Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bush promotes ID
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 106 of 187 (229922)
08-04-2005 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by randman
08-04-2005 9:20 PM


Re: evolutionist hypocrisy
quote:
We all know what evolutionists do to editors that publish ID papars, as we saw last year to the editor that published an ID paper.
His career is now threatened and maybe irrecoverable.
So ID-oriented editors lack the courage to risk their jobs for the truth? And there are reams of original, data-driven research by ID scientists going unpublished as a consequence? I can't find any online, so I conclude the ID publishers don't dare publish them, either.
I would expect greater courage from people of faith.
Of course, if it is a matter of not risking one's job for a puff piece that contains no real research, that's more understandable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by randman, posted 08-04-2005 9:20 PM randman has not replied

paisano
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 107 of 187 (229934)
08-04-2005 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by randman
08-04-2005 9:20 PM


Re: evolutionist hypocrisy
So please excuse me if I take your claims of needing to publish in evolutionist journals with a grain of salt. Personally, I don't consider evolutionist journals good science when it comes to evolution and somewhat farcical on the whole subject in fact.
IMO, 150 year's worth of articles on both basic research in evolutionary biology and practical applications thereof, produced internationally, and involving billions of dollars, yen, Euros, pounds, etc., in research funds, trump such opinions as yours on this matter.
It is like standing at Cape Canaveral or Baikonur after a launch, talking to a group of aerospace engineers, and telling them that you take the notion of human spaceflight with a grain of salt and regard the journal articles on it as bad science.
It is like insisting that the views on human spaceflight in journals of geocentrists and Moon landing conspiracy theorists count as much as mainstream aerospace journals.
Sorry, but science has professional standards, and the professionals that practice it get to make them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by randman, posted 08-04-2005 9:20 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Mammuthus, posted 08-05-2005 3:43 AM paisano has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 108 of 187 (230007)
08-05-2005 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Monk
08-04-2005 11:13 AM


Re: DID BusH make ID mORe respectable?
Hi Monk,
In many cases it would appear to be unplanned because it derives from a misunderstanding of the diffferences in term usage. Scientific theory is sometimes used to distinguish the science usage from the colloquial...but very often I hear creationists say that evolution is "just a theory" which indicates they don't understand how science works. For groups that persist in using this arguement after having the error explained to them, I suspect that they are most likely purposefully using it as a political device.
Irrespective of the controversy involved with teaching evolution, I find it alarming that people can get through high school and not understand the basics of the scientific method given how much modern society depends on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Monk, posted 08-04-2005 11:13 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Monk, posted 08-05-2005 11:30 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 109 of 187 (230009)
08-05-2005 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by paisano
08-04-2005 10:15 PM


Re: evolutionist hypocrisy
short off topic,
I will start a thread on the possible reasons for the increasing number of foreign researchers in US science soon i.e. did not forget as I think it is an interesting topic. I am off to a meeting and will be offline all next week.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by paisano, posted 08-04-2005 10:15 PM paisano has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 110 of 187 (230023)
08-05-2005 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Monk
08-04-2005 4:06 PM


Re: Should ID be censored?
I gave you an example which you rejected, as you would any example I provide.
Hey, you said he outmaneuvered and outwitted people. That requires some specific criteria:
1) He managed to push through something that was opposed by others
2) Those others had the power to reject what he was pushing through.
All I did was ask for an example of that. The SC nomination is not that because it wasn't opposed by most people, and even if democrats were generally opposed, that nomination could get pushed through using power politics.
I am not playing some game here, and tricked would be the same as outwitted and outmaneuvered so your invention that I was playing word games was wrong.
If I post something that's smart, then you'll say it wasn't Bush, but someone behind the scenes. If I post something stupid, then you'll credit Bush with being a moron. Can't lose with that strategy.
That is a straw man of my position.
It is very simple. Come up with something that matches the above criteria.
This idle banter with you has become tiring as it usually does and to continue it would be....moronic.
I realize it must be tiring to keep stating incorrect positions and have yourself called on them and then not have your immediate responses hailed as correct.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Monk, posted 08-04-2005 4:06 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Monk, posted 08-05-2005 11:21 AM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 111 of 187 (230034)
08-05-2005 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Monk
08-04-2005 5:41 PM


