Dismembering "Intelligent" Design - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

pj67coll · #46 09-10-2008, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I think you pose a false dichotomy -- that a subject is either catering to an agenda or not catering to an agenda.

You think creationism is not catering to an agenda?

Quote:

By the same token, ID is believed a reasonable explanation by millions of Americans. Is it reasonable to ignore it?

Ignore it? It's impossible to ignore this crap given how many people believe it. My girlfriend is a 7th grade science teacher and has to deal with these morons constantly. What does it matter what people believe? I have colleagues who believe that GWB is behind 9/11, and that everybody has a personal angel looking after them. That a child that died when it was 3 is still there in "angel" form looking after it's 26 year old sister. This kind of drivvel is in no qualitative way different from the latest incarnation of the primitive ignorant ramblings of itinerent bronze age tribesmen which the superstitious amongst us are once again trying to stuff down peoples throats under the pretext that it's a "scientific" theory and therefore worthy of inclusion in schools.

It isn't and it isnt. No matter how many ignorami choose to believe it. So no. Once again, it has no place in an institution of public education. Except perhaps as an object of ridicule.

- Peter.

pj67coll · #47 09-10-2008, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbail2x2

it is scientific, which evolution is not.

Clearly you have not the slightest clue what science is and is not.

- Peter.

raymr · #48 09-10-2008, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinsCE

The sad part is Intelligent Design is ever only brought up as a religious thing. Rather than explain "A" creator, just teach the creation. For example, the human ear bone that's strangely similar to a reptile bone, that can't be proven as evolution, so it sounds more like an engineering decision. I never learned that in school? The problem is public school, but don't debate that either.
There are more examples, but the point is, the way things fit, certainly looks like it was planned. Mind you, I haven't seen any religious explanation that I'd follow, on anything. But it always has to degenerate to this atheism-God nonsense. To an objective observer, both evolution (as it pertains to humans) as well as "God" are equally as credible as alien genetic experiments or an electronic simulated reality.

My point exactly. For all we know, our universe is a droplet clinging to the edge of some super-smart kid's test tube. There is no answer - yet. But what's wrong with teaching kids how to ponder the unknown and thinking outside the box, instead of constantly trying to hammer math equations into their brains? Evolution is a given (to me), but it doesn't explain how carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen started fiddling together to form the essence of all living creatures.

Matt L · #49 09-10-2008, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

Evolution is a given (to me), but it doesn't explain how carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen started fiddling together to form the essence of all living creatures.

There is a reason for that, and it is because such things are outside of the scope of the Theory of Evolution.

Look up abiogenesis. It's a reused name, but again applicable.

aklim · #50 09-10-2008, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

But what's wrong with teaching kids how to ponder the unknown and thinking outside the box, instead of constantly trying to hammer math equations into their brains?

Evolution is a given (to me), but it doesn't explain how carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen started fiddling together to form the essence of all living creatures.

Lets see, our school kids aren't doing well in the math and sciences. They can't even think inside the box. Why bother with out of the box? Maybe you haven't noticed but in an international competition of school kids ours are not faring very well when compared with the world. Let them figure out the math equations before we talk of any of the "outside of the box" stuff.

Is it important to know how it came together? We don't know. All religion does is give a simple answer "X did it.". Right or wrong, nobody can prove one way or the other.

Botnst · #51 09-10-2008, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

I wasn't intending to reply to your comment about the science curriculum. I was intending to reply to the part of your comment where you said that having students study only 'correct ideas' was similar to the Taliban.
I think curriculum decisions in science or elsewhere have to exclude certain ideas. Excluding false ideas is a pretty good criteria for determining curriculum. For instance, why not teach students that balancing the humors will cure disease in non-science classes? We don't teach it because we don't think it's true anymore. Making such a decision, on the basis of truth, is not acting like the Taliban, because the justification of the curriculum decision is not based on religious dogma but on the distinction between true and false.

Balancing the humors is a fine subject for history class. Or more precisely, in history of medicine at a more advanced level.

I sure as hell wouldn't suggest teaching the history of medicine and NOT include "humors" any more than I would discuss current events in civics and NOT mention Intelligent Design. Because a particular theory is inappropriate for a science class does not imply that it is inappropriate for all classes.

A teacher who would use that pedagogical approach does students no favors through censoring the bad parts.

B

Botnst · #52 09-10-2008, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

You think creationism is not catering to an agenda?

Ignore it? It's impossible to ignore this crap given how many people believe it. My girlfriend is a 7th grade science teacher and has to deal with these morons constantly. What does it matter what people believe? I have colleagues who believe that GWB is behind 9/11, and that everybody has a personal angel looking after them. That a child that died when it was 3 is still there in "angel" form looking after it's 26 year old sister. This kind of drivvel is in no qualitative way different from the latest incarnation of the primitive ignorant ramblings of itinerent bronze age tribesmen which the superstitious amongst us are once again trying to stuff down peoples throats under the pretext that it's a "scientific" theory and therefore worthy of inclusion in schools.

It isn't and it isnt. No matter how many ignorami choose to believe it. So no. Once again, it has no place in an institution of public education. Except perhaps as an object of ridicule.

- Peter.

If we choose not to teach students about the subject then they will learn of it only from it's proponents.

B

pj67coll · #53 09-10-2008, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

If we choose not to teach students about the subject then they will learn of it only from it's proponents.

B

Out of curiosity then, how do you expect it to be taught? By science teachers as an example of how not to think? Just how long before the bible thumpers start raising cain about how the school is discriminating agains their beliefs and demanding that it be given "their definition" of equal treatment? At which time you have effectively acquiessed to the whackjobs and they have their foot in the door which is what they have been trying to achieve all along.

- Peter.

aklim · #54 09-10-2008, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

If we choose not to teach students about the subject then they will learn of it only from it's proponents.

B

And how would that be bad?

raymr · #55 09-10-2008, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt L

There is a reason for that, and it is because such things are outside of the scope of the Theory of Evolution.

Look up abiogenesis. It's a reused name, but again applicable.

The premordial pond stuff is interesting. It's also just as fantastic as any god story I can think of. Any scientist can point out a number of holes in the abiogenesis theory. For example, the formation of proteins would have been hampered by the toxic compounds being created in the same pond. This suggests some kind of protection mechanism to shield these precursors of life so that they can complete their 'goal' or 'mission' (I'm trying real hard not to say plan). Based on science alone it's a very incomplete picture, but the only one we have. Should we teach bad science, or none at all?

pj67coll · #56 09-10-2008, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

The premordial pond stuff is interesting. It's also just as fantastic as any god story I can think of. Any scientist can point out a number of holes in the abiogenesis theory. For example, the formation of proteins would have been hampered by the toxic compounds being created in the same pond. This suggests some kind of protection mechanism to shield these precursors of life so that they can complete their 'goal' or 'mission' (I'm trying real hard not to say plan). Based on science alone it's a very incomplete picture, but the only one we have. Should we teach bad science, or none at all?

You don't seem to understand the realitity of science. In science it's okay to not know everything. In fact lack of knowledge presupposes the discovery thereof. That doesn't mean that because a theory can't explain everything it's bad science. It means that we are continuously discovering new knowledge. That is not the same thing at all as creationism which pretends to know everything up front because some ancient mumbo jumbo claims it.

- Peter.

AustinsCE · #57 09-10-2008, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Actually that is proven as evolution, it proves that humans and reptiles shared a common ancestor long ago.

So, it's proof that because evolution is accepted as the explanation that that's what it is? It's just saying that's evolution, because evolution is what did it. And miraculously, after millions of years, it weren't apes, but instead I'm a snakeman. OK, great. Proof? None whatsoever. Did God do it? No proof of that either. It could just as easily be a coincidence as either of those, or I'm plugged into a computer, or Anunaki. There isn't any proof of any of it, at least I've seen. Hell, they're making all kinds of chimera creatures now, is it so unfathomable that it already happened? They're even getting close to animating the inanimate.

A woolly mammoth into an elephant? Evolution, sure. A snake or a monkey into a human, perhaps both, and then some other junk thrown in? Little far fetched to say it's the exact same thing caused it. Especially since it can't be duplicated.

Now, does that mean humans haven't evolved? Nope. I read somewhere recently that mushrooms and psychotropic drugs caused the expansion of the human brain. There's an explanation, I don't know if it's true. But there's a hypothesis you can actually test now ain't it?

Botnst · #58 09-10-2008, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

Out of curiosity then, how do you expect it to be taught? By science teachers as an example of how not to think? Just how long before the bible thumpers start raising cain about how the school is discriminating agains their beliefs and demanding that it be given "their definition" of equal treatment? At which time you have effectively acquiessed to the whackjobs and they have their foot in the door which is what they have been trying to achieve all along.

- Peter.

As I have said many, many times before, not in a science class. It would make a fine subject for civics at the high school level. Why not? If we fail to educate our children then somebody else will.

B

pj67coll · #59 09-10-2008, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

As I have said many, many times before, not in a science class. It would make a fine subject for civics at the high school level. Why not? If we fail to educate our children then somebody else will.

B

Ah well. That might be a different matter then. I still don't agree but at least it's not as perniscious as intruding into a science class.

- Peter.

aklim · #60 09-10-2008, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

It would make a fine subject for civics at the high school level. Why not?

Problem with that is that we are now using public funds for advancing a religion. Kinda making it a state sponsored thing. Now if you wanted to have a "History of Religions" class, no problem. However, when you single out one particular one, that will be a problem.