|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How do Intelligent Design People act? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Peg writes: its strange that you say that in light of Dembski's article which is about a christian school being prohibited from teaching ID in its own science classes If this were true, I'd agree with you. The problem is that the Christian school either: A. Wants state-recognition for the diplomas it hands outor B. Is supported by public tax-payer money Either way... if you want one of those two things, you can't just teach "whatever you want" in your school. If you want state recognition for what you teach... you need to teach science in your science class. If you want to use tax-payer's money... you need to teach science in your science class. Is such a "demand" really all that strange?Doesn't it sound kind of... expected... that, if you want to be state-recognized, then you should follow the teaching requirements of the state? If they want to be a privately-funded school... and not have their diplomas recognized by the state... then they're free to teach their kids whatever they'ed like. But it's irresponsible of the state to allow any school to grant diplomas to children who have been taught things in science class that are easily shown to not be science at all. Do you think Dembski and this school should be allowed to teach the "Magical Trevor's Unicorn theory of Gravity" in science because they think it's best their children learn of how unicorns push things around? No, because that's not science... and it's not science because it has no supporting evidence. ID is exactly the same thing. It's not science... because it has no supporting evidence. No one is stopping ID from doing some real, actual science... go through the scientific procedures... and then enter into the schools (once the data, experiments, tests and conclusions can be verified, of course). But ID doesn't want to do this.ID doesn't want to do this because they have no data, no experiments, no tests, and none of their conclusions can be verified. So why, exactly (other then the guilt trip Dembski just played on you) do you think ID should be allowed to be taught in science class? This is how ID people act. They make you feel guilty. They make you feel pity. They try to present this case that they're not being treated equally. But, in reality, they are being treated equally, they're just not doing any of the work. What if the guy who came in 2nd place at the 100m dash started walking around saying how "unfair" it was that he didn't get gold? That he should have a gold medal too because he worked just as hard... trained just as much... he's not being treated equally?What if (more similar to the case of ID) I started saying I worked just as hard and also deserve the gold medal? After all, I'm a person too so that makes us equal. Shouldn't I be treated equally? Are you saying I'm not a person? The guy who won the 100m dash is not a person? Shouldn't we keep it fair and equal and give both of us gold medals? ...this is what ID does, and you just fell for it. It's one thing to say things "should be equal." It's another thing to show that they should be equal. ID skips the showing part, and expects people to fall for their words alone. Don't feel bad though, ID's movement has had almost 100 years to perfect their art of trapping good-hearted people like yourself. Again, you don't have to take my word for it. Ask some questions... ask the ID people about their definitions and what sort of experiments they have in mind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4958 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Stile writes: Either way... if you want one of those two things, you can't just teach "whatever you want" in your school. If you want state recognition for what you teach... you need to teach science in your science class. If you want to use tax-payer's money... you need to teach science in your science class. Is such a "demand" really all that strange?Doesn't it sound kind of... expected... that, if you want to be state-recognized, then you should follow the teaching requirements of the state? yes i see what you're saying there...they have to conform if they want to get recognition. But does this mean that all scientists and all students and all teachers must be learning and teaching evolution? Why is evolution the primary discipline and not some other scientific discipline?
Stile writes: If they want to be a privately-funded school... and not have their diplomas recognized by the state... then they're free to teach their kids whatever they'ed like. this kind of sounds like people are forced to learn/teach evolution though... isnt' there something in the USA's constitution that promotes freedom of belief?This sounds like people are not free to beleive...it sounds like they have no choice. I wonder if this is why the ID movement has become politicized??
