Bush promotes ID

A local family took it even farther (in fact, I believe one of the family members was a classmate of mine - I could certainly believe it of him, and the names match) than those pics.They covered their entire house with sheet aluminum. Not aluminum siding - just big sheets of metal. They just leaned it up against the walls. Not just an individual - the entire family believed that the aluminum sheets would protect them from "harmful magnetic waves" and such.It got local news coverage when the rest of the neigborhood forced them to take it down becuase it was an eyesore.

You are wrong. Once again, you are wrong. While I do not think he is very bright, and I have been against much of what he has done, I have no inherent bias against him. I am unsure how many times we have to go over this ground. I prefered him to Gore in 2000, and have supported some of the things he has done.I am not a person who believes everything he does is wrong, though much of what he has done is wrong and there is evidence to back it up.I'm also not sure how controversial this is. You said outwitted and outmaneuvered. The conditions are set. All you have to do is show it. The above is not my strategy, it is a completely fallacious slander. I'll tell you what, I'll even cut you a break and not expect you to show that he himself did anything (which is a pretty big step on my part). Just show me where part of his agenda was pushed through in any manner that can be called outwitting or outmaneuvering.That entails defeating someone that had the potential to defeat you, by some sort of subterfuge. Nothing Bush has done has been subtle, much less describable as subterfuge unless you want to count his hoodwinking the nation into believing Iraq had some connection with 9/11, and later that the Iraq War had always been about democracy for Iraqis. No, you provided and example and I refuted it. It is done, though you keep popping up to smear me instead of either providing counterevidence to prove your position or admitting your defeat, or providing another example.I'll leave it alone, when your reply does not contain a strawman of my position as well as ad hominem attacks.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This is semantics on your part. Okay, young adults. You just admitted the only point I was driving at. Without ID theorists drumming up a wholly nonexistent problem in order to make a name and money for themself (while advancing creo in sheep's clothing), no young adult would have brought up ID.No young adult would have looked around the internet and found data by which they would have come up with ID on their own. Yes they could have come up with creo as that is pretty basic. ID is not. It has specific arguments and "evidence". No I don't see how. They have created their movement as something wholly separate from Creo, and could argue suggesting such a thing in class is tantamount to misrepresentation. They themselves admit in their literature that they don't have a complete theory and that they require dropping long held scientific standards such as using logical tools like occam's razor and the fallacy of arguments from incredulity. Thus one would not be misrepresenting them in the slightest to say it has no bearing on modern science or scientific method. I only had two examples. One fictitious and one from real life. Republicans were outraged over the suggestion that ebonics be discussed in schools, which is why I brought it up. You didn't directly answer my questions completely, but now you have. There is no question that both are possibilities, and you have simply been treating my posts as more combative and contrarian than they ever were. My point has been that I see a problem with your possibility in that ID proponents use any discussion in order to advance more discussion.Because of this I see my approach as better as it eliminates the ability of a student to disrupt a science class to try an prolong discussion on a nonissue, which is their goal. Once the can of worms is opened in front of class I do not see a teacher ending it in any positive way to anyone's satisfaction. EvC is a great example of that.I think you are painting things much simpler than they are by using general statements that allow a depiction of the discussion as being easy to deal with or end in short order. If your answer to the specific question of if a student has more questions, is that the teacher should just end it... then why not start with that?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Is that the point you’re driving at? That ID theorists developed their own dogma, data, evidences, etc. instead of HS kids? Is that all you wanted to say? I’ll grant you that IF they hadn’t done that, and IF they didn’t have web sites, books, etc. that support their positions, and IF it wasn’t in the public discourse, and IF the reporter had not asked Bush about it, and IF Bush hadn’t suggested it be taught alongside evolution, THEN no young adult would bring it up, and THEN this thread would not exist.Is that what you want me to acknowledge? Ok, done. If IF were a skiff we’d all go sailing. The genie is out of the bottle. The cat is out of the bag, the...... well, you get the idea, insert the metaphor of your choice. I will concede your point that ID proponents could use discussions to advance more discussions. But I also see creo’s using the same tactic.Putting aside legal constraints, you don’t believe a HS teacher can effectively moderate a discussion on opposing views to evolution, (ID/creationism), because the teacher would not be able to control the situation. And so because of this, there should be no discussion at all.I disagree and believe a brief informative discussion would be helpful, rather than your nip in the bud approach.At this point, I would welcome HS biology teachers who may be lurking to throw in their 2 cents. Your opinion would be more relevant and informative than either mine or Holmes.This message has been edited by Monk, Fri, 08-05-2005 03:14 PM

