How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by olorin hamfast

What is this all about? Didnt are you trying to preach the gospel on a Tolkien fan site? I dont understand whos brain you are trying to wash but it surely wont be mine. Didnt fundamnetalists equate Darwin to an ape back in the 19 th century just to please thierfellow fundamnetalists? Ithink that debate on creationism belongs in the galileo era and not on a Tolkien fan site. Go burn some witches some place else! JRR would be rolling over in his grave.

lol! *Lotesse hides her snicker behind hand* You tell 'em, Olorin! People are constantly tryna win converts here in the moot - they mean well, though. Try not to be TOO harsh on them. Rian's a sweet person, be easy with her please; she's a moot-friend of mine.

[olorin hamfast]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

lol! *Lotesse hides her snicker behind hand* You tell 'em, Olorin! People are constantly tryna win converts here in the moot - they mean well, though. Try not to be TOO harsh on them. Rian's a sweet person, be easy with her please; she's a moot-friend of mine.

Woops! We Canux can get a little Chippy at times; rough on the hockey rink, all smiles on hte golf course. Id remind everyone of the way they treated Galileo Galilei for pouring water into columns and attracting a crowd., but this a darn Tolkien site! Im not surprised in a way. Missioinaries raom the earth and they roam middle earth. Ill never back down and I have the spirit of Theoden King and Snowmane to guide me until my eventual Death!

[olorin hamfast]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

lol! *Lotesse hides her snicker behind hand* You tell 'em, Olorin! People are constantly tryna win converts here in the moot - they mean well, though. Try not to be TOO harsh on them. Rian's a sweet person, be easy with her please; she's a moot-friend of mine.

"Oio Naa Elealla Alasse'"

[Count Comfect]

Rian - the problem with that amicus brief is that it doesn't actually apply to the case. The case is about whether a public school district may teach ID (and specifically, the book "Of Pandas and People"), not about whether university professors may research Intelligent Design. The entire plaintiff's case is that ID, as taught in "Of Pandas and People" in the Dover School District, is legally "creation science," and as such is supportive of a specific religious belief and teaching it in public school violates the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment, as established in Edwards v. Aguillard.

It has nothing to do with academic research.

[olorin hamfast]

I just can not comprehend why have this debate here on a Tolkien fan site. I find it tasteless. I would teach Tolkien in a public school any day of the week(Mon -Fri) but you dont need me to tell you that few people would tolerate a neo american christian fundamentalist view in our schools. I read Tolkien to my kids aloud and they love it. Cover to cover, Would you just go and read the WHOLE BIBLE cover to cover to young kids? They would be scared sh$tless and bored witless. This site is for the creative, not the creationist, at least that is why I am here and Not to debate whether there should be a little creationist gruel in our kids faces or alot, or whether to real potatoes or freeze dried ones. Take it to judgement day. We need only look at the track record of the church in our lives and its impositions to know that young minds deserve an open fresh perspective in thought rather than a perspective with the track record that neo christianity has. All you fundamnetalists should bone up on your history lessons and never forget Pope Leo or the mass movement of aboriginal nations from thier homelands to places where they could no longer speak thier native tongues; and the severe repurcussions they experienced when they did not conform and speak a language they could not understand. Am I going too fast for you? Brothers separated from brothers, sisters separated from mothers, and all the combinations and permutations that go along with that. Have you forgotten or neglected to remember the atrocities at residential schools across north america; of sexual abuse and torture? Keep christ out of our schools and out of our Tolkien fan sites. I guess fundamentalists need fresh ideas too, but not off fresh creative minds looking for meaning from storybooks written in oppostion to WAR. Dont expect to hear much else from me on this one.

[Count Comfect]

olorin, you may have noticed a division on this site - we are in a forum called "General Messages" under "Other Topics." For Tolkien discussion, please go to the "JRR Tolkien" part of the site and look at the many fine threads there.

On topic: Edwards v. Aguillard brings in the 3 prong "Lemon" test (named after the case Lemon v. Kurtzman in which it was introduced). Regarding academic freedom, it finds that this rationale fails to fulfill the Lemon test as applied to "the purpose that animated adoption of the Act," because "It is equally clear that requiring schools to teach creation science with evolution does not advance academic freedom. The Act does not grant teachers a flexibility that they did not already possess to supplant the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life." As far as I can see, the same is true in this case.

All quotes from the text of Justice Brennan's majority decision in Edwards via http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwa....html#Majority

[Rían]

Originally Posted by olorin hamfast

What is this all about? Didnt are you trying to preach the gospel on a Tolkien fan site? I dont understand whos brain you are trying to wash but it surely wont be mine. Didnt fundamnetalists equate Darwin to an ape back in the 19 th century just to please thierfellow fundamnetalists? Ithink that debate on creationism belongs in the galileo era and not on a Tolkien fan site. Go burn some witches some place else! JRR would be rolling over in his grave.

To your last sentence - he certainly would if he read your post.

To the rest - no response needed, since there is nothing but insults, prejudice and stereotyping (as well as atrocious spelling! ), which deserve no response.

I will be glad to respond to considerate, thoughtful posts, like Count's, if you come up with some

[Curubethion]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

olorin, you may have noticed a division on this site - we are in a forum called "General Messages" under "Other Topics." For Tolkien discussion, please go to the "JRR Tolkien" part of the site and look at the many fine threads there.

THANK YOU

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Rian's a sweet person, be easy with her please; she's a moot-friend of mine.

Thanks, Lotesse, that meant a lot to me

(and I"m not trying to "win converts" here, btw)

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Rian

(and I"m not trying to "win converts" here, btw)

We know. It's just a debate A good, civil one. Even if I do disagree with you

[Rían]

Rian - the problem with that amicus brief is that it doesn't actually apply to the case. The case is about whether a public school district may teach ID (and specifically, the book "Of Pandas and People"), not about whether university professors may research Intelligent Design. The entire plaintiff's case is that ID, as taught in "Of Pandas and People" in the Dover School District, is legally "creation science," and as such is supportive of a specific religious belief and teaching it in public school violates the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment, as established in Edwards v. Aguillard.

It has nothing to do with academic research.

Thank you for a thoughtful, considerate and informative contribution to this discussion, Count!!!!

Several points to consider (and which I would like your thoughts on ) -

First, court rulings often have an extremely wide application, and I imagine their point is that this ruling will be cited downstream as people apply for gov't grants to research various origin issues. So IMO it does indeed have to do with academic research. I believe a "friends of the court" brief can be related to side-issues, altho I'm not sure. Do you know?

Second, many court rulings have been overturned and/or modified before, and I think that's where this one is headed, because the whole issue revolves around what is science, and what is belief. And people like me think that there ARE valid scientific areas in creationism/ID, and that naturalism is a BELIEF that has crept into science through the back door only recently and is wrong, and that we need some adjustments in order to keep intellectual and scientific integrity, for the good of all concerned.

I was talking with my sister t'other day (a 7th/8th grade biology teacher who teaches evolution) about the whole ID thing. Being civil people, we were able to discuss it just fine, and not let it affect our relationship, altho we have major disagreements. One thing I was telling her is that I can understand why it is vehement on both sides, and I wished she and I ran things!

Here is the relevant sentence, IMO, in the brief:

from the Amicus Brief in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial
"Since the identification of intelligent causes is a well established scientific practice in fields such as forensic science, archaeology, and exobiology, Amici urge this Court to reject plaintiffs’ claim that the application of intelligent design to biology is unscientific. "

See, the whole thing hinges on whether or not ID can be classified as "scientific" or not. As they point out, it is already a well-established scientific practice in several areas, in addition to those I"ve pointed out before (SETI, Mars lander observations, etc.)

[Count Comfect]

Of course, as we've gone over in the other thread (Evidence for Evolution) SETI etc are looking for HUMAN level intelligence, not superhuman. And I really do think there is a major scientific difference there. Along with the other reasons I think ID is not scientific, at least one of which can be found here http://www.slate.com/id/2127054/

Also, I think if there was a precedent against scientific freedom from an anti-creation-science case, Edwards v. Aguillard would have already done it. To quote again (see above):

It is equally clear that requiring schools to teach creation science with evolution does not advance academic freedom. The Act does not grant teachers a flexibility that they did not already possess to supplant the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life.

From Brennan's majority decision in Edwards.

If court rulings were to have long arms, this one (and the Dover case is just a subcase of this one) would already have been destroying freedom since 1996.

And amicus briefs can apply to affected side-issues... I just don't think this is actually a legitimately affected side issue

[Rían]

Originally Posted by olorin hamfast

I guess fundamentalists need fresh ideas too, but not off fresh creative minds looking for meaning from storybooks written in oppostion to WAR.

Do you think that Tolkien wrote LOTR in opposition to war? Please provide quotes from him to support your position. I suggest first-hand sources, such as "The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien" - wonderful book! do you have it? I've read it several times - what a fascinating man!

Here's some examples on what Tolkien himself says about its meaning/theme:

From letter 165 - "It is not about anything but itself. Certainly it has no allegorical intentions, general, particular, or topical, moral, religious, or political."

From letter 186 - "The real theme for me is about something much more permanent and difficult: Death and Immortality: the mystery of the love of the world in the hearts of a race 'doomed' to leave and seemingly lose it; the anguish in the hearts of a race 'doomed' not to leave it, until its whole evil-aroused story is complete. But if you have now read Vol. III and the story of Aragorn, you will have pereceived that."

From letter 142 - "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously at first, but consciously in the revision."

I could go on and on - there are hundred of references in the index under The Lord of the Rings, Contents, author's intentions, and the only one I can see about war in any form is when he says it is most definitely NOT an allegory about atomic power, and that the main idea is NOT a product of WWII.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Of course, as we've gone over in the other thread (Evidence for Evolution) SETI etc are looking for HUMAN level intelligence, not superhuman.

I disagree I would say it's human-TYPE intelligence, whether higher or lower. Doesn't that make sense? Is there some random bar, like presumed IQ of aliens, which, if passed, we drop all scientific inquiries like a hot potato?

And from your quote - the important sentence is the second one - any theory which is CURRENTLY labelled as "unscientific" will NOT be presented. That's what the fight is about - many intelligent scientists think it IS scientific and are tired of being forced out of the playing field, ONLY in the area of origins!

I'll read your link tomorrow - thanks!

[Count Comfect]

I think we're easily past the point of human-type intelligence if you can design evolution . At that point, if it were alien intelligence, we would NOT be able to identify it, so yes, it would be past a cutoff.

And it IS unscientific, for the reasons I keep bringing up. It theorizes an intelligent designer whose existence is unproven.

[olorin hamfast]

If you were to have a look in the foreward the in the Felllowship, you may notice that Tolkien mentions that the writing occured during the first world war and most of his drive came from elaborating on events that occured while in hospital with injuries from the war while in the service of the Queen. I would not dare assume that his intention in writing the books was to glorify war. Also, If you have a look at the interviews in the 2 towers dvd special edN, there is an interesting commentary in there about the war and his statement about the books suggsest the author is making an anti war staement. In the 60s it is mentioned in the foreward to the revised american edition that the resurgence in populairty of the book was due to an anti war climate in america and contributed to the populairty of the triliogy. I dont quite know what you are trying to prove? Is your point aimed at disproving the books to be an anti war statement or simply to correct me so as to drive a theological position on the subject. Also is this the correct forum for this? I was just told that Tolkien issues were to be discussed on another forum; are we changing the rules. Im not trying to be unfreindly, Im stating plain stements. Please do not think that I am trying to be unfriendly. Also, if you scroll to the very top of this page you may notice that the page is" dedicated to the works of JRR " not dedicated to the discussion of creationism in our schools, or dedicated to the eradication of evolutionary discussion in our schools. You also criticised me for stating that JRR would roll over in his grave for my challenging the validity of this argument in a Tolkien fan site and my likening this archaic process to a witch hunt! I believe that the purpose of debating an archaic issue such as evolution and creationism on a Tolkien web site is archaic, with the aim of getting converts to christianity and history repeats. I never viewed The LORT as a christian work for christians! I would love to see any references to that. And no, I have not read all his letters and did not expect that I would be quizzed on them this evening. Still, I remain digusted that you people continue to try to justify your archaic debate in a safe place for Tolkien Fans. I believe you should take your debate on creationism and evolution elsewhere. And there is no reason to make fun of my spelling this is not going to be marked by you at the end of class and spelling doesnt count. Do you assume that I dont know how to spell as result of my religious beliefs? One of your contemporaries posted a thread about what your religEon is, an altogether personal question, but couldnt even spell religion. I tire of this discussion as I am convinced I may never get anywhere with you people It is the point you dont like that I oppose your personal belief that creationism should be taught as well as a fundamentalist view instead of Darwinism.Tout Chez and Leave the spelling Bs for the grade 6 s.

[olorin hamfast]

Keep creationist debates out of our schools.

[olorin hamfast]

Rian: you didnt seem to have much criticisms over this entry. Why do you not want references and supporting information for this entry?

[olorin hamfast]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

To your last sentence - he certainly would if he read your post.

To the rest - no response needed, since there is nothing but insults, prejudice and stereotyping (as well as atrocious spelling! ), which deserve no response.

I will be glad to respond to considerate, thoughtful posts, like Count's, if you come up with some

I cannot see any intentional insults here. If I said youre a bad speller then maybe. But I cannot understand what is so insulting about Charles Darwin and how he was treated in the 19th century. Please elaborate. Also, if I had called you a witch, or one who does not know how to read, that would qualify as an insult. Ill do the best I can to spell everything properly for you, so as to not be insulted by your criticisms. Also, was creationism not debated by Galileo in his time, and was he not threatened with burning if he did not accept excommunication? I fail to see how this subject is not worthy of a response.

[Earniel]

This thread has gone over the 1000 replies and will be closed. Discussion can be continued here.