EvC Forum: Dover science teachers refuse to read ID disclaimer

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: Dover science teachers refuse to read ID disclaimer

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1426 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 87 of 164 (252886)
10-18-2005 10:34 PM

Reply to: Message 86 by simple
10-18-2005 6:45 PM

Re: Who writes this stuff?

welcome to the fray.

trying to sort your thoughts out into some semblance of structure would assist people's understanding.

One side assuming no design, the other finding the evidence different than that assumption, that is not supported by any evidence whatsoever

Correct - the "finding" of design is not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

INcorrect "one side assuming no design"

Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 86 by simple, posted 10-18-2005 6:45 PM		simple has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 89 by simple, posted 10-18-2005 11:04 PM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1426 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 90 of 164 (252899)
10-18-2005 11:07 PM

Reply to: Message 89 by simple
10-18-2005 11:04 PM

Re: now show me yours

Arranging my thoughts won't help someone much who cannot perceive intelligence in all creation around us.

What an arrogant assumption.

Show us the evidence?

It is life, the universe, and everything.

It is not denying evidence in favor of belief, but in embracing all evidence.

What do you deny?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 89 by simple, posted 10-18-2005 11:04 PM		simple has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 92 by simple, posted 10-18-2005 11:52 PM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1426 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 98 of 164 (253126)
10-19-2005 5:13 PM

Reply to: Message 92 by simple
10-18-2005 11:52 PM

Re: now show me yours

We could start another thread so that your rambling nul-response doesn't disrupte a real discussion,

Hope you don't kid yourself into thinking dissapearing creation folks here dissapear because of some strength of arguement

Again you make arrogant assumptions.

Let's start with the age of the earth on the {Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II} thread
EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.

Or discuss the distinction between "micro" and "macro" at the genetic level on the {"Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?} thread
EvC Forum: "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?

Or the failings of "Intelligent Design" on the basis of design as it is observed and used by known intelligent beings versus what we see on the {Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design debate ... } thread
EvC Forum: Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...

What I expect are rational responses, and not bluster, arrogance and lack of substance. After all, you think you have something other than that, right?

Pick another topic (or discuss Dover Science Teachers and the ID issue of this thread) or start another topic.

"What do you deny?"

I guess, it must be that discussing on this thread with you is a real possibility

Discussing yes. This thread no (wrong one). The question is whether you are up to it: we can see who denies evidence first.

Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 92 by simple, posted 10-18-2005 11:52 PM		simple has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1426 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 100 of 164 (253131)
10-19-2005 5:21 PM

Reply to: Message 97 by Clark
10-19-2005 2:50 PM

Re: "Astrology is Scientific" - Michael Behe

Doesn't looks good for Mike ...

The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with local members of the public and the school board.

Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of "theory" was so broad it would also include astrology.

Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not be included in the NAS definition. "I can’t point to an external community that would agree that this was well substantiated," he said.

Behe said he had come up with his own "broader" definition of a theory, claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are actually used by scientists. "The word is used a lot more loosely than the NAS defined it," he says.

Behe maintains that ID is science: "Under my definition, scientific theory is a proposed explanation which points to physical data and logical inferences."

Can anyone tell me what is the scientific usefulness of a concept that is not testable?

AND, if it is NOT useful then why should we change the defining element (the scientific method) of science to include useless information?

Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 97 by Clark, posted 10-19-2005 2:50 PM		Clark has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 103 by Brad McFall, posted 10-26-2005 7:24 AM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1426 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 104 of 164 (254857)
10-26-2005 7:33 AM

Reply to: Message 103 by Brad McFall
10-26-2005 7:24 AM

Re: "Astrology is Scientific" - Michael Behe

yes, I found the "external community" comment a little strange at first.

I took it to mean a community of {scientists\science users} external to the ID "community" of thinkers that would agree with his definition of science.

