FREE TAPATALK APP

Flaherty · 17th March 2003, 04:18 PM

I'm involved in an unusual evolution debate at the following link.

http://pub203.ezboard.com/ffloridast...ID=12428.topic

My handle there is Seminole Gene. The original poster's question is whether teaching evolution violates the separations clause. It's led to an interesting debate from angles I haven't seen before. I'm interested in your input.

Ladewig · 17th March 2003, 05:36 PM

I thought your arguments were well-reasoned, emotionally neutral, and completely ignored.

17th March 2003, 06:26 PM

Agreed. I don't think the original poster wanted a debate - a decision had been made and the poster was looking for supporting statements.

My first post on JREF addressed this same topic: when people use the word belief in reference to facts. I will be self-indulgent enough to quote myself:

"This is an old chestnut I know, but it still bugs me to hear people talking about belief in the theory of evolution, rather than using words like understanding, which does not automatically imply acceptance.

I can understand a theory - I may or may not agree that the evidence validates it.

I can also try to argue about a theory I don't actually understand and make a complete fool of myself.

Believing in theories is the worst error I can make. It means I'm not being objective, that I'm not prepared to adjust or abandon a hypothesis when evidence suggests I should."

Like the student I was referring to in this post, glommer is implying facts require our belief to be validated. Glommer was also making limited interpretations of the dictionary-based definitions of religion and religious, etc.

fishbob · 17th March 2003, 07:14 PM

Glommer sez:

Quote:

The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain one's ultimate reality through a set of principles.

This statement is false. I find that these discussions often start out with false statements.

He also posted from a dictionary "observance" I] an act or instance of following a custom, rule, or law II] an act or instance of watching, then ignored the 2nd definition, which was the appropriate definition.

Dymanic · 17th March 2003, 07:30 PM

I was thinking, if we could just teach the kids what the theory of evolution does not say, we'd be way ahead of the game. So much of what creationists seem to find objectionable is based on misunderstandings about what evolutionary theory says.

Flaherty · 18th March 2003, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dymanic
I was thinking, if we could just teach the kids what the theory of evolution does not say, we'd be way ahead of the game. So much of what creationists seem to find objectionable is based on misunderstandings about what evolutionary theory says.

The old strawman argument, in other words.

neutrino_cannon · 18th March 2003, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Flaherty

The old strawman argument, in other words.

There are no greater masters of the art.

17th March 2003, 04:18 PM	#1
Flaherty Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 292	An odd evolution debate I'm involved in an unusual evolution debate at the following link. http://pub203.ezboard.com/ffloridast...ID=12428.topic My handle there is Seminole Gene. The original poster's question is whether teaching evolution violates the separations clause. It's led to an interesting debate from angles I haven't seen before. I'm interested in your input.
Flaherty Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 292	__________________ "After all, who of us in our lives hasn't set fire to some great public building?" -- Graham Chapman

17th March 2003, 06:26 PM	#3
spoonhandler Guest Posts: n/a	Agreed. I don't think the original poster wanted a debate - a decision had been made and the poster was looking for supporting statements. My first post on JREF addressed this same topic: when people use the word belief in reference to facts. I will be self-indulgent enough to quote myself: "This is an old chestnut I know, but it still bugs me to hear people talking about belief in the theory of evolution, rather than using words like understanding, which does not automatically imply acceptance. I can understand a theory - I may or may not agree that the evidence validates it. I can also try to argue about a theory I don't actually understand and make a complete fool of myself. Believing in theories is the worst error I can make. It means I'm not being objective, that I'm not prepared to adjust or abandon a hypothesis when evidence suggests I should." Like the student I was referring to in this post, glommer is implying facts require our belief to be validated. Glommer was also making limited interpretations of the dictionary-based definitions of religion and religious, etc.
spoonhandler Guest Posts: n/a

17th March 2003, 07:14 PM	#4
fishbob Seasonally Disaffected Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chilly Undieville Posts: 5,670	Glommer sez: Quote: The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain one's ultimate reality through a set of principles. This statement is false. I find that these discussions often start out with false statements. He also posted from a dictionary "observance" I] an act or instance of following a custom, rule, or law II] an act or instance of watching, then ignored the 2nd definition, which was the appropriate definition.
	__________________ When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder "Stupidity - a callow indifference to facts or data" - Stuart Firestein -neuroscientist. I hate bigots.

17th March 2003, 07:30 PM	#5
Dymanic Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 4,809	I was thinking, if we could just teach the kids what the theory of evolution does not say, we'd be way ahead of the game. So much of what creationists seem to find objectionable is based on misunderstandings about what evolutionary theory says.
Dymanic Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 4,809

18th March 2003, 05:34 AM	#6
Flaherty Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 292	Strawman Quote: Originally posted by Dymanic I was thinking, if we could just teach the kids what the theory of evolution does not say, we'd be way ahead of the game. So much of what creationists seem to find objectionable is based on misunderstandings about what evolutionary theory says. The old strawman argument, in other words.
Flaherty Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 292	__________________ "After all, who of us in our lives hasn't set fire to some great public building?" -- Graham Chapman

17th March 2003, 05:36 PM	#2
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,931	I thought your arguments were well-reasoned, emotionally neutral, and completely ignored.

18th March 2003, 09:15 AM	#7
neutrino_cannon Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Seventh circle of limbo Posts: 2,575	Re: Strawman Quote: Originally posted by Flaherty The old strawman argument, in other words. There are no greater masters of the art.
	__________________ "Man would have been too happy, if, limiting himself to the visible objects which interested him, he had employed, to perfect his real sciences, his laws, his morals, his education, one half-the efforts he has put into his researches on the Divinity" -Percy Bysshe Shelley, The Necessity of Atheism