Tweet
Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?
This thread just makes me shake my head
This thread just makes me shake my head
The Rules of Pacers Digest
Hello everyone,
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"
"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?"
In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*""Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?
"In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less
-
Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained. -
Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?
No, it's sad that science education has gotten to the point where huge amounts of taxpayer dollars fund people who seriously teach kids that people once rode on dinosaurs, ignorance spread through the aid of voucher programs
Florida is #1 by a mile, sadly, though Indiana and Ohio deserve mention as northern states that give Georgia, Alabama, Arizona, and Louisiana a run for their money as runners-up in the "teaching crap as science" department. I would guess that Texas & NC withheld their data somehow, assuming that they even have a voucher program. It's a cool map. Zoom in on a location and find out many of the "mission statements" publicly released by these schools who are pouring your dollars into teaching, basically, that 2 + 2 =5 because a book we like says so.
http://billmoyers.com/content/intera...g-creationism/
But kudos to Ball State University for speaking the truth about so-called intelligent design
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2...lligent-design
Intelligent design is overwhelmingly deemed by the scientific community as a religious belief and not a scientific theory,” President Jo Ann Gora said. “Therefore, intelligent design is not appropriate content for science courses. The gravity of this issue and the level of concern among scientists are demonstrated by more than 80 national and state scientific societies’ independent statements that intelligent design and creation science do not qualify as science.”
The question is not one of academic freedom, but one of academic integrity, she added. “Said simply, to allow intelligent design to be presented to science students as a valid scientific theory would violate the academic integrity of the course as it would fail to accurately represent the consensus of science scholars.”Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 08-20-2013, 09:28 AM.The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).Comment
-
Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?
I'm pretty sure I've answered this before, but it's worth pointing out again.Originally posted by kester99 View Post
The logic is flawless. If A can be proven, than not-A can be falsified, and vice versa. If you prove that the Earth is globe-shaped, you will have falsified the claim that the Earth is flat (assuming you don't resort to definitional or other trickery).
Your problem is, you believe that ideas which have been falsified don't quality as science. This is wrong. If something is testable, it qualifies as science. The Earth being flat was testable, and it's since been falsified, thus, it's science. It falls under the classification of failed/falsified hypothesis.
The point is, questions have both affirmations and negations, and testing for one will inherently test for the other, while proving one will disprove (falsify) the other.
For example: Is my wife pregnant?
Affirmation: Yes, my wife is pregnant.
Negation: No, my wife is not pregnant.
An accurate pregnancy test will test for both. It will either come back positive, proving the affirmation and falsifying the negation, or it will come back negative, proving the negation and falsifying the affirmation.
What the anti-I.D. crowd claims is that the negation to the question "Is there actual design in biology?" is science, but the affirmation is not. It just doesn't work. You can't accurately test for a proposition and have that test not apply to both the affirmation and the negation of that proposition. A pregnancy test can't prove my wife is pregnant while not simultaneously proving that she's not not pregnant.
These people are not serious thinkers, and they're not motivated by truth or scientific progress.Comment
-
Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?
More apparent dishonesty from Slick.
The report dealt with private schools and parochial schools, which are, according to Wikipedia, religious schools which are financed almost entirely due to voluntary donations, rather than taxpayer money.Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
Not exactly your run-of-the-mill taxpayer-funded public schools like Slick is trying to paint them out to be.
Ball State embarrassing themselves has been thoroughly covered by my favorite blog. There's quite a few related articles there, including glowing praise from the professors students, including nonreligious students. Anyone interested in this case owes it to themselves to read those articles.Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
As for the quote Slick (quite a suitable username) posted, John G. West put it brilliantly:
Ball State President's Orwellian Attack on Academic Freedom - Evolution News & Views
Jo Ann Gora, President of Ball State University (BSU) in Indiana, has weighed in on the subject of intelligent design, declaring that science faculty can't say that intelligent design is science in science classes. Incredibly, Gora insists that her university's "commitment to academic freedom is unflinching," even while she imposes a gag order on science faculty who think there is evidence of intelligent design in nature.
Memo to President Gora: Academic freedom was designed to protect dissenting and unpopular views among faculty. That's the whole point. Redefining it as the "freedom" to teach only the majority view isn't academic freedom; it's a power play right out of the pages of George Orwell's 1984. Gora's statement makes a mockery of true academic freedom. It also exposes Gora as a complete hypocrite on the subject. Nearly a decade ago, she and her university went to the mat defending the academic freedom of a left-wing peace studies professor with controversial views. Now it turns out that their commitment to academic freedom is a sham: Academic freedom at Ball State apparently only means the right to teach views the university administration agrees with.
Of course, the context for Gora's remarks is the continuing controversy over BSU physicist Eric Hedin, under attack by the extremist Freedom from Religion Foundation because he may have covered the issue of intelligent design as part of his "Boundaries of Science" seminar. Although Gora doesn't mention Hedin, the university issued a companion statement that said:Provost Terry King and Professor Hedin have both reviewed the panel's findings and are working together to ensure that course content is aligned with the curriculum and best standards of the discipline. The university is particularly appreciative for Dr. Hedin's active participation and cooperation during this process. His academic credentials are an asset to the university. He remains an important and valued member of our physics and astronomy department.The statement about Hedin is notable for how little it actually says. And President Gora's statement, far from clarifying matters, adds more confusion:
1. Hedin's honors seminar is supposed to be interdisciplinary. The course description for the seminar published by the university clearly states that it doesn't just deal with science; it also has to deal with important human questions raised by science. This course description applies to all the different faculty who teach the course. So Hedin's honors seminar isn't simply a science course. Does that mean Hedin can talk about intelligent design in the class according to Gora?
2. President Gora forbids teaching that intelligent design is a scientific theory in science courses. But teaching about the controversy over intelligent design is not the same thing as teaching ID as a scientific theory. So can professors still teach students about the majority and minority views about intelligent design in the scientific community?
3. If Gora really believes that intelligent design is religion and that it is inappropriate to present in science classes, does her gag order apply equally to scientists on her campus who are opposed to intelligent design? For example, does her new speech code forbid scientists from attacking ID in science classes? After all, in her view, that would be tantamount to attacking religion, and therefore would be unconstitutional according to her legal analysis.
If anyone thinks that Gora's statement is the end of the Hedin matter, they are mistaken. This is just the beginning. BSU is a state university, and its blatant double standard on academic freedom raises fundamental questions that will need to be answered.
According to the nitwit at Ball State, academic freedom doesn't apply in this situation because of the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Scientific Consensus. Yet, that's exactly the sort of thing academic freedom is suppose to protect minority viewpoints from. Why did she think academic freedom existed? To protect the power-wielding majority from the minority? God Lord, what a dunce... and Slick sides with her.
Secondly, as West astutely points out, if I.D. is religion, then that would make attacks against it equally as Unconstitutional as promotions for it. This begs the question: Are these completely honest do-gooders fighting for the integrity of the Constitution (well, accept when it comes to guns... then it doesn't count) equally as upset when I.D. (in their minds, religion) is attacked as they are when it's promoted? From my experienced, the answer is clearly no. That makes it clear that any pleads to the Constitution is just a cheap tuxedo to hide their true motivations: Protecting Darwinism.
How embarrassing.Comment
-
Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?
Can't you not even READ? The report indeed deals with private schools and parochial schools, and specifically those who receive public funding through voucher programs.Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
It's somehow buried in the first sentences of the link!
his week on Moyers & Company, 19-year-old education activist Zack Kopplin joins Bill to talk about his campaign to get creationism out of science classes in publicly funded schools. He discovered that students attending private and parochial schools in states with school voucher programs were taught creationism in addition to — or, in some classrooms, instead of — the theory of evolution... this map shows private schools that accept state vouchers and teach creationism.
wow, just wow.
2+2 = 4
I realize a lot of thick-as-a-brick dunces will never believe it, but it does.Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 08-20-2013, 10:25 AM.The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).Comment
-
Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?
No offense, but I think it's safe to say your knowledge doesn't amount to much.Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
Evolution of Evolution - 150 Years of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species"
“It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.”
--Charles Darwin, in a letter to botanist John Hooker, 1871
Darwin never enthusiastically publicly argued for abiogenesis, but it sure sounds to me like he was a closeted believer in it. Of course, it's fitting that he would. His views on post-origins biology were clearly ateleological, so it's only reasonable that he would also believe in an ateleological origin of life. Gross ignorance aside, at least he was consistent.
His examples were weak and haven't withstood the test of time. First, that organisms can change (the non-fixity of species) has been known since the dawn of mankind; Darwin brought nothing new to the table there. The questions are, what are the extent of these changes, how far can they be extrapolated, and what are the causes behind them? Those are the questions Darwin attempted to answer, and with which I, and other intelligent, educated people, disagree with him, and his modern supporters, on.Originally posted by Slick Pinkham View Post
For example, Slick mentions finch beaks, but what does that demonstrate, exactly? What does extrapolating finch beak size and shape get you? Nothing beyond finches with differing sized/shaped beaks. To make matters worse, there appears to be a strict upper-and-lower-boundary on these type of oscillating changes; they'll only got so big, they'll only get so small.
Here's the problem with this sort of extrapolation: Cosmetic variation doesn't add up to fundamental change. Fundamental change in biology requires massive levels of engineering; bodyplan changes, advanced new traits, multiple functioning proteins, working in unison, etc. The type of changes Slick speaks of wont get the job done, although I can understand how people who don't fully grasp the situation might think that they do. Furthermore, random mutation has proven to be destructive, it degenerates preexisting function, so why would I believe that it's the driving force behind all of life's engineering? Because some ignorant rubes in the 19th century said so? Because nutjobs with poor reasoning skills and personal agendas (no offense, Slick) said so?
I don't think so.
By the way, on a semi-related note, Douglas Axe, Cambridge-educated I.D. proponent who specializes in proteins (and quite the handsome young man), has been engaged in a fairly civil discussion with a University of Texas biology named Martin Poenie. His (Axe's) last piece was a challenge Poenie regarding Darwinian processes producing new genes:
Show Me: A Challenge for Martin Poenie - Evolution News & Views
Read that piece and you'll see how intelligent, educated, well-mannered, logical, and rational I.D. proponents like Axe are. We're suppose to believe that these men are an attack on scientific integrity, remember.Last edited by Lance George; 08-20-2013, 11:22 AM.Comment
-
Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?
Well, here goes this thread. It was actually an interesting read until ................Comment
-
Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?
I'm not a fan of seeing anyone claim intelligent design is merely faith in the book of Genesis. I suppose on a semantic level you could see it that way, but it would be wrong to then assert or allege that everyone who entertains the idea intelligent design is automatically religious.
I'm not religious. But I can entertain the idea of intelligent design. GRH says he is also not religious. And he's hardly the first person I can recall reading that was areligious and entertained the idea of intelligent design. It's basically a mainstream and/or atheist myth/propaganda that it's always about the book of Genesis.
For some, namely Christians, Jews, Muslims, I'm sure it's one and the same to them, or at least a lot of it is, but they don't have a monopoly on the concept or the term.Comment
-
Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?
This is the second time I've read about what's going on at Ball State in this matter, and I tend to agree with the Gora critics on this one. Seems hypocritical and ignorant to me. That having been said, that's based on what I've read so far; I don't know all the facts.Comment
-
Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?
Right. The idea that life was designed is certainly friendly to belief in God, and theistic religions, and that certainly will attract believers. The problem with those who use this common-sense fact to attack I.D. is twofold:Originally posted by Hicks View Post
First of all, it's the genetic fallacy. Attempting to explain why someone believes something doesn't disprove the belief.
Secondly, it cuts both ways. If we can blindly say theists accept I.D. based on it being God-friendly, then we can blindly say that atheists reject it for being God-friendly. The same point stands for Darwinian evolution. Traits that attract one side of the debate will repel the other side. They say I accept I.D. and reject Darwinism because I'm a theist; I say they accept Darwinism and reject I.D. because they're atheists. Ultimately, it proves nothing. What matters is the evidence, and in my opinion, the evidence sides with I.D., and it does so increasingly as we further understand the inner-workings of biology.
What I see are I.D. proponents making strong evidential-based arguments, while Darwinists spew out motive-mongering and logical fallacies, all while trying to dodge debate and questioning, including in the classroom. That, to me, says that I.D. proponents are arguing from a position of confidence, while Darwinists reek of insecurity.Comment
-
Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?
Finally you are calling it what it is, a belief. You believe in I.D. Well, the center of topic is about science, not beliefs. I don't have any "beliefs" one way or another about the basic principles of evolution. I have an understanding of the facts that support them. That's like asking if I believe in gravity, thermodynamics, or calculus. There is no aspect of belief to it.
What I see are scientists making strong evidential-based arguments, while fear-mongering closed-minded self-taught know-it-alls spew out trash and claim it to be scientific, when they care not a whit about the entire scientific process but instead grasp for anything to justify their BELIEFS.
Believe or don't believe. Just don't claim your beliefs are science, just because, well, you believe them to be.Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 08-20-2013, 12:37 PM.The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).Comment
-
Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?
Guys, we need to dial back the personal vitriol a little.
Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13Comment
-
Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?
Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13Comment
-
Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?
Evolution is no where near the same level as gravity, thermodynamics, nor calculus.“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.Comment
-
Comment