Bush promotes ID

FACTOR's common ground
Bill O'Reilly had Gross from Va last nite factorized. Indeed it seems relevant to Bush's. Bill said Gross was netting a loss of the audience. This is what the student can judge.I did. The better indeed can gross with evcers that ID has not produced a big alternative but that was not Bill or GW's points it seems true to me but false to Gross.

I should think not.I have commented before about the apparent lack of Bush's use of his preelection comments on evolution and creation here on EvC.
preelection
There are others + go search---I can not see ID made more respectable through any new lenses that the ball players lack. It seems simply, unless it is more than rethoric, to have been George's "washing of hands" no matter the finger figured by the press. That aside what IS VERY interesting is that a few characterizations by me or someone else here can collapse the entire trasmission of FOX NEWS or intention of a Whitehouse Functionary. I was quite suprised to see how I could refer to Bill O'Reilly ENTIRE tired take. That is not intended by me to put him but his intervieweeee down. YES, stands!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No webpage found at provided URL:

quote:

---

Bill O'Rielly had Gross from Va last nite factorized. Indeed it seems relevant to Bush's. Bill said Gross was netting a loss of the audience. This is what the student can judge. The better indeed can gross with evcers that ID has not produced a big alternative but that was not Bill or G's points it seems true to me but false to Gross

---

What would make ID more respectable is if IT was seen not as Gross grossly spun in a no spin zone but as the "yes" that is larger than the "no" &&&&&WHETHER OR NOT&&&&&&&&&some one first answers yes OR no!This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-03-2005 07:04 PM

It is all in the INTrest of full disclosure. It seems frustrating to the extent that it was not fully such.Let me go back over Bill's connections to Bush's mentality. The point Gross made was that ID was not a very big alternative (on the same footing) as evolution but that is only the point when pointing out that ID as it exists today is not a paradigm legitametly confronting and competing for consensus science so-called. The larger conceptual framework of ID however COULD and could grow to where Bill's clearly superior attitude to Gross spurns the spider of the current spin so to say IN THE same POINT AS THE PRESIDENT MADE and becomes a legit alternative. The focus on GOD is not the issue. The larger intellectual base disclosure IS.I will need to do a little sneakering before I can decide if GW wimped out stem cells to ID for a few cans of spinach or not as for any creationism he could have if the electorate was dated data but regardless it is not in the wind either. So yes you responded correctly to me, to the yes and not the
no" I know also. Thanks, BradWhat not just see EVC+- a few other web sites as PROVIDING FULL DISCLOSURE??? then we can leave the maps of the weather channel out it can we not?

Yes that's about it. ID can not really be easily taught in High School because any future use case that is of a worth-while size requires the Kantian difference of mathematical and dynamical sublime that Russell thought his version of the history of logic discounted. I have NEVER counted on that certainty. I easily read a different logic. That is all.I do not know if institutional ID is much better than your characterization until I know how the probabilistic philosophy of both ID and certain materialistic versions of Evolution by force ply where I apply Panbiogeography and the very small chance othewise that the probability itself is random.

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.

quote:

---

It should not be taught, and questions regarding it should not be given any credence besides a student trying to disrupt class with irrelevant questions.

---

Well in respect to Monk's contribution inter thread alia I would like to say that AFTER i First started to read creation science and see it easily different than scientific creationism (Ruse reFUSEs to cognize the difference)and I mentioned my simple reading of the literature and even before that when I said I was interested in evolution every one was STILL (both before and after) asking me like, "Well do you believe in evolution?" the only difference was that last night on Conan O'BrIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiIan he mouthed off of Bush asking in third party comedy if GW was intelligent enough to answer the question "Then you don't believe in evolution then?" (paraphrase).If the introduction of ID into history, philosophy or religious classes in high school, or part of an essay section in English or a section in a general science class on science and society (or technology) only leads to this kind of knee JERK questioning then indeed there would be nothing to teach but if instead there was a way to show how kinematics affected the maths of variability (even if by a stock curriculum) then indeed there is something more than being a spectator in class on this.I do know however that the teacher most likely to be able to bring this across at HCHS where I went to high school, my physics teacher, was not capable. So it seems to me that creationists, if they have not already will produce such a patent writing.

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

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

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

Ned
EvC Forum: Evolution vs Intelligent Designhas just recently asked Highlander to consider a re-write INTO one of the existing threads on ID. I dont know if this is one Nosy had without a sneeze, but I'll bring it back here as the "logical" link refers to Dempski's writ
http://www.designinference.com/
on Bush PDF.I have had a few things to say already inter thread alia but there is one other thing I can say relative to the a link Highlander provided and at the time I left off discussing the reproductive continuum that could be infinitesimal. I have in no way thought if this structure better fits creationism or ID if not only evc etc so...This is what I have additionally to say about an observation of translation in space and form-making, that indeed iT DOES not require "pre-existing information setTO "'function'" but only SORTING of 1-dimensional symmetry of ALTERNATIVE ALLELES that are statistically distributed across generations in fact. Because Dembski does refer to prior earth observer positions rather than paraphyly it is not clear that he has the correct information transfer between zygotes biologically and yet he distances ID from creationsim. THIS MEANS it seems most logically to me, that, the events that vital statistics MIGHT reveal MUST be a part of the "science" of ID but where is the inference that the design is not a natural product of artifical selections (at engineerable control of dominance) rather than a non-reducible complexity? If this is not discussed there MUST be a probablism UNLESS he is mistken that creationism IS NOT at odds with ID.