pericles
Novice
Advocatus Diaboli
Posts: 55
|
Post by pericles on Nov 3, 2004 20:27:27 GMT -5
Originally posted by Shiggy
Hardly. Creationism, in the form most supporters want it taught as, is not endorsing any specific creation story. It is rather supporting the perfectly legitimate theory that there is an intelligent design to the universe. And it certainly does not fish for specific data; rather it is evolutionism which can be accused of such things. Ever heard of the Piltdown man?
And if we are interested in teaching children facts, not fantasies, then most high school science textbooks need to be rewritten. Many are still claiming such ridiculous things as the fossil record actually supporting a gradual transition through evolutionary forms. Leading evolutionists the world over know better than that; even Darwin did.
As logic, this sentence is ridiculous. This argument reduces itself to "we should legalise bad things, because worse things will be done if they aren't legalised." Bobarian could probably come up with the specific logical fallacy you are using; but I can't. A good analogy, though, is saying that we should legalise murder done under carefully controlled conditions because people will do it in grotesque ways if it is criminalised. You may or may not have good arguments for legalising abortion, but this is not one of them.
Absolutely not. On the contrary, it is his job to do what is right. We do not elect a president to follow every whim of the people; we elect him to do the right thing. Unfortunately, that sometimes involves going against the will of the people.
As an example, the Civil War was hugely unpopular during Abraham Lincoln's presidency. He was greatly hated and ostracized by some for continuing with the war in the manner he did. But he didn't stop; instead he reunited the nation. Where would America be if Lincoln had just said "fine, whatever the people want?"
Many of the great men and women throughout history who we remember as being good leaders we remember because they refused to submit to public opinion. Often leaders should do as the people say; but sometimes they have a better idea of what should be done than the people do. Such is the nature of a representative democracy, and why it works.
Originally posted by joelhaldeman
No. The budget only began to be balanced because the 1994 Republican House began to force Clinton to do things like balance the budget and reduce spending. And no, Bush did not "screw" it up, a nice little incident called September 11, 2001 had far more to do with it. And, as a matter of fact, the economy had started to drop well before Clinton left office. His economic error was that he allowed the internet bubble to go on too long.
|
|
|
Post by desertfox on Nov 3, 2004 20:41:55 GMT -5
Last time I checked Australia's economy is also dependent on oil!!!
|
|
pericles
Novice
Advocatus Diaboli
Posts: 55
|
Post by pericles on Nov 3, 2004 20:59:56 GMT -5
Actually, I should add a careful modifier to my above statements about Bush's handling of the economy.
Bush's economic plans are in some way flawed. Most economic experts will admit that. There are, in fact, much better ways to handle the economy than his present plans.
However, this is not to say that he will destroy the economy, or that all of its woes are his fault. Some things that he has done are just stupid, like making tax cuts and then increasing spending. He needs to change that to manage a good economy.
Overall, though, I believe that his economic strategy is (and hopefully will be) better than that which Kerry would have instituted.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Nov 4, 2004 1:11:04 GMT -5
Hardly. Creationism, in the form most supporters want it taught as, is not endorsing any specific creation story. The fact is that most Creationists ARE coming from a Christian perspective and, ultimately, this specific religious perspective is what is being pushed. This is why creationism is so controversial. It is rather supporting the perfectly legitimate theory that there is an intelligent design to the universe. As I said earlier, this theory is in the same category as other mythical stories about the Earth's formation, which could also be referred to as "legitimate theories". The difference between the specific, everyday beliefs of individuals and science is that science bases its claims on evidence. Sure, a person is entitled to believe anything they want about the creation of the Earth, but to portray such beliefs as scientific is deceitful and misleading, especially if we're talking about bringing it into schools; it's just abhorrent. A disguised Christian agenda. And it certainly does not fish for specific data; rather it is evolutionism which can be accused of such things. Ever heard of the Piltdown man? Well, actually, yes, creationism DOES fish for specific data. According to the institute for creation research (ICR), these are the assumptions made by all (even non-biblical) creationists before the interpretation of their data: This clearly shows that the scientific