Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bush promotes ID
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 76 of 195 (229610)
08-04-2005 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Monk
08-03-2005 10:33 PM


Re: DID BusH make ID mORe respectable?
Yes that's about it. ID can not really be easily taught in High School because any future use case that is of a worth-while size requires the Kantian difference of mathematical and dynamical sublime that Russell thought his version of the history of logic discounted. I have NEVER counted on that certainty. I easily read a different logic. That is all.
I do not know if institutional ID is much better than your characterization until I know how the probabilistic philosophy of both ID and certain materialistic versions of Evolution by force ply where I apply Panbiogeography and the very small chance othewise that the probability itself is random.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Monk, posted 08-03-2005 10:33 PM Monk has not replied

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


Message 77 of 195 (229614)
08-04-2005 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Silent H
08-04-2005 5:50 AM


Re: Should ID be censored?
You'll have to supply some evidence that Bush ever outwitted or outmaneuvered anyone.... 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?
Hi Holmes,
Bush’s selection of John Roberts for SCOTUS is one example. That choice was clever and shrewd because he selected a conservative who has impeccable credentials, extensive experience arguing before the SCOTUS, and one who has already been through the process and accepted by the vast majority of Democrats.
Because of this acceptance, Bush has basically outmaneuvered opposing Democrats by removing most of their arguments. Sure, they can drum up new opposing arguments, but then they will be forced to explain their support for Roberts three years ago when he was overwhelmingly approved for the DC Court of Appeals by the same judicial committee.
This message has been edited by Monk, Thu, 08-04-2005 09:34 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Silent H, posted 08-04-2005 5:50 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Silent H, posted 08-04-2005 10:53 AM Monk has replied

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


Message 78 of 195 (229618)
08-04-2005 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Silent H
08-04-2005 6:17 AM


Re: DID BusH make ID mORe respectable?
We are in agreement on this issue. I don’t believe that ID should be taught in high school science classes because I consider it pseudoscience. In my message 67, I was attempting to understand Brad’s post by paraphrasing his comments
Holmes writes:
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.
I provided the transcript of what Bush actually said and it had nothing to do with questions from a student. Again, we are in agreement, because I have stated upthread that although I don’t believe it should be taught as a bona fide science topic, it will at least need to be discussed because kids will ask about it if the teacher does not bring it up.
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.
Not true. IF Bush has said ID should be discussed as a different idea or part of a variety of ideas in opposition to evolution, then I might have agreed with him. But he didn’t say that. A reporter asked him point blank if ID should be taught alongside evolution and Bush said yes it should.
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.
You seem to want to pick a fight with me. Perhaps it’s a carry over from our previous joists. But again I agree with you. ID is not science and shouldn’t be taught.
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?
The genie is out of the bottle on this, Holmes. Kids will ask about it sooner or later. Maybe not in every single biology class, but it will happen and teachers should be prepared to address it. I don’t think it needs special attention at all. IMO it can be lumped together with creationism as a broad category of opposition to evolution based on religious beliefs. Call it the opposition if you like, but the controversy should be addressed.
If I make a big push for that such that kids will ask about it, would that make it right to be discussed?
Yes. If you can develop a theory that has wide spread support as does creationism or ID such that kids in many biology classes across the nation are likely to question their teachers about it during the course of evolutionary teachings, then yes, it would be correct to discuss it. Got any ideas?
This message has been edited by Monk, Thu, 08-04-2005 08:58 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Silent H, posted 08-04-2005 6:17 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Mammuthus, posted 08-04-2005 9:25 AM Monk has replied
 Message 89 by Silent H, posted 08-04-2005 11:08 AM Monk has replied

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


Message 79 of 195 (229622)
08-04-2005 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Monk
08-04-2005 9:16 AM


Re: DID BusH make ID mORe respectable?
quote:
If you can develop a theory that has wide spread support as does creationism or ID such that kids
Since most of us in this thread are in agreement on the main issue I wanted to touch on one aspect of the debate that I missed before but consider important. In your sentence you refer to creationism and ID as "theory". Bush did the same in his statement of support for teaching ID. The problem is that niether creationism nor ID are "theories" as defined scientifically. They are not even scientific hypotheses as niether is testable nor falsifiable much less generating or having supporting evidence. They can only be considered "theories" in a colloquial sense which in itself would be a problem to use a layman concept of theory in a science class. I think a solution if a kid asks about ID in class is to explain what a scientific hypothesis is and why ID fails,but evolution does not and then move on from there and teach the science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Monk, posted 08-04-2005 9:16 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Monk, posted 08-04-2005 10:29 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 80 of 195 (229625)
08-04-2005 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Silent H
08-04-2005 6:17 AM


History
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?
Actually, I don't think so. I understand your point, but I think a quick and dirty history of theories help understand why the theory was composed, and why the old beliefs were discarded. "Centuries ago, people used to think that the sun revolved around the earth, geocentrism wasn't seriously considered until the 15th Century when..."
The same thing was done with ToE when I was taught it. "Before Darwin, most scientists believed that life was created by God. The fossils they found led them to believe that life had changed on earth over time, but it was assumed that the appearance of different 'types' in the fossil record were indicitave of seperate creation events and several catastrophes, Noah's being the last. Whilst this was scientifically problematic, they argued that there was such complex design in life that it must be true...an argument known as 'argument from design', or teleology. Darwin paved the way that not only explained how the diversity came about but the mechanism of design, and the fossil record. Scientists quickly saw how simple but powerful...."
I think that showing that ID is actually an old, largely abandoned hypothesis would be better than sticking bananas in kid's ears and singing. But that's just my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Silent H, posted 08-04-2005 6:17 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Silent H, posted 08-04-2005 11:14 AM Modulous has not replied

  
dsv
Member (Idle past 4724 days)
Posts: 220
From: Secret Underground Hideout
Joined: 08-17-2004


Message 81 of 195 (229636)
08-04-2005 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Monk
08-03-2005 11:50 AM


Re: Should ID be censored?
Yaro writes:
Bush is a moron.
Monk writes:
But that implies even less about the opposition who is routinely outwitted and outmaneuvered by Bush.
Not by Bush -- by the Republican machine lead by Rove who I assume couldn't care less about ID, evolution, or any other issues. It's all about teh win.
Supporting ID panders to the Christian vote that has proven to tip the scales in elections, otherwise we wouldn't be hearing about it.
This message has been edited by dsv, Thursday, August 04, 2005 09:42 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Monk, posted 08-03-2005 11:50 AM Monk has not replied

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


Message 82 of 195 (229661)
08-04-2005 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Mammuthus
08-04-2005 9:25 AM


Re: DID BusH make ID mORe respectable?
I agree with most of your posts. The term theory has several meanings and while ID and creationism has not been tested or shown to be falsifiable, they are still theories in the sense they are unproven beliefs.
But I don't think there needs to be class time spent on proving why ID or creationism fails as a bona fide science. Why go through the exercise at all? As I've said many times, all of these can be grouped into the category of opposition to evolution on the grounds of religious beliefs. Religion is not science. That's all that needs to be said.
It is pointless to go through each opposing theory, (or "topic" if the term "theory" used in connection with ID is offensive), and prove that religious beliefs are not supported by the scientific method. I believe a teacher can handle the situation without condemning religion and thereby avoid a potential controversy.
BTW: I'm not sure most of us are in agreement in this thread. Jar and Omnivorous support Bush's position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Mammuthus, posted 08-04-2005 9:25 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Mammuthus, posted 08-04-2005 10:43 AM Monk has replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6423 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 83 of 195 (229669)
08-04-2005 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Mammuthus
08-04-2005 4:03 AM


Re: Should ID be censored?
I've heard this argument made before. While it has its merits, I am more concerned about the general level of scientific literacy in the pool of people that potentially become technicians , health care professionals, or bachelor's degree level engineers.
The percentage of the population that will become Ph.D scientists is going to be quite small under any conditions. I think there are other explanations for the demographics you cite than weak K-12 education , e.g. many engineers are content to stop at the MS because there is no benefit to their career in a Ph.D., even though they had the capability to complete one.
But that's another thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Mammuthus, posted 08-04-2005 4:03 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Mammuthus, posted 08-04-2005 10:56 AM paisano has replied

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


Message 84 of 195 (229670)
08-04-2005 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Monk
08-04-2005 10:29 AM


Re: DID BusH make ID mORe respectable?
quote:
they are still theories in the sense they are unproven beliefs.
That is why I distinguish them from scientific theories. I don't see the connection as offensive per se, rather inaccurate since theories have a collquial meaning that differs from the scientific meaning. Sort of the way "significant" has a different meaning in statistics than it does in common speech. When the collquial use of theory is used interchangeably with the scientific, it gives the appearance that ID and creationism should be given equal scientific merit with a biological theory.
I also do not advocate going through each opposing theory in a class nor condemning religion. In principle I would not even bring up ID or creationism in a science class. But if a student were to ask one would have to balance not derailing a science course with not offending the students beliefs. One would hope that the basics of the scientific method would be taught before students are even exposed to any specific topics in biology. But this may not always be the case.
I missed jar and Omnivorous' dissent..I have mostly read the posts from you, paisano and holmes.
Cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Monk, posted 08-04-2005 10:29 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Monk, posted 08-04-2005 11:13 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 85 of 195 (229678)
08-04-2005 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Monk
08-04-2005 9:11 AM


Re: Should ID be censored?
That choice was clever and shrewd because he selected a conservative who has impeccable credentials, extensive experience arguing before the SCOTUS, and one who has already been through the process and accepted by the vast majority of Democrats.
First of all who says that Bush came up with that selection? And second, even if he did make the selection, I am uncertain how it counts as an example of outwitting or outmaneuvering anyone.
Choosing someone likely to be selected is not an example of outmaneuvering, it is of being less radical. If he tricked everyone into believing a right wing fundamentalist with no judicial experience was worthy of a vote, then you might have a point.
And I might also add that almost whoever he nominates can essentially be pushed through based on a naked power play regardless of the character of the nominee.
Success does not equal intelligence, nor outwitting or outmaneuvering anyone.

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 77 by Monk, posted 08-04-2005 9:11 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Monk, posted 08-04-2005 12:12 PM Silent H has replied

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


Message 86 of 195 (229682)
08-04-2005 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by paisano
08-04-2005 10:41 AM


Re: Should ID be censored?
I agree that the Ph.D. pool will always be small. But it is still significant because a lot of PhDs in biology go on to found companies or patent their discoveries. If they are mostly foreign it is an unusual reliance on foreigners for an important segement of the economy (not that I think having foreigners in research is bad..but it is not a great sign when one starts heading towards an almost complete reliance on them to do research). If they return to their home countries, the benefit (economically) will go with them. An example going the other way is that a lot of technologies were developed in Germany but due to the unbelievable and mind numbing beuracracy here, were commercialized and patented in the US..for example the MP3 format. The country and its industry has missed out on a fortune.
Another issue is that even technicians and health care professionals overlap at least through parts of their education with those who will go on to get Ph.D.'s. If they are all badly taught, then the general level of scientific literacy will be low in exactly the group that needs an ever increasing knowledge base and fewer will bother to go on to a higher degree than would have. It is also alarming that the general public is scientifically ignorant as we now depend a great deal economically and particularly in health care on scientific advances. People with no concept of science are forced to make uninformed decisions or just trust what pharma tells them through ads.
Engineering is perhaps different than biology in the motivation (financial and in regards to career advancement) to continue on for a Ph.D. but lousy science teaching will not help the US generate homegrown engineers than it will biologists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by paisano, posted 08-04-2005 10:41 AM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by paisano, posted 08-04-2005 11:01 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6423 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 87 of 195 (229688)
08-04-2005 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Mammuthus
08-04-2005 10:56 AM


Re: Should ID be censored?
but lousy science teaching will not help the US generate homegrown engineers than it will biologists.
Well, I think we agree on that point. We both want better K-12 scienc teaching.
I was just pointing out that the demographics of Ph.D. programs in the US are likely caused by a number of factors, not all of which are even negative (e.g. the programs are attractive to foreigners because of their quality).
We could start another thread, pore over NSF statistics, etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Mammuthus, posted 08-04-2005 10:56 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Mammuthus, posted 08-04-2005 11:07 AM paisano has not replied
 Message 184 by Mammuthus, posted 08-18-2005 4:35 AM paisano has replied

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


Message 88 of 195 (229693)
08-04-2005 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by paisano
08-04-2005 11:01 AM


Re: Should ID be censored?
I agree that there are a lot of factors. In fact many are not homegrown. For example the complete failure of the German economy is forcing lots of scientists and healthcare professionals to move abroad. They are highly educated and well trained so they are easily absorbed where they are needed...but one of the reasons they are so well trained and educated is that the general education system here is much better at teaching science.
But it would probably be a better topic for a new thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by paisano, posted 08-04-2005 11:01 AM paisano has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 89 of 195 (229696)
08-04-2005 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Monk
08-04-2005 9:16 AM


Re: DID BusH make ID mORe respectable?
I think my point was a little too subtle. I get that you disagreed with what Bush said, and I did make a mistake in understanding what you thought he literally said but that is not important.
ID is a movement without a theory, designed just to reinforce itself. It makes lots of money for the religious right and gets people doubting an actual scientific theory with no position of its own.
What it is is "teach the controversy". What controversy? The one they said exists, because in fact there is no controversy. So why should teachers have to be prepared to discuss it, which will entail some feeding the coffers of ID movement and lend them an air of legitimacy, rather than asking "what controversy"?
If a kid asks in a classroom about ID it will have NOTHING to do with a legitimate question regarding science, but rather a pop fad of bothering science teachers with bogus questions. I could just as well start my own self-fulfilling movement to pester teachers with nonissues which will require them to buy my books, but I don't have a built in audience like ID does, and I don't have the blatant lack of respect for intelligence and education that ID theorists have.
If some hip actor started telling kids to ask their English teachers, "what's up with hooskidoo?", and that is something that he made up about how language is written and spoken, would you be suggesting teachers ought to consider answering and reanswering kids questions on "what's up with hooskidoo?"?
Exactly how many times is this supposed to be discussed and so time alloted to it? And if its supposed to end up being a negative short response, why don't we take care of that culturally instead of having to expect teachers to handle it again and again and again...

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 78 by Monk, posted 08-04-2005 9:16 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Monk, posted 08-04-2005 11:56 AM Silent H has replied

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


Message 90 of 195 (229699)
08-04-2005 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Mammuthus
08-04-2005 10:43 AM


Re: DID BusH make ID mORe respectable?
When the colloquial use of theory is used interchangeably with the scientific, it gives the appearance that ID and creationism should be given equal scientific merit with a biological theory.
That's a good point. There is a significant difference, yet in the English language, there is no distinction. There really should be a term other than "theory" to indicate the rigors a topic must meet to be considered scientific rather than the colloquial use of "theory". We can put "scientific" in front of "theory" to differentiate it, but that's a distinction lost on the general public.
Or perhaps the term "theory" should have been reserved exclusively for topics that meet the standards of the scientific method. Ah well, too late to change now.
And it is also true that this is a subtle, yet unplanned, advantage to creationist who desire broader acceptance of their "theory". I'm sure many are not even aware of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Mammuthus, posted 08-04-2005 10:43 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Silent H, posted 08-04-2005 11:17 AM Monk has not replied
 Message 108 by Mammuthus, posted 08-05-2005 3:41 AM Monk 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