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 (5,643 Views)
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
And I repeat, baloney to trying to make this discussion of whether ID is science and ought to be taught in the science classroom into one of personal difference of beliefs.

Baloney alludes to the likes of Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit. Nothing emotional, or personal, about it.

Science is not my belief system. It is a system I have some understanding of and interest in. But it is not mine. Nor is it even a belief system. It is a process, a method--the scientific method you even cite.
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
As I was working outside (in nearly 100 degrees), it occured to me that you did not try to defend your comment on firing the hypothetical teacher who mentioned something about ID in the classroom. This kind of extreme response suggests to me that there is something of an agenda in keeping even the mention of ID out of the classroom. Your position is that only "science" be taught, but I suspect an agenda, and this is the way it will be furthered.

As far as science not being a belief system, just google "scientific belief system" & you get numerous hits (and to be fair, some, like you, say the science is not a belief system).

Science as a Belief System

Quote:
 
Obviously there is an infinite set of beliefs one can believe in, but most would be nearly as useless as having no belief system at all. As belief systems grow in complexity, beyond simple common sense generalizations, these systems attempt to also explain and understand. Belief systems can be classified into two basic flavors: science and religion.
      What are the distinctions between a science and a religion? At first glance one might be inclined to state that a science is a system where beliefs are derived from objective methodologies and that a religion is a system of beliefs based on faith. However, a conscious entity practicing science can only draw on its subjective experiences to form beliefs. This means that no matter how objective science appears to be, there are generally two assumptions which musty be taken entirely on faith.

      1) There exists an external objective reality
      2) There exists some sort of uniformity through time
            a) the universe has structure
            b) predictions and generalizations are possible.



Quote:
 
I have demonstrated that a scientific belief system is differentiable from a religious one because it minimizes faith, has a greater explanatory power, and is open to belief revision. It seems strange to me that people are still attempting to unify science and religion. These two types of belief systems are entirely incompatible. Someone holding both religious and scientific beliefs cannot be thinking scientifically, as it is inconsistent (However, someone thinking religiously may hold scientific beliefs without conflict).
      Despite all the measures science takes to seek the truth and explain the universe, it is still easy to [be] skeptical of its claims. However, it is far easier to be skeptical of religious claims. Since no better alternative belief systems exist for explaining the universe, the choice between those we have is easy.


Here's another:
Quote:
 
Hundreds of religions around the world teach creation stories which account for the diversity of life on Earth. The theory of evolution is also a popular belief, particularly among scientists.

In North America, beliefs regarding the origins of the origins of species of plant and animal life mostly fall into three general categories. Starting with the most popular:

1. Creation science: God created the universe during 6 consecutive 24 hour days less than 10,000 years ago, precisely as a one of the literal interpretations of the Biblical book of Genesis would indicate. All of the various species of plants and animals that currently exist (and that once existed) on earth are descendants of the original life forms that God created during the single week of creation. This is the most popular belief system among the general public. It is the least popular among earth and biological scientists. Over 99% of such scientists believe that a literal translation of Genesis does not represent reality. 
2.  Theistic evolution view: The universe is about 14 billion years old. The earth's crust developed about 4.5 billion years ago. God created the first cell, and then used evolution as a tool to guide the development of each new species. The process culminated in human beings.
3. Scientific view: Beliefs are identical to the theistic view, except that God is assumed to have played no part in the processes. Scientists assume evolution was driven by blind, purely natural forces.
BOLD EMPASIS MINE
From here: The three main belief systems

You may believe science is not a belief system, but I believe it is! :curtsey:
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
Teryt "...you did not try to defend your comment on firing the hypothetical teacher...."

Can you point out where I made such a statement? I don't believe I ever said such a thing.


"Your position is that only "science" be taught...."

My position, correctly stated, is this: Teach only science in the SCIENCE classroom. Please stick to what I say.



Re "scientific belief system", you need to distinguish science as belief, your claim, and scientific belief system, what your citations discuss. Science itself is a methodology, it is based on a philosophical position, true, like rational empiricism.

But that is not to the point here, and I believe you know that. Without arguing at all about the relative value of religon vs science, the point is that ID is based on a religious belief system, evolution, scientific, thus evolution is taught in science, ID is not. Everything you just cited supports that position.

The conflict you wish to debate between religion and science would be interesting, but is here beside the point.

"You may believe science is not a belief system, but I believe it is!"

That too is beside the point. And my point was to reject your trying to make this into a personal argument. Science is not my belief system.



