Creationist Appointed As Maine Education Commissioner

[Orange_Crush]

What I said is not an opinion.

Maybe we have different definitions of 'opinion'. Nonetheless, you're entitled to it.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Maybe we have different definitions of 'opinion'. Nonetheless, you're entitled to it.

I appreciate you giving me your blessing to make a factual statement.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Okay.. You can be a believer and do good science. I know that. Obviously most of the great early scientists were theists/deists. I'm saying that their theism(and/or ID paradigm) is irrelevant to the process of conducting natural experiments as it cannot be tested or proven, and their science followed naturalistic methods to describe the natural world. They made discoveries about the natural world- their discoveries do no suggest ID is correct, much less necessary, or even helpful. It only suggests their methodology was correct.

I understand you point perfectly well. I believe that you are misunderstanding mine. I'll restate.

The methodological materialistic requirement for science is a fairly recent requirement. Science went on quite well without it. That is not to say that these scientists used extra-material methods exclusively. (That is why I said that you appear to not understand the ID paradigm. They allow for both natural an immaterial causes.)

But in any case, you've made my point for me. They made great progress without the methodological materialistic mandate (i.e. allowing for immaterial causes).

 

[VolsSportsFan]

I understand you point perfectly well. I believe that you are misunderstanding mine. I'll restate.

The methodological materialistic requirement for science is a fairly recent requirement. Science went on quite well without it. That is not to say that these scientists used extra-material methods exclusively. (That is why I said that you appear to not understand the ID paradigm. They allow for both natural an immaterial causes.)

But in any case, you've made my point for me. They made great progress without the methodological materialistic mandate (i.e. allowing for immaterial causes).

Saying it's a "recent requirement" is like saying antibiotics and sterilization are a recent requirements. Of course compared to the long history of medicine and our understanding, it's recent, but it's not like people are going to go back to the old ways of not using them or saying "we can have competing ideas of whether they are a good idea or not".

 

[Orange_Crush]

I appreciate you giving me your blessing to make a factual statement.

OK. I was completely willing to pass on this and let you have your say, but now, let's have it. What makes the statement:

Yes, but there is also absolutely no need for an ID paradigm.

a fact?

For that to be considered a fact, you'll need to prove the necessity and full sufficiency of methodological materialism.


You'll need to go further and prove that empiricism is the only trustworthy source of truth and knowledge. Are you capable and ready to do that? To do that, you'll need to do away with the internal contradiction of empiricism (the statement that the only trustworthy source of truth is that which can be validated through the 5 senses) by validating empiricism through the 5 senses.

To prove, as fact, that methodological materialism is all that we need, you'll need to prove that it has access to all the truth available to us, and thus that the source of truth that it disqualifies (supernatural causes) do not exist. Otherwise, it has narrowed the search for truth needlessly.

Now, prove that there are not, and cannot be, supernatural causes, or you'll have to admit that your science is underpinned with an unproven philosophy, which would make it an opinion.

Ready, set... Go.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Saying it's a "recent requirement" is like saying antibiotics and sterilization are a recent requirements. Of course compared to the long history of medicine and our understanding, it's recent, but it's not like people are going to go back to the old ways of not using them or saying "we can have competing ideas of whether they are a good idea or not".

Have I asked you or anyone else to discard it?

 

[VolsSportsFan]

OK. I was completely willing to pass on this and let you have your say, but now, let's have it. What makes the statement:



a fact?

For that to be considered a fact, you'll need to prove the necessity and full sufficiency of methodological materialism.


You'll need to go further and prove that empiricism is the only trustworthy source of truth and knowledge. Are you capable and ready to do that? To do that, you'll need to do away with the internal contradiction of empiricism (the statement that the only trustworthy source of truth is that which can be validated through the 5 senses) by validating empiricism through the 5 senses.

To prove, as fact, that methodological materialism is all that we need, you'll need to prove that it has access to all the truth available to us, and thus that the source of truth that it disqualifies (supernatural causes) do not exist. Otherwise, it has narrowed the search for truth needlessly.

Now, prove that there are not, and cannot be, supernatural causes, or you'll have to admit that your science is underpinned with an unproven philosophy, which would make it an opinion.

Ready, set... Go.

LOL...the ol' Kent/Eric Hovind BS.

I said "Yes, but there is also absolutely no need for an ID paradigm."

Now you explain to me what scientific laws or theories that would be taught in a classroom NEEDS an ID paradigm.

Go.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Have I asked you or anyone else to discard it?

No....you're asking for equal billing; hence the last part of the post.

