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 (5,641 Views)
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
I'm not going to argue about whether ID should have a place in the science classroom or not.
Mostly because I don't think it's going to happen, or if it gets into anything more than a starting point for existence, it's going to cause way more trouble for the fundies than they ever dreamed and it will all come to a screeching halt.

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
Your framework, not mine. Circular. Non productive (albeit perhaps some seeds planted). "Knaves."

Time will tell, as I think we'll all eventually find out.
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
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
BTW - I did present that one article you cited, Chris (Flagellum Unspun?) for my friend to look at. Not sure when he can look at it.
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
 
DocInBird
Member
oh I LOVE a "logicl puzzle".
--doc
Just Doc and Orson (German Shepherd) wandering around North America.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Logical popsicles taste better.
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
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Teryt, I believe I submitted several papers on the evolution of flagellum, and could come up with more. I would hope your friend is familiar with all of them.


But let's take a different tack, leave the conflict behind. Let's assume, for the moment, for the sake of argument, that ID is a scientific theory and that it be given a chapter in biology textbooks and a week in the classroom.

What I ask, then, from those who support the concept of ID and advocate its teaching as science, with special attention to "expand the reasoning capabilities of the student", what specifically would you recommend for the curriculum and content on ID, what would you teach?
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
Here's the link to an article you psoted Chris:
The Flagellum Unspun by Kenneth R. Miller

And my friend's response:

Quote:
 
Nonsense, proceeded by "evolution" or by "god" is still nonsense. 

"Anyone can state at any time that they cannot imagine how evolutionary mechanisms might have produced a certain species, organ, structure."  Anyone can state at any time that they cannot imagine how ID mechanisms might have produced a certain species, organ, structure.  Myths are myths and it depends on your metaphysics which myth you embrace. 

The fact that they have found that
similar proteins form "extensive homologies" is no surprise.  What designer
would use a different metal or a different fastener for each and every bolt
and flange in a bridge.  The cell wall penetration system has a completely
different function than the flagellum and happens to use similar proteins.
All living things are made up of carbon and hydrogen does that mean then
that all things evolved from those "extensive homologies." 

The math may or
may not be exactly right on but it is not really a mater of the
probabilities of assembling the entire structure at once but of the
selection for any given interim structure.  Especially given the fact that
the organism has no foreknowledge of what the thing is and what to do with
it even if it arrives.


Now what did he just say!? :ohmy: Ok, makes a little more sense after the 3rd reading.

Chris, as far as what to teach, first of all, my original premise was just to mention it, but a whole week!? Maybe a couple days would sufficeth - although no doubt my friend would disagree.
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's friend says "Nonsense, proceeded by "evolution" or by "god" is still nonsense." And again "Myths are myths and it depends on your metaphysics which myth you embrace."

So you're friend is a nihilist who believes all is nonsense and believes in nothing and argues against everything?

He has said nothing so far refuting the evolution of flagellum with that irrelevancy. If it refutes evolution in some way it refutes ID in the same way.



Teryt's friend says
Quote:
 
"Anyone can state at any time that they cannot imagine how evolutionary mechanisms might have produced a certain species, organ, structure."  Anyone can state at any time that they cannot imagine how ID mechanisms might have produced a certain species, organ, structure.  Myths are myths and it depends on your metaphysics which myth you embrace.

This was answered in the article in the next sentence if your friend had only quoted it:

"Anyone can state at any time that they cannot imagine how evolutionary mechanisms might have produced a certain species, organ, structure. Such statements, obviously, are personal – and they say more about the limitations of those who make them than they do about the limitations of Darwinian mechanisms."

Your friend, like you, simply wants to devolve all debate into personal issues, opinions and beliefs. But that's not the topic.

He has said nothing so far refuting the evolution of flagellum with that irrelevancy. If it refutes evolution in some way iit refutes ID in the same way.




In the paragraph beginning "The fact that they have found that similar proteins form "extensive homologies" is no surprise." your friend is simply piggy backing ID onto evolutionary theory. He is saying evolution and ID say the same thing here in that "extensive homologies" are natural.

But ID adds an assumption, a Designer. So your friend is forgetting the scientific principle of parsimony (Occam's Razor).

Your friend here does not refute the evolution argument against ID. Or, if he does, he refutes ID with it.



Your friend argues
Quote:
 
The math may or may not be exactly right on but it is not really a mater of the probabilities of assembling the entire structure at once but of the selection for any given interim structure. Especially given the fact that the organism has no foreknowledge of what the thing is and what to do with it even if it arrives.

Argues with whom? That is what the article says Dembski argues. The article goes on to refute that:
Quote:
 
This approach overlooks the fact that the last two probabilities are actually contained within the first. Localization and self-assembly of complex protein structures in prokaryotic cells are properties generally determined by signals built into the primary structures of the proteins themselves. The same is likely true for the amino acid sequences of the 30 or so protein components of the flagellum and the approximately 20 proteins involved in the flagellum's assembly (McNab 1999; Yonekura et al 2000). Therefore, if one gets the sequences of all the proteins right, localization and assembly will take care of themselves.

