Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Request for Tranquility Base
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 31 of 44 (19487)
10-10-2002 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Tranquility Base
10-09-2002 10:15 PM


We're getting a tad off-track here. Not that I mind, but if I'm going to propose TB's lesson plan, I need him to flesh it out (examples, evidence, data, whatever). It really doesn't matter to me personally WHAT he presents - whether it represents a wide concensus or not. Without his input, even if idiosyncratic, I'll either end up recommending Zimmer's chapter on creationism (in "Evolution: Triumph of an Idea") or something off ICR's or AiG's website. And I get to pick it.
I asked TB for his input 'cause - in spite of the fact that, like every YEC, he holds ideas which I consider to be both wrong and internally inconsistent - he is one of the more, hmm, clear creationist writers on this board.
TB: Are you willing to complete your lesson plan? I have only until next Monday (Columbus Day in the US). By Tuesday (your time) the school board meeting will be over, and it will likely be too late. Let me know one way or the other so I can make contingency plans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-09-2002 10:15 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by John, posted 10-10-2002 11:35 AM Quetzal has replied
 Message 35 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-10-2002 8:42 PM Quetzal has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 44 (19522)
10-10-2002 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Quetzal
10-10-2002 5:11 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
And I get to pick it.
Wow... flush with power ain't ya?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Quetzal, posted 10-10-2002 5:11 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Quetzal, posted 10-10-2002 3:10 PM John has not replied

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


Message 33 of 44 (19560)
10-10-2002 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by John
10-10-2002 11:35 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
Wow... flush with power ain't ya?

Yep. Ain't it great? And given my evilutionist bias, you can figure the quality I'd pick. Muwahahahha!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by John, posted 10-10-2002 11:35 AM John has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 44 (19584)
10-10-2002 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Percy
10-09-2002 11:23 PM


Percy - I mainly agree with you. But don't be too surprised if some creationist stuff gets published mainstream somewhere down the track. It is an uphill battle but I personally consider that a possibility based on the nature of the data.
I am utterly convinced, as biased as I am, that the data is interpretable both ways.
As for consensus. You're right. But the consencus of opinion of the American people (for example) is that evolutionists are also very biased and that that may be the reason for the mainstream bias. The American people know that evolution is considered a minastream near fact and yet about 50% or more of the public choose to beleive they are wrong.
I am NOT arguing that science be decided on the basis of a vote but I think the survey data shows that the American people think your bias is responsible for your scientific consensus. I agree with the collective voice of the American people (in this instance).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 10-09-2002 11:23 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Percy, posted 10-10-2002 9:24 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 44 (19585)
10-10-2002 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Quetzal
10-10-2002 5:11 AM


Quetzal
I will complete it by Monday Australian time so it will definitely be complete by your Monday morning. I'll essentially add 2 or 3 specific examples in eacjh section, each with brief descriptions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Quetzal, posted 10-10-2002 5:11 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Quetzal, posted 10-11-2002 2:05 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 36 of 44 (19588)
10-10-2002 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Tranquility Base
10-10-2002 8:39 PM


TB writes:

But don't be too surprised if some creationist stuff gets published mainstream somewhere down the track.
"Creationist stuff" is supported by Biblical interpretations, while "mainstream stuff" is supported by evidence. Stuff in mainstream journals will be supported by evidence and be consistent with current understandings and so couldn't be considered "Creationist stuff," even if published by a Creationist.
As Stephen Austin is finding, as long as he sticks to the evidence he can get published in mainstream journals. Funny thing, though. By sticking to the evidence his articles have no Creationist content whatsoever. In fact, the only way his Creationist leanings are evident in his mainstream publications is in the kinds of problems that attract his attention. Same with Michael Behe.
I'll support any findings supported by evidence. I have no religious attachment to an ancient earth and will follow the tides of emerging evidence wherever they lead. Your own proposals are not only unsupported by evidence, they're contradicted by the evidence, and they require processes that range from the merely unlikely to the near impossible, bucking not only current scientific knowledge but often simple, everyday common sense, like your layers that are repeatedly deposited, dried, populated and reinundated, not to mention the layer sorting, fossil sorting and radiometric-age sorting in strict concert amidst a great flood.
But hey, it's early days yet, right?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-10-2002 8:39 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

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


Message 37 of 44 (19601)
10-11-2002 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Tranquility Base
10-10-2002 8:42 PM


Outstanding TB. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-10-2002 8:42 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 44 (19810)
10-13-2002 10:29 PM


A semi-final version of a trial 2 lesson creation syllabus is up at:
http://EvC Forum: A Request for Tranquility Base -->EvC Forum: A Request for Tranquility Base
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-13-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Quetzal, posted 10-14-2002 8:00 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 41 by Quetzal, posted 11-01-2002 10:32 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

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


Message 39 of 44 (19839)
10-14-2002 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Tranquility Base
10-13-2002 10:29 PM


Thanks TB. Perfect timing - I have a pre-board meeting at the school this afternoon (in about 5 minutes, actually). I'll run the outline past the Bio teacher to see what she thinks. Meantime, if you can recommend specific ICR/AiG articles you think could be included, (we have a bit more time for that), that'd be great as well.
One way or the other - thanks for your help and input.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-13-2002 10:29 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 40 of 44 (21112)
10-30-2002 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Quetzal
10-07-2002 4:09 AM


Wow, this board is really getting hard to keep up with.
I would be unable at this time to to write for kids the defense of this of TB's in the claim of GOULD that he correctly outscoped the vision on scales that geology by uniformitarinism may historicize even if I used division in Gould's notions of cyclic and linear (time) revisioning...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Quetzal, posted 10-07-2002 4:09 AM Quetzal has not replied

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


Message 41 of 44 (21257)
11-01-2002 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Tranquility Base
10-13-2002 10:29 PM


TB: Thought you'd like to read the initial feedback from the reviewer of your lesson plan. Except as noted, the responses are verbatim.
* INTRODUCTION
Discuss the possibility that mainstream science unjustifiably extrapolated from Darwin's evidence of small scale evolution to 'macroevolution'.
Comments:
- unjustifiably is meaningless without understanding if what would constitute justifiable extrapolation
- will macro- and micro- discussion include a drawn line? (where does micro end?)
- how do we distinguish features showing evidence of design?
* DISTINCTNESS OF KINDS & ANATOMIES
Comments:
- again, there needs to be a line drawn — where do you mark rodents, for example?
- discussion on anatomic differences should deal with true differences and not ones that appear different (wing/fin)
* SYSTEMATIC JUMPS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD
Comments:
- fossil gaps isa fallacious argument. There has to be a mention of the necessity of gaps — maybe the discussion should be on trying to determine a reasonable gap — how big can the jumps be? What should we expect to find?
- what would we expect a gradual transition to look like?
* FOSSIL ORDER
Quetzal’s note: this is the only section where the prof has substantial disagreement. To synopsize her argument against the feasibility of including discussion of the flood:
1. The Flood story is limited to a single religion, essentially a biblical literalist subset of Protestant Christianity, whereas the applicability of the other sections can at least reasonably be attributed to non-denominational/ID or any other form of divine/semi-divine special creation.
2. A detailed discussion of flood sorting mechanisms, geology, etc, could reasonably be expected to take more time than is available for the entire lesson plan.
TB: I’ll leave it up to you what NOT including the Flood does to your case.
* CONVERGENT FEATURES
Comments:
- to be scientific, though, discuss (again) expectations — what would we expect to find? Can we test this in any way?
* CONCLUSIONS
Comments:
- at no point in the lesson plan has there been any definition of what would be suggestive of creation; Are there examples?
- there is no discussion in the lesson plan on how to test creationism or what would disprove it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-13-2002 10:29 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by John, posted 11-01-2002 10:40 AM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 43 by TrueCreation, posted 11-11-2002 7:23 PM Quetzal has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 44 (21260)
11-01-2002 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Quetzal
11-01-2002 10:32 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
TB: Thought you'd like to read the initial feedback from the reviewer of your lesson plan. Except as noted, the responses are verbatim.
Interesting... all the stuff we peg him on...
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Quetzal, posted 11-01-2002 10:32 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 44 (22292)
11-11-2002 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Quetzal
11-01-2002 10:32 AM


Is this an annual opportunity? I may have an interest in jumping on this next year if possible.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Quetzal, posted 11-01-2002 10:32 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Quetzal, posted 11-12-2002 12:57 AM TrueCreation has not replied

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


Message 44 of 44 (22317)
11-12-2002 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by TrueCreation
11-11-2002 7:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Is this an annual opportunity? I may have an interest in jumping on this next year if possible.
Sorry, TC. It may well be an annual exercise, but my board membership expires this Spring (it's only a two-year elected position) and I don't intend to stand for re-election).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by TrueCreation, posted 11-11-2002 7:23 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024