Sam Brownback for Pres???

Yukon · 31st May 2007, 06:37 AM

Sam Brownback, senator from Kansas (whatdaya know), wrote an Op/Ed piece in the NY Times today about what he thinks about evolution. He comes across as very politically correct, making sure not to offend any would-be voters, and even makes some eyebrow-raising points (to me). But I'd like to get some others' views about his assertions regarding evolution and how it was designed by God. My question to him is....Which God?

His last paragraph, where he describes how "Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order", and his belief that this "spiritual truth" cannot be undermined by any theories of scientific reason concern me to say the least. Are we to have another president who is so engrossed in Conservative Christianity that they have no acceptance for what is good and decent in the world?

I can't post the link to the article....but you can go to it at nytimes.com and scroll to the opinion section/What I think about Evolution. It's an interesting and short read.

Your thoughts...

This Guy · 31st May 2007, 06:41 AM

This will get you to the OP page. But to read the letter you have to register. It's free, but I'm not gonna do that just now

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html

Yukon · 31st May 2007, 06:44 AM

Thanks Guy...nice smile!

Yukon · 31st May 2007, 06:45 AM

The article was sent to me in an email...I could copy/paste/post if anyone would rather see it and read it that way...let me know.

This Guy · 31st May 2007, 06:51 AM

Your welcome.

Be careful posting more than bits and pieces of sources.

From the Membership agreement -

http://www.randi.org/forum/rules.html

Rule 4 - You will not post "copyright-protected1" material in its entirety, including "hotlinking2" to images or other media.

Yukon · 31st May 2007, 06:56 AM

Much appreciated!

headscratcher4 · 31st May 2007, 07:01 AM

What Brownbeck doesn't do...is explain why or how "creationism" is science and should be taught as such.

The thing he does do is assert that a). Biologist argue over the path of Darwininan evolution (true...but it is a scientific argument) and b). there are thousands of biologists that dispute the fact (rather than specific facts of) evolution.

Like all creationist arguments, he doesn't name those scientists. Why? Because they are generally either not trained biologists, published biologists or respected biologists. They call themselves scientists but are pretty well untested by the scientific methods accepeted by most of the scientific community. However, the assertion that "scientists" object to Darwinian evolution (in favor of creationism, ID or some other flat-earth science) is supposed to give his argument credibility.

I.e. it is essentially: "I am not a scientist, but scientists inform me that there is no consensus and indeed real dispute exists..."

This is hog wash. He should be called on it. He attempts to argue from authority that he does not name and that, in reality, is no authority at all. If the Pennsylvania case showed us anything there is no smoking gun, there isn't even bullets and the creationist don't even know how to load the gun, little less point it and shoot.

Yukon · 31st May 2007, 07:16 AM

Head, I'll have to look into the Pennsylvania case, I'm unfamiliar with it. I agree that he is washed up and that this seems to be an attempt to respond to an issue that he couldn't answer 'on the spot' at the debate.

His assertion, in his article, about how 'faith deals with spiritual truths', bothers me to no end. What are these 'truths' and how are they founded? I know that if I send him an email asking for an explanation, I'll get the "Thank you for sending your congressman a message" message

...I'd rather pose the question here and get a less political answer.

hgc · 31st May 2007, 07:22 AM

From Brownback:

Quote:

There is no one single theory of evolution, as proponents of punctuated equilibrium and classical Darwinism continue to feud today.

Continue to feud within an agreed-up framework that Brownback rejects. It's like saying that because basketball has opponents and proponents of the 3-point shot, it is somehow indicative that there's disagreement within basketball circles about the viability of the jump shot.

Quote:

Many questions raised by evolutionary theory — like whether man has a unique place in the world or is merely the chance product of random mutations — go beyond empirical science and are better addressed in the realm of philosophy or theology.

Yes, regale us with the philosophical or theological musings on random mutations. (And while you're at it, stop pretending that evolution is random.)

hgc · 31st May 2007, 07:26 AM

Originally Posted by Yukon

Head, I'll have to look into the Pennsylvania case, I'm unfamiliar with it. I agree that he is washed up and that this seems to be an attempt to respond to an issue that he couldn't answer 'on the spot' at the debate.