So, your friend, in repeating Demski, is not refuting what the article says to counter Demski.

And your friend ignores the remainer of the article.




The concluding statement of the article says what I said about ID reducing God, er, Designer to a miniscule probability, a number:

Against such a backdrop, the struggles of the intelligent design movement are best understood as clamorous and disappointing double failures – rejected by science because they do not fit the facts, and having failed religion because they think too little of God.
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
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Teryt "Chris, as far as what to teach, first of all, my original premise was just to mention it, but a whole week!? Maybe a couple days would sufficeth - although no doubt my friend would disagree."

Can you elaborate? What do you mean by just mention it? Just "ID is an alternative theory of origins"? Wouldn't you have to explain what the theory is? And the evidence for it? I mean, in order for students to exercise and expand the reasoning capabilities?
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
okay, I finally researched ID and now I see the problem of communication between me and the nay sayers.....
When I use the term ID, I'm using it generically...not pointing to a specific theory laid out...like Darwin's theory. Darwin didn't have it all right, and neither does the ID theory.
I regard evolution as a creation by the designer.
And when I use the word evolution, I'm talking about the entire creation process, from "big bang" to formation of planets to creation of life and formation of creatures.
Evolution IS the design.
So that's why I keep saying I don't see a conflict in pointing to the origin of evolution and calling it Intellect/Will/First Cause.

So... if ID is going to be pitted against evolution in a "one or the other" presentation, then no, I'm not for teaching ID in a science classroom.
But if a teacher is presented with a question about how it all started in the first place, then he/she ought to be able to say: "there are two theories. one is that a Creator did it, and the other is that it just happened on its own". Period.
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, I'd gathered you referred to a generic theory long ago since you never toss out buzz words like Alan or Teryt do. The generic theory is called the teleological argument for God. The current ID movement is really no more than that, with some fancy probabilistic mathematics thrown in to sound sophisticated, brought to you by Creationists who are dead set against and determined to change the materialist nature of science.


"Evolution IS the design.
So that's why I keep saying I don't see a conflict in pointing to the origin of evolution and calling it Intellect/Will/First Cause."

The conflict exists on two levels. On one level, the simple one I've been arguing, as you seem to agree, evolution is science and appropriate in a science class, ID is not. On the other level, the philosophical level, the conflict is in claiming a relationship between what we know scientifically as evolution and what you believe religiously as design, when it doesn't exist except as a matter of faith.


"But if a teacher is presented with a question about how it all started in the first place, then he/she ought to be able to say: "there are two theories. one is that a Creator did it, and the other is that it just happened on its own". Period."

Earlier you argued the teacher should be honest and say no one knows, period. Now you want to mention religion along side science. --Which is really all Teryt wants too.

OK, so imagine this scenario:

Doc as a pimply highschool student in a biology class: "Teach, how it all get started in the first place?"

Teach: "There are two theories. one is that a Creator did it, and the other is that it just happened on its own."

Doc: "Are you saying that some form of intelligence caused the "big bang"? This intelligence then created DNA and amoeba? These amoeba then evolved into fish, which evolved into mammals, which evolved into humans. If there was such an intelligent being, why do the steps in between? Why not just create humans to begin with?"

:)
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
 
bikemanb
Member Avatar
Liberal Conservative
... or an uninvolved God created the basic mechanisms and set back to see the results of the handi-work. An experiment on a cosmic scale.
Bill, Rita and Chloe the Terror Cat

For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise.

Benjamin Franklin
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Ah, yes, the constitutional reason you don't teach religion in science class, er, public school: Which religion? Which God? --You guys fight that one out!
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:
 
OK, so imagine this scenario:

Doc as a pimply highschool student in a biology class: "Teach, how it all get started in the first place?"

Teach: "There are two theories. one is that a Creator did it, and the other is that it just happened on its own."

Doc: "Are you saying that some form of intelligence caused the "big bang"? This intelligence then created DNA and amoeba? These amoeba then evolved into fish, which evolved into mammals, which evolved into humans. If there was such an intelligent being, why do the steps in between? Why not just create humans to begin with?"



and the answer is: "who knows?" and "Why is not a question for science to discuss. If you want to search for why, you must turn to philosophy or religion".

Seems to me this kind of confrontation would be good for all students...helping them understand that science is not an enemy of religion.
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
To the detriment of religion. If all questions about ID are answered know one knows, it just is so, ya gooata believe--and those answers to the same questions about evolution fill a whole textbook and class curriculum, and more in Bilogy II, and more in college, and more in graduate school. what's that say about religious beliefs in God, er, Designer? Not much. Maybe there is nothing to say.

But then what is the purpose of even mentioning it?



Man, disappointed, I thought Teryt was a teacher, and would have a week's curriculum planned out, lesson plans and all.
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
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply