Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cdesign proponentist troll recruiting center
Dirk
Member (Idle past 4023 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 31 of 107 (589192)
10-31-2010 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by jar
10-31-2010 12:28 PM


Re: Final exam questions
Hi Jar,
How would that create revenue for the author of the textbook?
Oh, I don't question your analysis of that question (I replied to you instead of Dr. A., my mistake). My concern was with this one:
(2) write a 3,000-word essay on the theological significance of intelligent design (worth 40% of your grade)
I have no idea how these religious "universities" operate (there's nothing of the sort in my home country), but I can imagine that prospective students are quite religious anyway and are already convinced of the significance of ID.* So, instead of asking for the obvious, it might be better to use them as an ID "think tank" and have them work on the real-world issues that ID is facing.
* As a besides, I would be interested to see how many students drop out of such programs because they become convinced of the fact that they are being taught complete nonsense...
Edited by Dirk, : copy-edit

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 10-31-2010 12:28 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 10-31-2010 1:41 PM Dirk has not replied
 Message 41 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-01-2010 2:40 AM Dirk has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 32 of 107 (589196)
10-31-2010 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dirk
10-31-2010 12:54 PM


Re: Final exam questions
I have no idea how these religious "universities" operate (there's nothing of the sort in my home country), but I can imagine that prospective students are quite religious anyway and are already convinced of the significance of ID.* So, instead of asking for the obvious, it might be better to use them as an ID "think tank" and have them work on the real-world issues that ID is facing.
The Avoidance Education system is I believe, uniquely American.
The basic (although seldom admitted) reason is that Biblical, Fundamental Christians found out that when their kids were actually exposed to real science, geology, astronomy, history, physics, biology, ethics, philosophy, economics, mathematics, statistics, even theology the kids did realize that they were being taught absolute nonsense and so did leave the fold. They left in droves, herds, gaggles, murders, prides, shrewdnesses, troops, flanges, shoals, batteries, flocks, ... and every other collective noun imaginable including a wisdom. (extra credit for the first person to point to the critter referred to by the collective wisdom).
The answer was simple.
If it was possible to avoid exposing the kids to all the knowledge out there, then they would not question the nonsense.
So a whole growth industry was born in the US, Avoidance Schools, Avoidance textbooks so the kids could be taught at home and unexposed, Avoidance Accreditation Panels, Avoidance Peer Review Processes, a whole society built around the concept that we already have the answer, no questions need apply.
And thus this thread. Note that there is no requirement to actually debate, only to propagandize, no requirement to test the quality of the posts or their effectiveness, only the quantity, no need to examine responses, just preach the Gospel.
* As a besides, I would be interested to see how many students drop out of such programs because they become convinced of the fact that they are being taught complete nonsense...
Likely far fewer than you might imagine. It is only later, when they actually get out of school and out of the insulation of the Avoidance Society that they get challenged. And then only if they enter a field where information is open and free flowing.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Dirk, posted 10-31-2010 12:54 PM Dirk has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by lyx2no, posted 10-31-2010 6:14 PM jar has replied
 Message 37 by Nij, posted 10-31-2010 10:02 PM jar has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


(1)
Message 33 of 107 (589217)
10-31-2010 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dirk
10-31-2010 11:06 AM


Re: Final exam questions
You've actually inadvertantly hit the nail on its head on this one. The problem with any non-scientific alternative explanations to anything is that they go by the lazy route and try to convince the ignorant masses to achieve their agenda. In science, everything is tested over and over by experts. But in non-scientific disciplines like ID everything tend to forego the rigorous testing part and goes straight to being taught to students and the public. Since when did we qualify students to be capable of rigorous criticism of a discipline?
This whole "teach the controversy" bullshit relies entirely on the student's incapability to tell the difference between reality and bullshit. I know for a fact that back in high school had I been taught that the derivative of x is x^2 instead of 1, I would have accepted it whole-heartedly. Why? Because I didn't know any better. That's why I was a student instead of a teacher.
By advocating we let the students decide on the issue of ID versus evolution, it's the same as letting them decide between the derivative of x being x^2 versus derivative of x being 1. Without external influence, we would expect it will be half and half.
What's next? We should let the students decide between the heliocentric versus geocentric model? What about alchemy versus chemistry? How about modern medicine versus prayer?
Teach the controversy and let the student decide is nothing but pure bullshit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dirk, posted 10-31-2010 11:06 AM Dirk has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 34 of 107 (589218)
10-31-2010 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by jar
10-31-2010 1:41 PM


For the Extra Credit
Owls.

Be still, the demands I make upon your conscience are slight. It is only your flattery I seek, not your sincerity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 10-31-2010 1:41 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by jar, posted 10-31-2010 6:29 PM lyx2no has not replied
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-31-2010 9:14 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 35 of 107 (589219)
10-31-2010 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by lyx2no
10-31-2010 6:14 PM


Re: For the Extra Credit
You're a hoot.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by lyx2no, posted 10-31-2010 6:14 PM lyx2no has not replied

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


Message 36 of 107 (589225)
10-31-2010 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by lyx2no
10-31-2010 6:14 PM


Re: For the Extra Credit
Owls.
I think that's a parliament.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by lyx2no, posted 10-31-2010 6:14 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 37 of 107 (589232)
10-31-2010 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by jar
10-31-2010 1:41 PM


Re: Final exam questions
Apparently 'owls' is correct, although as Dr A. mentioned they're usually referred to as a parliament.
Likely far fewer than you might imagine. It is only later, when they actually get out of school and out of the insulation of the Avoidance Society that they get challenged. And then only if they enter a field where information is open and free flowing.
I think the number actually exposed to that evil atheistic modern science that denies God would be very low, but the rate of those that deconvert because of such exposure would be quite high.


Not worth another post, so placing it here:
I know for a fact that back in high school had I been taught that the derivative of x is x^2 instead of 1, I would have accepted it whole-heartedly. Why? Because I didn't know any better.
Seriously? d/dx x = 1 was kind of a straight corollary of the whole 'by first principles' thing.
Kind of makes me wonder what kind of teacher would be giving all the specific examples instead of the rules by which to determine them.
Edited by Nij, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 10-31-2010 1:41 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 10-31-2010 10:12 PM Nij has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 38 of 107 (589233)
10-31-2010 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Nij
10-31-2010 10:02 PM


Re: Final exam questions
Yes, owls is correct.
Avoidance works. That is why they now have avoidance search engines, networks, channels, radio stations, schools, peer review groups, accreditation boards, and hope to redefine science.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Nij, posted 10-31-2010 10:02 PM Nij has not replied

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4704 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 39 of 107 (589234)
10-31-2010 10:33 PM


Those who say they are proponents of ID because of science don't really understand science.
ID is not science because it can not be tested and verified with measurable results.
Plus, if we were Intelligently Designed, well, the body was pretty badly designed. Our teeth rot, we age, we're subjected to disease. It seems to me that an Intelligent Designer would work to eliminate flaws from a body and make it as efficient as possible.
And make the world far less hostile to its inhabitants.

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 40 of 107 (589238)
11-01-2010 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Dr Adequate
10-31-2010 12:37 AM


Re: What, judges cant be idiots like yourselves?
Well, they have to explain why ID is a defense of religious truthiness when they're raising funds from fundies, but has nothing whatsoever to do with religion when they're in front of a judge.
So the judge was and is an idiot, much the same way you scientologists cant understand how evidence works? Big deal. This is why we always challenge you clowns to public debates (thats actually in person, if you dont understand), only to watch the excuses fly as to why you cannot accept.
Oh yeah, Flew and Matson gave it a whirl and we saw HOW that turned out. I understand why you dont accept, dont be embarrased, anybody can shout loudly from quite, noisless websites
The judge was under pressure as a civil represenative to side with those he thought would have the most influence later on. This happens all the time
He was not only an idiot but a coward to boot
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-31-2010 12:37 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Taq, posted 11-01-2010 1:35 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 41 of 107 (589239)
11-01-2010 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Dirk
10-31-2010 12:54 PM


Re: Final exam questions
I have no idea how these religious "universities" operate (there's nothing of the sort in my home country), but I can imagine that prospective students are quite religious anyway and are already convinced of the significance of ID.*
Oh I love this one. How IDers start with a conclusion and then look for evidence to support it.
While this is in no way true, would you mean the same way Darwin started with a conclusion by observation in the 1800s, then it took everybody else running around looking for the evidence to support his conclusions and preconcieved notions
You mean that kind of "significance of evolution"?
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Dirk, posted 10-31-2010 12:54 PM Dirk has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by frako, posted 11-01-2010 3:44 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-01-2010 4:30 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 44 by Nij, posted 11-01-2010 4:32 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 42 of 107 (589240)
11-01-2010 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dawn Bertot
11-01-2010 2:40 AM


Re: Final exam questions
Dawn Bertot
thats why he predicted they would find evidence if they would not there would be no evolution, what does ID predict ? How can it be falsified? What assumptions are yet to be proven and can they be left out ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-01-2010 2:40 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-01-2010 7:39 PM frako has replied

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


(1)
Message 43 of 107 (589241)
11-01-2010 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dawn Bertot
11-01-2010 2:40 AM


Re: Final exam questions
Oh I love this one. How IDers start with a conclusion and then look for evidence to support it.
While this is in no way true, would you mean the same way Darwin started with a conclusion by observation in the 1800s, then it took everybody else running around looking for the evidence to support his conclusions and preconcieved notions
You mean that kind of "significance of evolution"?
If you didn't post about things you didn't understand, you'd post a lot less often.
One of these things appears to be the scientific method. You have already had several threads to be thoroughly wrong about that topic; this one is about something else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-01-2010 2:40 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-01-2010 7:43 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 4889 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 44 of 107 (589242)
11-01-2010 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dawn Bertot
11-01-2010 2:40 AM


Re: Final exam questions
While this is in no way true, would you mean the same way Darwin started with a conclusion by observation in the 1800s, then it took everybody else running around looking for the evidence to support his conclusions and preconcieved notions
And as it happens, your snide rejoinder completely missed the point.
Those students are supposed to provide an essay demonstrating, as part of the standard for the course, that ID has some theological significance. This says entirely nothing about ID/creationism's preconceived conclusions. Which all of us here know about, but that's off-topic.
That you would take such an unambiguous discussion about why they are there and what they are supposed to demonstrate as part of the course, and infer that we are talking about ID/creationism's tendency to ignore evidence in favour of preconceived notions, says a lot about what you really see in it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-01-2010 2:40 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-01-2010 7:54 PM Nij has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 45 of 107 (589301)
11-01-2010 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Dawn Bertot
11-01-2010 2:27 AM


Re: What, judges cant be idiots like yourselves?
So the judge was and is an idiot, much the same way you scientologists cant understand how evidence works? Big deal. This is why we always challenge you clowns to public debates (thats actually in person, if you dont understand), only to watch the excuses fly as to why you cannot accept.
The very fact that you call for debates instead of ID scientific research tells us that you don't know how science works.
The judge was under pressure as a civil represenative to side with those he thought would have the most influence later on.
False. The judge was there to protect the Constituion, which he did. Look up the Lemon Test sometime and then tell us what secular uses ID has.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-01-2010 2:27 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Dawn Bertot, posted 11-01-2010 7:49 PM Taq 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