But all I’m doing is pleading on behalf of those parents, and not just those, but all parents who are securing the rights of their children. I think you should have the right to educate your children as atheists as well. Why is it that for them I advocate a bad thing, but for you I advocate a good thing?
See how much nicer things are when you just come out and say what you mean instead of comparing science to superstition. 
If Charlie Daniels were advocating home schooling or saying how he wanted his children to be taught, then I would have no problem with it. I’d think he was tremendously ignorant, but I’d be fine.
That’s not what he wants. Charlie Daniels, and a good and loud number of people like him, want their ignorance spread in schools for every child in a public school to learn. As I have a child in public schools, that’s stepping on my toes.
Now, wait a minute! I didn’t compare science to superstition. I compared the consecration of science to superstition. When science is treated as something holy, it is indistinguishable from religion.
Well, but that’s the nature of anything “public”, where ownership is ambiguous, and power over it is in dispute. But that’s another debate.
Sorry, bad choice of words. You have to give me a minute to warm up. Not all of us have been up early enough to watch the farm report. 
Liberal
I do not think of science as something “holy” - just something that I know can be relied on a Hell of a lot more than religion. And if a scientific tenet is proven to be false or insufficient, then a better hypothesis, theory, etc takes its place.
Relied on for what? Medical science is great, but what scientific hypothesis will perform surgery on the poor? Agricultural science is great, but what scientific hypothesis will give the food to hungry children? Computer science is great, but what scientific hypothesis will free the slaves in North Korea?
Same same with religion. Few people worship gods of fire anymore.
Special Creation. God’s very busy these days, see. That’s why he can’t do anything about hurricanes and tsunamis and wars and stuff.
It is, perhaps, about as accurate as your characteriziation of evolution as “an undesigned, arbitrary process without goals that guides nothing and controls nothing.” The process is far from arbitrary - were that the case, then the results would be purely random. Nor is it unguided - the “guide”, in this case, is anything from assorted environmental variables (natural selection) to other members of the species (sexual selection), to humans deciding what they wish to breed for (artificial selection). Or, certain traits can turly be “unguided”, in that they are free to vary more or less randomly.
Selection, in whatever form, guides, while mutations and the constraints of history tend to control.
And, to be fair, evolution is more complicated than “the weak die, the strong live”. But, really, I suspect that both you and SteveG1 were invoking a bit of hyperbole and were, thereby, simplfying concepts, rather than giving technical definitions as to what evolution is.
I would think that someone professing religious evolution (small “e”) woudl follow up with an example that showed a difference.
Why is worshipping a Fire God any less informed that worshipping Jesus and the Trinity (or, for that matter, any of the many variations on a monotheistic “God”)?
In the absence of any evidential difference, I wouldn’t see any change…
Thanks, Finch. Your expertise is always invaluable in helping me formulate my views on evolution. I never quite feel like I’ve heard the final word until I’ve heard from you. You corrections above are edifying, and I stand corrected.
And without medical science, where would they be now? Where would a lot of us be? You’re arguing a social issue.
I think it’s fairly safe to say that agricultural science is a good reason why those that are getting food are getting anything at all. Once again, you are throwing in a social issue.
This is a silly question. Might as well ask who wrote the book of love.
Once again Liberal, I know you are smarter than this. These arguments that you are putting forth are bordering on senseless.
What you say is not entirely without merit, in the sense that science cannot prove that there is no god of fire, just as it cannot prove that gravity doesn’t work by the movements of angels. But then, examination of analytics by using the scientific method is itself a profound mistake. By the same token, it is arbitrary to say that pontificating 21st century technocrats are any more informed than bushmen who worship fire gods. The bushman is perfectly informed about his world, and the technocrat might well die were he in it. To me, the sheer elegance of modern theology is beautiful. But you might favor some other aesthetic. I can think of nothing more beautiful than a tautology.
Hey, you stole MY point. I was arguing against the use of science as an epistemological panacea. The right system of knowledge for the right task.
Op. cit.
Once again, that’s my point. Why tout science as the answer to everything, when clearly it isn’t? When science is politicized or consecrated, it is effectively ruined.
I think you’re just reading lazily.
Oh sure. Accuse me of reading lazily Mister Always Overstates his Point. And how you got through life with that clusmy of a name I’ll never know.
Noone is saying science will solve every problem. It is a better solution than blind faith and ignorance though. It also is far more helpful on Jeopardy.
Liberal*
To me, the sheer elegance of modern theology is beautiful. *
When did this “modern theology” occur? Did they come out with a Bible 2.0 ? Are there new ways of proving God exists? Are they finally narrowing down the problem of the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin?
As for your alleged arguments, you always seem to find something negative about anything. So, I no longer feel it worth the time to counter your postings. Anyway, I see that other Dopers have done an excellent, erudite job in doing that.
Oh and I am guessing you still choose to use a computer to participate in this thread instead of preaching in a field.
I’m a Christian, and I think Charlie Daniels and his ilk are medieval twits.
Imasquare
I like that sentiment. Makes me glad I started this thread.
No argument from me either.
It started with Ockham and Augustine.
More or less.
Yes.
While you’re here, check out Cecil’s columns once in a while:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_132.html
Remarkable, isn’t it, that I’m not inspired by your positivism.
I suppose someone has to.
Yes, and I thank God for it.
Occam’s Razor would tend to imply that the world would runs via natural causes, rather than a magic, unseeable, untestable, being causing natural causes.
Alert the scientific community. Someone has devised an experiment which can test for God.
I thank Dell.
If you take away faith in God, computers still work.
If you take away science, plastics wouldn’t have ever been invented, let alone microchips.
What natural causes can you test? What causes an electron’s orbit to collapse? You’re mistaking mechanics for causes. You know how much gravity a mass will exert, but you don’t know the cause.
Science cannot even prove that 1 + 1 = 2. Why all this bizarre reverence for a rather limited system of falsification?
Dude.
You don’t (and can’t) know that.
Like I said, computers are great. Now get science to warm the hearts of dictators so that their people can access discussions like these, and I’ll be impressed.