Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8966 total)
62 online now:
jar, PaulK, PurpleYouko (3 members, 59 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,481 Year: 5,229/23,288 Month: 350/1,784 Week: 237/211 Day: 4/81 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20649
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 54 of 283 (648805)
01-18-2012 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by NoNukes
01-18-2012 10:42 AM


been there before
Hi NoNukes

The paths you described really aren't explored in any substantial way by anyone. Writing a few popular books and a summary paper or two is not exploration.

One reason that ID isn't considered science is that essentially no scientists are following up on any of ID's implications. When is the Discovery Institute going to get around to doing just that? If they were able to do so, they'd be able to address at least that part of the issue.

I've been down this path with marc9000 before. See abiogenesis in general and Message 249 in particular:

quote:
marc9000 started this thread (see Message 1) with a number of assertions, and added some in following posts, these included:
  1. abiogenesis does not qualify as science, at least not compared to other sciences and the modern usage of the term science,
  2. ID qualifies as science just as much as abiogenesis does, but
  3. the definition of science has been changed to keep ID out, and
  4. this was done after abiogenesis was accepted as science.
  5. ID can't get a foot in the door because of lack of funding and academic support.

It is interesting to note that all but claim 1 were refuted, and marc9000 never validated claim 1.

It is further interesting to note that:

quote:
Finally we looked at the availability of funding and support for ID research.

Message 149: As for funding, try this little piece of news:

Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker

quote:
The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.

"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.

"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.


There's your funding, available and ready to be used ... nobody applied to use it to actually do something scientific with it.

Opportunity not taken, so it's not the fault of secular science that ID has not done any real science yet, it is the failure of the ID people to do science.

There are a lot of evangelical colleges and places that could also provide funding, but it seems ID can't convince religious schools either (from the same article):

quote:
The only university where intelligent design has gained a major institutional foothold is a seminary. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., created a Center for Science and Theology for William A. Dembski, a leading proponent of intelligent design, after he left Baylor, a Baptist university in Texas, amid protests by faculty members opposed to teaching it.

Intelligent design and Mr. Dembski, a philosopher and mathematician, should have been a good fit for Baylor, which says its mission is "advancing the frontiers of knowledge while cultivating a Christian world view." But Baylor, like many evangelical universities, has many scholars who see no contradiction in believing in God and evolution.


This was discussed on ID Failing--at Christian Institutions. If ID can't convince religious schools that it's science, how can you expect secular universities to do so?

Grant money available from ID friendly institutions not used. Not one proposal was submitted for evaluation.

Claim (5) is thereby invalidated.


Opportunities missed to actually have some science funded.

As far as I am concerned, ID is a religious philosophy, and that philosophy and religion do not belong in science class.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by NoNukes, posted 01-18-2012 10:42 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20649
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 69 of 283 (648886)
01-19-2012 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Dr Adequate
01-18-2012 9:50 PM


already covered
Hi Dr Adequate,

It’s not been admitted as science yet. All the data, all the lab work, all the numbers amassed by those interested in abiogenesis was done AFTER it was admitted as science. When it was first admitted as science, it had nothing. ID is the only thing that has been required to pass an entrance exam before being admitted as science.

That was ... bizarre.

Delusional is holding on to concepts that have been falsified.

This is a part of marc9000's (extensive) atheist conspiracy theory, and it has been voiced before: it was his main claim in abiogenesis. I dealt with this claim on that thread and showed that this just was not true (see Message 249 for my summary post on that thread).

The "entrance exam" for all sciences has been the same: do the science.

Message 55 marc9000: Have you ever heard of Bradley Monton? He claims to be an atheist, and wrote a book on why ID should be in science classes. Here is the book at amazon, with a few brief reviews if you care to check it out. Now we’ll see if I get a barrage of replies to this message, calling Monton a phony. Then we can refer to some of Jar’s statements about Christianity, and further explore double standards.

Monton ("a philosopher of science" and "Monton also gives a lucid account of the debate surrounding the inclusion of intelligent design in public schools and presents reason why students' science education could benefit from a careful consideration of the arguments for and against it.") is not the first one to say that ID could be science, is not the first one to say that any falsifiable hypothesis can be investigated via the scientific method, and not the first one to say that introducing this concept in a science class can lead to a discussion of what is valid science and what is not. It would be interesting to have Monton prepare a class lesson/s on ID and then see how the IDCists like it.

The main problem is that IDologists have not done the science, even though they have HAD the opportunity (from my summary linked above):

quote:
Finally we looked at the availability of funding and support for ID research.

Message 149: As for funding, try this little piece of news:

Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker

quote:
The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.

"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.

"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.


There's your funding, available and ready to be used ... nobody applied to use it to actually do something scientific with it.

Opportunity not taken, so it's not the fault of secular science that ID has not done any real science yet, it is the failure of the ID people to do science.

There are a lot of evangelical colleges and places that could also provide funding, but it seems ID can't convince religious schools either (from the same article):

quote:
The only university where intelligent design has gained a major institutional foothold is a seminary. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., created a Center for Science and Theology for William A. Dembski, a leading proponent of intelligent design, after he left Baylor, a Baptist university in Texas, amid protests by faculty members opposed to teaching it.

Intelligent design and Mr. Dembski, a philosopher and mathematician, should have been a good fit for Baylor, which says its mission is "advancing the frontiers of knowledge while cultivating a Christian world view." But Baylor, like many evangelical universities, has many scholars who see no contradiction in believing in God and evolution.


This was discussed on ID Failing--at Christian Institutions. If ID can't convince religious schools that it's science, how can you expect secular universities to do so?

Grant money available from ID friendly institutions not used. Not one proposal was submitted for evaluation.

Claim (5) is thereby invalidated.


Opportunities missed to actually have some science funded. Opportunities missed to teach ID in institutions friendly to the idea and - because they are private religious institutions - where it is legal.

Of course once you place yourself in science to follow ID you need to accept the results of science for well evidenced facts ... like the age of the earth and evolution, and this is a hurdle for those that cling to YECetisms.

Enjoy.

Edited by Zen Deist, : clrty

Edited by Zen Deist, : moreclrty


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-18-2012 9:50 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20649
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 277 of 283 (659505)
04-16-2012 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by OpticalIllusions
04-16-2012 7:27 AM


Hi again OpticalIllusions,

If the public votes to let creationism be taught, it should be taught. This is America. ...

Creationism is taught -- in churches. Should evolution, geology, physics and astronomy be taught in churches?

... They should hire better teachers to teach it though, ...

How do →you← know what is better? Have you studied as much as the teachers have?

... since it isn't fair if a teacher has bias to one theory or another. ...

I agree that having a teacher with religious biases would be a poor choice for teaching concepts that are in conflict with their beliefs.

What about facts and evidence that supports the hypothesis and theory, showing that science knowledge is expanded by applying the scientific process where biases are tested against objective evidence?

... Existing teachers should be able to pass new tests on creationism to make sure they understand the whole truth. ...

They should pass tests that gauge the depth of knowledge of the field/s they are teaching, knowledge gained by tested objective methodology that reduces or eliminates biases due to beliefs and opinions that are unsubstantiated.

... Science has evidence for creationism too. ...

Curiously, I've seen none. Perhaps you could provide some that you feel is of scientific value?

... Parents know what science is better than their kids do, ...

And teachers know how to teach better than parents (being trained to do so), and scientist know more about science than non-scientists.

... so what theories get taught should be based on democracy... at least in America. ...

So if you are ignorant about physics, geology, biology, chemistry, astronomy, etc etc etc, you should be able to vote intelligently on what to teach in those fields? Really?

Knowledge is not a matter of democracy. You can't vote to change facts to suit beliefs, you can't vote to change π to be 3.0.

Your opinion is useless in changing reality.

I know that if I got to decide what theories I was taught when I was a kid, I would have had no idea where to even start. I never would have learned any of the good theories, like gravity. That's why kids aren't allowed to vote.

And that is also why undereducated parents should not decide what is taught in science classes: you don't know enough to have an informed opinion.

Enjoy.

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by OpticalIllusions, posted 04-16-2012 7:27 AM OpticalIllusions has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020