Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 156 (8134 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-01-2014 8:14 AM
112 online now:
JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ProtoTypical, RAZD, Theodoric, TrueCreation (7 members, 105 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tali_Zorah
Post Volume:
Total: 736,869 Year: 22,710/28,606 Month: 11/1,786 Week: 200/384 Day: 11/69 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345678Next
Author Topic:   Cdesign proponentist troll recruiting center
subbie
Member
Posts: 3358
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 16 of 107 (519042)
08-10-2009 8:38 PM


Dembski in a snit
Seems Dembski's all het up over science types mocking his course requirements. Link

His first comment is that he thinks it "sticks in [Darwinists'] craw" that he sends his students out to post on hostile websites. I won't pretend to speak for anyone else, but it certainly doesn't stick in my craw. In fact, without a fairly regular infusion of fresh creo blood, this place gets rather stale. It would be nice if he'd coach them to raise something besides PRATTs, but then that wouldn't leave them much to say, would it?

Next, apparently he thinks

requir[ing] students to go to these websites and defend ID, it is sound pedagogy.
His emphasis.

I might agree if he required his students to actually engage in a debate, rather than simply hitting and running. I suppose it's possible that he makes it clear in class that engagement is required, but it's certainly not made clear in the on-line syllabus.

If all that's required is a certain quantity of writing, surely there'd be no need that it consist of forum board posts. If engagement is required, there's nothing online to suggest that. All of this suggests to me that my earlier supposition that Dembski thinks this somehow furthers some aspect of the Wedge Strategy is accurate.

Oh, also, apparently I'm projecting in calling them trolls. I acknowledge, as some have pointed out, that troll probably isn't technically accurate. So sue me.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 08-10-2009 9:04 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply
 Message 18 by Blue Jay, posted 08-10-2009 10:35 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15885
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 17 of 107 (519046)
08-10-2009 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by subbie
08-10-2009 8:38 PM


Re: Dembski in a snit: Let's challenge his students (to see if they think)
Hi subbie,

Perhaps we should issue a challenge: “Intelligent Design Supporters Strictly Welcomed -- all you have to do is support your claims with facts and answer all rebuttals.”

Perhaps we should start a new thread just for them.

Oh, also, apparently I'm projecting in calling them trolls. I acknowledge, as some have pointed out, that troll probably isn't technically accurate. So sue me.

There are various definitions of troll in internet usage

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/t/troll.html

quote:
(v.) (1) To deliberately post derogatory or inflammatory comments to a community forum, chat room, newsgroup and/or a blog in order to bait other users into responding.
(2) To surf the Internet.
(3) To hang around a chat room reading the posts instead of contributing to the chat.
(n.) One who performs any of the above actions.

Most people think of just a subset of the first, kids (usually) who try to annoy you to the point of losing it - not just bait a response but one that is angry and profane.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by subbie, posted 08-10-2009 8:38 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-01-2010 8:05 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 2615
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 18 of 107 (519059)
08-10-2009 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by subbie
08-10-2009 8:38 PM


Re: Dembski in a snit
Hi, Subbie.

subbie writes:

Next, apparently he thinks

quote:
requir[ing] students to go to these websites and defend ID, it is sound pedagogy.

His emphasis.

Sound pedagogy!!?

It's sound pedagogy to require students to defend a specific theory?

They certainly didn't teach us to do that in my classes! In fact, I got full credit for some writing assignments in which I attacked my own professor's work!

Sound pedagogy is not teaching students what to think: it's teaching them how to think.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by subbie, posted 08-10-2009 8:38 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Coyote, posted 08-10-2009 11:53 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 08-11-2009 7:29 AM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4731
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 19 of 107 (519062)
08-10-2009 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Blue Jay
08-10-2009 10:35 PM


Re: Dembski in a snit
Sound pedagogy is not teaching students what to think: it's teaching them how to think.

We have creation "science," and clearly now we have creation "pedagogy" as well.

These are, of course, the opposites of real science and real pedagogy.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Blue Jay, posted 08-10-2009 10:35 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15885
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 20 of 107 (519083)
08-11-2009 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Blue Jay
08-10-2009 10:35 PM


reality testing
Hi Bluejay,

Sound pedagogy!!?
It's sound pedagogy to require students to defend a specific theory?

My reading of it is that the arguments they use are supposed to be their own, and the question is whether they can stand up to scrutiny and survive testing against the evidence of reality.

subbie in Message 16

quote:
I might agree if he required his students to actually engage in a debate, rather than simply hitting and running. I suppose it's possible that he makes it clear in class that engagement is required, but it's certainly not made clear in the on-line syllabus.

I agree with subbie - if the purpose is for them to make an argument and then test it in the real world, that this would be a valid teaching tool. The test of this, though, is whether the students will be willing to admit when they are wrong.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Blue Jay, posted 08-10-2009 10:35 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15885
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 21 of 107 (519087)
08-11-2009 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by subbie
08-09-2009 2:57 PM


So iff ID is not a religious teaching ...
Hi again subbie, don't you find it curious that most of the grade for an ID (ID is not religion...?) course is based on religion?

Why is 40% of the undergraduate grade based on

quote:
(2) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth 40% of your grade);

The same question is asked for the "master's" program (30% of grade), plus

quote:
(2) write a 1,500- to 2,000-word critical review of Francis Collins’s The Language of God -- for instructions, see below (20% of your grade);

And the same two questions are again required for the "D.Min. course" adding

quote:
(4) develop a Sunday-school lesson plan based on the book Understanding Intelligent Design (worth 20% of your grade).

With not one (1) question about science?

I can't wait to see the "final" exam for these courses.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by subbie, posted 08-09-2009 2:57 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by subbie, posted 08-11-2009 3:12 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 26 by jar, posted 10-28-2010 10:23 PM RAZD has not yet responded
 Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-31-2010 12:37 AM RAZD has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3358
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 22 of 107 (519123)
08-11-2009 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD
08-11-2009 7:43 AM


Re: So iff ID is not a religious teaching ...
The only thing that I find curious is that it's so easily documented in a publicly accessible location that ID indoctrination . . . erm . . . education is based on religion. The religious basis of ID is an open secret to those who study it. All this does is provide further support for that conclusion.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 08-11-2009 7:43 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Coyote, posted 08-11-2009 3:51 PM subbie has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4731
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 23 of 107 (519126)
08-11-2009 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by subbie
08-11-2009 3:12 PM


Re: So iff ID is not a religious teaching ...
The only thing that I find curious is that it's so easily documented in a publicly accessible location that ID indoctrination . . . erm . . . education is based on religion. The religious basis of ID is an open secret to those who study it. All this does is provide further support for that conclusion.

Given the background that folks like Dembski are building, and the Dover decision, there is little chance that IDer's claims that ID is science will ever again be taken seriously.

They've done shoot themselves in the foot on this one.

Wonder what misrepresentations they'll cook up next.

Edited by Coyote, : Spelling


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by subbie, posted 08-11-2009 3:12 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by subbie, posted 08-11-2009 3:57 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member
Posts: 3358
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 24 of 107 (519127)
08-11-2009 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Coyote
08-11-2009 3:51 PM


Re: So iff ID is not a religious teaching ...
...there is little chance that IDer's claims that ID is science will ever again be taken seriously.

Sadly, I beg to differ. If Dover wasn't enough to convince someone of the religious nature of ID, this isn't going to make any difference. The best that we can hope for is that this will help win the next court, or perhaps legislative, battle.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Coyote, posted 08-11-2009 3:51 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by dokukaeru, posted 09-24-2009 3:25 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply

  
dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 1058 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 25 of 107 (525780)
09-24-2009 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by subbie
08-11-2009 3:57 PM


Re: So iff ID is not a religious teaching ...
marked so i can find this later
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by subbie, posted 08-11-2009 3:57 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply

    
jar
Member
Posts: 24676
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 26 of 107 (588896)
10-28-2010 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD
08-11-2009 7:43 AM


Re: So iff ID is not a religious teaching ...
And the same two questions are again required for the "D.Min. course" adding
quote:
(4) develop a Sunday-school lesson plan based on the book Understanding Intelligent Design (worth 20% of your grade).

Is it worth noting who the author of "the book Understanding Intelligent Design" might really be and whether there might be some financial interest in getting the book purchased for more Sunday Schools??


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 08-11-2009 7:43 AM RAZD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Dirk, posted 10-31-2010 11:06 AM jar has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12777
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 27 of 107 (589169)
10-31-2010 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD
08-11-2009 7:43 AM


Re: So iff ID is not a religious teaching ...
Why is 40% of the undergraduate grade based on

quote:
(2) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth 40% of your grade);

Well, they have to explain why ID is a defense of religious truthiness when they're raising funds from fundies, but has nothing whatsoever to do with religion when they're in front of a judge.

Surely that's worth 40% of a grade. Anyone who can do that in a mere 3,000 words could be the next St Thomas Aquinas.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 08-11-2009 7:43 AM RAZD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-01-2010 2:27 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dirk
Member (Idle past 467 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 28 of 107 (589186)
10-31-2010 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by jar
10-28-2010 10:23 PM


Final exam questions
Wouldn't be it a better idea to provide the students with the Dover trial final decision (or something similar, the list to choose from grows every year) and then have the students for their assignment try and refute it?

Of course, they are set up for failure in that way, but if someone would actually write a brilliant essay (from an ID perspective, that is), it might actually help the ID movement in getting where they want to be (in science-classrooms). I mean, that's the kind of thing they do in lawschool, right? So why not use that approach in ID, if they are so convinced of their own ideas?

Edited by Dirk, : tyop


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 10-28-2010 10:23 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Granny Magda, posted 10-31-2010 11:34 AM Dirk has not yet responded
 Message 30 by jar, posted 10-31-2010 12:28 PM Dirk has responded
 Message 33 by Taz, posted 10-31-2010 5:55 PM Dirk has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 9 days)
Posts: 2284
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 29 of 107 (589188)
10-31-2010 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dirk
10-31-2010 11:06 AM


Re: Final exam questions
Hi Dirk and welcome to EvC.

Here is my suggestion for the final exam question on Southwestern Baptist's ID course;

1) Have you accepted our Lord Jesus Christ as your personal saviour? YES/NO

(Worth 100% of grade)

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dirk, posted 10-31-2010 11:06 AM Dirk has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 24676
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 30 of 107 (589191)
10-31-2010 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dirk
10-31-2010 11:06 AM


Re: Final exam questions
How would that create revenue for the author of the textbook?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dirk, posted 10-31-2010 11:06 AM Dirk has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Dirk, posted 10-31-2010 12:54 PM jar has responded

  
Prev1
2
345678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014