Re: Motivation of creationists

On Nov 15, 5:26 pm, Rupert Morrish <rup...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
pineapple.l...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Belief is irrelevant. The matter of whether a theory fits the observed
and tested *facts* is the only relevant issue.

Belief is highly relevant to the issue at hand. Some people don't
want their kids taught certain things. Their beliefs matter in this
regard. (What you say above is 100% true for the scientific method,
however, and I fully agree. But we weren't talking about the
scientific method).

In point of *fact*, no school forces kids to study anything " from
the barrel of a gun ".

Not from a literal barrel of a gun, of course. Did you think I was
referring to a literal gun?

There are merely rules as to what can be taught in
any class labelled " Science ", that require that, well, Science be
taught there.

Correct. Currently, one side makes the rules. The other side would
like to make the rules.

no one gets to demand that religious beliefs be taught *in the
place of science in a public school Science classroom*.

If you are referring to a PUBLIC school, there are many who would beg
to differ, since they are forced to pay taxes for those public
schools. They are forced to pay taxes to teach something to their
kids which they fundamentally disagree with. It pisses them off about
as much as it would piss you off. If they have to pay taxes to
support it, they want a say in policy, just as you do (no taxation
without representation, etc).

Don't get me started on taxation without representation.

For a start, representation doesn't mean you get your way. Even if you
can summon up a local majority, you don't get to ignore the constitution.

Indeed. Its reasonable if a group fails to have their pet views
included in
school teachings, as long as the law, to the highest constitutional
law,
is followed. So, even if a majority of one school district ( Or, 10,
or 100 )
vote in creationism, thats still not a science and fails to qualify
for
inclusion in public school science classes.

You can vote for Pi being 3.0, and circles will still work with
3.14....

You got me started on taxation without representation.

I don't know about where you live, but when I lived in the US, schools
were funded out of property taxes. Owning property in a school district
in which you did not live (e.g. a summer cabin) subjected you to
taxation without representation.

I was a permanent resident alien, which meant I got to pay all the taxes
a citizen would pay (plus fees charged by the INS for the privilege of
being able to live with my wife), but did not receive any representation
(I was also ineligible for Social Security benefits).

Also, many would be happy with schools simply not teaching evolution
to their kids, vs. actively teaching "religion" to ALL kids. Many
would be happy with other solutions as well (separate science classes,
with parents being able to choose which class their kids attend,
etc). There are many possible solutions and ways to work together,
but I'm guessing any of these ideas would have a snowball's chance in
hell of people agreeing to it, so "culture war it is!" I'm afraid....

Also, some think that religion IS already being taught in public
school classrooms - "your religion of evolution." Of course, you will
say that isn't religion. People always say "it's different" when
something applies to them, you see. And the victors always get to
write the history, so to speak.

Sometimes people say "it's different" when it really is different.

For example, can you name a religion (not evolution) with no rites or
ceremonies, no central authority, no supreme being(s) and that has
amongst its adherents not only atheists but also members of every other
religion on earth?

On top of which, where said " religion " has as it's central tenet, "
go
get more information, test our current beliefs, and any said current
beliefs
which fail said testing, will be changed/jettisoned " ?

Well, OK, they can demand it, just that society is free to laugh at
the for it.

Sure - I agree. You can laugh all you want.

OK. I will.

Fine. My question still remains above.
Its a dishonest " question ".

I posed no dishonest question.

Sure, you did.

I asked whether he believes if people
should be forced to "learn the truth" out of the barrel of a
figurative gun.

Theres NO " figurative gun ". Unless you want to start claiming that
being made to obey ( Or, face legal consequences for failing to obey )
traffic lights, and payment of taxes ( No matter what level of gov't )
is force " out of the barrel of a figurative gun. "

Your " question " was pregnant with the ASSumption that diagreeing
with a law/rule entitles one to practice *anarchy* in that area. It
does
not. If you don't like that the US, and many western nations, require
that State bodies support no one religion, then you are free to do
any of three things:

1) Protest, and try to convince others to join your cause. It may
work,
it may not, and it might, even if it does work, not work for 100+
years.
2) Whine and stamp your widdle feetsies. We'll laugh at you for it.
3) Move to somewhere where your views are the norm; Caution, there
may not be such a place.

But, NO society owes YOU specific and anti societal grants of free
reign over ALL the kids in a given school district; As parents who
do support evolution, have their rights, too, and, moreover, their
rights
DO follow the Constitution. In such a conflict, the side that is
within
the Constitutional rules wins, over the one outside of those rules.
Period.

It was quite an honest question, or at least I
certainly meant it as such.

Now, as I have corrected you, you can work out how you went wrong
with that.

I'll take a wild guess and
say that yes, you think "the truth" should be forced on them if that's
what it takes.
No, thats what the creationists believe.

Ah! You are saying that "the truth" should not be forced on people?

Anyone wishing to take their kids out of a public school certainly has
choices: Private schools, and homeschooling. Even creationist parents
have to obey the societal laws and rules with regards the DUTIES TO
the children; They're NOT your play toys to propagandise as you wish.

So... culture war it is!
Indeed, because creationist religious nutbags....

This is why I said this above:

I've never understood the vitreous, visceral hatred
that other scientists have for these people who aren't like them, and
you see it on this group (and even in this thread), and other
scientific groups all the time.

I got this response from one individual:

<<You're mistaken again. No one hates you because you're different.
That's part of that "circle the wagons" persecution complex so
neccessary to people who need to whine. We don't even hate you for
what you believe. >>

He wrongly makes this personal and cites "you" above (that would be
"me," but I made no comments or complaints addressing me, and this
isn't about me),

No, your side makes it personal, by attacking those who support
science.
That " one individual "was *exactly* right in what he replied to you,
and I
fully agree with what he said. Evolutionists don't " hate
"creationists, we
hate ignorance, and especially willful ignorance, and creationism, by
DENYING and OPPOSING science, is an intolerant movement of willful
ignorance.

Its no more " hate " to oppose false beliefs, which are factually
false,
than it is to hate the forest, because there isn't a road where you
can
drive a car running through it. Science travels on the roadbed of
worked
out FACTS. Its creationism that demands that we all call thick forests
the same as Interstate Highways.

Oh, and in case you are tempted to come back with " highways aren't
natural artifacts ", thats quite true: Both science and roads ARE made
by people who have the specific goal of building something where there
was nothing, before. The something built is knowledge, and the nothing
before was.. ignorance.

Ignorance of the facts of science is NOT knowledge; it is it's foe.

but I think what you wrote, and what countless others
write here and elsewhere, prove him wrong.

And, you are wrong about that, as well.

Thats OK, you have the freedom to be wrong.

Andre

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Should Religious Ideas Be Presented in Science Classes?
    ... public schools would be contributing to an establishment of religion. ... I went to a public high school, and given the way it was set up, from ... This is especially true for science classes. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: History of Intelligent Design
    ... The ID conspiracy to wedge religion into our schools is well ... she has no practical knowledge of science. ... of evolution was unconstitutional because the motivation was based on ... A California judge ruled that teaching evolution in public school ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Should Religious Ideas Be Presented in Science Classes?
    ... public schools would be contributing to an establishment of religion. ... I went to a public high school, and given the way it was set up, from ... This is especially true for science classes. ... high school students, and as such, any results from such experiments ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
    ... Earth, but we had no problems discussing this when I was at school, ... Church's attitudes to it in both religion and science classes. ... and it drives me crazy when kids come home from school parroting their ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)