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 (5,666 Views)
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
Doesn't happen often around here - but do I actually get the last word on ID?
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
 
sebo
Member Avatar
BXL, Belgium - Urup
oh wow a google search brought me right to this topic... nice to be back in here :tiphat:
I probably won't stay on for long as I'm in the middle of exams (again)

Quote:
 
While it seems to be a big issue with you. IMO the teaching of the possibility of creation alongside evolution is not the big problem in our schools today.


You mean there are schools that actually TEACH creationism as something more than just part of a simple 'reglion' class?
Posted Image Posted Image
"Thinking must never submit itself, neither to a dogma, nor to a party, nor to a passion, nor to an interest, nor to a preconceived idea, nor to whatever it may be, if not to facts themselves, because, for it, to submit would be to cease to be." -Henri Poincaré-
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Google brought you here. :o

Hi, Sebo, how you doing! :tiphat:
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
 
DocInBird
Member
Hmmm, let's see... there is the Babylonian, Olori, Korean, Japanese, Navajo, Norse, Indian, Commanche, Chinese, Chelan, Pima, Mayan, Miwok, Salish, Aboriginal, Egyption, Micmac, Lakota, Assyrian, Maori, Aztec, Apache, Dakota, Hungarian, Hopi, Tahitian, Iroquis, Inuit, and Hawaiin creation myths, just to name a few.

So, if one started in first grade and taught a few per year, there might be enough time before college.

Or, they could just give the sudents a hand-out listing all of the creation myths and just teach evolution (what can be proven to happen after creation).

--doc
Just Doc and Orson (German Shepherd) wandering around North America.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
And my opinion is that people take evolution too far to say that it explains the creation of life. This also can be construed as a myth. The rest of evolution is a pretty good theory, that has some widespred scientific support, but still with lots to explain.

Intelligent Design is a reverse engineering theory on how life began.
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
About the only people I hear arguing evolution makes claims about the origins of life are creationists. Were they misled or are they misleading?

"Intelligent Design is a reverse engineering theory on how life began."

It is in many respects.

"reverse engineering" from dictionary.com:
Quote:
 
The process of analysing an existing
system to identify its components and their interrelationships
and create representations of the system in another form or at
a higher level of abstraction. Reverse engineering is usually
undertaken in order to redesign the system for better
maintainability or to produce a copy of a system without
access to the design from which it was originally produced.
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
Quote:
 
take evolution too far to say that it explains the creation of life


Having a minor in biology, I looked into several of my old text books and did not find this claim anywhere; of course I went to school in the Stone Age of the 60's.

Evolution is a theory that at present best defines how species have changed and evolved over time. The only reason I can see for people of faith to get into a swivet over it is the belief that the seven day thing is literal rather than a myth. If you accept that and infinite, almighty Force exists then the mechanics of evolution and the time involved can be just as easily the tool as "creationism" and it fits the data much better.

Does anyone that believes the 7 24 hour day myth ever wonder how an infinite, omnipotent being would explain to a Jewish sheepherder the mosaic of time that the billons of years the planet existed before life first appeared? I doubt that it would be explained as well for the first billon years…. but rather in an allegorical manner the sheepherder could understand.
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
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Member
teryt
May 18 2006, 01:30 AM
And my opinion is that people take evolution too far to say that it explains the creation of life. This also can be construed as a myth. The rest of evolution is a pretty good theory, that has some widespred scientific support, but still with lots to explain.

Intelligent Design is a reverse engineering theory on how life began.

That "people take evolution too far" is not evolution's problem, but the problem of the non-scientific public. Is the fact that many accept "The Da Vinci Code" as true the fault of Christianity or the ready-to-believe-anything reading public?

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. It makes no predictions, does not provide the means to fallify itself and assumes its basis - that of an intelligent designer - to be true a priori. Countering evolution does not support ID.

If you wish it to be considered a real scientific theory a la Popper or Kuhn, it MUST show itself falsifiable. How would you disprove ID?

ID also fails Ockham's Razor by multiplying entities. Until there is a NEED for a designer, postulating one is terrible science.

ID also is logically and intellectually corrupt in that it postulates - no, REQUIRES - a designer, but refuses (as far as I've read) to discuss who designed the designer.

Posted ImageEric
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
OK. Sounds logical. But I know nothing.
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
I don't worry about evolution vs creationism near as much as I worry about kids not knowing how to read or do basic math.
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DocInBird
Member
I'm with Jane on this. There is a college course called "Critical Thinking", that really needs to be taught in high school or Jr high. How do you read (or hear) something, take it apart, find they key arguements, and evaluate it?

Reading and math skills are appalling.
--doc
Just Doc and Orson (German Shepherd) wandering around North America.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Isn't that the point of teaching creationism or ID over evolution? Creationism and ID posit absolute, atomistic answers--you cannot "take it apart, find they key arguements, and evaluate it."
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
 
abradf2519
Member
teryt
May 18 2006, 09:18 AM
OK. Sounds logical. But I know nothing.

You gave up too easy....

I can't believe I missed out on this thread. :faint:
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
ngc1514
May 18 2006, 06:24 AM
Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.  It makes no predictions, does not provide the means to fallify itself and assumes its basis - that of an intelligent designer - to be true a priori.  Countering evolution does not support  ID. 

If you wish it to be considered a real scientific theory a la Popper or Kuhn, it MUST show itself falsifiable.  How would you disprove ID? 

ID also fails Ockham's Razor by multiplying entities.  Until there is a NEED for a designer, postulating one is terrible science. 

ID also is logically and intellectually corrupt in that it postulates - no, REQUIRES - a designer, but refuses (as far as I've read) to discuss who designed the designer.

ID does make predictions, is falsable and is testable, but cannot do these things relating to the designer only. In other areas of the therory it does. So making blanket statements that ID is not testible, falsable or predictable is wrong.

I don't agree with the Ockham's Razor critisizm because the designer is not being used to support part of the theory, the designer IS the theory. There are no mutiple entities, only one, the designer.

Yes ID requires a designer, because the evidence of the designer is the theory. We cannot say who the designer is, because as soon as we do, the theory becomes religion (unless the designer reveals him or her self). This argument serves no other purpose than to provide a nifty catch 22 for ID proponents. Unfortunately it also ignores evidence. Science should never do that, because you then corrupt science into accepting only what what fits into our own little box that excludes all the things we don't like. The fact that ID may be true becomes irrelivant.
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
A classic example of what is wrong with throwing ID out of science is the following:

If you were to have a lead cap to put onto the end of a pipe, and you used a pair of vice grips to turn the cap onto the pipe, you would leave “tool marks” on the cap.

If a scientist studying biology for example ran across what looked like “tool marks” on some sample he/she was studying, using the rules of science we are currently applying, the scientist would be required to ignore the “tool marks”, because “tool marks” are evidence of ID and ID is not science. What then is the result? We ignore the truth even though it is staring us in the face, because it does not fit our accepted idea of what science is.

This is scientific prejudice, the process of ignoring facts because they don’t fit our old accepted ways of doing things. It’s sort of like the Dredd Scott decision made by the Supreme Court in 1854. The court decided that a black man was 3/5ths of a white man, ignoring the fact that a black man was obviously a whole man. The court ignored what was obvious to support its pre-conceived idea of what they wanted black man to be.

Please don't get hung up on my example. I am not accusing anyone of being prejudiced toward black men. I am just using the example because it shows how we ingore the truth to support our old ways of doing things.
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply