| Author |
Message |
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
 Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:02 pm |
|
Political satire, fine. But THIS type of a joke is NOT fine. Not at all. I wouldn't support making a joke about the ISSUE of global warming, for instance. Maybe the people advocating it, although I wouldn't LIKE a joke about ID supporters, but I wouldn't think it WRONG. THIS is wrong.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:06 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | IntrepidIsMe wrote: | Yes, I see where you're coming from. If you specialize in a field of work, I'd just assume you'd just know more about it, 
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Intelligent design discusses a designer, NOT God persay. This ignorant joke calls for the recognition of one person as the designer, which obviously isn't a good thing, and it doesn't make sense for you to go against intelligent design and yet rationalize this ignorant joke when obviously it talks about making this spagheti person the designer--giving him an exact name like that. |
As I said, the implication behind ID is that of "god." Afterall, here we are given all kinds of information everyday about the idea of "god" being in our lives. If you hear that a designer created the universe and life itself, what would be the rational outcome of your thought process based on the information given you? God.
And as I said, I agree. It wouldn't matter since according to this theory "god" is the spaghetti monster. So would there be a difference? No. |
Yes, it MAY imply God. But does it actually say it? NO. This actually NAMES the designer. There's a BIG difference, and you're blind if you don't see it.
And Tach, that is a funny quote, but it's different from this, a serious issue up for debate in the court, not worthy of an IGNORANT JOKE--not satire. Ridiculous. You are all ridiculous. |
Wow. I don't recall saying that the idea behind ID is god, just that the implication is there. I know that it isn't about "god" but other people often do.
I couldn't care less about ID. We can teach kids all kinds of wild theories in Science classes. But we don't. We teach the ones with the most scientific backing behind them. As far as I can see, wanting to teach ID in a science class is mearly another way of trying to force children to come to the conclusion that a "divine being" is in existance. But I'm not going to argue that point, since its... pointless.
I find nothing rediculous about this.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:08 pm |
|
And teaching evolution and other science things isn't trying to teach them that there ISN'T a God? And why aren't we teaching that global warming isn't a huge threat--when it ISN'T? Come on. And if you're worried about the implication that ID could have, then why don't you disagree with the spagetti thing, hmmm? Hypocritical.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:11 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | And teaching evolution and other science things isn't trying to teach them that there ISN'T a God? And why aren't we teaching that global warming isn't a huge threat--when it ISN'T? Come on. And if you're worried about the implication that ID could have, then why don't you disagree with the spagetti thing, hmmm? Hypocritical. |
No, it isn't. I don't recall evolution even being about god in the first place. Its about carbon dating and DNA. Global warming is simply one of those issues that has no clear answer, as of yet. So I don't see how it even matters at this point. And, I'm not worried about the implication, people can interpret whatever they want, however they want.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:12 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | Wow. I don't recall saying that the idea behind ID is god, just that the implication is there. I know that it isn't about "god" but other people often do.
I couldn't care less about ID. We can teach kids all kinds of wild theories in Science classes. But we don't. We teach the ones with the most scientific backing behind them. As far as I can see, wanting to teach ID in a science class is mearly another way of trying to force children to come to the conclusion that a "divine being" is in existance. But I'm not going to argue that point, since its... pointless.
I find nothing rediculous about this. |
You don't see that it works both ways?
You're trying to ensure kids don't follow a "divine being".
Damn RM beat me to it!
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:14 pm |
|
No, I'm not. As I said before, the idea with the most scientific backing behind it should be taught. That is without question, evolution. If ID had more facts behind it than evolution, then why not teach it in science class, instead? It should be. Thats what science class is all about. What we can't deny to be untrue, not what we want to believe.
Last edited by IntrepidIsMe on Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:14 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | And teaching evolution and other science things isn't trying to teach them that there ISN'T a God? And why aren't we teaching that global warming isn't a huge threat--when it ISN'T? Come on. And if you're worried about the implication that ID could have, then why don't you disagree with the spagetti thing, hmmm? Hypocritical. |
No, it isn't. I don't recall evolution even being about god in the first place. Its about carbon dating and DNA. Global warming is simply one of those issues that has no clear answer, as of yet. So I don't see how it even matters at this point. And, I'm not worried about the implication, people can interpret whatever they want, however they want. |
I'm just saying that only teaching all these things that, in some part, have been used to try to prove that God doesn't exist, are forcing the belief that there ISN"T a God--this humanism being taught in schools, and that's it. That's doing EXACTLY the opposite of what intelligent design is doing--pushing the view that there IS no God and what have you.
