Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 211 of 305 (455260)
02-11-2008 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by nator
02-10-2008 7:45 AM


There's great fear that ID, which is religion, will be forced into public school science classrooms.
Correction: Darwinism has been imposed on public class rooms. The same is rabidly supported by all Atheists. ID seeks to loosen the stranglehold and re-introduce Science back into the schools.
Ray
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by nator, posted 02-10-2008 7:45 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Trixie, posted 02-11-2008 6:16 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 213 by nator, posted 02-11-2008 6:31 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 214 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-11-2008 6:52 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 215 by bluescat48, posted 02-11-2008 6:56 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Trixie
Member (Idle past 3705 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 212 of 305 (455262)
02-11-2008 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Cold Foreign Object
02-11-2008 6:09 PM


What is science?
Since Behe admits that ID isn't science as science is currently defined, do you want to change the definition of science to get it in or do you want to see the work done that will make ID fit under the current definition?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-11-2008 6:09 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 213 of 305 (455266)
02-11-2008 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Cold Foreign Object
02-11-2008 6:09 PM


quote:
ID seeks to loosen the stranglehold and re-introduce Science back into the schools.
What advances in understanding of natural phenomena has any ID researcher contributed in the past 10 years?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-11-2008 6:09 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 214 of 305 (455272)
02-11-2008 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Cold Foreign Object
02-11-2008 6:09 PM


Correction: Darwinism has been imposed on public class rooms. The same is rabidly supported by all Atheists. ID seeks to loosen the stranglehold and re-introduce Science back into the schools.
Thing is, we all know that you're talking crap, apart from maybe one or two creationists reading your crap who believed that crap already. I must have explained this to you once or twice.
So why do you even bother to post? Your unevidenced recital of stupid creationist lies won't deceive anyone who isn't already thoroughly deceived. So what's the point?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-11-2008 6:09 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 215 of 305 (455273)
02-11-2008 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Cold Foreign Object
02-11-2008 6:09 PM


cold foreign object
Correction: Darwinism has been imposed on public class rooms. The same is rabidly supported by all Atheists. ID seeks to loosen the stranglehold and re-introduce Science back into the schools.
Trixie
Since Behe admits that ID isn't science as science is currently defined, do you want to change the definition of science to get it in or do you want to see the work done that will make ID fit under the current definition?
ID is not Science! It is creationism attempting to use scientific terminology to confuse the issue and get this pseudoscience into science classes.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-11-2008 6:09 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 216 of 305 (455302)
02-11-2008 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Cold Foreign Object
02-06-2008 5:40 PM


CFO writes:
bluegenes writes:
Given your view that chimps and ourselves don't share a common ancestor, will the study of the genomes of primates be banned in the brave new world of U.S. education that you're describing?
You're going to have to hide stuff like this from the kids.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
Stuff that shows that you have less than one in a million chance of being right, Ray.
Commentary presupposes that genome similarity indicates proof of descent from chimpanzees. The same is an interpretation of said evidence based on the supposition that evolution has occurred, and based on the supposition that Genesis is false. Of course, suppositions are not evidence but filters that interpret evidence.
Ray
The question was (in relation to the O.P. about twenty years of creationism/I.D. in the schools) would you ban or suppress information like this?
It might be necessary, because most of the kids will have a better understanding of science and a better ability to reason than you do. They will understand that the video was not just about similarity in the genomes of humans and chimps, it was about a pattern of damage that can't be coincidental, and for which common descent is the only reasonable explanation. The interpretation requires no suppositions.
So, IMO, it would be in your interests to suppress all comparisons of the genomes of all animals, and ban all further research into genetics. You'll also need to ban access to the internet and the world outside the U.S., because other countries will be doing this kind of research and publishing it.
You can't just be expecting all students in the U.S. to sink to your own intellectual level, and misunderstand the video, although I suppose compulsory lobotomy type operations could be performed.
So, will you be banning material such as the video I linked to?
Edited by bluegenes, : grammar change for clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-06-2008 5:40 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 217 of 305 (455304)
02-11-2008 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Cold Foreign Object
02-06-2008 5:40 PM


Commentary presupposes that genome similarity indicates proof of descent from chimpanzees.
But we all know you're lying.
Even your fellow-creationists know that evolutionists do not say that humans are descended from chimpanzees, let alone "presupposing" any such thing.
You know this, because you have had this explained to you again and again.
So, to summarize, you know that you're lying, we know that you're lying, other creationists know that you're lying, you know that we know that you're lying, you know that other creationists know that you're lying, other creationists know that we know that you're lying, we know that other creationists know that we know that you know that you're lying, we know that other creationists know that you're lying ...
So what's the point?
---
This is what baffles me about you people. You have a point of view, I understand that. You feel that it is justified to lie to promote your point of view, and I can nearly understand that. But then you lie when you know that you're going to get caught, and I don't understand that at all.
Why do you lie when you know that you're going to get caught?
What possible effect can it have, except that everyone reading this thread will (a) know that you're a liar (b) know that you're stupid enough to tell lies when you know that you're going to get caught.
What is the point?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-06-2008 5:40 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 218 of 305 (455313)
02-11-2008 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Cold Foreign Object
02-11-2008 6:05 PM


quote:
ID opposes evolution and evolution opposes ID - SHEESH!
Actually it should be "ID opposes evolution on religious grounds and science opposes ID on scientific grounds."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-11-2008 6:05 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

CTD
Member (Idle past 5869 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 219 of 305 (455342)
02-11-2008 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Trixie
02-10-2008 7:43 AM


Re: Read carefully
quote:
Read more closely. The lawyer asked the question and Michael behe answered in the affirmative.
Can astrology be stated as a valid hypothesis and tested using scientific methods? Yes. Michael Behe didn't lie.
So who was it provided the obviously erroneous extrapolation that all falsified scientific theories must be taught in the classroom as 'science'? And what adjectives are appropriately applied to such persons?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Trixie, posted 02-10-2008 7:43 AM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by CTD, posted 02-11-2008 10:53 PM CTD has not replied
 Message 226 by RickJB, posted 02-12-2008 4:58 AM CTD has replied
 Message 228 by Trixie, posted 02-12-2008 6:34 AM CTD has replied

CTD
Member (Idle past 5869 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 220 of 305 (455343)
02-11-2008 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by CTD
02-11-2008 10:50 PM


Re: Read carefully
CTD left one out: Who feels compelled to misunderstand these things?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by CTD, posted 02-11-2008 10:50 PM CTD has not replied

CTD
Member (Idle past 5869 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 221 of 305 (455349)
02-11-2008 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Percy
02-10-2008 5:44 AM


Re: Trash it is so
quote:
It's being argued that if ID becomes accepted into the curriculum that other sciences of questionable legitimacy, such as astrology, would also. You seem to think that wouldn't happen, so I guess the question is what is it from the perspective of science that differentiates ID from astrology?
Some might make such claims for the sake of fearmongering or in jest. We all know better. You provide much of the solution yourself.
quote:
(snip)...The appearance of design is sufficient for forming a hypothesis, but building a theory requires experiment, observation, analysis, replication and consensus building within the scientific community, something the field of ID has yet to do. The same is true of astrology.
Experiment - check
Observation - check
analysis - check
replication - unsure off the top of my head. Certainly wouldn't be difficult.
consensus building - surely you jest! Or not.
This is the typical double-standard. If consensus building is a requirement of theories, there can be no new theories. It's never been a requirement of a theory in the past that it must become the most popular hypothesis. This would just turn everything over to the pollsters.
Darwin, when he introduced his "theory" (his term) had none of the ingredients you mentioned for a theory. But I doubt I'll see the day when any evolutionist admits it should have been rejected until it obtained them.
I get a chuckle thinking about the standard you suggest for an hypothesis you dislike. How many other things we need to forbid mention of:
White holes
Dinosaurs always were birds already
Big Bang would have to choose a version - the popular one, or the one the pros use.
Euclidean space is incompatible with Einstein's relativity (at least that's the popular consensus). If you forbid it, there's geometry, drafting, and a whole lot of other subjects get gutted.
I could go on quite a while.
But even throwing out that which has been falsified is too much for your side. Vestigial organs - gone! Horse ancestors - gone! False mutation stories - gone! In fact, you all might not have much left at all if it were done half honestly.
And what odd classrooms we'd have then: biology students learning biology without wasting half their time on make-believe stories. I'm sure that's enough to make the informed evolutionist shudder.
Now just for fun, anyone wanting to score points with me is welcome to provide a link to any successful test of "Natural Selection". Shoot, I'll settle for more unsuccessful tests. I have a book which lists some failures, but it's kind of old.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Percy, posted 02-10-2008 5:44 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by bluegenes, posted 02-12-2008 4:29 AM CTD has replied
 Message 227 by Larni, posted 02-12-2008 5:24 AM CTD has replied

