Comments on: The Forthcoming Election http://17thdegree.com/archives/2004/10/26/41/ On the web since, I dunno, August 2003? Sat, 22 Nov 2008 06:07:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 By: Jeff Croft http://17thdegree.com/archives/2004/10/26/41/#comment-63 Jeff Croft Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:16:40 +0000 http://17thdegree.com/archives/2004/10/26/41/#comment-63 I consider myself to be an agnostic. The definition of "agnostic" varies depending on who you ask, but these are my basic beliefs: 1. The existience of "god" is unknown. 2. The existience of "god" is unknowable. 3. Since the existience of "god" is unknowable, I do not intend to spend my time trying to "figure it all out." The bottom line to me is this: we don't know, and we never will, so I'll be damned if I'm going to lose any sleep over it. My general feelings towards education is that a rounded education is a good one. Thus, I'm for presenting all sorts of different ideas and letting students think critticaly about what they believe. So, while I am in favor of creationism (or ID) being presented at some level in the classroom, I do not believe this should affect the teching (or not teaching) of evoloution. I guess what I'm saying is this: the fact that creationism might be a big enough deal to warrant some kind of presentation does not mean we have to back off of evoloution. The two are not mutually exclusive. There's nothing wrong with teaching both -- we just have to make sure we present the facts: evoloution is a 200 year old theory that has stood the test of time and is believed by 99.9% of scientists. Creationism is a way to reconcile religion with the science. As long as it's presented that way, then I have no problem with showing both. I consider myself to be an agnostic. The definition of “agnostic” varies depending on who you ask, but these are my basic beliefs:

1. The existience of “god” is unknown.
2. The existience of “god” is unknowable.
3. Since the existience of “god” is unknowable, I do not intend to spend my time trying to “figure it all out.”

The bottom line to me is this: we don’t know, and we never will, so I’ll be damned if I’m going to lose any sleep over it.

My general feelings towards education is that a rounded education is a good one. Thus, I’m for presenting all sorts of different ideas and letting students think critticaly about what they believe. So, while I am in favor of creationism (or ID) being presented at some level in the classroom, I do not believe this should affect the teching (or not teaching) of evoloution. I guess what I’m saying is this: the fact that creationism might be a big enough deal to warrant some kind of presentation does not mean we have to back off of evoloution. The two are not mutually exclusive. There’s nothing wrong with teaching both — we just have to make sure we present the facts: evoloution is a 200 year old theory that has stood the test of time and is believed by 99.9% of scientists. Creationism is a way to reconcile religion with the science. As long as it’s presented that way, then I have no problem with showing both.

]]> By: James http://17thdegree.com/archives/2004/10/26/41/#comment-54 James Thu, 28 Oct 2004 19:52:56 +0000 http://17thdegree.com/archives/2004/10/26/41/#comment-54 Over the past year or so, I've thought about this subject (God and the creation of the universe) quite heavily. For the longest time I considered myself an agnostic. However, recently I decided that my views coincide exactly with <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=deist">Deism</a>. So in that sense, I do believe in <em>Intelligent Design</em>, however I'd hard consider it <em>intelligent</em> nor <em>design</em>. This view fits just fine with my view of evolution and related ideas. Another thing of note that I forgot to metion before is the teachings in college. If you take any science class you will be taught evolution 100% of the time and absolutely nothing like Intelligent Design. Why teach them something that they'll just be untaught. Also, as an aside, see my post later today about the electoral college. Over the past year or so, I’ve thought about this subject (God and the creation of the universe) quite heavily. For the longest time I considered myself an agnostic. However, recently I decided that my views coincide exactly with Deism. So in that sense, I do believe in Intelligent Design, however I’d hard consider it intelligent nor design. This view fits just fine with my view of evolution and related ideas.

Another thing of note that I forgot to metion before is the teachings in college. If you take any science class you will be taught evolution 100% of the time and absolutely nothing like Intelligent Design. Why teach them something that they’ll just be untaught.

Also, as an aside, see my post later today about the electoral college.

]]> By: Jeff Croft http://17thdegree.com/archives/2004/10/26/41/#comment-52 Jeff Croft Thu, 28 Oct 2004 18:46:37 +0000 http://17thdegree.com/archives/2004/10/26/41/#comment-52 I'm not especially politically-minded, and as such, I'm not registered to vote. That having been said, I do very much disagree with evolution being downplayed in our schools. On the other hand, I don't really disagree with creationisim (or Intelligest Design, as some are calling it now) being presented in our schools as what is it: a way of reconciling religion and science. However, to set it next to Darwin and other theories that have stood the test of time it pattently absurd. Science textbooks, like most textbooks, are made up of a select subset of all that science is really about. That is to say, not every theory gets to be in a textbook -- only those theories that have been proven time and time again over the course of hundreds of years. I guess you could call it <em>survival of the fittest.</em> Sorry, creationists, but "new wave" science just doesn't belong next to Eienstein, Darwin, etc, etc. If the school want to say, "here's another idea that is new and catching on with some folks," fine. But to say, "this idea is the equal of Darwinism" is ridiculous. I’m not especially politically-minded, and as such, I’m not registered to vote. That having been said, I do very much disagree with evolution being downplayed in our schools. On the other hand, I don’t really disagree with creationisim (or Intelligest Design, as some are calling it now) being presented in our schools as what is it: a way of reconciling religion and science. However, to set it next to Darwin and other theories that have stood the test of time it pattently absurd. Science textbooks, like most textbooks, are made up of a select subset of all that science is really about. That is to say, not every theory gets to be in a textbook — only those theories that have been proven time and time again over the course of hundreds of years. I guess you could call it survival of the fittest.

Sorry, creationists, but “new wave” science just doesn’t belong next to Eienstein, Darwin, etc, etc. If the school want to say, “here’s another idea that is new and catching on with some folks,” fine. But to say, “this idea is the equal of Darwinism” is ridiculous.

]]> By: Barrett http://17thdegree.com/archives/2004/10/26/41/#comment-51 Barrett Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:52:50 +0000 http://17thdegree.com/archives/2004/10/26/41/#comment-51 Way to go, Mark. I hate it when someone with a stupid sounding name is in office. Way to go, Mark. I hate it when someone with a stupid sounding name is in office.

]]> By: marquez http://17thdegree.com/archives/2004/10/26/41/#comment-50 marquez Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:26:15 +0000 http://17thdegree.com/archives/2004/10/26/41/#comment-50 Just sent off my absentee ballot monday, and since i dont know what the fuck any of the locals platforms are and shit, i just guessed and pick whoevers name sounded the coolest. Just sent off my absentee ballot monday, and since i dont know what the fuck any of the locals platforms are and shit, i just guessed and pick whoevers name sounded the coolest.

]]>