|
Author
|
Topic: Dover science teachers refuse to read ID disclaimer
|
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2557 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: 10-11-2003
|
|
Message 91 of 164 (252901)
10-18-2005 11:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 89 by simple
10-18-2005 11:04 PM
|
|
Re: now show me yours
Welcome sciguy, Your posts are off topic in this thread. This thread discusses the Dover PA. science teachers and the ongoing battles to co-opt science curriculum across this country.
AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 89 by simple, posted 10-18-2005 11:04 PM | | simple has not replied |
|
simple 
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 92 of 164 (252907)
10-18-2005 11:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 90 by RAZD
10-18-2005 11:07 PM
|
|
Re: now show me yours
"What do you deny?" I guess, it must be that discussing on this thread with you is a real possibility. Hope you don't kid yourself into thinking the dissapearing creation folks here dissapear because of some strength of arguement rather than one sided so called moderation!?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 90 by RAZD, posted 10-18-2005 11:07 PM | | RAZD has replied |
|
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 4248 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: 06-08-2004
|
|
|
Message 93 of 164 (252940)
10-19-2005 4:29 AM
|
Reply to: Message 92 by simple
10-18-2005 11:52 PM
|
|
Re: now show me yours
I guess, it must be that discussing on this thread with you is a real possibility. Hope you don't kid yourself into thinking the dissapearing creation folks here dissapear because of some strength of arguement rather than one sided so called moderation!? Ah, Defence Mechanism No. 42. The old 'Proud Creationist blocked,bowed, but not beaten by bias' approach.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 92 by simple, posted 10-18-2005 11:52 PM | | simple has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 94 by joshua221, posted 10-19-2005 5:47 AM | | Nighttrain has replied |
|
joshua221
Inactive Member
|
Re: now show me yours
quote:
Ah, Defence Mechanism No. 42. The old 'Proud Creationist blocked,bowed, but not beaten by bias' approach.
lame. sciguy sees truth in everything around him on earth, the beauty, how perfect nature is, yet is shot down with the fossil record. Sciguy, the physical evidence lies with evolution, but the physical evidence doesn't matter.
I am smiling.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 93 by Nighttrain, posted 10-19-2005 4:29 AM | | Nighttrain has replied |
|
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 4248 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: 06-08-2004
|
|
|
Message 95 of 164 (252970)
10-19-2005 8:25 AM
|
Reply to: Message 94 by joshua221
10-19-2005 5:47 AM
|
|
Re: now show me yours
sciguy sees truth in everything around him on earth, the beauty, how perfect nature is How perfect nature is? Try telling that to the victims if avian flu goes aerosol.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 94 by joshua221, posted 10-19-2005 5:47 AM | | joshua221 has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2424 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 96 of 164 (252975)
10-19-2005 8:49 AM
|
Reply to: Message 94 by joshua221
10-19-2005 5:47 AM
|
|
Re: now show me yours
quote:
Sciguy, the physical evidence lies with evolution, but the physical evidence doesn't matter.
Do you like to drive?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 94 by joshua221, posted 10-19-2005 5:47 AM | | joshua221 has replied |
|
Clark
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 97 of 164 (253095)
10-19-2005 2:50 PM
|
|
|
"Astrology is Scientific" - Michael Behe
Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design [Behe] to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday. Page has gone | New Scientist
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 100 by RAZD, posted 10-19-2005 5:21 PM | | Clark has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1659 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 98 of 164 (253126)
10-19-2005 5:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 92 by simple
10-18-2005 11:52 PM
|
|
Re: now show me yours
We could start another thread so that your rambling nul-response doesn't disrupte a real discussion,
Hope you don't kid yourself into thinking dissapearing creation folks here dissapear because of some strength of arguement Again you make arrogant assumptions. Let's start with the age of the earth on the {Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II} thread EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II. Or discuss the distinction between "micro" and "macro" at the genetic level on the {"Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?} thread EvC Forum: "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism? Or the failings of "Intelligent Design" on the basis of design as it is observed and used by known intelligent beings versus what we see on the {Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design debate ... } thread EvC Forum: Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy... What I expect are rational responses, and not bluster, arrogance and lack of substance. After all, you think you have something other than that, right? Pick another topic (or discuss Dover Science Teachers and the ID issue of this thread) or start another topic.
"What do you deny?" I guess, it must be that discussing on this thread with you is a real possibility Discussing yes. This thread no (wrong one). The question is whether you are up to it: we can see who denies evidence first. Enjoy.
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 92 by simple, posted 10-18-2005 11:52 PM | | simple has not replied |
|
joshua221
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 99 of 164 (253129)
10-19-2005 5:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 96 by nator
10-19-2005 8:49 AM
|
|
Re: now show me yours
Say what you want to say. I don't particulary like to drive, "gets me from point a to point b."
I am smiling.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 96 by nator, posted 10-19-2005 8:49 AM | | nator has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 101 by nator, posted 10-20-2005 7:22 PM | | joshua221 has not replied | | | Message 102 by nator, posted 10-25-2005 11:51 AM | | joshua221 has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1659 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 100 of 164 (253131)
10-19-2005 5:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 97 by Clark
10-19-2005 2:50 PM
|
|
Re: "Astrology is Scientific" - Michael Behe
Doesn't looks good for Mike ...
The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with local members of the public and the school board. Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of "theory" was so broad it would also include astrology. Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not be included in the NAS definition. "I can’t point to an external community that would agree that this was well substantiated," he said. Behe said he had come up with his own "broader" definition of a theory, claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are actually used by scientists. "The word is used a lot more loosely than the NAS defined it," he says. Behe maintains that ID is science: "Under my definition, scientific theory is a proposed explanation which points to physical data and logical inferences." Can anyone tell me what is the scientific usefulness of a concept that is not testable? AND, if it is NOT useful then why should we change the defining element (the scientific method) of science to include useless information? Enjoy.
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 97 by Clark, posted 10-19-2005 2:50 PM | | Clark has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2424 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 101 of 164 (253513)
10-20-2005 7:22 PM
|
Reply to: Message 99 by joshua221
10-19-2005 5:16 PM
|
|
Re: now show me yours
quote:
Sciguy, the physical evidence lies with evolution, but the physical evidence doesn't matter.
Do you like to be able to use the internal combustion engine for travel, or use plastics, or use anything that needed fossil fuels for manufacture, shipping, etc.? How do you think fossil fuels are located? This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-20-2005 07:23 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 99 by joshua221, posted 10-19-2005 5:16 PM | | joshua221 has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2424 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 102 of 164 (254694)
10-25-2005 11:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 99 by joshua221
10-19-2005 5:16 PM
|
|
bump for prohex
.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 99 by joshua221, posted 10-19-2005 5:16 PM | | joshua221 has not replied |
|
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5287 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: 12-20-2001
|
|
|
Message 103 of 164 (254856)
10-26-2005 7:24 AM
|
Reply to: Message 100 by RAZD
10-19-2005 5:21 PM
|
|
Re: "Astrology is Scientific" - Michael Behe
This phrase "external community" is rather curious. I guess it means there IS an "internal community". I happen to agree with some one thing that Will Provine said EvC Forum: Prof Denies Human Free Willwhen questioning Behe on science not ID, asking him, if he did not have a problem giving the same ANSWER for the difference of hundrends or thousands of proteins. Behe said he had to think about it according to Will and then said no, he had no problem with that. Will responded that if that is what the sceince WAS to have been about then it would be boring and he would not be attracted to the field. I would also not be. Now as to what IS this difference in the community (Gould used to use the phrase "within" etc). It is interesting to note that Will Provine debated Meyer at the National Press Club and interestingly Meyer used the adjective "perfect" with DNA and Will, if I understood the interchange properly said that Meyer should have been talking about something OUTSIDE the organism, IN THE ENVIRONMENT, not inside. If Will abstracted correctly he was correct. I will eventually get some more details on this talk by Will on EvC later. This indicates to me that there can not be a clear sense of "external" as Behe used it unless he simply IS refering to clear sources of creationism. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that, though. This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-26-2005 07:25 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 100 by RAZD, posted 10-19-2005 5:21 PM | | RAZD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 104 by RAZD, posted 10-26-2005 7:33 AM | | Brad McFall has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1659 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: "Astrology is Scientific" - Michael Behe
yes, I found the "external community" comment a little strange at first. I took it to mean a community of {scientists\science users} external to the ID "community" of thinkers that would agree with his definition of science. Certainly each field and each sub-set of each field has a {cohort} that can define an "inside" and "outside" environment.
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.
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1659 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 105 of 164 (257042)
11-05-2005 10:31 AM
|
|
|
Closing Arguments
Were made
New York Times - "Closing Arguments Made in Trial on Intelligent Design" (click) The nation's first trial to test the constitutionality of teaching intelligent design as science ended Friday with a lawyer for the Dover school board pronouncing intelligent design "the next great paradigm shift in science." His opponent, a lawyer for the 11 parents suing the school board, dismissed intelligent design as dishonest, unscientific and based entirely on "a meager little analogy that collapses immediately upon inspection." The case, Kitzmiller et al v. Dover, will be decided by Judge John E. Jones III, who says he hopes to issue his ruling before the end of the year, or early January at the latest. Robert Muise, a lawyer for the board, said his strategy was to present scientists as expert witnesses to prove that there is a complex debate among scientists. "It's going to be difficult for the judge to decide" whether the pro- or the anti-intelligent-design scientists are right, Mr. Muise said. But Mr. Rothschild said, "This isn't really science against science because that would be two competing arguments based on evidence, research and peer-reviewed articles - and intelligent design has none of those." So did the plaintiffs show the ID material to be based on faith or just to be bad science? Now we wait for the decision, and the appeal and .... :sigh:
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.
|
™ Version 4.2