My Lawn: Get Off of It, Ben Stein
Dammit, Ben Stein, what the hell are you thinking, really? Expelled?
Little brother and I are talking about the ACLU, we're talking about freedom of religion (which, to be fair, should also include the freedom to no religion, if you so choose), we're talking about the nature of art. I stumble upon this piece on Scientific American online. Now I don't know if you people in the other states are aware of this, but evolution is damn near as wacky an idea as, I don't know. Good odds in the state lottery. We have to argue this here, because there are those who feel that since evolution is a theory (and one that hasn't been disproven yet), that we should teach alternative theories of the ascent of man, so to speak. Problem is, there aren't any that aren't philosophical or religious in nature. Biology, last time I checked, was still a science class.
SCIENCE. Not Sunday school, not finishing school, not getting high with your "friends" and talking about what it all "means"... grow up.
Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses..
It has a method. Do you have a method? I didn't think so.
Seriously, Ben Stein. At what point did you sell completely out? It's perfectly alright to make a documentary about something that moves you, but what you did was mudslinging, it was crap, it should not been taken seriously. Your mischaracterization of Darwin and his ideas are shoddy (and dangerous, in the wrong hands).
Science doesn't ask that you disregard your religion, only that you limit your investigation (of matters scientific) to observable, measurable things. Faith, almost by definition, cannot be treated this way. Science does not imply atheist. Plenty of athiests don't know, nor could they measure, shit or shinola. Why can't religion operate within the same constraints, and stay within the realm it's built for? Why does your belief temper my teaching or my learning?
If I wanted to take Phil 203, I wouldn't have signed up for Evolutionary Biology.
Little brother and I are talking about the ACLU, we're talking about freedom of religion (which, to be fair, should also include the freedom to no religion, if you so choose), we're talking about the nature of art. I stumble upon this piece on Scientific American online. Now I don't know if you people in the other states are aware of this, but evolution is damn near as wacky an idea as, I don't know. Good odds in the state lottery. We have to argue this here, because there are those who feel that since evolution is a theory (and one that hasn't been disproven yet), that we should teach alternative theories of the ascent of man, so to speak. Problem is, there aren't any that aren't philosophical or religious in nature. Biology, last time I checked, was still a science class.
SCIENCE. Not Sunday school, not finishing school, not getting high with your "friends" and talking about what it all "means"... grow up.
Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses..
It has a method. Do you have a method? I didn't think so.
Seriously, Ben Stein. At what point did you sell completely out? It's perfectly alright to make a documentary about something that moves you, but what you did was mudslinging, it was crap, it should not been taken seriously. Your mischaracterization of Darwin and his ideas are shoddy (and dangerous, in the wrong hands).
Science doesn't ask that you disregard your religion, only that you limit your investigation (of matters scientific) to observable, measurable things. Faith, almost by definition, cannot be treated this way. Science does not imply atheist. Plenty of athiests don't know, nor could they measure, shit or shinola. Why can't religion operate within the same constraints, and stay within the realm it's built for? Why does your belief temper my teaching or my learning?
If I wanted to take Phil 203, I wouldn't have signed up for Evolutionary Biology.
Labels: get off of it, my lawn
posted by ginonymous at
3:18 PM
7 Comments:
Should have stuck to game shows.
should've stuck to bad movies.
see previous post.
this is clearly a very loose thread on ben stein or something..
Suckitude.
i don't like any of it.
but i like the fact that you don't like it, either.
He can kiss my ass.
Many mainstream Christians can differentiate between science and religion, and this is just right-wing propaganda anyways.
There's this constant argument going on that since ID has an element of faith, that macro evolution must have an element of the atheistic. I never said there wasn't a God, I'm only saying that philosophy (which religion is) has no place in a science classroom. The upshot is that I think most rational people know this and accept it.
It's another non-issue to divide the masses, I suppose. But shit like this will go over gangbusters in Kansas.
Oh, I know.
It's one of the many things that frustrate me.
They're trying to pigeon-hole us all into only one of two points of view.
ID isn't science. Evolution is. Evolution should be taught in science class. ID should be taught in Sunday School.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home