 

[Orange_Crush]

LOL...the ol' Kent/Eric Hovind BS.

I said "Yes, but there is also absolutely no need for an ID paradigm."

Now you explain to me what scientific laws or theories that would be taught in a classroom NEEDS an ID paradigm.

Go.

If it were BS, you should easily be able to answer. Go.

 

[Orange_Crush]

No....you're asking for equal billing; hence the last part of the post.

Then it's simple for you. Prove the validity of methodological materialism over ID's paradigm and you won't be arguing opinions.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

If it were BS, you should easily be able to answer. Go.

I just did answer. What part of my statement is wrong given what I just wrote.

I'll even repeat it:

I said "Yes, but there is also absolutely no need for an ID paradigm."

Now you explain to me what scientific laws or theories that would be taught in a classroom NEEDS an ID paradigm.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I just did answer. What part of my statement is wrong given what I just wrote.

I'll even repeat it:

I said "Yes, but there is also absolutely no need for an ID paradigm."

Now you explain to me what scientific laws or theories that would be taught in a classroom NEEDS an ID paradigm.

You're switching the conversation. You are asking "Why would ID be needed to teach MM science?" lol

"We've barred ID from the debate, defined truth to disfavor ID, and now I'm asking why we need ID to explain things from our paradigm."

You're a real piece of work.

Now, if you want to have the discussion about whether ID is needed as competition to MM philosophy, you'll need to prove that:

1. MM is allowing for all truth
2. Truth does not reside where ID is looking.

So, would you care to take a stab?

And as to equal billing, I just happen to be of the mindset that if two groups are making equal but opposing unproven statements about the same thing, both groups should get a fair shake.

MM says: "You can't allow for non-material causes."
ID says: "You can allow for non-material causes."

Both are philosophical statements, but you want to limit the philosophical indoctrination to your philosophy. And yet it's those evil IDers who want to do that. lol

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Then it's simple for you. Prove the validity of methodological materialism over ID's paradigm and you won't be arguing opinions.

Impossible, because there's no proof in the world that you would accept. That part is painfully clear.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Impossible, because there's no proof in the world that you would accept. That part is painfully clear.

It is impossible, not because of the limitation of my acceptance, but because you'd have to prove something that you can't prove.

So, at the end of the day, you made an arrogant statement, called it fact, twice, died on that hill, and now you're having to admit you're stating opinion.

That's cool. It's happened to me as well.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

You're switching the conversation. You are asking "Why would ID be needed to teach MM science?" lol

"We've barred ID from the debate, defined truth to disfavor ID, and now I'm asking why we need ID to explain things from our paradigm."

You're a real piece of work.

Now, if you want to have the discussion about whether ID is needed as competition to MM philosophy, you'll need to prove that:

1. MM is allowing for all truth
2. Truth does not reside where ID is looking.

So, would you care to take a stab?

And as to equal billing, I just happen to be of the mindset that if two groups are making equal but opposing unproven statements about the same thing, both groups should get a fair shake.

MM says: "You can't allow for non-material causes."
ID says: "You can allow for non-material causes."

Both are philosophical statements, but you want to limit the philosophical indoctrination to your philosophy. And yet it's those evil IDers who want to do that. lol

Um....no.

YOU are the one that is changing the conversation. You claimed I'm making an opinionated statement based on YOUR own interpretation of what I said, when in fact I am making a factual statement. Thanks for attempting to change what I said, but it would be nice if you stick to what I actually said instead of twisting it to fit the narrative you want.

I'm finding it hilarious how you continue to accuse others of that that which you are doing.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

It is impossible, not because of the limitation of my acceptance, but because you'd have to prove something that you can't prove.

So, at the end of the day, you made an arrogant statement, called it fact, twice, died on that hill, and now you're having to admit you're stating opinion.

That's cool. It's happened to me as well.

Wait...how do you know I can't prove it? Do you KNOW I can't prove it, or is it your opinion I can't prove it?

Try again....you're simply sticking to the creationist/ID playbook.

And please...you calling someone arrogant is beyond hilarious. I'm starting to believe you really are Kent Hovind.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Um....no.

YOU are the one that is changing the conversation. You claimed I'm making an opinionated statement based on YOUR own interpretation of what I said, when in fact I am making a factual statement. Thanks for attempting to change what I said, but it would be nice if you stick to what I actually said instead of twisting it to fit the narrative you want.

I'm finding it hilarious how you continue to accuse others of that that which you are doing.

I was being perfectly consistent. I don't see it as my fault that you stated a tautology and I missed it.

If you were saying: "ID is not needed to teach MM science", then I agree. But here's the deal, that wasn't the context of discussion. The context of the discussion was the teaching of ID alongside MM, and the philosophical underpinnings of each.

So... Were you really saying: "ID is not needed to teach MM science"? Was that really what you were saying? Because if that was what you were saying, I would have agreed that you were stating a fact.

I would have been laughing uncontrollably at you, but I would have somehow eeked out an agreement.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Wait...how do you know I can't prove it? Do you KNOW I can't prove it, or is it your opinion I can't prove it?

Try again....you're simply sticking to the creationist/ID playbook.

And please...you calling someone arrogant is beyond hilarious. I'm starting to believe you really are Kent Hovind.

OK. Feel free. Perhaps you can win the Nobel prize. Go ahead and prove that every effect in the history of the universe had a materialistic cause.

I'll be here.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

I was being perfectly consistent. I don't see it as my fault that you stated a tautology and I missed it.

If you were saying: "ID is not needed to teach MM science", then I agree. But here's the deal, that wasn't the context of discussion. The context of the discussion was the teaching of ID alongside MM, and the philosophical underpinnings of each.

So... Were you really saying: "ID is not needed to teach MM science"? Was that really what you were saying? Because if that was what you were saying, I would have agreed that you were stating a fact.

I would have been laughing uncontrollably at you, but I would have somehow eeked out an agreement.

So in other words, you make up an entire argument, and put words in my mouth, and now are so arrogant you act like I'm the stupid one?

Ok buddy. You clearly impress yourself way too easily.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Then you made a non-point since my argument has not been that [theism is required for science], but is that [science can and has been successfully performed from with an ID paradigm].

Yes, but there is also absolutely no need for an ID paradigm.

So, you answered a post about the historical success of science from an ID perspective, and your (apparently butchered) response was that ID is not needed to teach MM science?

And you'd really fault me for not thinking you'd subtly switched gears to a pointless tautology?

I'd say that I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Orange_Crush]

So in other words, you make up an entire argument, and put words in my mouth, and now are so arrogant you act like I'm the stupid one?

Ok buddy. You clearly impress yourself way too easily.

See my post above.

You really took that context to say, "ID is unneeded", meaning, "ID is unneeded to teach MM", and you fault me for not catching your misplace tautology?

Whatever man.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

So, you answered a post about the historical success of science from an ID perspective, and your (apparently butchered) response was that ID is not needed to teach MM science?

And you'd really fault me for not thinking you'd subtly switched gears to a pointless tautology?

I'd say that I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Yeah it was so butchered, apparently you were the only one that had trouble understanding it.

I'd say you really don't need to call anyone else arrogant....ever. You make Spurrier seem humble.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

See my post above.

You really took that context to say, "ID is unneeded", meaning, "ID is unneeded to teach MM", and you fault me for not catching your misplace tautology?

Whatever man.

Whatever indeed.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Yeah it was so butchered, apparently you were the only one that had trouble understanding it.

I'd say you really don't need to call anyone else arrogant....ever. You make Spurrier seem humble.

I'm pretty sure I'm the only one that responded to it, so I'm not sure of your sample size.

Let's revisit. I can multiquote if we need to for refresher.

I was stating that ID was successful, but theology isn't necessary for science. That's when you interjected that ID is not needed. From the context, I took it that you meant ID is not needed as a discipline. I said that was your opinion. You stated multiple times that it is fact.

To be honest, I was truly confused, as you had given me no reason to believe that you meant anything besides what context would indicate--that ID may have proved useful at one time, but had been rightfully supplanted by MM.

I still think this is what you meant, as later posts about antibiotics reinforce this interpretation, but that's beside the point. I'm taking you at face value.

When I pointed out the philosophical proofs that you'd need to prove to validate (my interpretation of) what you had claimed as fact, you said that you meant: "What part of ID is necessary to teach in classrooms?"

Here's the deal, though... This entire thread is about the fact that only MM science is allowed in classrooms. So, I pointed out that your question equated to: "What part of ID is needed to teach MM science?"

I think we both recognize how asinine that question would be.

Then you admitted that you could not prove what needs to be proved to show that (a) ID is not needed, and (b) MM philosophy is a better philosophy to teach to our kids than ID philosophy.

So, here we are...

Now, I don't want to put words in your mouth. What did you mean by your statement, and was it fact or opinion?

 

[PKT_VOL]

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.



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.




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.

Philosophy of Science was the best class I ever studied.