Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 46 of 305 (453325)
02-01-2008 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by randman
01-27-2008 8:42 PM


Re: you prove my case
quote:
Evos have resorted to the courts to silence criticism of their theory.
False.
They went to the courts to keep religion out of public school science classrooms.
Anyone is free to criticize any part of Biology or Genetics, both inside and outside the profession of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by randman, posted 01-27-2008 8:42 PM randman has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 47 of 305 (453327)
02-01-2008 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by randman
01-31-2008 6:22 PM


Re: one thing is clear
quote:
Evos are arguing students should be kept from hearing creationist and ID arguments.
Should Holocaust deniers be given equal time to present their arguments in History class, and are mainstream historians just trying to protect students from hearing the arguments?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 6:22 PM randman has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 48 of 305 (453337)
02-01-2008 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Buzsaw
01-30-2008 3:08 PM


Re: Sometime Within 20 Years
Buzsaw writes:
Sometime within 20 years:
1. They might discuss/study/debate some of the displays and claims of the creationist museums whereas now they're pretty much ignored or pshawed as bogus.
Scientists are debating it here, at Pharyngula, Panda's Thumb, IIDB, and so on, except when they are laughing out loud about that dinosaur with the saddle on it's back, among other absurdities.
2. Much if not most of the creo museum display is actual observable evidence of something relative to archeological research, excavation etc. This could be studied/debated/discussed relative to both ideologies.
They have been, *newsflash* the scientific verdict is in, you guys have nothing but the unfounded claims of a cult of willful ignorance.
3. Likely secularists would finally research the Nuweiba beach/sandbar at Aquaba and the corroborating evidence in the region relative to the Biblical Exodus. That's just one example of things needing more research etc.
I wish some unbiased researcher with 'actual' academic credentials would do so as well. But we both know you would ignore any finding that did not support your preconceived notions.
4. The Biblical global flood then being on the table, other perspectives than the conventional would be studied relative to pre-flood atmospheric conditions, terrarium possibilities and what effect a pre-flood atmosphere might have on modern dating methodology, etc.
You and your cronies have to show how each and every Message 2 is not valid first, or your table has no legs.
5. Things like levitation and such might be discussed relative to claims of the accult as is claimed.
Funny how those fundies believe in everything except science. Would you also support discussions in science class concerning the claims to divinity presented by David Koresh or Charles Manson? When would anyone have time to actually study science?
6. Phenomena of particles, etc which appear to emerge in and out of existence might be discussed relative to metaphysical phenomena such as unseen powers in view of observed behavior of humans involving good and evil unseen powers/beings we call angels and demons. These have been widely into human cultures from the beginning of recorded history. Are these related to particle phenomena, etc. These might be on the table.
Are you a good quark, or a bad quark?
Apologies to the Wizard of Oz
7. Mathmatical probabilities of abiogenesis, RM and NS might be included in science curriculum. Other math probability studies might be the corroborative multitudes of properties of atmosphere, solar system positions, earth properties, etc needful for life to even exist. These all would be open to study.
The first point is already dismissed by anyone who knows squat about probability and statistics because they know about the phrase 'garbage in, garbage out.' The second is being studied already, you just don't like the answers.
8. Funding might be more evenhanded to include some aspects of nonconventional research, archeology and studies.
Through taxation, or more succinctly "at the end of a barrel of a gun" I presume? Why not get one of your megachurches to fund it instead of the preacher's third Rolls?
9. More creo research and study would flush out the false and lend credibility to the factual relative to all aspects of scientific study, archeology and research.
AIG, ICR, and other anti-science organizations have provided nothing after 100 years of 'creation science', why think 20 more would make any difference?
10. The stigma might be somewhat alleviated relative to creo peer review accessability and employment fairhandedness.
Sorry fundie preachers and their flock don't get to referee scientific journals. Would you like for scientists to referee your church's sermons and other religious statements?
I could go on and on. If the playing field were leveled for all imo, we'd all be a whole lot more apprised and intelligent. The kiddies all the way up through higher education would then be knowledgeable so as to decide for themselves what to think rather than to have exclusive conventionalist mush stuffed into their heads throughout their lives.
I couldn't agree more. Let's start with the anti-science, anti-economics, anti-national, anti-democratic, and anti-rational hogwash being shoved down everyone's throats on Sunday morning or take away their tax-exempt status.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Buzsaw, posted 01-30-2008 3:08 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 49 of 305 (453416)
02-02-2008 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Buzsaw
02-01-2008 8:31 PM


