Sarah Palin favors teaching creationism in schools.

[J. J.]

OK, here is what she really said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html


I'm glad to know that liberals like sbane, stop sarah palin, Teh O.C.,, new deal democrat, oppose free debate.  Good job guys.

[J. J.]

OK, here is what she really said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html


I'm glad to know that liberals like sbane, stop sarah palin, Teh O.C.,, new deal democrat, oppose free debate.  Good job guys.

Sorry J.J but there is nothing to debate about. I would also love to debate gravity and other such facts but time is money. We shouldn't waste it having worthless debates about whether we descended from monkeys. If you really want to debate it so much then get into college and get a bio degree, then you can argue all you want with your professors. In high school having the debate from a religious point of view in a SCIENCE class is detrimental to the other students.

Thank you for demonstrating exactly how narrow minded liberals really are.

I had a chemistry teacher in HS who was convinced that the fact that we had liquid water proved (and it did to her) that God existed.  I didn't agree with her logic, BTW.

I had a geology instructor in college who always said that he'd look at other viewpoints.  I know he believed that a supreme being was involved in the universe.  We talked about it after class, at his invitation.  I know I cannot look at the ridges outside of Altoona with thinking of the 200 million years of upfolding and erosion that got them there, just as he taught.

I went to public high school and Penn State, not religious schools.  

I want to to really thank you, sincerely, for showing how really intolerant some of Obama's supporters really are.

[J. J.]

How the hell am I intolerant? I just said that having a debate on evolution is akin to having a debate on gravity. It's a waste of time. These debates should be left outside the science classroom or conversations with your teacher or professor during your own time, not class time. I also think we should perhaps have religious studies classes where we can compare different creation theories from different cultures and then maybe we will realize that they were all wrong. Hell maybe we are still wrong. But we must use the scientific method to find out and frankly you cannot test creationism or ID since the argument is basically " creatures are too complex to have been created out of nothing". Of course we didn't get created out of nothing but rather bacteria, who are very good at existing. We can basically find them in any form of habitat and in fact we might be close to discovering some on mars. And when there are enough bacteria of the right type the atmosphere can become oxygenated and more complex life can form from there. So yeah how the f*** am I intolerant?

As soon as you said, "There is nothing to debate," you showed your intolerance.

You'll note that I've just said that I don't agree with my old science teacher who thought liquid water proved God existed.  Some of the debate, as it crept in, gave me the ability to realize that her logic was wrong.  I was better able to evaluate an argument, because I was exposed to one.

Since you said, "Of course we didn't get created out of nothing but rather bacteria, who are very good at existing."  My next question is "Okay, where did that bacteria come from?"

I can tell you two things will happen.  I'll keep asking you, "Okay, where did ______ come from?"  You, if you are honest, will say, "I don't know," or "Nobody knows."  I've been asking that question since I was three.     I keep getting the same answers, eventually.

[J. J.]

As soon as you said, "There is nothing to debate," you showed your intolerance.

Wrong as usual.  How is accepting science intolerant?

Itr isn't, but in reality, you are not accepting science.

Sbame just said that, "Of course we didn't get created out of nothing but rather bacteria, who are very good at existing."   Okay, I'll ask you, where did the bacteria come from?

[J. J.]

Itr isn't, but in reality, you are not accepting science.

Sbame just said that, "Of course we didn't get created out of nothing but rather bacteria, who are very good at existing."   Okay, I'll ask you, where did the bacteria come from?

I'm not going to play these games - since we aren't sure where the bacteria came from, the only logical, scientific conclusion is that God placed it there?

Grow up.

Or debate, since you disapprove of it.  It's a perfectly fair question, and actually has an experimental answer.  Elbowed, your intolerance is showing.

[J. J.]

I can tell you two things will happen.  I'll keep asking you, "Okay, where did ______ come from?"  You, if you are honest, will say, "I don't know," or "Nobody knows."  I've been asking that question since I was three.     I keep getting the same answers, eventually.

I don't understand how this relates to ID.  If God is an "uncreated creator," then not everything needs a cause.  It makes no real sense to assume that there is a "one magical exception."  Logic is axiomatic--if God can be immune to it, why not something else, even non-sentient?  I've been asking that too, for a good long while, and I've been getting no answers. 

The question itself is good thing.  It teaches to think, and it shows are limitations.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We're capable of asking this question.  Something that separates us from the bacteria, a crustacean, a fish, an amphibian, reptile, a "lesser" mammal.  Even where we have had some cross species communications, some primates with sign language, they are not asking these questions.  Why are we asking it?  

We have several posters here who say, we shouldn't be asking these questions.  I would however define science, broadly, an effort to answer the question, "How does the universe work and how did it get here?"  We divide into numerous small sections of the universe.

Why do we ask that question, "How does the universe work and how did it get here?"  Why are we, alone among species, asking that question?  IIRC, other species both prehistorically and currently, have larger brains, so it's not just a question of humans reaching a critical mass of brain cells.  Did some other, outside intelligence prompt us someway to ask the question?  I don't know, but I have to admit that possibility.

Science, at any rate, is about asking questions.  I do question the tolerance of those people who say, we shouldn't talk about the question, when asked.

