| 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: |
| Dumbing Down Of America, 2 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 12 2006, 11:46 AM (5,647 Views) | |
| TexasShadow | Jun 2 2006, 03:48 PM Post #316 |
![]()
Jane
|
well, no arguments here have convinced me that ID is all that harmful or even inappropriate in a science classroom. The objection to it being mentioned in a science classroom is an attempt at mind control because most of the time, that is where the question is going to come up... If the extremist promoters of ID have expectations of religious views taught in science, they need to rethink their agenda because they'll find out there are a lot of differing religious views. our children not being able to read and understand what they're reading or do simple math in their heads is far more disturbing to me. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 2 2006, 04:54 PM Post #317 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Oh! So now you know something about ID? You're confusing me with statements you don't, and then this.... "But this is not the case, as we have the advantage of seeing down to the subatomic level." That came from biological science, a lot of it Mendolson, not ID. ID merely speculates upon selected data. "This shows much more complexity than any teleologist or Darwinist imagined." Oh? Darwin's general theory of natural selection still holds, still best accounts for the evidence. Teleology does not look at the real world but an idealized one. "So to say ID "is the same teleological argument it was centuries ago" is just not accurate." Uh, well, uh, could you tell us how it is not accurate? "...the notion of the TA has certainly not been discreditied by the complexity we have found..." What complexity? And why does that imply God? "But it has raised questions of how these things could come about in a purely evolutionary way." Which questions? Please. I will try then to show how modern evolutionary theory has answered those questions. "Personally, and from what I understand of ID, it only proposes #1 & 2." True, for the weak ID theory. What about the strong? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 2 2006, 05:02 PM Post #318 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Jane "The objection to it being mentioned in a science classroom is an attempt at mind control because most of the time, that is where the question is going to come up..." The objection to it being mentioned in a science classroom is because it does not meet the received standard of what science is. To repeat my quote:
Mind control? Give an example? Because that is where the question...? You've lost me. What are you getting at? "If the extremist promoters of ID have expectations of religious views taught in science, they need to rethink their agenda because they'll find out there are a lot of differing religious views." Have at 'em! Here is your target: Phillip E. Johnson. The father of the ID movement. "our children not being able to read and understand what they're reading or do simple math in their heads is far more disturbing to me." Oh, I agree! Why they cannot read a biology textbook like I quoted earlier and understand the simplistic concepts presented about hypotheses and theories in science--maybe their parents ought to help them understand, help them to see the need to be a skeptic about everything you hear. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | Jun 2 2006, 05:38 PM Post #319 |
![]()
Jane
|
okay: "Students, today, we're going to take a look at the theory of evolution. Here is a graph showing the progression of life from the sea. We have the amoeba, then more complex sea creatures leading up to amphibians, leading to birds and all other animal life. Here on the graph, we see an ape like creature that splits off into two branches; apes and humans."......... "Teacher, how did the amoeba start up in the sea? What made it start?" "We don't know." or "We think it began with (I don't know what you call it, electricity and solar energy ?) Or, it could be that life arrived from outer space via a comet or meteor" "Yes, teacher, but what made the event happen? Did it happen accidentally?" "We don't know." or "Yes, it happened accidentally." or "Some folks think it happened accidentally, others think it happened because there's a First Cause, an Intelligent Designer". forgot to add my commentary to this scenario: I don't mind the "I don't know" answer. That's honest" But I don't mind the last answer either, because it encourages the student to think about it and make up his own mind. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 2 2006, 05:58 PM Post #320 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Could you cite your source, Jane? Or is that a hypotheical? Maybe there are teachers like that. OK, fire them. They no more belong in the teaching profession than one who would wedge creationist ID into the biology classroom. Fire them. Better yet, get rid of public schooling. Only offers special interests breeding ground. The worst teacher I ever had read from the textbook. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | Jun 2 2006, 06:19 PM Post #321 |
![]()
Jane
|