method is abused in all forms of creationism due to their restrictive assumptions about what the data "must" show; the conclusion has already been made before any data has even been seen. This is essentially "working backwards"; ie, starting with a particular (unscientific) belief about the world, and then examining data under the assumption that the belief is correct. The data are made to fit the theory, not the other way around. Actually, at ICR specifically, all researchers are required to take an oath that the Bible is inerrant and that their research will show this. It is assumed to be true before it can even be tested. The theory is not subject to scientific scrutiny; the data are made to fit with it, so the theory is not allowed to change as new disconfirming data are ultimately discovered. And if we are interested in teaching children facts, not fantasies, then most high school science textbooks need to be rewritten. Many are still claiming such ridiculous things as the fossil record actually supporting a gradual transition through evolutionary forms. Leading evolutionists the world over know better than that; even Darwin did. Oh really? The majority of the scientific community are evolutionists and this is because this is what their data have indicated. The reason that they are "still claiming" these "ridiculous" findings is because they are findings. Scientists base their theories on evidence, creationists (who are NOT scientists) base theirs mostly on religious beliefs. As logic, this sentence is ridiculous. This argument reduces itself to "we should legalise bad things, because worse things will be done if they aren't legalised." ... A good analogy, though, is saying that we should legalise murder done under carefully controlled conditions because people will do it in grotesque ways if it is criminalised. You may or may not have good arguments for legalising abortion, but this is not one of them. Er, no, I am certainly not saying that abortion is a "bad" thing. On the contrary, I am saying that even if one DOES believe it to be a bad thing, this fails to consider the horrific ramifications of criminalising it; if Christian women don't believe in abortions, they can choose not to have them. They should NOT, however, force those who ARE in need of them to do so in highly dangerous, dirty, conditions. The criminalising of abortion would destroy countless young women's lives. Christians have their own set of rules, society has another, and Christians need to realise and accept this. Not all people share your morality and you need to respect this. Absolutely not. On the contrary, it is his job to do what is right. We do not elect a president to follow every whim of the people; we elect him to do the right thing. Unfortunately, that sometimes involves going against the will of the people. Well, this depends on your definition of right and wrong, I guess! The "whim of the people", as you refer to it, is the whole reason for, and point of democratic government! Hello, totalitarianism! Many of the great men and women throughout history who we remember as being good leaders we remember because they refused to submit to public opinion. Often leaders should do as the people say; but sometimes they have a better idea of what should be done than the people do. Such is the nature of a representative democracy, and why it works. Yeah, this is a good point. I do agree with you to some extent here, but I think we should be really careful about referring to public opinion as a "whim" and all that. I think the true reason of "why it [democracy] works" is its distinguishing property of valuing the opinion of the public.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Nov 4, 2004 1:25:20 GMT -5
you cant blaim september 11 for the whole budget screw up. bush didnt have to spend 4 billion dollars on a war in iraq that was totally unrelated to sept 11
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Nov 4, 2004 5:56:47 GMT -5
Yeah, damn straight!
|
|
pericles
Novice
Advocatus Diaboli
Posts: 55
|
Post by pericles on Nov 4, 2004 17:57:24 GMT -5
you cant blaim september 11 for the whole budget screw up. bush didnt have to spend 4 billion dollars on a war in iraq that was totally unrelated to sept 11 Hey! You'e not being fair. Bush didn't spend 4 billion, it was 78 billion that he got authorization from Congress for spending. ;D At least, I think that's the right number. EDIT: I have been informed that I, too, was wrong, and it should be 87 billion. Sorry.
|
|
pericles
Novice
Advocatus Diaboli
Posts: 55
|
Post by pericles on Nov 4, 2004 18:09:36 GMT -5
Really? Or are many of them evolutionists because of what they were taught? When Rodney Stark set out to write a chapter of one of his books about the controversy over evolution, he was told by many of his colleagues that to criticize evolutionary theory would damage his career. Why? Because he was contradicting the status quo. Stark's objections are all perfectly legitimate; he does not even come to the conclusion that all of evolution is wrong.
Yes, most scientists are evolutionists, and radically unwilling to listen to anything even slightly different. I think their inherent biases have as much to do with "support" for evolution as any real science behind it.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Nov 4, 2004 18:44:10 GMT -5
By all means, I certainly admit that no theoretical perspective is flawless or free from abuse. However, (imo) evolution is a theory which originated from, and has been shaped and changed over many, many years by evidence and scientific data. Creationism, on the other hand, is a belief which originated not from study of the earth, but from (mainly) the Bible. As a consequence, it has a hell of a lot less to back it up. Especially on specific issues such as the Earth's age (evidenced by our observations of old stars and the dating of fossils), Noah's flood (which geological evidence does not support), and the emergence of birds after reptiles (unlike what it says in Genesis), Creationists do not seem to have a unified perspective on what they actually do believe about the Earth (they have discrepant theories about how, when, and even whether, Noah's flood occurred; they disagree about whether or not there was a literal 6-day creation, and they disagree in the extent to which their theories can "allow" micro- and macro-evolution (an embarrasing admission that it is still the best explanation for much data)). Sorry for getting us off on a tangent here - this isn't really politics anymore
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Nov 4, 2004 18:47:51 GMT -5
|
|
pericles
Novice
Advocatus Diaboli
Posts: 55
|
Post by pericles on Nov 4, 2004 19:03:08 GMT -5
Good! We can agree on something! ;D
I am sorry; I should have made my position clearer. I think Bush should respond to the majority for most things, and I think he will. But when it comes down to the really hard, divisive issues, it would not surprise me at all if he went with what he thought right. I do not mean that he should be totalitarian; but I think presidents who make decisions based on what the latest poll says (like Clinton did sometimes) are foolish. There is an important place for democracy and rule by the people; but every once in a while the people just act stupid.
I should use more precise language and explain myself better next time.
|
|
pericles
Novice
Advocatus Diaboli
Posts: 55
|
Post by pericles on Nov 4, 2004 19:09:31 GMT -5
Yes, there is much argument about what exactly creation-science should stand for. But I do not think that this immediately discredits it; for there is still much argument among evolutionist ranks about differences between evolutionary models and theories about the origin of life.
And it is true that significantly less research has been done on intelligent design theory than evolution. Much of that is due to the science behind it being relatively recently developed, and there being a relatively small field of scientists involved. I think that, given more time, creation-science may yet mature into a larger field that is given (somewhat) more credibility by the scientific community. And then again, it may not. I am not particularly concerned, however.
And yes, I know that there is some hokey stuff being said out there by far-out "creation scientists." But with just a little bit of effort, I could find some of the same things being said by evolutionists.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Nov 4, 2004 20:09:19 GMT -5
Yeah, I utterly agree (YAY!!!) There are certainly wackos from both camps, I readily admit that! The point you make about creation-science ("science"?) being a fairly young area is also a good one. I suppose I just find it hell amusing when "creation-scientists" contradict each other all the time and keep changing their arguments to fit particular debates. It's funny, but I guess I also feel it's important that creationists realise this; honestly, its frightening how many of them are blatantly unaware of the huge problems with, and contradictions within, their own theories. They really must lift their academic standards and be more rigourous so their new discipline can progress more smoothly and produce valuable insights and data to benefit the entire scientific community.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Nov 4, 2004 20:21:35 GMT -5
Hey Joel, Bush claimed after September 11th that we would hunt down the terrorists and those who harbor terrorists. Sorry to disappoint you, but even your hero Bill Clinton agreed on the link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Funny, many others didn't, and still don't. Bush's reasons for the war were obviously multiple. The well-publicised reason of America's safety was emphasised by Bush (at least partly) to political ends. There's nothin' like some good ol' fear to stir up public support for war. In my sociology course this semester we've been studying the Bush-administration's use of war propaganda. Check out this link: www.theolympian.com/home/news/20031011/frontpage/121390.shtmlAmazing, isn't it? I can't believe he gets away with this shit.
|
|
|
Post by H-Zence on Nov 4, 2004 21:53:12 GMT -5
We didn't go to Iraq because of WMDs. We didn't go to Iraq because Saddam is a cruel dictator and it's our "responsibility" to do the "right thing." We didn't go to Iraq because they were harboring terrorists.
One word:
Oil.
Need I say more?
|
|