[J. J.]

How the hell am I intolerant? I just said that having a debate on evolution is akin to having a debate on gravity. It's a waste of time. These debates should be left outside the science classroom or conversations with your teacher or professor during your own time, not class time. I also think we should perhaps have religious studies classes where we can compare different creation theories from different cultures and then maybe we will realize that they were all wrong. Hell maybe we are still wrong. But we must use the scientific method to find out and frankly you cannot test creationism or ID since the argument is basically " creatures are too complex to have been created out of nothing". Of course we didn't get created out of nothing but rather bacteria, who are very good at existing. We can basically find them in any form of habitat and in fact we might be close to discovering some on mars. And when there are enough bacteria of the right type the atmosphere can become oxygenated and more complex life can form from there. So yeah how the f*** am I intolerant?

As soon as you said, "There is nothing to debate," you showed your intolerance.

You'll note that I've just said that I don't agree with my old science teacher who thought liquid water proved God existed.  Some of the debate, as it crept in, gave me the ability to realize that her logic was wrong.  I was better able to evaluate an argument, because I was exposed to one.

Since you said, "Of course we didn't get created out of nothing but rather bacteria, who are very good at existing."  My next question is "Okay, where did that bacteria come from?"

I can tell you two things will happen.  I'll keep asking you, "Okay, where did ______ come from?"  You, if you are honest, will say, "I don't know," or "Nobody knows."  I've been asking that question since I was three.     I keep getting the same answers, eventually.

He still isn't being intolerant at all. People like this should not teach evolution if they bring this stuff up and try to teach it in a secular education system. I don't have a problem with it, if they believe in it personally. Do I think it is a very stupid idea and that they need to study the Bible more? Yes but I respect their belief.

Where did anyone get the idea that this was a religious belief or something in the Bible?

[J. J.]

(Please see bolded part first )

The question itself is good thing.  It teaches to think, and it shows are limitations.

So, teach limitations.  Why teach theories that do not result from science in a science class?  Because you, and many other Americans, believe them?

Teach that we don't know things.  And then people offer possible explanations

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Great, we who still have questions on how the Flying Spaghetti Monster does things.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

PAny explanation is arbitrary including science.  Ever hear of piiltdown man?

We're capable of asking this question.  Something that separates us from the bacteria, a crustacean, a fish, an amphibian, reptile, a "lesser" mammal.  Even where we have had some cross species communications, some primates with sign language, they are not asking these questions.  Why are we asking it?

We have several posters here who say, we shouldn't be asking these questions.  I would however define science, broadly, an effort to answer the question, "How does the universe work and how did it get here?"  We divide into numerous small sections of the universe.

Why do we ask that question, "How does the universe work and how did it get here?"  Why are we, alone among species, asking that question?  IIRC, other species both prehistorically and currently, have larger brains, so it's not just a question of humans reaching a critical mass of brain cells.  Did some other, outside intelligence prompt us someway to ask the question?  I don't know, but I have to admit that possibility.

Science, at any rate, is about asking questions.  I do question the tolerance of those people who say, we shouldn't talk about the question, when asked.

Science is about asking testable questions.   I think MUON said that was not the case.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But no one is asking to explain science's blind spots; what is effectively being ask is to explain science as a concept.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm saying that there are species, that we can communicate with, that have bigger brains than ours.  Why aren't they[i/] asking the same question?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never claimed that the were incompatible; I asking if were why we ask these questions?

[J. J.]

J. J.,

I was probably making an oversimplification, but if you read the rest of muon2's post, there's very little support for your argument there.  In fact, I think he essentially said he opposes it.  His point was not related to theories, or anything likely to come up in high school science, if I'm understanding him correctly.  But whatever.

Scientific explanation can be wrong, as in the case of the Piltdown man.  How does that make it "arbitrary"?  Teaching that science can be wrong, or mis-applied, is fine.  I have said that much.  But you have failed (for three posts now) to provide me for an explanation of why intelligent design should get special treatment.  "Potentially fooled" does not = "arbitrary."  If it did, the entire world would be arbitrary, and that's not what the word means.

I don't recall calling it "arbitrary" or suggesting teaching ID as a theory.  I think if someone raises it, a student, it is fine and fine to say it is a possibility, at some level.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First, I think there is strong evidence for evolution. 

Second, while I will concede science can be wrong (and Piltdown man is a good example), that is not my caveat.  That caveat, is that there is that there are things unknown. 

I think it is wrong, and narrow minded, to say we can't discuss a possible explanation, when a student raises it.  It's different to say science, and religion, doesn't know the answer and science is wrong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are jumping around here, but I'll go back to the idea of the universe.  What is the most "plausible" idea to what was before the big bang?  It's unknown to science.  It's not a question to science being "wrong," but a question of science not knowing and not having any more plausible theory (and I'll probably buy into it if they do).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let me try to give you this example:

Most land animals (including humans) that can eat fruit see a piece of fruit ant think, "food."  They may think "food" and try to eat it.  They may think of ways to get at the food.  They may even think, "Food is here," and come back later to see if there is more food there.

A few million years ago, one of our unevolved ancestors, thought, "How did the fruit get there?"  That isn't a survival skill; species survive without thinking about that question for longer periods of time, an alligator for example.

