Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

LOUISIANA UPDATE

Quote:

Jindal signature renews evolution debate

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

LOUISIANA UPDATE

Quote:
Jindal signature renews evolution debate

This law allows teachers to "supplement those books with other materials about scientific topics", but constitutional law prohibits creationism, and ID is linked to creationism by way of Dover PA. So that leaves them with nothing.

This bill looks like a great big trap for unwary creationists to me. It's like a mirage in the desert, the first creationist to try to drink from it is gonna get a big mouthful of sand along with another nail in their coffin.

0 Replies

well, no matter how wrong you feel it is, this legislation is one more "clearance item" in the string of code of Creationism/ID. One of my former colleagues in the NEw Awlins area stated that the AAUP has set up a watchdog committee to assure that such "resources " are vetted and guidance is offered and provided by the very folks qualified in the exact sciences under "critique".

To argue mechanisms of evolution or the accuracy of predicted arcs of evidence, is one thing. To deny its existence out of hand or by some lame AIG argument book , is straddling the line of what Edwards v Aguillard stated in its " support briefs" . Itll be very entertaining to see how this all plays out. Im not able to prdict any follow on cases at the moment, since , Im sure that the DI is busy rearranging their declk chairs and formulating a plan about how to best accomplish the([ID] goals that the legislation lays out. I welcome ,the debate in classes , about the :settled science" status of man induced global warming. Paleoclimatologists and glaciologists are , in the majority , quite lopsided in the doubts about the "man induced" aspect of climate change and sea level rise.

Cloning is entirely a bioethics issue and is beyond the scope of a normal high school class (unless its an advanced placement topic) So I think that this entire suibject is overly optimistic in its inclusion.

I believe that an extended definition of what the damn legislation actually means is a much needed first step. LAws can be ambiguous and broad in their structure. Standards will, however, need to be developed and a long list of those science subjects in which "critical thinking" needs to be applied are a first baby step.

I think that a critical review of whether teacher competency is an issue for teaching science. As it stands, in most states, science teachers in any subject usually haveminimal credentials in the science itself and , instead, are loaded up on "teaching m,ethods" and "Ed psych" courses.

I recently sat on a committee for a D Ed candidate who was seeking credentials for advancement in his arena as chairman of a science department of a major magnet high school (a public institution). The actual relevant science courses were woefully lacking and there ere very few actual lab courses. He skated by (IMHO) with courses like
"the philosophy of secondary science" and "advanced place,ment metrics"

WHAAAAA? we have certainly learned how to compartmentalize our learning institutions. Most of these people with nascent PhDs in Ed SCience will aspire to administrative positions , who, in my opinion , are some of the biggest loads on our system. They are the Vogons of public education

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Cloning is entirely a bioethics issue and is beyond the scope of a normal high school class (unless its an advanced placement topic) So I think that this entire suibject is overly optimistic in its inclusion.

You are correct. However, my suspicion is that this is a backdoor to preach about abortion. Many Pro-life groups equate stem cell research using SCNT to abortion.

I think that this is a way to try and get a particular worldview into a classrom that "embryos are babies;" to teach that seeds are trees. You see "embryo" is a scientific word that can be discussed. One only need to retaylor their anti-abortion rhetoric simply by inserting it where the word "baby" used to be. They have failed to get a dialogue abotu abortion in most schools health or social studies classrooms, so now they are trying to rebrand their stance as being "abortion is wrong because of science."

While Bioethics are typically above the scope of a HS curriculum, I feel like this is just a backdoor tactic.

T
K
O

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

They are the Vogons of public education

And they are sure to have their heads up their arses as that is mandatory for anyone fm doesn't approve of.

There is a "baby" question in the air at the moment on this thread fm. It is whether you support sport professsionals having the free choice to use any methods to improve their performances. As I do.

If you don't support them to do that what are your reasons.

And in creationism the Lord rested on the seventh day and that is recognised in the Constitution which shows that the separation of church and state is a relative matter.

The odd thing is that the voters also have a watchdog and vetting system called elections and the AAUP does not. The latter are a self-appointed, self regulating and self admiring bunch of busybodies with their eye on the main chance who are paid to be professors rather than opponents of the democratic process. Do they answer awkward questions or do they conduct discussions along the lines you have outlined which is them making statements and not paying attention to anybody else's statements.

And if they are going to send in SWAT teams of watchdogs and vetters they are going to get everybody's backs up and thus further reduce their influence.

The votes in Louisiana were overwheming to say the least and Mr Jindal's signature is the icing on the cake. Dover has been finessed goodstyle. One apponted man (Have gavel-will travel) decided that after the defence completely sold the pass. Louisiana is a state with a $200 billion annual product. Dover is a small town with a peculiar demographic involving "incomers" from surrounding cities wishing to enjoy the facilities built up by the long standing agricultural sector. The decision Judge Jones made was, as I pointed out at the time, small potatoes. It was hyped up by you lot which fact alone calls into question your judgement.

You're floundering fm. You've been stuffed. I might be in a minority on this thread but I'm on the winning side in Louisiana.

You've been outvoted. Lost your deposit. You're irrelevant. The more bombast and bluster you produce the dafter you look.

0 Replies

For those backward viewers here SCNT is

Quote:

In SCNT the nucleus, which contains the organism's DNA, of a somatic cell (a body cell other than a sperm or egg cell) is removed and the rest of the cell discarded. At the same time, the nucleus of an egg cell is removed. The nucleus of the somatic cell is then inserted into the enucleated egg cell. After being inserted into the egg, the somatic cell nucleus is reprogrammed by the host cell. The egg, now containing the nucleus of a somatic cell, is stimulated with a shock and will begin to divide. After many mitotic divisions in culture, this single cell forms a blastocyst (an early stage embryo with about 100 cells) with almost identical DNA to the original organism.

I would much prefer starting out from the back seat of a Buick 6 myself with a front door tactic.

0 Replies

Im aware TKO that the "right thinkers" will use the entire cloning discussion as a "bacdk door" as you say. Thats one reason that I feel that this entire subject is not within the scope of a hs science curriculum.

0 Replies

The science curriculum is but a part, and a small part for many students, of the school curriculum, which is itself a part of a general socialisation curriculum which also has limitations determined by our cultural heritage.

A bit like a piston is a part of an engine which is part of a vehicle the function of which is to ride smoothly and efficiently. One doesn't even need to know what a piston is to drive the vehicle, as a number of highly educated ladies will inform you.

For the piston manufacturer the piston looms much larger in like manner as the science classroom does to those engaged in science.

The pistons may be the best pistons there have ever been in the whole wide world but they will useless if unaccompanied by such things as reclining seats in imitation Himalayan goatskin, Motorola stereo, vanity mirrors behind the sunblinds and a magical name to conjour with such as Mustang or Thunderbird and many another incantation of a similar stamp. And so also are those things useless without the pistons. (Except when parked up in a shadowy lane I mean.)

There are profound subtlties of interdependence between things, almost irreducibly complex maybe, and focussing on one aspect at the expense of the rest to the point of contradicting the whole is to risk becoming unbalanced and getting a wheel-wobble on.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Look S. I can understand every word you write and even some whole phrases but how it fits together is beyond me.

It seems perfectly clear to you that what c.i. said means something for others but it doesn't to me. Your "damaging" is just the same.

Yes, and a lot of this seems to be pure obstinance. Really now, if you're having trouble, use a dictionary. Here's what the OED says concerning "damaging": • adjective harmful or undesirable.

Which part of that is difficult to apply to my statements, exactly? Do you find it implausible that ignorance would be harmful or undesirable?

spendius wrote:

But as I said before---you start where you finish with your own meanings. What comes in between is neither here nor there. You can put 50 paragraphs of " understanding of a modern, robust, economically and socially impactful field of knowledge" type of thing in the spaces and I'll notice the circle which goes around bad/damaging/suffer/shouldn't do.

Then explain the circle you've apparently noticed in sufficient detail such that I can know what the heck you're talking about. If you disagree that there is such a thing as modern science, or that it is robust, or economically impactful, or socially impactful, feel free to tell me. If you think the understading of science, if constituted partially in those things is not undesirable, feel free to tell me.

spendius wrote:

We are not agreed on any of those words and we never will be while you rely upon them to make your points.

Then you know how to remedy it, don't you? State a simple opinion on the issue and get to it. So far I've been under the impression that you're simply incompetent.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

This bill looks like a great big trap for unwary creationists to me. It's like a mirage in the desert, the first creationist to try to drink from it is gonna get a big mouthful of sand along with another nail in their coffin.

No doubt, and given that it passed with such huge numbers it will be at least partially an inadvertent trap, imo. But such a law will allow many schools to muck up their students' educations even more until and during whatever trial eventually challenges the new DI crap text. It will also waste some our federal tax dollars, yay!

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Cloning is entirely a bioethics issue and is beyond the scope of a normal high school class (unless its an advanced placement topic) So I think that this entire suibject is overly optimistic in its inclusion.

Ah, but this is social conservatism. How would we be sure it was written by asshats if they didn't include that issue as a "scientific theory"? Well, besides the fact that it came from the LA legislature (ooh, zing!).

0 Replies

Well- what are your views on cloning humans?

Never mind all this "back door" stuff. That's snow.

0 Replies

Perhaps, if you feel unable to produce a view on performance enhancing drugs for fear you might stray into some faintly religious sentimentalities you might be prepared to avail us all of the scientific position regarding cloning humans.

We know your position on gravity. It's that you don't what it is really.

0 Replies

Quote:

The bill from Bogalusa

0 Replies

Oh look, everyone else criticized spendius for the far more offensive use of "AIDsers".

Excellent job on not explaining, yet again, where that extra "s" comes from. Your omission is hilarious and noted.

0 Replies

spendi just forgot to add the apostrophe.

0 Replies

Mr S wrote-

Quote:

Here's what the OED says concerning "damaging": • adjective harmful or undesirable.

Yes- we all know that. Your use of the word asserted that something would be "damaging" and thus " harmful and undesirable". You forgot to say why you thought whatever it was would be "damaging" and to whom. You hadn't supported your use of the word with any evidence other than that your statement must be true because you said it.

If something is thought objectively damaging simply because you say so shouldn't you be in a more senior position than the one I assume you are in and I'm sincerely hoping my assumption is correct. You could save us all a fortune apart from those at whose expense it was done.

As I said earlier Mr S--you're out of your depth and there is the proof.

Quote:

Which part of that is difficult to apply to my statements, exactly? Do you find it implausible that ignorance would be harmful or undesirable?

I certainly do. With no ignorance about I can't imagine where we would be. I'm amazed. Wouldn't you have 300,000,000 Nobel prize winners.

Quote:

spendius wrote:
But as I said before---you start where you finish with your own meanings. What comes in between is neither here nor there. You can put 50 paragraphs of " understanding of a modern, robust, economically and socially impactful field of knowledge" type of thing in the spaces and I'll notice the circle which goes around bad/damaging/suffer/shouldn't do.

Then explain the circle you've apparently noticed in sufficient detail such that I can know what the heck you're talking about. If you disagree that there is such a thing as modern science, or that it is robust, or economically impactful, or socially impactful, feel free to tell me. If you think the understading of science, if constituted partially in those things is not undesirable, feel free to tell me.

It's the circle round your skull like the one in Idiot Wind blowin' from the
Grand Coulee Dam to the Capitol. There's a circle round "bad/damaging/suffer/shouldn't do." Some men, or women, might say the roundel about marriage. Based on their subjective experience. Others would say the opposite. I think you said it about the bill in Louisiana. They voted you shite. More than a landslide.

All science is "modern science" on any day. How can I disagree there's such a thing as that. I'm sat in front of one of its most fantastic productions which is not finished yet and might look, to your grandkid's idea of modern science, like an antique. I suppose there's a chance it might look like some charred remains from the Badtimes. Fingers crossed eh?

I feel sure that at each stage of "modern science" it was felt to be robust, economically impactful and socially important. And in a variety of ways.

Quote:

spendius wrote:
We are not agreed on any of those words and we never will be while you rely upon them to make your points.

Then you know how to remedy it, don't you? State a simple opinion on the issue and get to it. So far I've been under the impression that you're simply incompetent.

It has been mutually agreed that I'm incompetent for so long now that I have learned to live with it. It is safe to assume your impression is close to the truth. My highest snooker break is 69 and when I watch the experts play I am forced to conclude that I'm useless at snooker. I was proud of once having shot a 72 until I imagined Jack Nicklaus going round the same course. With 30 putts he would have been in the 50s. I don't worry about being incompetent. But I can tell you do. You wouldn't keep going on about it otherwise.

How can I offer a "simple opinion" when I have no opinions. What sort of thing would a scientist have an opinion about?

0 Replies

BTW S.

Asserting that I'm incompetent is the same, identical I mean, to all intents and purposes, leaving out differences in calligraphy and pronunciation, with saying that the Lousiana bill is "damaging". I mean identical in meaning as two zeros are identical.

But you didn't say I was incompetent. You only said that you had an impression that I am.

My impression of you, for what it's worth, is that you're 3 parts gaga and 1 part wannabe jumping jack flash. The gaga part being the blissful ignorance of the class of the jumping jack flashes there are out there and of what they did to get as good as they are.

We can't avoid having impressions of each other.

Try this--close your eyes watching TV and when a talking voice comes on, one you don't know I mean, try finding an impression and then open your eyes to see how near you got.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

BTW S.

Asserting that I'm incompetent is the same, identical I mean, to all intents and purposes, leaving out differences in calligraphy and pronunciation, with saying that the Louisiana bill is "damaging". I mean identical in meaning as two zeros are identical.

But you didn't say I was incompetent. You only said that you had an impression that I am.

My impression of you, for what it's worth, is that you're 3 parts gaga and 1 part wannabe jumping jack flash. The gaga part being the blissful ignorance of the class of the jumping jack flashes there are out there and of what they did to get as good as they are.

We can't avoid having impressions of each other.

Try this--close your eyes watching TV and when a talking voice comes on, one you don't know I mean, try finding an impression and then open your eyes to see how near you got.

spendi, Is this how you whittle away your time? Kind of confirms my vision of you. LOL

0 Replies

Well-I must admit that after a few minutes, I'm not sure how many, that I doze off.

I could doze off in the back of a Jeep on unpaved routes which had had the padded seats stripped out so that "the folks back home" could have a marginally better time of it.

All you need do to doze off is close your eyes and concentrate on something so interesting that you don't want to stop concentrating on it. Such as how many square yards of Chinese silk have to be imported to make those bloomers that sell in Harrods for £59.99 (reduced to clear). Not only does that knock you out quick but it also has the additional advantage of putting you into the correct frame of mind for being semi-comatosed.

The temperature needs to be acceptable it goes without saying. A belly full of John Smith's Extra Smooth helps as well.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know