Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bush promotes ID
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 91 of 195 (229702)
08-04-2005 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Modulous
08-04-2005 9:25 AM


Re: History
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.
I see what you are saying, and in general might agree, but this is playing right into the hands of the ID folks. If a teacher argues what you just said, then some kid can start quoting ID propaganda that that isn't true at all. What is the teacher supposed to do then?
This whole thing manufactures a need for teachers and students to get involved with ID and so feed money into the ID movement, to perpetuate the "controversy", which again feeds money to the ID movement, to...
If it is a nonissue, then shouldn't teachers treat it as any other nonissue question a student brings up, and indeed an attempt at dodging work? To allow it in as a legitimate question, given that it was destroyed centuries ago, only allows them to claim it wasn't and scientists are lying.

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 80 by Modulous, posted 08-04-2005 9:25 AM Modulous has not replied

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


Message 92 of 195 (229705)
08-04-2005 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Monk
08-04-2005 11:13 AM


Re: DID BusH make ID mORe respectable?
We can put "scientific" in front of "theory" to differentiate it, but that's a distinction lost on the general public.
Maybe that is what teachers need to start explaining so it isn't lost on the public, and to presidents so they don't make that mistake.
They can also call it a theoretical model. That would then explicitly destroy ID as ID theory has no working model at all.

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 90 by Monk, posted 08-04-2005 11:13 AM Monk has not replied

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


Message 93 of 195 (229727)
08-04-2005 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Silent H
08-04-2005 11:08 AM


Re: DID BusH make ID mORe respectable?
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"?
What controversy?? Let me ask you. What forum are we posting to? If you can answer that question, then you will know the controversy. You seem to be the one who wants to elevate ID to a position of uniqueness. I don’t. To me it is simply another variation of creationism. I say lump them together and treat them all as a single opposition to evolution.
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.
Maybe some kids will have this motivation, but you can’t speak for all kids. Some will have legitimate questions about ID. Some will bother teachers because it’s a fad and some will have parents who are strong supporters of ID or creationism and have already indoctrinated their kids with their beliefs, and so one. It doesn’t matter. It must still be dealt with.
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.
That’s exactly right. You don’t have a built in audience like ID which is why your self-fulfilling movement warrants no mention.
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?"
I’ve already refuted this argument in your previous post and in this one. How many times are you going to bring it up dressed in different clothing? hooskidoo does not merit discussion in classrooms because it doesn’t exists, doesn’t have a large following, and is not controversial. Write a thesis on it, publish it, gather millions of supporters, connect it to evolution, and then it becomes part of the discussion. Otherwise, it’s just fluff.
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...
Teachers don’t need to handle it again and again, they can handle it once. How much time to spend on it? I don't know, maybe one class period? 1/2 a class? Either way, one short negative response is not enough. There should be a discussion about it, that’s all I’m saying. During this discussion, teachers can point out that many people do not support facets of evolution based on their religious beliefs. ID and creationism fall into this category.
There is no need for the teacher to evaluate each religious belief to show why it is not science. Nor is there a need to berate, belittle or otherwise disparage religion as part of the discussion. Simply identify ID and creationism for what it is and move on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Silent H, posted 08-04-2005 11:08 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Silent H, posted 08-04-2005 3:54 PM Monk has replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 94 of 195 (229732)
08-04-2005 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by randman
08-03-2005 4:16 PM


Re: evolutionist hypocrisy
randman writes:
Google the Discovery Insitute and various creationist science organizations and check out what they are doing for yourself.
Here we go again. Randman, you were asked to back up your claim that ID is science. Instead you put the onus on the sceptic to see whether ID work is science. No that is not the way it works. And real scientists don't just have websites and books - they publish their results in peer reviewed scientific journals. Can you cite an ID article published in a peer reviewed scientific journal (Creationist "journals" don't count).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by randman, posted 08-03-2005 4:16 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by jar, posted 08-04-2005 12:13 PM deerbreh has not replied
 Message 104 by randman, posted 08-04-2005 9:20 PM deerbreh has not replied

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


Message 95 of 195 (229735)
08-04-2005 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Silent H
08-04-2005 10:53 AM


Re: Should ID be censored?
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.
You say "tricked", I say "outmaneuvered". Either way, hardly the actions of a "moron".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Silent H, posted 08-04-2005 10:53 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Silent H, posted 08-04-2005 3:38 PM Monk has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 96 of 195 (229740)
08-04-2005 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by deerbreh
08-04-2005 12:06 PM


Re: evolutionist hypocrisy
It would be an interesting thing though to look at the CVs of the key people at DI. The issue of whether or not ID is political and social in nature as opposed to scientific can be shown there.
Take a look at what DI publishes on their own website and look at the CVs of their key people. From their very own information it becomes clear that DI is a political and social organization and not a scientific research effort.
What is jokingly called Fellows at DI

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by deerbreh, posted 08-04-2005 12:06 PM deerbreh has not replied

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2893 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 97 of 195 (229742)
08-04-2005 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by New Cat's Eye
08-03-2005 4:52 PM


Re: My opinion
Catholic Scientist writes:
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.
Two problems here. First, ID is a stalking horse for creationism so in that sense it IS a big deal.
Second, popular opinion is not a proper criteria for what gets taught in the science classroom. If you want to 'mention" ID, do it in a comparative religions class.
If a student raises the question all that needs to be said is "it is not science, so we won't discuss it here. Ask your parents or your pastor about it."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-03-2005 4:52 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Rahvin, posted 08-04-2005 12:25 PM deerbreh has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 98 of 195 (229754)
08-04-2005 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by deerbreh
08-04-2005 12:16 PM


Re: My opinion
Second, popular opinion is not a proper criteria for what gets taught in the science classroom. If you want to 'mention" ID, do it in a comparative religions class.
Bingo.
The majority of people don't know a whole lot about science. Let scientists determine what will be taught in science classes. Id ID and Creationism want to be taught in schools, they need to be taught in a theology class. An elective theology class.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by deerbreh, posted 08-04-2005 12:16 PM deerbreh has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Brad McFall, posted 08-12-2005 6:20 PM Rahvin has not replied

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


Message 99 of 195 (229801)
08-04-2005 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Monk
08-04-2005 12:12 PM


Re: Should ID be censored?
You say "tricked", I say "outmaneuvered". Either way, hardly the actions of a "moron".
??????? I didn't say tricked unless the guy was actually a right wing fundamentalist with no judicial experience... are you saying he's a right wing fundamentalist with no judicial experience?

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 95 by Monk, posted 08-04-2005 12:12 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Monk, posted 08-04-2005 4:06 PM Silent H has replied

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


Message 100 of 195 (229803)
08-04-2005 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Monk
08-04-2005 11:56 AM


Re: DID BusH make ID mORe respectable?
What controversy?? Let me ask you. What forum are we posting to? If you can answer that question, then you will know the controversy.
Hahahahahahahah!!!! See, even YOU don't know what the controversy is. Their catch phrase is to "teach the controversy" in science, not teach the controversy that is generated by evo vs creo debates.
There is no controversy in science. If anything this site has proven it is that there is no controversy within science on that point.
Maybe some kids will have this motivation, but you can’t speak for all kids. Some will have legitimate questions about ID.
Yes I can speak for all kids. Where on earth will any kid get an idea about ID, except through the ID movement? If not for them ID would not exist. If you are asking about creationism it is true that some kid might ask, but ID is something more specific.
That’s exactly right. You don’t have a built in audience like ID which is why your self-fulfilling movement warrants no mention.
My point stands.
hooskidoo does not merit discussion in classrooms because it doesn’t exists, doesn’t have a large following, and is not controversial. Write a thesis on it, publish it, gather millions of supporters, connect it to evolution, and then it becomes part of the discussion. Otherwise, it’s just fluff.
ID did not exist until some people dreamt it up. It was not controversial until they came up with the slogan to "teach the controversy" and pretended like there was some huge movement that was connected to science. It was all as bogus as my imaginary hooskidoo.
But if you want me to use a real life example instead, okay fine, how about ebonics? Should suburban kids be bothering their teachers to "teach the controversy" and explain black speak to them as valid english?
There is no need for the teacher to evaluate each religious belief to show why it is not science. Nor is there a need to berate, belittle or otherwise disparage religion as part of the discussion. Simply identify ID and creationism for what it is and move on.
I already agreed that there is no need to disparage religion in order to say something negative about ID, but some negative things should be said about ID.
Either way I don't see it ending at one question. If it is a valid question, then why are the follow up questions that ID promotes not valid as well? Why can kids not say that linking ID and creo (which you just recommended) is false and that the teacher is just covering up the controversy? Why can they not keep raising each criticism that ID proponents charge evo with, as if it were valid science?
I guess I do not see a practical end once it had begun.

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 93 by Monk, posted 08-04-2005 11:56 AM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Monk, posted 08-04-2005 5:41 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 103 by Brad McFall, posted 08-04-2005 8:51 PM Silent H has not replied

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


Message 101 of 195 (229806)
08-04-2005 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Silent H
08-04-2005 3:38 PM


Re: Should ID be censored?
---Sigh---
Ok Holmes, you didn't say tricked, whatever. I gave you an example which you rejected, as you would any example I provide. It doesn't matter what I post in this side thread. If I post something that's smart, then you'll say it wasn't Bush, but someone behind the scenes. If I post something stupid, then you'll credit Bush with being a moron. Can't lose with that strategy.
This idle banter with you has become tiring as it usually does and to continue it would be....moronic. LOL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Silent H, posted 08-04-2005 3:38 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Silent H, posted 08-05-2005 5:31 AM Monk has replied

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


Message 102 of 195 (229833)
08-04-2005 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Silent H
08-04-2005 3:54 PM


Re: DID BusH make ID mORe respectable?
Holmes writes:
See, even YOU don't know what the controversy is. Their catch phrase is to "teach the controversy" in science, not teach the controversy that is generated by evo vs creo debates. There is no controversy in science. If anything this site has proven it is that there is no controversy within science on that point.
Ok, so there is no controversy in science regarding ID. But there is a controversy regarding Evo vs Creo. But if ID is a variation of Creo, then it is part of the Evo vs Creo controversy, but not the one in science. You’re right Holmes, I don’t know what you’re talking about and I doubt that high school kids will either.
If you mean that the science community is in agreement about ID as not being science, hence no controversy. So what. The thread is about ID being taught in school and I do know that kids in high school biology class will be familiar with evolution as a controversial subject. And that controversy will need to be addressed.
Yes I can speak for all kids. Where on earth will any kid get an idea about ID, except through the ID movement? If not for them ID would not exist. If you are asking about creationism it is true that some kid might ask, but ID is something more specific.
No, you can’t speak for all kids. And I wasn’t asking about anything. I was stating my opinion that as far as high school biology class is concerned ID and creationism should be treated the same, as a religious belief system and that's why it should not be taught. Don’t you agree with this or do you agree with Bush that it should be taught?
ID did not exist until some people dreamt it up. It was not controversial until they came up with the slogan to "teach the controversy" and pretended like there was some huge movement that was connected to science. It was all as bogus as my imaginary hooskidoo.
Who cares if it didn’t exist until some people dreamed it up. It’s here, kids will ask about it, and it should be dealt with.
Either way I don't see it ending at one question. If it is a valid question, then why are the follow up questions that ID promotes not valid as well? Why can kids not say that linking ID and creo (which you just recommended) is false and that the teacher is just covering up the controversy? Why can they not keep raising each criticism that ID proponents charge evo with, as if it were valid science?
I don't believe the best approach is to ignore the issue. Why should ID be censored, but creationism discussed? I just don't see it as a big problem, unless you try to hide something from the kids by avoiding questions only on ID.
All the teachers need do is allocate a certain amount of time for it. Let the kids ask their questions, any questions at all. It could be about ID or creationism or any issue opposing evolution. That's part of what learning is about, asking questions.
Have the teacher give thoughtful replies, being aware of religious sensibilities, with the final point being that ID and creationism are not science, but religious beliefs. The teacher could summarize by stating that an examination of religious beliefs are not a suitable topic for a science class.
And why is ID a religious belief? Because the intelligent designer is God, (or Allah,Yahweh,etc.). Then end the discussion and move on.
I guess I do not see a practical end once it had begun.
You assume teachers have no control in the classroom. The discussion is over when the teacher says it’s over. Haven’t you been to high school?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Silent H, posted 08-04-2005 3:54 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Silent H, posted 08-05-2005 6:07 AM Monk has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 103 of 195 (229900)
08-04-2005 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Silent H
08-04-2005 3:54 PM


Re: DID BusH make ID mORe respectable?
Holmes your are only bearly off the mark here. I dont think it is presently possible except in intellectual settings to distinguish a controversial notion so-called and that generated by evc\/cVE etc...
Listen to the politics of it all.
The judge apointment controversy, Frist on stemming a new cell etc. The rehtoric is strongly if what is controverisal is being fully enclosed in our education and public conversation or not. Yes it is here on EvC indeed. I know this somwehat because even Charlie Rose's attempt to seqway with Harvardians the First issue fails to notice that any political dynamic does not the math of effiency make. I can explain that later in a new post on stem cells I will make. So please remind me if I past the purple for blue etc (normal conditions) etc. We do not have an ephipany with every evc post.
Biologists do not teach the "panbiogeographic" controversy. They simply do not know that there really is a non religious one as well as what they do already have. This bears on the changes dynamically.
And YES, I did run across a bear in Jersey this summer. It was directly in front of our car as we tried to get to the superslides in Hope.
So I can agree with you if you think that gross was simply stating that there was no "controversy" in science but that is not how he stated in on O'Rielly. He said as if it was science that it was not a part of it. THAT IS WHAT SOME POSTERS HERE on CvE refuse to find factly in act. It is. There is a judgement here. The Senator from Maryland who spoke about biology was misleading as well. Again I will try to do something more beautiful and less sublime about it later.
My guess then is that GW did not wimp out but that ID gotten independenlty of the movement (by reading the Critique of Judgment given Gould's comments on Paley and Aggasiz as a sand painting) IF there was adaptive oversight already exists. If not, then the movement is all I can find.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Silent H, posted 08-04-2005 3:54 PM Silent H has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 104 of 195 (229910)
08-04-2005 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by deerbreh
08-04-2005 12:06 PM


Re: evolutionist hypocrisy
Imo, creationist journals do count. Sorry, but you lose on that one.
We all know what evolutionists do to editors that publish ID papars, as we saw last year to the editor that published an ID paper.
His career is now threatened and maybe irrecoverable.
So please excuse me if I take your claims of needing to publish in evolutionist journals with a grain of salt. Personally, I don't consider evolutionist journals good science when it comes to evolution and somewhat farcical on the whole subject in fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by deerbreh, posted 08-04-2005 12:06 PM deerbreh has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Omnivorous, posted 08-04-2005 9:55 PM randman has not replied
 Message 107 by paisano, posted 08-04-2005 10:15 PM randman has not replied
 Message 115 by nator, posted 08-05-2005 8:09 AM randman has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 105 of 195 (229917)
08-04-2005 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Wounded King
08-04-2005 5:35 AM


Re: evolutionist hypocrisy
You would have to determine a way to eliminate that likelihood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Wounded King, posted 08-04-2005 5:35 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024