Creationist Appointed As Maine Education Commissioner

[Septic]

Just answer the question on hand and we can discuss your mental gymnastics in due time.

Is Methodological Materialism philosophical or 'scientifically' proven?

No you're totally right, shame on all the scientists and that silly materialistic scientific method, right? How dare they smuggle that unbiased philosophy into the classroom, the audacity.

Seriously, in your eagerness to re-frame the argument into a philosophical arena on which there are only opinions, you've completely missed that your argument is equivocating the supernatural with the natural.

You've expertly pigeon holed the argument, kudos.

 

[Orange_Crush]

No you're totally right, shame on all the scientists and that silly materialistic scientific method, right? How dare they smuggle that unbiased philosophy into the classroom, the audacity.

So, when MP claimed that ID smuggles philosophy into the classroom, and materialistic scientists do not... He was incorrect? They are both speaking from competing philosophical viewpoints?

Seriously, in your eagerness to re-frame the argument into a philosophical arena on which there are only opinions, you've completely missed that your argument is equivocating the supernatural with the natural.

You've expertly pigeon holed the argument, kudos.

Please explain. Maybe I missed it and you can point out my blind spot. [Edit: if you do so, could you point it out in a separate response from the one I asked for above, per philosophical viewpoints? I'm easily distracted, unfortunately, and I'd like to follow that one out to its conclusion.]

 

[MercyPercy]

How about stop deflecting points and deal with the issue. And, as often as you do it, attacking the person does not defeat the argument.

I'll keep it simple and work slowly so as to make it easier for both of us. You get to answer yes/no, and it'll be easier for everyone to recognize when you don't deal with the point. Deal?

Is methodological naturalism/materialism a philosophy or a scientific fact? Please answer that.

It's an epistemology and a method. It makes no claims about a creator or lack thereof, and is used to derive understanding from and of the natural world. Again, science working within the context of science. If you just want me to say our scientific method is inherently part of a philosophy and no more valid than your process of deriving truth from creationism, I'm not falling for the bait. Methodological naturalism has a pretty good track record- the best tool we have so far that we can employ to describe the natural world, which is all it is trying to do. That's as good as it's going to get for those of us who trust in reason until a new system comes along that outdoes it in evidence backed results.

 

[FLVOL69]

Good scientists are not smuggling philosophy/theology into into the classroom. They're teaching a clearly defined process which works to understand, describe, and predict the world around us.

You're crying about the vast majority of scientists who don't want something that does not deal with the physical being taught in a class about about the physical world. Something so inherently unknowable without any type of evidence or any basis in the principles of science as we currently understand it. It seems pretty obvious to me why that makes sense. We've had this argument before and you have not convinced me that that smuggling creationism is the same as "smuggling" materialism/physicalsim into a subject that is inherently dealing with a specific method to describe something of the physical world.

You just don't like science working within its own parameters because there are specific things you disagree with being taught based in your religious beliefs. It's not like the good old days where you could just thump the bible, now you have to be a little more slick. You have to hide your proselytizing in a theory that tries to blend in and gain credence with some catchy(but hollow) arguments, but doesn't even pass the smell test with the experts of the field.

Not all opinions are equal. I'm not mentally equipped or qualified to teach theoretical physics and neither are you. Your appeal for an equal voice was noted, it was considered, and it has been deemed untenable in its current state.

When did he get out of jail ?

 

[Orange_Crush]

It's an epistemology and a method.

OK. So it is a philosophy.

a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge.

Thank you. So, when you said that IDers are smuggling philosophy into the classroom, you must now admit that your guys are doing the same thing?

 

[McDad]

This is a difficult moment for you centralized, big-government types. On one hand you want heavy top-down government dictating everything from soda drinks to schools. On the other, once power is bestowed, then the powerful decide who is in charge. And the powerful don't give a damn about your beliefs.

 

[MercyPercy]

OK. So it is a philosophy.



Thank you. So, when you said that IDers are smuggling philosophy into the classroom, you must now admit that your guys are doing the same thing?

If the scientific method(and thus all the knowledge it has provided us) works within the context of methodological naturalism, is that "smuggling" it in? Is that not the assumption of all science that produces observable and testable results?

 

[Orange_Crush]

If the scientific method(and thus all the knowledge it has provided us) works within the context of methodological naturalism, is that "smuggling" it in? Is that not the assumption of all science that produces observable and testable results?

You are assuming that methodological naturalism is the only form of knowledge that has worked and provided results. It's actually a very recent philosophy within science, as science was founded and practiced for 100s of years by Theists, with great results.

Having admitted that the current scientific paradigm is smuggling in its philosophy, are you now claiming that it is the only true philosophy? The only philosophy that provides results?

But please, before answering that, please answer the following definitively. You are saying that the US government should indoctrinate our youth into an unproven philosophy, while denying the voices of competing philosophies? Is that what you are saying?

 

[MercyPercy]

This is a difficult moment for you centralized, big-government types. On one hand you want heavy top-down government dictating everything from soda drinks to schools. On the other, once power is bestowed, then the powerful decide who is in charge. And the powerful don't give a damn about your beliefs.

Yes, this is all just an effort to control our minds by the Big Gubment. 97% of scientists have gotten together and conspired to keep your personal beliefs out of the classroom because they enjoy being dictators and hate Jesus, not because your religious beliefs aren't relevant to what is taught in science class. Couldn't be it.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Yes, this is all just an effort to control our minds by the Big Gubment. 97% of scientists have gotten together and conspired to keep your personal beliefs out of the classroom because they enjoy being dictators and hate Jesus, not because your religious beliefs aren't relevant to what is taught in science class. Couldn't be it.

Stop lowering yourself to ad hominems, appeals to authority, and inferred motives. Just answer the questions. I'll do you a favor and tell you this... When you resort to these types of things, you undermine yourself. How about just try something new: Have the discussion, deal honestly with the points, and see where it goes. :hi:

 

[MercyPercy]

You are assuming that methodological naturalism is the only form of knowledge that has worked and provided results. It's actually a very recent philosophy within science, as science was founded and practiced for 100s of years by Theists, with great results.

Theists used the principles(the process) of methodological naturalism as a tool to produce their results. While they may not have purposefully been excluding the supernatural in a philosophical sense, the methods they used are consistent with methodological naturalism. Their theism in no way gets credit for the results of natural tests. Why would it? They did not produce the results out of thin air after consulting god and running a test on his midichlorian count. You are simply saying that they believe in god, but use the same methods we use today to determine facts. This is consistent with my statement that methodological naturalism does not make any claim about a creator one way or another.

Having admitted that the current scientific paradigm is smuggling in its philosophy, are you now claiming that it is the only true philosophy? The only philosophy that provides results?

Saying science class is smuggling in methodological naturalism is like saying english class is smuggling in the alphabet.

But please, before answering that, please answer the following definitively. You are saying that the US government should indoctrinate our youth into an unproven philosophy, while denying the voices of competing philosophies? Is that what you are saying?

No, I'm with you, OC. I think they should teach whatever they want in any class. Tinder etiquette in Calculus? I won't deny your voice. You go for it.

 

[McDad]

Yes, this is all just an effort to control our minds by the Big Gubment. 97% of scientists have gotten together and conspired to keep your personal beliefs out of the classroom because they enjoy being dictators and hate Jesus, not because your religious beliefs aren't relevant to what is taught in science class. Couldn't be it.

You know how moronic this reply of yours is?
1. There was no conspiratorial government boogeyman in my post but it was part of your reply.
2. I didn't mention scientists, or my beliefs but you replied to it as if it were integral to my opinion.
3. I never equated government appointees to dictators.
4. Never mentioned Jesus.
5. Again, my beliefs are nowhere in my post.
6. Your quip about relevant teaching replied to nothing I offered.

If you wish to be perceived as a logical, reasonable, atheist who isn't a zealot, you will have to do better than this piece of excrement you pulled out of your toilet and posted here.

 

[MercyPercy]

Stop lowering yourself to ad hominems, appeals to authority, and inferred motives. Just answer the questions. I'll do you a favor and tell you this... When you resort to these types of things, you undermine yourself. How about just try something new: Have the discussion, deal honestly with the points, and see where it goes. :hi:

I always find it interesting when I get called out for appealing to authority by someone who's entire premise, the entire basis for their world views, is the ultimate appeal to authority. Fascinating.

 

[rjd970]

Interesting that you would bring that up, since the scientists, whose authority you appeal to (and you, by the way) are 'smuggling' philosophy/theology into the classroom. It's interesting that the reason none of your 'True-Scots' scientists will allow ID into the discussion is because it breaks the paradigm of materialism, their operating philosophy, yet they accuse ID scientists of smuggling philosophy in.

So, what you are doing is smuggling your philosophy in while castigating ID folks for wanting an equal voice at the philosophical table.

I fail to see how it is "smuggling" when it is stated up front that Science deals only in the natural explanation of phenomenon. It is actually quite open about it. It's the assumption upfront.

Philosophical reasons for why it may or may not be a good method should be reserved for a philosophy class. Not introducing such discussions in a science class.

 

[MercyPercy]

You know how moronic this reply of yours is?
1. There was no conspiratorial government boogeyman in my post but it was part of your reply.
2. I didn't mention scientists, or my beliefs but you replied to it as if it were integral to my opinion.
3. I never equated government appointees to dictators.
4. Never mentioned Jesus.
5. Again, my beliefs are nowhere in my post.
6. Your quip about relevant teaching replied to nothing I offered.

If you wish to be perceived as a logical, reasonable, atheist who isn't a zealot, you will have to do better than this piece of excrement you pulled out of your toilet and posted here.

You were very clearly instigating by implying all who favor actual science being taught in science class to be some sort of fascist big government supporter. I apologize for my post, though. You are right. It was an emotional response to a perceived attack. I do not think soda regulation is particularly similar to making sure accurate information is taught in public schools as there is a vested interest in not falling even further behind as a country in education.. as much of a struggle as it appears to be.

 

[MercyPercy]

I fail to see how it is "smuggling" when it is stated up front that Science deals only in the natural explanation of phenomenon. It is actually quite open about it. It's the assumption upfront.

Philosophical reasons for why it may or may not be a good method should be reserved for a philosophy class. Not introducing such discussions in a science class.

I'm not sure why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Theists used the principles(the process) of methodological naturalism as a tool to produce their results. While they may not have purposefully been excluding the supernatural in a philosophical sense, the methods they used are consistent with methodological naturalism. Their theism in no way gets credit for the results of natural tests. Why would it? They did not produce the results out of thin air after consulting god and running a test on his midichlorian count. You are simply saying that they believe in god, but use the same methods we use today to determine facts. This is consistent with my statement that methodological naturalism does not make any claim about a creator one way or another.

You are either purposefully lying or speaking from ignorance. You should read some of Sir Isaac Newton's journals and come back. He studied the universe as though it is lawful and repeatable (because God made it), while allowing some causes as supernatural.

He was only one of many.

The above statement proves that you know less about science than you thought, and have no idea how IDers apply the scientific method.

Or, you just purposefully created a strawman as a temper tantrum--wanting people to believe that IDers consult the Bible and call it a day.

Saying science class is smuggling in methodological naturalism is like saying english class is smuggling in the alphabet.

You've admitted that it's an unproven philosophy. I would say that perhaps limiting the teaching of science as you propose is more like teaching English using just vowels.

No, I'm with you, OC. I think they should teach whatever they want in any class. Tinder etiquette in Calculus? I won't deny your voice. You go for it.

(Interestingly enough, Sir Isaac Newton discovered calculus. This is just too funny.)

And please stop with the little temper tantrums. This one was a strawman.

But please, drop the passive-aggression and answer the question.

Do you believe that the US gov't should indoctrinate the nation's youth into an unproven philosophy while denying the voices of competing philosophies? It's a very simple question, but one hard for you to answer, since you've just realized that you are advocating the very thing that you accuse your opponents of doing. (Except that's not what IDers are asking for. They're asking for all viewpoints to be taught if any viewpoint is taught.)

 

[Orange_Crush]

I fail to see how it is "smuggling" when it is stated up front that Science deals only in the natural explanation of phenomenon. It is actually quite open about it. It's the assumption upfront.

I used "Smuggling" because that's the word MP used. Neither are ID "smuggling" in the fact that their philosophy is that non-materialistic causes can explain effects.

And current science deals only in natural explanations because its underlying philosophy dictates that it only deal in natural explanations. You're snake is eating its tail.

Philosophical reasons for why it may or may not be a good method should be reserved for a philosophy class. Not introducing such discussions in a science class.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. But you've defines 'science' to support your philosophy, used your philosophy to define science, and then disallowed competing voices based on that.

Your argument would hold weight if science were taught as philosophy, but it's not. It's taught as the pursuer and harbinger of 'truth', while limiting the places where one can find truth.

Teach 'science' as philosophy beside IG, or teach ID as competing scientific pursuits.

Otherwise, you are saying that you want our country to indoctrinate its youth into one philosophy while denying competing voices.

 

[McDad]

You were very clearly instigating by implying all who favor actual science being taught in science class to be some sort of fascist big government supporter. I apologize for my post, though. You are right. It was an emotional response to a perceived attack. I do not think soda regulation is particularly similar to making sure accurate information is taught in public schools as there is a vested interest in not falling even further behind as a country in education.. as much of a struggle as it appears to be.

Apology accepted. No worries.

I promise I intentionally avoided the current direction of this thread. In fact, the only way my post can be interpreted as science versus creationism is to make the illogical leap that ONLY big government supporters favor science. We both know that isn't true.

My point is the most foundational, imo. We have given control of our school to the State...and we are gravitating towards Federal control. Because we don't control our schools, the people who do now have complete discretion. They exercise that regardless of what you and I believe.

How are our students falling behind?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Philosophical reasons for why it may or may not be a good method should be reserved for a philosophy class. Not introducing such discussions in a science class.

And further, are you serious with this? Discussing the veracity of Science's underpinnings is inappropriate to discuss in a science class? You serious Clark?

So, affirming the philosophy of methodological naturalism is appropriate in a science class, but challenging the philosophy of methodological naturalism in a science class is not appropriate?

OK. I gotcha. :good!:

 

[MercyPercy]

You are either purposefully lying or speaking from ignorance. You should read some of Sir Isaac Newton's journals and come back. He studied the universe as though it is lawful and repeatable (because God made it), while allowing some causes as supernatural.

He was only one of many.

He also vehemently believed in alchemy and spent many years looking for the philosopher's stone. The important part here is that his methodology works with or without his theism. He used natural methods to make observations about the natural world. Any connection he made to the supernatural is irrelevant as it could not be proven within the very context of the method.

The above statement proves that you know less about science than you thought, and have no idea how IDers apply the scientific method.

Or, you just purposefully created a strawman as a temper tantrum--wanting people to believe that IDers consult the Bible and call it a day.

No, I believe IDers for the most part actually put a lot of work into memorizing the rhetoric of their pseudoscience. I give them credit for that at least, you know it's not a good look to throw your hat in with Ken Ham and his ilk.

And please stop with the little temper tantrums. This one was a strawman.

But please, drop the passive-aggression and answer the question.

Do you believe that the US gov't should indoctrinate the nation's youth into an unproven philosophy while denying the voices of competing philosophies? It's a very simple question, but one hard for you to answer, since you've just realized that you are advocating the very thing that you accuse your opponents of doing. (Except that's not what IDers are asking for. They're asking for all viewpoints to be taught if any viewpoint is taught.)

Yes, if 97% of experts in a field agree that this one "philosophy" is junk and should not be taught in their respective fields, then it shouldn't be taught in public schools. Sounds logical.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

You are either purposefully lying or speaking from ignorance. You should read some of Sir Isaac Newton's journals and come back. He studied the universe as though it is lawful and repeatable (because God made it), while allowing some causes as supernatural.

He was only one of many.

The above statement proves that you know less about science than you thought, and have no idea how IDers apply the scientific method.

Or, you just purposefully created a strawman as a temper tantrum--wanting people to believe that IDers consult the Bible and call it a day.



You've admitted that it's an unproven philosophy. I would say that perhaps limiting the teaching of science as you propose is more like teaching English using just vowels.



(Interestingly enough, Sir Isaac Newton discovered calculus. This is just too funny.)

And please stop with the little temper tantrums. This one was a strawman.

But please, drop the passive-aggression and answer the question.

Do you believe that the US gov't should indoctrinate the nation's youth into an unproven philosophy while denying the voices of competing philosophies? It's a very simple question, but one hard for you to answer, since you've just realized that you are advocating the very thing that you accuse your opponents of doing. (Except that's not what IDers are asking for. They're asking for all viewpoints to be taught if any viewpoint is taught.)

Um yeah, we do, at least a great deal of them. They start with the conclusion that there is a God/higher power and work to "prove" what they already believe. Not to mention the missing testable data that abounds for any kind of ID. Why should it be given equal ground in a SCIENCE class when so much that makes up the ID movement is patently unscientific?

 

[Orange_Crush]

He also vehemently believed in alchemy and spent many years looking for the philosopher's stone. The important part here is that his methodology works with or without his theism. He used natural methods to make observations about the natural world. Any connection he made to the supernatural is irrelevant as it could not be proven within the very context of the method.

So, let me get this straight... When Isaac Newton's ID science wasn't right about everything, it disproved ID science. When materialistic science isn't right about everything, it proves the methodology works.

Gotcha. :good!:

But you just affirmed that science can be successful in an ID paradigm. Bet you missed that, huh? I bolded it. Ouch!

No, I believe IDers for the most part actually put a lot of work into memorizing the rhetoric of their pseudoscience. I give them credit for that at least, you know it's not a good look to throw your hat in with Ken Ham and his ilk.

You just proved that you conflate ID and Creationism. You undermined yourself, not my position.

Yes, if 97% of experts in a field agree that this one "philosophy" is junk and should not be taught in their respective fields, then it shouldn't be taught in public schools. Sounds logical.

No it doesn't. It sounds like a logical fallacy, actually.

 

[rjd970]

I used "Smuggling" because that's the word MP used. Neither are ID "smuggling" in the fact that their philosophy is that non-materialistic causes can explain effects.

And current science deals only in natural explanations because its underlying philosophy dictates that it only deal in natural explanations. You're snake is eating its tail.

Science only deals in natural explanations because that is what its pursuit is. That's it. The philosophical implications and/or shortcomings are another matter altogether. Nobody is saying we should quell the philosophical debate, or even quite the critics. They are simply saying it doesn't belong in the discussion on how this specific framework works.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. But you've defines 'science' to support your philosophy, used your philosophy to define science, and then disallowed competing voices based on that.

Your argument would hold weight if science were taught as philosophy, but it's not. It's taught as the pursuer and harbinger of 'truth', while limiting the places where one can find truth.

Teach 'science' as philosophy beside IG, or teach ID as competing scientific pursuits.

Otherwise, you are saying that you want our country to indoctrinate its youth into one philosophy while denying competing voices.

Science is defined through a certain philosophy. Everything taught in that class will fall under that umbrella. Whether that philosophy is right should be reserved for a philosophy class. That is not the snake eating its own tail, that is simply stating up front we are not discussing the merits of this methodology, only how this methodology explains natural phenomenon.

Your argument would hold weight if science were taught as philosophy, but it's not. It's taught as the pursuer and harbinger of 'truth', while limiting the places where one can find truth.

It is taught as a pursuer of "truth" (your words, not mine) under a certain bounded framework. The merits of that framework should be discussed elsewhere. How things work within that framework is the focus.

What you are advocating is a scientific philosophy course, where other competing philosophical claims can be compared and contrasted. Cool, I'm on board.

By definition, supernatural explanations are not taught in a science course. And that isn't to shut out competing ideas, it is to teach how a certain framework works.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

So, let me get this straight... When Isaac Newton's ID science wasn't right about everything, it disproved ID science. When materialistic science isn't right about everything, it proves the methodology works.

Um, what?