sure it's hypothetical.... just showing how easy and likely the question will come up. fire the teacher? good luck! he/she is probably the basketball coach, too. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| teryt | Jun 2 2006, 06:29 PM Post #322 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
Oh! So now you know something about ID? You're confusing me with statements you don't, and then this.... Hey, I can look stuff up on the web as well as the next guy! LOL But really, my objective was more to make a point on the school textbook thing, not to get so caught up in hashing out the theoretical details (which I know you love). "But this is not the case, as we have the advantage of seeing down to the subatomic level." That came from biological science, a lot of it Mendolson, not ID. ID merely speculates upon selected data.Sure, this is obvious. But ID people certainly use fancy microscopes too, and actually do research. "This shows much more complexity than any teleologist or Darwinist imagined." Oh? Darwin's general theory of natural selection still holds, still best accounts for the evidence. Teleology does not look at the real world but an idealized one.Nope - Darwin would have no way of knowing about the things we see on an ever increasingly smaller (is that an oxymoron?) scale. He looked at a certain level, came up with something that seemed to connect the dots well for the level he observed. I think when one gets down to a certain level, and sees an absolutely astounding complexity that no one dreamed of before, then you might question the logic of the theorem that has been followed. "Idealized one" sounds to me to be a subjective comment, which could be said of either (although I'm sure you would point to mountains of evolutionary research evidence to say it was more than "idealized"). Evolution was likely called "idealized" when it was new on the scene. Teleology might not look at the "real world," but I think ID does - i.e., petri dishes, microscopes, etc. So ID, I think one could argue, does get into areas of research that teleology doesn't. "So to say ID "is the same teleological argument it was centuries ago" is just not accurate." Uh, well, uh, could you tell us how it is not accurate? I did, at least I thought I did! To say it is the same, is to say that nothing has changed. There has been some change, e.g., finding smaler irreducibly complex systems. Now you may not agree with the concept of irreducible complexity, but it is something that was not part of the TA. They didn't know about these smaller levels, just as Darwin didn't. So by definition, ID is not the "same." It may build upon the TA, but building on something implies it has changed in some fashion, again, by definition. (Maybe this is a styles thing, but you asked.) "...the notion of the TA has certainly not been discreditied by the complexity we have found..." What complexity? And why does that imply God? "What complexity?" Pretty much what I said above. "Imply God?" Again, at a certain point I have to say that there is just too much going on for time, chance & natural selection to account for. Again, I don't think modern ID goes to the "God" aspect automatically (numbers 3 & 4 in the Wikipedia link) - just a superior intellect. "But it has raised questions of how these things could come about in a purely evolutionary way." Which questions? Please. I will try then to show how modern evolutionary theory has answered those questions.I suppose we could take the human eye as an example. I've heard some of the evolutionary arguments about it before I think. From what I've seen, the evolutionary proposal is still about an unrealistic, amount of time, chance, and natural selection. Again, at what point do we say, "The odds of this occuring in a natural evolutionary process is really starting to get a little out there."? Maybe you have an evolutionary based explanation that is not so far-fetched. "Personally, and from what I understand of ID, it only proposes #1 & 2." True, for the weak ID theory. What about the strong?You mean how it applies? Wow! See - I am capable of answering all your questions (maybe even some of them the way you would like)! But this only happens when it's like Friday, the wife is gone, there's not much going on, yada yada yada. |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | Jun 2 2006, 06:46 PM Post #323 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
Sounds like you're saying two different things here. You say the worst you evrer had read from a textbook, then you say to fire the one who tried to carry on an intelligent conversation! Would you really fire the teacher for ansering an open question with, "Some folks think it happened accidentally, others think it happened because there's a First Cause, an Intelligent Designer"? I can't have understood you right! In my classrooms I advocate an atmosphere of structured open discusion. Poeple learn when they can ask questions & participate. Even though teachers are all naturally biased, the best ones present different approaches without tipping their own hand. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying, "This is my opinion, based upon . . ." I've had professors who brought their own political views (usually leftist) into the classroom - but this was in business classes. I had to just grin & bear it - especially when they didn't say it was just their opinion - very unprofessional in my view. Now in K-12 there probably should be more careful structure, but I see nothing wrong whatsoever with the hypothetical answer as stated above. So I must not be understanding you right, but I saw no sarcasm smiley! |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | Jun 2 2006, 06:51 PM Post #324 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
