Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

And you're the babe who hasn't a clue.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

No compromise is necessary as long as science is taught as science and religion is taught as religion.

Sigh. I've given it my best shot but neither you nor FM nor any of the other IDers seem to be able to hear what I am saying or else you simply don't want to. Whether or not a compromise is necessary, so long as the anti-IDers refuse to discuss the issue, there sure as hell won't be one. And this thread will drone on for another several hundred pages with nobody giving an inch meaning that little, if anything, of substance will ever be seriously discussed. And you know what? I think that is unfortunate.

0 Replies

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

And you're the babe who hasn't a clue.

By which we are supposed to think you have c.i.

Which means you are not stupid and yet you are quoting Einstein to say we all are at the bottom of all your posts.

You still haven't understood the point of the invidious comparison.

Is a baby cooing simple and eloquent?

The statement wande made that-

Quote:

No compromise is necessary as long as science is taught as science and religion is taught as religion.

is one he could easily have made when this thread started 3 years ago. . Which means that he hasn't come on here to Ask an Expert or be Abled 2 Know anything. He hasn't even learned to avoid talking in abstract generalities.

Within the same school his proposition would lead to separate staff rooms and a polarisation of the school into two camps. Or separate schools.

And if parents in large numbers chose the religious schools, as I think they would, they would then use their votes to direct funds to those schools and the science schools would, to all intents and purposes vanish.

No wonder no serious scientist preaches anti-ID. Mr Dawkins is on an ego trip.

But with you deploying arguments such as the above I don't suppose you'll be able to follow that

0 Replies

I understand your disappointment, spendi and Foxfyre.

My approach has always been as simple as that. I look at science and religion as separate domains of inquiry.

When I began this thread, I wanted to find out if intelligent design was legitimate as a scientific idea since people were insisting that high school biology classes should include discussion of intelligent design. (Within a few months of starting this thread I learned that ID is a religious view.) Since then I have been following news stories about continuing attempts to dilute science education with religious views.

0 Replies

Quote:

No wonder no serious scientist preaches anti-ID. Mr Dawkins is on an ego trip

Wait, wait, theres something laying on the ground.

Let me see what it is.

Its says "for spendi".

And,I believe its a clue.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

I understand your disappointment, spendi and Foxfyre.

My approach has always been as simple as that. I look at science and religion as separate domains of inquiry.

When I began this thread, I wanted to find out if intelligent design was legitimate as a scientific idea since people were insisting that high school biology classes should include discussion of intelligent design. (Within a few months of starting this thread I learned that ID is a religious view.) Since then I have been following news stories about continuing attempts to dilute science education with religious views.

I think your views have probably been highly colored by the articles you hunt up to support the anti-ID thesis and/or to present IDers in the worst possible light. You (and others) blew off or simply refused to comment on the reasoned concepts of ID that have nothing to do with religious views in any common definition of religion. And then when invited to consider a compromise beween what the IDers want and anti-IDers want so that effective science can go forward, you blew that off with your 'no compromise is necessary'. A few nuts pushing court cases are not the whole story.

The logical conclusion seems to me that you are less interested in actually exploring the topic than you are in affirming you own made up mind and possibly enjoying being a member of the staunch and sometimes fanatical anti-ID club here. Nothing wrong with that of course. No matter how clearly we believe we see the issue, few of us enjoy being out on a limb by ourselves or out there with a tiny minority of like minded souls. A closed mind, especially a collectively closed mind, can be a very comfortable thing.

Thank goodness there have been people in the past willing to go out on that limb or else we wouldn't have a fraction of the science or other knowledge that we now have. And we couldn't look forward to knowing more than what we now know....ever.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The science teacher will teach Darwin as science. S/he will acknowledge that Darwin cannot answer all questions any more than any scientific theories can answer all questions. S/he will acknowledge that there is almost certainly more yet to learn than what we already know. S/he will acknowledge that there are other theories out there such as ID; however, these cannot be tested scientifically and therefore will not be discussed in science class.

Those things are fine as long as they are not read as a preface to any particular area of science, whether it be evolution, geology, chemistry or astrophysics.