You only have to read the judge's opinion (at Talk Origins). It's one of the finest legal documents I've ever read.

Yukon · 31st May 2007, 07:28 AM

hgc, thanks. I'll check it out.

Yukon · 31st May 2007, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by hgc

You only have to read the judge's opinion (at Talk Origins). It's one of the finest legal documents I've ever read.

Youch!! That stings a little bit. I wonder if Brownback ever read the judge's decision...or if his staffers hid it from him

Call me naive, but I don't see any problem with letting people make up their own minds. The statement "With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families", as was supposed to be read to ninth graders in Dover, is unoffensive to me. What is offensive are Jehova's(sp) witnesses who come knocking on my door....Catholic priests who say 'there is one God, and you shall worship him or he shall smite thee'...and anyone else who says 'this is how it is, accept it or get lost'.

The thing about ninth graders, though, is they believe what they want to believe (which is x-box) and don't retain much more than what their hormones allow them to retain. I think it's up to the environment in which they are raised....ie. their home life.

headscratcher4 · 31st May 2007, 07:54 AM

But we don't let students make up their own minds...at least not in hard sciences. We don't let math students determine that 2+2+5, or that algerbra works a differnt way than it does. We don't let physics students ignore the rules of physics or chemistry students believe there are only four elements. Biology is a hard science. If the theory is wrong, it will fail, what it describes will not comport to what is obsevable or testable. To date, Darwin and Evolution, in broad strokes, holds up because it systematically describes the observable world. That is all it ever claims. It makes not claim about God.

But, Brownbeck would allow science to be changed -- to be taught as different than it is -- because of his religous beliefs. It isn't that he is wrong in his beliefs...he is wrong in demanding that those beliefs be show-horned into a science where they have no real relevance. In its own way, it is a little like the Nazi's and their racial theories...those theories didn't really comport to accepted science, but the Nazi's wanted them shoe-horned in. Or, let's not forget Lysenko.

I wonder if Brownbeck ever heard of Lysenko?

pgwenthold · 31st May 2007, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by Yukon

His last paragraph, where he describes how "Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order",

Except, of course, in our similarities to other primates.

Apparently Brownback has never seen a baby chimp cling to a human female, just like a toddler would do. Watch a baby chimp try to take it's first steps supported by human hands, just as a toddler would do. There is almost no difference between their "likenessess." It's just that as humans grow, they progress beyond those stages where the chimps stagnate.

Our DNA is pretty much the same, and we look pretty similar.

Where does he get off calling the human image and likeness "unique"?

headscratcher4 · 31st May 2007, 08:27 AM

Because Jesus was a blond-haired, blue-eyed bloke that looked just like most people from Kansas...and chimps, well, they look like people from some of those other countries. See?

Darth Rotor · 31st May 2007, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by headscratcher4

Because Jesus was a blond-haired, blue-eyed bloke that looked just like most people from Kansas...and chimps, well, they look like people from some of those other countries. See?

Haven't you read your 1960's socially conscious literature?

Jesus was a black man.

How soon we forget.

DR

FenrisWolf · 31st May 2007, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by This Guy

This will get you to the OP page. But to read the letter you have to register. It's free, but I'm not gonna do that just now

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html

For future reference, www.bugmenot.com provides passwords to access most newspaper sites that require passwords.

headscratcher4 · 31st May 2007, 08:38 AM

"Jesus was a black man."

Not in Kansas...I'll bet dimes to dollars on that.

Yukon · 31st May 2007, 08:50 AM

Jesus---Born in Bethlehem, taught in the Temple, migrated to Kansas and lived there during those years he was not written about in the Bible, until he caught the red-eye back to the middle east....at least thats what we were taught here in the Wheat State

fishbob · 31st May 2007, 08:54 AM

Brownback:

Quote:

The heart of the issue is that we cannot drive a wedge between faith and reason. I believe wholeheartedly that there cannot be any contradiction between the two. The scientific method, based on reason, seeks to discover truths about the nature of the created order and how it operates, whereas faith deals with spiritual truths. The truths of science and faith are complementary: they deal with very different questions, but they do not contradict each other because the spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God.

Faith and reason are contradictory. Reason requires evaluation of facts, faith needs no pesky facts. Faith ignores those pesky facts.

And around the world and in different cultures and religions, the 'truths of faith' pretty much seem to be whatever you want them to be.

What a dimbulb.

Yukon · 31st May 2007, 09:01 AM

Head, you're right that we don't let kids decide for themselves about science (and physics, chem, etc.), because those are hard facts. But where, then, does a kid, or anyone, learn about his likes/dislikes/preferences? As stupid as it sounds, isn't it everyone's right to think what they want as long as they don't try to impose their thoughts on someone else? If I like blue, and you like red, I'm not going to try and change your mind to like blue or try to prove that red is wrong. I'll let you like (or believe) whatever you want. So, as long as we teach the kids the theory of evolution, and tell them that there are vast facts that support it,
couldn't we make them aware of other theories and let them decide for themselves as long as they know that one or more may be wrong?

Yukon · 31st May 2007, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by fishbob

Brownback:

Faith and reason are contradictory. Reason requires evaluation of facts, faith needs no pesky facts. Faith ignores those pesky facts.

And around the world and in different cultures and religions, the 'truths of faith' pretty much seem to be whatever you want them to be.

What a dimbulb.

Yeah, Sam needs a hard wake-up call...

If he gets elected (which I don't think he stands a chance in his faith-based hell) we're all in trouble. It's going to be an oil-globbering dictatorship all over again.

hgc · 31st May 2007, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by Yukon

couldn't we make them aware of other theories and let them decide for themselves as long as they know that one or more may be wrong?

There are no other theories, scientifically speaking. You can read here for more about what a theory is.

ID/Creationism is not science, not theory. It is religion. I know of no reason to make students aware of religious notions about biology in a public school science classroom.

hgc · 31st May 2007, 09:36 AM

At the blog Hullabaloo, tristero rips into Brownback and other creationists on the use of the word "materialism."

Brownback:

Quote:

If [belief in evolution] means assenting to an exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence, then I reject it.

Creationists like to criticize materialism, but they are playing a punny game here. Sure on one level, they really don't like scientific materialism, since it ignores God and bible in its calculations. But they like hammer away at this particular word especially because the uninformed can easily conflate this with societal notions of "materialism," i.e., greed and other deadly sins.

Yukon · 31st May 2007, 09:51 AM

"ID/Creationism is not science, not theory. It is religion. I know of no reason to make students aware of religious notions about biology in a public school science classroom." Well said. ...and I think this point should be made to those who wield the wand of power, ie. Brownback. A big problem is, I think, that people like those found here on this site are much like the Democrats in Congress. We give profound and exact explanations for why things should be the way they should be, but don't do much about it very often. Unfortunately, the republicans in office have my limited respect, because they just do whatever they want to do. All-be-it, what they do is mis-guided, they at least have the guts to go forth. Ala the war in Iraq. Everyone advised against it, now it is coming out that it was a sham, orchestrated by the admin, but they still went on with it. If this Democratic Congress was more bullish and not so "nice", they would pass legislation that once and for all, squashes any chance of teaching creationism in public schools. ...and while we're on the subject, gets us out of Iraq and saves American soldiers' lives.

headscratcher4 · 31st May 2007, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by hgc

There are no other theories, scientifically speaking. You can read here for more about what a theory is.

ID/Creationism is not science, not theory. It is religion. I know of no reason to make students aware of religious notions about biology in a public school science classroom.

What he said...

This Guy · 31st May 2007, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by FenrisWolf

For future reference, www.bugmenot.com provides passwords to access most newspaper sites that require passwords.

Cool! Thanks

webfusion · 1st June 2007, 12:58 AM

Yukon mentions:

Quote:

...What is offensive ...is anyone (else) who says 'this is how it is, accept it or get lost'.

May 30th, 2007 --- David Letterman, in his Great Moments in American Presidential Speeches segment (poking fun at "Bush-isms") offered a clip of the POTUS saying:

"If you don't like what we tell you to believe in, We'll kill you."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwJ2SKfCY64

(granted, this was taken out of context, but it's just funny to see him say it)

NeoRicen · 3rd June 2007, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order

Has this guy ever even seen a Chimp?

corplinx · 3rd June 2007, 11:17 PM

Brownback is Opus Dei. I hope we all learned what's that all about from reading the Da Vinci Code. That book was non-fiction after all.

UnrepentantSinner · 3rd June 2007, 11:37 PM

Brownback went on my "no thank you" list after he started going after Howard Stern. The evolution BS was just one more reason.

Unlike Dubyah, Brownback would actually try and impliment some of his wackier religious ideas.

31st May 2007, 06:37 AM	#1
Yukon New Blood Join Date: May 2006 Location: Republicanville, USA. Posts: 24	Sam Brownback for Pres??? Sam Brownback, senator from Kansas (whatdaya know), wrote an Op/Ed piece in the NY Times today about what he thinks about evolution. He comes across as very politically correct, making sure not to offend any would-be voters, and even makes some eyebrow-raising points (to me). But I'd like to get some others' views about his assertions regarding evolution and how it was designed by God. My question to him is....Which God? His last paragraph, where he describes how "Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order", and his belief that this "spiritual truth" cannot be undermined by any theories of scientific reason concern me to say the least. Are we to have another president who is so engrossed in Conservative Christianity that they have no acceptance for what is good and decent in the world? I can't post the link to the article....but you can go to it at nytimes.com and scroll to the opinion section/What I think about Evolution. It's an interesting and short read. Your thoughts...

31st May 2007, 06:41 AM	#2
This Guy Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: On the corner of WALK and DON'T WALK Posts: 2,000	This will get you to the OP page. But to read the letter you have to register. It's free, but I'm not gonna do that just now http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html
	__________________ I'm lost. I've gone to find me. If I should return before I get back, please ask me to wait!

31st May 2007, 06:51 AM	#5
This Guy Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: On the corner of WALK and DON'T WALK Posts: 2,000	Your welcome. Be careful posting more than bits and pieces of sources. From the Membership agreement - http://www.randi.org/forum/rules.html Rule 4 - You will not post "copyright-protected1" material in its entirety, including "hotlinking2" to images or other media.
	__________________ I'm lost. I've gone to find me. If I should return before I get back, please ask me to wait!

31st May 2007, 07:01 AM	#7
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 7,749	What Brownbeck doesn't do...is explain why or how "creationism" is science and should be taught as such. The thing he does do is assert that a). Biologist argue over the path of Darwininan evolution (true...but it is a scientific argument) and b). there are thousands of biologists that dispute the fact (rather than specific facts of) evolution. Like all creationist arguments, he doesn't name those scientists. Why? Because they are generally either not trained biologists, published biologists or respected biologists. They call themselves scientists but are pretty well untested by the scientific methods accepeted by most of the scientific community. However, the assertion that "scientists" object to Darwinian evolution (in favor of creationism, ID or some other flat-earth science) is supposed to give his argument credibility. I.e. it is essentially: "I am not a scientist, but scientists inform me that there is no consensus and indeed real dispute exists..." This is hog wash. He should be called on it. He attempts to argue from authority that he does not name and that, in reality, is no authority at all. If the Pennsylvania case showed us anything there is no smoking gun, there isn't even bullets and the creationist don't even know how to load the gun, little less point it and shoot.
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson

31st May 2007, 07:16 AM	#8
Yukon New Blood Join Date: May 2006 Location: Republicanville, USA. Posts: 24	Head, I'll have to look into the Pennsylvania case, I'm unfamiliar with it. I agree that he is washed up and that this seems to be an attempt to respond to an issue that he couldn't answer 'on the spot' at the debate. His assertion, in his article, about how 'faith deals with spiritual truths', bothers me to no end. What are these 'truths' and how are they founded? I know that if I send him an email asking for an explanation, I'll get the "Thank you for sending your congressman a message" message...I'd rather pose the question here and get a less political answer.

