Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Dumbing Down Of America, 2
Topic Started: May 12 2006, 11:46 AM (5,667 Views)
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
Colo_Crawdad
May 14 2006, 04:50 PM
Quote:
 
I really don't see the issue in teaching both theories, evolution & intelligent design. We can point to holes in both systems, and both system theories have some very good points.


Neither do I see anything wrong with teaching both, as long as evolution is related to science classes and ID is relegated to philosophy classes. Science (and evolution) attempts to explain how while philosophy (and ID) attempts to explain why. Two very different questions belonging in two very different curricula.

I don't think I can agree. ID goes into a lot of biology. It's some of the things dicovered in biology since Darwin that have given rise to ID. Many of the things happening on a molecular level, Darwin had no idea of.
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Better put as IDers accept much of modern evolutionary theory that science has advanced since Darwin. Their only contribution is to posit an intelligent designer as an untestable, non-predictive explaination of why creation happened, without a word of scientific explanation how the intelligent designer did that.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MDPD6320
Member Avatar
Frank - Gainesville, Florida
I agree that evolution Vs. creationism is not the cause of problems in education. It is the lack of discipline in the approach to education. Teachers must be self disciplined in regard to their obligations to students, and students are not disciplined by their parents to value education. Todays teachers graduate with hundreds of hours of HOW to teach and very few hours of WHAT to teach. I attended a relatively poor (in dollars) high school. We were 40 to 50 in a class (all boys) taught by dedicated Catholic clerics. I received my liberal arts college education in high school, although I didn't know that until later in life. BTW they taught natural selection in biology and creationism in religion classes.

Money will not help to improve education. What will help is better, dedicated teachers and better dedicated parents, the institution of standardized state testing, and elimination of the biggest obstacle to these improvements: the NEA.
" The government big enough to give you everything you want it is big enough to take everything you have."

"Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
Quote:
 
I agree that evolution Vs. creationism is not the cause of problems in education. It is the lack of discipline in the approach to education. Teachers must be self disciplined in regard to their obligations to students, and students are not disciplined by their parents to value education.

Money will not help to improve education. What will help is better, dedicated teachers and better dedicated parents, the institution of standardized state testing, and elimination of the biggest obstacle to these improvements: the NEA.


:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
cmoehle
May 14 2006, 06:22 PM
Better put as IDers accept much of modern evolutionary theory that science has advanced since Darwin. Their only contribution is to posit an intelligent designer as an untestable, non-predictive explaination of why creation happened, without a word of scientific explanation how the intelligent designer did that.

I think this may be begging the question. As I see it, evolution puts forth a VERY feeble attempt to explain how the primordial ooz brings forth life. In contrast, at least ID says, "Yes, these beginings are a mystery, which can only be explained adequately by a designer." Again, ID also uses findings that Darwin never knew about.
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Evolutionary theory doesn't address creation. For that you might turn to theories like abiogenesis or panspermia. ID is circular in its claim. Darwin is dead.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
cmoehle
May 14 2006, 07:18 PM
Evolutionary theory doesn't address creation. For that you might turn to theories like abiogenesis or panspermia. ID is circular in its claim. Darwin is dead.

Circular? I could probably say the same thing about Darwinism. I think both theories make leaps & postulations.
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Evolutionary theory does not presuppose what it sets out to explain, as ID, a thin mask for Creationism, does. Or would you care to elaborate how evolutionary theory, or even that red herring, Darwinism, is circular.

Evolutionary theory, modern, contemporary evolutionary theory, like all sciences, posits testable hypotheses and predictions, and self-corrects, as it has greatly advanced from long ago Darwinism, as more is known. What does ID hypothesize or predict that is testable? What would be the self-correction should its hypothesis or prediction prove false? That's rhetorical, nothing in the ID literature does anything of the sort. As such it is not only circular but a non sequitar.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
cmoehle
May 14 2006, 08:05 PM
Evolutionary theory does not presuppose what it sets out to explain, as ID, a thin mask for Creationism, does. Or would you care to elaborate how evolutionary theory, or even that red herring, Darwinism, is circular.

Evolutionary theory, modern, contemporary evolutionary theory, like all sciences, posits testable hypotheses and predictions, and self-corrects, as it has greatly advanced from long ago Darwinism, as more is known. What does ID hypothesize or predict that is testable? What would be the self-correction should its hypothesis or prediction prove false? That's rhetorical, nothing in the ID literature does anything of the sort. As such it is not only circular but a non sequitar.

I don't think that's so - evolution postulates that things started in an electrified pool of ooz or sumptin akin - which doesn't cut it with many. So ID addresses this point.

Because at the momment ID doesn't seem provable - is that a reason to chuck it? I think as more & more evidence mounts that shows things have a much more detailed make-up (yes design), then doesn't this tend to support the ID theory? It certainly doesn't discredit it! I think these intricate molecular level findings do tend to cast doubts on certain eveolution presupositions.

The findings & idea of irreducibly complex systems makes the odds that life came from an evolutionary process go from 1 in a kagillion to 1 in 52 million kagillion (give or take .0376 kagillion).
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Sorry, but as I said earlier, evolutionary threory does not address beginnings, only evolution since then.


For "things started in an electrified pool of ooz or sumptin akin" you need to go to Abiogenesis:

Quote:
 
The term abiogenesis simply means getting life from non-life and is used both for spontaneous generation and chemical evolution...

It is worth noting that creationists frequently confuse abiogenesis with evolution. By pointing to problems or lack of knowledge about the former, they think they refute the latter. So, it is important to realise that how life arose is irrelevant to the validity of evolution. It matters not in the slightest to evolution whether the first living things came about through supernatural or natural means....


I'm curious. You argue that "getting life from non-life" "doesn't cut it with many". Isn't ID a theory that posits "getting life from non-life"? But that "doesn't cut it with many".


"Because at the momment ID doesn't seem provable - is that a reason to chuck it?"

Oh, no, just don't conflate it, a religious, or mathematical, or philosophical theory, with the very different animal of scientific theory, of which evolution is a part. Apples and oranges. Teach ID and other creation myths, as many above have suggested, in a comparative religion class, not in a science class. You are aware, aren't you that IDers like Michael Behe do not advocate teaching ID in science as well.


"I think as more & more evidence mounts that shows things have a much more detailed make-up (yes design), then doesn't this tend to support the ID theory?"

Could you cite some peer-reviewed scientific studies that have shown anything of the sort? That have posited a testable hypothesis or prediction--oops, already asked for that. Rhetorical, there are none. ID is also by this an example of argument from ignorance.


"The findings & idea of irreducibly complex systems makes the odds that life came from an evolutionary process go from 1 in a kagillion to 1 in 52 million kagillion (give or take .0376 kagillion)."

Findings? What findings? The idea is a mathematical theory expounded by William Demski who, drawing on Shannon's "A mathematical theory of communication", confuses information with entropy--see Icons of ID: Probability as information.

The same argument applies here as with "getting life from non-life". If that's a probability of "1 in 52 million kagillion (give or take .0376 kagillion)" then that same seemingly impossible event is just as improbable for an intelligent designer.

Quantum physics explains how even the smallest probability results in spontaneous order in the universe.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
well, then, one thing might go a long ways in helping alleviate religious concerns....

the science teacher should SAY that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life itself, but only what happened afterward.
the question of how it all began in the first place is yet unanswered by science, and the teacher should SAY so.
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Yes, that sounds reasonable. Textbooks I've seen do, but I've seen only a few. If the textbook doesn't do this then attaching a note as some schools do to the effect that evolution is just science is fine as well.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
TexasShadow
May 14 2006, 09:51 PM
well, then, one thing might go a long ways in helping alleviate religious concerns....

the science teacher should SAY that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life itself, but only what happened afterward.
the question of how it all began in the first place is yet unanswered by science, and the teacher should SAY so.


Ditto - the point I was going to make as well. This is the big problem I had in when my kids were in school - the teaching of evolution as it was the origins of life.

OK Chris, I think I see your point in this. Trouble is, the whole idea of teaching any religion in public schools is trouble prone at best, so they usually stay away from it, or at least do a poor job of it. Likewise, they should refrain from teaching evolution as the big answer to everything. It is a good answer, to certain questions, but not to the question of where life itself came from.

Quote:
 
I'm curious. You argue that "getting life from non-life" "doesn't cut it with many". Isn't ID a theory that posits "getting life from non-life"? But that "doesn't cut it with many".
Yes.


Quote:
 
Teach ID and other creation myths . . .  ID is also by this an example of argument from ignorance.
This is likely where we differ most. I think that as things are shown to be more & more complex & interdependant at the microbiological level, it will go towards the theory that there is intelligent design. Evolution, when it started, was just deemed a myth too (again, by many).

The way I see evolution being taught is that it shows a common ancestry, and that chance made life happen. I do see a common ancestry, and all living things show some similarities, but for the reason that there was a common designer.

So again, maybe there should be emphasis in schools, that evolution doesn't explain the origins of life, just the natural selection process afterwards - which accounts for a certain degree of modification of organisms.

But this is where intelligent design can be mentioned in the biology classroom - the irreducibly complex systems theory. As far as I'm concerned, it's a much bigger leap of faith to say that the many complex systems & subsystems of the eye came about by chance of natural selection over time.

ID is still pretty new, so the research will catch up - again, perhaps, as even single cells are shown to be much more complex than we dreamed.

Question for you Chris: Have your read Behe's book in its entirety?
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
No, just pieces. Have you read Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design?

ID is new? It's a form of the old teleological argument perhaps best argued by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae, but traceable to Greek philosophers like Heraclitus, Plato, and others.

"But this is where intelligent design can be mentioned in the biology classroom - the irreducibly complex systems theory."

It's been debunked. See, for instance, Irreducible Complexity proven to evolve.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
cmoehle
May 15 2006, 03:34 AM
No, just pieces. Have you read Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design?

ID is new? It's a form of the old teleological argument perhaps best argued by  Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae, but traceable to Greek philosophers like Heraclitus, Plato, and others.

"But this is where intelligent design can be mentioned in the biology classroom - the irreducibly complex systems theory."

It's been debunked. See, for instance, Irreducible Complexity proven to evolve.

I have read about the computer simulations. At 1st I thought it was almost laughable - that is, that we could try to simulate such things with computer models. But after some reflection, I see that it was a "good faith" attempt (as stated in this quote), with probable flaws.

Quote:
 
B. Some Musings on the Lenski Paper by Casey Luskin:
When I originally read the Lenski paper a couple years ago, I felt that they did make a good faith effort to model some aspects of biological reality. For example, the simulations began with a population of "computer programs" or "digital organisms" which could reproduce but occasionally made mistakes (mutations) when copying their code. Fitness was also increased by having a mutation which added a "logic operation" to its code. I recommend reading the original paper to see how the logic operations can build upon one another to produce the target logic operation, called "EQU."

I break my criticisms into the following categories:

Stacking the Deck: It was pre-ordained that the complex function can be created from the less complex functions (they hand-coded a solution before even running the simulation)--but there is no such guarantee in biology that subsystems can be so easily combined to produce anything useful! The complexity gap between the smaller functions (NAND, etc.) and the target functions (EQU) is not very big. In fact, they were able to create EQU using only 5 of the more primitive logic operation subsystems. This means that only 5 logic functions are needed to evolve EQU. They created a simulation which they knew could evolve the target function through the subsystems. (This is why I have titled this critique "Evolution by Intelligent Design.")

Too Much Selective Advantage: Selective advantage was given to literally every single addition of logic functions in the organisms which evolved EQU. Additionally, every mutation which added code, always added functional line(s) of code, while in nature mutations are never guaranteed to have any meaning or functionality in the environment. This makes the evolution of EQU essentially inevitable, and it does not test irreducible complexity. In a true irreducibly complex system, there will be no selective advantage along an evolutionary pathway. In real world, there is no guarantee that the subsystems you need will necessarily give you a selective advantage along your evolutionary pathway.

Illustrating that Irreducible Complexity is Unevolvable: When the aforementioned "selective advantage" was taken away, and fitness only increased when the target function EQU appeared, EQU NEVER EVOLVED in their simulations! This is very significant because it shows that they modeled true irreducible complexity, and that when they did, irreducible complexity could not evolve!

Response to Lenski
There seem to be "many" (you like that word, eh?) who have something of a vested interest in trying to debunk ID. At this point, there are likely far more shouting on that side. We shall see if the pendulum swings again to the other side.

Also, whether or not ID is new, or we see it as new, seems irrelavant. As a wise man once said, "There is nothing new under the sun." I think we probably just rehash old thoughts most of the time, albeit with maybe some more sophistication at our disposal.

A quote from the "Creationism's Trojan Horse": book: "but we've been around longer and have more scientists convinced, even if the scientifically illiterate public are not" (ad populum).
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply