1. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242965 by Sciros on September 4, 2008 at 9:50 pm

You've made your sentiments apparent more than a few times on this forum already. I call it as I see it. If you don't like it, tough bananas.

2. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242959 by Sciros on September 4, 2008 at 9:40 pm

Oh well if it isn't RD.net's resident anti-Semite, ready to weigh in with nonsense just to contradict Al. Go for it, buddy, I'm sure you'll do just great.

3. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242846 by Sciros on September 4, 2008 at 2:26 pm

I ended up on the bottom left corner as well. No surprise.

4. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242742 by Sciros on September 4, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Right back at ya. Why are you still breathing?

5. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242739 by Sciros on September 4, 2008 at 12:05 pm

Fanusi, just glad that you concur with your fellow fundamentalist nutters.

HAY, HAY BRANDY! I heard from a friend who heard from a friend who read in a local newspaper that George W. Bush considers it important to breathe, eat, drink, and sleep. I strongly suggest that, if you don't want to concur with such fundamentalist nutters, that you cease these activities indefinitely and at once!

6. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242732 by Sciros on September 4, 2008 at 11:58 am

Fanusi, you previously stated that your "only political agenda was to stop the jihad". I'm glad your inline with Mitt Romney's speech last night.

Ooooh buuuurned!! That'll teach you to want to stop the jihad!

7. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242714 by Sciros on September 4, 2008 at 11:35 am

AL, why is Monica Lewinsky not just a "fat girl"? "Jewish" helped with your anti-semitic punch line.

LEAVE BRANDY ALONE!!1! Can't you see he/she can't actually read!?! LEAVE HIM/HER ALONE! He/she failed to get the reference the first time and is just trying to cover his/her ass, can't you understand that? He/she has already endured 8 years of McBush (something on the McDonald's value menu? I don't know...)!! And you are going to call him/her dishonest just for referencing Bill Clinton when making wild claims about his opposition?! LEAVE BRANDY ALONE!!1 YOU BASTARDS!

8. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242695 by Sciros on September 4, 2008 at 11:14 am

Steve,
In the Xbox 360 game Mass Effect there was a race of aliens who talked in such monotonous voices that they had to preface each statement with an explicit description of emotion. For instance:
"angry rebuke: gwar, how dare you say such a thing blah blah blah" or "apologetically: i did now know of those circumstances blah blah blah"

I'm always reminded of that when you guys do that *dryly/moistly* thing.

9. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242679 by Sciros on September 4, 2008 at 10:55 am

btw, I think the B. Spears poster is a male.

LEAVE BRANDY ALONE!! LEAVE HER ALONE!1!

10. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242664 by Sciros on September 4, 2008 at 10:19 am

I am not talking about Israel just allowing anybody in. I am saying there is no need to allow any Jew in. If they removed the right to return that has nothing to do with the amount of arabs would come in.

Frankly I don't see a problem with it in practice. The fact that Israel practices such a policy allows Jews who DO suffer from anti-Semitism (see: USSR, now Russia/etc. -- it's not like things are happy-doody everywhere for Jews now -- and good luck making a case for Jews having any ability to change de-facto anti-Semitic policy in the former USSR) to have somewhere to go.

It is thanks to this that my family was able to leave the USSR as refugees in the first place, and that my generation has the opportunities to succeed that it wouldn't have had if we'd stayed.

Al, I'm not surprised you were unaware of that. The Iron Curtain kept at least as much in as it did out, certainly including things such as public sentiment and discriminatory practices.

As for avoiding knees to the stomach... the best advice I can give is, it's all about maintaining the distance you want from your opponent. If they have strong knees, then keep them too far away to use them or too close to use them. Easier said than done, but of course they've got the same thing to worry about.

11. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242661 by Sciros on September 4, 2008 at 10:10 am

Al, another good example for anti-Semitism being based on ethnicity rather than religion -- Russia/USSR. In one's passport under Nationality it said "Russian" or "Jewish" and that made all the difference in the world.

12. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242658 by Sciros on September 4, 2008 at 10:06 am

So was the US, but that doesn't have a discriminatory immigration policy.

What sort of nonsense is this? If the US were to be under constant threat of annihilation by its neighbors, the kind of threat that Israel is, you can bet your last dime we would have one HELL of a discriminatory immigration policy, if we allowed any immigration at all!

right to return

No such thing. You have no "right" to return to any property you don't own unless granted those rights explicitly by virtue of citizenship/resident status.

13. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242296 by Sciros on September 3, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Al said:

Leave it to the dems to appease the Muslims. I can't wait to see Brandy in Burqa...Gotta respect those foreign cultures.

Brandy said:

Fanuse, no, Ali is not. He flat out stated that American muslims are a 'foreign culture'.

Brandy you're a liar or a really bad reader and it looks like both to me. Understand what 'foreign cultures' means -- if I move to Saudi Arabia it won't make ballroom dancing part of the Saudi culture.

14. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242282 by Sciros on September 3, 2008 at 2:13 pm

he is a liar but at least he will not let God intervene in his policy making.

That is meant as a... consolation? You don't need God to make bad policy decisions. Having weak moral integrity naturally helps, however. (I'm not saying any candidate has strong moral integrity; I think it may be impossible for such people to even get nominated.)

So I ask you deicus and others who will you be voting for in your ridiculous two party system???

I don't know yet. But their religious convictions hardly concern me. For me, there are other issues at stake that take precedence and that aren't actually decided by how badly the president/VP believes in god.

15. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242267 by Sciros on September 3, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Brandy the reference was to a certain infamous intern, minus the name. Can someone say "whoooosh"?

Decius, if your greatest concerns as a voter in the US (hypothetically; I don't mean you personally) are its condition as a "secular state" then that is a LUXURIOUS choice that many cannot afford to let them drive their vote. For the last time, neither McCain nor Obama promise to rid us of Christianity's (or any other religion's) influences, nor will they even if they tried. There are more impactful issues at stake in this election, and it's nothing more than fanciful to dwell on something like a candidate's religious convictions right now.

16. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242255 by Sciros on September 3, 2008 at 1:51 pm

decius,

Had those been the only problems with Bush's administration, then he would have been a GREAT president. "Messianic overtones" and faith-based initiatives are emphatically NOT why he failed as a president.

Unfortunately for us Americans, those weren't even close to the big issues. Iraq, Afghanistan, highly questionable economic policy, rubbish educational initiatives such as NCLB -- those had a far greater impact than "the jury is still out (teach the controversy)".

17. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242240 by Sciros on September 3, 2008 at 1:44 pm

To be frank it's stupid to be this concerned over the religious convictions of a VP candidate. George W Bush's religious convictions are hardly different but the problems with his administration were in fact NOT related to them.

Energy policy, foreign policy, economic policy, even education -- you don't need to be an atheist to make a good choice on these, and you don't need to be a theist to make a freakin rubbish one.

18. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242235 by Sciros on September 3, 2008 at 1:38 pm

I don't think Palin is an improvement over Bush at all. I don't know whether McCain is an improvement, either. Presumably he is. In any case there is no question he is more capable to fill the role of President than Palin is to fill the role of VP, let alone President.

But there's another question, is Obama an improvement over Bush? Possibly. But truth be told it all depends on what you recognize and consider to be high-priority issues.

For different people these issues take different priority, sure. For instance, a very well-do-do banker with a son in the military would be less concerned with Democrats raising taxes and pushing alternate fuels that raise food costs and more concerned with the Republicans sending his son to a combat zone. Someone who works in domestic shipping and has no children in the military would be more concerned with energy policies that keep his/her costs down and less concerned with overseas conflicts altogether.

I'm neither of those, but the point is that there is no clear-cut easy choice to make here for the American public as a whole. Everyone has things that SERIOUSLY matter to them, and they vary from person to person, from family to family.

19. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242220 by Sciros on September 3, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Sciros, Bill Clinton clearly pointed out last week that the Repulitards have an "attack on science" at the Democratic National Convention.

Ah yes, when I look to be educated on the relevant issues of the 2008 presidential election, I look to none other than Bill Clinton... :rolleyes:

20. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242206 by Sciros on September 3, 2008 at 1:11 pm

McBush atheists

WTF are you 12 years old or something?

only party that is standing up to the attack on science and defending reason

No party is doing that right now, and no presidential candidate certainly. And AS IF "attacks on science" are the issues at the forefront, here.

Even if Obama is in the end a better choice than McCain, that decision needs to be made responsibly. There is nothing responsible about your point of view as you present it.

21. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #241607 by Sciros on September 2, 2008 at 9:30 pm

Insulting someone by calling them 'asbergers'

Bwahahaha what a glorious typo. Indeed, perhaps the more appropriate term for Teratornis is 'assburgers.'

EDIT: The diagnosis is in. Teratornis's affliction IS Assburger's Syndrome! Nearly all the symptoms are there.

Anyway seriously there are like 100 good reasons not to read Teratornis's posts. But there's 1 GREAT reason to read them -- the sheer hilarity. I mean, shit like "What's your alternative to Islam that doesn't, say, turn Saudi Arabia into a wasteland of AIDS-infected drunks?" -- that, ladies and gentlemen, is raw talent. I can't make up statements like that if I tried. Teratornis is a professional.

22. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #239579 by Sciros on August 30, 2008 at 12:15 am

Laurie the new Hummer HX looks pretty wicked. Runs on E85, too. Good to raise those food prices a bit, keep the poor people hungry.

23. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #239522 by Sciros on August 29, 2008 at 9:29 pm

What's your alternative to Islam that doesn't, say, turn Saudi Arabia into a wasteland of AIDS-infected drunks?

FUCK YEAH! This is the kind of shit I want to see posted here more, Teratornis. Keep that shit coming, motherfucker.

I could quote the rest of your post with as much enthusiasm, but it's right there for me to read every day for a good laugh so what's the point.

By the way, everyone needs to visit Wiki's page on Uncanny Valley that Teratornis linked to. The "zombie" entry on the graph cracks me up. WTF "zombie" hahahahah

24. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #239508 by Sciros on August 29, 2008 at 7:22 pm

If you occasionally drive an ambulance to pick up sick or injured people, I don't have a huge problem with that, even though it still has most of the same externalities as other forms of driving. I recognize that saving some lives directly, when there is no effective alternative, is worth supporting a little terrorism and contributing a little to violence on the roadways.

This is pure gold. Teratornis you need to post more often.

faults of some backward brown people. It merely makes one look self-righteous and foolish

Why even bother reading Dave Barry anymore, I ask you people?

25. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #239498 by Sciros on August 29, 2008 at 6:37 pm

I can write exactly what is stupid and barbarous about squandering the Earth's finite petroleum simply to feed a psychological addiction to travel.

You haven't yet, so I can only assume you want all the oil for yourself to use for a spaceship to La La Land. Also, you have issues with referring to your personal fantasies and baseless convictions as "facts." There's no point in illustrating that to you anymore, since you repeat the same crap over and over anyway and claim that everyone else is just in denial.

26. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239489 by Sciros on August 29, 2008 at 6:14 pm

I've made my point, it's all good.

27. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239470 by Sciros on August 29, 2008 at 5:29 pm

Peacebeuponme, if a person tries to remark about another one being a fundamentalist, it helps not to do it in a stupid and immature fashion. There's enough BS floating about in this thread as it is. And honestly not much here "needs" a back-and-forth. Most folks post on a whim.

28. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239450 by Sciros on August 29, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Steve, I wasn't asking for your reasoning behind why you consider Fanusi a fundamentalist. I was merely concerned with your referring to his saying "I'll respond - but tomorrow. I'm tired now" as a "classic sign of a fundamentalist." I thought you were being a bit tongue-in-cheek. Hence my attemt to clarify that by asking "are you joking?" to which you plainly said "No."

29. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239439 by Sciros on August 29, 2008 at 3:06 pm

I have followed this entire exchange, among others, between Steve and Fanusi. If you prefer to look at a couple of posts for your understanding of what was meant, I can't help you.

Rubbish. I've read the entire exchange as well. Don't be so proud of your inability with respect to semantics. If Steve can explain that by "classic sign" he referred to something other than what he was quoting, then we can go from there. I'm at least giving him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to being able to quote a bit of text and respond to that same bit rather than to something else.

Whether Steve has other reasons for thinking Fanusi is "a fundamentalist" is irrelevant. I'm dwelling on what he meant by "a classic sign of a fundamentalist" because it's a ridiculous statement and the general discussion can do with as few of those as possible.

30. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239433 by Sciros on August 29, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Sharon, look at what Steve was quoting when he said "A classic sign of a fundamentalist" and get back to me. Are you saying you'll "never understand" what this "classic sign" refers to?

31. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239428 by Sciros on August 29, 2008 at 2:41 pm

I hope you're still being sarcastic. If not, then you've got issues. If someone informs you they'll respond tomorrow and you take it as some sort of "escape clause" indicative of a "fundamentalist," then I guess you damn well better make sure to never let anyone know that you won't respond to their messages right this minute, lest you be seen as a classic "fundamentalist."

For the record, someone saying they'll respond tomorrow because they're tired is a classic sign of ... a person who's tired and wants to retire for the night. If non-fundamentalists never fit that description then I guess you're right. Otherwise you're just being immature.

32. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239419 by Sciros on August 29, 2008 at 2:33 pm

I'll respond - but tomorrow. I'm tired now

Oh, wow, he's pulling a Robertson!

A classic sign of a fundamentalist.

That's a joke, right?

33. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239406 by Sciros on August 29, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Do some people here think imprisonment is less of a slippery slope than deportation? I just want that clarified.

Fanusi, the goal (perhaps itself a means to another end) is to make militant Islam as powerless as possible in democratic nations, right?

Hmmmm... I think that probably the *truly* problematic individuals aren't just guilty of "anti-social thoughts." The reason they're problematic is they incite hatred and violence and violation of rights. The question of "does this individual incite hatred and violence" doesn't exactly require a mind probe.

34. Beetle drive

Comment #239274 by Sciros on August 29, 2008 at 10:56 am

dude...have to be honest jokes using equations are a touch sad...not a bad one though!

Equations are only awesome when they arrive at an insightful and useful truth, such as here:

NINJA THEORY which I developed in 2001 -- it is supremely useful to keep in mind when doing battle against ninja. If not for ninja theory's correctness, I would not have been able to take out 17 ninjas the other day armed with nothing but an empty Scotch tape dispenser and the cap from one of those Pilot V7 pens.

35. Beetle drive

Comment #239267 by Sciros on August 29, 2008 at 10:39 am

Israelis can't really be called a "zealously dogmatic group." Also, they're quite secular - especially compared to the US.

Quite right. Also, a lot of them are Russian immigrants who are basically all atheist.

Anyway this article is awesome, I have been waiting a while for some good solid research on beetle penises. This also is consistent with the myth that bodybuilders have extremely small packages, which makes that myth true!!

36. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239259 by Sciros on August 29, 2008 at 10:22 am

Beliefs held by the citizens of a nation that fly against the societal structure of that nation should be controlled/fought through education. Actions upon those beliefs should be controlled/fought through law enforcement, as presumably the societal structure of a nation is defined largely by its law.

37. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #239256 by Sciros on August 29, 2008 at 10:14 am

I still only see a one-way street and I'm sorry to say that it is your assessment of NOMA that appears to inconsistent with reality. If I'm missing something obvious, perhaps you can spell it out for me. I mean that literally, not sarcastically: I am willing to be proven wrong.

Cheers,

SteveN

SteveN, the bottom line here is the net effect of Campbell's use of NOMA in the classroom, not how you personally interpret Campbell's remarks. Even if indeed most of his remarks were about "science not encroaching on religion" (as opposed to the other way around), it appears that the students also understood that their religious convctions had no place in that classroom (in any case at least when discussing evolution). Not right away (refusal by Bryce to answer a question because he didn't "believe" the answer), but in time (it was later answered).

We're reading about an account of religion being suppressed in a science class with NOMA as an aid, and it seems to me like you are saying it doesn't do that.

38. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #239200 by Sciros on August 29, 2008 at 8:30 am

I've read some of Baudrillard's writing and I have to say it was unfortunately completely retarded, so my impression of him is that he's an intolerable idiot.

39. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #239169 by Sciros on August 29, 2008 at 7:32 am

Anyway, while the discussion seems to have mellowed a lot (and my question about art wasn't looking for any sort of confirmation of NOMA -- I actually agree with you in how you answered the question), I still don't think it's fair to say NOMA's "sole effect" is "shielding religion from scientific investigation." I don't understand how it isn't clear that in the classroom NOMA is a two-way street where religious convictions are made to stay out and not derail discussions. Campbell wasn't looking to "shield" those religions students -- he was looking to do quite the opposite. The article suggests he at least partially succeeded.

In short, your assessment of NOMA's effect appears to be inconsistent with reality, no matter how reasonable all these thought experiments on it seem to be.

40. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #239036 by Sciros on August 28, 2008 at 11:43 pm

NOMA therefore has the sole effect of being a tool used by the religious to shield themselves from investigation by science.

Well wait a second here. What about the article we're commenting under? It tells of another effect of NOMA, clearly.

On a slightly different angle, regarding the concept of NOMA, it talks of magisteria other than science and religion. What about questions such as "what is the most beautiful form of art?" Is that a scientific question or one of an altogether different domain? Do those domains overlap, and if so in what fashion? Do they overlap on all questions?

41. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #238727 by Sciros on August 28, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Ex~ none of that matters if only you accept Christ as your savior!

42. Atheism could be science's contribution to religion

Comment #238610 by Sciros on August 28, 2008 at 12:11 pm

NOMA: Here's a blurb on Wikipedia about it -- click on their sources for more detailed information.

Also, SJ Gould was an atheist.

43. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #238603 by Sciros on August 28, 2008 at 12:07 pm

Smith, please don't lose sight of what exactly is in question -- usefulness as a teaching aid. Since in this case the comparison is this -- how compelling an argument against the usefulness of one compares with that exact argument against the usefulness of the other -- I don't see how one being opinion and one being fact is an issue. The usefulness of either as a teaching aid is a fact that can be suggested by evidence.

44. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #238590 by Sciros on August 28, 2008 at 11:51 am

I thought that situation preempts you from using your approach, that is, using NOMA as a teaching aid.

Perhaps it does, perhaps not. It would if all religious students who would otherwise be "warmed up" to evolution via the concept of NOMA felt the way you hypothetically posed. If not all of those students felt that way, though, it may still make sense to use as a teaching aid.

Anyway, like I said, this isn't an argument against using NOMA as a teaching aid. Replace "NOMA" with "fossil record" in your situation -- does it sound like an argument against using the fossil record as a teaching aid?

Al-rawandi: I'm glad you're enjoying it -- keep me up to date on how it goes; I'm not all that familiar with Krav Maga so I would be very curious to hear of your experiences training in it.

45. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #238578 by Sciros on August 28, 2008 at 11:37 am

I never mentioned validity of answers.

Yes you did; you simply were clueless to what you were doing. To elaborate: NOMA dictates what questions are in what domain, but it does not dictate the validity of the answers. God is not a question -- it is an answer. You claim NOMA validates god. No, it says the question of god's existence is outside the domain of science. Argue the validity of that if you like -- you might get further -- but to comment on the validity of god and say that NOMA dictates it one way or the other betrays an ignorance on your part.

...If religion is valid, god is valid.

Please explain how this is a false premise.

What do you think "religion is valid" means? Do you think it means "true"? Again, NOMA makes no comment on validity. It says what questions belong in what domain -- it makes no judgment on the validity of the questions, let alone on any of the answers.

Your false premise was that NOMA aknowledged the existence of god. Do you think NOMA makes a judgment about the validity of evolution by natural selection? (It doesn't.) Or about how "well-painted" the Mona Lisa is? No. It says that those questions belong in certain mutually exclusive domains of inquiry, but that is all it says.

Quine:
I have read that essay. I judge that SJ Gould seems to give religion far more to "legitimately" question than it actually can. (I think it can legitimately question nothing at all, but to go so far as the question of souls entering bodies, well that's what I mean by "far more" I guess.) So in short, while I find the general concept of NOMA that he introduced (or at least phrased succinctly) to be useful, I think it can be refined and re-interpreted, and its application can evolve. Suppose we arrive at a satisfactory scientific approach to answering the question "what is beatiful art?" That question then becomes the domain of the scientist and not the... art critic or whatever (whoever attemts to pose and answer the questions that Gould envisioned would belong in the "magisterium of art").

46. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #238566 by Sciros on August 28, 2008 at 11:20 am

Smith:
I didn't skip your posts. I responded to one of them. I'll respond to the other now.

What would you suggest a teacher to say if a student cries out, "My family, my pastor, and everyone I know and love, all say that God is great! God despises NOMA! NOMA is just a trick you teachers find "useful" to "drive religion out of science classrooms!"

I don't know off the top of my head, but this isn't really an argument against NOMA as a teaching aid any more than it is an argument against, say, evolution.

By the way, did you try the thought experiment I suggested?

No. Those four rules are somewhat arbitrary, although reasonable. The thing is I didn't find their restrictions compelling enough to have to go along with. One of the rules is "don't sneak in NOMA" -- how is that going to help build an argument against doing so? Indeed it didn't.

root2

This is a logical argument. It uses logic, not evidence.

A logical argument based on false premises is invalid. Also, your claims require evidence, as they describe supposed actual results of NOMA being invoked in the classroom. It appears to me you have no evidence, as you resort to bad logic.

tons of data with no information

Another contradiction, or just poor wording?

Because even though he was atheist, he was logically contradicting himself through NOMA.

Or maybe you haven't been able to grasp the basic, underlying premise of NOMA and think you understand it when you don't. NOMA states that certain questions belong in one domain and not another, but it does not comment on the validity of any answers. You are making the jump from "questions of ultimate meaning are outside science's domain" to "god is valid" and claiming that NOMA makes the jump for you. It doesn't.

47. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #238533 by Sciros on August 28, 2008 at 10:31 am

root2squared, it means your claim that NOMA acknowledges the existence of god is bullshit.

48. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #238531 by Sciros on August 28, 2008 at 10:28 am

1) By introducing NOMA, you are implicitly acknowledging the existence of god.

Epic fail. When you start with a false premise, you end up making invalid arguments. Your "1)" is a false premise. I mentioned earlier that you don't understand what the concept of NOMA is, and clearly I was right. You don't. You need to read up on it before you can be further engaged in a meaningful discussion, as at the moment this is like arguing with a creationist who thinks humans evolved "by chance".

You also seem to not know the meaning of the phrase "provide evidence."

49. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #238522 by Sciros on August 28, 2008 at 10:11 am

root2squared, you need to understand why exactly I take issue with your stance, and address that rather than repeat "NOMA is incorrect" which is not the point.

1) you have said using NOMA is detrimental to "intelligent" students. I can (and have) quote you on this. Please provide evidence or retract the claim. Evidence, not explanations like "it contradicts the scientific method." Evidence that students end up learning less-correct science from instructors who mention NOMA than from instructors who don't. If you have none, then it is a baseless criticism of the approach.

2) you seem to also be against it on grounds that religion should nave no part in a science classroom. I fully, 100% agree. I also maintain that NOMA, even if an "incorrect" principle that allows religion some sort of knowledge domain, explicitly says that religion has no part in a science classroom. "Non-overlapping" is even in the name! If your criticism has to do with overlapping science and religion, then it's not a legitimate criticism of NOMA.

You say NOMA acknowledges the presence of a god. Now you are a liar. NOMA implies (perhaps incorrectly) that the question of god's existence is not a scientific one, but it most certainly does not offer an answer!

You also say NOMA "brings in god" in a science class, which is a logical contradiction. Seriously.

So, while the concept of NOMA has problems, especially in practice, I think some of your criticisms of it are way off. You would have been far better just sticking to the "intellectual integrity" point because then we would at least be arguing over priorities and the virtue of being "intellectually honest" and whether or not there is room for multiple approaches, etc. Instead your throw around baseless or logically false criticism.

Smith:

I think I can be more polite and less antagonistic by pointing out that your approach or tactics may not seem to be that "practical", "innocuous", and "useful" in the eyes of the believers.

Irrelevant. It's whether or not it truly *is* useful in getting concepts like evolution to be absorbed by students that is the question, not whether believers "seet it as useful." For that matter, your same exact argument could be used to criticize root2squared's alternative fully anti-religious approach, with just as little relevance.

50. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #238512 by Sciros on August 28, 2008 at 9:42 am

The fact remains that the concept of NOMA is the most innocuous way to drive religion out of science classrooms without attacking religion. It doesn't make NOMA "correct" or "true" or whatever. It makes it useful.