Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design in Science Class - Sample curriculum please
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 16 of 108 (284498)
02-06-2006 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by inkorrekt
02-06-2006 11:57 AM


Re: Links to other site's ID curriculum, if you can
Text books are now available. But, they are all based on creation. All that they have to do is to eliminate any mention of the Creator and make changes based only based on Science.
That would be simplest if they'd remove all the pages from those creto "texts" and put some new pages with factual information in, but I don't think bookbinders work that way. What you're suggesting is precisely what the fine folks behind Of Pandas and People did, and it deservedly was shot down in flames in the court decision at Dover, PA. Changing the names ("God" to "the Designer", for instance) in an intellectually bankrupt text doesn't lessen the bankruptccy in the least.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by inkorrekt, posted 02-06-2006 11:57 AM inkorrekt has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 17 of 108 (284504)
02-06-2006 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by inkorrekt
02-05-2006 7:32 PM


Links to the other side of the design debate.
The introduction of ID is only to challenge the icons of evolution.
Why? What about evolution makes it a such a target? What part is not compatable with some derivation of ID?
The next step for us is to introduce ID.
You need to start from first principles and see where the conclusions go, rather than taking conclusions as given or adapting any kind of creationism.
Then, the debate will have some life.
First let's address both sides of the design debate, and see where that leads us.
See http://EvC Forum: Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...
for more information.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by inkorrekt, posted 02-05-2006 7:32 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 18 of 108 (284511)
02-06-2006 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jman
01-08-2006 3:33 PM


Been There, Done That
Believe it or not, about three and a half years ago this topic came up. A poster named Tranquility Base came up with the best ID/Creationist syllabus that I've seen. Check out the discussion at A Request for Tranquility Base and let me know what you think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jman, posted 01-08-2006 3:33 PM Jman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by inkorrekt, posted 02-25-2006 5:10 PM Quetzal has replied
 Message 86 by Jman, posted 05-07-2006 2:56 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 19 of 108 (290423)
02-25-2006 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Quetzal
02-06-2006 9:21 PM


Re: Been There, Done That
We can debate whether evolution OR Creation occured. The bottom line is our Students are not learning good science at all.This is the destiny of all our controversies. Instead of telling our students, this is how it occured, we must be honest enough to state that at this time, we can only speculate about the origins of life till a definite proof is established. That will only be fair and reasonable. Today, in our society Science has been politicalized just as AIDS, abortion, marriage, war etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Quetzal, posted 02-06-2006 9:21 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Quetzal, posted 02-25-2006 6:36 PM inkorrekt has replied
 Message 26 by subbie, posted 03-02-2006 10:37 AM inkorrekt has not replied
 Message 27 by EZscience, posted 03-02-2006 3:26 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 20 of 108 (290442)
02-25-2006 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by inkorrekt
02-25-2006 5:10 PM


Re: Been There, Done That
It might be useful if you were to comment on the linked post/thread, rather than engage in yet another incomprehensible and incohate rant. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by inkorrekt, posted 02-25-2006 5:10 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by inkorrekt, posted 02-28-2006 10:31 PM Quetzal has replied

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 21 of 108 (291107)
02-28-2006 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by mkolpin
01-24-2006 2:58 PM


ID is not based on supernaturalism
Creation is based on supernaturalism. But not ID.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by mkolpin, posted 01-24-2006 2:58 PM mkolpin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by ramoss, posted 03-01-2006 9:30 PM inkorrekt has replied
 Message 25 by Coragyps, posted 03-01-2006 10:12 PM inkorrekt has not replied
 Message 30 by sidelined, posted 03-06-2006 9:32 AM inkorrekt has replied

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 22 of 108 (291109)
02-28-2006 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Quetzal
02-25-2006 6:36 PM


Re: Been There, Done That
If Science had not been politicalized, we did not have to have these forum at all.I do not understand why you are so upset when I mentioned all these politically Correct/ incorrect issues that are destroying our society. Much of the evils in our society are due to our belief systems. What we belive will determine our lifestyles. This is where we are. So, what I wrote is very very relevant for today.Just because you disagree does not mean that these problems do not exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Quetzal, posted 02-25-2006 6:36 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Quetzal, posted 03-01-2006 6:05 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 23 of 108 (291313)
03-01-2006 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by inkorrekt
02-28-2006 10:31 PM


Re: Been There, Done That
Yes. All very nice. However, your (now) two rants have absolutely nothing to do with the topic. Try again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by inkorrekt, posted 02-28-2006 10:31 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 24 of 108 (291339)
03-01-2006 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by inkorrekt
02-28-2006 10:25 PM


Re: ID is not based on supernaturalism
What is it based on?
What predictions can it make?
What testable statement, if proven true, falsifies ID.
What explainatory power does it have?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by inkorrekt, posted 02-28-2006 10:25 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by inkorrekt, posted 03-05-2006 11:00 PM ramoss has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 25 of 108 (291349)
03-01-2006 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by inkorrekt
02-28-2006 10:25 PM


Re: ID is not based on supernaturalism
Creation is based on supernaturalism. But not ID.
Then who, pray tell, is this Designer? If she's an Altairian computer programmer, who designed life on her planet? What other than the supernatural could ID be based on, if intelligence must be intelligently designed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by inkorrekt, posted 02-28-2006 10:25 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 26 of 108 (291451)
03-02-2006 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by inkorrekt
02-25-2006 5:10 PM


Re: Been There, Done That
Instead of telling our students, this is how it occured, we must be honest enough to state that at this time, we can only speculate about the origins of life till a definite proof is established.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what schools are doing. I'm not aware of any school curriculum that is teaching students that there is a generally accepted scientific explanation for the origin of life.
You keep conflating two different questions: how did life being? and how has life developed? Biology and the ToE are all about the second question. But you think it advances your political agenda to continue to insist that the two are intertwined.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by inkorrekt, posted 02-25-2006 5:10 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 27 of 108 (291529)
03-02-2006 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by inkorrekt
02-25-2006 5:10 PM


The Politicization of Science
inkorrekt writes:
Today, in our society Science has been politicalized
Actually, the word you seek is 'politicized'.
And it is the proponents of ID that are trying to make science/evolution a political (and judicial) issue.
Just like the Kansas School board redefining science to cater to their Christian Right supporters.
Now THAT is the politicization of science.
Those who would politicize science are doing so for political advantage.
They seek to capitalize on widespread public ignorance for their own benefit. Don't blame science itself for this.
How many scientists do you see running for office?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by inkorrekt, posted 02-25-2006 5:10 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 28 of 108 (292552)
03-05-2006 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by ramoss
03-01-2006 9:30 PM


Re: ID is not based on supernaturalism
What is it based on? Any new information needs creativity. How do you define creativity?
"What predictions can it make?"
Prediction is somthing the scientists do. ID only offers an alternative explanation for the origin of life processes.
"What testable statement, if proven true, falsifies ID".
This is mute question.
"What explainatory power does it have?"
What are the various components involved in any invention and the processes involved in them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by ramoss, posted 03-01-2006 9:30 PM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Modulous, posted 03-06-2006 7:35 AM inkorrekt has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 29 of 108 (292617)
03-06-2006 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by inkorrekt
03-05-2006 11:00 PM


Re: ID is not based on supernaturalism
Prediction is somthing the scientists do. ID only offers an alternative explanation for the origin of life processes.
So...ID isn't science then? Why would we teach it in a science class if it isn't science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by inkorrekt, posted 03-05-2006 11:00 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 30 of 108 (292651)
03-06-2006 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by inkorrekt
02-28-2006 10:25 PM


Re: ID is not based on supernaturalism
inkorrekt
Creation is based on supernaturalism. But not ID.
Oh,Really? Let us study the implications posed by intelligent design. Intelligent design states that the world has levels of complexity in it than cannot have arisen with being directed and that this direction is imposed by an intelligent designer.
You have stated that supernaturalism is not the same as Intelligent design so ,therefore, God is out of the picture as the intelligent designer. Now the question arises that since an entity, as loosely defined here, needs be more complex than that which the entity designs, we ask the question what is the source of the complexity of the intelligent designer whose existence we derived to explain the complexity of the world?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by inkorrekt, posted 02-28-2006 10:25 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by inkorrekt, posted 03-07-2006 6:32 PM sidelined has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024