Here's the answer from my friend ("Did your friend explain how ID employs scientific method?"):
|
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 2 2006, 06:52 PM Post #325 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
OK, so now substantiate the hypotheitcal the way it's beeen done for Evolutionary Science. Teryt, my, you know explode with thoughts. Gotta go eat, but will get back.... |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 2 2006, 06:56 PM Post #326 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Before I leave: None of his answer addresses the question about scientific method. His is a typical Creationist answer. "Dominski" Dembski? "strict case for scientifically establishing ID" Is this the design inference? (We already covered that in this thread.) Can your friend give specific examples of his claims? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | Jun 2 2006, 08:11 PM Post #327 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
Common - I don't beleive you eat! What with over 30,500 posts!!! When I's gits the time, I can gets verbose! (all fluff, no content though) :bore: |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 2 2006, 08:54 PM Post #328 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Again, the diversions. Stand up for what you say if you believe it. "Dominski" Dembski? Do you mean the Dembski I've been quoting? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 2 2006, 09:21 PM Post #329 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Teryt earlier "my objective was more to make a point on the school textbook thing" So your argument is for better education again? Not ID? "But ID people certainly use fancy microscopes too, and actually do research." They do? Not Johnson, not Dembski, not Behe. Who uses a microscope? And why would they use a microscope to dig archaeological sites? How many Creationist, er, IDers, dig for evidence? Teryt "Darwin would have no way of knowing about the things we see on an ever increasingly smaller (is that an oxymoron?) scale. He looked at a certain level, came up with something that seemed to connect the dots well for the level he observed. I think when one gets down to a certain level, and sees an absolutely astounding complexity that no one dreamed of before, then you might question the logic of the theorem that has been followed." What on earth are you talking about? Smaller scale of what? Certain level of what? Connect dots? What dots? "level he observed"? What level? What did he observe? What "absolutely astounding complexity"? " logic of the theorem" What logic? Could you give some examples? Some details? Science is not logic. ""What complexity?" Pretty much what I said above. " You didn't say anything. You hemmed and hawed about levels and dots and astoundings. "Again, at a certain point I have to say that there is just too much going on for time, chance & natural selection to account for." What point? What's going on? What's not accounted for? "Again, at what point do we say, "The odds of this occuring in a natural evolutionary process is really starting to get a little out there."?" That is Dembski's design inference. That is the teleological argument again. Or WAP (Weak Antropic Principle) that Eric's been talking about. We've already discussed all that. Why do you repeat it? "So by definition, ID is not the "same." It may build upon the TA, but building on something implies it has changed in some fashion, again, by definition." What is it that ID adds to TA? "To say it is the same, is to say that nothing has changed. There has been some change, e.g., finding smaler irreducibly complex systems. Now you may not agree with the concept of irreducible complexity, but it is something that was not part of the TA. They didn't know about these smaller levels, just as Darwin didn't. So by definition, ID is not the "same."" Changing examples does not change the argument. It is the same teleological argument. Smaller irreducibly complex system? Can you name one that has not been explained by biological evolution? "I suppose we could take the human eye as an example. I've heard some of the evolutionary arguments about it before I think. From what I've seen, the evolutionary proposal is still about an unrealistic, amount of time, chance, and natural selection." Ah, an example. And, yes, it has been explained naturally. You could start here: Irreducible Complexity proven to evolve. "True, for the weak ID theory. What about the strong?You mean how it applies?" What are the weak and strong ID arguments? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | Jun 2 2006, 10:04 PM Post #330 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
I dunno - my freind said it, probably from his overworked memory. Later, I need to go have some fun (diversion in your lingua franca). Hopefully you will to. |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |









1:28 PM Jul 11