They obviously had to observe their environment so it isn't that they couldn't explain it or see the patterns; they had to, much like any native animal today, had to be in tune with there environment.  They could easily figure out that it grows, or "food is here."

It isn't that their brain size finally got big enough to ask that question; other species that have reached that brain size don't ask that question.

When they asked that question ""How did the fruit get there," the answer was universally (so far as I know) was that was a god, gods, even a flying spaghetti monster, something that ultimately created it.  This occurred across vast geographical distances, so it is had to start very early in prehistory.  (I'm not saying that the answer is correct, only that it was very early.)

Unlike other species, human ancestors asked the question, even though other species with large brains and that we have some idea of what they think, are not asking this question.  Dolphins are not asking these questions about the fish.  Primates are not asking the question.

Something triggered that question in human ancestors, which ultimately led to both religion and science, and it does not appear to be brain size or body to brain mass ratio, a need to survive, or even too much time on the Internet.  ID?  A flying spaghetti monster?  Aliens?  Maybe.  Unknown, definitely.  It's easier to say what it isn't than what it is.

To paraphrase Douglas Adams, a militant atheist, the answer might equal the question.

[J. J.]

I don't recall calling it "arbitrary"

"Any explanation is arbitrary including science.  Ever hear of piiltdown man? "

You were confusing "potentially incorrect/flawed" with "arbitrary."

Where did I say this on this thread?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's fine.  My objection was to Palin's suggesting it be taught, not her suggestion that discussion not be muzzled.
[/quote]

If you would have read the quote, you would have realized that this was Palin's position.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Huh, I'm arguing that Adams was right, even though we have different religious views.  As I've just pointed out, Palin is not saying it should be taught.  Here is the quote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html

Emphasis added.  How does Palin's view of what should be taught differ from yours?

I am critical of people who say, "We shouldn't discuss this." 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not abstract thinking as much as asking one question.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's the only correlation we have, what other species have done and how they interact with the environment.  I don't say it's an "indicator" of God, gods, aliens, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but I do not see any evolutionary mechanism that explains it.  The genus Homo has somehow asked this question, "Why is there fruit?"  It is not tied to survival or to the environment.  It does not seem, at this point, to be tied to brain function or brain size.

There is the question and, so far, there is not a plausible explanation within science for this question being formed.  So far, you have not provided one.

BTW, we are both still asking this question.

[J. J.]

Where did I say this on this thread?

Here.

Acton, you raised the reference:

J. J.,

I was probably making an oversimplification, but if you read the rest of muon2's post, there's very little support for your argument there.  In fact, I think he essentially said he opposes it.  His point was not related to theories, or anything likely to come up in high school science, if I'm understanding him correctly.  But whatever.

Scientific explanation can be wrong, as in the case of the Piltdown man.  How does that make it "arbitrary"?  Teaching that science can be wrong, or mis-applied, is fine.  I have said that much.  But you have failed (for three posts now) to provide me for an explanation of why intelligent design should get special treatment.  "Potentially fooled" does not = "arbitrary."  If it did, the entire world would be arbitrary, and that's not what the word means.

I am saying that there is a difference between a wrong "scientific explanation" and a situation where there is no "scientific explanation."

If you would have read the quote, you would have realized that this was Palin's position.

I've read several articles about this, and in the process have read her quotes nearly a dozen times.  Here's the relevant one:

"Teach both...I am a proponent of teaching both."  She goes on to say it shouldn't be part of the cirriculum, but teaching is a different thing than allowing debate.  She's contradicted herself--which is basically why I think she hasn't contemplated this much.

Emphasis added.  How does Palin's view of what should be taught differ from yours?

If she supports allowing it to be taught in schools as an option, I'm against that.  Schools should enforce their own curricula.  But whether she wants it mandated or not is irrelevant.  I know this is an issue she's not going to push.  I still disagree with her that it should be "taught."
[/quote]

The posted comments were made a day later clarifying this comment.  The clarification was:  "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, I know, but I'm not saying that.

[/quote]

And I'm not saying that you're one of those closed minded people.

Not abstract thinking as much as asking one question.

That doesn't really matter.  They both fall into your criteria, which is your perceived lack of evolutionary benefit.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's not a plausible explanation?  You can't possibly be serious.  There has been a ton of scientific research and theory on this subject.  The Human Genome Project has had a lot to say on the matter.

You're using a fairly simple construct of evolution, from all I can tell.  By your standards, evolutionary necessity would have limited us to single-celled organisms.   Besides, I kind of reject the idea that intelligence and critical thinking skills don't have evolutionary positives.
[/quote]

The Human Genome Project is pretty irrelevant to this. 

The question, "Why is there fruit," isn't a key question to survival.  It may deal with Homo becoming a higher thinking creature, but it isn't necessary for the survival of the genus Homo.  Becoming a higher thinking creature is not necessary for the genus Homo (and was possibly fatal to other members of the genus Homo).

We, humans, ask "Why?" Other species don't.  Proto-humans did.

I've heard you talk around it, but I've yet to see you answer the question or science answer the question, "Why do humans ask why?"

[J. J.]

Acton, you raised the reference:

Acton?

I am saying that there is a difference between a wrong "scientific explanation" and a situation where there is no "scientific explanation."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Alcon, (got it right), I do not favor teaching ID as an alternative to evolution, but neither has Palin, with her next day clarification. 

The posted comments were made a day later clarifying this comment.  The clarification was:  "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

Which needs further clarification.  There is an official state curriculum, too.  That may be what she was referring to.  Since that contradicts her prior comments, the only belief that wouldn't entail self-contradiction is:  It's fine if teachers teach it, but it shouldn't be part of the official curriculum.  I disagree with that.  If she misspoke originally, then I don't have an objection.  But since she reiterated, I doubt she misspoke.

Or, she feels that it isn't the role of state government to order the local government to expand or contract the curriculum.  I would not favor teaching ID side by side with evolution, but I'd oppose the state telling a local school board that it couldn't (there are other methods for controlling it, such as the PA court case).

The Human Genome Project is pretty irrelevant to this. 

You're quite incorrect.

The question, "Why is there fruit," isn't a key question to survival.  It may deal with Homo becoming a higher thinking creature, but it isn't necessary for the survival of the genus Homo.  Becoming a higher thinking creature is not necessary for the genus Homo (and was possibly fatal to other members of the genus Homo).

We, humans, ask "Why?" Other species don't.  Proto-humans did.

I've heard you talk around it, but I've yet to see you answer the question or science answer the question, "Why do humans ask why?"

I have already given you a very valid (albeit simplified) answer.  Metacognition is a function of critical thinking.  In fact, it's an extension of critical thinking.  It's on the same continuum.  Critical thinking has documented evolutionary benefits.  Hence, why some of our primate relatives have abstract thinking abilities that, as you mention, are not essential for survival.

The brain is not some sort of mysterious box whose functions we don't understand.  We know why we're more intelligent than other primates, and it has almost nothing to do with brain size; that correlates somewhat, but we also understand brain complexity, which correlates absolutely.  So, why bother with brain size?

[/quote]

It may be on the same continuum, but it is not the same.  A question of, "Where is the fruit," "How can I get some fruit," "Is the fruit good to eat," are all survival questions, that are effectively asked by most animals (that eat fruit) at some level.  They are the product, arguably, of instinct.  The question, "Why is the fruit here," is not an instinctual question.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the argument, except that that you seem to implying that Homo has more to do than survive.  The question is, why?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is completely irrelevant to this situation; we are not discussing the genetics of humans but why humans do certain things, in this case ask "Why?"  Are you or the HGP claiming that there is a genetic reason for our genus asking "Why?"  I have not heard it.  Please, site it.

I am also troubled by the the claim, "It's science," and therefore, it must be relevant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please state the "remotely plausible answer."  I have not heard it, and I would be interested in an answer.

Our genus has asking this question for hundreds of millennia, at least; I should say that they have been answering the question for that time.  (I know that the answers they came up with were not cultural, or proto-cultural.)  I know that other intelligent species, that we can communicate with, don't ask that question.  "Science" tells us these things. 

Genus Homo started asking "why," and I have heard a solid biological or evolutionary reason for it.  They may be one out there, but I have not heard it.  Apparently, you have not either.

I do know that the question of "why" is the question that science attempts to answer.  So the question of "why" is a valid one. 

[J. J.]

J. J.,

Yes, I understand that Palin's governmental policy is not disagreeable to me.  However, her personal opinion (that ID should be taught) is.  That's all I've ever claimed.
[/quoite]

I'm not sure that this was her "personal opinion."  It seems only that it should be left to the local board and not required by the state (court action might cover the former).

This seems to be a "straw man" or "straw woman," at this point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where?   I have not seen it, in that regard.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This, as indicated, is a subclass of "abstract thinking," but it marks a leap from the the practical.   Thinking about piling rocks up to stand on to reach the fruit is abstract thinking; it does make sense to develop this abstraction, and logical thinking.  I can understand that thought developing.

What is the evolutionary benefit of asking why the fruit is growing?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since you still have not answered my question, I'll attempt to give you a clearer answer.  I can understand, very easily, how abstract thinking and logical thinking can prove to be beneficial to a species.  I've hope the example of the rocks will show that.  I cannot understand how the the particular question of "Why is the fruit here," is a benefit to the species, within the context of where the genus Homo was at the time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What link, I didn't see one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As I said, what link?  I have been passingly familiar with the HGP, and checked it out, cursery, to see if there was something that was relevant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Poor li'l Alcon, I've suck my finger the eye of his god, Science (didn't even come close to killing it, and don't want to), and now he's running home to Mommy.

[J. J.]

I'm not sure that this was her "personal opinion."  It seems only that it should be left to the local board and not required by the state (court action might cover the former).

This seems to be a "straw man" or "straw woman," at this point.

I'm not attacking a position she never held, so it's not a strawperson ().  She said that she supports teaching of ID aside macroevolution, just not forcing it in the curriculum.  I disagree with the former.

