mesquite wrote:Foxfyre wrote:mesquite wrote:I distorted nothing. I used your exact words. I provided links for full context, even though context in this case changes nothing. You clearly want the science teacher in a science class to puff up the notion of ID and support it with nothing more than a logical fallacy, argumentum ad numerum (appeal to numbers).
The idea that millions of people believe in some form of ID has no bearing on the validity of the idea, and a competent science teacher should not be expected to express such an opinion. That should be the province of the home or the church, not the science class.
So you continue the distortion and misrepresentation.
Can you show me in any part of that quote where I suggested that ANYTHING, much less ID, had validity? Can you show any evidence that the statement is in error in any way? And can you explain how this would be in any way inappropriate for a science teacher to deal with the student who raised the issue during a discussion on Darwin? (Which actually puts the comment into context which you, Ros, FM, and others refuse to do.)
When you include
some form of ID is a belief or theory held by millions of people into your statement, the validity is suggested by the appeal to numbers (if so many people believe it, then there must be something to it).
I didn't say that the statement was erroneous, although it may be depending upon which iteration of the appeal to numbers you use. (you have gone from millions, to hundreds of millions, to billions in various posts). Rather than erroneous, I used the term logical fallacy which merely implies flawed logical form.
Yes I think it inappropriate to require a science teacher to state a logical fallacy, when merely leaving the fallacy out provides a perfectly satisfactory statement for a teacher to make.
It (ID) cannot be tested, proved, or refuted scientifically and therefore it can't be considered as science.
For what reason do you think it is important to have the science teacher mention the number of people that believe in ID?
The fact is that hundreds of millions, even billions, of people believe in some form of ID. That fact implies nothing other than hundreds of millions, even billions, of people believe in some form of ID. If the fact is correct, there is no reason to not state it. Alternately the teacher could alternately acknowledge that some form of ID is recognized by a majority of people in the world. Would that suit you better?
It is a fact that ID cannot be tested, proved, nor falsified using any known scientific method. That fact implies nothing other than ID cannot be tested, proved, nor falsified using any known scientific method. It does provide a valid basis by which the teacher can divert any discussion of ID in science class. But if the fact is correct, there is no reason to not state it.
When a child raises the issue during a discussion of Darwin, the teacher can avoid a discussion of the subject and also avoid influencing the child's faith pro or con by matter of factly stating such facts.
From my personal point of view, I think any person who would have a problem with that would be a person who strongly advocates that students be indoctrinated with Atheism.