Certainly each field and each sub-set of each field has a {cohort} that can define an "inside" and "outside" environment.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 103 by Brad McFall, posted 10-26-2005 7:24 AM		Brad McFall has not replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1426 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 105 of 164 (257042)
11-05-2005 10:31 AM

Closing Arguments

Were made

New York Times - "Closing Arguments Made in Trial on Intelligent Design" (click)

The nation's first trial to test the constitutionality of teaching intelligent design as science ended Friday with a lawyer for the Dover school board pronouncing intelligent design "the next great paradigm shift in science."

His opponent, a lawyer for the 11 parents suing the school board, dismissed intelligent design as dishonest, unscientific and based entirely on "a meager little analogy that collapses immediately upon inspection."

The case, Kitzmiller et al v. Dover, will be decided by Judge John E. Jones III, who says he hopes to issue his ruling before the end of the year, or early January at the latest.

Robert Muise, a lawyer for the board, said his strategy was to present scientists as expert witnesses to prove that there is a complex debate among scientists. "It's going to be difficult for the judge to decide" whether the pro- or the anti-intelligent-design scientists are right, Mr. Muise said.

But Mr. Rothschild said, "This isn't really science against science because that would be two competing arguments based on evidence, research and peer-reviewed articles - and intelligent design has none of those."

So did the plaintiffs show the ID material to be based on faith or just to be bad science?

Now we wait for the decision, and the appeal and .... :sigh:

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Replies to this message:
	Message 106 by Brad McFall, posted 11-05-2005 12:25 PM		RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1426 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 107 of 164 (257099)
11-05-2005 3:43 PM

Reply to: Message 106 by Brad McFall
11-05-2005 12:25 PM

Re: Closing Arguments, arguments missed?

What bothers me is that they seem to have stayed on the science battleground, thus

(1) allowing the ID people to appear more scientific by their inclusion and

(2) not gone into the obvious and relevant political movement issue, as exemplified by the actions of ID proponents and the "wedge" document, where the whole political purpose of the concept is to get a favorable Supreme Court decision and

(3) ignoring the vast philosophical battleground that is the real push behind ID and the place where it is more {vulnerable\ammenable} to the questions that should be raised about it:
- (a) Is it faith? How does it differ from faiths like Deism? Theism?
- (b) What is the {purpose\value} of the hypothesis to the pursuit of knowledge? Truth?
- (c) Is it dependent on good science to assist it's investigations rather than trying to trump it with presuppositions?

The question is what path you take when you run out of explanations:

- Science says "we don't know, we'll have to wait to find out"
- Philosophy says "we don't know, but we can make certain conjectures based on assumptions and applying logic"
- ID (properly pursued) says "perhaps it was designed, let us hypothesis what that means, see where that leads"

In this regard the analogy does not collapse, but it also means that the place for ID is not science class. I feel correcting that impression is more important that {ridiculing\ostracizing\marginalizing} the concepts.

Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 106 by Brad McFall, posted 11-05-2005 12:25 PM		Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 108 by Brad McFall, posted 11-08-2005 7:00 PM	RAZD has not replied
	Message 109 by Sagar, posted 12-08-2005 12:34 PM	RAZD has replied

RAZD

Member (Idle past 1426 days)

Posts: 20714

From: the other end of the sidewalk

Joined: 03-14-2004

Normal Thread Display

Message 111 of 164 (267288)
12-09-2005 6:00 PM

Reply to: Message 109 by Sagar
12-08-2005 12:34 PM

Re: Closing Arguments, arguments missed?

I agree that it would be much better if the public was informed about evolution.

One problem here is people who actively do not want to be informed and actively reject the information (denial). No matter how much information you put out there you won't affect these people.

I agree that focusing on the negative makes you look negative.

One thing they can do is show what ID is rather than what it isn't. When you show that it is philosophy, then it doesn't belong in science.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 109 by Sagar, posted 12-08-2005 12:34 PM		Sagar has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

4 online now:	LamarkNewAge, PaulK, Taq, Zucadragon
Newest Member:	popoi
Post Volume:	Total: 916,400 Year: 3,657/9,624 Month: 528/974 Week: 141/276 Day: 15/23 Hour: 1/2