Re: DID BusH make ID mORe respectable?
if ID is a variation of Creo, then it is part of the Evo vs Creo controversy
I'm not sure what you are missing. While we can both agree that ID is just a version of Creo, the ID theorists have as part of their literature that it is absolutely not. They also state that anyone who claims ID is a variation of creo is an evo who is lying.
Thus for a teacher to answer a student's question that ID is a variation of creo, will fall right into that trap of the next question and the next question as well as accusations. You don't think the DI will sue teachers for misrepresenting ID to students?
No, you can’t speak for all kids.
Yes I can. Without the people of the discovery institute and its supporters, where would a child come up with ID? It is just that simple. Even if I agree that ID is a variation of creo, ID is a specific manifestation with specific claims that are not part of creo and not simple enough for a child to have come up with.
Don’t you agree with this or do you agree with Bush that it should be taught?
You have posed a false dilemma which shows why you are not understanding my position. Yes, one can argue that it is basically a religious movement and so should not be taught. I am arguing something else on top of that. Regardless of religious content it is not even science, as it does not contain a coherent model and rejects modern scientific methods.
It should not be taught, and questions regarding it should not be given any credence besides a student trying to disrupt class with irrelevant questions.
Who cares if it didn’t exist until some people dreamed it up. It’s here, kids will ask about it, and it should be dealt with.
Yes, but dealt with how? My initial reaction would be the same as yours with the exception of we now have a history of what they do with such reactions. If one states that ID is Creo, then one gets in trouble for misrepresenting ID. Then they make even more noise about a controversy which makes for reasons why it must be taught clearly to the kids.
I notice you avoided my direct and real example of ebonics. If an ebonics institute began calling for it to be taught and that everyone should be taught the controversy, would you agree that a teacher should deal with students questions on the topic of ebonics in class, or state that it is not part of standard english curricula and move on?
I don't believe the best approach is to ignore the issue.
I used to believe that. Honestly I did. But now I have seen their game of using any discussion to facilitate more discussion. Its like a virus. Despite conclusions being reached on the subject, they simply claim it hasn't and that any such comments are lies and so more hearing must be done.
In some cases it is a pure power play with ID advocates in positions of power ruling that ID is separate from creo and so its tenets must be discussed.
It seems to me feeding their selfmade industry is not conducive to understanding at all, it is simply good for sales and more rhetoric.
All the teachers need do is allocate a certain amount of time for it. Let the kids ask their questions, any questions at all. It could be about ID or creationism or any issue opposing evolution. That's part of what learning is about, asking questions.
Yes, questions that are on topic. As long as an ID related question is on topic then it should be answered. Most of what they have to ask is not. If a kid pulls out, or has been prepped on, Wells' Icons of Evolution, a science teacher is going to be in for quite a bit of off topic lecturing.
Perhaps you are misunderstanding the extent to which I think it should not be discussed by teachers. I don't think it should be discussed in a science class. It could certainly be discussed by science teachers before or after class, or in a history or philosphy of science class. It just shouldn't be injected into a science class.
I know when I or others had off topic questions the teachers would deal with them and I do agree should deal with them. They almost universally stated to talk about it before or after class. Is there something wrong with that?
You assume teachers have no control in the classroom. The discussion is over when the teacher says it’s over. Haven’t you been to high school?
You are holding a conflicting position here. First you say the teacher should answer questions, and here you say the teacher can end on any question and its over. If this is true, why can't a teacher nip it right at the first question saying:
"Well that's an interesting issue, and a complicated one, but the end result is it has no direct bearing on science or legitimate scientific theory and so I'm not going to use time on that issue during a science class. If you want to discuss it after class that would be fine."
They can of course discuss it with the whole class if the whole class is interested and wants to hang around.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Monk, posted 08-04-2005 5:41 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Monk, posted 08-05-2005 12:49 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 119 by Brad McFall, posted 08-05-2005 1:02 PM Silent H has not replied

loko 
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 187 (230037)
08-05-2005 6:10 AM


The ID is only to condition people for what is coming. The microchip implant. This will have mind control captabilities, but they will not tell you the truth about it. It is the mark of the beast that will be accompained with an initiation to the new world order.

