61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 08:53 pm
@JTT,
It's being repeated all around the world - in the name of some god/religion. Humans are just plain dumb; we don't see the obvious.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 09:43 am
Quote:
Not the best way to celebrate Darwin’s birthday
(Fraser Sherman, Opinion Column, The Destin Log, February 23, 2009)

If State Sen. Stephen Wise wants creationism taught in public schools, I have a plan to do it in a way that will save Florida money.

Wise prefiled a bill this month (the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth month, no less) requiring science classes teach intelligent design along with evolution, on the ground “you have to teach the other side so you can have critical thinking.” He then goes on to grumble that this will probably lead to a lawsuit since freedom of religion groups “use the courts all the time. I guess if they have enough money they can get it in the courts.”

This is, of course, the classic creationist/creation science/intelligent design tactic, posing as unbiased seekers of truth battling against the crushing orthodoxy of Darwinian dogma. My normal response would be to point out that critical thinking is exactly what scientists have used to conclusively disprove creationism and intelligent design " a less religious name for the same belief " time and again.

I would then go on to quote Rep. Alan Hayes "”We must keep the discussion scientific. I don't know of anyone who is in favor of teaching religion in public” " and point out that if the state teaches intelligent design, it’s teaching religion, no matter how much Hayes pretends otherwise.

I would explain that the Discovery Institute, the country’s main advocate for intelligent design, has admitted its goal in pushing “ID” is to replace secular science with one that’s “Christ centered.”

That one of the best-known ID textbooks, “Of Pandas and People,” is a creationist textbook reprinted with “intelligent design” wherever it used to say “creationism.”

That courts have consistently found ID and creation science to be thinly disguised religious doctrine. I imagine that’s why Wise is so huffy about having courts weigh in on what constitutes science but thinks it’s just fine for the Legislature to do it.

But even if I said all that, it’s quite possible Wise’s bill will become law; this is Florida, remember? So instead I thought I’d show him a better way to get intelligent design into schools.

The reason we know evolution is science is because it makes a number of predictions regarding natural selection, intermediate fossils, genetics and other things that have been born out. It can be tested, and it can be disproved: As scientist J.B.S. Haldane put it, if someone finds fossilized rabbits in billion-year-old rocks, evolution is done for.

If creationists/IDers want some scientific respect, that’s all they have to do: Make a prediction about what we would discover if " and only if " creationism/ID were true, then go out and find proof the prediction holds up. Do that, and creationism will start getting some scientific respect.

So what Wise should do is take all that money the state will have to spend defending his creationist bill and put it into a grant for serious ID research (he could even invite the Discovery Institute to kick in, instead of spending all its money on news releases). If any scientific breakthroughs result, Wise will look like a visionary.

The catch is, nothing would result: Creationism doesn’t work, it’s been disproved multiple times and nobody’s ever come up with a research project to prove otherwise (sorry, saying “I don’t think people could have evolved without God” is not proof of anything). That’s why ID supporters pour money into politicking and PR rather than research.

I fully understand that for some Christians this is irrelevant: If facts contradict Genesis " or more precisely, their interpretation of Genesis as an absolutely literal six-day event " they chose to believe the Bible. I will defend to the death their right to do that, but no matter how fervent their belief, it isn’t science, any more than those Christians who believe the “inerrant” Bible proves the Earth is flat have a place spreading their views in geography classes.

If creationists want to do real scientific research and prove me wrong, go for it.

But I’m not holding my breath.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 01:09 pm
@wandeljw,
Quote:
If creationists want to do real scientific research and prove me wrong, go for it


I'll go for it wande and I'll go step by step in the hope that you half-educated clunkers can follow it.

1--Your position as atheists REQUIRES you to think there is nothing in the universe that is not material. In Hobbes's words--" The whole mass of things that are is corporeal," You have no alternative. Once you allow immateriality you are lost.

