|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Well this is awkward... Used to be a YEC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
If something is religious in nature and yet it accurately describes reality, should it still be barred from public viewing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 823 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
I think this demonstrates the true face of intelligent design. The "Of Pandas and People" debacle and the "Wedge Document" are enough to set to rest the "ID is not creationism" debate. it is really only the pigheaded buffoons who say otherwise.Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion. Joseph Campbell
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3728 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
Your question answers itself. If it's religious in nature it isn't science, it's religious and should therefore not be taught as science, but as religious belief.
No-one said anything about barring it from public viewing so I've no idea where you got that idea from.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
But what if reality is not arrived at by science? What if reality is reflected in the writings of religious texts? Should it automatically be regarded as rubbish even though it is reality?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It should be considered religious writing and totally irrelevant to science or reality.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Even if reality were reflected in religious writings, that still wouldn't make them scientific and, as such, they don't belong in science class. Whether it should be regarded as rubbish is a separate question, but it certainly shouldn't be regarded as science.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
What does it matter if something is science or not? Reality trumps science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Why consider something as not reality when it is very much reality?
What if I considered the flame underneath my hand as not reality? My hand would burn and fall of my arm. It isn't smart to deny reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
What does it matter if something is science or not? Reality trumps science. Science reflects reality, and changes as needed. Religion reflects ideology, and doesn't change. The methodologies are exact opposites.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Its a good thing then no one said anyone should deny reality, what was said is that the reality is that religious texts are religious texts and not science and have no place in science classes.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
I'm pretty sure I made my point in the post you're replying to. If it's not science, it doesn't belong in science class.
Very few of us here would object if cdesign proponentists want to run around pretending that they are doing science, publish in their own "journals," hold conferences and conventions and generally conduct their cargo cult. It's when they try to equate it with actual science, get it taught in public school science classes, get public money to pursue their dogma, that we speak up and point of that it's not science, it's religion. Go ahead, preach it in your churches. If you insist on making your children scientifically illiterate by teaching it in public schools, we'd probably criticize the practice, but most of us wouldn't try to prohibit it. Just keep it out of science.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3728 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined:
|
foreveryoung writes: What does it matter if something is science or not? Reality trumps science. It matters in that if something isn't science it shouldn't be taught in science class. Or do we start teaching cookery in metalwork, maths in religious education? I've said it before, but it seems to be such an alien idea that you don't get it - maths belongs in maths class, cookery belongs in cookery class, religion belongs in religion class and science belongs in science class.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 634 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
From what I have seen, the 'evidence' you have been submitting consists of misinformation. To the lay public, this information is known as 'Lies'. It take a certain class of naivety to think that set of claims is evidence, and accurate and true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 879 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
I think that it is more accurate to say that ID was founded by creationists to give credibility to their cause. Ok. Fair enough. I was trying to be generous in my assessment of their original motives. Creation science was not considered to be science, so they tried to come up with a way to legitimize their ideas. So I don't fault them for attempting to give credibility to their cause. My comment was regarding the basic premise itself
quote: not so much the actual movement. If they had truly made the attempt to approach that premise with a reasonable amount of scientific inquiry, perhaps they could have gained some legitimacy. But instead, they merely repackaged the same old stuff and tried to pass it off as new. But, point taken and Trixie's as well. HBD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 105 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
OK then let's picture the following scene: Well I guess you knew I was going to have a field day with this scenerio.
A science classroom with the ToE and ID both on the agenda. The teacher looks at his watch and says: "OK students. We have 2 hours and we are going to look at the ToE and ID today. So your goal here is to compare your Process with my Conclusion, not compare your Process with my Process. So right off the bat we have etablished a prejudice in the kids minds that shouldnt eixst. So the first 15 minutes should be spent explaining to the class the difference between a process and a conclusion. That if we want to be exact. You do want to be exact as a science teacher, correct Droso?
During the first hour we are going to look at the fossil record and the geological strata and refer this to the Linnaean Tree of Life. I would then like you to make some conclusions from this data. Sounds like a real snooze fest, Id give up the ToE, just on the basis that it may get me beat up at some point on the campus,but Ok. So I do agree however, youve got you a process, that yields tenative and immediate results in the form of data. Ageed
Then in the second hour we are going to ************" Study the Process of, the To.L.O&P, (Law, Order and Purpose) as exhibited in the natural world. An analysis of detailed plant, animal and nearly every other form of life should reveal an intricate form of order, consistency and harmony, to produce desired, practical and useful purposes, to maintain, conduct and sustain life. We are going to start this class by a detailed and comprehensive examination of the substructure of several life forms. This will give us a basis to see if the foundations, or reciept for life, is the same, and at the samtime consistent, across many and varied life forms. From there we can branch out to individual, classes and types to see if we observe the same, order, harmony, law and design, in life as a whole From there we can study or predict to see if this same pattern of harmonious law will be exitended and produced in future generations, animal and plant life and the natural world in general
The first hour will undoubtedly lead to a conclusion of the ToE from the evidence studied....so what is the teacher doing in the second hour where ID 'fight's back'? Fights back about what.? You do realize that it does not matter if Evo were true, for what I have just established to be valid, true and factual. Have you learned nothing in our discussion, Droso. If you want to be consistent in the classroom, compare process with process and conclusion with conclusion. Hence, Designer, with Soley Natural Causes, for conclusions
Specifically, what are the words the teacher is going to say to the class? Is the above good enough? Or are you prepared to demonstrate that your process, which is nothing better or worse than mine, is simply an investigation. What are the words you will use to describe your procees, as anything more than an investigation. Speaking of what words someone should use, provide me with those words
If you want ID in a science class you have to go the whole hog - you can't just dream up your ideal world here on this forum - you need now to instruct the teachers on what they actually have to do with the pupils? Ok. Have I done that? Where and how will you demonstrate that my process of investigation and science is less than yours? Did not each of our processes, find evidence of the respective camps? Ill wait your reply on what I have given you thus far. Was that piggy (Whole hog)enough for you? I find it interesting that you need to present it as a contest to your class verses an investigation, that yields, valid or invalid results. You dont have any prejudices, do you Droso As a science teacher you are completley objective, correct?
What are they going to study? It can't be the material above - because that will inevitably lead to a conclusion that the ToE is correct - you need to provide more evidence to the contrary and this has to be done in a REAL classroom with a REAL teacher. What is that teacher going to do? Intially they should study, even as a precursor in the science classroom, methods of correct reasoning, evidence and how it is established. Methods of investigation and what investigations entail. Then and only then, they may proceed to an investigation into the natural world As i have demonstrated to many times to mention now, ID and creationism, which ever you choose to call it, is a simple, calculated, investigation of natural process. The results, data or evidence will be revealed as what it it, not what we want it to be. If order and detailed law or there you will see it. If change and selection are there you will see it The conclusions will stand or fall as the information and investgation indicate. Since both processes, seem to validate thier conclusions and since both follow a pattern of scientific investigation, then there is no valid reason why both should not be taught as a science in science classroom. IOWs, IDs process violates no rules of investigation, as set out by the SM. What are they if it does? But be consistent with what I have already established concerning Processes and Conclusions in your response. Dont confuse the two What should be presented first Intially however, the Goals and method of investigative process Next to show that the tenative results from each process can be demonstrated and verified Next to show that the results of both of the two processes will both lead to and involve only two logical conclusions Finally, once it is established that the process you have employed demonstrates the evidence in the form of factual data, there is no need to keep testing things over and over to see if its still true Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given. Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024