Re: one thing is clear
Yes, buz, I did see the post you direct me to, however it wasn't the one I was replying to. I was replying to Post 41 your entire text reads
randman writes:
You'd think if they felt their views were so much more supported factually that they would welcome the chance to have them presented side by side with their critics, but that's not the case.
This is true. I've alluded to that as well. If ID is as nonsensical as our counterparts like to think it is what better way for them to show that to be the case than to educate students regarding both POVs side by side.
I am providing a suggestion to the statement you make which says
If ID is as nonsensical as our counterparts like to think it is what better way for them to show that to be the case than to educate students regarding both POVs side by side.
My reply is very specific to that statement and refers to absolutely nothing in the post that you directed me to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Buzsaw, posted 02-01-2008 8:31 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 50 of 305 (453439)
02-02-2008 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by randman
01-31-2008 6:22 PM


Re: one thing is clear
The non-evos appear to be the more open-minded and less inclined towards indoctrination as they (we) are arguing for more openness in the class-room and both or perhaps more than "both" sides be taught in schools.
Really? Why is it that fishboy in Message 1 is looking online for references for his Christian biology class? Does he not know where to go to look for scientific papers?
We've all read through the ID and creationist "papers" and we know where to find them. My little sister's 7th grade bio teacher in the middle of BFE Florida knows about the AiG sites and she regularly reads relevant literature in the biological sciences.
Meanwhile, are Christian school teachers actually looking at the "other side?" Do they actually teach the ToE as it is or as Hovind explains it?
Do Christian school teachers have time to go over every piece of evidence and provide the "alternate interpretation?" Would they?
No.
Are creationist parents being given an accurate overview of evolution in order to teach their kids or even educate themselves?
Or is the "teach the controversy" really one-sided?
It's funny (but not really) how there is plenty of literature out there for anyone to learn about evolution (or geology,physics,chemistry,etc), but the only problem is that you actually have to know something about it and you have to specialize in order to know about it in detail. However, in order to know (as a teacher, student, interested observer) about creation all you have to do is read a few websites and/or trust your pastor/guest speaker/someone trying to sell videos/books.
You can get all you need to know off of YouTube! Or a video off of TBN for $14.95!!
And then you can let 15 year olds decide what is true! What a great idea! No experience necessary!
That is why creationists/IDists want to get into the secondary school levels. Because kids with only a basic understanding can decide what is science better than those with a degree either way?
Please note that I said "either way."
Letting children decide science is a bad idea no matter what.
That is why we have an open internet system and expansive bookstores in this country. It's not like the kids are forced to accept anything (especially if their parents/friends/pastors disagree). Unless the schools or bookstores or internet access are censored or marginalized (any sense of scientific censorship? Any websites that are off limits? Didn't think so.)
Knowledge is a great thing no matter what prompts it. And it is all out there.

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 6:22 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Beretta, posted 02-02-2008 11:44 AM Jaderis has not replied

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 51 of 305 (453452)
02-02-2008 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Buzsaw
01-31-2008 2:11 PM


Re: Sometime Within 20 Years
Buzsaw writes:
8. Funding might be more evenhanded to include some aspects of nonconventional research, archeology and studies.
Tanypteryx writes:
The various ID/Creationist organizations already have $millions that they are spending on lawyers and campaigns to get their doctrine into science classes. It would be better spent on research. Do you mean they would like to fund conventional, real scientific research?
I find it funny that Buz omitted this portion in his response. He asked about funding and was given a reason why money wasn't spent on pet creationist projects. Perhaps he might rather not think about all of the millions of dollars that are being wasted on PR and lawyer's fees (you might want to ask your pals at the DI or those lobbying the gov't) instead of funding his precious archaeological digs or actual scientific research.
Nice dodge, Buz.
You answered (kinda) all of the rebuttals except for this one...why is that?

