|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2504 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
I've just looked at your post, and re-read the O.P., Beretta, and I realise that we'll be drifting well off the O.P. topic if I reply, the topic being about what the U.S. would be like after 20 years of learning religion in the science classes, so I probably shouldn't continue.
Just briefly, you express concern about the lack of information on bird bone evolution somewhere in your post, so you'll be pleased to know that cladistics has identified over 80 common characteristics between the bones of birds and theropods. Also, that some theropods do have hollow bones. And that several flightless dinosaurs with feathers and early birds with teeth have been identified.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22498 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
I haven't been keeping up with this thread, so maybe someone has mentioned this already, but I wonder if a curriculum that included creationism/ID might cause science-minded parents to begin abandoning the public school system, switching to home schooling and to private schools with quality science programs.
There's a related aspect to this. Creationism/ID would have to overcome a number of court challenges before becoming part of the curriculum, and these challenges would likely continue long afterward. Such an outcome would likely mean a dramatic reinterpretation of the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state, and this would likely have wide-ranging ramifications beyond school systems. The 10 commandments would be permitted in courthouses, as would creche displays on public property. Bible study classes might become part of school curriculums. The religious conservative assertion that we are a Christian nation would have become a reality. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4172 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Cold Foreign Object writes: Never? As in "not ever"? You sure about this? You might want to check in the I.D. movement with a little more vigor before making a statement like this.
ID is not a theory, it never claimed to be a theory. CFO writes: NO, I.D. is not an observation. Well, I suppose you could call it an observation in exactly the same way as me seeing green fairies riding on the backs of pink unicorns is an observation. ID is an observation, however. Regardless, even if we grant you that I.D is somehow observable...how do you test that? What's you scientific method? What are you going to teach? I basically see a 1-2 second lecture that states "God did it"...class dismissed". What are your plans for the remaining 2958 seconds of that class day (assuming a 50 minute lecture), and then the remaining days of the semester?
CFO writes: Well, in looking at some of "his" designs, I'd have to say that in reality "he" falls pretty low on the intelligence scale.
The current ID movement, which I will call DI IDism, says reality owes its existence to intelligence. CFO writes: Not quite. The ToE is a scientifically based, plausible explanation of the diversity of life we see on this planet. It most certainly is NOT a predetermined conclusion. It is based on decades of rigorous scientific testing of observable phenomena. It in no way makes any conclusions or statements in any way related to the Divine. It doesn't need to. It can explain the diversity of life we see without the need for divine explanations.
On the other hand, evolution is a predetermined conclusion based on a philosophical presupposition that says biological reality is not the product of Divine causation. CFO writes: The ToE is in no way a supposition. I.D., on the other hand, is a classic example of a supposition, so your premise is false from the outset. I look around at nature, and I see no evidence of an intelligent designer. I see evidence best explained by use of the scientific method (which you already admitted is nonexistent in I.D), so I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here.
This supposition exists in defiance of the observation of design seen in every aspect of nature and organisms. CFO writes: Well, I'll have to give you credit for coming right out and stating that you really despise the United States and want, instead, to live in a pseudo-christian theocracy. How very disturbing.
We intend to reverse the corruption of the U.S. Constitution from the stranglehold of anti-religious fanatics and teach school children that God is the Creator responsible for the observation of design seen in reality. CFO writes: Pro-Atheism corruption of the Constitution? What the fuck does that mean? Are you claiming the the Framers of the Constitution were atheists? Or are you claiming that more recent pro-atheists (and WTF is a "pro-atheist" anyway? Is it someone who is not a atheist, but supports them nonetheless?) have corrupted our Constitution? Please explain to us how pro-atheists have corrupted our Constitution? The abolition of slavery? Racial and Women's suffrage? Are these some of the atheist corruptions of which you speak?
The pro-Atheism corruption of the Constitution... CFO writes: Hey, here's an idea. Rather than waiting around for this Country to fall into ruin, why don't you just pick up and move to an already existing theocracy. There's plenty of them out there, so why wait?
...will be vacated wholistically one day in the semi-near future, and there is nothing you can do about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Baretta writes: That's just dumb of course -silly comparison -we would only teach those things that have some scientific backing ok? This is where u phail: ID has no scientific background. Scientist agree, the Courts in the US agree, the government of the UK agree. The only people who disagree are religious. So, as you say. I.D. (with no scientific background) should not be taught out side of church. This is now a PRATT: end of story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5624 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Well if you'd be more specific about the 'ignorant crap' it would help. Not everything I believe would I advocate being taught in a science classroom. In fact if they just taught the evidence for evolution and the evidence against the major icons of evolution that are taught regularly in classrooms, I would be totally satisfied. But they seem to be too scared to allow children to doubt the official dogma.Surely if it were such rubbish, it would go away in time? Instead it just keeps gaining momentum...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Beretta writes: In fact if they just taught the evidence for evolution and the evidence against the major icons of evolution." All the evidence we have supports the ToE. All of the "evidence aginst evolution" consists of gross scientific distortions peddled by religious activists. If you want to teach ID to kids you need something to teach beyond "evolution is wrong". I have asked twice for a ID hypothesis. You have pointedly ignored these requests. How is it coming on? Without a useful hypothesis you have NOTHING to teach, end of argument! Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5624 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
1. Who or what did the designing 2. How was it done? Well I know what I think but that's not the point -science would not need to go into that -then it would turn into theology and nobody intends that -that's just the rubbish evolutionists sprout to one another to keep every other evolutionist in the dark about the real argument.
You have no evidence I've said before and I'll say it again -neither side has proof nor can have, the argument is about history and what happened. We all work with the facts -this looks like that, this was found there etc but we have different ways of interpreting the facts. We happen to believe that the ID interpretation of the facts makes more sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4172 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Beretta writes: Can you explain wtf this means? In fact if they just taught the evidence for evolution and the evidence against the major icons of evolution that are taught regularly in classrooms,... The ToE, by definition, is the evidence "for" evolution...otherwise it wouldn't be called the ToE. It's nice to know that we agree that the ToE should be taught in science classrooms. But what are these major icons against the ToE? Are you referring to the lack of evidence? We teach that all the time? When we don't know something, we say as much. What we don't do, when faced with something we don't know, is say something like: "Therefore we can properly conclude that God did it". Is that what you're asking us to do...to fill in those blanks with a Divine explanation? Sorry...no can do. Hey...you ever going to supply that elusive I.D. hypothesis that I, and now RickJB, have been asking for? It would certainly be a HUGE step forward in your desire to see I.D. taught in our children's classroom as a valid, plausible science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5624 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Well, in looking at some of "his" designs, I'd have to say that in reality "he" falls pretty low on the intelligence scale Well we humans are a lot dumber, we know what's going on inside a cell but we can't seem to make even the simplest of life from scratch.If mutation is happening all the time and entropy is going on all the time, isn't it just possible that what you are seeing now is the corrupted version of the original creation? Maybe that's why the design starts to look shabby.
It in no way makes any conclusions or statements in any way related to the Divine. Well if evolution is what it seems to be according to the evolutionist, what would there be for the creator to do? Nothing it seems. So you see God is removed from the equation just by presupposing material causes for everything and that is making a statement about God.
It can explain the diversity of life we see without the need for divine explanations. We could all explain it but is it true? We have to make it up from what we can observe because nobody was there to see it happen.
I look around at nature, and I see no evidence of an intelligent designer. Well there you are you see. If you can look around and see the things on this earth and conclude that no intelligence was required to produce intelligence and beauty and variety, then you are (as the Bible says) without excuse.
The abolition of slavery? Racial and Women's suffrage? Are these some of the atheist corruptions of which you speak? Wow, I somehow doubt that atheists were responsible for that - you're actually talking about the positive side-effects of a Christian mindset.Atheists are all about survival of the fittest aren't they?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 7.7 |
quote: Well we humans are a lot dumber, we know what's going on inside a cell but we can't seem to make even the simplest of life from scratch.If mutation is happening all the time and entropy is going on all the time, isn't it just possible that what you are seeing now is the corrupted version of the original creation? Maybe that's why the design starts to look shabby. Dumber than what? The fact that we don't have all of the answers does not mean that the answers we do have are not highly accurate. Your "corruption of the original creation" idea shows that you don't understand what entropy and mutation are.
quote: Well if evolution is what it seems to be according to the evolutionist, what would there be for the creator to do? Nothing it seems. So you see God is removed from the equation just by presupposing material causes for everything and that is making a statement about God. So your god is the "god of the gaps." Have fun being pushed into smaller and smaller corners as we discover more about the world. I'm sure living in the stone age is fun for you. You know, if the heliocentric model is what it seems to be according to astronomers, what would there be for the creator to do? I mean, he wouldn't need to be pushing the Sun around the sky! So you see god is removed from the equation just by presupposing material causes for everything and that is making a statement about god. You haven't thought this through very hard have you.
quote: We could all explain it but is it true? We have to make it up from what we can observe because nobody was there to see it happen. If you see a tree lying down in a forest, would you really argue that it might not have fallen just becasue there wasn't anybody around to see it fall? Because that's the ridiculous argument you just made.
quote: Well there you are you see. If you can look around and see the things on this earth and conclude that no intelligence was required to produce intelligence and beauty and variety, then you are (as the Bible says) without excuse. Exactly what leads you to believe an "intelligent" designer is responsible? Your incredulity at the opposite? Your appeal to the authority of a musty old collection of stoneage mythology? Your ignorance of the science you claim is incorrect?
quote: Wow, I somehow doubt that atheists were responsible for that - you're actually talking about the positive side-effects of a Christian mindset.Atheists are all about survival of the fittest aren't they? You're right that Atheists were not responsible for either of those - it was a combination of multiple faiths (and possibly Atheists - it hasn't been very safe to be an Atheist until recent times) deciding that the previous religious justifications for slavery and denying women the right to vote were wrong. And I take offense to your ignorant statement regarding Atheists and "survival of the fittest." Atheists do not believe in deities, but we do almost unanimously hold human life and happiness in the utmost regard, and care for the sick and poor. In fact, since we don't believe in an afterlife, this life is vastly more important to us than to the religious - it's all we have. The Theory of Evolution does state that those most fit for their environments will survive to spawn the next generation. But the Theory of Evolution is not a model for morality - that's a human construct, and one we Atheists are perfectly capable of forming rationally on our own. When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5624 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
I have asked twice for a ID hypothesis. You have pointedly ignored these requests. How is it coming on? I have no interest in giving you or flies only an ID hypothesis. Go'n look on an ID website. I just happen to like and support what I have read on the topic. This is not the forum for that in any case. Are you pretending you have never heard the Id hypothesis or are you asking me to copy it so that you can rip it apart? What is your point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Care to elaborate on the scientific background you claim I.D. has?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4703 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
LinearAq writes:
Beretta replies: Medicine would require prayer and fasting as a prerequisite to surgery.Again you're missing the point -while praying may be a good idea, we are talking about science and nobody has any intention on changing it to anything else. Get a grip. Since you don't believe this to be so, could you point out what would disqualify these ideas as scientific theories yet leave ID as a viable scientific theory?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Beretta writes: What is your point? The point is that there is no ID science to teach. Both you and I know that ID has no theory and no testable hypotheses, so please refrain from fobbing me off with "do your own research"! All ID "science" is merely poorly thought out ToE criticism. To teach ID as science you need to attempt to explain:- 1. How the ID process works.2. How the design process can be seen to exist in nature. 2. What did the designing. Repeatedly saying "evolution is wrong" doesn't cut it. You can criticise the ToE all you like, but ID has NOTHING to offer as a scientific alternative. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote:That is entirely incorrect. The primary goal of ID is to change science completely. These quotations from the Wedge Strategy show this quite clearly:
quote: quote: quote: Can you imagine what science would be like if everything had to conform to a fundamentalist and theistic "scientific" method? First -- all the evolutionary sciences would have to go. Geology would probably have to go also (geologists can't find evidence of the global flood). Astronomy and cosmology -- gone (all those old dates, and the Big Bang). Nuclear chemistry -- gone (radiometric dating and all those inconvenient old dates). Lets get rid of archaeology as well -- too many old dates there too, and they can't find the global flood either. And genetics, finding similarities to great apes and all the rest -- gone. And lets get rid of physics while we're at it -- that pesky 2nd law of thermodynamics. Well, you get the picture.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024