Author Topic: Intelligent Design out of Pub Schools in PA  (Read 2489 times)

Offline rshubert

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1462
Intelligent Design out of Pub Schools in PA
« Reply #45 on: December 21, 2005, 01:41:42 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target
Never let "learning" get in the way of a good imagination. That's the road to "education". Once you go down that path you are doomed to "knowledge".

:O


You need to learn to separate 'education' from 'training'.  An education teaches you to think.  Training teaches you facts.

Most schools train, but don't educate.  Here's a simple test to tell what is going on in YOUR classroom:

Choose a class like ethics, religion, political science, or some other "liberal arts" subject.  Can you tell where the teacher stands on an issue that has more than one side?  If you can, you're being trained.  If you can't you're being educated.

Offline ChickenHawk

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1010
Intelligent Design out of Pub Schools in PA
« Reply #46 on: December 21, 2005, 02:10:59 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by rshubert
Most schools train, but don't educate.  Here's a simple test to tell what is going on in YOUR classroom:

Choose a class like ethics, religion, political science, or some other "liberal arts" subject.  Can you tell where the teacher stands on an issue that has more than one side?  If you can, you're being trained.  If you can't you're being educated.


Good post and very true.

It was suggested that my wife and I have my daughter try out for an advanced class.  We turned it down because if you look closely at the Curriculum, it's completely geared toward passing the state placement test at the end of the year and not on educating.

We now take you back to your regularly scheduled program of ID VS Evolution.
Do not attribute to malice what can be easily explained by incompetence, fear, ignorance or stupidity, because there are millions more garden variety idiots walking around in the world than there are blackhearted Machiavellis.

Offline Samiam

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 498
Intelligent Design out of Pub Schools in PA
« Reply #47 on: December 21, 2005, 02:19:49 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Yeager
intelligent design?  You mean like a North American P-51D ?



Ha. The F4U-4 is the pinacle of intelligent design (water cooling, pppht)

[Brace yourselves for a truly religious argument]

Offline Leslie

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2212
Intelligent Design out of Pub Schools in PA
« Reply #48 on: December 21, 2005, 02:39:37 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by rshubert
You need to learn to separate 'education' from 'training'.  An education teaches you to think.  Training teaches you facts.

Most schools train, but don't educate.  Here's a simple test to tell what is going on in YOUR classroom:

Choose a class like ethics, religion, political science, or some other "liberal arts" subject.  Can you tell where the teacher stands on an issue that has more than one side?  If you can, you're being trained.  If you can't you're being educated.



Very well written Rshubert.  



Les

Offline cpxxx

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2707
Intelligent Design out of Pub Schools in PA
« Reply #49 on: December 21, 2005, 02:51:25 PM »
One other thing I forgot to mention. ID is an attempt to 'prove' God exists. If you take the view that something or someone helped the process of life along. Then QED you have God. Not only that you have the existence of God proved by science. It's using science against itself.

So to summarise:

Evolution has evidence on it's side but it neither proves nor disproves the existence of God.

Creationism is faith in the infallibility of the bible.  No more, no less. Evolution threatens that faith even though evolution does not prove or disprove the existence of a God.

Intelligent design is an attempt by some Christians to 'prove' the existence of God by means of a mixture of junk science and real science.
It has no credibility.

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
Intelligent Design out of Pub Schools in PA
« Reply #50 on: December 21, 2005, 03:01:11 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by rshubert
You need to learn to separate 'education' from 'training'.  An education teaches you to think.  Training teaches you facts.

Most schools train, but don't educate.  Here's a simple test to tell what is going on in YOUR classroom:

Choose a class like ethics, religion, political science, or some other "liberal arts" subject.  Can you tell where the teacher stands on an issue that has more than one side?  If you can, you're being trained.  If you can't you're being educated.


Silly stuff. Training and education are different. Got it... making a note... filing it in the round file.

When I don't have any idea which way my SCIENCE teacher leans I will get a new teacher. Because he/she better lean towards SCIENCE. Holy crap! You even had 2 attaboys outta that one.

Training is required in science so you can discern the difference between junk and evidence. So you can read a scientific paper and understand the language. So you can have an intelligent discussion about a topic and actually understand the other sides point or lack thereof. Hey wait... that sounds like an education... it is!

Offline ChickenHawk

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1010
Intelligent Design out of Pub Schools in PA
« Reply #51 on: December 21, 2005, 03:17:24 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target
Silly stuff. Training and education are different. Got it... making a note... filing it in the round file.

When I don't have any idea which way my SCIENCE teacher leans I will get a new teacher. Because he/she better lean towards SCIENCE. Holy crap! You even had 2 attaboys outta that one.

Training is required in science so you can discern the difference between junk and evidence. So you can read a scientific paper and understand the language. So you can have an intelligent discussion about a topic and actually understand the other sides point or lack thereof. Hey wait... that sounds like an education... it is!


I see you've been well trained. ;)
Do not attribute to malice what can be easily explained by incompetence, fear, ignorance or stupidity, because there are millions more garden variety idiots walking around in the world than there are blackhearted Machiavellis.

Offline Leslie

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2212
Intelligent Design out of Pub Schools in PA
« Reply #52 on: December 21, 2005, 04:02:44 PM »
I think Seagoon has described ID for what it is.  It sounds more like deductive reasoning, which is one of the two different kinds of scientific methodology.  Inductive reasoning being the other method and depending on impirical facts and data, deductive very much does work off a hunch or insight based on observation.  

