|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Bush promotes ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3953 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
paisano Member (Idle past 6451 days) Posts: 459 From: USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
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 theno" 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Monk writes:
quote: You have to pay very close attention to the capitalization, then march it along a Moebius, mirrored.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
jar writes
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3953 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
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:
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Thor Member (Idle past 5939 days) Posts: 148 From: Sydney, Australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6504 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024