31st May 2007, 06:44 AM	#3
Yukon New Blood Join Date: May 2006 Location: Republicanville, USA. Posts: 24	Thanks Guy...nice smile!

31st May 2007, 06:45 AM	#4
Yukon New Blood Join Date: May 2006 Location: Republicanville, USA. Posts: 24	The article was sent to me in an email...I could copy/paste/post if anyone would rather see it and read it that way...let me know.

31st May 2007, 06:56 AM	#6
Yukon New Blood Join Date: May 2006 Location: Republicanville, USA. Posts: 24	Much appreciated!

31st May 2007, 07:22 AM	#9
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 12,987	From Brownback: Quote: There is no one single theory of evolution, as proponents of punctuated equilibrium and classical Darwinism continue to feud today. Continue to feud within an agreed-up framework that Brownback rejects. It's like saying that because basketball has opponents and proponents of the 3-point shot, it is somehow indicative that there's disagreement within basketball circles about the viability of the jump shot. Quote: Many questions raised by evolutionary theory — like whether man has a unique place in the world or is merely the chance product of random mutations — go beyond empirical science and are better addressed in the realm of philosophy or theology. Yes, regale us with the philosophical or theological musings on random mutations. (And while you're at it, stop pretending that evolution is random.)
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

31st May 2007, 07:26 AM	#10
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 12,987	Originally Posted by Yukon Head, I'll have to look into the Pennsylvania case, I'm unfamiliar with it. I agree that he is washed up and that this seems to be an attempt to respond to an issue that he couldn't answer 'on the spot' at the debate. You only have to read the judge's opinion (at Talk Origins). It's one of the finest legal documents I've ever read.
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

31st May 2007, 07:28 AM	#11
Yukon New Blood Join Date: May 2006 Location: Republicanville, USA. Posts: 24	hgc, thanks. I'll check it out.

31st May 2007, 07:45 AM	#12
Yukon New Blood Join Date: May 2006 Location: Republicanville, USA. Posts: 24	Originally Posted by hgc You only have to read the judge's opinion (at Talk Origins). It's one of the finest legal documents I've ever read. Youch!! That stings a little bit. I wonder if Brownback ever read the judge's decision...or if his staffers hid it from him Call me naive, but I don't see any problem with letting people make up their own minds. The statement "With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families", as was supposed to be read to ninth graders in Dover, is unoffensive to me. What is offensive are Jehova's(sp) witnesses who come knocking on my door....Catholic priests who say 'there is one God, and you shall worship him or he shall smite thee'...and anyone else who says 'this is how it is, accept it or get lost'. The thing about ninth graders, though, is they believe what they want to believe (which is x-box) and don't retain much more than what their hormones allow them to retain. I think it's up to the environment in which they are raised....ie. their home life.

31st May 2007, 07:54 AM	#13
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 7,749	But we don't let students make up their own minds...at least not in hard sciences. We don't let math students determine that 2+2+5, or that algerbra works a differnt way than it does. We don't let physics students ignore the rules of physics or chemistry students believe there are only four elements. Biology is a hard science. If the theory is wrong, it will fail, what it describes will not comport to what is obsevable or testable. To date, Darwin and Evolution, in broad strokes, holds up because it systematically describes the observable world. That is all it ever claims. It makes not claim about God. But, Brownbeck would allow science to be changed -- to be taught as different than it is -- because of his religous beliefs. It isn't that he is wrong in his beliefs...he is wrong in demanding that those beliefs be show-horned into a science where they have no real relevance. In its own way, it is a little like the Nazi's and their racial theories...those theories didn't really comport to accepted science, but the Nazi's wanted them shoe-horned in. Or, let's not forget Lysenko. I wonder if Brownbeck ever heard of Lysenko?
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson

31st May 2007, 08:25 AM	#14
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,066	Originally Posted by Yukon His last paragraph, where he describes how "Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order", Except, of course, in our similarities to other primates. Apparently Brownback has never seen a baby chimp cling to a human female, just like a toddler would do. Watch a baby chimp try to take it's first steps supported by human hands, just as a toddler would do. There is almost no difference between their "likenessess." It's just that as humans grow, they progress beyond those stages where the chimps stagnate. Our DNA is pretty much the same, and we look pretty similar. Where does he get off calling the human image and likeness "unique"?
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

31st May 2007, 08:27 AM	#15
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 7,749	Because Jesus was a blond-haired, blue-eyed bloke that looked just like most people from Kansas...and chimps, well, they look like people from some of those other countries. See?
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson

31st May 2007, 08:30 AM	#16
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,243	Originally Posted by headscratcher4 Because Jesus was a blond-haired, blue-eyed bloke that looked just like most people from Kansas...and chimps, well, they look like people from some of those other countries. See? Haven't you read your 1960's socially conscious literature? Jesus was a black man. How soon we forget. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

31st May 2007, 08:38 AM	#17
FenrisWolf Scholar Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 60	Originally Posted by This Guy This will get you to the OP page. But to read the letter you have to register. It's free, but I'm not gonna do that just now http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html For future reference, www.bugmenot.com provides passwords to access most newspaper sites that require passwords.
FenrisWolf Scholar Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 60

31st May 2007, 08:50 AM	#19
Yukon New Blood Join Date: May 2006 Location: Republicanville, USA. Posts: 24	Jesus---Born in Bethlehem, taught in the Temple, migrated to Kansas and lived there during those years he was not written about in the Bible, until he caught the red-eye back to the middle east....at least thats what we were taught here in the Wheat State

31st May 2007, 08:54 AM	#20
fishbob Seasonally Disaffected Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chilly Undieville Posts: 5,666	Brownback: Quote: The heart of the issue is that we cannot drive a wedge between faith and reason. I believe wholeheartedly that there cannot be any contradiction between the two. The scientific method, based on reason, seeks to discover truths about the nature of the created order and how it operates, whereas faith deals with spiritual truths. The truths of science and faith are complementary: they deal with very different questions, but they do not contradict each other because the spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God. Faith and reason are contradictory. Reason requires evaluation of facts, faith needs no pesky facts. Faith ignores those pesky facts. And around the world and in different cultures and religions, the 'truths of faith' pretty much seem to be whatever you want them to be. What a dimbulb.
	__________________ 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.

31st May 2007, 09:01 AM	#21
Yukon New Blood Join Date: May 2006 Location: Republicanville, USA. Posts: 24	Head, you're right that we don't let kids decide for themselves about science (and physics, chem, etc.), because those are hard facts. But where, then, does a kid, or anyone, learn about his likes/dislikes/preferences? As stupid as it sounds, isn't it everyone's right to think what they want as long as they don't try to impose their thoughts on someone else? If I like blue, and you like red, I'm not going to try and change your mind to like blue or try to prove that red is wrong. I'll let you like (or believe) whatever you want. So, as long as we teach the kids the theory of evolution, and tell them that there are vast facts that support it, couldn't we make them aware of other theories and let them decide for themselves as long as they know that one or more may be wrong?

31st May 2007, 09:05 AM	#22
Yukon New Blood Join Date: May 2006 Location: Republicanville, USA. Posts: 24	Originally Posted by fishbob Brownback: Faith and reason are contradictory. Reason requires evaluation of facts, faith needs no pesky facts. Faith ignores those pesky facts. And around the world and in different cultures and religions, the 'truths of faith' pretty much seem to be whatever you want them to be. What a dimbulb. Yeah, Sam needs a hard wake-up call... If he gets elected (which I don't think he stands a chance in his faith-based hell) we're all in trouble. It's going to be an oil-globbering dictatorship all over again.