2--Thus human minds, to you lot, are material, as I have been telling you all along with my references to Dr. Armstrong's The Materialist Theory of Mind in which The Central-state Theory says , circularly of course, that mind is the "physico-chemical workings of the central nervous system." Irrefutable once immateriality is ruled out.

3--Reason is a capacity of these material minds. Thus reason, in which you set such store, is a mere working of the central nervous system just as unreason is or as being thirsty and getting horny is. Reason is corporeal. An object, or a collection of objects, just like a short thick plank. And there is motion in the matter of the mind as in all matter above absolute zero.

4--Nature does not waste energy. The mind is subject to "preferred pathways" as are rabbit runs, road pathways and water run-offs. Once the path is first preferred subsequent paths follow on the same route. Habit grooves them and it takes an earthquake or some other like cause to shift them.

5--Thus reason is nature's slave and not its master and, being matter, amoral. The atheist cannot have free will.

6--So what you have here is one lot of preferred pathways saying to another lot of preferred pathways that "my preferred pathways are better than your preferred pathways so there mnuurh!!"

7-Now if we use a metaphor we might say "my lawn is better that your lawn" on the outdoing of the Jones's principle. Both the lawns and the minds are arrangements of physico-chemical structures.

8--Which begs the question of what is the lawn better than the other lawn for?

9--As I have also been saying all along that some consequence is what matters, then what activity does the one lawn facilitate better than the other?

10--Hence, and it's dead easy, the superiority of one mind over another is a matter of what desired consequence is in view and how best to acheive it.

11--The anti-ID argument is identical to the Creationist argument, or any other argument once consequences are ignored. They are both just very slightly different arrangements of matter. An extremist nihilist might say they are identical anyway because consequences are philosophically irrelevant in a world consisting of nothing but matter. Both boil down to "my preferred brain pathways (my conditioning) are better that your preferred brain pathways (your conditioning). Or I was better brought up than you were. I'm posher than you. My ego stands higher than your's.

12--In the light of that everything written and pasted on this thread, apart from my contributions which had this in mind the whole way through, are complete and utter balderdash assertions of personal superiority with no reference to the future smooth running of society just as the occupants of play pens are unaware of such considerations.

13--It is another matter entirely, of course, if immaterial substance is allowed. But you lot, as materialists, can't allow that so you are stuck with the above reasoning, just energised atoms and molecules jiggling about in your conks on energy saving habit trips. Reason has real meaning to a non-materialist. A materialist perforce must make moral values both relative and absolute at the same time and man a mere collection of matter and a great thinker also at the same time.
Then a stone or a gatepost might be a thinker too.

For a glimpse into the consequences of atheism I recommend the movie Manufactured Landscapes which, from a materialist point of view, may well represent a new evolution in the history of mankind assuming the basic human nature does not, or cannot, revolt against it.

Incidentally, a short section of the movie shows how the ships all your exports and imports are shifted in are scrapped in Bangladesh. It's a good test of the strength of your socialist hand-wringing.





4--
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 01:14 pm
@spendius,
spendi, You start out your thesis to challenge atheism with the mistake that
Quote:
1--Your position as atheists REQUIRES you to think there is nothing in the universe that is not material.


That is totally untrue: We believe in love, emotion, sincerity, hate, motivation, leisure, beauty, etc., etc., etc.

spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 01:19 pm
Cut and paste that to Fraser Sherman wande. It might take his breath clean away.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 01:25 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
That is totally untrue: We believe in love, emotion, sincerity, hate, motivation, leisure, beauty, etc., etc., etc.


See--I told you that you were a good little Christian all along.

Have you not the guts to be anything but a half-baked materialist. All those are merely material states of the central nervous system apt for bringing about certain behaviours to a real materialist. You were conditioned on the preferred pathways principle to feel those things.

Go lord your bullshit over lesser mortals who don't know how to answer back you silly sod. Materialism has no fuzzy edges. Only religion has those.

This is an international internet forum not a ******* junior school.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 08:40 pm
@spendius,
Well, hurrah -- you've finally figured out that you don't have to be a Christian to consider Jesus a great philosopher who has laid down a plan to follow for a good life. Nor Gandhi, nor Martin Luther King, nor Buddha, nor the Dalai Lama, nor Sister Teresa, nor Confucius, nor Aristotle, nor Hypatia of Alexandria, nor any great person who one has assimilated their noblest thoughts and try to follow the best path in life they can lead.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 04:33 am
@Lightwizard,
Of course. I can't understand why you might have thought otherwise.

It is hardly the point though. The assimilation of the philosophies by the general population rather than by a few keen students can only be acheived by an organised system. Christianity attempts that in respect of Jesus. All the others you mention have their critics and their recorded thoughts are not generally known in any detail.

What do you think of the materialist theory?
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 11:00 am
@spendius,
Organized religion is an oxymoron -- it's still the Catholics vs. the Protestants, vs. the Mormon, vs. all the other "sects." Loosely organized, but after dealing with church committees in the Methodist church, even though I was donating my services, was one of the worst experiences of my business life. No good deed goes unpunished.

Their "recorded thoughts" aren't generally know in devout Christian groups because they don't want to know. They reject knowledge more in other religions than in science.

There is a naturalist theory, but who, where and why is there any materialist theory? If you enter materialist theory into Google, it will refer you to naturalist theory and evolution. Carl Sagan many years ago in his books and in the incredible series Cosmos, just flatly stated that evolution is no longer a theory.

Materialism, of course, it an albatross around the conservative Republicans in our nation -- the more you acquire, the better person you are, is their theory. Of course, we all know that theory is a crock.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 01:58 pm
@Lightwizard,
Yes--good deeds can get out of hand. I once saw two leading statesmen both trying to enter a door on the "after you" principle. If one of the aides had not intervened they might well still be at it. It's an excuse for virtuous inactivity. It is the engineers, agriculturalists and scientists who have extended life expectancies. Do-gooders just ride their coat-tails keeping the fingernails clean and looking smug.

Organised religion in not at all an oxymoron. The whole point of religion is organisation.

Enter DM Armstrong and The Materialist Theory of Mind.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 02:00 pm
@spendius,
Beyond the "organization," it's destructive to the minds of humans. They sacrifice common sense for "beliefs and faith."
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 02:24 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Piss off ci. Your "destructive" is not only an ignorant assertion but a crass one-step circularity to boot.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 02:26 pm
@spendius,
The biggest challenge to teaching evolution is the state of those in favour of it.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 02:29 pm
@spendius,
That's not a challenge; it's already being done in "every" state of the union.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 02:36 pm
@Lightwizard,
Quote:
Their "recorded thoughts" aren't generally know in devout Christian groups because they don't want to know. They reject knowledge more in other religions than in science.


They are very well studied in theological circles and anything useful adopted and the rest dumped. The masses can't be expected to do all that. It would be like expecting them to make their own automobiles starting with a spade.

Actually LW, you are the first in my four years on these threads to have shown the slightest interest in following up a lead I had offered on Google or anywhere else.

These other anti-IDers reject knowledge more than any religious person who wants a say in the education of a nation's kids would ever dream of doing. They just assert they seek knowledge and truth and, after their performance in these debates, you need to be particularly gullible to believe them.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 02:37 pm
INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN CHINA
Quote:
Hong Kong evolution curriculum row
(David Cyranoski, Nature.com, February 25, 2009)

A debate over the teaching of intelligent design in schools is raging in the unlikely battleground of Hong Kong. A fiery topic in the United States, intelligent design which holds that a designer has shaped life on Earth has gone almost unnoticed in Asia.

The controversy is affecting all levels of education. In the latest episode, a dean of science at one of Hong Kong's premier universities backed out of a radio show earlier this month after finding he was being set up to debate with an advocate of intelligent design within his faculty.

Hong Kong is in the middle of reforming its school system, and the Education Bureau has issued a series of guidelines for all levels of education to go into effect in September 2009. Within the 126-page guidelines for teaching biology at the secondary level, the section on 'Genetics and Evolution' includes the sentence: In addition to Darwin's theory, students are encouraged to explore other explanations for evolution and the origins of life, to help illustrate the dynamic nature of scientific knowledge. The guidelines were prepared by the Curriculum Development Council and the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority.

Early this month, in the South China Morning Post, several senior scientists including astronomer Sun Kwok, freshwater ecologist David Dudgeon and geologist Jason Ali, all of the University of Hong Kong, called for the sentence to be omitted. In the same article, a spokeswoman for the Education Bureau defended the teaching of alternative explanations, because science cannot provide a complete answer about the emergence of life.

There has been heated debate in the Hong Kong media since. On 13 February, the radio series Backchat broadcast a programme on 'Creationism versus Evolution'. Kwok, dean of the science faculty at the university, backed out of the programme when he found it had been changed to a debate format at the last minute, noting that he is not a specialist in evolution and thus cannot counter detailed arguments regarding evolution versus creation.

Chris Beling, a solid-state physicist and associate professor in the University of Hong Kong department of physics, debated with two other panellists and took the opportunity to mildly criticize the science faculty for refusing his request to continue a course on the origin of the Universe that included a section on intelligent-design thinking. Instead, he has met in private with students to discuss intelligent design.

The depth of interest in intelligent design in Hong Kong is rare for Asia, says Chung-I Wu, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago and a visiting director at the Institute of Genomics in Beijing. Each of us card-carrying evolutionists has encountered issues of intelligent design in Taiwan or China, he says, but the challenge is never serious enough to leave even a name or organization that we can recall. Beling says that the presence of many missionary schools in Hong Kong may explain why intelligent design has taken root there.

For now, Kwok and his university are unlikely to back down. The position of the faculty of science of the University of Hong Kong is that pseudoscience subjects such as intelligent design, astrology and UFO studies have no place in our science curriculum, says Kwok.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 02:52 pm
@wandeljw,
It might be wande that the Chinese authorities, rather than a few university nerds, have been studying why the Emperor Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Empire. Which it still is despite rumours to the contrary.

They have been opening Christian churches in Beijing I have read. If China goes Christian and the US goes Darwin the game is over. And Mr Putin has been seen in church.

The organisation of mass technological society is the project not monkeys in Walmarts. All the science has been done. It can't see any further. It's just suck it and see technology now. Suck Darwin and see what you get.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 02:58 pm
@spendius,
There are no anthropologist, cosmologists, evolutionary biologists, geologists on the evolution threads that I know of. However, there are individuals who are well read on evolution science, at least enough to discuss where the holes are in the supposed theory of ID and why those gaping holes make it no more believable than Creationism. The main stumbling block is trying to base it all on an entirely abstract, non-objective ideal. The only reason there is an attempt to tie it into any real science is to force science teachers to discuss theology in the classroom with a really vague "lesson plan." The admission that the masses can't handle it is exactly why it shouldn't be mixed into the stew -- too many cooks. Children with or without their parents urging can go and ask theological questions regarding a creator addressed to their cleric. I couldn't make heads-nor-tails of what they taught about creation in Sunday school -- it all read like a fantasy, a fairy tale not much different than Hans Christian Anderson or the Grimm Brothers. In other words, it was grim.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 03:03 pm
@spendius,
Constantine still clung to the old Gods and the effect of the so-called Holy Roman Empire is well documented. As Voltaire put it, it was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor am Empire. Julian the Apostate was a non-Christian who became Emperor after Constantine in 337 AD about the same time Christianity began to become less popular.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 03:28 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
All the science has been done


A statement by the retarded .Originally stated by William Thompson.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 10/06/2024 at 06:26:12