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Buzsaw, posted 01-31-2008 2:11 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 52 of 305 (453488)
02-02-2008 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Jaderis
02-02-2008 8:34 AM


Re: one thing is clear
Letting children decide science is a bad idea no matter what.
However, allowing children to see that it is not necessarily categorically proven that macroevolution by random mutation is 'truth'is a very good idea -no matter what you think is true.
Allow them to think rather than rely on materialistic dogma -that's the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Jaderis, posted 02-02-2008 8:34 AM Jaderis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Coyote, posted 02-02-2008 12:07 PM Beretta has replied
 Message 54 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-02-2008 12:20 PM Beretta has replied
 Message 55 by nator, posted 02-02-2008 5:36 PM Beretta has replied
 Message 71 by LinearAq, posted 02-05-2008 12:30 PM Beretta has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 53 of 305 (453490)
02-02-2008 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Beretta
02-02-2008 11:44 AM


Re: one thing is clear
quote:
However, allowing children to see that it is not necessarily categorically proven that macroevolution by random mutation is 'truth'is a very good idea -no matter what you think is true.
Allow them to think rather than rely on materialistic dogma -that's the point.
As promoted in the current debate, the alternative to "materialistic dogma" (a code phrase for science and rationalism) is not "allowing them to think" but rather propagandizing students with religious dogma based ultimately on divine revelation -- which requires the exact opposite of thinking.
And that religious dogma, in spite of the current propaganda encouraging such, will not be subject to "critical thinking" as to do so would constitute "anti-Christian bigotry."
Part of this agenda for the next 20 years was laid out explicitly in the Wedge Strategy. There is no reason to think that, having been exposed, the Wedge Strategy has been abandoned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Beretta, posted 02-02-2008 11:44 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Beretta, posted 02-03-2008 7:31 AM Coyote has replied

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 54 of 305 (453492)
02-02-2008 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Beretta
02-02-2008 11:44 AM


Re: one thing is clear
Beretta writes:
However, allowing children to see that it is not necessarily categorically proven that macroevolution by random mutation is 'truth'is a very good idea -no matter what you think is true.
Allow them to think rather than rely on materialistic dogma -that's the point.
The point is, that students should not be taught any dogma. In order to learn to think critically they should be taught the definition of a scientific theory and how it is different from an hypothesis. They should be taught that science is always tentative, that in science nothing is ever "categorically proven". They should understand that science is not about dogma or indoctrination, but is about trying to organize observations and evidence in a coherent way that describes the natural world.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Beretta, posted 02-02-2008 11:44 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Beretta, posted 02-03-2008 7:35 AM Tanypteryx has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 55 of 305 (453527)
02-02-2008 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Beretta
02-02-2008 11:44 AM


Re: one thing is clear
quote:
However, allowing children to see that it is not necessarily categorically proven that macroevolution by random mutation is 'truth'is a very good idea -no matter what you think is true.
Allow them to think rather than rely on materialistic dogma -that's the point.
1) Nobody would teach that since it isn't what evolution claims.
You forgot about the exceedingly non-random part of evolution that is natural selection.
Selection Selection Selection Selection Selection Selection Selection
You Evolution-deniers have a crippling mental block that apparently renders you all incapable of remembering that there are two mechanisms required for evolution; random mutation AND natural selection.
2) It isn't necessarily categorically proven that the mainstream Historical account of the Holocaust is true. There are some people who believe that the version of this historical event taught in schools is inaccurate and dogmatic.
Should we encourage children to consider Holocaust-denial theories just as valid as the mainstream ones?
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Beretta, posted 02-02-2008 11:44 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Beretta, posted 02-03-2008 7:42 AM nator has replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 56 of 305 (453565)
02-03-2008 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Coyote
02-02-2008 12:07 PM


Re: one thing is clear
As promoted in the current debate, the alternative to "materialistic dogma" (a code phrase for science and rationalism)
Materialistic dogma is actually the same as philisophical naturalism/materialism -ie. you believe that all things can be explained by internal factors -matter is all there is -there is nothing acting from outside the system (supernatural)so everything must be from within. This tends to be equated with science and rationalism but is it?
You don't know that that is true -you assume it and then base everything on that assumption.But if you're wrong???
What if there is a supernatural element to creation? If there was, you would predict (according to the Biblical version) that all creatures vary within a range but have limits and that fossils will show up suddenly and be fully developed, (not becoming anything new), just there.They would remain in a recognizable form for the duration of their appearance in the fossil record and then would become extinct (vanish from the record) or be pretty much the same form as what we see today ie.clams = clams = clams (no matter where we find them -alive or dead and fossilized). That's what you would predict if there is a supernatural creator outside the system.
So you have two possibilities -you can't prove either, but you have to decide based on the evidence and not on your preconceptions.
Philisophical naturalism, if it is true, would predict that simple organisms came about by natural processes that just happened to organize themselves into a form that has life. These simple organisms would them mutate along the way and natural selection would select and retain those mutations that had an advantage of some sort that allowed them to survive better.With time, according to the theory, simple organisms would become more complex by these chance mutations coupled with natural selection acting on them.
By this means, you would predict that organisms would gradually change from one form into another by a gradual process with small morphological changes occurring incrementally along the way.
So you have two philosophies. neither provable, both making predictions about what we should find if the one or the other were true.
So it may seem rational and scientific to you to assume no external forces. You may even say well we can't prove there's a supernatural element in created things so, in the absence of proof, we assume the other is true (also in the absence of proof).
Instead we should be saying, what are the predictions that each belief system makes and which one better fits the evidence?
One thing is certain, one is right and the other is wrong.
So should we teach the material belief system as fact if there's a possibility that the other is true???
What ID is saying is that evolutionists are dogmatically insisting that their belief system is true and factual and they will not allow the evidence against that system to be taught.
No-one is saying that the other (intelligent design) should replace evolution, only that both should be allowed to be considered as possible scenarios in the absence of absolute proof for either.
So there you have it -critical thinking replacing dogma.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Coyote, posted 02-02-2008 12:07 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Coyote, posted 02-03-2008 12:27 PM Beretta has replied
 Message 63 by bluegenes, posted 02-03-2008 4:12 PM Beretta has replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 57 of 305 (453566)
02-03-2008 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Tanypteryx
02-02-2008 12:20 PM


Re: one thing is clear
Please see Message 56 as a clarification of what I'm saying.
I agree, no dogma in the absence of proof.
Two competing hypotheses and their evidences presented as possibilities, neither to be held dogmatically since neither is proven.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-02-2008 12:20 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by FliesOnly, posted 02-05-2008 7:15 AM Beretta has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 58 of 305 (453568)
02-03-2008 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by nator
02-02-2008 5:36 PM


Re: one thing is clear
Selection Selection Selection Selection Selection Selection Selection
Just because it wasn't mentioned specifically in that particular message does not mean that anyone has forgotten it -please see Message 56 as further clarification of my point.So just to be clear there is no mental block and no ID proponent has ever denied natural selection as fact -they just don't believe that natural selection combined with mutation have any sort of creative ability.
Should we encourage children to consider Holocaust-denial theories just as valid as the mainstream ones?
No we should show the historical evidence for the holocaust, photos, newspapers,historical documentation, eye-witness accounts and then mention (possibly) that some people deny it despite the evidence presented. Then leave it to them to decide whether it happened or not.
Edited by Beretta, : Incomplete

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by nator, posted 02-02-2008 5:36 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by nator, posted 02-03-2008 2:30 PM Beretta has replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 59 of 305 (453570)
02-03-2008 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Tanypteryx
01-30-2008 3:40 PM


Re: Aims determine 20 year destination
Tanypteryx writes:
Randman claims that introducing ID into science classes would lead to students developing better critical thinking skills. If he is right, once they apply those newly gained skills to the silly idea that ID is science, they will reject it completely.
If they will reject them conpletely what's the point fo wasting the time in class? Surely that time could be better spent on teaching subjects that will not be rejected because they are obviously only valid if you beleive.
The school of the future would have at least a year devoted to fairies, astrology, tarot, ID etc; just so the eager student can reject them complelty

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-30-2008 3:40 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Beretta, posted 02-06-2008 1:12 AM Larni has replied

Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 60 of 305 (453574)
02-03-2008 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Buzsaw
01-31-2008 6:39 PM


Bump
Still waiting for a reply to my message 42

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Buzsaw, posted 01-31-2008 6:39 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024