And that joke ISN'T about an implication. It's about actually SAYING that this spegetti figure is the designer--actually SPECIFYING someone. Plus, why do they have all this info and suggestions about calling the Kansas school board about it, hmmm?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:16 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | And teaching evolution and other science things isn't trying to teach them that there ISN'T a God? And why aren't we teaching that global warming isn't a huge threat--when it ISN'T? |
Evolution and science do not preclude the existence of a god at all. They do not even mention it--that's not their jobs. Evolution and science cannot mention a god. I've yet to see an experiment for god.
We don't teach that global warming is a threat (at least not at my school). I can only speak from personal experience, of course, as I do not have access to the curricula of other school boards. Personally our school educated us on the harmful effects of pollution on the biosphere. I don't think "global warming" was mentioned.
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Come on. And if you're worried about the implication that ID could have, then why don't you disagree with the spagetti thing, hmmm? Hypocritical. |
It's a joke meant to illustrate a point.
| Founder wrote: | | You're trying to ensure kids don't follow a "divine being". |
No, because no class should contend that a divine being exists or does not exist. Science should not even mention it--science is like engineering, it is an explanation of how, not why. Theology and philosophy are the provinces of deities, and those classes should encourage the critical examination of logical support for the existence of such beings.
I would like to see some new arguments, as I do believe that I have repeated the same statement over several times: "God is a philosophical issue," is the basic summation. Otherwise, it's clear the argument has reached the point where the opposing sides go in circles, occasionally stooping to personal attacks and bad netiquette.  Consensus is not the goal, stimulating intellectual discussion is.
Last edited by Hitchhiker on Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:18 pm |
|
It's BAD for me to take it seriously when he's making a GOD DAMN JOKE on a serious issue? Well if I could, I would say some bad things to you right now, because that's just GOD DAMN RIDICULOUS. And here we've been taught about the threat of global warming, and you completely ignore my point that if one says that we can't have anything saying that God might exist, yet everything completely ignore that possibility, that's wrong. You're wrong. Intellectual discussion my ass.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:19 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: |
And that joke ISN'T about an implication. It's about actually SAYING that this spegetti figure is the designer--actually SPECIFYING someone. Plus, why do they have all this info and suggestions about calling the Kansas school board about it, hmmm? |
Oh yes, I see where you're coming from. But that goes back to the point that there isn't any more or less evidence behind this idea, than that of ID.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:21 pm |
|
A SPAGETTI being? What's even CLOSE to logical about some mystical SPAGETTI monster or whatever the hell that guy's saying? NOTHING. There IS logic beyond ID, because look at it: how, seriously, could the universe have formed and work so clearly without a designer, hmmm?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:21 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | It's BAD for me to take it seriously when he's making a GOD DAMN JOKE on a serious issue? Well if I could, I would say some bad things to you right now, because that's just GOD DAMN RIDICULOUS. And here we've been taught about the threat of global warming, and you completely ignore my point that if one says that we can't have anything saying that God might exist, yet everything completely ignore that possibility, that's wrong. You're wrong. Intellectual discussion my ass. |
I am most certainly 100% undeniably wrong.
Science should not have anything to do with God. Period. If a school board is teaching it with references to "God," be they for or against, one should seek to change the system to eliminate such references. Society should not be secular. I concede this point, because I agree with it. However, science should be secular.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:23 pm |
|
I think that, like Exalya said, philosophy should add a small extra layer of death, but really in science implying that there is no god, regardless of whether or not science should be secular, is WRONG. Do you not concede that point?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:26 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | science implying that there is no god, regardless of whether or not science should be secular, is WRONG. Do you not concede that point? |
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | Science should not have anything to do with God. Period. If a school board is teaching it with references to "God," be they for or against, one should seek to change the system to eliminate such references. |
It is important that individual conclusions are drawn. The system perhaps needs to be reformed, yes. But if it is not reformed in the correct manner, then it can be thrown even further for a loop.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:28 pm |
|
So then you would support allowing for discussion and debate in the science classroom, as long as includes science in it, relating to issues like this? So student's could debate ID in the classroom, and a small element of philsophy that would apply to something like this could be applied, in your view?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:33 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | So then you would support allowing for discussion and debate in the science classroom, as long as includes science in it, relating to issues like this? So student's could debate ID in the classroom, and a small element of philsophy that would apply to something like this could be applied, in your view? |
In my opinion, yes. What would education be without student discussion? I think a good science teacher would give the students all of the known facts, the theory that is currently held as most probably correct (in the eyes of the scientific community), then explain all other theories (in an un-biased mannar), then let the students debate among themselves. And after that, go into more detail about whatever the prevailing theory is.
But that is just my opinion.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:35 pm |
|
I agree with that. I've essentially stated that same thing--or a variation, at least--in the past debate.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:37 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | I agree with that. I've essentially stated that same thing--or a variation, at least--in the past debate. |
We actually agree on something, yay 
Overall, I don't think education should be teaching one point of view or the other, but giving students all the known facts, and the tools to help them make up their own minds. We're not programing kids, we're trying to help them...evolve
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:43 pm |
|
Agreed. Personally I don't believe one bit in Genesis. Maybe it's a metaphor, but that's all that I could possibly believe. I think ID is much more logical, and would like to have a good discussion in the classroom rather than just be taught one view--including on global warming, such as when it was forced on me in my Honors Science class back in 7th grade. A dialogue could've happened then. My younger brother's in 7th grade, and he's having debates about the words Under God in the pledge, etc. Why can't similar things happen here, unlike when GW was forced on me in 7th grade, or when evolution was forced on me in the past years, and will be this year as well?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Micteth-Son of Udas
Klingon Warrior
Joined: 20 Jul 2002
Posts: 3202
Location: rite behind you!
|
| Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:46 pm |
|
i think it should be left alone, if one state has been teaching it like that for a while, it doesnt matter if it is tuaght, kids will learn about what every they want, with it being tuaght in school or not........ all this BS about what is being tuaght in schools today is well.......... just that BS..... kids already have enough to learn in school, and hey, believe it or not teachers actually are allready limited on time intodays school structure, they have so much to teache in a small amount of time, adding to it will just harm teachers, who are over worked and underpaid, and students who have more then enough stress in there lives without having to know all the different ideas on how the universe was created.....
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:47 pm |
|
So just because teachers have, in your OPINION, a hard enough time now, we shouldn't add room for debate and should force one view upon the kids? That's not right.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Tue Sep 27, 2005 10:53 pm |
|
^ It may not be, but Mike is right, there are Limits as to where teachers can, and cannont go
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:02 pm |
|
| Lord Borg wrote: | | ^ It may not be, but Mike is right, there are Limits as to where teachers can, and cannont go |
And teaching intelligent design in science isn't one of them.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Wed Sep 28, 2005 12:16 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: |
And teaching intelligent design in science isn't one of them. |
But it's not science. It cannot be proven or disproven through tests. It's Philosophy and Religion wrapped up in a psuedoscience coating to try and force it on people.
Because it is no science, it does not belong in a classroom where SCIENCE is to be taught.
You can debate on whether god exists or not all you want, but do it in a philosophy classroom.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Sep 28, 2005 12:19 am |
|
Like Exalya said, a little bit of philosophy in science is good, and I think should be added to the discussion anyways. Not too extreme, but ID doesn't go extreme. Now, creationism, on the other hand, goes extreme, and I oppose that being taught in schools, although it could be commented on, among other reasons. I like what TrekkieMage said.
| TrekkieMage wrote: | | What would education be without student discussion? I think a good science teacher would give the students all of the known facts, the theory that is currently held as most probably correct (in the eyes of the scientific community), then explain all other theories (in an un-biased mannar), then let the students debate among themselves. And after that, go into more detail about whatever the prevailing theory is. |
| TrekkieMage wrote: | | Overall, I don't think education should be teaching one point of view or the other, but giving students all the known facts, and the tools to help them make up their own minds. We're not programing kids, we're trying to help them...evolve |
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
