|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,461 Year: 3,718/9,624 Month: 589/974 Week: 202/276 Day: 42/34 Hour: 5/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In Message 1 the topic is laid out:
quote: So the question is what education will look like in 20 years if creo\ID proponents get their way. Let's cut to the chase and assume that the teaching of evolution is banned (whether it is valid or not -- just for the sake of the argument), the question is what has replaced it? What do you teach in biology? ID claims to be scientific, so there would have to be some kind of science involved. What would that science look like? If science is redefined in the process what would that definition be? Finally, how would you validate the reality of the concepts? Note that you can't teach that evolution is false or that there are controversies involving evolution, because evolution has been banned from education. What do you teach? Enjoy. by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
There's been plenty of work done verifying the self-evident fact that randomness does not produce complexity. What is complexity and how is it produced? You are now teaching the next generation the ID science of biology. How does ID define and explain complexity? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : add by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
We are now 20 years into the future. The teaching - even the mentioning of evolution - is banned, and "ID science" is the topic being taught.
ID says it is not good enough, the fossil evidence does not confirm the evolutionary hypothesis. how did the cambrian explosion occur. The question is -- how do you explain all the fossil evidence? What is it and how did it occur?
If you say that naturalistic explanations are the only ones that are allowed, you may have shut out what really happened -is that science? So what -- according to the "ID Science" curriculum -- did really happen? How do you validate that reality? Enjoy. by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5891 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
quote: That's using environmental manipulation as a means to achieve artificial selection. (And I doubt very much that the term "mutation" was accurately applied. Looks to me more like the work of some other source of genetic diversity.) People didn't used to have a problem with this. In the past, evolutionists would venture forth into nature, observe lifeforms, and predict which ones would succeed. Maybe they've given up on such a scientific approach these days? It's far easier to just accept axioms. Then again, such tests may yet be taking place. I shouldn't expect any evolutionist to be in a hurry to report the results if they match those of the past. Can we drop this now? It's O.T. and nobody's demonstrating an impressive understanding of how to test the predictive capacity of "Natural Selection" scientifically.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4413 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
CDT writes: Can we drop this now? It's O.T. and nobody's demonstrating an impressive understanding of how to test the predictive capacity of "Natural Selection" scientifically. You are right it is off topic, but then, every one of your posts has been off topic. The topic is ID in the classroom, but all you can talk about is hogwash about evolution. You are not demonstrating an impressive understanding of how to test the predictive capacity of "ID/Creationism" scientifically. Where's your hypothesis, or theory, or model or curriculum? No one is going to allow your silly crap in the classroom until you can actually do SCIENCE. What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
That's using environmental manipulation as a means to achieve artificial selection. If you find out what the phrases "natural selection" and "artificial selection" mean, then you will find that this helps you to discuss the topic of evolution, in which these concepts are quite prominent.
And I doubt very much that the term "mutation" was accurately applied. You will also want to look up the word "mutation".
Looks to me more like the work of some other source of genetic diversity. Which you do not name.
People didn't used to have a problem with this. In the past, evolutionists would venture forth into nature, observe lifeforms, and predict which ones would succeed. Maybe they've given up on such a scientific approach these days? What a strange fantasy.
I shouldn't expect any evolutionist to be in a hurry to report the results if they match those of the past. Another odd daydream.
Can we drop this now? It's O.T. and nobody's demonstrating an impressive understanding of how to test the predictive capacity of "Natural Selection" scientifically. A more parsimonious hypothesis is that scientists, who know what "mutation" means and what "natural selection" means, do understand this and you don't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2499 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
CTD writes: Can we drop this now? It's O.T. and nobody's demonstrating an impressive understanding of how to test the predictive capacity of "Natural Selection" scientifically. It is O.T., and the reason it's there is because all the apologists for I.D. do on this thread is attack evolutionary theory, so I throw out some evidence which supports it, and then ask for the equivalent evidence for I.D. (knowing full well that there's none) in an attempt to highlight the hypocrisy. When faced with the evidence, you clearly have no understanding of it. The organisms are clones originally, is a point you should think about, and there were certainly new mutations, and the new strains were selected for. Now, on to the topic. In this brave new world of I.D. education, you need to come up with the equivalent of that test. That would be evidence of the intelligent designer doing some genetic modification on an organism that would benefit it in a new environment. And here's where superstition based theories fall down, because such demonstrations just can't be done. The magical designer or designers just won't manifest themselves and play ball. So I.D. cannot present evidence of its mechanism, the equivalent of RM and NS. It's like presenting evidence for any religion. There never is any, so the school children in twenty years' time will presumably just have to have faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4167 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
CTD writes: You just don't get it, do you. The Prediction is, in essence, a hypothesis. Looking for the fossil is a test of that hypothesis. The finding of the fossil (as predicted) is validation of the hypothesis. That's a simplified explanation of how it works in science. Now, can you provide anything remotely like this based on I.D.?
Hmm... For my own personal curiosity, I requested examples of "Natural Selection" being tested. Instead, we get "predictions of ToE". As this is off-topic, I think it might be best to drop it. CTD writes: Am I to believe you? Are you asking me to trust you and accept that you could provide an I.D. hypothesis if you wanted to? Sorry, but I absolutely do not believe you.
Neither is it true that I am unable to provide an ID hypothesis. CTD writes: Nope, so you can drop that excuse.
It has not been asked of me, and for three reasons I do not intend to provide one1.) It's another person's challenge, and as I haven't carefully read every post there's a fair chance it's been met and ignored. CTD writes: Well, seeing as how you have been a rather prolific poster as of late, I think we can rule out that you're lazy.
2.) I'm lazyCTD writes: This thread is about the I.D. curriculum 20 years down the road. It's based on the premise that I.D. advocates, like yourself, continually claim the scientific validity of your concept. Asking you to provide to us a piece of information that is the very foundation of science is certainly a reasonable request. If your inability to supply such information somehow or another makes you feel picked upon, or makes you feel that it's asked only in an attempt to make you look bad...well, that's just tough shit for you. 3.) The post I reply to attempts to make me look bad for not meeting this challenge, when it was never mine to begin with. For future reference, this is not a good way to overcome reason #2. And could it be that there exits one more highly plausible explanation for why you intend to not provide an I.D. hypothesis?4.) None exists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
CTD writes: There's been plenty of work done verifying the self-evident fact that randomness does not produce complexity. Then pony it up or get out of dodge. Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5012 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
CTD writes: The game can go on and on. I'm surprised you can't even see one move ahead in such a simple game. Heh. I assure you I've seen this game many times before. It's called the "what is reality anyway?" or "blow up into infinities" game. It's trotted out by anti-science apologists whenever they are unable to provide evidence for their faith-based assertions. For sure science doesn't yet have ALL the answers - maybe it never will, but science explains much more about our universe than "Goddidit" because it makes use of things that are manifest in out universe. Can faith tell you how to make a computer? Can faith make a spacecraft? Can faith develop medicines? All of these have been created because humankind has investigated the observable mechanisms of our universe. Science works, no matter how much you try to deny it. By the way, what's the word on that ID hypothesis we're all waiting for? What are we going to teach these kids...?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
reiverix Member (Idle past 5841 days) Posts: 80 From: Central Ohio Joined: |
reiverix writes:
It's been a week since I first asked this, and I've asked several times. Any resident IDers want to take a stab? So if you really think bringing religion into science would improve our lives, just tell me about all the past inventions/discoveries that were made by inspiration of god. I'll tell you why you haven't answered. It's because you know fine that ID will stall human advancement, but that doesn't matter as long as you are running the show with an iron fist. This is pitiful. Think about the lack of achievements from around 500AD to 1500AD because the church had so much influence. As soon as the influence was broken, humanity burst into creative action. So there's my prediction. Twenty years of ID would bring the USA to a grinding halt in the technological race. We would watch in dismay as the other nations stormed past us while having a good laugh. And all because our kids passed a biology exam with the goddidit answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3069 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Twenty years of ID would bring the USA to a grinding halt in the technological race. We would watch in dismay as the other nations stormed past us while having a good laugh. And all because our kids passed a biology exam with the goddidit answer. Belief presupposes recognition of God as responsible for the observation of design and organized complexity seen in nature and organisms would adversely effect non-biology disciplines. Said belief makes no sense and is based on unsound logic. Belief also advocates evolution-did-it. Logically, invisible Designer/God is a better explanation for the observation of design than a mindless and unguided process that only exists in the minds of Atheists. Ray Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given. Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
reiverix Member (Idle past 5841 days) Posts: 80 From: Central Ohio Joined: |
Way to go on not answering the question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5891 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
quote: I expect the purpose of this false accusation is to provoke a response. But I'm not a mind reader. What kind of response are you looking for?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote:I expect the purpose of this false accusation is to provoke a response. How can you say that science doesn't work when you're sitting at a fucking computer communicating over an internet forum!!!? How ignorant!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024