More to the point would be you address the three counter arguments to your argument about complexity.
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
Jun 2 2006, 11:58 PM
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.

Quote:
 
Teryt "...you did not try to defend your comment on firing the hypothetical teacher...."

Can you point out where I made such a statement? I don't believe I ever said such a thing.


Did I somehow misunderstand this (above) exchange? We talked about it in a few messages, then it seemed like you dropped it.

Quote:
 
Science is not my belief system.
Hmmm, if you say so, then perhaps not, but you appear to be making a good attempt at it.

The point of my last post is to show that there are different belief systems, of which science is one of them. I choose number 2, which can have both elements of Creationism & Science. I see them (as the article states) as generally complimentary. I also have no trouble teaching the scientific belief system of which includes evolution.

I also have no trouble presenting other scientific ideas, such as ID. Even though you refuse to acknowledge much of anything scientific about ID, it at least deserves a mention in science classes as an interesting field that is advancing (you might deny that too). We can then certainly get on with teaching all the wonderful things that have been discovered in evolution - that is, without the junk that some associate with it (and which you & Eric have pointed out that doesn't belong in pure & demonstrated evolutionary thought - this was illuminating to me - thank you).

Now as far as addressing "the three counter arguments to your argument about complexity," I will have to go back to see what those were. But 1st, back into the rear patio to finish some projectes before it gets hotter'n the devil! :devil:
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
Teryt "Did I somehow misunderstand this (above) exchange? We talked about it in a few messages, then it seemed like you dropped it."

Yes, you did and you still do. You say we talked about it? Then why am I addressing Jane in the post you quoted? And what was it she said that I was referring to? But that's the least of the misrepresentation.

Your accusation: "it occured to me that you did not try to defend your comment on firing the hypothetical teacher who mentioned something about ID in the classroom"

What Jane and I were discussing were teachers who represented Evolutionary Theory as fact. Since that is false, and would not be in the curriculum spelled out by a school board, which they are under contract to follwo, yes, indeed fire them.

The exchange between Jane and I is right here.

It had nothing to do with ID, teryt, as you accused.

What, is this the third or fourth time I you have misunderstood and/or misrepresented what I've said?


me "Science is not my belief system."

you " Hmmm, if you say so, then perhaps not, but you appear to be making a good attempt at it."

I am defending the simple notion that science should be taught in the science classroom--much as you want to make it some else, something personal.


"The point of my last post is to show that there are different belief systems, of which science is one of them."

That's fine. But it's irrelevant to the simple point of contention here: teaching science in the science classroom.



"I also have no trouble presenting other scientific ideas, such as ID. Even though you refuse to acknowledge much of anything scientific about ID, it at least deserves a mention in science classes as an interesting field that is advancing (you might deny that too)."

You want ID to be considered science, show us how it is scientific. You are making the claim. Support it.

For my part, I have simply said, here is the definition of science, and asked, does ID meet those standards?

You also claim it is advancing. Support that. Tell us how it is advancing--scientifically.



"Now as far as addressing "the three counter arguments to your argument about complexity," I will have to go back to see what those were."

Let me make it easy.

You have claimed there are instances of irreducible complexity, improbable complexity. This implies an Intelligent Designer.

Then, challenge one, it follows that there is an IDOID. IOW, analogy is good for insights but is not adequate to support of the claim you make about ID.

Challenge two, WAP (Weak Antropic Principle), the order you see is required to observe it. Design and designer is in the eye of the beholder. The Designer is man-made.

Challenge three, supply an instance that is not accounted for by the laws of nature, including evolution.
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
Oh, I see. Regarding the exchange between you & Jane, it looks like in the following message you say to fire the teacher, but in her post she was talking about a teacher who introduced the basic concept of a Creator. Do you see how that happened? I think anyone reading the two messages, yours after hers, would get the same idea, but if that's wasn't your intent, then forgive me for this easy misunderstanding.

Quote:
 
What, is this the third or fourth time I you have misunderstood and/or misrepresented what I've said?


Didn't know we were keeping track, but yes, this is why I've been doing cut-n-paste more to try & avoid misrepresentations. Doesn't always work, as in the above cited exchange with you & Jane. Communication is one of those 2-way things, that for some reason we always think the message we're sending is so clear. But even with the written form, we can still screw it up! As my wife would say, "I'm sure it's all my fault dear!" (I often agree with her!) And I assume you never misunderstand or misrepresent me, because I communicate so clearly. :biting:

Anyway, this sort of stuff perhaps drives you bonkers - the styles thing, clarifying over & over, etc. In any case, I'm glad you weren't advocating firing the teacher for the reasons I stated - so at lest you have moved away from the radical fringe (in my mind).