Again this is a "strawperson" after her clarification, which was:  "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

There is a difference between saying, "If it comes up, you can talk about it," and "I want you to teach it."  I'm sorry if that distinction is too abstract for you, but I think even the baboons would get it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was a big deal ca. 2001.  I actually remember my dad coming home when I was eleven, and talking about baboons for like an hour for some reason.  This was why.  (Note: Text "this" is a link)
[/quote]

Thank you for the link.  Again, however, I am not referring to "Analogical thinking" as the article describes it.  An example here might be, "The fruit is small and round, and it tastes good.  That fruit is large and round, so it must taste good (or better)."  That still isn't the same thought process.

The question that was as asked was "The fruit is small and round, so it tastes good.  That fruit is large and round, so why is it here?"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're missing my point.  Metacognition comes when a certain level of analytical thinking is developed.  That level could be reached by evolutionary benefit.  It may not be beneficial to know why fruit exists, but things that require equal (or comparable) cognitive ability may be.  It's not beneficial for baboons to think abstractly, as I just demonstrated they do; but they do, because they are capable of it, for reasons that may be beneficial in other sectors.  Intelligence is also a factor in mating, thankfully for you .

[/quote]

Mating, perhaps not in your case, is instinctive, so that would not apply (Thank you trilobites.).

You've missed the point entirely.  It is not that our genus developed the capacity to ask, "Why is there fruit," it is that they did and then spent resources to try to learn the answer.  Their answers were not necessarily right, but they still attempted it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, you have tried, and failed, to define my question, in your terms.  You've assumed that all "metacognition" is helpful to survival.  It is not.

I can make an argument that some things involving thought processes are helpful.  Toolmaking, even some art, as an illustration are helpful.  The question "Why is the fruit here," is not one of the helpful ones.  The questions "How do you make a spear tip," and "What does a pregnant woman look like," are helpful.  The question, "Why is there fruit," isn't.

Homo did ask that question, and they came up with an answer.  Let's say that their answer was, "The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) gives us this fruit."  That answer is a construct.  It is something that was solely created in Homo's mind; we know it's the wrong answer.  Why continue to believe that answer is correct when it does not produce results.  Why continue to believe in it, if it fails?  I can understand inventing rituals to try to convince the FSM to give them fruit, but why continue to waste resources on them without tangible result?  In the words of a certain presidential candidate, why "cling" to that belief in the FSM?

It does not make a great deal of sense to ask the question or hold on to even a constructed answer, from an evolutionary standpoint.  Yet genus Homo has done it, uniquely in terms of intelligent species.

I have downloaded the other PDF and will read it.

[J. J.]

Hahahaha, those weren't even the costs crossing my mind, but they work.

I mean, you're on the right side of things and there's no way that successful and rational arguments won't bring you to the fact that creationism should not be taught along side actual science, but it's a difficult journey to make on the internet forum.  If someone is truly open minded, I think the winning arguments are already all out there for her to absorb, possibly on wikipedia but I haven't checked.  If not there, at least some other easily Google-able source.

Except, No one is really making that argument in this case that ID should be. Palin said, and granted it was a clarification of an a statement she made the day before:  "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

The claim that she feels that Palin does favor the teaching of both is a straw man argument, that seems to be in vogue with the Democrats this year.

[J. J.]

First, I did read it, and their conclusion, which isn't relevant to our discussion, can be summarized as this:  "Maybe the upregulation of genes was a mutation, maybe it was natural selection, ah, we don't have a mechanism."  It doesn't answer the question.

The question "Why is the fruit here," in the context we're discussing, is something more than an abstract question; it is a metaphysical one in this context.  Seeking the answer does not help genus Homo survive.  Arguably by diverting resources from other things, hunting, gathering or tool making, for example, it limited survivability.  Yet Homo insisted on asking the question and came up with answers.  And Homo is still asking the question, abet in a non metaphysical context.

I'm not saying that shouldn't ask the question; it's a good question.  I'm asking:  Why are we asking this question?  Why aren't other intelligent creatures asking it?  Why does it now seem at least to be an instinctual question?  Important questions, and we don't have an answer.

Hahahaha, those weren't even the costs crossing my mind, but they work.

I mean, you're on the right side of things and there's no way that successful and rational arguments won't bring you to the fact that creationism should not be taught along side actual science, but it's a difficult journey to make on the internet forum.  If someone is truly open minded, I think the winning arguments are already all out there for her to absorb, possibly on wikipedia but I haven't checked.  If not there, at least some other easily Google-able source.

Except, No one is really making that argument in this case that ID should be. Palin said, and granted it was a clarification of an a statement she made the day before:  "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

The claim that she feels that Palin does favor the teaching of both is a straw man argument, that seems to be in vogue with the Democrats this year.

No, it is not.  She said she supported teaching it -- twice.  She then clarified to say that she didn't want it in the curriculum, which was probably a reference to the official state curriculum.

What else would, "teach both...I am a proponent of teaching both," followed by "it doesn't have to be part of the curriculum," mean?  Maybe she contradicted herself, but she didn't specify, so the only way this involves a non-contradiction is the scenario I described.

I'm not pulling a "strawman" on anyone

The key here is her comment:  "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class." [/u]

There is a distinction between, **I want it taught with other things,**  with "I don't think there should be a prohibition" are different.  That her second comment was clarification of the first, should be sufficient to say that Palin feels that the state should not "prohibit" the discussion of it, if it comes up in class.  Sorry, but that seems very clear.

