Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-23-2018 11:45 PM
208 online now:
DrJones*, ICANT, ramoss (3 members, 205 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*
Post Volume:
Total: 840,666 Year: 15,489/29,783 Month: 1,433/1,502 Week: 190/241 Day: 69/74 Hour: 4/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
16171819
20
21Next
Author Topic:   20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 2603 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 286 of 305 (455965)
02-14-2008 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Cold Foreign Object
02-14-2008 3:44 PM


Something about teaching!!
CFO writes:

Logically, invisible Designer/God is a better explanation for the observation of design than a mindless and unguided process that only exists in the minds of Atheists.


Ah! Now we finally get to it. So, you would teach that an undetectable Designer is logically more plausible than the chemical and biological(also chemical) processes that have been observed by science thus far.
Can you support that beyond your assertion that it is true?
How would you show the student sitting in your science class that a designer must logically exist?
What are the telltale signs of the designer's handiwork?
Is the development of antibiotic resistance, in a population of bacteria that was spawned from one individual bacterium, a direct intervention by the designer?
What part of a now-resistant bacterium would you show them to provide evidence as to your contention that the designer was/wasn't the direct cause of the antibiotic resistance?

Please, provide us with your unassailable logic. Inquiring young minds wait breathlessly for your hand to guide them into areas of knowledge that science has thus far been unable to reach.

As an aside: I get this mental picture that every time you say "atheist", you spit it out as if you had just taken a drink of sour milk.

Edited by LinearAq, : Trying to make my likely-to-be-ignored questions more easily understood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-14-2008 3:44 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 3796 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 287 of 305 (455967)
02-14-2008 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by FliesOnly
02-14-2008 7:34 AM


Re: Keep it
quote:
This thread is about the I.D. curriculum 20 years down the road. It's based on the premise that I.D. advocates, like yourself, continually claim the scientific validity of your concept.

The I.D. advocates who are being discussed are very much unlike myself. My policy is to make no compromises with untruth. For example, I do not misapply the term "theory" just because others have done so.

quote:
Asking you to provide to us a piece of information that is the very foundation of science is certainly a reasonable request.

I am amused that you refer to the I.D. hypothesis as "the very foundation of science". Nevertheless, I don't intend to be goaded into breaking my word.

It would have been reasonable to request the hypothesis. What is utterly unreasonable and unacceptable is what has happened: There was a false statement made about my capacity to produce an hypothesis. When was this statement made? When was the request made? I have made it clear that I'm not going to do this.

quote:
If your inability to supply such information somehow or another makes you feel picked upon, or makes you feel that it's asked only in an attempt to make you look bad...well, that's just tough shit for you.

Why do you misportray the situation? Anyone here is perfectly capable of following the link(s) to the transcript and obtaining all the information they need to piece together the I.D. hypothesis. It may very likely be stated there verbatim - I don't remember.

Why should I tolerate false accusations? It's lame enough to ask for something that's readily available to everyone here. To accuse me of failing before I even have a chance is inexcusable. To imply that I can't work a web browser when you wouldn't even be aware of my existence in that case... utterly irrational. The argument is self-defeating and thus can only be meant as an insult.

I copy. Loud & clear. Over.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by FliesOnly, posted 02-14-2008 7:34 AM FliesOnly has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by FliesOnly, posted 02-15-2008 9:49 AM CTD has not yet responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 3796 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 288 of 305 (455970)
02-14-2008 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by New Cat's Eye
02-14-2008 5:44 PM


Huh?
quote:
How can you say that science doesn't work when you're sitting at a fucking computer communicating over an internet forum!!!?

How ignorant!


et tu CS?

What is it, a reflex with you people?

I'm not very impressed. You could have come up with a fresh new false accusation if you had tried.

And your phrasing could stand improvement. It's pretty stupid to ask me how I can say something I never said.

I know: 'It's the thought that counts'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-14-2008 5:44 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by RickJB, posted 02-15-2008 4:59 AM CTD has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 404 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 289 of 305 (455971)
02-14-2008 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by New Cat's Eye
02-14-2008 5:44 PM


Re: Read carefully
Catholic Scientist writes:

How can you say that science doesn't work when you're sitting at a fucking computer communicating over an internet forum!!!?

How ignorant!

I think that what CTS means by "false accusation" is someone else implying that he has denied that science works, CS. He's not saying that it doesn't work in the post you're replying to, so I think that you must've misread something.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-14-2008 5:44 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

CTD
Member (Idle past 3796 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 290 of 305 (455973)
02-14-2008 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Coyote
02-13-2008 4:22 PM


Re: ID hypothesis
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.


*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.? Will they not see the contrast?

This whole topic's a joke. The difference in classrooms would be nearly imperceptible. Evolutionism would be preached during valuable time that should be devoted to teaching biology, history, etc. The only difference is that during abiogenesis week, students would be allowed to consider alternatives.

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.

The fact that this one lie must be securely safeguarded against any questioning betrays that evolutionism is a house of cards. Evolutionists are even more acutely aware of this vulnerability than IDers, as this thread demonstrates.

I should make clear that although the difference in classrooms would be nearly imperceptible, the difference in the students might not. 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Coyote, posted 02-13-2008 4:22 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by PaulK, posted 02-15-2008 1:34 AM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 292 by Modulous, posted 02-15-2008 3:54 AM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 294 by RickJB, posted 02-15-2008 5:02 AM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 302 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-15-2008 5:21 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 303 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-15-2008 5:30 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14423
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 291 of 305 (456024)
02-15-2008 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by CTD
02-14-2008 7:40 PM


Re: ID hypothesis
Since you still assume that ID is only interested in attacking evolution it is obvious that you haven't been exposed to any real ID. Not even Behe, who's the least unscientific of the IDists publishing popular works.

So why should we take your opinions seriously ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by CTD, posted 02-14-2008 7:40 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 31 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 292 of 305 (456031)
02-15-2008 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by CTD
02-14-2008 7:40 PM


Re: ID hypothesis
So, you'd be looking for a comment akin, but maybe not identical, to the following:

quote:
Living organisms on Earth today, and the chemicals which work together to keep them alive, are extremely complex - even in single-celled microorganisms. Some people find it hard to accept that such complexity could have evolved through natural selection. Some religious people believe all living things on Earth were made by God, or that life was begun by God but then evolved through natural selection. We will probably never be absolutely certain about how life began - as no-one was there to observe it. But scientists must base their theories upon evidence.

Teach the kids that we don't know how life originated exactly, underline that science is about following the evidence and inform them that some people believe something different. From the GCSE revision guide at the BBC.

I'm waiting for just one to have enough guts to look I.D. in the eyes.

I'm still waiting for ID to be presented so I can look at it in the eyes. So far the only thing I can be sure of is that in the next 20 years ID will stand in front of the classroom and declare that some parts of evolution/origin of life might have had some kind of architect and/or designer.

You claim that is it. You say that "the difference in classrooms would be nearly imperceptible". Maybe what you envision is a much more palatable future than the oarsmen of the boat you are riding. The people who are steering your boat are trying to steer it towards, in their own words, "[replacing] materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

And it isn't just abiogenesis or biochemistry they are hoping to apply it to, to your chagrin they want to apply it to "molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy" as well as "fine art". They want to use their ideas to move forward the subject of "sexuality, abortion and belief in God".

You might get bored at the "straw man the evolutionists have been trotting out", instead you should be angry at are those who have hijacked teleology into a religio-political movement.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by CTD, posted 02-14-2008 7:40 PM CTD has not yet responded

RickJB
Member (Idle past 2917 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 293 of 305 (456035)
02-15-2008 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by CTD
02-14-2008 6:17 PM


Re: Huh?
CTD writes:


RickJB writes:

Science works, no matter how much you try to deny it.


I expect the purpose of this false accusation is to provoke a response.

Then you say:

CTD writes:

It's pretty stupid to ask me how I can say something I never said.

So you accept that science works and refute the accusation that you deny this?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by CTD, posted 02-14-2008 6:17 PM CTD has not yet responded

RickJB
Member (Idle past 2917 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 294 of 305 (456036)
02-15-2008 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by CTD
02-14-2008 7:40 PM


Re: ID hypothesis
CTD writes:

I'm waiting for just one ["evolutionist"] to have enough guts to look I.D. in the eyes.

Without a testable hypothesis as to how ID works, what exactly are we supposed to be looking at?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by CTD, posted 02-14-2008 7:40 PM CTD has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 17752
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 295 of 305 (456048)
02-15-2008 8:26 AM


Summation
No one from the ID side made any serious attempt to tackle the issues surrounding what America might be like in 20 years if ID were permitted into public school science classrooms. Conclude from that what you will.

--Percy


  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 2072 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 296 of 305 (456066)
02-15-2008 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by CTD
02-14-2008 6:05 PM


Re: Keep it
CTD writes:

I am amused that you refer to the I.D. hypothesis as "the very foundation of science". Nevertheless, I don't intend to be goaded into breaking my word.

Uh, no...CTD...the I.D. hypothesis is not the very foundation of science. A scientific hypothesis is the very foundation of the scientific method. And it's also, coincidentally, something you cannot supply. You should try reading for context sometime...it adds a whole new dimension to participating in a debate.

CTD writes:

It would have been reasonable to request the hypothesis.

I did...repeatedly. A few times from you...a few more times from Beretta.

CTD writes:

What is utterly unreasonable and unacceptable is what has happened: There was a false statement made about my capacity to produce an hypothesis.

Oh quit acting like a five year-old throwing a temper tantrum. I made an assumption that you can read. Sorry if that was too big of an assumption to make. I think it was made perfectly clear to anyone following this post that both you and Beretta were asked to supply an I.D. hypothesis. Beretta basically ignored the request and you simply acted like a child.

CTD writes:

When was this statement made? When was the request made? I have made it clear that I'm not going to do this.

See post 252..and then while you're there...read it.

CTD writes:

Anyone here is perfectly capable of following the link(s) to the transcript and obtaining all the information they need to piece together the I.D. hypothesis.

So I need to follow links and then piece together the I.D. hypothesis? You have a pretty poor and/or rather bizarre concept of how science is suppose to work.

CTD writes:

Why should I tolerate false accusations? It's lame enough to ask for something that's readily available to everyone here.

Then where the fuck is it CTD? I have never, ever, at anytime, anywhere, seen a testable I.D. hypothesis.

Look all I have done for the last 250 posts or so is ask you and/or Beretta (two big proponents of I.D.) to supply a hypothesis. He ignores the request...while you make up bull shit just to avoid the request.

Congratulations though...we're at 300 posts and the topic of the thread was never addressed by a I.D. proponent. As is typical, all you did was throw out the same ol' crapolla about the weaknesses and falsehoods of the ToE. But yet, even when asked, you could not even so much as supply an I.D. hypothesis...let alone lay out a science curriculum addressing I.D.

Typical.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by CTD, posted 02-14-2008 6:05 PM CTD has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12560
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 297 of 305 (456094)
02-15-2008 1:24 PM


Summation Time
I don't think it takes any special gifts of discernment to see that the ID viewpoint wasn't well represented in this thread, so there's no need to call attention to the obvious by bashing the IDists who did happen to show up.

This thread is closing soon. Summation time, everyone.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 3796 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 298 of 305 (456113)
02-15-2008 2:42 PM


A link to the testimony of Michael Behe was provided by Trixie. Nothing I have said about ID is contradicted by him. Absolutely nothing. On the contrary, much of what I have said is confirmed.

Yet I'm told I don't know what ID is about. Right... It's claimed my ability to distinguish between "Natural Selection" and artificial selection prevents me from knowing what "Natural Selection" means. I'm told time and time again I don't know what evolutionism is about. What's next? I shouldn't be the least bit surprised to be told I don't know what my own thoughts are.

I maintain that it's not difficult to see what ID is about. Neither is it difficult to see that it bears very little resemblance to any of the straw men which have been constructed hereabouts.

The real questions are
1.) Why are evolutionists terrified of ID?
2.) Why can't they tackle the real ID instead of misportraying it?

I trust the answers to both of these questions are obvious, and any further elaboration would amount to patronizingly insulting the reader's intelligence.

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, although when it suits them they have no trouble distinguishing ID from CS. So clever.


Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Vacate, posted 02-15-2008 3:11 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 300 by PaulK, posted 02-15-2008 3:18 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 301 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-15-2008 5:17 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 304 by Coyote, posted 02-15-2008 7:15 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2528 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 299 of 305 (456119)
02-15-2008 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by CTD
02-15-2008 2:42 PM


I maintain that it's not difficult to see what ID is about.

So then it should be quite easy to provide a testable hypothesis, correct?

The real questions are
1.) Why are evolutionists terrified of ID?
2.) Why can't they tackle the real ID instead of misportraying it?

1- I prefer evidence.
2- Its a slippery little sucker, care to provide a hypothesis so it can be tackled?

Magic number is all yours - end the thread with a hypothesis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by CTD, posted 02-15-2008 2:42 PM CTD has not yet responded

PaulK
Member
Posts: 14423
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 300 of 305 (456122)
02-15-2008 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by CTD
02-15-2008 2:42 PM


quote:

A link to the testimony of Michael Behe was provided by Trixie. Nothing I have said about ID is contradicted by him. Absolutely nothing. On the contrary, much of what I have said is confirmed.

In Message 197 you wrote

quote:

Now how can ID be counter to evolution? ID only questions abiogenesis,

That is contradicted by Behe's testimony. Behe is quite clear that he sees ID as an alternative to evolution.

The only question is whether you are hopelessly ignorant about ID - or intnetionally misrepresenting it.

But to summarise myself.

THe ID movement is currently attempting to damage science education by inserting bogus criticisms of evolution. This is the position they fell back on when it became clear that ID could not be taught in schools.

If they succeed in this it is highly unlikely that they will rest on their laurels for twenty years. It is far more likely that they will go back to their earlier goal of getting ID taught.

And that raises the question of what ID should be taught. Why should YECs be happy with an old-earth view being taught when the Bible tells them otherwise ? And they repesent the grass roots support that ID relies on for it's political-religious campaign.

If ID succeeds science lessons are liable to become a political football - subject to the will of whoever can mobilise the masses, regardless of what real science says. That is their strategy. And wy should the YECs stay out of the game ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by CTD, posted 02-15-2008 2:42 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
16171819
20
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018