Do you understand that what we are objecting to is any attempt to single out evolution among the sciences, as being in any way different from any other science in its level of validity?

The things you listed above are the standard baseline for all scientific principles, we could replace the word "Darwin" with any of the sciences, and those statements would be just as valid. I don't think anyone is objecting to the validity of your statements. But those things are understood in all science, so they don't need to be said. And they certainly don't need to be the preface to any particular scientific theory, because by singling out any particular theory, you are implying unspoken things about it. And that was exactly what was being attempted in Dover PA, and exactly what was detected by the court, and it's a standard ploy being used by creationists and defined by the ICR wedge document.

Everyone that knows science, knows that it doesn't answer all questions, nothing does. But to make a point of saying that in front of a particular theory is like walking onto a used car lot and standing in front of a particular car and reminding people that "not all used cars are in the same condition, some are more used than they appear". It's a pretty obvious statement, but when it's only used in front of one particular car, it carries a whole new meaning.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

You (and others) blew off or simply refused to comment on the reasoned concepts of ID that have nothing to do with religious views in any common definition of religion.

What are you referring to, you mean like aliens or something? What "reasoned concepts of ID" are you suggesting?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
The science teacher will teach Darwin as science. S/he will acknowledge that Darwin cannot answer all questions any more than any scientific theories can answer all questions. S/he will acknowledge that there is almost certainly more yet to learn than what we already know. S/he will acknowledge that there are other theories out there such as ID; however, these cannot be tested scientifically and therefore will not be discussed in science class.

Those things are fine as long as they are not read as a preface to any particular area of science, whether it be evolution, geology, chemistry or astrophysics.

Do you understand that what we are objecting to is any attempt to single out evolution among the sciences, as being in any way different from any other science in its level of validity?

The things you listed above are the standard baseline for all scientific principles, we could replace the word "Darwin" with any of the sciences, and those statements would be just as valid. I don't think anyone is objecting to the validity of your statements. But those things are understood in all science, so they don't need to be said. And they certainly don't need to be the preface to any particular scientific theory, because by singling out any particular theory, you are implying unspoken things about it. And that was exactly what was being attempted in Dover PA, and exactly what was detected by the court, and it's a standard ploy being used by creationists and defined by the ICR wedge document.

Everyone that knows science, knows that it doesn't answer all questions, nothing does. But to make a point of saying that in front of a particular theory is like walking onto a used car lot and standing in front of a particular car and reminding people that "not all used cars are in the same condition, some are more used than they appear". It's a pretty obvious statement, but when it's only used in front of one particular car, it carries a whole new meaning.

You don't get it still, though Ros. I am not saying anything has to preface anything, but any science teacher that tells kids that Darwin is a done deal and there is nothing else to know re how we got from point A to here is as wrong as the one who attempts to teach Creationism as science. But some teachers were teaching kids exactly that and ridiculing any student who questioned it.

If you doubt this is possible, FM says he is a teacher of science and look how he ridicules those who see any kind of opening for ID in the grand scheme of things. Do you think he would be incapable of projecting such attitude on his students even if he did so more gently than he does here?

I think any good science teacher will teach Darwin thoroughly, competently, and hopefully with enough enthusiasm that the students will learn it well. And I think that teacher will also teach those things that we can't yet explain with hopes that at least one or two of his students will be inspired to enter into a lifes work to expand our knowledge and understanding. And among the questions the students will have, if the teacher is teaching competently, will certainly be the one about God and creation and/or ID. And it is here that the teacher explains that this is certainly one of many theories of creation and evolution held by many people, but it cannot be tested nor proved with science, so that won't be on the test. Meanwhile, let's see what science has to teach us. . .

If that was the policy, and the parents and school boards knew it, I think Wandel would be finding a whole lot fewer articles on this subject to post on this thread.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

You don't get it still, though Ros. I am not saying anything has to preface anything, but any science teacher that tells kids that Darwin is a done deal and there is nothing else to know re how we got from point A to here is as wrong as the one who attempts to teach Creationism as science. But some teachers were teaching kids exactly that and ridiculing any student who questioned it.

No they're not. All the're saying is that evolution is the only scientific theory to explain the origin of species. And that's true.

No science teacher is saying that anything outside of science is impossible (I've seen no court cases complaining about this, and no articles talking about it). Do you have any example of this happening?

Foxfyre wrote:

If you doubt this is possible, FM says he is a teacher of science and look how he ridicules those who see any kind of opening for ID in the grand scheme of things. Do you think he would be incapable of projecting such attitude on his students even if he did so more gently than he does here?

I think FM is very clinical in his statements, and would probably be even more cautiously clinical with students than he is here, in what is supposed to be a collection of adults who should know better about reality already.

Foxfyre wrote:

I think any good science teacher will teach Darwin thoroughly, competently, and hopefully with enough enthusiasm that the students will learn it well. And I think that teacher will also teach those things that we can't yet explain with hopes that at least one or two of his students will be inspired to enter into a lifes work to expand our knowledge and understanding. And among the questions the students will have, if the teacher is teaching competently, will certainly be the one about God and creation and/or ID. And it is here that the teacher explains that this is certainly one of many theories of creation and evolution held by many people, but it cannot be tested nor proved with science, so that won't be on the test. Meanwhile, let's see what science has to teach us. . .

That's fine. And unless you can provide an example where that hasn't happened, I think that's exactly what is happening.

Foxfyre wrote:

If that was the policy, and the parents and school boards knew it, I think Wandel would be finding a whole lot fewer articles on this subject to post on this thread.

The reason Wandel is finding so many articles is because creationists are having disclaimers and announcements placed in front of evolution in particular. This is simply a fact, it's why they went to court.

There are no court cases in which a student complains that a science teacher went out of their way to tell the student that ID is not a valid theory outside of science.

And all any of us here are saying is that ID is not science. It doesn't matter what form ID takes, it's still not science. It doesn't matter if you assign the "I" of ID to god or aliens or leprechauns, it's just not science.

We recognize that magic (in whatever form it takes) is always a philosophical possibility, just as it's possible that reality is a dream. But that's not something which needs to come up in science class or math class or history class every time the class starts.

0 Replies

I am ignoring what has been put on while I was away taking my sustenance in the pub. I will look at it tomorrow.

Foxy wrote-

Quote:

Sigh. I've given it my best shot but neither you nor FM nor any of the other IDers seem to be able to hear what I am saying or else you simply don't want to. Whether or not a compromise is necessary, so long as the anti-IDers refuse to discuss the issue, there sure as hell won't be one. And this thread will drone on for another several hundred pages with nobody giving an inch meaning that little, if anything, of substance will ever be seriously discussed. And you know what? I think that is unfortunate.

Not in the least Foxy.

You do not understand the nature of the game.

A public debate between two sides as intransigent as we are is not seeking to change anyone's mind who is participating in it.

There is no point to such a ridiculous ambition because it is doomed from the outset. They won't change my mind and especially not with their idiotic, abstract generalities directed at concrete situations in the classroom, the school and the community.

A public debate is not a conversation Foxy.

I wouldn't have a conversation with these guys under any circumstances I am ever likely to get myself into.

A public debate has an audience. The members of that audience who refrain from entering the debate can be presumed, or some of them can, to have an open mind.

Would you prefer to persuade fm to your viewpoint or, say, 20 of the audience. I know which I prefer.

And I know we have an audience. And I assume it might contain someone influential because if I didn't assume that, as Stendhal taught me, I would just as soon go and watch the telly.

I already know I have pissed all over the anti-IDers chips on many occasions. I'm not at all interested in getting them to admit it although timber, of blessed memory, once almost did.

If that rogue trader in Paris had been me I would be holed up in timber's place right now with not a care in the world. We would be lighting roll-ups with $ bills. I know that's daft but just in case timber is still reading the thread I know it would give him a laugh and that's no mean thing with all those angels coming on strong all the time for ever and ever and not one of them virgins.

fm, wande, ros, c.i., TKO, wilso & Co have no influence.

fm went to protest some folks having a sing-song and to do some real-estate deals and daughter bargaining and they threw him out. I like to think that there were swing doors outside and a mud/horseshit sluch where he landed. And somebody made a pass at his wife at an "art" exhibition and he got all Christian about it. He's obviously never played "Spin the bottle" at a barbecue.

He's a bundle of laughs. Cleaning seafood out of his bowthrusters is quite funny you must admit. That's a disturbance of the food chain. Those creatures were meant to be eaten by other creatures higher up the pyramid according to Darwin. Not being cleaned out of fm's bowthrusters.

Is that anti-Darwinian or is that anti-Darwinian? There they were, and it takes thousands to clog up bowthrusters, waiting to eaten, after reproducing of course, and in steams fm in his big boat with his peaked cap on and gets them all jammed up in his bowthrusters. That's penis symbolism if you like and there's fm's bowthrusters coming to a halt with seafood. Not that the seafood knows it is seafood.

fm has no influence.

wande needed his wife's permission to attend the A2K meet in his hometown to eat fish and chips off a plastic table with plastic sauce bottles at the ready, agree with c.i. what an idiotic chump I am and do some architectual appreciation of steel boxwork clad in various types of insulation from the icy winds blowing in off the lake, the name of which has slipped my mind for the moment.

You probably don't know wilso but appointing him a science teacher would cause an insurance company to withdraw from any fire damage liabilities.

TKO is still at the syrup comforter stage and ros is just a gump.

None of them have any influence. There might be a viewer who has. Or one who might have at some future stage. Maybe two.

0 Replies

I've not had any influence since my departure from the work force, and that suits me just fine.

0 Replies

foxfyre[/QUOTE]If you doubt this is possible, FM says he is a teacher of science and look how he ridicules those who see any kind of opening for ID in the grand scheme of things. Do you think he would be incapable of projecting such attitude on his students even if he did so more gently than he does here?

Quote:

Geology specifically. In that discipline, in the undergrad level , we make sure (through our own faculty advisee committee) that we dont countenance ideas that cannot be evidenced . Teaching and learning a discipline is not accomplished by spending a lot of time on what doesnt work (unless , like certain concepts like Dolos law or Beers law,) we can ascertain the correct path that data presents.
We have a very strong "field study" component wherein students are given the opportunity to screw up in their skills set so that , by learning how to detect the correct interpretation, they may not waste their future clients money by commiting grand blunders that can cost millions.

We have programs of rock mechanics so that dam bolts can be installed in order to optimize the shear strengths of the foundations. We have programs of economic geology that test the kids abilities to determine where to drill exploratory holes and how to krig their way out of a 3-d data set.
We teach evolution mechanistically so that the oil "patch" graduates can understand the time and spatial descendency of key foraminiferans and thermal gradients that correspond to their "life zones" that also indicate petroleum.

Foxy, You have absolutely no idea of what your speaking. ID has no place in a real science curriculum.(BTW-you sort of admit that point so Im kind of glad that youve dumped on yourself by making your earlier "manifesto" known , as well as your ignorant- ill founded assessment of me as a teacher.)
As an adjunct faculty , Ive left the tenure track years behind and found that one can earn a much more comfortable living in the field and do teaching as a way to "give back" to the profession. WHy would I want to mess up my students minds with a pitiful ploy to validate nothing more than a covert method to instill some religious worldview in the classroom.? AT lehigh, Dr BEhe, who has had a rather important career in molecular bio (at least until he swung his own worldview into his last 20 years work), has been somewhat marginalized within his own colleague critical mass. The other members of the science (earth, and bio specifically) have published a position paper that warns the student body and the public that they dont share Behe's position . They are, rather embarassed that Lehigh, long a great engineering and technology school, should become a poster child for indefensible mythology sucked up by the gullible . If you notice lately, the very hucksters from the Discovery Institute whod proudly stepped Behe into the spotlight after he published "Darwins Black Box". These same shiny suited ones have not returned his calls after the Dover debacle.

You can shout as much as you wish about a "middle ground compromise" and I continue to say that you have no cards to show, nor valid point to make. SO , outside of starting some ID charter school (in which you still must teach to minimum standards of proficiency), your compromise will probably never see the light of day.

Geology is one of those sciences where one must actually view the data and evidence. Thats why field work is a requirement for the BS, and with the exception of hydrology , global tectonics,and petrology, most MS and PhD work is also field centered. So, the best geo scientist is the one whos seen the most outcrops and delved into the hard data, or drilled the most borings.

If you were in my elementary Physical Geology (not GEography spendi), youd have ample opportunities to see data and evidence on the hoof and be able to recreate the principles and laws that govern the earth. ID would fit where? , Theres no valid space for it even without discussing evolution

Next time you want to argue about someones qualifications as a teacher , start with someone whos not confident in themselves, you might even score a point. Until you do, dont bother trying to give me your vacuous opinions about what makes a geology curriculum fly.

Spendi's more your speed. He will pose anything and loves to preen and groom. You and he share much of the same H ignorantii (ae) genomes.

As one who admittedly enjoyed archeological digs, you must certainly be aware of the role that palynology and microstratigraphy play in field archeo work.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
You (and others) blew off or simply refused to comment on the reasoned concepts of ID that have nothing to do with religious views in any common definition of religion.

What are you referring to, you mean like aliens or something? What "reasoned concepts of ID" are you suggesting?

I assume she's suggesting the Buddist definitions of the orgin of life (I'd like her understanding of what these are); she also brought up Plato (which I know I commented on); she also brought up aliens (which I know I commented on)......I'm pretty sure we commented on most of what she brought up......

I'd like her to identify what she thinks we missed.

0 Replies

foxfyre

Quote:

If you doubt this is possible, FM says he is a teacher of science and look how he ridicules those who see any kind of opening for ID in the grand scheme of things. Do you think he would be incapable of projecting such attitude on his students even if he did so more gently than he does here?

I teach Geology, specifically. In that discipline, in the undergrad level , we make sure (through our own faculty advisee committee) that we dont countenance ideas that cannot be evidenced . Teaching and learning a discipline is not accomplished by spending a lot of time on what doesnt work (unless , like certain concepts like Dolos law or Beers law,) we can ascertain the correct path that incorrect or conflicting data presents. ID does not fulfill any of those precepts and, besides, its exceedingly poor logic based upon mumbo jumbo , defeatism , and submission to higher powers.
We have a very strong "field study" component wherein students are given the opportunity to screw up in learning their skills sets so that , by learning how to detect the correct interpretation, they may not waste their future clients money by commiting grand blunders that can cost millions.

We have programs of rock mechanics so that dam bolts can be installed in order to optimize the shear strengths of the foundations of things like dams or buildings. We have programs of economic geology that test the kids abilities to determine where to drill exploratory holes and how to krig their way out of a 3-d data set(when one submits to some voodoo "science" one can expect to be spending a lot of time in court for defaulting on contracts.
We teach evolution mechanistically so that the oil "patch" graduates can understand the time and spatial descendency of key radiolarians,molluscans, and foraminiferans and thermal gradients that correspond to their "life zones" which also indicate petroleum.

Foxy, You have absolutely no idea of what your speaking. ID has no place in a real science curriculum.(BTW-you sort of admit that point so Im kind of glad that youve dumped on yourself by making your earlier "manifesto" known , as well as your ignorant- ill founded assessment of me as a teacher.)
As an adjunct faculty , Ive left the tenure track years behind and found that one can earn a much more comfortable living in the field and do teaching as a way to "give back" to the profession. WHy would I want to mess up my students minds with a pitiful ploy to validate nothing more than a covert method to instill some religious worldview in the classroom.? AT lehigh, Dr BEhe, who has had a rather important career in molecular bio (at least until he swung his own worldview into his last 20 years work), has been somewhat marginalized within his own colleague critical mass. The other members of the science (earth, and bio specifically) have published a position paper that warns the student body and the public that they dont share Behe's position . They are, rather embarassed that Lehigh, long a great engineering and technology school, should become a poster child for indefensible mythology to be preached and sucked up by the gullible . If you notice lately, the very hucksters from the Discovery Institute whod proudly stepped Behe into the spotlight after he published "Darwins Black Box". These same shiny suited ones have not returned his phone calls after the Dover debacle. Hes listed as distinguished faculty of the Discovery Institute. Did it bypass you that Behes IDiocy (c) Timberlandko 2004 had not been professed until AFTER he was tenured??
You can shout as much as you wish about a "middle ground compromise" and I continue to say that you have , no credibility, no cards to show, nor any valid point to make. SO , outside of starting some ID charter school (in which you still must teach to minimum standards of proficiency), your compromise will probably never see the light of day.

Geology is one of those sciences where one must actually view the data and evidence. Thats why field work is a requirement for the BS, and with the exception of hydrology , global tectonics,and petrology, most MS and PhD work is also field centered. So, the best geo scientist is the one whos seen the most outcrops and delved into the hard data, or drilled the most borings.

If you were in my elementary Physical Geology (not GEography spendi), youd have ample opportunities to see data and evidence on the hoof and be able to recreate the principles and laws that govern the earth. ID would fit where? , Theres no valid space for it even without discussing evolution

Next time you want to argue about someones qualifications as a teacher , start with someone whos not confident in themselves, you might even score a point. Until you do, dont bother trying to give me your vacuous opinions about what makes a geology curriculum fly.

Spendi's more your speed. He will pose anything and loves to preen and groom. You and he share much of the same H ignorantii (ae) genomes.

As one who admittedly enjoyed archeological digs, you must certainly be aware of the role that palynology and microstratigraphy play in field archeo work. Maybe not. You should get to reaquaint yourself with some of the "tools" available to archeologists that , by themselves, disable ID myth.

0 Replies

tried my hand at editing my own stuff without a tech editor handy. I dont think I added any typos and I may have added some material that I thought of after I hit "send" the first time

0 Replies

It all sounds a bit too perfect fm. Like a publicity hand out.

As if no actual grubby human beings are involved with their fiddles, their taking the line of least resistance, their personal animosities, their ceremonies, their sexual entanglements, their financial situations, their family backgrounds, their fights over allocations of resources, their tempermental incompatibilities, their hobby horses and all sorts of activities which anybody who has worked in a bureaucratic structure of any sort knows create inefficiency and dysfunction.

Quote:

ID does not fulfill any of those precepts and, besides, its exceedingly poor logic based upon mumbo jumbo , defeatism , and submission to higher powers.

Well--obviously, once you become afraid of the Jesus/Bishop of Brixen/ the mathematics of dynamic space/ your washing machine connection and focus instead on the walking on water and the raising from the dead and set aside the argument that Christianity invented Science which I have been making and which I found American professorial support for yesterday.

What the point of talking about "mumbo-jumbo" when you are defining what it is. That's circular. Why do you not attack morality itself. Nietzsche did, Sartre did, Russell did, Reich did, Freud did, Aldous Huxley did. All respectable atheists attack morality. They are all in favour of promiscuous sexual immorality. Where's your logic? Spell it out and stop hiding behind this "mumbo-jumbo" mumbo-jumbo.

With no submission to any higher powers you grant yourself and your supporters permission to do anything you can get away with under the political regulations. Even if you get caught and do time you still did the act. Being deterred from an act by fear of doing time is merely a balancing of competing selfish urges. Like gluttony being balanced by a fear of obesity.

Doesn't the atheist reject the idea of society and put in its place a mere agglomeration of isolated selves regulated by the political swings as a landslide is regulated by gravity, angles and friction.

As an atheist lay out your position on an age of consent, on adultery, on price gouging, on lying. We don't wish to know what you think mumbo-jumbo is because it means anything anybody wants it to mean. It's nothing but an asserted circularity. And you have been at it for three years on here which shows your incapacity to be Abled 2 Know anything you don't already know which makes me wonder why you are on at all.

Quote:

As an adjunct faculty , Ive left the tenure track years behind and found that one can earn a much more comfortable living in the field and do teaching as a way to "give back" to the profession.

No atheist would believe that high sounding drivellous assertion. "Give back" my arse. You are in it for what you can get out of it. Like any other creature of evolution.

Glossy brochure polemics are out of place on a science forum. I don't mind you pumping yourself up. Everybody does it. PR it's called. But on a science forum--give us a break fm.

How does an atheist avoid defeatism. His biology flattens him and lays him down on the ground. Whistling in the dark is a mere illusion no matter how cheery the tune.

0 Replies

FM writes

Quote:

Foxy, You have absolutely no idea of what your speaking. ID has no place in a real science curriculum.(BTW-you sort of admit that point so Im kind of glad that youve dumped on yourself by making your earlier "manifesto" known , as well as your ignorant- ill founded assessment of me as a teacher.)

I have at no time suggested that ID should be in ANY science curriculum, real or otherwise, and therefore rather doubt that I have 'dumped on myself'. Nor have I made any kind of assessment of you as a teacher. I do hope however that you teach more carefully than you quote and/or characterize directly or by implication those with whom you disagree here. Whether I know of what I speak will no doubt be assessed in the eye of the beholder.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
You don't get it still, though Ros. I am not saying anything has to preface anything, but any science teacher that tells kids that Darwin is a done deal and there is nothing else to know re how we got from point A to here is as wrong as the one who attempts to teach Creationism as science. But some teachers were teaching kids exactly that and ridiculing any student who questioned it.

No they're not. All the're saying is that evolution is the only scientific theory to explain the origin of species. And that's true.

No science teacher is saying that anything outside of science is impossible (I've seen no court cases complaining about this, and no articles talking about it). Do you have any example of this happening?.

Teachers should not be teaching that evolution is the only scientific theory to explain the origin of species. They can certainly teach that it is suffiicently accepted in the scientific community to qualify as 'fact' and the students will be required to know what it is. But for everything we know, there is infinitely more that we don't know. So we don't close our minds. And as a point of clarification, to explain what a good teacher does is not the same thing as saying what science teachers are saying, so here you seem to be mischaracterizing my argument. Do you for instance have proof that "No science teacher is saying that anything outside of science is impossible."?

As to what 'proof' I have: Millstones and Stumbling Blocks by Bradley E. Heath, The Harsh Truth About Public Schools, Bruce Shortt PhD, and Public Schools, Public Menace, Joel Turtel are three good sources to illustrate why parents are becoming politically involved in this issue at an unprecedented level.

I was among a gang of 10 in Kansas who went one on one with the school board to beat back an attempt by some Christian radicals who wanted some books banned from the school library. I was also among a group who went to bat for parents who wanted their kids removed from two classes where the kids were being told there was no God. (Yes, one was a science class.) It is for all these reasons I believe the articles Wandel has been posting are probably telling it like it is--they represent a perhaps foolish and meritless backlash by concerned parents, but the backlash is a result of a much larger issue than what is being reported by the main stream media.

(I subsequently served a 3-year term on that same school board.)

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
If you doubt this is possible, FM says he is a teacher of science and look how he ridicules those who see any kind of opening for ID in the grand scheme of things. Do you think he would be incapable of projecting such attitude on his students even if he did so more gently than he does here?

I think FM is very clinical in his statements, and would probably be even more cautiously clinical with students than he is here, in what is supposed to be a collection of adults who should know better about reality already.

We can certainly hope.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I think any good science teacher will teach Darwin thoroughly, competently, and hopefully with enough enthusiasm that the students will learn it well. And I think that teacher will also teach those things that we can't yet explain with hopes that at least one or two of his students will be inspired to enter into a lifes work to expand our knowledge and understanding. And among the questions the students will have, if the teacher is teaching competently, will certainly be the one about God and creation and/or ID. And it is here that the teacher explains that this is certainly one of many theories of creation and evolution held by many people, but it cannot be tested nor proved with science, so that won't be on the test. Meanwhile, let's see what science has to teach us. . .

That's fine. And unless you can provide an example where that hasn't happened, I think that's exactly what is happening.

Just did.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
If that was the policy, and the parents and school boards knew it, I think Wandel would be finding a whole lot fewer articles on this subject to post on this thread.

The reason Wandel is finding so many articles is because creationists are having disclaimers and announcements placed in front of evolution in particular. This is simply a fact, it's why they went to court.

There are no court cases in which a student complains that a science teacher went out of their way to tell the student that ID is not a valid theory outside of science.

And all any of us here are saying is that ID is not science. It doesn't matter what form ID takes, it's still not science. It doesn't matter if you assign the "I" of ID to god or aliens or leprechauns, it's just not science.

And I'm not seeing that the IDers are saying that ID is a science. I certainly have at no time advocated teaching ID as science. And since it is not, it should outside the authority of the science teacher to refute it, dispute it, denigrate it, or dismiss it as irrelevent.

Here is a rather good discussion, pro and con, of the issue from a Christian perspective. It acknowledges where Creationists have lost in court (as they should) but also concludes what the role of the science teacher should be on this issue:

http://www.creationists.org/CLAopinion.html

Quote:

We recognize that magic (in whatever form it takes) is always a philosophical possibility, just as it's possible that reality is a dream. But that's not something which needs to come up in science class or math class or history class every time the class starts.

And should you be teaching my child and refer to his/her religious beliefs as 'magic', you would be answering to me.

0 Replies

What exactly is your logical objection, as an evolutionist, to Mr Koresh exploiting his Bible studies and his mesmeric charm to round up a bunch of impressionable young ladies and impregnating the lot of them?

An evolutionist would, it seems to me, approve of such tactics to spread his genes as far and wide as that. Monkeys do it. Lions even kill a female's offspring not sired by him to remove competitors for his own genes. If that is why they do do it and we ignore the teleological anthropomorphism such an explanation necessarily entails.

Let's see some atheist logic. On the institution of the harem say. And on what drives so many men to seek a "bit of fresh"*, with all the downside that usually entails, if it's not with a prostitute or a modern go-getter, when he has it stitched on at home under the Christian dispensation.

Germaine Greer, that paragon of virtuous unbelief, got married one day to one of the best looking blokes in London and kicked him out the day after. She probably had tax or career reasons for being a Mrs. Maybe she just wanted to see what being centre-stage at a wedding felt like as part of her anthropological research. Maybe she thought--"how can I make these disparaging remarks about wedding ceremonies if I don't know what it feels like." That's a scientist. It would be interesting to speculate upon what went through her head on the morning after. After all--she did say that men were like carrots--cheap and plentiful and easily cooked. Something like that. Which, when you look at it logically, is quite true. Or biologically.

Maybe not so true to a sociologist or a psychologist or, dare I say, a theologian.

ID has the capacity to create a set of emotional conditions which assist the assimilation of Christian tenets now that other processes have been rendered defunct by science. Which is not to say not good business. Take the goodie always winning in a film, for example, and having the small dog licking his face lovingly in the fade out. (Liberace's variations in C playing). You can't allow the baddie to do that. And yet evolution favours the baddie. IDers can set a tone for the assimilation of Christian values which an evolutionist would look ridiculous doing. The handsome baddie is already here but he still gets it in the end. And the goodie has been upholding Christian values all through the movie. And wins. Even if he's a gump.

Essentially, it's political. An education in the hands of IDers would inculcate Christian values because IDers are those who know themselves to have benefitted from those values and wish to pass them on to the next generation because they think they will benefit them. It is conservative. We needn't describe the other side because we all know what agi-prop consists of. Revolutionary fervour mainly. Notice that I said "think" rather than believe. Some do believe but the news is undermining belief in a lot of cases. I believe.

Trying to uphold Christian values by methods from the past is alright when it works but to some extent at least it hands a fairly easy victory to the other side within a society with our knowledge.

As I have explained before it is a question of ambience and teacher recruitment. Then it's economic as well. In fact it's in to everything. Even the underwear shops. There won't be any of those in N.Korea except maybe within the elite.

IDers aim for 3%. Upward and onward.

*One lady said on TV --"If you want a bit of fresh shove it up a bit further,

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know