[J. J.]

First, I did read it, and their conclusion, which isn't relevant to our discussion, can be summarized as this:  "Maybe the upregulation of genes was a mutation, maybe it was natural selection, ah, we don't have a mechanism."  It doesn't answer the question.

You said there were no plausible scientific explanations.  You've just read several, and the footnotes contain articles that suggest others.  They have no less scientific evidence behind them than divine intervention, yet you seem stuck on that.  And you didn't admit you were wrong about the HGP, either.  Whatever.

Saying that there is no evidence for either (and frankly that both have some problems), is not a "plausible" explanation.  It is, at best, a possible explanation. 

But, for the umpteenth time, abstract thinking leads to metacognition.  They are part and parcel of development of the same parts of the brain.  Basic understanding of brain structure, as I just told you in the last post, makes this evident.  Why do you keep ignoring that point?

And for the upteentth time, that is not the question.  It is not, repeat not, if the mind of an earlier genus Homo could process the information.  It is, what sparked that interest and why did they dwell on it?

The key here is her comment:  "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class." [/u]


There is a distinction between, **I want it taught with other things,**  with "I don't think there should be a prohibition" are different.  That her second comment was clarification of the first, should be sufficient to say that Palin feels that the state should not "prohibit" the discussion of it, if it comes up in class.  Sorry, but that seems very clear.

She has said:

I. ""Teach both [macroevolution and ID]"

II: "I am a proponent of teaching both [macroevolution and ID]."

III. "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class."

IV. "It [intelligent design] doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."


[/quote]

She said, no points one and two are not my position.  Maybe she misstated it, maybe she was initially "going with the flow," maybe she flipped flopped, maybe she thought about it and said, "No, I don't think that was a good idea."  The position she then claimed the next was was points III and IV.  She said finally this was her position.

[J. J.]

J. J.,

Did you not check the studies in the footnotes like I mentioned?  That's probably a rhetorical question.  Honestly, I'm starting to suspect the only thing you did is read the conclusion of the study and try to rephrase it.

I did read it, and it doesn't support your conclusion.  I have no disagreement that the brain of the genus Homo evolved to process more complex thought.  That is not the issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Are you now arguing that any thoughts exterior to survival are remarkable?  That other beings' brains only think about survival, and nothing else?  That's ridiculous.  Apes think of other things, at their cognitive abilities, that are not necessary to survival.  Apparently you didn't read the abstract thinking study I linked you to.
[/quote]

I argue that, while abstract thinking, and they referred to it as analogical thinking, IIRC, clearly can be related to survival.  I would argue that "How can get I to the fruit, that is out of reach," and "Why is the fruit here," are both abstract questions; both require abstract thought to answer.  One answer leads to a payoff, food.  The other does not.  The second, in this context I'll call metaphysical thinking.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I no not disagree.  Do you feel that metaphysical thinking comes along with analytical thinking?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Basically, yes, I think that animals, even working animals like a dog that herds other animals, are limited to perhaps two thoughts, survival and gratification, and I'm not entirely sure of the second.

You should re-read my last post.

She never said points (I) and (II) are not her position?  She said that it does not have to be in the curriculum.  She could support not forcing teaching via state curriculum, but supporting individual teachers doing so.  That, again, incorporates all of her statements without any contradictions.  You choose to make one arbitrary assumption, and assume two contradictions.  Why?

Because, as governor, she does not control or order individual teachers.  She could mandate them to do certain thinks by putting it in the curriculum, but states she does wish to do so.  This more relates to the role of a governor, not her views ID.

For example, in PA, geography was NOT required to be taught as part of the state curriculum.  You can (or could when I was involved with it) graduate from high school without taking a course in geography; though I took a course in it, it was not required for graduation in my district.  Some districts (like the one where I was on the school board) did mandate it and say, in this district, to graduate, you must pass geography.  

Palin is saying, it is not the role of state government to either require or prohibit it.  (The courts have said it's not the role of local government either.)

[J. J.]

Let me put it this way.  I can ask three questions:

1.  Is Alcon on the planet Earth?

2.  How did Alcon get on the planet Earth?

3.  Why is Alcon on the the planet Earth?

The first two questions can be answered by abstract thinking.

The third question, if it asked differently than referring to how Alcon got here, is an abstract question, but is also a metaphysical one.

[J. J.]

I see nothing wrong with teaching creationism in school, as long as they also teach evolution as well. Let the students choose which one they want to believe in.

The difference is that evolution has basis in science, and creationism has absolutely no scientific basis whatseover.

The question is, should students be prohibited from asking about it?  Should we in a reverse Scopes Monkey Trial situation?  To put a reverse spin on a recent thread, you don't favor jailing people who ask about it in class, do you (that's rhetorical, I don't actually think you do)?

[J. J.]

I did read it, and it doesn't support your conclusion.  I have no disagreement that the brain of the genus Homo evolved to process more complex thought.  That is not the issue.

I made two assertions:

1. The Human Genome Project is related to the topic at hand.

I readily concede the point that genus Homo's ability to think evolved.  That is not the point I'm arguing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have a plausible explanation for why genus Homo developed tools, language, and yes, even art.  I have no plausible explanation for why genus Homo made the metaphysical leap.  There are a lot of "possible" explanations, God, the gods, a mutation, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Now you effectively saying, science doesn't know, science doesn't have a good idea, have faith in science.  Sorry, I'm skeptical.

I argue that, while abstract thinking, and they referred to it as analogical thinking, IIRC, clearly can be related to survival.  I would argue that "How can get I to the fruit, that is out of reach," and "Why is the fruit here," are both abstract questions; both require abstract thought to answer.  One answer leads to a payoff, food.  The other does not.  The second, in this context I'll call metaphysical thinking.


...

I no not disagree.  Do you feel that metaphysical thinking comes along with analytical thinking?

Yes.  They originate from development of the same parts of the brain.  Do you have a basic, working understanding of the structure of the brain?  If so, you know this is true.  Allowing one, but not the other, would be an artificial block imposed on the primate brain.  You haven't explained why we should assume this.

The is an artificial block; it's called survival of the fittest.  When Homo began to think about these things, it takes resources away from survival.

Example:  We have two groups of genus Homo, A and B.  They are the same species, have the same culture, two or three generations ago, they were the same group.  The group became separated a while back and equal numbers live about 100 miles apart.  Both groups are hunters/gathers/scavengers, tool makers with language; the have a certain level of intelligence and they reproduce.  While separate, each group lives in the same environment, same food, same water, same predators.

Group A stays the same.  Someone in group B starts asking the metaphysical question, "Why is the fruit here."  I'll even assume that the question enters the guys mind through perfectly normal natural means.  The other members of the group start asking it; when they think about it, they are not doing the things group A are doing, i.e. hunting/gathering/scavenging/having sex/making tools.

All thinks being equal, in 50 years, which group will be more viable?  Which group has better chance of producing descendants that will be around in 100 years, less than a blink of the eye in the scale we're discussing.

Both groups can make technological advances, better tools.  Where are those technological advances more likely to occur?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, you're wrong, since other primates can do abstract, analogy thinking, which is not necessitated by survival, but goes along with thought skills that are helpful to it.  Which is exactly my argument for the development of human metacognition, in fact.

[/quote]

Once again, you've have to look at analogy thinking that isn't related to survival or gratification.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nor can she force them to allow debate.  When you want to believe she doesn't support teaching ID in schools, you argue it must have been a mis-statement, because she can't force that as governor.  But you accept that she was talking about her personal opinion on teaching when she said that debating should be allowed.  Do you think she believes the state government has a right to enforce that, and actively supports forcing allowing debate?

If not, you can't have it both ways; it's special pleading.

[/quote]

Where does she say that she will "force" them to permit debate.  She's saying that they should not be prohibited by the state. 

Palin is saying, it is not the role of state government to either require or prohibit it.  (The courts have said it's not the role of local government either.)

Which I'm essentially fine with, but if she personally supports teaching it alongside macroevolution, I am disagreeing with that opinion.
[/quote]

I'm essentially Biden's position of legalizing rape, but if he personally supports legalizing rape, I am disagreeing with that opinion.

[J. J.]

The question is, should students be prohibited from asking about it?  Should we in a reverse Scopes Monkey Trial situation?  To put a reverse spin on a recent thread, you don't favor jailing people who ask about it in class, do you (that's rhetorical, I don't actually think you do)?

I think you're the only person here asking that question.  I think everyone else thinks the answer is "no."

The first question has been answered by a few people on this thread who have said they do.  Sorry, but it has.

[J. J.]

The question is, should students be prohibited from asking about it?  Should we in a reverse Scopes Monkey Trial situation?  To put a reverse spin on a recent thread, you don't favor jailing people who ask about it in class, do you (that's rhetorical, I don't actually think you do)?

I think you're the only person here asking that question.  I think everyone else thinks the answer is "no."

The first question has been answered by a few people on this thread who have said they do.  Sorry, but it has.

I don't think anybody has said that and I would think these debates do occur in classrooms across America all the time. I am sure most end with the teacher respectfully telling the student that in science class you learn what is proven theory at the current moment. Obviously a HS student of intro bio does not have the skills or expertise to challenge a well accepted scientific theory. But like I said if somebody cares so much about it they can become get their bio degree and argue with their professors as much as they like. Of course all these damn courses I have to take would just "brainwash" the lover of christ.

Right here:

OK, here is what she really said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html


I'm glad to know that liberals like sbane, stop sarah palin, Teh O.C.,, new deal democrat, oppose free debate.  Good job guys.

Sorry J.J but there is nothing to debate about. I would also love to debate gravity and other such facts but time is money. We shouldn't waste it having worthless debates about whether we descended from monkeys. If you really want to debate it so much then get into college and get a bio degree, then you can argue all you want with your professors. In high school having the debate from a religious point of view in a SCIENCE class is detrimental to the other students.

There are a few others as well.

[J. J.]

I have a plausible explanation for why genus Homo developed tools, language, and yes, even art.  I have no plausible explanation for why genus Homo made the metaphysical leap.  There are a lot of "possible" explanations, God, the gods, a mutation, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

And I just provided you with a source of one to look up (Lahn, whose study also mentions other hypotheses.)  Did you miss that link too?

I looked at the Preuss, et al., article that said it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nothing wrong with skepticism.  I'm skeptical too -- that's, um, science.

I do have faith in the scientific method, not necessarily faith in the scientific conclusions.  I assume they are correct, unless they are demonstrably flawed; if you consider working on an assumption faith, fine.  You're trying to equate faith to empirical evidence and doing a remarkably bad job of it.
[/quote]

Thank you explaining that you belief is based on faith not on evidence.  They are saying correctly, we don't have evidence about what caused.  You are adding your own little belief, **and I know it wasn't God.**  They you are trying to pass this off as "science."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You have a pretty common misunderstanding of the fundamentals of the theory of evolution.  Evolution occurs when a mutation happens, and that mutation increases the likelihood survival.  Evolution does not happen because nature says, "gee, you know what would be awesome? Lasers."

The trouble is, the mutation you suggest (never thinking about anything outside of survival) would require a drastic change in the primate brain.  You cannot remove the parts of the brain, or the systems within it, that allow for metacognition, without removing survival skills.  That is because, as I have already stated, metacognition is just advanced critical thinking.

What you're proposing would require an artificial block in the brain that allows only for logic, but without affecting any other survival skills.  Such a mutation is, I'd think, essentially impossible.
[/quote]

No Alcon, I have not suggested anything of the sort of "artificial block."  I am suggesting nothing other than natural selection.  A group that divert resources, including the time to think about the question, to metaphysical pursuits seems much less likely to survive.  

The Preuss paper talked about causation, and mutation was one.  Fine, it's possible, but once that mutation occurs, and Homo begins its pursuits of the metaphysical, that doesn't look like it is a trait would be helpful.

I will note that you didn't answer my question, which leave me with the suspicion that you don't like the answer.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, you're wrong, since other primates can do abstract, analogy thinking, which is not necessitated by survival, but goes along with thought skills that are helpful to it.  Which is exactly my argument for the development of human metacognition, in fact.
[/quote]

Stop confusing metacognition with metaphysical thinking.  And stop confusing humans with the genus Homo.  There were other species of the genus Homo that thought metaphysically as well.

In any case, your interpretation still requires more assumptions and two prior incorrect statements on Palin's part, and mine doesn't.  Yet, you're sure mine is wrong and yours is right.  Why?

Because, she came out the day after and corrected her statement.  The second statement referred to the first.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, what?
[/quote]

[/quote]

Turnabout is fair play.  I just took your sentence, "Which I'm essentially fine with, but if she personally supports teaching it alongside macroevolution, I am disagreeing with that opinion," and changed the subject matter.  

[J. J.]

Well, J. J., you've apparently decided that:

1. You're not going to do any work in researching or understanding this, even if I give you direct citations.  And, seriously, anyone who could make a statement, like the HGP is irrelevant to this, clearly has very little knowledge of this subject -- even less than the limited I have.

Because it does not relate to the topic at hand.  I've give you a little hint.  I'm not asking a question about God.  I'm asking one about evolution.

I believe these things in general.  The genus Homo evolved a greater ability to think analogically.  No disagreement.  Some animals have the ability to think analogically.  No disagreement. 

At some point in its development genus Homo began to ask the question "Why in the fruit here," or more generally "Why is universe the way it is?"  Animals don't ask that question.  That question is what I call metaphysical.  It is the basic question of science.

So I'm asking, why did members (and later cultures) of genus Homo ask that question?  I'll give you hint; that is an evolutionary question, not a God question.  I'm not asking if they had brain development to ask it; I'm asking why they (we) asked that question?  If they did, what is the evolutionary advantage in not only asking it, but in diverting resources to answer it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I just answered it , twice.    You have dealt with the capacity to ask the question.  It's not an issue with me.  I'm asking, in terms of evolutionaly advantage, what is the advantage in asking the question (even if the answer is initially wrong.

This is one of your more interesting quotes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If we were to change the first sentence to "I do have faith in the scientific method Bible, not necessarily faith in the scientific conclusions specific translation," we'd have one of jmfsct's post.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A few posts ago, I said:

Quote from: J. J. on August 31, 2008, 11:41:54 pm]
The question is, should students be prohibited from asking about it?  Should we in a reverse Scopes Monkey Trial situation?  To put a reverse spin on a recent thread, you don't favor jailing people who ask about it in class, do you (that's rhetorical, I don't actually think you do)?
[/quote]
You responded:

Quote from: Alcon on August 31, 2008, 11:43:45 pm
I think you're the only person here asking that question.  I think everyone else thinks the answer is "no."
[/quote]

Yet there were several examples of yes.  You then posted "Fair enough."

You looked at what was posted, and after refection, changed your opinion, modified it. 

Your first answer is logically inconsistent with your second answer, unless your second answer is meant to supersede your first answer.  So did Palin's answer, or her final answer. 

You want to accuse her of thinking about it overnight and changing it, fine.  Flipflopping over 24 hours until she gave a final answer, fine.  But we know what her final answer was, like yours to that question.  I'm holding her, rhetorically to the same standard I'm holding you, and there is no contradiction; Palin and Alcon changed their mind.