Education

Whether or not I concede seems irrelevant; unless Admin (not Adminshraf) requests concession. I'll stand with "phlegmatic" in the case of the plumber, and "macroscopic" with regard to the physician's *research*, thank you. Probably this falls under a topic like "straining-knats and swallowing camels in education”.BTW, I am extremely grateful to research scientists and plumbers, BOTH. The on-topic point is that personality type and scope (of *research/practice*) is suggested as variables affecting ToEist convictions and/or biases.To Everyone,Some have suggested "research IQ" (in Shraf’s sense) correlates with ToEist convictions. That seems proven true for majority upper-grads. But to suggest that cramming research science into mainstream *scientists* actually ”converts’ seems to me very difficult to prove and/or correlate.I’ve also suggested "dopish secular thinking", lack of eclectic education (e.g., home schooling, arts, music, philosophy, theology), ensnaring narrow-minded research paradigms, and IQ may correlate with the proto-mega-ToEist movement.-----------------------------------------------------
And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.This message has been edited by Philip, 12-14-2005 02:35 PM

Actually, Holmes addresses a valid point: "It breaks down to the individual, not the side.":With the exception of the first page, this whole thread has seemed (to me) quite a pissing contest of nonsensical off-topic posts (including mine) like 'what is a good scientist (applied vs research)?'. Frankly, this thread seems to me destroyed by side-topics.Because "Individual dogmas" and "pissing" prevail by sincere and thoughtful scientists on this thread...I think it might be statistically valid to generalize this thread's sample of scientists (as scientists-that-sidetrack-themselves) unto the scientist-population as a whole ... including N.A.S. scientists here in the U.S.Few N.A.S. science-educators seem condescending to engage in quality EvC forums like this one. (note: Talk-Origins Archive is not EvC discussion; rather its ToE dogma (sidetracked-scientists).

Are these your "friends" ... are they schooled? ...are they human?

...Thank you sir...In addition: I’d conjecture *expertise* in "academic minutiae" (vs. say “academia” of science) has ensnared many doting “scientists” (or whatever they are) into trying to *checkmate* anyone who doesn’t *comply* with their railing biases.The same research-educators rail at any minor grammatical flatulencies in others; then they turn around and blatantly fart about what “science” *truly* is (research vs. applied ...etc.)Farting boldly: “the NAS states unequivocally that creationism has no place in any science curriculum at any level.” (http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/)... Sounds more like dogmatic *science* hype than scientific method to me.--------------------------------------------------------------------
“Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.”

Well I thanked you because (you) the uncanniest of my opponents kindly freed me from the dreadful snare of the contentious feline. (Additionally, her majestic Admin-visage can crush (stomp) sinners who violate EvC’s “reasonable standards of holiness”).As this is off-topic and this "education" thread seems irredeemably devolved, I'll probably counter some of your other off-topic rebuttals elsewhere to your (dis-)satisfaction, or whatever.

Now you've changed wording to "limited" knowledge of the ToE, a crime (methinks) everyone has committed.At least it seems to me there's a limited evolutionary knowledge (if any) of:Quark etiology, light, inflationary-big-bang etiology(s), space-time continuum(s), gene-pool etiology(s), universal equilibration for life on earth, punctuated chromosomal mutations during the *Cambrian*, persons, spirituality, etc.Concede the following then:
1) N.A.S. research droids are clueless in fundamental evo-science.
2) U.S. Research scientists are blindly-ignorant of such evo-ignorance in U.S. science organizations.
3) Fundamental Evo-science needs recalibration, redefinition of materials and techniques, and a publicized DISCLAIMER OF ITS LIMITATIONS with regard to evo-disputes and the cosmos. (Heck, Alabama physicians and lawyers are required to publish similar disclaimers on ALL their Ads.)
4) Special creation hypotheses ”fit’ to salvage the currently perverted ToE paradigms of the N.A.S.(Edited for grammar)This message has been edited by Philip, 12-19-2005 12:47 PM

...I take that as a "no"

Jar, are there not many types of YECs, some 'stupider' than others ... some more 'idiotical' and/or... some 'wackier', etc.?If, I myself quit Nave-YECism, I'd still seem *forced* (as a science 'practitioner') to hypothesize 3 real creation etiologies that seem fairly 'literalist'. Something like:
1) "Heaven(s) and Earth" (Gen 1.1)
2) Complex life-forms (Gen 1.21)
3) Man (male and female) (Gen 1.27)This (being supernatural) may not *seem* in absolute accord with ”science class’, but then theistic-evolutionism might seem even mor perverse (another topic), depending on the number of miracles or something...If you postulate even just ONE creation event(s) . would that ”fit’ and/or ”support’ science-education?(Note, please go easy on me, I’m just suggesting that science-education might seem less flawed if it tolerated a creation-event or something).This message has been edited by Philip, 12-21-2005 10:54 AM

Note the edit: "less flawed"

I agree, but......This sounds like a creation-event to me (theistic-evolutionism or something); or a One-Creation-Event hypothesis.

The point is 9nth grade science-education is extremely precarious; you and I are accountable that these individuals are given "science truth" without religious nor faulty evolutionistic notions.A bold disclaimer of some sort must be applied to 9nth grade biology.

Not unless we debate more 'politely'.(Admins, please regard these posts...)

I've heard the 'how' and 'why' (inadvertently, methinks) interchanged by one undergrad chemistry professor (1983). She stated science gives the 'how', only; later she stated science gives the 'why', only.To me there seems some profane confusion of terms:'How' = *mechanistically caused by* (an event or something)'Why' = *mechanistically driven by* (an event or something)(...Or something like that)Perhaps an honest disclaimer like: "Evo-Science knows neither the 'how' nor the 'why' with regard to its 'black-box' hypotheses, Evo-Science hypothesizing life's origins is severely flawed, etc.”)

I'll gladly debate/discuss with you if you quit the cursing and bashing me like I'm garbage or something. (I clam up, thus)Peradventure, start over or refute just one of my statements that seem most obnoxious to you. ... And we'll take it from there.OK?

(You understand my dilemma)IF I were a 9th grade biology student, peradventure ... your 'valid' conclusion seems *strong* for me, connoting: *science-is-the-absolute*, *science-for-science-sake*, *science-reigns*, etc.Again, if I were a theistic 9th grader, I might I seriously entertain atheism, *a-god-of-forces*, lawlessness, or such ... unless there be a public disclaimer as to the extent science authority may be allowed venture?I agree biases must be kept in check, religious fanatics don't exploit, etc. But 9th grade students need protection from science fanatics and religious fanatics. Sincere science-educators might admit "fatal flaws", "black-box limitations", historical ToE fallacies, etc.Well do you view that your making private your personal theistic notion(s) is 'good' science?Currently (by your logic), I construe your 'guarded' theistic notions perhaps as:(1) Tentative hypotheses/conjectures that help 'explain'
(2) Another *scientific* evidence of *some* metaphysical reality (though personal)
(3) A possible serious evasion of metaphysical reality 'fitting' in(I may be wrong)This message has been edited by Philip, 12-21-2005 01:08 PM