Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

foxfyre

Quote:

In my opinion, to disallow critical analysis of natural selection goes to the indoctrination of young minds problem. It is fine for the teacher to show how natural selection is a scientifically sound principle and the best we have to explain origins of species now.

It is not fine for the teacher to disallow questioning of that principle or acknowledgment of the unanswered questions within it or to presume that we know all that we will ever need to know about it.

Good science is never closed minded but always leaves the door open for new understandings and new discoveries.

Who says that questions are disallowed? Youre trying to make a set up case that usually ends up with Natural selection=aetheism.

Questions are entertained, including those that are uncomfortable for the purveyors. Why have anything to hide? WHen asked , or challenged by the Cretionists, I always ask for equivalent evidence , not scripture, but dispassionate repeatable evidence 'Its never a matter of indoctrination for natural slection. Its almost always a matter of the "last concept left standing".

However, when and if a question re" Creationism is presented in a class, I always bring forth the mountain of data that makes the question either incorrect or based upon an incorrect foundation.

Like RL often starts a post,"Assuming the Flood was less than 100 days". I say whooaa Nelly, "
"Where did we get this "Assume the Flood" basis"? I need strong evidence beyond your sayso. Thats how real science works, its not the power of someones debate skills that win the argument, its a whole nother league of information that often is presented in NATURE and then, a few months later, is totally replaced with something new. YEt all the competing arguments are evidence based.

In my beginning geology classes I always ask the students that , If its ok with them we will quickly dispense with all the myths , legends, tall tales, and mysterious mysteries of life origins and developmet? ANy problems that I dont spend anytime talking about how the earth came about from the fourth level on the back of a turtle? or that I dont spend time on the GEnesis account? .

Then I usually go into a brief discussion about the measure of theories since geology is loaded with them .
Ive had kids ask about whether or not a fossil couldnt be explained by a flood ? then the fun usually begins. Ive never had a kid go awy with their questions unanswered but.

On the other hand, I never confuse "critical analyses" with default beliefs . Critical analysis assumes an open mind and I find that most of the people who scream for allowing critical analyses, merely want to stuff Biblical origins into the mix. The demand for evidence usually shuts em down however.

On a PBB its difficult because we are here posting, counter posting, surcounterposting etc etc. SO noone is really listening carefully and we dont have chances to stop one another mid sentence and say''WAIT A MINIT THERE"...

Quote:

ID is nothing more than religion in sheeps clothes

watch what you say about my sheep there ci. They are ENGLISH you know, best edeucations and all that.

0 Replies

It has to be that for someone who can't understand that it is the Creative Force of both Science and Religion and the very life they lead.

It is AIDs-ers who are the fluffy fleeces beneath which totalitarianism lurks.

Will it be the benign version sketched roughly by Mr Huxley managed by scientific conditioning (Pavlov and the Behaviourists) and hallucinatory drugs or the boot stamping on your face for ever and ever of Mr Orwell.

Without a belief in a Divine inspiration there are no other alternatives but anarchy.

The world is destiny driven not stuck fast in your computer room with everything about it taken for granted as if it were foliage.

Why don't you read those two books c.i.

They are not famous the world over for no reason. Your "sheep's clothes" is a bat squeak.

0 Replies

Quote:

It is AIDs-ers who are the fluffy fleeces beneath which totalitarianism lurks

See what I mean.I need appeal no further than to crap like this as an example of why such "critical analyses" must be steered so that the students will yrain themselves into actually doing critical thinking. Repeating bumper stickers based on nothing but smoke and wishful thinking is not the way science really works. Thats why many scientists have really small senses of humor (except for particle physicists who are mostly like EDward Dodgson on crack)

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

Thats why many scientists have really small senses of humor

It's not going to be a bundle of laughs then which ever of the two choices I gave and which you carefully avoided commenting upon.

It's a partial quote and that's out of order.

One could have said-

Quote:

Thats why many scientists have really small senses

You have been alive long enough to see the obvious drift in the direction of both. A very obvious drift.

And you can't even speak your own language scientifically.

Quote:

See what I mean.I need appeal no further than to crap like this as an example of why such "critical analyses" must be steered so that the students will yrain themselves into actually doing critical thinking.

Everything after the "why" is posited on the assertion "crap" and no attempt is made to justify that assertion. Which is the total absence of "critical thinking". (I'll let a conversational tautology pass in case fm's opinion of the intelligence of readers here is correct.)

The same applies to the next sentence and in this case the bumper stickers etc were Aldous Huxley and George Orwell.

The parenthesis at the end is irrelevant because we don't know anything about Mr Dodgson, least of all when he's on crack, if he ever is, and we could find a particle physicist of any stamp if we look for one.

But my experience, such as it is, agrees that scientists have really, really small senses of humour. Infinitessimal.

So get your laughing in while the going's good.

0 Replies

Gletkin in Darkness at Noon says (I'm translating out of KGBese) "That's crap--shoot him."

So don't give us any more of that sort of crap fm because that crap of your's is the real thing.

Gletki's crap had tanks.

0 Replies

and your crap is just worthless glossolalia.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The author's silly example of offering an 'alternate theory' (2+2..........) does not substantiate his claim that allowing critical analysis of the theory would be bad.

He doesn't say that critical analysis of the theory would be bad, he is pointing out that critical analysis of the theory is already happening, and has always happened as a normal part of science, so there is no need to expressly state that "critical analysis should be allowed". And he's right, evolution has already passed critical analysis, and it is always open to critical analysis, just as every other branch of science is.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

In my opinion, to disallow critical analysis of natural selection goes to the indoctrination of young minds problem. It is fine for the teacher to show how natural selection is a scientifically sound principle and the best we have to explain origins of species now.

It is not fine for the teacher to disallow questioning of that principle or acknowledgment of the unanswered questions within it or to presume that we know all that we will ever need to know about it.

Good science is never closed minded but always leaves the door open for new understandings and new discoveries.

I think you've been reading too much of RL's propaganda. Critical analysis is normal in all scientific disciplines, and it happens constantly. It would be highly questionable to single out evolution of all the scientific disciplines to "remind" students to apply critical analysis when there is no reason to think that it is not already happening.

High school classes are usually focused on disseminating information, rather than doing ground-breaking research, but if there's an uber-student in the class who wants to do a bit of advanced research, then they should go for it.

0 Replies

Rather than peeing in the wind, Fox and rl should provide evidence that critical analysis is lacking in any of the scientific disciplines.

0 Replies

ros wrote-

Quote:

And he's right, evolution has already passed critical analysis, and it is always open to critical analysis, just as every other branch of science is.

The only problem with that ros is that if I did a critical analysis of evolution I would get banned off A2K sine die and I really like A2K so you have a sort of safety net into which you can gently drop in the event of your acrobatics not always being perfect.

You do understand what I mean don't you.

It's a polite drawing room conversation as Mr Shaw said it was.

And hilarious.

0 Replies

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

Rather than peeing in the wind, Fox and rl should provide evidence that critical analysis is lacking in any of the scientific disciplines.

Well c.i. there is a scientific discipline which studies taking chemicals from the vicinity of a rutting pig's genitals, putting them in an areosol, diluted to taste, and spraying onto the barstool of a lady who has toddled off to the powder room.

I can't imagine why anybody would do a thing like that mind you. But they do. There are units on business parks which specialise in nothing else.

Do you think it's Freud's death wish.

0 Replies

As I have gotten older I find less and less that amazes me but I am stunned that anyone could have lived through any significant portion of the 20th century and think that science does not allow critical analysis.

Is there ANY field of science that hasn't undergone dramatic changes in its theories in the last century? This ridiculous idea that scientists sit around and guard their ideas as if they were Mithralist beliefs is bizarre, especially since it mostly (always?) comes from people who not only believe in absolutes but that they have the knowledge of THE absolutes. It is also amusing considering that they are the same people that usually argue for a science based on a 4000 year old Mesopotamian system of science.

At the end of the 19th century the great Lord Kelvin speaking at the London Philosophical Society meeting to end the century announced that the end of the science of physics was at hand. This was at a time when the reason grass was green or glass was clear were unknown and many believed we might never be able to answer those questions. Within 20 years relativity, quantum, and modern cosmology theory had utterly transformed the scientific horizon.

This was not done by scientist who clung to their ideas like a crucifix. It certainly wasn't by the preachers, priests, or psychotics from Great Brittan. It was done, as it is today, by a search for the facts by scientists who were willing to admit they were wrong; would that the "believers" could learn a lesson from this.

0 Replies

fm-

If the tectonics just happened to produce, at some point, a flat land area, dead flat for thought experiment purposes, would it be above or below sea level? Including ocean floors of course.

The non-water part being as round as a bowling ball. A polished one if you like.

Do you believe that the experts shot a rogue satellite out of the sky last week and, if so, what evidence have you to support your belief?

0 Replies

TCR wrote-

Quote:

Within 20 years relativity, quantum, and modern cosmology theory had utterly transformed the scientific horizon.

I hope you don't think, old boy, that you mentioning those areas of knowledge causes us to think you know anything worth a blow about any of them.

That would be a serious mistake. We have seen coffee table books in the most unlikely places. In mint condition too.

0 Replies

Quote:

Critical analysis is normal in all scientific disciplines,

And hard working people up and down the land are normal too. Hard-pressed Moms as well.

How can you assert a thing like that. You are milking on the pap that admires the idea of "critical analysis".

It sounds good. Explaining it is right out of the window.

0 Replies

I have been reading up on Wiki about Florida.

For you people to talk about a politico/economic entity of that nature in the manner you do betrays an egotistical arrogance of the highest order.

It must be quite imposible for anyone to have a meaningful discussion with you on any subject under the sun.

Professor Germaine Greer, writing about "orgasmism" in its character as a religion of consumerism, in Sex and Destiny (Changing Concepts of Sexuality chapter) said-

Quote:

None of these ideas is susceptible of empirical proof precisely because each relates to a self-validating image.

And what better example of that sort of unscientific thinking could there be than fm's-

Quote:

See what I mean. I need appeal no further than to crap like this (my previous post) as an example of why such "critical analysis" must be steered so that students will train themselves into actually doing critical thinking.

No. I do not see what you mean. Your ideas, however clumsily expressed, are not susceptible of empirical proof precisely because they relate, entirely, to your self-validating image of what "crap" is and it is a certainty that it is anything you don't agree with.

You end up extolling the virtues of critical thinking without feeling the slightest need to think critically yourself.

But the real warning for viewers here is the use of the word "must" which has derived 100% from the self-validating image of what "crap" consists of and there you have the very essence of totalitarianism.

And every AIDs-er on this thread is continually guilty, seemingly unconsciously, of the gross error in critical thinking which Ms Greer so astutely puts her finger on.

You all start from your own self-validations and deploy them in the service of telling people how they should lead their lives despite the obvious fact that the people you seek to direct in your orgies of control freakery live in places completely different from where you have got your very silly ideas from.

The principle economic activities in Florida are tourism and agriculture.

You are even capable of deluding yourselves that the insertion of the word "theory" in Florida's standards does not represent an ignominious defeat for AIDs-ers. Why else was the insertion fought over with so much heat? And it is a democratic defeat whereas Dover rested on one man's decision after hearing very partial evidence and we have no empirical evidence what that man's motives were.

Again a totalitarian outcome.

Your only possible way of defending yourselves is to present to us the joys of totalitarianism or at least some proof that such a mode of government is now necessary.

0 Replies

TEXAS UPDATE

Quote:

Evolution on Trial in Texas Board of Education Battle
(By Brandon Keim, Wired Science, February 25, 2008)

Evolution and intelligent design are set for a showdown in Texas.

Just weeks after Florida education officials approved an evolution-heavy curriculum over the objections of religious conservatives, two pro-intelligent design candidates will vie for seats on the Texas Board of Education.

The board selects textbooks and decides what Texas children are taught. Later this year, the state will review its science curriculum; observers fear that creationist explanations of life's origins will be presented as scientifically valid alternatives to evolution.

There's ample reason to think intelligent design -- a theory that views so-called irreducible complexities to be proof of divine intervention, and was discredited legally and scientifically two years ago during the Kitzmiller v. Dover case -- could mount a comeback in Texas.

State science education official Chris Comer was fired last November after telling friends and colleagues about a lecture critical of intelligent design. The 15-member Board of Education is roughly balanced between supporters and opponents of evolution -- but the March 4 board election features two pro-ID candidates, both running against pro-evolution incumbents.

The Associated Press reports that would-be board member Lupe Gonzalez, a retired school administrator, wants intelligent design given "equal weight" with evolution in school textbooks. The second challenger, retired urologist Barney Maddox, considers the state's current science curriculum an attempt to "brainwash our children into believing evolution."

0 Replies

I think that researchers from UT Austin, Rice, and Texas A&M will be very vocal in trying to beat back the educational board followeres of Ned Ludd.

To assume that all Texans are barefoot and stupid and then try to reinforce that in the educational system would be embarrasing to a state that has enough problems to live down.(EG , THE MURDER OF kENNEDY, wACO, tHE Port Arthur explosion, Matamoros, The present administration , etc)

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

I think that researchers from UT Austin, Rice, and Texas A&M will be very vocal in trying to beat back the educational board followeres of Ned Ludd.

To assume that all Texans are barefoot and stupid and then try to reinforce that in the educational system would be embarrasing to a state that has enough problems to live down.(EG , THE MURDER OF kENNEDY, wACO, tHE Port Arthur explosion, Matamoros, The present administration , etc)

I certainly hope so, FM, because HS Science Textbooks publishing nationwide tend to be dominated by the markets in two states--Texas and California.

Rap

0 Replies

wande quoted-

Quote:

observers fear

With devious barefaced spin of such a crude nature as that it is obvious that Mr Keim has no respect or regard for the readers of Wired Science.

Which observers? How many? Do they really "fear"?

Quote:

and was discredited legally and scientifically two years ago during the Kitzmiller v. Dover case

Should be seen in the light of-

Quote:

whereas Dover rested on one man's decision after hearing very partial evidence and we have no empirical evidence what that man's motives were.

I see fm has mounted his usual bluster rather than attempt to rebut my earlier post. One can only assume he can't rebut it and is bent on creating an irrelevant diversion.

Texas viewers might notice his dredging up of negative stories about their state and smearing them with hints of backwardness.

Quote:

(EG , THE MURDER OF kENNEDY, wACO, tHE Port Arthur explosion, Matamoros, The present administration , etc)

LHO was born and raised in Louisiana and the Marines. Mr Koresh was a school dropout and quite mad, Matamoros is in Mexico and the present administration are doing a fine job. The etc is out from underneath the bottom of the barrel. What's the point fm?

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know