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by crashfrog, posted 08-05-2005 7:29 AM loko has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 113 of 187 (230045)
08-05-2005 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by loko
08-05-2005 6:10 AM


Everybody get out your...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by loko, posted 08-05-2005 6:10 AM loko has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by CK, posted 08-05-2005 7:37 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 120 by Monk, posted 08-05-2005 1:53 PM crashfrog has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 114 of 187 (230046)
08-05-2005 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by crashfrog
08-05-2005 7:29 AM


Re: Everybody get out your...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by crashfrog, posted 08-05-2005 7:29 AM crashfrog has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 115 of 187 (230054)
08-05-2005 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by randman
08-04-2005 9:20 PM


Re: evolutionist hypocrisy
quote:
Personally, I don't consider evolutionist journals good science when it comes to evolution and somewhat farcical on the whole subject in fact.
So, do we take this to mean that you believe all Evolutionary Biologists and Geneticists to be liars or so incompetent that the thousands of papers that are published every year are worthless?
Can you please provide some specific evidence in the form of, let's say, five papers published in professional Biology journals that are full of lies, or that the methodology is of such poor quality that we should disregard them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by randman, posted 08-04-2005 9:20 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by randman, posted 08-08-2005 10:53 AM nator has not replied

Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 116 of 187 (230132)
08-05-2005 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Silent H
08-05-2005 5:31 AM


Re: Should ID be censored?
It is very simple. Come up with something that matches the above criteria.
There is nothing I could say to change your mind, your bias is apparent. You believe Bush to be a moron as do most on this forum. Fine. Your opinion. You will refute any criteria I meet regardless of the logic, reject any examples I provide, and maintain your position. It's not a false dilemma, Holmes, it's a game and you know it.
The dilemma stands. If I post something that's smart, then you'll say it wasn't Bush, but someone behind the scenes. If I post something stupid, then you'll credit Bush with being a moron. You simply can't lose with that strategy. That's a sucker dance I'm not getting into with you.
I provided an example, you rejected it, it's done. Off topic anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Silent H, posted 08-05-2005 5:31 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Silent H, posted 08-05-2005 2:30 PM Monk has not replied

Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 117 of 187 (230140)
08-05-2005 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Mammuthus
08-05-2005 3:41 AM


Re: DID BusH make ID mORe respectable?
I think you're right on target with that assessment, in particular regarding the scientific method.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Mammuthus, posted 08-05-2005 3:41 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 118 of 187 (230178)
08-05-2005 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Silent H
08-05-2005 6:07 AM