Stile writes:
Im not trying to argue here, but im still trying to understand how the 'study of nature' is not considered scientific. (Keeping in mind that i've never read any ID literature, so i dont really know exactly what they say) ID is exactly the same thing. It's not science... because it has no supporting evidence. We agree that the science is the study of many disciplines, why is ID (which seems to be the study of the designs in living things) not considered a science. If they just said 'that is a tree and God did it' and said not more, then i'd agree that its not science. But if they are studying the processes of the tree and determining how the tree functions etc, surely that is a science. Can it be shown otherwise???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
It is another thing to look at the world and find features in it that can be reliably correlated with intelligent agency. It would indeed be another thing. However, no one has ever shown how to do this. In fact the world shows us the opposite.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4218 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
But does this mean that all scientists and all students and all teachers must be learning and teaching evolution? Why is evolution the primary discipline and not some other scientific discipline? Such as? In biology there is no other theory that is in its true sense science. What else, tidlywinks? There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Peg writes: But does this mean that all scientists and all students and all teachers must be learning and teaching evolution? Why is evolution the primary discipline and not some other scientific discipline? For the same two reasons that all scientific theories that are taught in school are taught: Everything we've ever been able to observe, test, and verify confirms the theory. Nothing we've ever been able to observe, test, and verify negates the theory. Again, finding something against the grain for either of those things for any scientific theory (including evolution) is the stuff nobel prizes and scientific dreams are made of. It's quite possible, but when it happens we need to be sure it can be verified, and that it's honestly right. Not just because some group of folk say "hey, we want to be equal!" without showing how they're actually unequal in the first place. Because, hey, "Stile wants his gold medal too!" just doesn't cut it.
this kind of sounds like people are forced to learn/teach evolution though... isnt' there something in the USA's constitution that promotes freedom of belief? This sounds like people are not free to beleive...it sounds like they have no choice. What are you talking about? Who's not free to believe anything they want to? No one is stiffling any beliefs. Everyone is free to believe in ID all they want. All they are being restricted from is the ability to teach it in science class as a science. They have even been welcomed to teach their ID in schools in religious classes. How is that not fair? That's how the ID people act, they get you to think that "belief" is only possible from a science class. Does that sound right to you? Should religion be in science? It sounds like it's the ID people who are actually going against the constitution by not letting children have their right to learn the honest, scientific truth about science.
I wonder if this is why the ID movement has become politicized?? It's politicized because it's failed everywhere else. The only place left for them to go is to whine to poor, unsuspecting people to see if they can change laws so they will be able to abuse children. Are you sure you want to support such a notion?
Im not trying to argue here, but im still trying to understand how the 'study of nature' is not considered scientific. If you follow the scientific method, it certainly is scientific. If you don't follow the scientific method, then it's not scientific. If Stile walks into his front yard, picks up a blade of grass and says "wow, this is flat! It must be green because I had a dream last night about green dragons!" This is "studying nature". However, it's not scientific, so it's not science. If ID walks into their front yard, picks up a blade of grass and says "wow, this is designed! It must be designed because I just plain think it is!" This is "studying nature". However, it's not scientific, so it's not science.
If they just said 'that is a tree and God did it' and said not more, then i'd agree that its not science. I'm glad we agree.
But if they are studying the processes of the tree and determining how the tree functions etc, surely that is a science. Of course it would be. But they're not doing this. They've never done this.Can you show that they do this? No one ever has so far. That's why the judge ruled against them in court, because they don't do this. It's really rather simple. Can it be shown otherwise??? Of course it can. It's been shown otherwise everytime they've gone to court. It's been shown otherwise right here in this thread to you. There is no scientific ID procedures or methods, they don't exist. If you know of one, it will be the first (ever!) to be produced. Funny how Dembski and Behe have been saying they're working on this for over 20 years... and still can't even define a method? Or even the word "design?!?" How many years does it take to define the very word that describes your organization? It's ludicrous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hi Peg,
quote: Evolution is not any kind of "primary discipline". If there is such a thing in science, it is probably physics. Evolution is however, the scientific concept that most upsets fundamentalists. That is why it is singled out in these debates, not because of any primacy within science, but because some people don't like the fact that it contravenes Genesis. Having said that, within the specific field of biology, evolution is the central principle. Without it, nothing would make sense. If you want to teach biology (and why wouldn't you) you need to include evolution. To do otherwise would be to do a disservice to the students.
quote: I totally disagree. Students are expected to learn about evolution. They are not expected to agree with it. They are free to believe whatever they like. Wouldn't you want to learn about evolution anyway, even if you disagreed with it? Surely that would mean that you had made an informed choice in rejecting it, rather than dismissing it out of hand.
quote: ID is politicised for the same reasons that other forms of creationism are politicised; some people just can't handle the challenge that evolution presents to their religious beliefs. I believe that the first law to mention evolution in the US was the Tennessee law that banned the teaching of evolution and eventually led to the Scopes "Monkey Trial". That was religiously motivated and the history of creationism and evolution in the US courts has followed this same pattern.
quote: But ID isn't interested in determining anything. All they are interested in is propping up creationism. Take Behe's blood clotting argument for example. He claims that the "irreducible complexity" of the human blood clotting cascade presents a difficulty for evolutionary theory. And he's right to an extent; a gap in our explanatory framework is undesirable to say the least. But does Behe attempt to close this gap, by working out how the cascade might have evolved? No. He simply throws up his hands and says "No! I can't work out how it evolved, so therefore it didn't evolve.". A real scientist would attempt to close gaps in our knowledge (and indeed, others have solved Behe's blood clotting problem), but ID types are much happier with the gap itself. Oh joy! A gap! A place for our Gap God to hide! ID isn't interested in determining anything. They are more interested in finding puzzles and deliberately leaving them unsolved, in an effort to bamboozle the general public into thinking that there is a problem with the ToE. This is not science, in fact, it's about as far from science as you can get without actually painting your face and doing a rain-dance. Mutate and Survive "The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4745 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
But does this mean that all scientists and all students and all teachers must be learning and teaching evolution? Why is evolution the primary discipline and not some other scientific discipline? I'm taking physics, chemistry, Earth sciences and biology with 1087, 979, 376 and 689 pages respectively. Both the Earth sciences and biology texts mention evolution for a grand total of 37 pages. I think we do better in my Catholic school then the kids in the public schools.
this kind of sounds like people are forced to learn/teach evolution though... isnt' there something in the USA's constitution that promotes freedom of belief? This sounds like people are not free to beleive...it sounds like they have no choice. We're also not allowed to teach auto mechanics in history classes, pottery in math classes or astronomy in English classes. We are, however, allowed to teach them in there own right. ID is a bit troublesome in that regard because it is certainly religious in nature, and narrowly religious at that. That makes it's rightful place a narrowly tailored, religious class, which requires the government to support some religions over others.
Im not trying to argue here, but im still trying to understand how the 'study of nature' is not considered scientific. ID is not the study of nature in that it is not study at all. It is indoctrination. ID (creationism) was the paradigm of natural history until someone made the mistake of studying it. Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
But does this mean that all scientists and all students and all teachers must be learning and teaching evolution? Why is evolution the primary discipline and not some other scientific discipline? There is no "primary discipline".** No one doing science suggests that science is "all biology, all the time". The only reason discussions like this, and boards like this, exist is the attempt of the religious to force their religion into that field. The public prominence of evolutionary theory is a creation of the creationists. If there were no creationists, evolution would just be another quiet part of the scientific spectrum. The whole public "controversy" is manufactured. It could just as easily be about some other subset of science but for the fact that most of science is not perceived as threatening to religious fundamentalists. I must say, though, that this is not true of the leadership of the ID movement. Their literature (ie. wedge document) make it clear that their goal is to suborn all of science to their theology.
this kind of sounds like people are forced to learn/teach evolution though... isnt' there something in the USA's constitution that promotes freedom of belief? Personal belief has nothing to do with public policy. People are free to believe what they wish. They are not free to misrepresent that belief as something it is not. I might believe that peanuts are fruit, but i cannot sell "all fruit jelly" with peanuts in it at the supermarket. This whole controversy is just purely and simply about religious people lying about science. Lying. Period. Once you understand that, you will understand why so many religious believers hold IDists in contempt.
Im not trying to argue here, but im still trying to understand how the 'study of nature' is not considered scientific. (Keeping in mind that i've never read any ID literature, so i dont really know exactly what they say) Because they are not "studying" nature. Looking at a sunset and saying things about it is not "studying" it in the scientific sense. This is a labeling issue. If looking at sunsets and flagella make you think about God, fine. Write a book, get it taught in literature class. But it's not science. Capt. ** - Well, OK, physics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hari Junior Member (Idle past 5518 days) Posts: 15 From: Harmandar Joined: |
Stile writes: it isn't acceptable now, and it's not likely that it ever will be as long as honest, rigorous discovery is the goal of science Well said. I remember my high school physics teacher, Doc Harvey, sitting us down and saying that he believed everything he would teach us, but only after weighing the evidence, and the main point of his lessons would be that we should do the same and never take him on authority. He was the best. Oh don't listen to me, I'm just a girl
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
Damn, Granny, I've got to stop making breakfast mid post! You have redundantified me!