I think we are closing in on an end here. I did not say no discussion at all. I said no discussion during the class as it would not be relevant to anything that would be within the scope of a science class.I do believe a teacher should discuss all questions a student has which are related to science and so speak to a kid (or young adult) outside of class. As I have said, this is what I have seen done in all other subjects and so don't see why ID would get an exception.I do not believe that once begun, that it will wrap up nicely as we see here that no ID discussion wraps up nicely. The stench of that debate should not be allowed to cloud the regular classroom curricula.{qsI would welcome HS biology teachers who may be lurking to throw in their 2 cents. Your opinion would be more relevant and informative than either mine or Holmes.[/qs]I believe I have already told you that I have taught students. It was chemistry and not biology and the students were not HS, but the experience was the same. And I have taught young adults in short term courses. I once made the mistake of entertaining a question regarding instantaneous human combustion, thinking that would end discussion... it didn't.I have also had a gf who taught students in biology. I suspect she would agree as she had similar experiences with students.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Perhaps we are closing in on an end here as you suggest. No, I wasn't aware of your teaching credentials. I too have been involved in teaching situations although not biology at the HS level.Still, I'd like to hear the opinions of those teachers closer to the situation.

At making the wearer look like a total douche-nozzle? The peaked version, definately.

Martha Stewart Tip of the Day:If you weave coaxial cable across the attic floor, you don't have to wear the caps at home.

How is it so hard to grasp the concept of the scientific process? Why is it that countless numbers of Americans spit in the face of evolution, promote blind no-brainer ideas such as ID, and utilize one-liners like "science has been proven wrong time and time again, so we cannot put any trust into it" time and time again in "intellectual" debates as if they somehow provide evidence for something? Seriously, I think people should be required to look up the scientific process before they engage in any debates regarding the scientific nature of something.Well, I've been dying to post on here again for a while, and that's the result of my pent-up aggression . I can't seem to remember my old profile's password (Glordag), and I can't recover it due to the fact that the e-mail account I signed up with was hijacked (Yahoo...go figure...). Oh well (:. Sorry for that off-topic bit. Now for something on-topic:As many have already stated, there is an inherent religious bias present in ID. This in itself is enough to keep it out of a science classroom, IMO. Granted, it -could- be used as a model for an innacurate method of conducting science or a long-since abandoned viewpoint on the origin of humanity or other species by the scientific community.The problem with this, again IMO, is that it introduces a religious topic into the classroom. From my understanding, religious topics are generally to be avoided in the classroom nowadays, due to the sensitivity of the topic and the differing beliefs among parents and students alike. On top of this, there's the fact that religious topics are both passionate in nature and a subject of great debate/interest amongst students. This could easily make for a heated debate in the classroom where a teacher isn't so great at maintaining order or is prone to drifting off-topic. I can definitely imagine it being a fairly common occurance for an entire class period or more being wasted on debate when it could be spent in a more useful manner.Add to this the fact that ID isn't a scientific theory at all (see what others have said regarding the scientific method and the definition of a scientific theory), and there you have it.

in the OP we had quoted from US's President:

quote:

---

schoolchildren should be taught about "intelligent design,"

---

.You reaffirmed with

quote:

---

This could easily make for a heated debate in the classroom where a teacher isn't so great at maintaining order or is prone to drifting off-topic. I can definitely imagine it being a fairly common occurance for an entire class period or more being wasted on debate when it could be spent in a more useful manner.

---

Without going beyond either citation I would comment that being taught "about" and being taught ID need not be about to introduce religion at all. Is introducing the politics of the (Declaration of Independence) not religous? Anyway, I have questioned the relative use of probabilty here on EvC between evolution by force and forceful ID moves ment to go perhaps (or perhaps not) where ICR did not.Would it really be a waste of HIGH SCHOOL class time if the students were referred as to EVC and other web sites and encourged for ONE DAY IN SCHOOL to post to such sites?? Would I have to say that in that future time that I myself have wasted time here? NO, indeed not. I have gained with a feeling of larger community and some furthered learning of science has happened for me. I dont see why this doesnt happen for others who have already posted.A little research of posting patterns might reveal that that has already occurred.What again was it that you don't understand? I dont see how you can "ADD" to the fact that ID isnt a scientific theory. Of course it is not mainstream yet. Yecs still dont know if it will ever be (or that is my reading). Teaching IT and teaching about it are different. It IS probabalisitc but because the comingling of post pascalian math reasoning and gaming it is hard to seperate out the effect of a gambling mind set and the mind not set on using the same thought to gamble (statistical tests of stock market vs fixing casio games etc) but spirtually that IS mistaken and subjective hence NOT what would be taught by teaching only "about" the ID abc's out its history.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-07-2005 02:29 PM

Wow...I think I actually understand most of that post. No...it can't be...I must be mistaken (;.

quote:

---

Without going beyond either citation I would comment that being taught "about" and being taught ID need not be about to introduce religion at all. Is introducing the politics of the (Declaration of Independence) not religous?

---

Good points here. On the first, if the mention of ID was kept to a very basic level of "before evolution, most/many believed that an intelligent being was directly responsible for the creation of humans and other species on Earth," then religion is only brought up in the "intelligent being" part. The problem, I would think, is that some students might bring up the fact that they still believe in ID, and this could easily spawn a lengthy discussion.On the second, I can certainly agree with you to a degree. Religion is bound to be mentioned when talking about the beginnings of American independance. There are a couple of key differences, though. First, it is speaking of the religion mentioned in an objective view. There's a difference between saying "the early Americans believed this, so they came over here for their freedom" and saying "scientists used to believe this, but that's rubbish now". Secondly, discussion of the Declaration of Indepedance would be left for a history class, which seems a better place for a religious discussion than a science class, at any rate.

quote:

---

Would it really be a waste of HIGH SCHOOL class time if the students were referred as to EVC and other web sites and encourged for ONE DAY IN SCHOOL to post to such sites?? Would I have to say that in that future time that I myself have wasted time here? NO, indeed not. I have gained with a feeling of larger community and some furthered learning of science has happened for me. I dont see why this doesnt happen for others who have already posted.

---

I agree with you on all counts here. In fact, it would be wonderful if students were encouraged to post a few times here at EvC. I think it's safe to say anyone who has posted/viewed posts here for any period of time has learned at least a little bit, if not quite a bit.

quote:

---

What again was it that you don't understand? I dont see how you can "ADD" to the fact that ID isnt a scientific theory. Of course it is not mainstream yet. Yecs still dont know if it will ever be (or that is my reading). Teaching IT and teaching about it are different.

---

I don't understand how people can spit in the face of logic, basically. I can't "ADD" to the fact that ID isn't a scientific theory. I was adding that fact to my previous statements. It isn't mainstream yet, and hopefully it never well be. I agree, teaching it and teaching about it are completely different. Hopefully the "teaching it" part never occurs. I could deal with the teaching "aboutg it."

quote:

---

It IS probabalisitc but because the comingling of post pascalian math reasoning and gaming it is hard to seperate out the effect of a gambling mind set and the mind not set on using the same thought to gamble (statistical tests of stock market vs fixing casio games etc) but spirtually that IS mistaken and subjective hence NOT what would be taught by teaching only "about" the ID abc's out its history.

---

I'm not entirely sure what "comingling" is, but I have to disagree here. I don't find ID probabalistic at all. In fact, how is it possible to have a probability for something for which there is no evidence of (by this, I speak of an intelligent creator)? I don't see belief in evolution as gambling, nor do I see the denial of ID or a god of any sort gambling. If this were true, than it would be gambling to believe anything, if you think about it. I'll agree that the simple nature of ID should keep it only at the "about" level in classrooms.Hope I interpreted your post correctly!Edit: I just figured out that you probably meant co mingling when you said "comingling". That definitely confirms that I have no idea what you were talking about in that sentence .This message has been edited by Glordag2, 08-07-2005 08:41 PMThis message has been edited by Glordag2, 08-07-2005 08:42 PM

First off you are indeed correctly interpreting the80+percent of my post... as much as Holmes fairly recently remitted.That in the bank, I can not in an extended post series 'add' anything to this statement of my own. I did call into question the "ordering" of your post because as long as ID is not a very big actual paradigm REPLACING current scientific praxis the first parts of your post seemed to cover what was at issue essentially. It is not.I do not know if George Walker Bush suggested what kind of class the information might be introduced through but seeing how it is not consensus science as of yet it seems like it "could" be introduced into a history and culture/technology section of a class with any "before evolution" being referred for discussion to the biology class for instance. If I was teaching high school biology I could easily accomodate creationism in the high school class and provoke in a more tame manner the difficulty of if I had mistyped "co" or "com" etc.It is rare even for a college student in evolution to fully grasp the post a posteriori nature of statistics relevant to the graphing of biological data prior to interpretation so it will be more than difficult to fully show how dynamics is not relevant to creation but is to change in the thought that goes on when deciding for instance what the confidence level to be accepted is. There was a change in science when probabilistic thinking came into vogue and logic became signed for more explicitly than the syllogism but it will take another post, if you like, for me to get back to the gambling aspect, I tangentially raised. I dont know if this relates to Bush's points in any way. I just needed an example of maths without physics necessarily.I suspect "disclosure" only requires the "about" to be passed to the next generation. "Full" might refer to what kind of class the subject is raised in. There is NOT a denial of God in gambling. Pascal however had Penses well writ with this IN MIND. It is hard to cash this out in terms of object oriented programming etc. Yes I did mean to have the streams seperate in the past. If ID is mainstream it will no longer be two but one science. It is not (yet). Best. Brad.There is a very very small probability that GOD exists. I might call it infintesmial (but not in the sense contradicted by Cantor that Godel understood) but if you disagree with this we will have to try that out in another thread.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-07-2005 09:33 PM

Wow. That gave me one heck of a headache. I think I can agree to agree on most of it, though. I suppose it would all come down to the amount of control the teacher had over the matter. And the gambling bit...well...I'm lost there. Your genius is beyond my years (; (no sarcasm intended).

OK, I'll leave you to it at that for now. I had forgotten to refer to the Robinsonian infintesimal
http://www.math.nsc.ru/LBRT/g2/english/ssk/infac.pdf
but finding the continuum reproductively I have not accomplished in that logic.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-07-2005 10:30 PM

Maybe you didn't read my posts. It doesn't sound like you have.No is disputing that within a framework of accepting ToE, scientists do real scientific work, and some of that I have used myself on these threads.But I do dispute is that evos are as open to accepting papers that are openly critical of ToE, regardless of the evidence.It appears to me, judging by the hysterial reaction and intellectual jihad against the publisher that dares publish an ID article last summer, that the message is clear among the evos. You publish an ID paper and your career will be threatened and in jeopardy.So when it comes to certain areas, I don't believe mainstream science is objective, nor intellectually honest.Take my analysis of trying to determine how many transitionals it would take to evolve a land mammal into a whale, and then how many fossils we should expect to find based on fossilization rates of whales and perhaps semi-aquatic mammals.Are there any studies by evolutionists that make any estimates along these lines?If there are not, then why do evolutionists speak of a handful of transitionals as well-documenting whale evolution and of being indicative of what ToE predicts? Those, to me, are false claims on the part of evos.If they want to see if the preponderance of proposed transitionals fit the predictions of ToE, they should at least have some estimates on the numbers of transitionals there should have been and the numbers we should have expected to find in the fossil record by now.No such analysis, by evos, that I can find exists.Why is that?How can they call such claims valid science, in terms of the fossil record lining up with ToE, if no such studies exist?Could it not be that massively higher numbers of transitional fossils are indeed predicted, and thus the numbers of theorized transitionals, taken as a whole, would be strong evidence against ToE.These are the kinds of analysis and studies evos should have all over the place, to verify their claims, but instead they PRESUME ToE with absurd dogmatism, and never seem to do the necessary work to verify their claims.There are exceptions. I think the field of genetics is an exception and that genetic research is conducted in a highly rigorous manner to test evolutionist assumptions, although not necessarily ToE as a whole, but aspects of it.