|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote:But they would settle for a good old-fashioned theocracy. (Paging Nehemiah Scudder. Pick up the white courtesy telephone please.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote:The "criticisms" they want taught do not represent ongoing debate within the various fields of evolution as conducted, for example, in peer-reviewed technical journals. Rather, the "criticisms" are those found on websites such as Answers in Genesis and the like, or pushed by the Discovery Institute. The "criticisms" are clearly based on religion, not on science. I had a seminar near the end of my grad school days titled Problems in Evolution. Not one of the problems discussed were of the sort found on the creationist websites or pushed as "critical thinking." "Critical thinking" seems to be a code word for teaching religious belief in science classes. The funny thing though--if one were to apply critical thinking skills to such religious beliefs, one would be called an anti-religious bigot, or worse. From what I have seen, proponents of "critical thinking" want their beliefs taught as fact or truth (i.e., divine revelation), and they don't want them to be subject to challenge. Edited by Coyote, : Typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote:"Let both POVs be debated, discussed and studied in debth..."quote:Biblicalists believe there is evidence. It's all in how you interpret it. Let both POVs be debated, discussed and studied in debth in the schools so as for the students to make up their own minds. Which two POVs would those be? You have science on one hand, what is the other? I expect that it is really religion. You do realize that the last of the major early creationist geologists attempting to prove a global flood gave up by 1831, don't you? There is no other POV in science concerning the belief in a global flood; there is only religious belief trying to sneak its way in any way it can, having long since failed the test of science. It sounds like what you really want is your religious belief taught in science classes, on an equal footing with science, but immune from the peer-review and criticism (critical thinking!) that is normally associated with science. Is that about it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote:You omitted one little thing in your analysis: the evidence is not equal on both sides of the discussion. In fact it is far from equal. Science has repeatable, testable evidence by the library-full, while creationism has only revelation, belief and dogma. Proponents of creationism have developed some 4,000 different religions, sects, and cults over the centuries. Most of these are mutually contradictory such that they can't all be right. But they could all be wrong. So how are you going to test the evidence when it consists of revelation and belief? And you want to teach this in the classroom? That's preaching, not education.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote: ID is a religiously-based attempt to sneak religion into the science classes by political means, as it has failed to make any headway in science (not surprising, as it is not science).
quote: The theory of evolution is a science, and is studied by a lot of separate fields. There is broad agreement from such diverse fields as geology and genetics as to the overall picture. Science does not deal with "divine causation" unless that causation can be perceived in some way.
quote:How will you do that? A theocracy? A dictatorship under a prophet? Bring back the inquisition? (Paging Nehemiah Scudder. Pick up the white courtesy telephone please.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote:Sorry to have to break this to you, but you are delusional. You are the voice of fundamentalism
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote:Actually, religiously-motivated individuals are becoming increasingly strident in their opposition to the theory of evolution since the losses in the U.S. Supreme Court. And they are getting farther from reality. Your post is a classic example. Creation "science" was blown out of the water in the late 1980s, leading to the current push for intelligent design. That has now been blown out of the water as well. The courts have recognized what science has long known. Neither of these two ideas is science, nor were they ever accepted by mainstream science (99.5% of working scientists). They have always been pushed by religious believers and a very small percentage of scientists who are also religiously-motivated (see the Statements of Faith of the some of the creationist websites for example). That is why your comments that you and your comrads are going to force your theology down our throats, and there is nothing we can do about it, are so ludicrous. You can't get your religion into the school systems because it is not science no matter how hard you posture, and everybody knows it. That is why the science curriculum will be free of the creation/ID nonsense 20 years hence. Looks like your only choice is a coup and installation of a religious dictatorship under a prophet. Is that what you are advocating?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote: Sounds like a religious dictatorship to me. And what are your plans for those of us who don't wish to live under your religious dictatorship, and who tell your prophet (or whatever your dictator is called) to stuff it? Will the curriculum in 20 years resemble that of a madrasah in Afghanistan just a few years back? Do we get to live in the Christian version of dhimmitude? Do we get the Inquisition back? I can't wait! We'll have a party! (Oh, right. They'll be outlawed too.) (Nehemiah Scudder. Pick up the white courtesy telephone please.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote:You have shown by these posts that you are the exact opposite of a scientist. Why should anyone trust anything you have to say on the subject of science? Might as well ask the mice for their opinions on cats. By the way, microevolution, which apparently everyone else in the world but you accepts because of the evidence, can be readily seen. Google "ring species" and see what science has found.
quote: This is clear evidence not only of microevolution, but also of macroevolution (speciation). What is nice about ring species is that you have the two endpoints, clearly two species, but you also have all of the transitionals (that creationists swear don't exist) still intact as living populations in between the two endpoint species! Deny the evidence for microevolution all you want, but its right there in front of your face. Just like a lot of the other evidence for the theory of evolution and the rest of science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote:You want refutation? I refuted your contention on microevolution, and threw in macroevolution too boot back in Post #148 but you have ignored it. How are you going to come up with a curriculum if you can't debate science? Or will your proposed curriculum be limited to preaching?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
You had two ideas in your post, kind of mixed together. I hope I separated them correctly.
quote: Your "ad hom" against astrology came from Behe's testimony in the Dover trial. When asked about his definition of "science" Behe had to come up with a definition broad enough to include ID--that was the whole point of the trial, that ID was science. He was forced to admit, under oath, that his definition was sufficiently broad that it also included astrology. And the point was not that the tenets of astrology could be amenable to the scientific method (that was done centuries ago; astrology failed), but that astrology as it is currently practiced is not scientific. In that respect, it matches ID rather well. And that admission by Behe was one of the cornerstones of the Dover decision. (Another cornerstone was the clear link between ID and religion.)
quote: Abiogenesis is not necessary for evolution. Evolution works just fine under any of these five hypothesis regarding the origin of the first life forms.
Abiogenesis is not necessary for evolution because, as evolutionists have been saying all along, evolution deals with change over time -- not origins.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote: Actually it should be "ID opposes evolution on religious grounds and science opposes ID on scientific grounds."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
quote:The reason there are no ID hypotheses is that ID is religion in disguise. Its basis is fundamentalist Christian belief, not science. Having no scientific basis, all the IDers can do is try to knock down the theory of evolution in the hope that they can raise doubts about science in general and the theory of evolution in particular, and based on those doubts, they hope to come up with some converts to their real religious beliefs. And if they can cast doubt on all of "materialism and its cultural legacies" so much the better. But when asked to propose an ID curriculum (the topic of this thread) there is no response. There is only anti-evolutionary propaganda masquerading as pseudo-science in the hope of fooling somebody. But hey, that's good enough! Let's teach it in the schools anyway. I can see the curriculum now:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024