Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8852 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-15-2018 10:33 AM
175 online now:
jar, PaulK (2 members, 173 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 836,912 Year: 11,735/29,783 Month: 757/1,642 Week: 171/460 Day: 10/62 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617181920
21
Author Topic:   20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16030
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 301 of 305 (456136)
02-15-2008 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by CTD
02-15-2008 2:42 PM


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.


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

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16030
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 302 of 305 (456139)
02-15-2008 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by CTD
02-14-2008 7:40 PM


Re: ID hypothesis
*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.


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

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16030
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 303 of 305 (456142)
02-15-2008 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by CTD
02-14-2008 7:40 PM


Re: ID hypothesis
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.


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

Coyote
Member
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 304 of 305 (456151)
02-15-2008 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by CTD
02-15-2008 2:42 PM


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

The real ID? The idea that some unidentified entity did something unknown for an unspecified reason at an unspecified time to some unspecified organisms? And that all of this can be discerned by inferring "design" by various dubious means which no two proponents can agree upon?

There is no reason to misportray ID; it is entirely clear what it is. It is religious belief with enough of the serial numbers filed off to (hopefully) pass judicial scrutiny. It was clearly "designed" to replace creation "science" which did not pass judicial scrutiny.

After the Dover decision the main proponent of ID, the Discovery Institute, has lapsed into whining about how unfair science is and how mean those materialistic scientists are. Yeah, that'll prove ID all right!

Admit it; there is no curriculum for ID without religion. If ID were taught in the schools, and IDers got to select the curriculum, in 20 years most sciences would be gone and students would be forced to study religion in its place. And it would not be just any religion. It would be a particular fundamentalist style of religion. That's what ID is all about. That and making Nehemiah Scudder real.

No thanks. I'll pass on that future.


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

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3867
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 305 of 305 (456160)
02-15-2008 8:38 PM


300+ messages - Closing time
Closing time.

Adminnemooseus


  
RewPrev1
...
1617181920
21
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018