Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bush promotes ID
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 61 of 195 (229440)
08-03-2005 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by jar
08-03-2005 5:46 PM


There are lots of us conservatives that support sex-ed and think abstinence only is simply a stupid idea.
abstinence only makes girls several times more likely to engage in oral and anal sex, because it "doesn't count."
so, uh, i'm all for it.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 08-03-2005 5:46 PM jar has not replied

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


Message 62 of 195 (229453)
08-03-2005 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Brad McFall
08-03-2005 6:53 PM


Re: DID BusH make ID mORe respectable?
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!
Sometimes, on occasion, I get real close to understanding your posts, but then......alas......it slips away. It's sort of like chasing a feather in the wind. There's a song in that thought somewhere. The answer my friend is blowing in the wind, the answer is ....... Dylan?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Brad McFall, posted 08-03-2005 6:53 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Brad McFall, posted 08-03-2005 9:09 PM Monk has replied
 Message 65 by Omnivorous, posted 08-03-2005 9:44 PM Monk has not replied

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


Message 63 of 195 (229481)
08-03-2005 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by jar
08-03-2005 5:46 PM


Let's not veer off-topic. My point is that the strongest argument against ID and the one we can all agree on is that it is bad science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 08-03-2005 5:46 PM jar has not replied

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


Message 64 of 195 (229485)
08-03-2005 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Monk
08-03-2005 7:20 PM


Re: DID BusH make ID mORe respectable?
It is all in the INTrest of full disclosure. It seems frustrating to the extent that it was not fully such.
Let me go back over Bill's connections to Bush's mentality. The point Gross made was that ID was not a very big alternative (on the same footing) as evolution but that is only the point when pointing out that ID as it exists today is not a paradigm legitametly confronting and competing for consensus science so-called. The larger conceptual framework of ID however COULD and could grow to where Bill's clearly superior attitude to Gross spurns the spider of the current spin so to say IN THE same POINT AS THE PRESIDENT MADE and becomes a legit alternative. The focus on GOD is not the issue. The larger intellectual base disclosure IS.
I will need to do a little sneakering before I can decide if GW wimped out stem cells to ID for a few cans of spinach or not as for any creationism he could have if the electorate was dated data but regardless it is not in the wind either. So yes you responded correctly to me, to the yes and not the
no" I know also. Thanks, Brad
What not just see EVC+- a few other web sites as PROVIDING FULL DISCLOSURE??? then we can leave the maps of the weather channel out it can we not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Monk, posted 08-03-2005 7:20 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Monk, posted 08-03-2005 10:33 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 65 of 195 (229493)
08-03-2005 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Monk
08-03-2005 7:20 PM


Re: DID BusH make ID mORe respectable?
Monk writes:
quote:
Sometimes, on occasion, I get real close to understanding your posts
You have to pay very close attention to the capitalization, then march it along a Moebius, mirrored.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Monk, posted 08-03-2005 7:20 PM Monk has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 66 of 195 (229503)
08-03-2005 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by jar
08-03-2005 3:54 PM


Re: I certainly would agree that ID should be taught...
jar writes
quote:
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. ID and Creationism (the classic Biblical kind) are great examples of the worst types of pseudoscience. By looking at them it might help students understand the difference between science and pseudoscience. The old examples of the snake-oil salesman are now dated, many if not most students today have never experienced either the medicine man or the carny barker. ID and Classic Biblical Creationism would be better examples of hucksterism as opposed to science and would be ones the kids could actually observe in action.
Ah, ubi sunt Mr. Baker and the advanced freshman biology class of 1964!
I agree completely, jar. Mr. Baker taught the history and tenets of ToE, then he explained the history and tenets of Creationism. He told us all to go home and think about it, then return the next day prepared to speak our minds.
The podium was open: no one was compelled to speak, but nearly everyone did. In 1964, in Indiana, snug in the Bible Belt and the first state to be declared a Republican victory in presidential elections for many decades, one by one we marched up to the podium, and with few exceptions came down decisively on the side of evolution: the consensus was that religous people who insisted there was any real conflict between faith and science were just being willfully thick.
There were a few moments of discomfort when Howie the fundamentalist seemed on the verge of frothing, but we got past that alright.
I say teach the scientific method, teach the ToE, then teach ID and let it do its worst: it might be the best thing that could happen.
That nonsense thrives in the cursory glance, not in close study.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 08-03-2005 3:54 PM jar has not replied

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


Message 67 of 195 (229508)
08-03-2005 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Brad McFall
08-03-2005 9:09 PM


Re: DID BusH make ID mORe respectable?
Ah, thanks for the clarification. I think.
You seem to be saying that ID has a long way to go before it can comfortably fit in the larger conceptual framework and become a legitimate alternative to evolution. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the framework at all. That was Bush's point. It's possible that one day ID could legitimately grow more mainstream and eventually compete for science consensus. Therefore, despite it's obvious inadequacies, ID should not be discounted.
My point is that because of these inadequacies, ID should not be taught in public high schools. As Jar pointed out, it's pseudoscience. I don't even know how it would be taught. The best I can come up with for the teacher of ID is:
  1. Make the observation that nature appears complex,
  2. Make the point that complexity doesn't evolve on its own, it needs an external intelligence
  3. Throw in a few examples.
What else can be said? Maybe I'm missing something, is there more to ID than that?
I believe in an intelligent designer because I believe in God. But my belief, (or anyone else's) is not sufficient as a basis for a science curriculum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Brad McFall, posted 08-03-2005 9:09 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Silent H, posted 08-04-2005 6:17 AM Monk has replied
 Message 76 by Brad McFall, posted 08-04-2005 8:40 AM Monk has not replied

  
Thor
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 148
From: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 12-20-2004


Message 68 of 195 (229513)
08-03-2005 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by randman
08-03-2005 3:59 PM


Re: evolutionist hypocrisy
I keep hearing evolutionist claim ID is not science, but never back up the claim.
A question. How is ID falsifiable? What situation may arise where ID could be clearly disproved? I am not aware of any, and unless ID meets this basic requirement of science, it is not scientific.
This is why it should only be mentioned in passing, if at all, in a science class. While it may be accepted by many people it does not meet the standards of science and is therefore inappropriate for any kind of in-depth analysis in a science class. The exception is where it is used as an example of what NOT to do.

On the 7th day, God was arrested.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by randman, posted 08-03-2005 3:59 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by randman, posted 08-04-2005 12:41 AM Thor has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 69 of 195 (229530)
08-04-2005 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Rahvin
08-03-2005 4:23 PM


Re: evolutionist hypocrisy
You don't understand ID. Since you claim ID consists of merely arguing complexity necessitates design, your post is somewhat meaningless.
To help illustrate that, if there was greater simplicity, there could still be Intelligent Design, even with very great simplicity.
Now, one argument is indeed that irreducible complexity is evidence against evolution and forensically is strong evidence for ID, but it's not complexity itself per se.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Rahvin, posted 08-03-2005 4:23 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 70 of 195 (229533)
08-04-2005 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by CK
08-03-2005 2:56 PM


Re: Tal - Back or retract
OK Charles, show how many speciation events it would take to evolve a bird from a fish, and then show to what degree those speciation events have occurred.
Can you show even 1% of the speciation events that would be necessary?
Can you even demonstrably prove one speciation event in that chain has occurred?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by CK, posted 08-03-2005 2:56 PM CK has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 71 of 195 (229536)
08-04-2005 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Thor
08-03-2005 11:08 PM


Re: evolutionist hypocrisy
Some forms of ID would be falsifiable if we observed species evolve from a chemical mix or macro-evolution in areas that are considered irreducibly complex, and we could reasonably define all of the mechanisms involved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Thor, posted 08-03-2005 11:08 PM Thor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Wounded King, posted 08-04-2005 5:35 AM randman has replied

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


Message 72 of 195 (229558)
08-04-2005 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by paisano
08-03-2005 12:49 PM


Re: Should ID be censored?
There is already one long term consequence of the already weak K-12 education system in the US (relative to many other industrialized countries) and that is the diminishing minority status of US trained students in the sciences. In some fields, and particularly the biological sciences, the grads and postdocs are mostly foreigners (60% or more). The US is relying more and more on foreign educated scholars because of a lack of homegrown talent. You certainly don't see that in Germany or the UK. Another problem with this is that a majority of foreign researchers eventually leave the US and return to their home countries removing their expertise from our economy and leaving a gap that can only be filled by another foreigner...if that supply stops or slows down, the US will be left at a disadvantage. These are hard trends to reverse since the sciences are exceptionally difficult in the first place and require an unsually large time and education investment on the part of a prospective scientist that would not be necessary in other fields. There can be many factors involved but I think it is significant that movements like ID which are anti-science polemic devices for a specific religious group weaken both the interest among prospective American students for science and the capacity for the general public to understand science at all (note Kansas not only opposing evolution but proposing to redefine science to include the supernatural). The end effect will be a society that cannot produce its own scientists, increasing advantages for other competing economies, and a group of people who think the lights go on because of magic entitites when they hit the switch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by paisano, posted 08-03-2005 12:49 PM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by paisano, posted 08-04-2005 10:41 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 73 of 195 (229576)
08-04-2005 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by randman
08-04-2005 12:41 AM


Re: evolutionist hypocrisy
Some forms of ID would be falsifiable if we observed species evolve from a chemical mix or macro-evolution in areas that are considered irreducibly complex, and we could reasonably define all of the mechanisms involved.
How would you exclude the possibility of manipulation at the quantum level by some, as yet, unobserved intelligent designer? What could stop a being with god like capabilities interfering with the molecular interactions in such a way as to produce such an effect without our being able to detect their interference? Isn't this exactly the sort of mechanism you yourself are proposing for the manipulation of genetic sequences?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by randman, posted 08-04-2005 12:41 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by randman, posted 08-04-2005 9:35 PM Wounded King has not replied

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


Message 74 of 195 (229580)
08-04-2005 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Monk
08-03-2005 11:50 AM


Re: Should ID be censored?
But that implies even less about the opposition who is routinely outwitted and outmaneuvered by Bush.
You'll have to supply some evidence that Bush ever outwitted or outmaneuvered anyone. It doesn't take any intelligence whatsoever to win a pure powerplay and that is all he has been doing since before he reached office.
Can you name one thing he has done, which has not involved either the sheer power of the office to overrule dissent, or the republican control of the rest of the federal govt to crush dissent?
The fact that his opposition is less powerful does not make him more intelligent. His repeated failures at intelligence and analysis of intelligence, while his opposition has been proven correct time after time, speaks to his level of intelligence.
The fact that he equated ID with TOE, and treated science class as a place where kids should be exposed to "different ideas" rather than instructed in scientific theory, only adds to his definition of someone not very bright.

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 2 by Monk, posted 08-03-2005 11:50 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Monk, posted 08-04-2005 9:11 AM Silent H has replied

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


Message 75 of 195 (229582)
08-04-2005 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Monk
08-03-2005 10:33 PM


Re: DID BusH make ID mORe respectable?
That was Bush's point. It's possible that one day ID could legitimately grow more mainstream and eventually compete for science consensus. Therefore, despite it's obvious inadequacies, ID should not be discounted.
He was not advocating that if a child brings it up, then a teacher should say it isn't a scientific theory at all, but rather a religious belief that might one day get enough evidence and its devotees actually construct a theory around that evidence to create an alternative to the TOE.
He was stating quite clearly that it should be discussed as a different idea within a science class. ID is not a different idea than the TOE in a science class, it is an errant and incomplete idea and therefore deserves no mention in a science class.
I understand that a reponse from a teacher to a student needn't be overtly poisonous, but it should be overtly negative. ID is not a theory as it has no model. Neither does it work with modern scientific methodology or accepted forms of logic. It is a political and religious movement.
Because of this it is almost obscene for a president to suggest it should be discussed in a science class. And I would add it is false for you to state that it would naturally be brought up. It would only be brought up because politicians and religious zealots (like Bush) are pushing that "question" into the public spectrum. Teach the controversy... that they created. And then force people to discuss its possibility because it is a controversy?
I'm all for teaching it in a history or philosophy of science course. In a science course it is no more relevant than phlogiston. If I make a big push for that such that kids will ask about it, would that make it right to be discussed?
(AbE):
I just realized a more important point. If a child asks a teacher about ID, wouldn't it be reasonable for a teacher to simply ask what is the theory of ID and state they have never heard of such a thing?
Despite the hype there are many scientists who have still not heard about ID, or know it enough to discuss it, and are not any less a science teacher because of it.
The idea that a science teacher should be able to discuss ID is a bit odd. So now all science teachers must go and brush up on a patently nonscientific subject, perhaps learning about it for the first time, in order to answer students questions... urged on by political and religious zealots?
That's great promotion for the Discovery Institute. Create demand for fictitious literature which you created and sell by calling it real and any denial a "controversy" that scientists are trying to whitewash. Then get a president to portray questions regarding its legitimacy as real scientific query (even if it is admittedly not established yet) and so force teachers to get that literature and learn about it or promote its purchase by or instruction to students!
It seems to me if no students would ever have been hurt by not ever hearing about it, and one takes away time from teachers and students in dealing with it. And it is patently a political/religious movement hawking its wares without viable scientific credential, yet dealing with it in science class will promote students to get interested in it, then there is perhaps a very real reason to censor such commentary.
I do believe this is a major strike against Bush as a leader. Conservatives complained that Clinton caused children to ask about what blowjobs are... at least blowjobs are real. In this case a president is hawking snakeoil to kids, and forcing the ID agenda into a greater debate and exposure than it merited.
This message has been edited by holmes, 08-04-2005 06:56 AM

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 67 by Monk, posted 08-03-2005 10:33 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Monk, posted 08-04-2005 9:16 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 80 by Modulous, posted 08-04-2005 9:25 AM Silent H has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024