|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I think the ID camp wants students to develop critical thinking skills and so wants both ID and evo theories to be taught and examined critically. Frankly, I cannot fathom why anyone wanting students to be educated would balk at, for example, teaching criticisms of evo theory. You really can't fathom that? That's funny, I explained it to you just the other day. Try to pay attention this time. It's because all the "criticisms of evo theory" are stupid drooling lies; because any competent science teacher would know this; and therefore forcing science teachers to teach these "criticisms of evo theory" would involve compelling science teachers to knowingly lie to children. Do you understand now, or would you like me to explain it again? It really is very simple.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You're right, there's far more evidence for ID than for evolution... Whom do you hope to deceive by saying this?
Yes science has repeatable, testable evidence for things that can be tested and repeated but unfortunately for evolution, it is an historical concept and by its very nature can be neither tested nor repeated. Not only is this wrong, but everyone you're addressing knows that it's wrong, which makes it particularly pointless.
Irrelevant -what is relevant is the question of whether we evolved from pond scum by chance or whether we were created by an intelligence outside the system that we can observe. Oh, that's easy. Neither. Anything else I can help you with?
Technological advances derive from real science while evolution (the big picture excluding mutation and natural selection) Evolution, excluding evolution, eh? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Well I don't know how that is possible if he believes in irreducible complexity and that certain systems could not have evolved. There are lots and lots of things where you can't see how they're possible, and yet which are absolutely true. Here's Michael Behe:
quote: You see, just 'cos a man's wrong about one thing, doesn't mean he's a complete idiot.
The holocaust has historical records and eyewitness accounts ... That makes it testable (just as our knowledge of the course of evolution is testable against the fossil record, the morphological record, the genetic record) --- but is it repeatable?
No; present the evidence for evolution and the evidence for intelligent design and the negative evidence against each argument and let them critically analyse the argument-no need to take a dogmatic stand on something you cannot prove. Since the set of evidence for intelligent design is empty, this is, arguably, what teachers are already doing. In fact, the ID crowd are getting the best of it, since teachers are teaching only a tiny fraction of the evidence for evolution --- and all of the evidence for intelligent design. Time to pop open the champagne, guys! You won! Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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. You wouldn't like it if we educated children about ID. You really wouldn't. It would also probably be illegal. As it has been ruled that ID is a religious view, attacking it in a classroom would be a breach of the First Amendment. Even the whackiest little cults are protected by the law.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You see, here's the problem.
That was a bunch of ignorant crap. How do you expect anyone with intelligence and integrity to teach this to schoolchildren? You can babble this stuff out and still manage to feel self-righteous, 'cos you know damn all about what you're talking about, but tell me this --- how can anyone who knows anything about science recite that sort of crap to schoolchildren? That is the unanswerable question about teaching creationism. So answer me that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Oh well I must have missed something -where's your proof that simpler life forms categorically had to have evolved into more complex life forms? Your gibberish has nothing to do with any claim that I have ever actually made.
Yes explain how, if naturalistic processes explain our arrival, we could have originated from something other than the supposed primordial soup after it rained on the rocks for millions of years? Oh, I see, we didn't come from pond scum after all; we came from the minerals washed out of the rocks over those millions of years; in other words our earliest ancestor is actually a rock! Your gibberish has nothing to do with any claim that I have ever actually made.
No, real observable scientifically provable processes vs pure imagination actually. Your gibberish has nothing to do with any fact about the real world. You want to try again?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Heh heh.
Ray writes: It will be the most important Creationist paper ever written. I know everyone says that about their work, but, they are lying and they know it, and I am not. Yup, that's our Ray all right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Now how can ID be counter to evolution? ID only questions abiogenesis, which is "supposed" to be a separate issue. Er ... but your claim that "ID only questions abiogenesis" isn't actually true, is it? "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings." --- Of Pandas And People This makes the rest of your rant seem rankly dishonest, since your shrieks about the "hypocrisy" (not to mention "fairy tales") of your opponents are based entirely on a thumping great untruth told by you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And as for ID vs. evolution, the only way you get that is to misconstrue what ID is about. It isn't about the view of any individual. It's about the one thing they all agree on: life clearly exhibits all the traits of things that only arise by intelligent design, and should therefore be classified as one of these things. So let me get this straight. If someone who claims to be an ID proponent offers any other definition of ID, such as
quote: ... then they are not telling the truth? But, my dear chap, who died and made you Phillip Johnson? How come you get to decide what ID really is, and who amongst the IDiots is a True Scotsman? If you want the privilege of defining Intelligent Design and deciding who is in and who is out of the Intelligent Design movement, we are the wrong people to argue with. Go convince all the people at the DI that ID is not opposed to evolution in any way. We'll watch ... and applaud. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Correction: Darwinism has been imposed on public class rooms. The same is rabidly supported by all Atheists. ID seeks to loosen the stranglehold and re-introduce Science back into the schools. Thing is, we all know that you're talking crap, apart from maybe one or two creationists reading your crap who believed that crap already. I must have explained this to you once or twice. So why do you even bother to post? Your unevidenced recital of stupid creationist lies won't deceive anyone who isn't already thoroughly deceived. So what's the point? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Commentary presupposes that genome similarity indicates proof of descent from chimpanzees. But we all know you're lying. Even your fellow-creationists know that evolutionists do not say that humans are descended from chimpanzees, let alone "presupposing" any such thing. You know this, because you have had this explained to you again and again. So, to summarize, you know that you're lying, we know that you're lying, other creationists know that you're lying, you know that we know that you're lying, you know that other creationists know that you're lying, other creationists know that we know that you're lying, we know that other creationists know that we know that you know that you're lying, we know that other creationists know that you're lying ... So what's the point? --- This is what baffles me about you people. You have a point of view, I understand that. You feel that it is justified to lie to promote your point of view, and I can nearly understand that. But then you lie when you know that you're going to get caught, and I don't understand that at all. Why do you lie when you know that you're going to get caught? What possible effect can it have, except that everyone reading this thread will (a) know that you're a liar (b) know that you're stupid enough to tell lies when you know that you're going to get caught. What is the point? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
That's using environmental manipulation as a means to achieve artificial selection. If you find out what the phrases "natural selection" and "artificial selection" mean, then you will find that this helps you to discuss the topic of evolution, in which these concepts are quite prominent.
And I doubt very much that the term "mutation" was accurately applied. You will also want to look up the word "mutation".
Looks to me more like the work of some other source of genetic diversity. Which you do not name.
People didn't used to have a problem with this. In the past, evolutionists would venture forth into nature, observe lifeforms, and predict which ones would succeed. Maybe they've given up on such a scientific approach these days? What a strange fantasy.
I shouldn't expect any evolutionist to be in a hurry to report the results if they match those of the past. Another odd daydream.
Can we drop this now? It's O.T. and nobody's demonstrating an impressive understanding of how to test the predictive capacity of "Natural Selection" scientifically. A more parsimonious hypothesis is that scientists, who know what "mutation" means and what "natural selection" means, do understand this and you don't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yet I'm told I don't know what ID is about. Right... Of course. It was the bit where you claimed that it only concerned abiogenesis that was the dead giveaway.
It's claimed my ability to distinguish between "Natural Selection" and artificial selection prevents me from knowing what "Natural Selection" means. No-one has claimed that. That is nonsense that you've made up in your head. In the real world, where real people live, I pointed out that you had confused natural and artificial selection. At no point did I ever claim that you possessed any "ability to distinguish between "Natural Selection" and artificial selection", because this is clearly not true. You do not have that ability, and I have stated so clearly. Just to make it quite clear, I have never claimed, and probably never will claim, that you are able to distinguish between them. Do you understand now?
I'm told time and time again I don't know what evolutionism is about. And you have learned nothing from this experience?
I maintain that it's not difficult to see what ID is about. Oh look, you inadvertently told the truth!
Neither is it difficult to see that it bears very little resemblance to any of the straw men which have been constructed hereabouts. "Straw men"? You mean like when I quoted from a textbook on ID?
1.) Why are evolutionists terrified of ID? We are not. This is a silly fantasy that you've made up in your head. Do you not understand that some people are capable of pointing out that an idea is wrong without being afraid of it?
2.) Why can't they tackle the real ID instead of misportraying it? We do not misportray it. This is a silly fantasy that you've made up in your head. We portray it by quotations from ID proponents.
I trust the answers to both of these questions are obvious. Extremely.
My prediction for the imaginary situation that is the topic of this thread could be wrong. It's not likely we'll find out. Note that from the very first they have tried to give the impression that ID = CS... Actually, it's not evolutionists who have given the impression that ID = CS. It's the "cdesign proponentsists" using the same definitions of both terms. "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings." (Of Pandas And People as it was eventually published.) "Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc." (Of Pandas And People as it was first drafted.) Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
*yawn* Same old straw man the evolutionists have been trotting out for the entire thread. I'm waiting for just one to have enough guts to look I.D. in the eyes. Your tactics betray that you expect defeat, and you may well help fulfill that prediction. What happens when a person reads this kind of thing and is subsequently exposed to actual I.D.? Since what you seem to mean by "actual ID" is stuff that has nothing in common with the ID in ID textbooks, but rather something you're making up as you go along, it seems unlikely that they will ever come into contact with this "actual ID" of which you speak. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Now this would entail a bit of shuffling. Abiogenesis week would be moved to the tail end. Can't have students start out questioning something so fundamental to the religion, and then proceed to indoctrinate them with falsehood. No, falsehood first - then the one lie they're allowed to question. It wouldn't take a week. Teachers could just say: "Some morons reason as follows: 'I don't understand how abiogenesis happened. Therefore, I do understand how it happened. God did it by magic'. Oh, except they pretend that they're not talking about God.". Then they could spend a coupla minutes explaining why this is really really dumb (teach both arguments, remember) and then they could teach something useful. Or do you have plans for the rest of the week?
Evolutionists are even more acutely aware of this vulnerability than IDers ... You seem to have almost noticed that your idea of ID is different from all the other IDers. Unfortunately, you have superimposed your usual self-indulgent daydreams about evolutionists on this fact before it properly seeped into your consciousness. Look, the day the ID crowd so far realize that they're wrong that they're reduced to nothing more than whining about abiogenesis, we "evolutionists" will have got them to accept the theory of evolution, won't we? That'll be champagne time. And you mange to convince yourself that we see your brand of minimalist ID as a "vulnerability"? I'd call it an admission of defeat.
It could be just as you fear: once they're permitted to openly question one aspect of your religion, the rest of your doctrines are in great jeopardy. Your antiscience could suffer a major drop in popularity, and your capacity to censor scientists could disappear entirely. Oh, look, more silly daydreams. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024