Re: DID BusH make ID mORe respectable?
I'm not sure what you are missing. While we can both agree that ID is just a version of Creo, the ID theorists have as part of their literature that it is absolutely not. They also state that anyone who claims ID is a variation of creo is an evo who is lying.
Well, the ID theorist can state anything they want. But since we agree that ID should not be taught, then there is no need for the teacher to get into the details of the subject.
Thus for a teacher to answer a student's question that ID is a variation of creo, will fall right into that trap of the next question and the next question as well as accusations. You don't think the DI will sue teachers for misrepresenting ID to students?
I was offering a broad solution to the topic of ID being taught, it should not. I did, however, propose a brief amount of class time to address all objections to evolution, ID and creationism included. The specifics of how the teachers should treat the topic during these class discussions should be worked out with the school administrators to ensure legal requirements.
It may well be the case that lawyers for ID proponents would take issue with any form of discussion. School administrators could determine the topic to be off limits for fear of lawsuits. In this case, ID would essentially be censored.
ID is a specific manifestation with specific claims that are not part of creo and not simple enough for a child to have come up with.
You say child, but the reality is that young adults who take freshman biology class have access to the internet, can read and reason, and can certainly bring some of the ID arguments into the classroom on their own. You don’t give kids much credit, I do.
Yes, one can argue that it is basically a religious movement and so should not be taught. I am arguing something else on top of that. Regardless of religious content it is not even science, as it does not contain a coherent model and rejects modern scientific methods.
Glad we agree, sort of. As I previously stated, the school administrators need to determine the content of these discussions.
You said, You don't think the DI will sue teachers for misrepresenting ID to students?, but now you seem to be arguing that teachers should go beyond merely stating ID as a religious movement. Wouldn’t this increase the chance of a lawsuit that you’re concerned about?
Yes, but dealt with how? My initial reaction would be the same as yours with the exception of we now have a history of what they do with such reactions. If one states that ID is Creo, then one gets in trouble for misrepresenting ID. Then they make even more noise about a controversy which makes for reasons why it must be taught clearly to the kids.
I already told you on numerous occasions how it should be dealt with. I’ll say it again. Have a brief discussion about it, I said perhaps one class period or a class period. Have the kids ask questions but in the end have the teacher point out that both ID and creationism are based on religious beliefs and as such are not appropriate for a high school science classes.
I notice you avoided my direct and real example of ebonics. If an ebonics institute began calling for it to be taught and that everyone should be taught the controversy, would you agree that a teacher should deal with students questions on the topic of ebonics in class, or state that it is not part of standard english curricula and move on?
I didn't address ebonics because you bring up the same point over and over again dressed in different clothing. If ebonics becomes controversial, begins appearing in the media on a regular basis, then yes, the english teacher will need to address it. The same for your hooskido or Holmes secret plan or anything Holmes, anything that is germane to the school subject being taught and is generating a lot of controversy outside of the classroom such that kids begin asking a lot of questions about it. Care to come up with some more examples? My comment will be the same.
I don't think it should be discussed in a science class. It could certainly be discussed by science teachers before or after class, or in a history or philosphy of science class. It just shouldn't be injected into a science class. I know when I or others had off topic questions the teachers would deal with them and I do agree should deal with them. They almost universally stated to talk about it before or after class. Is there something wrong with that?
So now you have answered your own question as to how it should be dealt with. Your approach is simply a variation of what I have been saying all along. I’m not a teacher nor a lawyer and from a legal prespective it may not be prudent for the school to allow discussions inside the classroom. It may not be acceptable outside of the classroom either. I have always suggested that a small amount of class time should be allocated for it. If that’s not possible, so be it.
You are holding a conflicting position here. First you say the teacher should answer questions, and here you say the teacher can end on any question and its over. If this is true, why can't a teacher nip it right at the first question saying:
"Well that's an interesting issue, and a complicated one, but the end result is it has no direct bearing on science or legitimate scientific theory and so I'm not going to use time on that issue during a science class. If you want to discuss it after class that would be fine."
There is no conflict. Your approach is a possibility. My approach is a possibility. These are all options that individual school districts will need to determine if they haven’t already done so. Perhaps neither approach is acceptable from a legal perspective.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Silent H, posted 08-05-2005 6:07 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Silent H, posted 08-05-2005 2:52 PM Monk has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 119 of 187 (230185)
08-05-2005 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Silent H
08-05-2005 6:07 AM


Re: DID BusH make ID mORe respectable?
quote:
It should not be taught, and questions regarding it should not be given any credence besides a student trying to disrupt class with irrelevant questions.
Well in respect to Monk's contribution inter thread alia I would like to say that AFTER i First started to read creation science and see it easily different than scientific creationism (Ruse reFUSEs to cognize the difference)and I mentioned my simple reading of the literature and even before that when I said I was interested in evolution every one was STILL (both before and after) asking me like, "Well do you believe in evolution?" the only difference was that last night on Conan O'BrIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiIan he mouthed off of Bush asking in third party comedy if GW was intelligent enough to answer the question "Then you don't believe in evolution then?" (paraphrase).
If the introduction of ID into history, philosophy or religious classes in high school, or part of an essay section in English or a section in a general science class on science and society (or technology) only leads to this kind of knee JERK questioning then indeed there would be nothing to teach but if instead there was a way to show how kinematics affected the maths of variability (even if by a stock curriculum) then indeed there is something more than being a spectator in class on this.
I do know however that the teacher most likely to be able to bring this across at HCHS where I went to high school, my physics teacher, was not capable. So it seems to me that creationists, if they have not already will produce such a patent writing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Silent H, posted 08-05-2005 6:07 AM Silent H has not replied

Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 120 of 187 (230217)
08-05-2005 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by crashfrog
08-05-2005 7:29 AM


Re: Everybody get out your...
It’s a shame loko got banned. It would have been entertaining to hear his opinion on the effectiveness of the design variations of the AFDB. The type shown in your photo from the movie Signs has a pointed peak verses the skull cap design as shown in Charles Knights’ link. I wonder which is more effective?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by crashfrog, posted 08-05-2005 7:29 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Rahvin, posted 08-05-2005 2:01 PM Monk has not replied
 Message 127 by crashfrog, posted 08-05-2005 10:09 PM Monk has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024