31st May 2007, 09:27 AM	#23
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 12,987	Originally Posted by Yukon couldn't we make them aware of other theories and let them decide for themselves as long as they know that one or more may be wrong? There are no other theories, scientifically speaking. You can read here for more about what a theory is. ID/Creationism is not science, not theory. It is religion. I know of no reason to make students aware of religious notions about biology in a public school science classroom.
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

31st May 2007, 09:36 AM	#24
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 12,987	At the blog Hullabaloo, tristero rips into Brownback and other creationists on the use of the word "materialism." Brownback: Quote: If [belief in evolution] means assenting to an exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence, then I reject it. Creationists like to criticize materialism, but they are playing a punny game here. Sure on one level, they really don't like scientific materialism, since it ignores God and bible in its calculations. But they like hammer away at this particular word especially because the uninformed can easily conflate this with societal notions of "materialism," i.e., greed and other deadly sins.
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

31st May 2007, 09:51 AM	#25
Yukon New Blood Join Date: May 2006 Location: Republicanville, USA. Posts: 24	"ID/Creationism is not science, not theory. It is religion. I know of no reason to make students aware of religious notions about biology in a public school science classroom." Well said. ...and I think this point should be made to those who wield the wand of power, ie. Brownback. A big problem is, I think, that people like those found here on this site are much like the Democrats in Congress. We give profound and exact explanations for why things should be the way they should be, but don't do much about it very often. Unfortunately, the republicans in office have my limited respect, because they just do whatever they want to do. All-be-it, what they do is mis-guided, they at least have the guts to go forth. Ala the war in Iraq. Everyone advised against it, now it is coming out that it was a sham, orchestrated by the admin, but they still went on with it. If this Democratic Congress was more bullish and not so "nice", they would pass legislation that once and for all, squashes any chance of teaching creationism in public schools. ...and while we're on the subject, gets us out of Iraq and saves American soldiers' lives.

31st May 2007, 10:03 AM	#26
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 7,749	Originally Posted by hgc There are no other theories, scientifically speaking. You can read here for more about what a theory is. ID/Creationism is not science, not theory. It is religion. I know of no reason to make students aware of religious notions about biology in a public school science classroom. What he said...
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson

31st May 2007, 12:39 PM	#27
This Guy Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: On the corner of WALK and DON'T WALK Posts: 2,000	Originally Posted by FenrisWolf For future reference, www.bugmenot.com provides passwords to access most newspaper sites that require passwords. Cool! Thanks
	__________________ I'm lost. I've gone to find me. If I should return before I get back, please ask me to wait!

1st June 2007, 12:58 AM	#28
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Near I-95 Posts: 6,216	Yukon mentions: Quote: ...What is offensive ...is anyone (else) who says 'this is how it is, accept it or get lost'. May 30th, 2007 --- David Letterman, in his Great Moments in American Presidential Speeches segment (poking fun at "Bush-isms") offered a clip of the POTUS saying: "If you don't like what we tell you to believe in, We'll kill you." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwJ2SKfCY64 (granted, this was taken out of context, but it's just funny to see him say it)

3rd June 2007, 08:28 PM	#29
NeoRicen Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 444	Quote: Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order Has this guy ever even seen a Chimp?
NeoRicen Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 444

3rd June 2007, 11:17 PM	#30
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	Brownback is Opus Dei. I hope we all learned what's that all about from reading the Da Vinci Code. That book was non-fiction after all.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944

3rd June 2007, 11:37 PM	#31
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 26,351	Brownback went on my "no thank you" list after he started going after Howard Stern. The evolution BS was just one more reason. Unlike Dubyah, Brownback would actually try and impliment some of his wackier religious ideas.
	__________________ I am an American citizen who is part of American society and briefly served in the American armed forces. I use American dollars and pay taxes that support the American government. And yes, despite the editorial decison to change American politics to the nonsensical "USA politics" subforum, I follow and comment on American politics.