Bush promotes ID

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.

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

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).

quote:

---

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.

---

You have mentioned this occurance several times, yet you have failed to present information about it even when several members have questioned whether or not it happened. Would you care to at least inform us of who this publisher was, what he tried to publish, and in which journal it was refused? A simple link would do just fine. Or at least a name, so that we might look it up ourselves.

*nod* Thanks. Now it's time for me to research (: