|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Bush promotes ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6496 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
I hear evolutionists say IDers don't do real science, but they do in fact. It's not that they aren't doing credible science. It's that evolutionists don't like it. Realy? Can you name some recent studies, expiriments, or developments ID scientists have had lately? Can you name any ongoing ID research, groups performing that research, and any significant findings they have had as of late. Also, what scientific goals do ID proponents have? What are the current debates WITHIN the ID community? Seriously, I would love to know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Google the Discovery Insitute and various creationist science organizations and check out what they are doing for yourself.
I would also characterize much of the research in QM, as involving experiments to determine, how design mechanisms work, not that physicists think of themselves as IDers, but that's what they are researching, imo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Google the Discovery Insitute and various creationist science organizations and check out what they are doing for yourself.
I would also characterize much of the research in QM, as involving experiments to determine, how design mechanisms work, not that physicists think of themselves as IDers, but that's what they are researching, imo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
There's no such thing as evolutionist nor ID science. It's just science.
There are definitely scientists arguing that the data fits better with creationism and/or ID.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
And there is definitely a fat guy in a red suit who flies all over the world, giving present to good boys and girls on Christmas Eve.
I can make unsupported statements, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
I keep hearing evolutionist claim ID is not science, but never back up the claim. How about we do that right now, shall we? Scientific theories describe mechanisms that explain observable data. Evolution describes the mechanism (small random changes between generations guided by selection) that explains the observable data (different species with a common ancestor). ID describes....nothing. No mechanism. Just "God did it," which isn't an explanation at all. Since ID does not describe any mechanism, it is NOT science. The basic premise of ID is that life is too complex to have been brought about by random chance and natural processes - it must have been designed because it is complex. ID rests entirely on the assumption that complex entities MUST be designed, and that this fact is self-evident. It's simply not true. A ball of yarn attacked by a kitten is "complex," sometimes even irreducibly so. The kitten hardly "designed it." If we use human intelligence as an example of what designed entities look like (since we have no other example to work with), we see that intelligently designed things are LESS complex than those found in nature. Tghis assumption is a simple appeal to incredulity - "it couldn't possibly have happened that way!" with no evidence to support the claim. Since ID's assertion rests entirely on this assumption, and that assumption is blatantly false, ID has no scientific merit. Period.
I hear evolutionists say IDers don't do real science, but they do in fact. It's not that they aren't doing credible science. It's that evolutionists don't like it. Bull. See above.
I hear evolutionists demand why don't they publish in peer-reviewed evolutionist journals, and when someone does, they say it should never have been published and try to ruin the editor's career that published. That would BE the peer-review process. When bad science is published, other scientitst show it to be bad. That's the point.
All this makes me think evolutionists are a bunch of hypocrites afraid to allow for honest assessment of the facts and debate. And posts like this assure me that Creationists have no comprehension of the facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3924 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
Jar writes: I certainly would agree that ID should be taught. and would go so far as to suggest that it should be taught in the science classes. Very few subjects would be a better medium to show how totally lacking in foundation a subject can be. You know, that sounds good when posted on a forum, but it doesn’t wash as a viable approach. I can’t envision a teacher spending time to develop a false curriculum, then proceed to teach it in the classroom just to prove a point, especially when the teacher does not hold it to be truthful to begin with. It’s a waste of time. It’s like spending time in the classroom trying to show that God cannot be proven to exist through the scientific method. Why go through that sort of exercise when all it would do is generate bad publicity and irate parents. It would not benefit the students and no school administrator in his/her right mind would expose the school to that. As I’ve said up thread, I believe the reasonable approach is to have a discussion about the controversy. It can’t be ignored, OTOH, valuable class time shouldn’t be spent to debunk it. It’s sufficient to discuss that many people object to certain facets of evolution based on their religious beliefs and end it there. BTW: That must be the first time you agree with Bush. This message has been edited by Monk, Wed, 08-03-2005 03:50 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6496 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Well, when I checked the Discovery institute they had a bunch of thier articles, and books that they sell but no info on research. I checked into their activities and it seems they aren't involved in any research at all!
Their opperations are purely political. They promote ID by lobying state and federal government. They loby school boards. etc. Real scientists don't usualy operate this way. This message has been edited by Yaro, 08-03-2005 04:39 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
I haven't read this whole thread, so pardon me if this has been said....
Our president is quoted as saying "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes." One wonders why he doesn't want his principle applied to sex education in public schools. He'll only support funding for the "abstinence-only" programs that have helped Texas reach the coveted #1 ranking in teen pregnancy in the US. Is actual birth control somehow not a "different idea?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It could be, but I guess I have a lot of faith in what can be done in teaching. Frankly, I think we could do much more than is being done. Of course, I also believe that to do so you need to throw out all of the elected school boards in the country.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I would say, there is nothing to censor, ID is bunk and proven so. Would you call it censoring if a teacher chose to teach geocentric theory as an "aleternative" to heliocentric? In the science classes that I took, earlier models of the universe were presented with the current accepted model. When we learned about the atom, we were taught the other models that are not accpeted allong with the one that is accepted. When I took a class on human evolution, in the beginning the teacher announced that she acknowedges that some people don't believe in evolution and some believe in creation, but this class is not about determining which is right, and creation will be assumed to not exist for the purpose of the class. And it was never mentioned again, no problem. My point is that you can teach ID in a science class along with evolution, just like they did with the universe/atom models. Why ID and not some other mythical creation story?, because there aren't a bunch of people trying to get those stories into the classroom. Just let it be mentioned, I don't think its a big deal. Or you could also just say, when you get to that part of the class, that ID is total crap and we aren't gonna talk about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wolf Inactive Member |
It really does not surprise me. We have a born again Christian President, that claims God spoke to him and told him to free the Iraqi Oil, I mean People. Why doesn't God tell him to free the many oppressed peoples in Africa? So why would he not support ID in schools?
"A Dwarf on a Giants Shoulder sees the Furthest of the Two!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
paisano Member (Idle past 6423 days) Posts: 459 From: USA Joined: |
Bad strategy to make analogies like this.
The IDists would love nothing more than to portray evolution as something only far-left atheists accept. You need as allies conservatives who see ID as bad science. I am more upset about this than Monk, but we seem to be on the same page. Conflating evolution with left-wing social causes is like pouring gasoline on the fire the IDists are trying to light.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Since when is sex-ed a left-wing issue? There are lots of us conservatives that support sex-ed and think abstinence only is simply a stupid idea.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
I should think not.
I have commented before about the apparent lack of Bush's use of his preelection comments on evolution and creation here on EvC.
preelection There are others + go search--- I can not see ID made more respectable through any new lenses that the ball players lack. It seems simply, unless it is more than rethoric, to have been George's "washing of hands" no matter the finger figured by the press. That aside what IS VERY interesting is that a few characterizations by me or someone else here can collapse the entire trasmission of FOX NEWS or intention of a Whitehouse Functionary. I was quite suprised to see how I could refer to Bill O'Reilly ENTIRE tired take. That is not intended by me to put him but his intervieweeee down. YES, stands!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No webpage found at provided URL: quote: What would make ID more respectable is if IT was seen not as Gross grossly spun in a no spin zone but as the "yes" that is larger than the "no" &&&&&WHETHER OR NOT&&&&&&&&&some one first answers yes OR no! This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-03-2005 07:04 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024