CTD
Member (Idle past 5869 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 222 of 305 (455354)
02-12-2008 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Dr Adequate
02-10-2008 8:47 AM


Too subtle
quote:
If you want the privilege of defining Intelligent Design and deciding who is in and who is out of the Intelligent Design movement, we are the wrong people to argue with. Go convince all the people at the DI that ID is not opposed to evolution in any way. We'll watch ... and applaud.
It looks like I chose my words in a less than optimal manner. In the context of the mythical strict "evolution" which doesn't include abiogenesis, the essential conclusion of ID does not conflict. Naturally, when it comes to Orthodox Evolutionism and ID, the two are very much opposed and will remain so.
There have even been evolutionists who proposed evolution without a single common ancestor, so taking things that direction is fruitless. It is still a fact that there are IDers who believe in macroevolution. Celebrate this while you can before they are exposed to science and become more educated.
As long as I'm clarifying, I'll point out that I never excluded anyone from ID. I said that most TE's would fit better in that party than they fit in their present party. That's inclusionary - not exclusionary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-10-2008 8:47 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by PaulK, posted 02-12-2008 1:30 AM CTD has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 223 of 305 (455357)
02-12-2008 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by CTD
02-12-2008 12:28 AM


Re: Too subtle
quote:
It looks like I chose my words in a less than optimal manner. In the context of the mythical strict "evolution" which doesn't include abiogenesis, the essential conclusion of ID does not conflict. Naturally, when it comes to Orthodox Evolutionism and ID, the two are very much opposed and will remain so.
It seems that it is your definition of ID that is mythical. The definition used in "Of Pandas and People" certainly conflicts with evolution. Numerous ID works attack evolution (Behe, Wells, Dembski etc.). The ID list of "Darwin doubters" signed a statement doubting evolution. Indeed if ID was only about abiogenesis and not evolution, Darwin wouldn't figure. You haven't produced one major figure in ID who agrees with your definition.
The problem is not your phrasing. It is that what you are saying is an obvious falsehood to anyone who knows anything about the ID movement.
quote:
As long as I'm clarifying, I'll point out that I never excluded anyone from ID. I said that most TE's would fit better in that party than they fit in their present party. That's inclusionary - not exclusionary.
Your definition excludes all the creationists too. In fact it excludes almost all the major figures in ID. What makes you think that you know better than them ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by CTD, posted 02-12-2008 12:28 AM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by CTD, posted 02-13-2008 1:44 PM PaulK has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 224 of 305 (455360)
02-12-2008 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by bluescat48
02-08-2008 7:51 PM


Old evolutionist's tales
The point is that ID cannot be scientifically tested anymore than any other pseudoscience
What about the fossil record -what does it show? Sudden appearance and stasis with variation within fairly narrow limits.Extinction for some or continuance to this day relatively unchanged over hundreds of millions of years. The only things that really change a lot are the things evolutionists imagine are related but that is only because they have this apriori adherence to naturalism so they must all be related -after all they have a common ancestor don't they -anyone with a brain knows that, don't they?
No I'm afraid the evidence is against gradualism -it's not the tree of life, it's a lawn of life with some blades shorter than others.
So in this case, evolution is the type of pseudoscience you must be talking about -the evidence is against it.As for ID, the evidence matches the theory which is why it is infinately more satisfying a theory.
The postulate IS feasible -Helloooo!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by bluescat48, posted 02-08-2008 7:51 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by nator, posted 02-12-2008 6:56 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 231 by bluescat48, posted 02-12-2008 12:36 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 232 by FliesOnly, posted 02-12-2008 12:59 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 233 by Percy, posted 02-12-2008 1:16 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 234 by FliesOnly, posted 02-12-2008 2:01 PM Beretta has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 225 of 305 (455361)
02-12-2008 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by CTD
02-11-2008 11:44 PM