Thanks for posting the 3 questions so I don't have to go looking for them. Are these the threshold rules you have set to allow ID in the science classroom, or will there be more after this? (only so many questions allowed you know)
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
TeryT "Are these the threshold rules you have set to allow ID in the science classroom, or will there be more after this?"

No, the idea was you were going address those challenges to your claim about complexity.

Remember you made this claim: There are instances of irreducible and improbable complexity and this implies an Intelligent Designer.

That was your claim, wasn't it? Correct me if wrong.

Throughout the thread that claim has been challenged as not true. The challenges are the following:

  • Then, challenge one, it follows that there is an IDOID. IOW, analogy is good for insights but is not adequate to support of the claim you make about ID.
  • Challenge two, WAP (Weak Antropic Principle), the order you see is required to observe it. Design and designer is in the eye of the beholder. The Designer is man-made.
  • Challenge three, supply an instance that is not accounted for by the laws of nature, including evolution.
Here's your chance to advance the discussion and get into some of the substance of ID.

Does answering the challenges make ID science? No. Those are philosophical challenges.

For ID to be scientific, it must meet the following requirements, which were also posted earlier:

  • Consistent. Generates no obvious logical contradictions, and 'saves the phenomena', being consistent with observation.
  • Parsimonious. Economical in the number of assumptions and hypothetical entities.
  • Pertinent. Describes and explains observed phenomena.
  • Falsifiable and testable. See Falsifiability and Testability.
  • Reproducible. Makes predictions that can be tested by any observer, with trials extending indefinitely into the future.
  • Correctable and dynamic. Subject to modification as new observations are made.
  • Integrative, robust, and corrigible. Subsumes previous theories as approximations, and allows possible subsumption by future theories. See Correspondence principle
  • Provisional or tentative. Does not assert the absolute certainty of the theory.

Remember, the question here is, should ID be taught in science class.
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
Quote:
 
Remember, the question here is, should ID be taught in science class.


First, can you tell me what the ID promoters want to teach about it?
If they just want the science teacher to admit that science doesn't know how it ALL began...why there are physical laws in the first place, etc. and that there are some scientists who suggest ID as a possible explanation for it.......
Then I don't see that you have a reasonable complaint.

Now.. if they want science teachers to get into the nature and character of the designer...that's religion, pure and simple, and doesn't belong in science classes.

But the theory of ID is no less plausible/reasonable/admittable than spontaneous creation of matter and energy and physical laws out of nothing. It's a flip of the coin at this time... and the best answer is: "we don't know".
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
Jane "First, can you tell me what the ID promoters want to teach about it?"

I'll leave that to Teryt and Alan and anyone else who wants ID taught in the science classroom, what about ID do you want taught? Keep it specific to ID, not what it borrows from biology or evolutionary theory. What does ID itself being to the table in the science classroom?


"If they just want the science teacher to admit that science doesn't know how it ALL began...."

Jane, I thought we just looked at a biology textbook that made it abundantly clear what the nature of scientific hypotheses and theories is. If science itself explains this, well, back to your first question, what does ID bring to the table not already there?


"why there are physical laws in the first place"

That's a philosophy question, not a biology question. Let me ask you, why would you want that philosophical question asked in a biology class?


"there are some scientists who suggest ID as a possible explanation for it."

Oh? In all these pages of discussion so far no one post has offered an ID explanation of anything. "Complexity => Designer" is an assertion, questions about what it means, what it explains, what it predicts, how it is testable--all those scientific questions--go unanswered.


"Now.. if they want science teachers to get into the nature and character of the designer...that's religion, pure and simple, and doesn't belong in science classes."

Ta da! That is why "Complexity => Designer" remains unexplained, undefended. To do so leads to religion.



"But the theory of ID is no less plausible/reasonable/admittable than spontaneous creation of matter and energy and physical laws out of nothing. It's a flip of the coin at this time... and the best answer is: "we don't know"."

That's a good definition of know-nothingism. If you know nothing, then anything is equally plausible.

Spontaneous generation was debunked long ago. The name of the scientist will pop in my head in a minute....ah, yes, Louis Pasteur.

