18 Apr 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeNo. I would oppose it and, if unsuccessful, most likely remove my children from the school if its management taught "creationism" as science, because I don't think it is. But I also think "creationism" is a highly significant cultural phenomenon and I would oppose any attempts to remove it from the school curriculum, just as staunchly. This analogy does not hold up however. Dasa's comments, like them or not, belong on this forum. And I oppose attempts to remove his point of view from the range of points of view that I come here to hear.
So I will ask the question more clearly, do you think creationism should be allowed to be taught in science classes?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
18 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFAnd I would agree with you if he hadn't (repeatedly) called for and condoned genocide.
No. I would oppose it and, if unsuccessful, most likely remove my children from the school if its management taught "creationism" as science, because I don't think it is. But I also think "creationism" is a highly significant cultural phenomenon and I would oppose any attempts to remove it from the school curriculum, just as staunchly. This analogy does not hold pts to remove his point of view from the range of points of view that I come here to hear.
That for me crosses a line from free speech to hate speech and as far as I am concerned
merits a permanent ban.
EDIT: That and dasa himself has clearly stated any number of times that if he had his way
nobody would get to express any opinion other than his own.
His complete rejection of the idea of free speech along with his abhorrent ideas is why he
should be banned.
And given that he has already said (several times over) every idea he has, if you ever want to
know what dasa's opinion is you can look it up. He evidently has nothing new to offer.
18 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeHe was banned for two weeks for his explicit call for genocide. The fact that he returned and made a fool of himself, thoroughly discredited his views and did so much more effectively than silencing him. I just don't agree with banning him for the broad reason of his "abhorrent ideas".
And I would agree with you if he hadn't (repeatedly) called for and condoned genocide.
That for me crosses a line from free speech to hate speech and as far as I am concerned
merits a permanent ban.
EDIT: That and dasa himself has clearly stated any number of times that if he had his way
nobody would get to express any opinion other than his ...[text shortened]... nt to
know what dasa's opinion is you can look it up. He evidently has nothing new to offer.
Being exposed to "abhorrent ideas" and seeing them dismantled and defeated is far more beneficial to this forum than than silencing them, even if he seems impervious.
His "complete rejection of the idea of free speech" is a point of view that doesn't threaten me - he is unable to restrict my free speech - and that he continues to exercise a right that he would deny others is a credit to this community and it is a far more damning way to handle his ideology than silencing him.
All in all I do not subscribe to your wish to ban him from the site.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
18 Apr 12
Originally posted by FMFIndeed.
He was banned for two weeks for his explicit call for genocide. The fact that he returned and made a fool of himself, thoroughly discredited his views and did so much more effectively than silencing him. I just don't agree with over banning him for the broad reason of his "abhorrent ideas".
Being exposed to "abhorrent ideas" and seeing them dismantled and de ...[text shortened]... n silencing him.
All in all I do not subscribe to your wish to ban him from the site.
A position I respect if not agree with.
23 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillAgree. I would like to see Logic and Critical Thinking taught in the schools. I would like to see a class period devoted solely to this topic.
Why not teach students to think critically ?
A attempted discussion spurred by -
[b]A Sceintific Dissent From Darwinism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtOFjTqWST4&feature=relmfu[/b]
I think students should be allowed to ask questions about evolution, but I would not support teaching of ID in a science class, because it's not science.
I watched the video and it was pretty silly. Science is a vast field. I would like to know how many of these 300 people are actually biologists.
23 Apr 12
3 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambit
Agree. I would like to see Logic and Critical Thinking taught in the schools. I would like to see a class period devoted solely to this topic.
I think students should be allowed to ask questions about evolution, but I would not support teaching of ID in a science class, because it's not science.
I watched the video and it was pretty silly. Science is a vast field. I would like to know how many of these 300 people are actually biologists.
I think students should be allowed to ask questions about evolution, but I would not support teaching of ID in a science class, because it's not science.
My only disappointment with the video was that people began to talk over each other.
For the crowd chanting the mantra that ID is not science, I recommend this conversation with Dr. Stephen C Meyer (ID) and Dr. Peter Ward (Evolution)
Intelligent Design Verses Evolution 11 videos
I like Stephen Meyer because he is totally unflapable and always civil.
23 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitBut it is doing a disservice to our your students to just ignore the evidence
Agree. I would like to see Logic and Critical Thinking taught in the schools. I would like to see a class period devoted solely to this topic.
I think students should be allowed to ask questions about evolution, but I would not support teaching of ID in a science class, because it's not science.
I watched the video and it was pretty silly. Science is a vast field. I would like to know how many of these 300 people are actually biologists.
of intelligent design in our science classes. This is the only class that it can
be taught. It is not religion, even though it may support an idea from religion,
it does not teach any religion.
P.S. Evidence of intelligent design in nature.
http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/EVIDENCE%20OF%20INTELLIGENT%20DESIGN%20IN%20NATURE.htm
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
23 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillNot going to watch the video because ID is not science and I will demonstrate again that this is so.I think students should be allowed to ask questions about evolution, but I would not support teaching of ID in a science class, because it's not science.
My only disappointment with the video was that people began to talk over each other.
For the crowd chanting the mantra that ID is not science, I recommend this [b]conversation[/b ...[text shortened]... is totally unflapable and always civil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naGMex003SY[/b]
There are several aspects to science.
There is the observation and experimentation on the reality we live in do determine facts about that reality.
Then there is the 'theoretical' side of science where explanations [hypotheses] of those facts are proposed
which are then tested by using them to make predictions and testing those predictions through further
observations.
The value and usefulness of a hypothesis is in how narrow it's predictions are.
The narrower the predictions (while still matching experimental results) the better.
Predicting that a horse will win the grand national is not useful, predicting that one of three horses will win with
the relative probabilities of each IS useful.
A hypothesis that makes no predictions about the world is useless and is not science.
A related feature is that a hypothesis must be falsifiable in that it must make predictions about reality that if
found to be false the hypothesis will be found to be false and discarded.
So is ID a scientific hypothesis....
ID is the proposition that the life forms (and often the entire universe) around us were (at least in part) designed
by an intelligent designer (which must be supernatural [magic] otherwise you get the problem of who designed the
designer and an infinite regress... which hits the big bang and the beginning of this universe) usually posited as a god.
It is in short a variation on the 'god did it' 'explanation'.
So first is this actually an explanation of the life we see around us?
No, explanations must be based on things we understand. You can't explain something in terms of something else that is
unexplained.
God is not explained and thus no explanation that relies on 'god did it' is an explanation at all.
Now this is enough to scupper ID as science on the face of it but it gets worse.
What is the predictive power of ID and can it be falsified?
None, and no it can't.
God (or any other supernatural designer) could make life any way it wanted. There is literally no observation of life we
could make that would be inconsistent with ID and as god could make life any way it wanted ID makes no predictions about
what life is likely to look like.
ID is thus not only not an explanation but it makes no predictions and can't be falsified.
But wait, it gets worse.
One of the important aspects of science is that it is designed to remove and combat any possible personal biases of the people
involved.
In part this involves training prospective scientists to follow the evidence and not pre-decide what the result will be and tailor the
evidence to suite that preferred outcome.
It also means that you don't simply look for evidence to support your pet hypothesis. You try like hell to find evidence that would falsify it.
You try to disprove your hypothesis and once you have tried everything you can think of to falsify it AND have evidence to support it
you then put it up for peer review when other people try to falsify it and shoot it down and if they fail it then gets published and
EVERYONE tries to disprove it.
In ID however you have a preferred outcome (god did it) which the ID proponents are desperately trying to find evidence to support without
doing anything to try to disprove it... which btw you can't do.
ID and it's proponents are the very antithesis of what it means to do science and to be a scientific hypothesis.
ID is not, has never been, and never can be science.
It thus has absolutely no place in a science class as anything other than a lesson in how not to do it in a lesson on what science is and
what the scientific method entails.
Just as you don't teach students about every disproven crackpot idea that has been proposed as an alternative to every scientific theory they
have to learn, it is a waste of time and energy teaching biology students about the worthlessness of ID in biology classes when they have so
much to learn about the magnificent and complex modern theory of Evolution by natural selection.
23 Apr 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeWe need to weed out the false evolutionary teachings in biology and other
Not going to watch the video because ID is not science and I will demonstrate again that this is so.
There are several aspects to science.
There is the observation and experimentation on the reality we live in do determine facts about that reality.
Then there is the 'theoretical' side of science where explanations [hypotheses] of those facts are ...[text shortened]... out the magnificent and complex modern theory of Evolution by natural selection.
sciences that have been enfluenced by it. This false teaching only holds science
knowledge back. If intelligent design is taught along side evolution one will
eventually be shown to be the most accurate. We want the truth.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
23 Apr 12
Originally posted by RJHindsNo you want to stay in the dark ages and hide away from reality in your comforting dreamland.
We need to weed out the false evolutionary teachings in biology and other
sciences that have been enfluenced by it. This false teaching only holds science
knowledge back. If intelligent design is taught along side evolution one will
eventually be shown to be the most accurate. We want the truth.
You are just too cowardly to face the truth.
23 Apr 12
Originally posted by RJHindsReligious or not, ID is not science. As googlefudge said, it cannot be falsified. A theory that cannot be falsified is of no use to science. We would be wasting our kids' time by teaching ID in a science class.
But it is doing a disservice to our your students to just ignore the evidence
of intelligent design in our science classes. This is the only class that it can
be taught. It is not religion, even though it may support an idea from religion,
it does not teach any religion.
P.S. Evidence of intelligent design in nature.
http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/EVIDENCE%20OF%20INTELLIGENT%20DESIGN%20IN%20NATURE.htm
When I am home I will find a youtube video for you and jaywill. It demonstrates the concept of a testable prediction of the theory of Evolution - a chance for falsification.
23 Apr 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitTruth can not be falsified. That is why it is the truth. HalleluYah !!!
Religious or not, ID is not science. As googlefudge said, it cannot be falsified. A theory that cannot be falsified is of no use to science. We would be wasting our kids' time by teaching ID in a science class.
When I am home I will find a youtube video for you and jaywill. It demonstrates the concept of a testable prediction of the theory of Evolution - a chance for falsification.