CTD writes:
This is the typical double-standard. If consensus building is a requirement of theories, there can be no new theories. It's never been a requirement of a theory in the past that it must become the most popular hypothesis. This would just turn everything over to the pollsters.
Consensus building is not a requirement of new theories, but consensus amongst the experts in the relevant field is necessary before a theory is taught in schools as the most likely explanation of the current evidence for whatever area it concerns.
However, for a theory to be mentioned in the education system as an alternative to the consensus theory of the times, it's by no means necessary to have anywhere near half of the experts in the field behind it. Perhaps 5 to 10% might be sufficient.
So, if the I.D. movement ever does develop its idea/hypothesis into a theory, then they should do what all other proponents of new theories do, which is to present whatever supportive evidence they've found to their colleagues, and start winning over support with this evidence. No new scientific theory that has proved important in the past has had its proponents attempting to teach it to children before convincing a substantial proportion of adult experts.
Darwin, when he introduced his "theory" (his term) had none of the ingredients you mentioned for a theory. But I doubt I'll see the day when any evolutionist admits it should have been rejected until it obtained them.
It was rejected by many, and sometimes for valid reasons in terms of the times. There was no known way for the sun to burn for long enough without exhausting its fuel was one reasonable objection, for example. Darwin presented his theory for adult consideration, but I know of no example of him trying to get it taught in the classrooms of the time.
Religions characteristically indoctrinate children, which is why we see different ones prevailing generation after generation in different areas of the world. The approach of the Discovery Institute is typical of a religious movement. Popular proselytizing, and an early attempt to indoctrinate kids before there's even a theory agreed upon.
The lack of a coherent theory is inevitable, as no-one will be able to decide what the designer actually designs, and what he leaves to evolution. As they'll be no more evidence for one school of thought than another, attempting to build a consensus theory within the I.D. movement will just be like having a theological argument on what Allah does or doesn't do in the universe, when there's not even any evidence of Allah's existence, let alone his actions.
I predict strong sectarian divisions as the movement crumbles.
CTD writes:
Now just for fun, anyone wanting to score points with me is welcome to provide a link to any successful test of "Natural Selection". Shoot, I'll settle for more unsuccessful tests. I have a book which lists some failures, but it's kind of old.
Natural selection on a simple level would be easy to test, so do you mean evidence of natural selection as the driving force behind species formation?
If so, you're backing beliefs that have only a 1 in 250 chance of being true just on the basis of this one piece of research.
quote:
What Darwin did in his revolutionary treatise, “On the Origin of Species,” was to explain how much of the extraordinary variety of biological traits possessed by plants and animals arises from a single process, natural selection. Since then a large number of studies and observations have supported and extended his original work. However, linking natural selection to the origin of the 30 to 100 million different species estimated to inhabit the earth, has proven considerably more elusive.
In the last 20 years, studies of a number of specific species have demonstrated that natural selection can cause sub-populations to adapt to new environments in ways that reduce their ability to interbreed, an essential first step in the formation of a new species. However, biologists have not known whether these cases represent special exceptions or illustrate a general rule.
The new study - published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - provides empirical support for the proposition that natural selection is a general force behind the formation of new species by analyzing the relationship between natural selection and the ability to interbreed in hundreds of different organisms - ranging from plants through insects, fish, frogs and birds - and finding that the overall link between them is positive.
“This helps fill a big gap that has existed in evolutionary studies,” says Daniel Funk, assistant professor of biological sciences at Vanderbilt University. He authored the study with Patrik Nosil from Simon Fraser University in British Columbia and William J. Etges from the University of Arkansas. “We have known for some time that when species invade a new environment or ecological niche, a common result is the formation of a great diversity of new species. However, we haven’t really understood how or whether the process of adaptation generally drives this pattern of species diversification.”
The specific question that Funk and his colleagues set out to answer is whether there is a positive link between the degree of adaptation to different environments by closely related groups and the extent to which they can interbreed, what biologists call reproductive isolation.
.....The odds that the association is simply due to chance are only one in 250, substantially higher than the standard confidence level of one chance in 20 that scientists demand.....
The full article here:
http://www.physorg.com/news11181.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by CTD, posted 02-11-2008 11:44 PM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by CTD, posted 02-13-2008 1:07 PM bluegenes 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