Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Quote:

Once you invent an idiot out of your own consciousness it is a relatively easy thing to decorate him with the follies of your own imagination.

Bernard Shaw. Nobel Prize winner. Oscar recipient and voted Man of the Century.

Quote:

Anything easy is not worth bothering with.

Anon.

Teach those and you are teaching ID but you don't need to say you are teaching ID. And you shouldn't.

0 Replies

Foxy:
You are very fond of labels; simply saying the word indoctrinate over and over does not mean indoctrination is taking place, or that teaching science sans freedom to discuss religion is indoctrination. And by qualifying it to mean that only one point of view is allowed is ridiculous. As has been pointed out 3 + 3 = 6 is NOT indoctrination because it is the only "point of view" allowed. It is not a point of view it is axiomatic fact. F=ma is NOT a "point of view". The foundations of biology are not a "point of view".

As for freedom of expression: If I am teaching astronomy and a student points out that contrary to what I am teaching the universe is only 6,000 years old (another "point of view" if you will) I guess I could say 'yes there are some that believe that' but being one of those skilled teachers you like to talk about I would also have to point out that this has been shown to be ridiculous in the extreme by what we know from thermodynamics, kinetics, mechanics, gravitation, cosmology, etc., etc. I doubt that this is the kind of "freedom of expression" you are looking for in my classroom. I would guess you would put that under ridicule of the child's belief. I'd put it under good science.

I will readily admit that my experience is not in pedagogy (teaching children) but rather andragogy: in corporate/university/gov/military. However performance-based education is performance-based education regardless of the audience. So this may be a shocker for you but in PBE it is the instructional designer who determines (with SME input) what is taught, when it is taught, and how it is to be taught. It is NOT up to the instructor, skilled or otherwise.

If it is not in the stated core competencies, skill competencies, or learning objectives the instructor has no right to bring it into the classroom. (It may be a WONDERFUL point of view but it does not belong in the class).

The class is designed to focus on an objective, measurable, demonstration of skills mastery. It is required that this demonstration be reliable and valid. If the instructor decides to add or subtract from the competencies/objectives or the level or detail that they were designed to be taught it will almost assuredly mean that the demonstration of mastery of skills can no longer be defended as either valid or reliable.

Let that happen in the corporate world and then base hiring/firing/raises/promotions decisions on these measures and you can plan on being sued and settling during the discovery process as you will not have a leg to stand on.

To try to pretend that this somehow ties the hands of an instructor, skilled or otherwise is absurd. This still leaves the instructor a huge number of possibilities of how to get the information across. In fact all the structure lets the instructor focus on what they are there for: to teach.

I have worked as both an ID and an instructor in the PBE setting (usually science oriented but I've done work for financial institutions, manufacturing, technology companies, etc. - it all pays well) and have NEVER felt stifled by this at all. Teaching is a big enough task without the added impossibility of determining on the fly what to leave in, what to leave out, what learning domain I should be emphasizing, and what level in a specific learning domain I should be teaching.

I don't know how to say this politely, but as you do not take seem to take any criticism constructively I'll just say it: based on my education and experience there are quite a few areas you like to comment on but have very little knowledge of and it shows glaringly in your posts.

0 Replies

TCR, neither you nor your alter ego have ever--not one single time to the best of my knowledge--thought I got anything right or have been honest about anything. I accept that your opinion of me is that I am stupid, ignorant, uneducated, dishonest, refuse to take criticism constructively, have never done, said, or implied anything that was worthwhile, plus various and other assorted uncomplimentary observations you have made over the years. I would offer you the same suggestion Spendi offered FM. Why don't you just favorite your ad hominem observations about me so you don't have to bother typing them out every time. It would save you so much time and trouble.

Meanwhile, you will possibly understand that I find it more pleasant to discuss concepts and ideas with people who don't feel it necessary to include such ad hominem in every post.

Thank you very much.

0 Replies

Quote:

I would offer you the same suggestion Spendi offered FM. Why don't you just favorite your ad hominem observations about me so you don't have to bother typing them out every time.

For the record, actually it was spendi who was offering the ad-hominem about my "first ever" tabulation of frescos excellent point. Spendi knew nothing about the subject but decided to state that I should cut and paste my 4 point test of scince somehwere so I could easily have access.

The WAY he said it was an ad-hominem on the hoof if I ever saw one. Foxy has (again) merely attempted to twist what was NOT there and suit it to her purpose.

PS, the reason spendi states that ID cannot be taught is totally different from foxy's POV. I get a smile in the PM .

TCR-what is a PBE or an SME, ? Im not a big one on job jargon, even though I sometimes do it also. Please, first time word usage , should have a definition or an expansion.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
I would offer you the same suggestion Spendi offered FM. Why don't you just favorite your ad hominem observations about me so you don't have to bother typing them out every time.
For the record, actually it was spendi who was offering the ad-hominem about my "first ever" tabulation of frescos excellent point. Spendi knew nothing about the subject but decided to state that I should cut and paste my 4 point test of scince somehwere so I could easily have access.

The WAY he said it was an ad-hominem on the hoof if I ever saw one. Foxy has (again) merely attempted to twist what was NOT there and suit it to her purpose.

PS, the reason spendi states that ID cannot be taught is totally different from foxy's POV. I get a smile in the PM .

TCR-what is a PBE or an SME, ? Im not a big one on job jargon, even though I sometimes do it also. Please, first time word usage , should have a definition or an expansion.

It was the cut and paste suggestion, not the content, which I intended to suggest. Just to keep the record straight. I am as capable as anybody else of misunderstanding and/or unintentionally mistating another person's comment. I try very hard to not do that intentionally.

Also, when I get it wrong and the other member restates what they actually did say or mean, I try to acknowledge that.

Some, not all, of the AIDers here also extend that kind of courtesy.

How is Spendi's concept that ID cannot be taught in the schools different from mine by the way?

0 Replies

Quote:

TCR, neither you nor your alter ego have ever--not one single time to the best of my knowledge--thought I got anything right or have been honest about anything. I accept that your opinion of me is that I am stupid, ignorant, uneducated, dishonest, refuse to take criticism constructively, have never done, said, or implied anything that was worthwhile, plus various and other assorted uncomplimentary observations you have made over the years.

Actually I can only find about 4 times I've ever interacted with you "over the years". I can't find any time I've commented on your honesty, called your stupid etc. Unless pointing out your total misinterpretation of Buddhism assumes all of that. I can, however, find where I was called unthinking and an atheist.

But I guess freaking out keeps you from dealing with any of the points I've made.

FM:

SME= Subject Matter Expert
PBE = Performance Based Education

In BPE the ID (Instructional Designer) is responsible for how the curriculum/course is designed, the SME is responsible for validating content and scope of content. The instructor is responsible for teaching the material.

P.S. my Alter Ego??????

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I don't think those supporting the Academic Freedom Act are suggesting any of that Ros.

They are opening the door for that.

There is no need to open that door.

To not open that door opens the other door for the State to have full license to indoctrinate children any way they might choose. In my way of thinking, risking exposing children to erroneous information is far less dangerous than allowing the government full license to decide what chlidren may or may not learn.

We're not talking about limiting thought. We're talking about defining valid subject matter within the context of a public institution.

0 Replies

That will never sink in. Once upon a time, Fox acknowledged that BS like ID could be taught in separate, comparative religion classes. Now she's gone all fanatical on us, and is hysterically alleging indoctrination and government-control. Ros has it nailed down--it's not about preventing anyone from learning about loony superstitions, it's about excluding loony superstitions from science classes.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I don't think those supporting the Academic Freedom Act are suggesting any of that Ros.

They are opening the door for that.

There is no need to open that door.

To not open that door opens the other door for the State to have full license to indoctrinate children any way they might choose. In my way of thinking, risking exposing children to erroneous information is far less dangerous than allowing the government full license to decide what chlidren may or may not learn.

We're not talking about limiting thought. We're talking about defining valid subject matter within the context of a public institution.

I have been very clear that I have no problem with the teacher being required to teach a prescribed curriculum or the students being expected to know the content of that curriculum. My quarrel is with a notion that a teacher should not be allowed to advise the students that the curriculum is not the sum and end of all knowledge there is to know or is the only point of view that exists. I do not want the state to adopt a totalitarian policy that tells the teacher that s/he must teach THIS, only THIS, and is not permitted to acknowledge that anything else even exists. When we give the government that kind of power, we might as well hang it up, because our Democratic Republic is down the tubes for all practical purposes.

0 Replies

TCR wrote-

Quote:

The foundations of biology are not a "point of view".

The foundation is though.

I don't know about 3+3=6 after reading Spengler-

Quote:

With the function, not only Euclidean geometry (and with it the common human geometry of children and laymen, based on everyday experience) but also the Archimedean arithmetic, ceased to have any value for the really significant mathematic of Western Europe.

i.e. ID mathematics. How to prepare kids to receive that mathematics is what we might consider.

Quote:

Henceforward , this consisted solely in abstract analysis. For Classical man geometry and arithmetic were self-contained and complete sciences of the highest rank, both phenomenal and both concerned with magnitudes that could be drawn and numbered. For us, on the contrary, these things are only practical auxiliaries of daily life. Addition and multiplication, the two Classical methods of reckoning magnitudes, have, like their sister geometrical drawing, utterly vanished in the infinity of functional processes.

You're the fundamentalist TCR.

Classical man could not have found electricity. Could not. A new religion was needed. New architecture. New pictorial representation of reality. New musical forms. A mental mutation. You're 2000 years out of date. You're doing pop-science. You will lay our science out on the canvas if you're let anywhere near the education of the kids. You just want to give them the layman's stuff that you know.

Why do you keep steering away from the psychosomatic problem and property and class considerations to tell us that 3+3=6.

ID is a world feeling. The Faustian soul feeling.

0 Replies

I've been wondering why-

Quote:

In accountancy, the double-entry bookkeeping (or double-entry accounting) system is the basis of the standard system used by businesses and other organizations to record financial transactions. It was first described by the Italian mathematician Luca Pacioli, in his Summa de arithmetica, geometrica, proportioni et proportionalita (Venice, 1494).

With all the mathematicians in the Classical world it seems odd that this is a Gothic invention. Without it there are no corporations and financial markets.

I'm speculating now.

Could it be that the credit of Grace, increased by following the teachings of Jesus, and the debit of Sin, increased by following the animal urges had to end up "solvent" on Judgement Day to avoid Dante's cast of characters and this religious notion was transferred by Pacioli to money where Paradise awaited the man well in credit and Hell awaited the debtor. Purgatory when you can pay it back in instalments and arrive later.

Was this the invention of Capitalism? Could Pacioli have thought of it without the religious model. Going against the teachings of Jesus was a sin. A hierarchy too. But the revealed religion of Jesus, given credibilty by some fantastic wonder stories, such as your candidates put about, (Mr Obama can walk on water according to some of his groupies) had to be "adjusted" a little by Authority deemed infallible for practical, technological purposes.

As I said--mere speculation. Anybody fancy Devil's Advocating it?

Bankruptcy being a Mortal sin. i.e you were phuckied.

Maybe the US is not as Christian as it might like to think.

3+3=6. Sheesh!!!!

0 Replies

From today's e-mail:

Quote:

Genealogy A little girl asked her mother, 'How did the human race appear?' The mother answered, 'God made Adam and Eve and they had children and then all mankind was made.'

Two days later the girl asked her father the same question. The father answered, 'Many years ago there were monkeys from which the human race evolved.'

The confused girl returned to her mother and said, 'Mom, how is it possible that you told me the human race was created by God, and Dad said they developed from monkeys?' The mother answered, 'Well, dear, it is very simple. I told you about my side of the family and your father told you about his.'

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

.

Was this the invention of Capitalism?
!!!

No you blithering idiot, the invention of Capitalism was pussy!

If your brains were TNT there wouldn't be enough to blow a slight grin on your face.

Boring old fart.

0 Replies

And you ignored Jesus on turning the other cheek at 9/11. So did we.

As a scientific fact.

The Buddah wouldn't have blinked from what I've heard.

One is left with having to say that Jesus was wrong. His millenium transcending vision, one I share, that the meek will inherit the earth, and an American said "but not just yet", is also wrong.

Had Jesus been to Rome? Looked around and thought "this can't last". Pondered it on an IQ out of ordinary mortal reckoning, identified its fatal flaws, gone back home in disgust thinking that they'll throw him to the lions with that stuff in Rome and wandered around begging and boozing and chatting up Mary the Magdalene.

Leaving others to record his songs. If you think I'm aggravating try to imagine you're a Scribe with a good job listening to Jesus. Or getting garbled reports about the things he's been saying to cheer up the ones who didn't have a good job.

0 Replies

Mathos- Google The Venus of Willendorf and "full size" it. Then meditate.

Photography is for ease. The guy who did that did some work on it but he didn't have double entry book-keeping.

There's no chance of a woman having done it.

0 Replies

The cross is in the ball park.

Hasn't anybody told you?

There'll be millions watching England tonight, and the odd sad sap reading this.

I'm off to join the millions.

0 Replies

spendi, Nobody can ignore Jesus; he's a fictional character only identified in the bible. Just because one comic book written two thousand years ago claims Jesus said this and that is immaterial; it's all fiction. How much credence would you give a Superman comic book? It's the same. Superman also has super-human powers, and performed miracles.

0 Replies

He's watching exhibition matches now.

How un-Darwinian is that. Friendlies are a form of ballet dancing.

They donate their fees for these matches to charity so they won't be wanting to risk injury. They don't like to lose I know but only by a bit.

The do after is the thing. Meet the bigwigs. You know.

I'm watching it anyway. I watch the machinery of how the spectacle works. It's religious. It's pagan. The Olympic Games are pagan. It can only be superficially Christian. Pagans didn't do referees and rule books.

0 Replies

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

How much credence would you give a Superman comic book

Well- when I saw him practicing celibacy in the presence Lois Lane (Supergirl) and going up against Lex Luthor, the money and science man, I might think not only that he was a bit like Jesus but that I might have to be a bit more wary of supergirls, moneymen and scientists than I had previously thought necessary.

If he fitted into the script that it is best to look left, look right and look left again before you cross the road, the other way round for you, and that it pays to eat your greens I might have considered taking notice.

I hope you don't think I thought he could fly or bounce tank shells off his chest. That's poetic licence you silly moo.

Can you not answer my questions like that?

0 Replies

Foxfyre,

Reading your posts, I have noticed that you use the word "I" more than any other word. You should spend more time on clarifying an actual position. Science teachers do not teach "viewpoints." They teach scientific facts and explain scientific methodology.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know