What still stands is abiogenesis and panspermia. While these in the context of philosophy are no more plausible than ID, in the context of science, they are, for the simple reason they are natural explanations of beginnings. A couple of experiments also support abiogenesis, but not conclusively. ID is a supernatural explanation.

Here's a logical puzzle for you, Jane. You reject natural explanations of "something from nothing" or "life from non-life". OK, let's say we accept that as impossible. Then we wouldn't be here. Your premise defeats even the Designer argument. Oh, now you want to make an exception? OK, make it for abiogenesis.
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
Jun 5 2006, 11:26 PM

First, can you tell me what the ID promoters want to teach about it?

If they just want the science teacher to admit that science doesn't know how it ALL began...why there are physical laws in the first place, etc. and that there are some scientists who suggest ID as a possible explanation for it.......

Then I don't see that you have a reasonable complaint.


Agreed, as per your hypothetical teacher situation. There isn't a reasonable complaint to to this.

As I keep saying over & over & over (must be my communication skills), just some mention of ID or other theories in the begining of the discussion on evolution AND not present the whole thing (evolution) as the be-all-end-all-fact-thing. (and yes, Chris, I know you believe evolution is not taught as anything but a theory, but I believe differently - as explained)

Still doing chores & misc., so I'll get back on the other questions.
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
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane

Quote:
 
"First, can you tell me what the ID promoters want to teach about it?"

I'll leave that to Teryt and Alan and anyone else who wants ID taught in the science classroom,


No, I want to know what you object to. The idea itself?

Quote:
 
That's a good definition of know-nothingism. If you know nothing, then anything is equally plausible.


And, that is exactly where we are when it comes to how it all began. We KNOW NOTHING. So what's wrong with that?
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
"No, I want to know what you object to. The idea itself?"

Scientifically, ID is not science. It offers no testable scientific explanations or predictions.

Philosophically--and you really need to read some of Dembski's mathematicall treatises, flawed as they are--ID in essense reduces God or spirituallity to an extremely tiny but calculable numeric probability. Is that what God is, a number?


"And, that is exactly where we are when it comes to how it all began. We KNOW NOTHING. So what's wrong with that?"

How do you teach nothing? Why would you want to teach nothing? Unless you were a Buddhist, especially a Zen Buddhist, who would answer "Mu!" and rap your skull with a bamboo stick--meaning it's not worth thinking about.

Why not stick to things we know with enough confidence the knowing lands you a job and you can invent cures for diseases?
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
Quote:
 
Scientifically, ID is not science.


I've never said it was, but it can have a place in science as the theoretical beginning point of all things.... just as no ID can also be a theoretical starting point. You don't study ID in science... you simply posit the possibility of ID as the origin of the universe, along with the equal possibility of no ID.

For reasons I can't fathom, you seem to object to a science class discussing theories, which doesn't make sense to me because a lot of science is still in the theoretical stage.
We don't stick to things we know. We speculate all the time, in physics, chemistry and archaeology and anthropology.
The discussion of whether ID is a reasonable theory for explaining the laws of physics is not anti-scientific.
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
Yeah! What she said!
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
me "Scientifically, ID is not science."

you "I've never said it was..."

You asked me why I object to teaching ID in the science classroom. That is my basic reason. It is not science. Teaching non-science in the science classroom is nonsense.


"but it can have a place in science as the theoretical beginning point of all things"

Not if it ain't science. The purpose of teaching science is to teach, well, science.


"you simply posit the possibility of ID as the origin of the universe"

But it is not a scientific possibility. ID posits a supernatural designer--or as Dembski argues, a probability so infintesimal it is impossible.


"For reasons I can't fathom, you seem to object to a science class discussing theories, which doesn't make sense to me because a lot of science is still in the theoretical stage."

Where do you come up with that? That's surprising. Evolution is a THEORY.

I object to non-scientific theories in the science classroom.

It is that simple.


"We don't stick to things we know. We speculate all the time, in physics, chemistry and archaeology and anthropology."

But those speculations are confined to scientific speculations. Speculations based on testable observation and prediction. That is what science is about.

ID is none of that.



"The discussion of whether ID is a reasonable theory for explaining the laws of physics is not anti-scientific."

No, I won't play the silly old religious game and say that ideas that are without science are therefore anti-science.

ID is simply not science.

If it were, someone would explain how it is so.

If it were reasonable, someone would answer the simple logical puzzles it poses, like IDOID.
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
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply