|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4707 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
CFO writes:
Ah! Now we finally get to it. So, you would teach that an undetectable Designer is logically more plausible than the chemical and biological(also chemical) processes that have been observed by science thus far. 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.Can you support that beyond your assertion that it is true? How would you show the student sitting in your science class that a designer must logically exist? What are the telltale signs of the designer's handiwork? Is the development of antibiotic resistance, in a population of bacteria that was spawned from one individual bacterium, a direct intervention by the designer? What part of a now-resistant bacterium would you show them to provide evidence as to your contention that the designer was/wasn't the direct cause of the antibiotic resistance? Please, provide us with your unassailable logic. Inquiring young minds wait breathlessly for your hand to guide them into areas of knowledge that science has thus far been unable to reach. As an aside: I get this mental picture that every time you say "atheist", you spit it out as if you had just taken a drink of sour milk. Edited by LinearAq, : Trying to make my likely-to-be-ignored questions more easily understood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5900 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
quote: The I.D. advocates who are being discussed are very much unlike myself. My policy is to make no compromises with untruth. For example, I do not misapply the term "theory" just because others have done so.
quote: I am amused that you refer to the I.D. hypothesis as "the very foundation of science". Nevertheless, I don't intend to be goaded into breaking my word. It would have been reasonable to request the hypothesis. What is utterly unreasonable and unacceptable is what has happened: There was a false statement made about my capacity to produce an hypothesis. When was this statement made? When was the request made? I have made it clear that I'm not going to do this.
quote: Why do you misportray the situation? Anyone here is perfectly capable of following the link(s) to the transcript and obtaining all the information they need to piece together the I.D. hypothesis. It may very likely be stated there verbatim - I don't remember. Why should I tolerate false accusations? It's lame enough to ask for something that's readily available to everyone here. To accuse me of failing before I even have a chance is inexcusable. To imply that I can't work a web browser when you wouldn't even be aware of my existence in that case... utterly irrational. The argument is self-defeating and thus can only be meant as an insult. I copy. Loud & clear. Over.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5900 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
quote: et tu CS? What is it, a reflex with you people? I'm not very impressed. You could have come up with a fresh new false accusation if you had tried. And your phrasing could stand improvement. It's pretty stupid to ask me how I can say something I never said. I know: 'It's the thought that counts'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: How can you say that science doesn't work when you're sitting at a fucking computer communicating over an internet forum!!!? How ignorant! I think that what CTS means by "false accusation" is someone else implying that he has denied that science works, CS. He's not saying that it doesn't work in the post you're replying to, so I think that you must've misread something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5900 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
quote: *yawn* Same old straw man the evolutionists have been trotting out for the entire thread. I'm waiting for just one to have enough guts to look I.D. in the eyes. Your tactics betray that you expect defeat, and you may well help fulfill that prediction. What happens when a person reads this kind of thing and is subsequently exposed to actual I.D.? Will they not see the contrast? This whole topic's a joke. The difference in classrooms would be nearly imperceptible. Evolutionism would be preached during valuable time that should be devoted to teaching biology, history, etc. The only difference is that during abiogenesis week, students would be allowed to consider alternatives. Now this would entail a bit of shuffling. Abiogenesis week would be moved to the tail end. Can't have students start out questioning something so fundamental to the religion, and then proceed to indoctrinate them with falsehood. No, falsehood first - then the one lie they're allowed to question. The fact that this one lie must be securely safeguarded against any questioning betrays that evolutionism is a house of cards. Evolutionists are even more acutely aware of this vulnerability than IDers, as this thread demonstrates. I should make clear that although the difference in classrooms would be nearly imperceptible, the difference in the students might not. It could be just as you fear: once they're permitted to openly question one aspect of your religion, the rest of your doctrines are in great jeopardy. Your antiscience could suffer a major drop in popularity, and your capacity to censor scientists could disappear entirely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
Since you still assume that ID is only interested in attacking evolution it is obvious that you haven't been exposed to any real ID. Not even Behe, who's the least unscientific of the IDists publishing popular works.
So why should we take your opinions seriously ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
So, you'd be looking for a comment akin, but maybe not identical, to the following:
quote: Teach the kids that we don't know how life originated exactly, underline that science is about following the evidence and inform them that some people believe something different. From the GCSE revision guide at the BBC.
I'm waiting for just one to have enough guts to look I.D. in the eyes. I'm still waiting for ID to be presented so I can look at it in the eyes. So far the only thing I can be sure of is that in the next 20 years ID will stand in front of the classroom and declare that some parts of evolution/origin of life might have had some kind of architect and/or designer. You claim that is it. You say that "the difference in classrooms would be nearly imperceptible". Maybe what you envision is a much more palatable future than the oarsmen of the boat you are riding. The people who are steering your boat are trying to steer it towards, in their own words, "[replacing] materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." And it isn't just abiogenesis or biochemistry they are hoping to apply it to, to your chagrin they want to apply it to "molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy" as well as "fine art". They want to use their ideas to move forward the subject of "sexuality, abortion and belief in God". You might get bored at the "straw man the evolutionists have been trotting out", instead you should be angry at are those who have hijacked teleology into a religio-political movement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5021 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
CTD writes:
RickJB writes:
I expect the purpose of this false accusation is to provoke a response. Science works, no matter how much you try to deny it. Then you say:
CTD writes: It's pretty stupid to ask me how I can say something I never said. So you accept that science works and refute the accusation that you deny this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5021 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
CTD writes: I'm waiting for just one ["evolutionist"] to have enough guts to look I.D. in the eyes. Without a testable hypothesis as to how ID works, what exactly are we supposed to be looking at?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
No one from the ID side made any serious attempt to tackle the issues surrounding what America might be like in 20 years if ID were permitted into public school science classrooms. Conclude from that what you will.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4176 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
CTD writes: Uh, no...CTD...the I.D. hypothesis is not the very foundation of science. A scientific hypothesis is the very foundation of the scientific method. And it's also, coincidentally, something you cannot supply. You should try reading for context sometime...it adds a whole new dimension to participating in a debate.
I am amused that you refer to the I.D. hypothesis as "the very foundation of science". Nevertheless, I don't intend to be goaded into breaking my word. CTD writes: I did...repeatedly. A few times from you...a few more times from Beretta.
It would have been reasonable to request the hypothesis. CTD writes: Oh quit acting like a five year-old throwing a temper tantrum. I made an assumption that you can read. Sorry if that was too big of an assumption to make. I think it was made perfectly clear to anyone following this post that both you and Beretta were asked to supply an I.D. hypothesis. Beretta basically ignored the request and you simply acted like a child.
What is utterly unreasonable and unacceptable is what has happened: There was a false statement made about my capacity to produce an hypothesis. CTD writes: See post 252..and then while you're there...read it.
When was this statement made? When was the request made? I have made it clear that I'm not going to do this. CTD writes: So I need to follow links and then piece together the I.D. hypothesis? You have a pretty poor and/or rather bizarre concept of how science is suppose to work.
Anyone here is perfectly capable of following the link(s) to the transcript and obtaining all the information they need to piece together the I.D. hypothesis. CTD writes: Then where the fuck is it CTD? I have never, ever, at anytime, anywhere, seen a testable I.D. hypothesis. Why should I tolerate false accusations? It's lame enough to ask for something that's readily available to everyone here. Look all I have done for the last 250 posts or so is ask you and/or Beretta (two big proponents of I.D.) to supply a hypothesis. He ignores the request...while you make up bull shit just to avoid the request. Congratulations though...we're at 300 posts and the topic of the thread was never addressed by a I.D. proponent. As is typical, all you did was throw out the same ol' crapolla about the weaknesses and falsehoods of the ToE. But yet, even when asked, you could not even so much as supply an I.D. hypothesis...let alone lay out a science curriculum addressing I.D. Typical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
I don't think it takes any special gifts of discernment to see that the ID viewpoint wasn't well represented in this thread, so there's no need to call attention to the obvious by bashing the IDists who did happen to show up.
This thread is closing soon. Summation time, everyone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5900 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
A link to the testimony of Michael Behe was provided by Trixie. Nothing I have said about ID is contradicted by him. Absolutely nothing. On the contrary, much of what I have said is confirmed.
Yet I'm told I don't know what ID is about. Right... It's claimed my ability to distinguish between "Natural Selection" and artificial selection prevents me from knowing what "Natural Selection" means. I'm told time and time again I don't know what evolutionism is about. What's next? I shouldn't be the least bit surprised to be told I don't know what my own thoughts are. I maintain that it's not difficult to see what ID is about. Neither is it difficult to see that it bears very little resemblance to any of the straw men which have been constructed hereabouts. The real questions are1.) Why are evolutionists terrified of ID? 2.) Why can't they tackle the real ID instead of misportraying it? I trust the answers to both of these questions are obvious, and any further elaboration would amount to patronizingly insulting the reader's intelligence. My prediction for the imaginary situation that is the topic of this thread could be wrong. It's not likely we'll find out. Note that from the very first they have tried to give the impression that ID = CS, although when it suits them they have no trouble distinguishing ID from CS. So clever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4631 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
I maintain that it's not difficult to see what ID is about. So then it should be quite easy to provide a testable hypothesis, correct?
The real questions are 1.) Why are evolutionists terrified of ID? 2.) Why can't they tackle the real ID instead of misportraying it? 1- I prefer evidence.2- Its a slippery little sucker, care to provide a hypothesis so it can be tackled? Magic number is all yours - end the thread with a hypothesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: In Message 197 you wrote
quote: That is contradicted by Behe's testimony. Behe is quite clear that he sees ID as an alternative to evolution. The only question is whether you are hopelessly ignorant about ID - or intnetionally misrepresenting it. But to summarise myself. THe ID movement is currently attempting to damage science education by inserting bogus criticisms of evolution. This is the position they fell back on when it became clear that ID could not be taught in schools. If they succeed in this it is highly unlikely that they will rest on their laurels for twenty years. It is far more likely that they will go back to their earlier goal of getting ID taught. And that raises the question of what ID should be taught. Why should YECs be happy with an old-earth view being taught when the Bible tells them otherwise ? And they repesent the grass roots support that ID relies on for it's political-religious campaign. If ID succeeds science lessons are liable to become a political football - subject to the will of whoever can mobilise the masses, regardless of what real science says. That is their strategy. And wy should the YECs stay out of the game ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024