Obama and dem congress cause resurgance of Republican core values.

Yeah, I am sure the voters will flock to the party that is as concerned with sexual orientation, sexual activities, Blue Laws, banning books, and teaching creationism as they are about personal liberty and fiscal responsibility.
The Democrat Party is concerned about sex, not the GOP. Blue Laws are most prevalent in the liberal northeast. Banning books ain't a GOP thing either. And the theory of evolution has many holes that can only be filled by the theory of intelligent design, and 90%+ minority folk consider themselves to be religious.

You appear to be ignorant of reality, which explains your affinity to the Democrat Party. *shrug*
 
The Democrat Party is concerned about sex, not the GOP. Blue Laws are most prevalent in the liberal northeast. Banning books ain't a GOP thing either. And the theory of evolution has many holes that can only be filled by the theory of intelligent design, and 90%+ minority folk consider themselves to be religious.

You appear to be ignorant of reality, which explains your affinity to the Democrat Party. *shrug*

Blue Laws are a distinctly social conservative affair. If you are claiming that the democrats are willing to push for laws that restrict business and personal activities on Sundays (to accomodate christian beliefs), then you are the one who is ignorant of reality. Where the blue laws exist is not the question. We are not discussing history. Which political group (and subgroup) would be most likely to agree with Blue Laws? Social Conservatives

To claim that the dems are the ones interested in restricting sexual behaviors is ridiculous. Their main interest in sex is trying to get equality.

Banning books is much more likely to be a social conservative's thing than it is to be anyone else's. They are the ones who have tried to legislate their beliefs into everyone else's lives numerous times (and in recent times as well).

The theory of evolution is the only scientific explanation of the diversification of species. So its the only one that should be taught in public schools. If you understood scientific methods and principles, you would understand that.


I am quite comfortable in the real world. As for my affinity for the democrat party, that is your own projection, not reality.
 
The Democrat Party is concerned about sex, not the GOP. Blue Laws are most prevalent in the liberal northeast. Banning books ain't a GOP thing either. And the theory of evolution has many holes that can only be filled by the theory of intelligent design, and 90%+ minority folk consider themselves to be religious.

You appear to be ignorant of reality, which explains your affinity to the Democrat Party. *shrug*

Ahh you forget Palin and her attempt to get books pulled from the library.
 
Blue Laws are a distinctly social conservative affair. If you are claiming that the democrats are willing to push for laws that restrict business and personal activities on Sundays (to accomodate christian beliefs), then you are the one who is ignorant of reality. Where the blue laws exist is not the question. We are not discussing history. Which political group (and subgroup) would be most likely to agree with Blue Laws? Social Conservatives

To claim that the dems are the ones interested in restricting sexual behaviors is ridiculous. Their main interest in sex is trying to get equality.

Banning books is much more likely to be a social conservative's thing than it is to be anyone else's. They are the ones who have tried to legislate their beliefs into everyone else's lives numerous times (and in recent times as well).

The theory of evolution is the only scientific explanation of the diversification of species. So its the only one that should be taught in public schools. If you understood scientific methods and principles, you would understand that.


I am quite comfortable in the real world. As for my affinity for the democrat party, that is your own projection, not reality.
The Democrats are the party of sex with anyone of any age at anytime which is really going go great with minorities, who showed us in California of all places that they are social conservatives.

Blue laws are basically a non-issue for social conservatives. As we have seen, most of them are still in force are in New England, which is controlled by Democrats for at least the last 60 years.

I've yet to see a social conservative run his campaign on book banning. Sure, we want to keep crap away from kids but most normal adults do too. Even most Democrats agree with that. When someone like US Citizen repeats the lies about Palin no person with a lick of sense falls for it anymore.

Again, ID is just as sound a theory as evolution but I've yet to see a social conservative treat it as an important campaign issue. Everyone knows that the public school system is controlled by the liberal Teacher's union, and the real battle is fought against them, and that is done with school choice, an issue firmly supported by minorities and firmly opposed by white liberals like yourself.
 
The Democrats are the party of sex with anyone of any age at anytime which is really going go great with minorities, who showed us in California of all places that they are social conservatives.

Blue laws are basically a non-issue for social conservatives. As we have seen, most of them are still in force are in New England, which is controlled by Democrats for at least the last 60 years.

I've yet to see a social conservative run his campaign on book banning. Sure, we want to keep crap away from kids but most normal adults do too. Even most Democrats agree with that. When someone like US Citizen repeats the lies about Palin no person with a lick of sense falls for it anymore.

Again, ID is just as sound a theory as evolution but I've yet to see a social conservative treat it as an important campaign issue. Everyone knows that the public school system is controlled by the liberal Teacher's union, and the real battle is fought against them, and that is done with school choice, an issue firmly supported by minorities and firmly opposed by white liberals like yourself.
Except it isn't a Scientific Theory. If you wish to call it a Theory you would have to note that it is a Philosophical Theory, as it does not meet the requirements to even be a Hypothesis, let alone a Theory as it is untestable.
 
Except it isn't a Scientific Theory. If you wish to call it a Theory you would have to note that it is a Philosophical Theory, as it does not meet the requirements to even be a Hypothesis, let alone a Theory as it is untestable.

"Amid all this talk about whether economics is a science, I began to wonder about philosophy. Not only do have our own Nobel Prize, but most of us spend our days testing hypotheses, and even making (all too easily) falsifiable predictions (e.g. about what sort of intuitions rational beings will have under various counterfactual circumstances). There is furthermore a lot of circumstantial evidence that we're scientists. Many of us spend our time hanging around semi-reputable folks like linguists and psychologists, and even topics that have no prima facie connections to anything reputable, upon closer investigation, are in fact linked in fairly obvious ways to the most respected disciplines of all. Indeed, over the course of my career, I've been surprised to see how the most abstractly metaphysical topics originally discussed by philosophers have come to impact a variety of clearly empirical disciplines outside philosophy. Work by philosophers on the metaphysics of modality (or the semantics for modal languages) resulted in a model that has useful applicability in a wide variety of topics (e.g. the study of probability, the study of natural language meaning). Philosophers nursed the notion of causation while it was hiding from anti-metaphysical forces, and now it is a respectable topic again in the human sciences (e.g. no discussion of practical reasoning can ignore it). Psychologists interested in concept formation appeal to work in metaphysics as abstract as David Wiggins and Michael Ayers on sortal concepts (to the great chagrin of some of my colleagues). Some of us are even quite explicit about the fact that we do experiments. It is not just in my Quinean moments that I wonder how to make a distinction between philosophy and 'real' science."

-Jason Stanley
 
Whether he fails to see a distinction, it is not a scientific Theory because it does not meet the requirements that make something a theory. He is waxing philosophical on the "line" but cannot change the definition at a whim.
 
Mmm...this ID business sounds very interesting indeed and really should be explored in excruciatingly tedious depth.

Why doesn't someone start a thread on it?
 
Is intelligent design a scientific theory?

Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php
 
Hopefully you will read this rather than pass over it. It answers every one of the fallacious arguments you quoted as well as a myriad of others.

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/what_you_can_do/why-intelligent-design-is-not.html

Great. This is the same far-leftist group that puts out this crap (through your link):

Brought critical facts to the debate about nuclear power and global warming
Because nuclear energy results in few global warming emissions, a growing number of policy makers have called for an expansion of the nuclear industry. UCS's report, Nuclear Power in a Warming World, details the serious safety and security risks that could accompany such an expansion and recommends steps to minimize those risks. To ensure that this information has a policy impact, UCS experts give briefings to congressional staff, meet with members of Congress, testify at Congressional hearings, speak to reporters, and serve as a resource for the media.

Dangerous Nuclear Reprocessing Plan Curtailed
Solid UCS research and the involvement of thousands of UCS activists helped strike a major blow to the Bush administration proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) program, an ill-advised plan to reprocess spent fuel from nuclear power reactors. UCS strongly opposes reprocessing, which separates plutonium from other nuclear waste, since separated plutonium can be used to make nuclear weapons. Reprocessing would make it easier for terrorists to acquire nuclear weapons materials, and for nations to develop nuclear weapon programs.
 
Great. This is the same far-leftist group that puts out this crap (through your link):
1. I have no objection to you using a right-wing bible-thumping site that tries to promote ID as science, but you suddenly object because you believe that this site is left-wing. While we are more naturally allies and I am also a right-winger, it doesn't change that I understand that this "Theory" in no way has passed muster to become a theory.

