pay.
I would argue that teaching is as important a profession as any. I surely want competant teachers.
While she vehemantly disagrees with me regarding competancy, her argument against classroom results is in the IMPLEMENTATION of the standards:
In CA, they want to compare classroom results statewide.
There is a huge disparity in income levels, parental involvement, etc. But, the biggest disparity is in the English as a first language barrier.
Teachers that teach in an upscale all-white community will score higher in statewide results tests.
It is unfair to those teaching in poor Spanish speaking neighborhoods, and will result in a dearth of teachers willing to teach in those areas if this were to pass.
There has to be a happy medium somewhere.
Here's a question for you Sig:
Suppose that scientists developed a "test" to succesfully prove the existence of God.
Would that cheapen your faith?
Yes, it would.
As has been noted, "The moment I can comprehend God, he ceases to be God."
Mango said... "While she vehemantly disagrees with me regarding competancy, her argument against classroom results is in the IMPLEMENTATION of the standards:
In CA, they want to compare classroom results statewide.
There is a huge disparity in income levels, parental involvement, etc. But, the biggest disparity is in the English as a first language barrier.
Teachers that teach in an upscale all-white community will score higher in statewide results tests.
It is unfair to those teaching in poor Spanish speaking neighborhoods, and will result in a dearth of teachers willing to teach in those areas if this were to pass."
There are many ways around this issue - from measuring improvement in a teacher's own class or against a teacher's own school - to using computer models to rationalize scores.
...But the Teacher Unions won't have any of it.
Their argument isn't against implementation - it's really about their worldview and a socialist agenda of everyone being "equal". They want to see everyone so "equal" that they are willing to penalize over-achievers - both students and staff.
By the way, the issues you raise are intersting, re teacher competency.
In fact, teachers unions are against LITERACY testing.
If teachers want to be considered professionals, then they are going to have to submit to professional standards.
As I said, there are real problems with that- and then they have the stones to discuss the merits of what is and isn't appropriate curriculums.
As for your last remarks, there is a happy medium that can be reached- but we're a long way way from that reality. Let's work on teacher literacy and competence first.
While I am on the fence regarding ID being taught in schools, I also recognize that much that passes for settled scientific thought is, in fact, Dogma.
I am no scientist. But I do read much regarding archaeology, paleontology, and so forth. The venom that erupts when a sacred scientific tenet is threatened is laughable. Too many times facts have been discarded because they are in conflict with the accepted Dogma. The dating of human settlement of North America is a fascinating case in point. Any researcher going beyond the accepted dates is threatened, denounced, vilified.
I see this as analogous to the debates within many religious sects. "You make the Sign of the Cross with three fingers!" "No! You make the Sign of the Cross with two fingers!" "Heretic!" "Blasphemer!"
If evolutionary theory is taught, it should be taught with all its flaws exposed. Glossing over the gaps is not honest.
Thanks for commenting back on our post. We did not mean to infer that we did not think you were a believer, we have read your blog for a long time and we know you are a believer. We just were simply trying to tell our visitors not to assume that our views were exactly like yours. We more then respect difference though.
Long and short we found your post very interesting, and as we said we agreed with parts of it, and disagreed with others. We are sure that is true in reverse as well, and that is fine.
We do and have always respected your blog and your views. This post was excellent and we wanted our visitors to swing by and give it a read and then decide for themselves.
Again, thanks for the great work and hopefully we did not offend, as it was not meant that way. We simply were trying to state that we were not in 100% view with you on this.
We are SC&A. Unless you are a freight train headed directly for us, there is no way we can be offended.
Great to know that and that is a great view to have.
Stay strong, be couragous, and serve God in all things.
fountain hotel shanghai fountain hotel shanghai fountain hotel shanghai. bankruptcy bankruptcy loansheriff.com mortgage refinance refinance refinance bankruptcy bankruptcy loansheriff.com mortgage refinance refinance refinance bankruptcy bankruptcy loansheriff.com mortgage refinance refinance refinance.
Commenting by HaloScan
