Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   Dover science teachers refuse to read ID disclaimer
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 8 of 164 (176559)
01-13-2005 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by xevolutionist
01-13-2005 12:32 PM


If evolution were a creditable theory why would "teachers" resist open dialogue that presented an opposing theory?
Because the "opposing theory" isn't even a theory, and has no evidence in it's support? Because its presentation is not being suggested by persons with expertise in the sciences, but rather, by people with a religious axe to grind?
Were I a geography teacher, for instance, I'd resist attemts by an ideologically-driven school board to make me teach evidence that the Earth was flat, mostly because there is no such evidence, and that I would have enough in the curriculum as it is without wasting time on nonsense.
Intelligent design is nonsense. Literally. Teachers don't have enough time to cover legitimate science as it is; it's folly to expect them to clear out time to debunk intelligent design claptrap.
That makes me wonder why evolution is still regarded as a theory, shouldn't it be relegated to the "unlkely hypothesis with no evidence" category?
Since it's a theory supported by more evidence than the theory of relativity, and a theory we can observe and test in the lab, I see no reason why that should be the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by xevolutionist, posted 01-13-2005 12:32 PM xevolutionist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Brad McFall, posted 09-16-2005 4:30 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 23 of 164 (176614)
01-13-2005 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by xevolutionist
01-13-2005 3:23 PM


If evolution were in fact testable and there actually was evidence of it then it would become a fact.
But that's simply untrue. Tested theories with evidence to support them are still theories.
Theories are made of facts; theories don't become fact, ever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by xevolutionist, posted 01-13-2005 3:23 PM xevolutionist has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 67 of 164 (187401)
02-22-2005 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Coragyps
02-21-2005 9:21 PM


Nice combination in a high-school kid.
What's that crunching sound I hear? Oh, right. It's her, 10 years from now, getting her soul crushed by the corporate machine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Coragyps, posted 02-21-2005 9:21 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 84 of 164 (247207)
09-29-2005 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Physrho
09-29-2005 4:48 AM


Re: Why not?
But since we have no evidence abiogenesis or spontaneous generation actually taking place in a lab, why not keep minds open?
Because we do have evidence towards those things. The fact that basic organic chemicals can be synthesized using inorganic, natural processes is evidence towards abiogenesis. And it's significantly more evidence than anything that is avaliable for ID.
It's possible that an intelligent designer did this and I believe evident by all of the informed laws that govern the universe.
That's not the conjecture of "intelligent design", though. If you believe that the laws of physics were "stacked" or frontloaded in order to ensure that evolution was inevitable, then you're an evolutionist, not a creationist. And that's not the position that ID's proponents want to teach in schools.
What they want to teach in schools is that a creator exists who, though smart enough to create the universe ex nihilo, wasn't quite smart enough to get it to produce life on its own as a consequence of the laws of physics - wasn't quite smart enough to get the fine-tuning right - and so, had to intervene at various points in history to cause certain details like blood clotting and the bacterial flagellum to evolve.
Is that really the idea of the creator you want children to learn? A god that isn't even smart enough to make evolution work?
I do not think TOE negates the possibility of a creator at all.
Nobody's saying that it does. But the God of intelligent design, of creationism, is not the god that you believe in. The god of ID is a ridiculous contradiction - smart enough to be the creator of the universe, but not quite smart enough to frontload the laws of physics to ensure the development of the bacterial flagellum.
There's no scientific merit to ID. None at all. Should it be researched? ID's proponents can knock themselves out, but they don't. They don't do any research. Until they do they have nothing to put in the schools.
"Teaching the controversy" is only appropriate when there is a controversy; there is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution and so that's the only model that should appear in a science class. We don't teach "flat earth" in geography; we don't teach holocaust denial in history; and ID, lacking as it does any substance, should not be taught in schools, either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Physrho, posted 09-29-2005 4:48 AM Physrho has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 148 of 164 (275170)
01-02-2006 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Steen
01-02-2006 5:17 PM


Over the last couple of years, the "teaching the controversy" term has been cropping up
The "term" is BS. There's no "controversy" whatsoever, except among laypeople and the creationists are trying to snowball them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Steen, posted 01-02-2006 5:17 PM Steen has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by ramoss, posted 01-04-2006 10:53 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024