2. It is factually correct.

Where you go most wrong is in assuming that because it isn't science it means that it would be incorrect. Which is fallacious at its face.

Intelligent Design happens to be what most people believe in the US. Almost every person asked will tell you that they believe in God in one way or another, but it doesn't make it science.
 
1. I have no objection to you using a right-wing bible-thumping site that tries to promote ID as science, but you suddenly object because you believe that this site is left-wing. While we are more naturally allies and I am also a right-winger, it doesn't change that I understand that this "Theory" in no way has passed muster to become a theory.

2. It is factually correct.

Where you go most wrong is in assuming that because it isn't science it means that it would be incorrect. Which is fallacious at its face.

Intelligent Design happens to be what most people believe in the US. Almost every person asked will tell you that they believe in God in one way or another, but it doesn't make it science.

My source didn't attack evolutionist theory. All I'm asking for is that students be informed of both. *shrug*
 
The secularists won't let that happen either. Stop fooling yourself what their motives are.
I don't think they'd have a choice. We should include comparative religion classes early on. Basically in Middle school (or in Elementary if they teach it now) at the same time they are learning about evolution. The idea of ID shouldn't be ignored, and they should teach that Science has blind spots it cannot answer. Such as if there is an Intelligent Designer.
 
The Democrats are the party of sex with anyone of any age at anytime which is really going go great with minorities, who showed us in California of all places that they are social conservatives.

Blue laws are basically a non-issue for social conservatives. As we have seen, most of them are still in force are in New England, which is controlled by Democrats for at least the last 60 years.

I've yet to see a social conservative run his campaign on book banning. Sure, we want to keep crap away from kids but most normal adults do too. Even most Democrats agree with that. When someone like US Citizen repeats the lies about Palin no person with a lick of sense falls for it anymore.

Again, ID is just as sound a theory as evolution but I've yet to see a social conservative treat it as an important campaign issue. Everyone knows that the public school system is controlled by the liberal Teacher's union, and the real battle is fought against them, and that is done with school choice, an issue firmly supported by minorities and firmly opposed by white liberals like yourself.

The party of sex with anyone at any age? SM, that is nothing more than a bold-faced lie. No one in the democratic party has pressed for sex with children.

Almost all of the Blue Laws in New England date back to the 1700s. I cannot believe that you are even making this claim. I have seen to critisize the democrats for their atheistic stances, and now you want to blame them for their push for a theocracy? That is a joke. Blue Laws were written to enforce christian rules (whether one was christian or not). That is certainly not something the democratic party is known for. But lets think about who would have a portion of their constituency that might favor that........hmmm, who might court Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson and their ilk?? Would that be democrats.

Whether they run their campaign on book banning or not, the conservatives are the ones out to rid the public libraries of books they dislike. I helped fight against a campaign to remove John Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men from the libraries.

ID is simply not science. There are plenty of posts detailing that already. It should not be taught in science class.

Now you say that social conservatives don't campaign on book banning, don't see ID as a serious issue, and you blame the blue laws on the dems.

So please tell us all, exactly what are the areas that the social conservatives focus on?
 
The secularists won't let that happen either. Stop fooling yourself what their motives are.

ID can be taught in a philosophy class or (as I suggested in another thread) in a Comparative Religion class.

The motives are simply to keep ID out of science class, and to prevent any single religion from becoming the "state religion".
 
I don't think they'd have a choice. We should include comparative religion classes early on. Basically in Middle school (or in Elementary if they teach it now) at the same time they are learning about evolution. The idea of ID shouldn't be ignored, and they should teach that Science has blind spots it cannot answer. Such as if there is an Intelligent Designer.
It's the parents who don't have a choice, or at least the ones who ain't rich enough to send their kids to private school. The libs will shove their agenda down kids throats and it don't include ID.
 
It's the parents who don't have a choice, or at least the ones who ain't rich enough to send their kids to private school. The libs will shove their agenda down kids throats and it don't include ID.
You do know you have exactly the same power to elect a school board that they have? Right? Get a strong group together and start running for the boards, make it work for you instead of telling me how much others will do "to" you.

You can stand by and let things happen. I prefer to be more active.
 
Back
Top