97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 27 Mar, 2006 03:15 pm
There's an upturned pyramid of guff balanced on the end of that question.

The classroom is foremost in my conker all the time.

Classrooms or "The classroom situation" are abstract concepts and if the discussion is between those thinking in abstract concepts and those who have a classroom in mind and a school,not the schools, and all that's connected to this imaginary school and this imaginary classroom, the two sides are not discussing the same thing.

One might imagine different classrooms at different times but hardly two together. Blackboard Jungle is one.You couldn't make a movie without imagining the scene first. Grange Hill. Jimmy Edwards' School for Recalcitrant Boys in Whacko .(That was good.) Monsters is much too pale a term for that lot.

The question I asked is quite easy to answer I suppose in officialese. Any question is.

Maybe it is just as easy for the realists but the answers are probably not the same.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Mon 27 Mar, 2006 03:43 pm
Quote:
Evolution vs. God: Author says the two are compatible
(By Justine Axelsson, Newport Daily News, March 27, 2006)

JAMESTOWN - When Kenneth Miller spoke to science teachers from across the country, he found that 35 percent said they skip over the chapter on evolution to avoid the hassle from angry parents.

Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University and author of "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution," spoke Sunday at the Central Baptist Church. Miller's presentation was entitled, "God, Darwin & Design: Faith and Science in Conflict," and drew a crowd of about 50 members from the Jamestown community.

Miller is known for his opposition to creationism. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Colorado, has written more than 50 articles for science journals, co-written three high school and college textbooks, appeared on various news shows and is the recipient of five major teaching awards from Brown University, where he did his own undergraduate work.

Miller, who has a self-proclaimed interest in the public understanding of evolution, spoke about the apparent conflict between faith and science, ultimately questioning the presumption that the two cannot exist together and stating that religion and evolution are contingent upon one another and should be viewed as compatible.

"We are living in an interesting time," said Miller as he spoke about the warning label that a high school in Cobb County, Ga., placed on the biology textbook he co-wrote, calling evolution a theory, not a fact. He also spoke of the Dover, Pa., school board that tried to force instructors to teach "intelligent design" - another name for creationism - which is an alternate theory to evolution centering on the belief that since life is so complex and elaborate there must be some greater wisdom behind it.

Miller expressed alarm that incidents like those in Dover may encourage students to believe that science can't be trusted. He believes that by drawing so much attention to the theory of evolution as wrong or false, children will look at all science like that.

"I don't worry so much about children not learning evolution," Miller said. "What I worry about is the idea that children may believe science is a lie."
0 Replies
 
chr42690
 
  1  
Mon 27 Mar, 2006 04:26 pm
I think evolution should be taught alongside creationism. This article also makes intelligent design a synonym for creationism which is wrong.

Creationism is the strict interpretation of Genesis. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. (from Center for Science and Culture of Discovery Institute website)
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 27 Mar, 2006 05:00 pm
wande quoted-

Quote:
JAMESTOWN - When Kenneth Miller spoke to science teachers from across the country, he found that 35 percent said they skip over the chapter on evolution to avoid the hassle from angry parents.


Well,well.I'm not alone then.

It just goes to show how misleading it can be if you don't pay attention to sampling.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 27 Mar, 2006 05:03 pm
And it does make me wonder whether the 35% are from the bottom end of "science teacher" graduation classes or the top end.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 27 Mar, 2006 05:06 pm
wande quoted-

Quote:
and drew a crowd of about 50 members from the Jamestown community.


There were as many as that in the pub tonight and it's a rainy Monday and not the the highlight of the year by any means.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 27 Mar, 2006 05:09 pm
Quote:
Creationism is the strict interpretation of Genesis. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. (from Center for Science and Culture of Discovery Institute website)


Others have said these previously and frequently. and its coming from the command center for Intelligent Design. What do you expect the Discovery Institute to say.
You may try to make it sound like science but its not.

Spendi, so you dont have a coronary, I dont see that ID should be wiped out as a subject or at least a lecture in hitory, civics, PAD, etc. Its a prfect example of the rule of law rather than mass mindset. Whether popular or not, the kids need to be taught science in a proper fashion. Anywhere else, however, teachers can squeeze it in.

That web site wandeljw provided is quite interesting. Its just now under construction. I fancy that the IDers are going to try, by virtue of a weight of numbers of "scientific research and papers" they will be able to develop a critical mass of evidence that they are conducting honest research. Theyd actually stopped doing any research because most of it was just silly.
1 Inspection of Paluxy Formation fossils

2Views of the behemoth (interpreted as a dinosaur0 from Altamira

3 Super speed sedimentology
4Search for pattern

The only science they dont want to screw with is geology. The evidence is stacked a bit high against ID in this arena.

Do I get full credit?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 27 Mar, 2006 05:19 pm
wande quoted-

Quote:
"I don't worry so much about children not learning evolution," Miller said. "What I worry about is the idea that children may believe science is a lie."


I would worry about that too if I had nailed all my colours to it being the truth.

I nearly said "the absolute truth" but I thought I was insulting your intelligence with such a simple tautology.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Mon 27 Mar, 2006 05:24 pm
chr42690 wrote:
I think evolution should be taught alongside creationism. This article also makes intelligent design a synonym for creationism which is wrong.

Creationism is the strict interpretation of Genesis. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. (from Center for Science and Culture of Discovery Institute website)

Poppycock. ID-iocy is mythology, mythology has no relationship with science, no standing whatsoever permitting it to be "taught alongside" actual science, and the Ex-Creationist, now ID-iot, Discovery Instititute's bald-faced lie notwithstanding (See: Answers.com - "Wedge Strategy" ), Creationism and ID-iocy are, and have been by several court decisions determined to be, one and the same.

Quote:
The Wedge Strategy


THE WEDGE STRATEGY
CENTER FOR THE RENEWAL OF SCIENCE & CULTURE
INTRODUCTION

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art

The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.

Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.

Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism.

The Center is directed by Discovery Senior Fellow Dr. Stephen Meyer. An Associate Professor of Philosophy at Whitworth College, Dr. Meyer holds a Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University. He formerly worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.

THE WEDGE STRATEGY
Phase I.

Scientific Research, Writing & Publicity
Phase II.

Publicity & Opinion-making
Phase III.

Cultural Confrontation & Renewal
THE WEDGE PROJECTS
Phase I. Scientific Research, Writing & Publication

Individual Research Fellowship Program
Paleontology Research program (Dr. Paul Chien et al.)
Molecular Biology Research Program (Dr. Douglas Axe et al.)
Phase II. Publicity & Opinion-making

Book Publicity
Opinion-Maker Conferences
Apologetics Seminars
Teacher Training Program
Op-ed Fellow
PBS (or other TV) Co-production
Publicity Materials / Publications
Phase III. Cultural Confrontation & Renewal

Academic and Scientific Challenge Conferences
Potential Legal Action for Teacher Training
Research Fellowship Program: shift to social sciences and humanities
FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY
The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

The Wedge strategy can be divided into three distinct but interdependent phases, which are roughly but not strictly chronological. We believe that, with adequate support, we can accomplish many of the objectives of Phases I and II in the next five years (1999-2003), and begin Phase III (See "Goals/ Five Year Objectives/Activities").

Phase I: Research, Writing and Publication

Phase II: Publicity and Opinion-making

Phase III: Cultural Confrontation and Renewal

Phase I is the essential component of everything that comes afterward. Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade. A lesson we have learned from the history of science is that it is unnecessary to outnumber the opposing establishment. Scientific revolutions are usually staged by an initially small and relatively young group of scientists who are not blinded by the prevailing prejudices and who are able to do creative work at the pressure points, that is, on those critical issues upon which whole systems of thought hinge. So, in Phase I we are supporting vital witting and research at the sites most likely to crack the materialist edifice.

Phase II. The pnmary purpose of Phase II is to prepare the popular reception of our ideas. The best and truest research can languish unread and unused unless it is properly publicized. For this reason we seek to cultivate and convince influential individuals in pnnt and broadcast media, as well as think tank leaders, scientists and academics, congressional staff, talk show hosts, college and seminary presidents and faculty, future talent and potential academic allies. Because of his long tenure in politics, journalism and public policy, Discovery President Bruce Chapman brings to the project rare knowledge and acquaintance of key op-ed writers, journalists, and political leaders. This combination of scientific and scholarly expertise and media and political connections makes the Wedge unique, and also prevents it from being "merely academic." Other activities include production of a PBS documentary on intelligent design and its implications, and popular op-ed publishing. Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Chnstians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture.

Phase III. Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula. The attention, publicity, and influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate with design theorists, and we will be ready. With an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences.

GOALS
Governing Goals

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
Five Year Goals

To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.
Twenty Year Goals

To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES
1. A major public debate between design theorists and Darwinists (by 2003)

2. Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications (sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion)

3. One hundred scientific, academic and technical articles by our fellows

4. Significant coverage in national media:

Cover story on major news magazine such as Time or Newsweek
PBS show such as Nova treating design theory fairly
Regular press coverage on developments in design theory
Favorable op-ed pieces and columns on the design movement by 3rd party media
5. Spiritual & cultural renewal:

Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism
Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s)
Darwinism Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions
Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God
6. Ten states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science curricula & include design theory

7. Scientific achievements:

An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US
Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities
Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view
Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theory
ACTVITIES
(1) Research Fellowship Program (for writing and publishing)

(2) Front line research funding at the "pressure points" (e.g., Daul Chien's Chengjiang Cambrian Fossil Find in paleontology, and Doug Axe's research laboratory in molecular biology)

(3) Teacher training

(4) Academic Conferences

(5) Opinion-maker Events & Conferences

(6) Alliance-building, recruitment of future scientists and leaders, and strategic partnerships with think tanks, social advocacy groups, educational organizations and institutions, churches, religious groups, foundations and media outlets

(7) Apologetics seminars and public speaking

(8) Op-ed and popular writing

(9) Documentaries and other media productions

(10) Academic debates

(11) Fund Raising and Development

(12) General Administrative support

THE WEDGE STRATEGY PROGRESS SUMMARY
Books

William Dembski and Paul Nelson, two CRSC Fellows, will very soon have books published by major secular university publishers, Cambridge University Press and The University of Chicago Press, respectively. (One critiques Darwinian materialism; the other offers a powerful altenative.)

Nelson's book, On Common Descent, is the seventeenth book in the prestigious University of Chicago "Evolutionary Monographs" series and the first to critique neo-Dacwinism. Dembski's book, The Design Inference, was back-ordered in June, two months prior to its release date.

These books follow hard on the heals of Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press) which is now in paperback after nine print runs in hard cover. So far it has been translated into six foreign languages. The success of his book has led to other secular publishers such as McGraw Hill requesting future titles from us. This is a breakthrough.

InterVarsity will publish our large anthology, Mere Creation (based upon the Mere Creation conference) this fall, and Zondervan is publishing Maker of Heaven and Earth: Three Views of the Creation-Evolution Contoversy, edited by fellows John Mark Reynolds and J.P. Moreland.

McGraw Hill solicited an expedited proposal from Meyer, Dembski and Nelson on their book Uncommmon Descent. Finally, Discovery Fellow Ed Larson has won the Pulitzer Prize for Summer for the Gods, his retelling of the Scopes Trial, and InterVarsity has just published his co-authored attack on assisted suicide, A Different Death.

Academic Articles

Our fellows recently have been featured or published articles in major sciendfic and academic journals in The Proceedings to the National Academy of Sciences, Nature, The Scientist, The American Biology Teacher, Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, Biochemirtry, Philosophy and Biology, Faith & Philosophy, American Philosophical Quarterly, Rhetoric & Public Affairs, Analysis, Book & Culture, Ethics & Medicine, Zygon, Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith, Relgious Studies, Christian Scholars' Review, The Southern Journal ofPhilosophy, and the Journal of Psychalogy and Theology. Many more such articles are now in press or awaiting review at major secular journals as a result of our first round of research fellowships. Our own journal, Origins & Design, continues to feature scholarly contribudons from CRSC Fellows and other scientists.

Television and Radio Appearances

During 1997 our fellows appeared on numerous radio programs (both Christian and secular) and five nationally televised programs, TechnoPolitics, Hardball with Chris Matthews, Inside the Law, Freedom Speaks, and Firing Line. The special edition of TechnoPolitics that we produced with PBS in November elicited such an unprecedented audience response that the producer Neil Freeman decided to air a second episode from the "out takes." His enthusiasm for our intellectual agenda helped stimulate a special edition of William F. Buckley's Firing Line, featuring Phillip Johnson and two of our fellows, Michael Behe and David Berlinski. At Ed Atsinger's invitation, Phil Johnson and Steve Meyer addressed Salem Communications' Talk Show Host conference in Dallas last November. As a result, Phil and Steve have been interviewed several times on Salem talk shows across the country. For example, in ]uly Steve Meyer and Mike Behe were interviewed for two hours on the nationally broadcast radio show ]anet Parshall's America. Canadian Public Radio (CBC) recently featured Steve Meyer on their Tapestry program. The episode, "God & the Scientists," has aired all across Canada. And in April, William Craig debated Oxford atheist Peter Atkins in Atlanta before a large audience (moderated by William F. Buckley), which was broadcast live via satellite link, local radio, and intenet "webcast."

Newspaper and Magazine Articles

The Firing Line debate generated positive press coverage for our movement in, of all places, The New York Times, as well as a column by Bill Buckley. In addition, our fellows have published recent articles & op-eds in both the secular and Christian press, including, for example, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Times, National Review, Commentary, Touchstone, The Detroit News, The Boston Review, The Seattle Post-lntelligenter, Christianity Toady, Cosmic Pursuits and World. An op-ed piece by Jonathan Wells and Steve Meyer is awaiting publication in the Washington Post. Their article criticizes the National Academy of Science book Teaching about Evolution for its selective and ideological presentation of scientific evidence. Similar articles are in the works.



From The Discovery Institutes's own discussion of its
Quote:
Mission Statement ... The point of view Discovery brings to its work includes a belief in God-given reason and the permanency of human nature ...


The frauds at the fore of the ID-iot proposition defeat themselves ... hoist on their own petard.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 27 Mar, 2006 05:25 pm
What a load of fanny in order to avoid answering this-

Quote:
Quote:
Do you think it feasible to eliminate all traces of ID,and I use that loosely,in biology lessons and not eliminate it in the rest of the school?






And get the debate started properly.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Mon 27 Mar, 2006 05:35 pm
spendius wrote:
What a load of fanny in order to avoid answering this-

Quote:
Quote:
Do you think it feasible to eliminate all traces of ID,and I use that loosely,in biology lessons and not eliminate it in the rest of the school?






And get the debate started properly.


Certainly, in that it is an unambiguous, self-declared afront to and assault on science, ID-iocy can be - must be - isolated from the actual hard sciences, if to be discussed at all in public education then to be assigned to something along the lines of Social Studies, perhaps best in the context of comparative mythology. Clearly exposing, demonstrating, and deconstructing ID-iocy's inherent absurdity would serve well to encourage legitimate critical thinking, something sorely lacking in contemporary society.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 27 Mar, 2006 05:48 pm
timber-

I do agree that critical thinking is as you say.Sorely lacking I mean.

And Im glad you have said "Certainly".

So you're in the staff room for coffee and it comes to your cogniscence that the social studies teacher has told the kids that you're science lesson on the benefits for selection purposes of having a half-grown wing that might be able to take off in 100 million years as long as it stays warm is a load of shite.

To which you reply,of course,that she's talking a load of shite.

What then?Sack the social studies teacher is your obvious choice.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Mon 27 Mar, 2006 06:08 pm
That makes as much sense as the auto-shop instructor denigrating the home-economics instructor's meal-planning guidelines. Why should there be occasion for an arts and humanities instructor to comment one way or the other concerning minutiae of a hard science instructor's lesson plan, or for the converse, for that matter?
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Mon 27 Mar, 2006 07:55 pm
farmerman wrote:
That web site wandeljw provided is quite interesting. Its just now under construction. I fancy that the IDers are going to try, by virtue of a weight of numbers of "scientific research and papers" they will be able to develop a critical mass of evidence that they are conducting honest research.


Do you think that website would allow you to enter critiques, farmerman?

(That would be fun to watch.)
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Tue 28 Mar, 2006 05:29 am
Im sure that it will be tightly peered. Every peer review group is free to establish its minimum requirements for "peerage".
I agree wandel, It would be fun to be allowed to respond. I wonder why its taking so long to launch? They are, by all this delay, merely reinforcing the notion that ID was never a serious branch of scientific inquiry to begin with, otherwise it would have had a mature special assembly of its own, like in any other minor branch of science.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Tue 28 Mar, 2006 05:34 am
From a review of Dawkin's The Selfish Gene (anniversary edition)

by Philip Hensher

Quote:
What a splendid book The Selfish Gene is and remains! It would be a great shame to think of it as a controversial polemic - that would be to accept the status of its non biologist critics. It sets out step by step, the mechanisms of evolution with wonderful lucidity, showing how, given enough time and 'turnover', as it were, an enormous number of tiny mistakes in reproduction is winnowed down by selection, so that eht eones which give an individual an advantage, however slight, are gradually preferred and preserved from generation to generation.
By such means, any biological feature, however elaborate, can arise- even the eye, which gave Darwin himself pause for thought, could by tiny steps evolve from a patch of skin which could register the difference between light and the shade cast by, say a predator. Dawkins's genius was to see that behaviour too could evolve genetically, so that ground nesting birds could develop even the paradoxical but evidently effective behaviour of jumping from a nest of its own chicks and parading with a fake broken wing before a predator, and luring it away from the vulnerable nestlings....

In setting out what may or may not work for a species, Dawkins introducted a large audience to the uses of game theory, and used those mathematical complexities with extraordinary lucidity to set out what is described as an 'evolutionarily stable strategy' or ESS. Here is the single response to those who shrink from the notion of selfishness being the driving force of all animate nature. Selfishness through the mechanism of an ESS, is most likely to discover that the most efficcient means of survival and propagation is modified altruism. This is an amazing conclusion, and Dawkins proves it, in the extra chapters he wrote for the 1989 edition, through a lovely simple analysis of effective tactics when playing that game-theory favourite, the Prisoner's Dilemma. I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that when, in 1989, I first read that chapter, I had the real stout-Cortez-gazing-at-the-Pacific feeling of having a huge fact revealed in front of me....
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Tue 28 Mar, 2006 05:41 am
wandel. A Thought, did it appear that the Discovery Institute is behind this new website? If thats the case, then they are quite a few years behind in their Wedgie documents.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 28 Mar, 2006 06:14 am
timber wrote-

Quote:
That makes as much sense as the auto-shop instructor denigrating the home-economics instructor's meal-planning guidelines. Why should there be occasion for an arts and humanities instructor to comment one way or the other concerning minutiae of a hard science instructor's lesson plan, or for the converse, for that matter?


Come on timber-that's really naive.

To begin with nutrition is an area of contention.It has just been announced here that Omega 3 is not what it has been portrayed as.Dr Barnard rubbished the Gov't four food thing.

There is an important connection between arts and humanities lessons and the science lessons.It is of course the kids.And spin offs from that in staff rooms,staff meetings and PTAs.

You have to choose it seems to me.You're trying to have it both ways.

You must allow for a fanatical IDer to be teaching the arts or humanities and a fanatical Essdeeoid to be teaching science.In the same school.
It would end up like this thread except maybe that the Essdeeoid might be on his own in some areas and the constitution (I think) covers all areas.

Once the kids discovered the tension they would milk it.You could end up discrediting science,education and the staff.

Like the 35%,who are like me,evolution should be dropped.

I'm too busy at the moment to concentrate.

It is the Essdeeoid position which is provocative.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Tue 28 Mar, 2006 08:13 am
farmerman wrote:
wandel. A Thought, did it appear that the Discovery Institute is behind this new website? If thats the case, then they are quite a few years behind in their Wedgie documents.


farmerman,

My impression is not the Discovery Institute but rather the group that runs a William Dembski "blog". Dembski only contributes occasionally to his blog. The usual contributors appear to be graduate students who are trying to refine a methodology for "detecting" design.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 28 Mar, 2006 08:55 am
wande wrote-

Quote:
The usual contributors appear to be graduate students who are trying to refine a methodology for "detecting" design.


As their chance of doing so is ZERO one can only assume that they are trying to refine a methodology for having an easy ride.

If you want to start making some sense out of all this you ought,instead of darting off in all directions,get the question I asked thrashed out.

Can a teacher satisfactorily teach that scientific method applied to origins is the only way forward in a real school where other teachers have a different view even if that view is a load of old-fashioned,superstitious mumbo-jumbo. It is either yes or no. With yes the ID case falls and with no the SD case falls.And with the avoidance of evolution a compromise is possible.Teaching evolution,except maybe superficially,provokes the question,not me.That is because this particular science has dramatic social ramifications.

steve quoted this-

Quote:
showing how, given enough time and 'turnover', as it were, an enormous number of tiny mistakes in reproduction is winnowed down by selection, so that eht eones which give an individual an advantage, however slight, are gradually preferred and preserved from generation to generation.


Such a set of wording is designed to downplay the obvious fact that with humans the "turnover",the "in reproduction" and the " from generation to generation" is directly linked to sexual intercourse and the mating patterns and courting rituals associated with it and the equally obvious fact that a scientific methodology for the process would involve a different approach.

And students of 16 or 17 will likely be much more interested in human behaviour than in animals and fossils.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.15 seconds on 10/16/2024 at 06:29:37