Capt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hari Junior Member (Idle past 5518 days) Posts: 15 From: Harmandar Joined: |
Peg writes: The 'scientific method' goes along the lines of...Observe, Theorize, Test, Conclude That’s my understanding too, except that more often than not it goesObserve, Theorize, Test, Fail, Throw the theory in the trash and start over My understanding of ID isObserve the target audience, Make up a theory that sounds plausable, Conclude As others here have said, it misses the whole point of science — curiosity about the nature world. If taught anywhere, it would be in The Politics Of Mind Control 101 or The History of Dishonest Marketing. Oh don't listen to me, I'm just a girl
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
hari writes: I remember my high school physics teacher, Doc Harvey, sitting us down and saying that he believed everything he would teach us, but only after weighing the evidence, and the main point of his lessons would be that we should do the same and never take him on authority. He was the best. Those sorts of people certainly do make the best teachers. As a gerneral note, it is a difficult manner even for athiestic scientists to not let external emotions influence their work at all times. That's why we have the scientific method, and why it must be strictly adhered to. When adhered to (along with the peer review system) we are guaranteed that our personal opinions are not guiding any of the results... no matter what (religious or non-religious) those peronal opinions are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4958 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Stile writes: It's politicized because it's failed everywhere else. The only place left for them to go is to whine to poor, unsuspecting people to see if they can change laws so they will be able to abuse children. Are you sure you want to support such a notion? abuse children??? how does ID amount to abuse???
Stile writes: If you follow the scientific method, it certainly is scientific.If you don't follow the scientific method, then it's not scientific. ok so that brings me back to the question of why the study of nature and the search for design is not scientific.Is it because there is already the presumption that the blade of grass has been designed? if so, could they not study the blade of grass to explain how the design works and what shows that it is in fact designed.?
Stile writes: Of course it would be. But they're not doing this. They've never done this.Can you show that they do this? No one ever has so far. That's why the judge ruled against them in court, because they don't do this. It's really rather simple. ok well as i said, i've never read any ID books.... so i'll go to the book store today and find a book on ID to see what its all about... when i've done so i'll come back and tell you what i think. Does anyone have any suggestions on a book to start with? Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4958 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
GM writes: ID is politicised for the same reasons that other forms of creationism are politicised; some people just can't handle the challenge that evolution presents to their religious beliefs. I believe that the first law to mention evolution in the US was the Tennessee law that banned the teaching of evolution and eventually led to the Scopes "Monkey Trial". That was religiously motivated and the history of creationism and evolution in the US courts has followed this same pattern. thats unfortunate really they are only threatened by it because they dont understand the bible enough to be able to defend it. The problem I see is that they've become so tangled up in dogma and bad interpretation and bad translating that their understanding is completely out of harmony with known facts ie, 24hr creative day, earth at center of universe etc then when science provides evidence to the contrary, rather then adjusting their understanding and reexamining their translations, they put up a fight and make themselves look like raving lunatics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4958 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
GM writes: Take Behe's blood clotting argument for example. He claims that the "irreducible complexity" of the human blood clotting cascade presents a difficulty for evolutionary theory. And he's right to an extent; a gap in our explanatory framework is undesirable to say the least. But does Behe attempt to close this gap, by working out how the cascade might have evolved? No. He simply throws up his hands and says "No! I can't work out how it evolved, so therefore it didn't evolve.". A real scientist would attempt to close gaps in our knowledge im not taking sides here, but if he was able to determine this why couldnt evolutionists determine this AND if behe is unable to find the gap, and evolutionists are unable to find the gap, then doesnt this put the evolutionary theory in doubt? and if so, why are evolutionists teaching the conclusion before finding the gap? That is not really the scientific method at work.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024