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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
...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
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!
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.
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?
) and then have the students for their assignment try and refute it?
™ Version 4.0 Beta
