Another anti-evolution bill, Missouri 2012

Hi NoNukes I've been down this path with marc9000 before. See abiogenesis in general and Message 249 in particular:

quote:

---

marc9000 started this thread (see Message 1) with a number of assertions, and added some in following posts, these included:

1. abiogenesis does not qualify as science, at least not compared to other sciences and the modern usage of the term science,
2. ID qualifies as science just as much as abiogenesis does, but
3. the definition of science has been changed to keep ID out, and
4. this was done after abiogenesis was accepted as science.
5. ID can't get a foot in the door because of lack of funding and academic support.

---

It is interesting to note that all but claim 1 were refuted, and marc9000 never validated claim 1.It is further interesting to note that:

quote:

---

Finally we looked at the availability of funding and support for ID research.

​

Message 149: As for funding, try this little piece of news:

​

Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker

quote:

---

The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.

​

"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.

​

"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.

---

​

There's your funding, available and ready to be used ... nobody applied to use it to actually do something scientific with it.

​

Opportunity not taken, so it's not the fault of secular science that ID has not done any real science yet, it is the failure of the ID people to do science.

​

There are a lot of evangelical colleges and places that could also provide funding, but it seems ID can't convince religious schools either (from the same article):

​

quote:

---

The only university where intelligent design has gained a major institutional foothold is a seminary. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., created a Center for Science and Theology for William A. Dembski, a leading proponent of intelligent design, after he left Baylor, a Baptist university in Texas, amid protests by faculty members opposed to teaching it.

​

Intelligent design and Mr. Dembski, a philosopher and mathematician, should have been a good fit for Baylor, which says its mission is "advancing the frontiers of knowledge while cultivating a Christian world view." But Baylor, like many evangelical universities, has many scholars who see no contradiction in believing in God and evolution.

---

​

This was discussed on ID Failing--at Christian Institutions. If ID can't convince religious schools that it's science, how can you expect secular universities to do so?

​

Grant money available from ID friendly institutions not used. Not one proposal was submitted for evaluation.

​

Claim (5) is thereby invalidated.

---

Opportunities missed to actually have some science funded.As far as I am concerned, ID is a religious philosophy, and that philosophy and religion do not belong in science class.Enjoy.

Hi Dr Adequate, Delusional is holding on to concepts that have been falsified.This is a part of marc9000's (extensive) atheist conspiracy theory, and it has been voiced before: it was his main claim in abiogenesis. I dealt with this claim on that thread and showed that this just was not true (see Message 249 for my summary post on that thread).The "entrance exam" for all sciences has been the same: do the science. Monton ("a philosopher of science" and "Monton also gives a lucid account of the debate surrounding the inclusion of intelligent design in public schools and presents reason why students' science education could benefit from a careful consideration of the arguments for and against it.") is not the first one to say that ID could be science, is not the first one to say that any falsifiable hypothesis can be investigated via the scientific method, and not the first one to say that introducing this concept in a science class can lead to a discussion of what is valid science and what is not. It would be interesting to have Monton prepare a class lesson/s on ID and then see how the IDCists like it.The main problem is that IDologists have not done the science, even though they have HAD the opportunity (from my summary linked above):

quote:

---

Finally we looked at the availability of funding and support for ID research.

​

Message 149: As for funding, try this little piece of news:

​

Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker

quote:

---

The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.

​

"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.

​

"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.

---

​

There's your funding, available and ready to be used ... nobody applied to use it to actually do something scientific with it.

​

Opportunity not taken, so it's not the fault of secular science that ID has not done any real science yet, it is the failure of the ID people to do science.

​

There are a lot of evangelical colleges and places that could also provide funding, but it seems ID can't convince religious schools either (from the same article):

​

quote:

---

The only university where intelligent design has gained a major institutional foothold is a seminary. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., created a Center for Science and Theology for William A. Dembski, a leading proponent of intelligent design, after he left Baylor, a Baptist university in Texas, amid protests by faculty members opposed to teaching it.

​

Intelligent design and Mr. Dembski, a philosopher and mathematician, should have been a good fit for Baylor, which says its mission is "advancing the frontiers of knowledge while cultivating a Christian world view." But Baylor, like many evangelical universities, has many scholars who see no contradiction in believing in God and evolution.

---

​

This was discussed on ID Failing--at Christian Institutions. If ID can't convince religious schools that it's science, how can you expect secular universities to do so?

​

Grant money available from ID friendly institutions not used. Not one proposal was submitted for evaluation.

​

Claim (5) is thereby invalidated.

---

Opportunities missed to actually have some science funded. Opportunities missed to teach ID in institutions friendly to the idea and - because they are private religious institutions - where it is legal.Of course once you place yourself in science to follow ID you need to accept the results of science for well evidenced facts ... like the age of the earth and evolution, and this is a hurdle for those that cling to YECetisms.Enjoy.Edited by Zen Deist, : clrtyEdited by Zen Deist, : moreclrty

Hi again OpticalIllusions, Creationism is taught -- in churches. Should evolution, geology, physics and astronomy be taught in churches? How do →you← know what is better? Have you studied as much as the teachers have? I agree that having a teacher with religious biases would be a poor choice for teaching concepts that are in conflict with their beliefs.What about facts and evidence that supports the hypothesis and theory, showing that science knowledge is expanded by applying the scientific process where biases are tested against objective evidence? They should pass tests that gauge the depth of knowledge of the field/s they are teaching, knowledge gained by tested objective methodology that reduces or eliminates biases due to beliefs and opinions that are unsubstantiated. Curiously, I've seen none. Perhaps you could provide some that you feel is of scientific value? And teachers know how to teach better than parents (being trained to do so), and scientist know more about science than non-scientists. So if you are ignorant about physics, geology, biology, chemistry, astronomy, etc etc etc, you should be able to vote intelligently on what to teach in those fields? Really?Knowledge is not a matter of democracy. You can't vote to change facts to suit beliefs, you can't vote to change π to be 3.0.Your opinion is useless in changing reality. And that is also why undereducated parents should not decide what is taught in science classes: you don't know enough to have an informed opinion.Enjoy.