Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Kansas State School Board At It Once Again
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 39 of 136 (199571)
04-15-2005 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by EZscience
04-15-2005 11:47 AM


EZscience writes:
The Kansas Citizens for Science have advocated that all scientists boycott these hearings to deny them credibility.
How about if only scientists named Steve testified for evolution?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by EZscience, posted 04-15-2005 11:47 AM EZscience has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Phat, posted 04-16-2005 6:14 AM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 48 of 136 (200454)
04-19-2005 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by commike37
04-19-2005 4:30 PM


commike37 writes:
This is not an anti-evolution bill. It's not getting rid of evolution; it's adding alternative theories. What exactly is wrong with introducing the other side of the debate?
The objection is that science class is for teaching the facts and principles and theories of science. Unable to find acceptance in scientific venues, Creationists instead directly lobby school boards for representation as science without ever having achieved scientific status. Unable to convince experts, they instead lobby the non-scientists of school boards claiming unfair treatment by scientists.
Concerning the debate itself, it isn't a scientific debate. There is no controversy within science. There aren't different groups of scientists fighting it out in journals and at conferences. There's only conservative Christians working hard at putting a science-like veneer over Creationism in order to make it easier to fool non-scientists into thinking Creationism is scientific.
An advanced physics class in high school might study dark matter, and if only WIMPs were covered as a possibility then that would be wrong because MACHOs are also a possibility considered by scientists. It is a current debate going on within science right now, and this debate stands in contrast to the claims of Creationists that there's a scientific debate going on about Creationism. Both WIMPs and MACHOs should be covered in science class when studying dark matter because science hasn't yet settled the issue. But Creationism should not be covered when teaching evolution because science long ago settled this issue by rejecting Creationism.
A comment about Creationism's science-like veneer. This hasn't proved successful as courts have repeatedly ruled that Creationism is thinly veiled religion. It seems that creating alternative journals and conferences and calling them science isn't fooling the legal system. This lack of success is why Creationism has changed horses from YEC to ID.
If Creationists would cease their efforts at inserting religion into science class then the debate would drop completely out of the public eye.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by commike37, posted 04-19-2005 4:30 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by commike37, posted 04-20-2005 4:55 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 53 of 136 (200740)
04-20-2005 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by commike37
04-20-2005 4:55 PM


This has become an all too-common tactic to blame it on the Christian right. Not only does this commit the ad-hominem logical fallacy, but it generalizes the ID side to right-wing Christians only. Had you read this article, you would find the opinions to be much more diverse than right-wing Creationists vs. "true scientists."
I'm aware of the slant the article places on the facts. You must consider why, if the IDists are actually true scientists, they are taking their arguments to school boards instead of to scientific journals and conferences. It is because they aren't actually doing any real science.
There is not any debate within science. This is not a case of one set of scientists precluding representation of the theories of another group of scientists. There is no group of scientists working on ID theory. There are only evangelical Christians trying to introduce their views into science classrooms.
As I mentioned in my earlier post, setting up shop with their own conferences and journals has not fooled the American legal system, which regularly found Creation Science to be thinly veiled religion, and it is unlikely to work with ID, either. ID has an obvious motivation for avoiding any association with these failed efforts of YEC Creationism, but they're still not going to fool anyone. Every time there was court case almost all those testifying for Creationism were affiliated with evangelical religious or theological institutions, while those on the other side represented a large number of different secular institutions and were members of a wide variety of religions, including no religion. If ID ends up in court like Creation Science did, ID's origins from within evangelical Christianity will be obvious from the backgrounds of those representing it. One of the primary promoters of ID, Dembski, is now director of the Center for Science and Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. What does this seminary have to say about itself? Well here, read for yourself at About Baptist Seminary | Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary:
[text=black]Southwestern strives to provide a community of faith and learning that develops spiritual leaders with a passion for Christ and the Bible, a love for people, and the skills to minister effectively in a rapidly changing world.[/text]
Wow, sounds like a real bastion of science, doesn't it! That's where your great ID leader is now, running a department at a seminary. I guess he decided to pass over all those prestigious opporunities to join the faculty at MIT and CalTech and Stanford and Carnegie Mellon because of this stunning opportunity at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
commike37 writes:
Concerning the debate itself, it isn't a scientific debate. There is no controversy within science. There aren't different groups of scientists fighting it out in journals and at conferences. There's only conservative Christians working hard at putting a science-like veneer over Creationism in order to make it easier to fool non-scientists into thinking Creationism is scientific.
Once again you show that you haven't been reading the article.
I'm sorry that you've been taken in by this article, but there is no legitimate scientific research going on in ID. Its a religious idea, not a scientific one.
Referring to the legal system seems to contradict what you said earlier. You criticize ID for being too "political," but at the same time you make a reference the decision of a political institution to support your case against ID. You can't have it both ways.
I don't know where your confusion lies, so I'll just repeat what I've already said. The efforts of ID resemble the earlier efforts of YEC Creation Science by focusing their efforts on special pleadings before school boards and legislatures for representation in science classrooms, instead of actually doing science. Like YEC Creation Science before it, ID tries to portray the debate as one between groups of different minded scientists while denying the close religious affiliations. Like YEC Creation Science before it, outside the lay public ID will fool very few people, including the American legal system.
If there were really groups of ID scientists out there engaged in legitimate research, their papers would be in journals, and some of them would be here now engaged in a scientific debate on the merits, and we would all be excited about this new direction in biology. But there aren't any real ID scientists out there. There's only evangelical Christians doing their best to make ID look like science.
--Percy
This message has been edited by Percy, 04-21-2005 09:55 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by commike37, posted 04-20-2005 4:55 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by commike37, posted 04-21-2005 4:56 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 56 of 136 (200979)
04-21-2005 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by commike37
04-21-2005 4:56 PM


commike37 writes:
I'm aware of the slant the article places on the facts.
The Kansas City Star did not take a definitive position on whether ID or evolution was right, and it's a reputable newspaper. This is an unsubstantiated claim.
Okay, have it your way, there's no slant in the article. In that case you're misinterpreting the article as implying that there is a true debate within science.
commike37 writes:
There is not any debate within science.
[Not included - link and info about debate between Dembski and Kauffman at Texas A&M]
[Not included - link and info about debate on NPR]
Plus, in addition to these two examples, every time someone published a reply to one of the works by an ID scientists, that would count as debating ID. Saying that there is no debate is just your own extreme viewpoint.
I didn't say there wasn't any debate. There is very much a debate. But the debate is between Christian evangelicals and science, not between scientists of opposing viewpoints. There is no debate within science. There are no ID scientists publishing their papers in journals and presenting them at conferences and clashing with other scientists of more traditional viewpoints. As I said before, "This is not a case of one set of scientists precluding representation of the theories of another group of scientists. There is no group of scientists working on ID theory. There are only evangelical Christians trying to introduce their views into science classrooms."
After I spent more than half of my lenghtly post showing how terrible this argument is and refuting it with multiple pieces of evidences, you refuse to refute the majority of my counter-argument and instead reiterate what you just said. On top of that, you've given no proof that ID is thinly-veiled Creationism (except for Dembski, which is only one exampe, but I'll refute that later in the post); you only claim that this is true. Given all of that, you can not continue to compare Creationism and ID and argue for the link between the two. Even Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research know that creationism and ID are different, but you can't see the truth on this one. This claim about creationism and ID is just becoming so frivolous now that I'm starting to get personally offended by it.
Well that's just peachy! Join the long list of the easily offended.
If you think I'm not addressing your points it's probably because I see them as orthogonal to the key issue. The views of science are what gets taught in science class. ID is not a view of science. It should therefore not be taught in science class.
Dembski can be both a Christian and a scientist, but he knows to keep the two separate...
Yes, we know. He keeps them separate by being a Christian and not a scientist. We know he's not a scientist because he's published no papers in the technical literature, presented no papers at conferences, and his views have had no influence within evolutionary biology.
You seem to forget that there are scientists who are attending these hearings, scientists who are on the committee, etc. (unless you want to claim that the Kansas City Star lied). The scientific debate is being played out within these hearings.
No, Commike37, it isn't. There is no debate within science. If you think there is then I suggest you try to find papers in the technical literature about ID by people like Dembski and Behe and Meyer. The debate at these hearings is between scientists and evangelical Christians.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by commike37, posted 04-21-2005 4:56 PM commike37 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 57 of 136 (200981)
04-21-2005 5:49 PM


Salty Redux
See Page not found · GitHub Pages for a discussion of Dembski in which Salty (aka John A. Davison) participated at Panda's Thumb.
--Percy

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024