religion

[paulgiamatti]

Yeah I'm not being literal, I'm just saying it would be a Bad Thing with dry humor.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Would it be Julian or Aldus?

I wanted a 20th century Darwinian into story so it didn't seem antiquated. But you find out he is just the evolved for of the first primordial slime all Thomas Huxley.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah I'm not being literal, I'm just saying it would be a Bad Thing with dry humor.

Ah. Gotcha. I'm still not sure why it is that science has to be taught with any specific slant at all on it. Couldn't it just be taught without either creation or evolution? At least in public schools I mean.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ah. Gotcha. I'm still not sure why it is that science has to be taught with any specific slant at all on it. Couldn't it just be taught without either creation or evolution? At least in public schools I mean.

No that goes against the agenda of those that control the education system.

"In our dream, we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand. The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or science. We are not to raise up from among them authors, orators, poets, or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians. Nor will we cherish even the humbler ambition to raise up from among them lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we now have ample supply."
Rockefeller Foundation Director of Charity, Frederick Gates, 1913

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No that goes against the agenda of those that control the education system.

"In our dream, we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand. The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or science. We are not to raise up from among them authors, orators, poets, or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians. Nor will we cherish even the humbler ambition to raise up from among them lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we now have ample supply."
Rockefeller Foundation Director of Charity, Frederick Gates, 1913

Well I know that. But it still would make little sense for someone who feels that the point of education is critical thinking and the dissemination of unbiased facts and knowledge to want one or the other taught in public schools. If the goal is simply to remove the teaching of creation or intelligent design from public schools, then why does the antithesis have to be taught instead? Why not make a concerted effort to teach unbiased science?

[paulgiamatti]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ah. Gotcha. I'm still not sure why it is that science has to be taught with any specific slant at all on it. Couldn't it just be taught without either creation or evolution? At least in public schools I mean.

I like the way it's currently done, which basically teaches about the concept of creationism without going into anything dogmatic. Creationism didn't give us huge technological advancements and therefore doesn't deserve as much time in the classroom as science does. To say the same people that did give us these societal advancements have a theory about the way our species came into existence, but for some reason it should deserve equal time in the classroom as creationism - an out-moded and increasingly irrelevant way of thinking - is not in any way logical.

I'll make no concessions on this point. To equate evolution with religion or creationism is nothing more than underthought conflation, and I won't give anyone who carries on about such nonsense the time of day. It's your choice. Get serious, or be left out of the continuing conversation that's spurring us forward today.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I like the way it's currently done, which basically teaches about the concept of creationism without going into anything dogmatic. Creationism didn't give us huge technological advancements and therefore doesn't deserve as much time in the classroom as science does. To say the same people that did give us these societal advancements have a theory about the way our species came into existence, but for some reason it should deserve equal time in the classroom as creationism - an out-moded and increasingly irrelevant way of thinking - is not in any way logical.

I'll make no concessions on this point. To equate evolution with religion or creationism is nothing more than underthought conflation, and I won't give anyone who carries on about such nonsense the time of day. It's your choice. Get serious, or be left out of the continuing conversation that's spurring us forward today.

Confo or die. Survival of the fittest. Transcend into a new human!

Have you looked into new age religions. They share your worldview quite perfectly.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'll make no concessions on this point. To equate evolution with religion or creationism is nothing more than underthought conflation, and I won't give anyone who carries on about such nonsense the time of day. It's your choice. Get serious, or be left out of the continuing conversation that's spurring us forward today.

So if I view evolution as a religious thought process and a form of scientific interpretation but not science itself, I am unworthy of being part of the conversation? My viewpoint will be summarily dismissed based on this alone?

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'll make no concessions on this point. To equate evolution with religion or creationism is nothing more than underthought conflation, and I won't give anyone who carries on about such nonsense the time of day. It's your choice. Get serious, or be left out of the continuing conversation that's spurring us forward today.

It is though, and I'm being serious. We won't go there again because it goes in a loop, but I am the only one in that convo to present actually definitions to support the claim. While you provided your opinion that it isn't. Everything aside, weather or not w/e "religion does" or science, didn't matter. BY DEFINITION, the theory of evolution is religious. Maybe I couldn't explain it better, but RobotElvis gave very logical explanations that make complete sense and are understandable to give more reasoning, even though common sense would think that the definition is enough.

Anyways.....

[paulgiamatti]

Negotiation is irrelevant. You will be assimilated.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You will become one with the Borg.
You will all become one with the Borg.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You must comply.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]