Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9094 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,789 Year: 12,901/6,534 Month: 184/2,210 Week: 125/390 Day: 34/47 Hour: 12/13


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's the problem with teaching ID?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 483 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 17 of 337 (392367)
03-30-2007 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by JustinC
02-28-2006 6:59 PM


As a biology major interested in teaching highschool students, I'm the last person who wants ID taught in biology ... In spite of this, I'm having a little trouble articulating to people why it is such a big deal. What are some of problems that teaching ID in a biology curriculum would lead to?
It would require you to teach stuff you know to be false.
Can you stand up in front of children and tell them that "irreducible complexity can't evolve", or that "mutations only destroy genetic information". Can you in conscience recite their stuff about intermediate forms or thermodynamics? Or advocate the Argument from Design without laughing?
Could you do that --- just for thirty pieces of silver?
Moreover, since these people mostly pretend they want you to "teach both theories", you yourself would have to reveal to the children every other lesson that you were lying in the previous one.
To quote Steven Jay Gould:
"Creation science" has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise?
Creationists can recite creationist nonsense in good conscience only because they know no better. But science teachers do.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JustinC, posted 02-28-2006 6:59 PM JustinC has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 483 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 22 of 337 (402793)
05-30-2007 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by pwnagepanda
05-29-2007 11:57 PM


Re: I have no problem with teaching ID in a school but...
A. it has been proven false and B. it is unfalsifiable.
I don't know how to put this tactfully, but ... have you ever considered the possibility that you might be an idiot?
As I say, tact is not my strong suit.
* bangs head gently against wall *

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by pwnagepanda, posted 05-29-2007 11:57 PM pwnagepanda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by pwnagepanda, posted 05-30-2007 1:15 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 483 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 23 of 337 (402794)
05-30-2007 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by jar
05-30-2007 12:07 AM


Re: I have no problem with teaching ID in a school but...
Beg pardon?
Want to try that one again?
Ah ... that was tactful.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 05-30-2007 12:07 AM jar has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 483 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 45 of 337 (424289)
09-26-2007 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by pbee
09-26-2007 12:39 PM


pbee, message #38 writes:
Wrong, teaching that life originated as the result of a higher power has nothing to do with religion.
pbee, message #40 writes:
Evidence? It was written that God created the heavens and the earth, and here we are...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by pbee, posted 09-26-2007 12:39 PM pbee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by pbee, posted 09-26-2007 1:21 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 483 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 111 of 337 (428567)
10-16-2007 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Spektical
10-16-2007 4:33 PM


Re: The Hammer Has Come Down
Just like the Koran, Gita and Torah, the bible's purpose was only to help the social evolution of humans...it should only be studied in a social history class that deals with how human societies evolved.
It is only human-made symbolism.
Yes, well, I should point out that if just saying stuff like this convinced people, then we could have finished the whole debate a while back, knocked off early, and gone down the pub.
This isn't much more of a contribution to debate then a fundie posting to say "The Bible is the literal word of God so we're right and you're wrong". (See post #103 for a fine example of the genre.)
That said ... welcome to the forums.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Spektical, posted 10-16-2007 4:33 PM Spektical has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Spektical, posted 10-17-2007 3:07 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 483 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 133 of 337 (429607)
10-21-2007 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by pbee
09-26-2007 4:00 PM


Re: looking for some support to your assertions
Why would the big bang theory(unmeasurable by current scientific method) ...
Really? You should explain this to scientists, they'd be fascinated to learn this.
It would seem as though the big bang theory gets it's props by personal status while creation gets repelled by fear.
Ah, paranoia and projection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by pbee, posted 09-26-2007 4:00 PM pbee has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 483 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 142 of 337 (431238)
10-30-2007 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Beretta
10-30-2007 3:01 AM


Re: New member is confused
Well I'm not great on discussion forums having never participated before and not being quite sure how to get around though these things usually become rapidly self-evident. In any case to state my position -I was an evolutionist until around April last year when for the first time I was shown evidence for creation that I had never been aware of.
Ah, you "were an evolutionist", were you?
Please, in your own words, state the theory of evolution.
This should be no problem for a former evolutionist like yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Beretta, posted 10-30-2007 3:01 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Beretta, posted 10-30-2007 7:37 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 483 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 143 of 337 (431241)
10-30-2007 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Beretta
10-29-2007 12:22 PM


Re: New member is confused
Maybe I haven't read enough but I've just joined the site and all I see is evolutionists agreeing with evolutionists. Are there no creationists on this site or have they all been chased away??? Maybe I haven't read enough but I've just joined the site and all I see is evolutionists agreeing with evolutionists. Are there no creationists on this site or have they all been chased away???
So, let's see. You've made up in your head a lot of stupid bullshit about the content of this site.
Then you decided to drool out this nonsense in front of the people best qualified to know that you're talking bullshit, i.e. the people who participate on this site.
Let me guess ... you're a creationist, yes?
You're not just reciting falsehoods, you're doing it in the one place where you are most likely to be caught out.
I shall never really understand you people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Beretta, posted 10-29-2007 12:22 PM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Beretta, posted 10-30-2007 7:53 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 483 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 185 of 337 (664365)
05-31-2012 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by swensenpower
05-31-2012 9:35 AM


If only facts about the origin of life were taught in school the discussion would be extremely brief.
Er ... it is extremely brief. Have you ever looked at a biology textbook?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by swensenpower, posted 05-31-2012 9:35 AM swensenpower has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by swensenpower, posted 05-31-2012 10:06 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 483 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 207 of 337 (664450)
06-01-2012 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by swensenpower
05-31-2012 10:06 PM


I have, and it is was, short however the text did provide ideas on what the atmosphere was like, what may have been the first cell wall, and what could have been a template for the first rna.
Well, this sort of thing has a connection with things we can actually observe. There is, for example, evidence for what the early atmosphere was like. When there are similar observations in favor of the creationists' magic poofing hypothesis for the origin of life, we can put that in textbooks too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by swensenpower, posted 05-31-2012 10:06 PM swensenpower has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 483 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 254 of 337 (664965)
06-06-2012 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Genomicus
06-06-2012 8:20 PM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
SETI detects a radio signal from outer space consisting of the first 500 prime numbers. Through high-tech analysis, they determine that this is not noise from our own planet. They infer design. Do they have the lab that made the machine that generated the radio signal?
No, but they have machines that generate radio signals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 8:20 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 9:08 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 483 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 257 of 337 (664969)
06-06-2012 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Genomicus
06-06-2012 8:55 PM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
Why don't you take that up with the SETI scientists, cryptographers, and archaeologists? You're basically doing away with a whole bunch of peer-reviewed papers which rely on the fact that you don't have to know how X was designed in order to infer design. So, really, I have nothing to worry with your idea since I have many, many, many scientists to back up my methodology of inferring design.
Except that they don't actually back you up, do they? Just because you think you see some sort of resemblance between what they do and what the ID crowd are wittering on about, doesn't mean that they do.
And indeed, their methodologies explicitly contradict the dogmas of ID. For example, an archeologist will put the crudest of clay pots in the "designed" pile, and the skeleton of an antelope in the "natural" pile. If archeologists are detecting design, then their methods class organisms and their remains as being undesigned --- the exact opposite to the conclusion that IDists want to draw.
And how are archeologists carrying out their classification? Of course, because they do know how clay pots are produced and how antelope skeletons are produced, contrary to your claims. If they didn't, on what basis would they distinguish designed objects? By some abstract measure of complexity? But then they'd keep the skeleton and throw away the clay pot instead of the other way round.
So apart from you being wrong about everything, you've got a good point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 8:55 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 9:24 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 483 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 273 of 337 (664988)
06-06-2012 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Genomicus
06-06-2012 9:24 PM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
They back up my methodology of detecting design.
Except that they don't actually do so, do they?
I mean, you can't quote them doing so. This agreement between you and them is something that you have inferred and that they do not in fact agree with.
Put differently, my methodology of inferring design is the same as SETI scientist et al.
You use a big radio receiver?
You've talked with me before, Dr Adequate, and I think you should know that I don't infer design simply because "it's so complex it must be designed!" Which seems to be your point with crude clay pots. Try not to confuse me with other ID proponent, mmk?
Feel free to tell me how you do go about it.
Yes, there are several methods to make clay pots AFAIK. According to jar's logic (remember, I'm critiquing his logic here), you'd have to know which method was employed for which pot before being able to infer design. Still, you might want to take on the SETI example: I freely confess that the archaeology example isn't as close to home with regards to my point.
I think jar overstates the case.
What about SETI? They are looking for artificial radio signals. I'm guessing you're not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 9:24 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 10:07 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 483 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 275 of 337 (664990)
06-06-2012 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Genomicus
06-06-2012 10:07 PM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
The same principle that SETI scientists use.
Could you elaborate on that a little? What do you think this principle is?
For bonus points, you should explain why if you and the SETI people share this principle, the SETI people are not all IDists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 10:07 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 10:16 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 483 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 277 of 337 (664992)
06-06-2012 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Genomicus
06-06-2012 10:16 PM


Re: There is nothing to teach about ID other than as an example of pseudoscience.
I could outline it briefly, although I haven't been able to nail it down completely in my own mind. I am completely open to your ideas as to the principle used by SETI scientists.
The principle, as I see it, can be outlined thusly:
1. There is no known non-intelligent process that can bring about X,
2. And intelligence is a known method to generate X.
Again, I'm entirely open to revision of this.
In which case you would first have to prove that evolution (a known non-intelligent process) could not bring about the phenomena requiring explanation.
Well, if you could do that, I suppose you would in fact have settled the debate. But people have been trying to do that for some time, with scant success.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 10:16 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Genomicus, posted 06-06-2012 10:31 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022