|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Cdesign proponentist troll recruiting center | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dirk Member (Idle past 4024 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
Hi Jar,
How would that create revenue for the author of the textbook? Oh, I don't question your analysis of that question (I replied to you instead of Dr. A., my mistake). My concern was with this one:
(2) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth 40% of your grade) I have no idea how these religious "universities" operate (there's nothing of the sort in my home country), but I can imagine that prospective students are quite religious anyway and are already convinced of the significance of ID.* So, instead of asking for the obvious, it might be better to use them as an ID "think tank" and have them work on the real-world issues that ID is facing. * As a besides, I would be interested to see how many students drop out of such programs because they become convinced of the fact that they are being taught complete nonsense... Edited by Dirk, : copy-edit
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I have no idea how these religious "universities" operate (there's nothing of the sort in my home country), but I can imagine that prospective students are quite religious anyway and are already convinced of the significance of ID.* So, instead of asking for the obvious, it might be better to use them as an ID "think tank" and have them work on the real-world issues that ID is facing. The Avoidance Education system is I believe, uniquely American. The basic (although seldom admitted) reason is that Biblical, Fundamental Christians found out that when their kids were actually exposed to real science, geology, astronomy, history, physics, biology, ethics, philosophy, economics, mathematics, statistics, even theology the kids did realize that they were being taught absolute nonsense and so did leave the fold. They left in droves, herds, gaggles, murders, prides, shrewdnesses, troops, flanges, shoals, batteries, flocks, ... and every other collective noun imaginable including a wisdom. (extra credit for the first person to point to the critter referred to by the collective wisdom). The answer was simple. If it was possible to avoid exposing the kids to all the knowledge out there, then they would not question the nonsense. So a whole growth industry was born in the US, Avoidance Schools, Avoidance textbooks so the kids could be taught at home and unexposed, Avoidance Accreditation Panels, Avoidance Peer Review Processes, a whole society built around the concept that we already have the answer, no questions need apply. And thus this thread. Note that there is no requirement to actually debate, only to propagandize, no requirement to test the quality of the posts or their effectiveness, only the quantity, no need to examine responses, just preach the Gospel.
* As a besides, I would be interested to see how many students drop out of such programs because they become convinced of the fact that they are being taught complete nonsense... Likely far fewer than you might imagine. It is only later, when they actually get out of school and out of the insulation of the Avoidance Society that they get challenged. And then only if they enter a field where information is open and free flowing. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3292 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined:
|
You've actually inadvertantly hit the nail on its head on this one. The problem with any non-scientific alternative explanations to anything is that they go by the lazy route and try to convince the ignorant masses to achieve their agenda. In science, everything is tested over and over by experts. But in non-scientific disciplines like ID everything tend to forego the rigorous testing part and goes straight to being taught to students and the public. Since when did we qualify students to be capable of rigorous criticism of a discipline?
This whole "teach the controversy" bullshit relies entirely on the student's incapability to tell the difference between reality and bullshit. I know for a fact that back in high school had I been taught that the derivative of x is x^2 instead of 1, I would have accepted it whole-heartedly. Why? Because I didn't know any better. That's why I was a student instead of a teacher. By advocating we let the students decide on the issue of ID versus evolution, it's the same as letting them decide between the derivative of x being x^2 versus derivative of x being 1. Without external influence, we would expect it will be half and half. What's next? We should let the students decide between the heliocentric versus geocentric model? What about alchemy versus chemistry? How about modern medicine versus prayer? Teach the controversy and let the student decide is nothing but pure bullshit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4717 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Owls.
Be still, the demands I make upon your conscience are slight. It is only your flattery I seek, not your sincerity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You're a hoot.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Owls. I think that's a parliament.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4890 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
Apparently 'owls' is correct, although as Dr A. mentioned they're usually referred to as a parliament.
Likely far fewer than you might imagine. It is only later, when they actually get out of school and out of the insulation of the Avoidance Society that they get challenged. And then only if they enter a field where information is open and free flowing.
I think the number actually exposed to that evil atheistic modern science that denies God would be very low, but the rate of those that deconvert because of such exposure would be quite high. Not worth another post, so placing it here: I know for a fact that back in high school had I been taught that the derivative of x is x^2 instead of 1, I would have accepted it whole-heartedly. Why? Because I didn't know any better.
Seriously? d/dx x = 1 was kind of a straight corollary of the whole 'by first principles' thing.Kind of makes me wonder what kind of teacher would be giving all the specific examples instead of the rules by which to determine them. Edited by Nij, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yes, owls is correct.
Avoidance works. That is why they now have avoidance search engines, networks, channels, radio stations, schools, peer review groups, accreditation boards, and hope to redefine science. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tram law Member (Idle past 4705 days) Posts: 283 From: Weed, California, USA Joined: |
Those who say they are proponents of ID because of science don't really understand science.
ID is not science because it can not be tested and verified with measurable results. Plus, if we were Intelligently Designed, well, the body was pretty badly designed. Our teeth rot, we age, we're subjected to disease. It seems to me that an Intelligent Designer would work to eliminate flaws from a body and make it as efficient as possible. And make the world far less hostile to its inhabitants.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
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. So the judge was and is an idiot, much the same way you scientologists cant understand how evidence works? Big deal. This is why we always challenge you clowns to public debates (thats actually in person, if you dont understand), only to watch the excuses fly as to why you cannot accept. Oh yeah, Flew and Matson gave it a whirl and we saw HOW that turned out. I understand why you dont accept, dont be embarrased, anybody can shout loudly from quite, noisless websites The judge was under pressure as a civil represenative to side with those he thought would have the most influence later on. This happens all the time He was not only an idiot but a coward to boot Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member Posts: 3571 Joined: |
I have no idea how these religious "universities" operate (there's nothing of the sort in my home country), but I can imagine that prospective students are quite religious anyway and are already convinced of the significance of ID.* Oh I love this one. How IDers start with a conclusion and then look for evidence to support it.While this is in no way true, would you mean the same way Darwin started with a conclusion by observation in the 1800s, then it took everybody else running around looking for the evidence to support his conclusions and preconcieved notions You mean that kind of "significance of evolution"? Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined:
|
Dawn Bertot
thats why he predicted they would find evidence if they would not there would be no evolution, what does ID predict ? How can it be falsified? What assumptions are yet to be proven and can they be left out ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Oh I love this one. How IDers start with a conclusion and then look for evidence to support it. While this is in no way true, would you mean the same way Darwin started with a conclusion by observation in the 1800s, then it took everybody else running around looking for the evidence to support his conclusions and preconcieved notions You mean that kind of "significance of evolution"? If you didn't post about things you didn't understand, you'd post a lot less often. One of these things appears to be the scientific method. You have already had several threads to be thoroughly wrong about that topic; this one is about something else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4890 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
While this is in no way true, would you mean the same way Darwin started with a conclusion by observation in the 1800s, then it took everybody else running around looking for the evidence to support his conclusions and preconcieved notions
Oh, you mean how he spent over a decade compiling research to develop his hypothesis, then spent further years trying to get it even heard by his peers, then a majority of the scientific community remaining unconvinced until further evidence -- which was predicted by his hypothesis -- was used to corroborate it? Yeah, funny how we evilutionists must always shoehorn the evidence to our views, instead of letting it guide us on our merry way right to the church's feet. Tell me, Dawn, what successful predictions have been made as the result of the design hypothesis? What evidence directly supports design? What experiments can we do to verify those results? See, that's the problem with you and other creotards. You have no research, you have no evidence, you have no predictions, you have no science. All you do is attack evolution and decry it as being "disproven", then try to claim a flase dichotomy and declare that therefore you are right and we should all start believing too.ID/creationism is just religious apologetics, trying to twist the world and make everyone believe what you believe. And as it happens, your snide rejoinder completely missed the point. Those students are supposed to provide an essay demonstrating, as part of the standard for the course, that ID has some theological significance. This says entirely nothing about ID/creationism's preconceived conclusions. Which all of us here know about, but that's off-topic. That you would take such an unambiguous discussion about why they are there and what they are supposed to demonstrate as part of the course, and infer that we are talking about ID/creationism's tendency to ignore evidence in favour of preconceived notions, says a lot about what you really see in it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
So the judge was and is an idiot, much the same way you scientologists cant understand how evidence works? Big deal. This is why we always challenge you clowns to public debates (thats actually in person, if you dont understand), only to watch the excuses fly as to why you cannot accept. The very fact that you call for debates instead of ID scientific research tells us that you don't know how science works.
The judge was under pressure as a civil represenative to side with those he thought would have the most influence later on. False. The judge was there to protect the Constituion, which he did. Look up the Lemon Test sometime and then tell us what secular uses ID has.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024