I'm not so sure the idea of ID is to prove there is a God.  This is something science cannot do.  It sounds to me like another point of view which should be considered.  Science does not automatically dismiss an idea that might not fit the norm.  For all we know scientifically, this may be that there is design, and if so, it would be contrary to science not to consider it with an open mind.

Now I will give an example of a much less theoretical and hard core science.  When scientists first landed a man on the Moon, there was some apprehension about what would happen.  Even with all the mathematical problems worked out, with all the real lunar landers sent ahead of time to test things out...physicists still had no idea and some apprehension about what would happen to a man when he set foot on the Moon.  Some physicists even voiced private concern that the laws of physics may not be the same there.  They were legitimately concerned because they were dealing with human life about to walk on the Moon.  So any thought, no matter how preposterous was listened to and taken seriously.

Now to me this is science, the ability to seriously consider any and all ideas, in my example that the laws of physics may be different on the Moon.  This was proven to be a non-issue after the risk was taken.  Wouldn't it be a surprise if we went to Mars and physics were different there?  Do we really know for sure?  Easy to say yes.  Do you think there would be concern about our known science?  It worked on the Moon.  Would there be a need to worry about it all over again?  

What I guess I'm trying to say is, science should be open minded to new ideas.  It just doesn't seem scientific to outright dismiss something unless there is absolute proof it is not so.  The case of darwinian evolution has yet to provide absolute proof, so to refuse to listen to another point of view....is just not scientific.






Les

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
Intelligent Design out of Pub Schools in PA
« Reply #53 on: December 21, 2005, 05:31:14 PM »
It is logical to shut out any answer that is untestable and unalterable. Once you decide "god did it", debate ends.

Offline Booz

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 371
Intelligent Design out of Pub Schools in PA
« Reply #54 on: December 21, 2005, 06:16:05 PM »
Yeah, I just don't get the creationist thought process. Their scam to push religion into school gets thoroughly exposed in federal court and yet they march blindly on as if didn't happen and it's not clearly visible to all.

  Did you guys miss the ruling by a conservative, church-going republican judge appointed by GW Bush???

      http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/kitzmiller_decision_20051220.pdf

      excerpt:

         The overwhelming evidence at trial established
      that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling
      of creationism, and not a scientific theory.

         US District Judge John E. Jones III
         Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

 Did you guys miss the trial transcripts where the Intelligent Design "Scientific Expert" darling Michael Behe himself admits under oath that ID is no more science than astrology???

    http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?page_id=11


  Did you guys miss in these same  transcripts where the recomended ID book "of Pandas and People" had the term creationism (0ver 150 occurences) blindly changed to "intelligent design" to be more palatable and get by the 1987 SCOTUS ruling????

   Even the definition of creationism within the book was left unchanged other than now it defines intelligent design. sheesh.

   Did none of this happen?? Am I in a Twilight Zone episode???


 btw- those trial transcripts are really a fascinating read if you take the time.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2005, 06:32:58 PM by Booz »

Offline Squire

  • Aces High CM Staff (Retired)
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7683
Intelligent Design out of Pub Schools in PA
« Reply #55 on: December 21, 2005, 06:32:42 PM »
What about NID "Non Intelligent Design".

The theory that the universe was made by a supreme being, and or design, but he or it was a total f***up?

:D
Warloc
Friday Squad Ops CM Team
1841 Squadron Fleet Air Arm
Aces High since Tour 24

Offline Leslie

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2212
Intelligent Design out of Pub Schools in PA
« Reply #56 on: December 21, 2005, 08:55:16 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target
It is logical to shut out any answer that is untestable and unalterable. Once you decide "god did it", debate ends.



Probably a good thing too.  Merry Christmas MT.  




Les

Offline Seagoon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2396
      • http://www.providencepca.com
Intelligent Design out of Pub Schools in PA
« Reply #57 on: December 21, 2005, 09:15:30 PM »
Hello Booz,

Quote
Originally posted by Booz
Did you guys miss the trial transcripts where the Intelligent Design "Scientific Expert" darling Michael Behe himself admits under oath that ID is no more science than astrology???


Yes, I did miss it, because as far as I can tell, despite Mr. Rothschild's best attempts at getting him to say that, using lawyerese he never did. Rothschild was the one who brought up astrology and attempted dilligently to get Behe to say that ID was the same kind of outmoded superstition. Throughout, you can tell both the Judge and Mr. Rothschild had "Inherit the Wind" going through their minds. See, now in this cross I am Spencer Tracey confusing the stupid bible thumper in humorous fashion:

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a
16 scientific theory, correct?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Under that same definition astrology is a
19 scientific theory under your definition, correct?
20 A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a
21 proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical,
22 observable data and logical inferences. There are many
23 things throughout the history of science which we now think
24 to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which
25 would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one,

39
1 and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and
2 many other -- many other theories as well.
3 Q The ether theory of light has been discarded,
4 correct?
5 A That is correct.
6 Q But you are clear, under your definition, the
7 definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is
8 also a scientific theory, correct?
9 A Yes, that s correct. And let me explain under my
10 definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the
11 word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it
12 means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain
13 some facts by logical inferences. There have been many
14 theories throughout the history of science which looked good
15 at the time which further progress has shown to be
16 incorrect. Nonetheless, we can t go back and say that
17 because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many
18 many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect
19 theories, are nonetheless theories.

20 Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been
21 accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor
22 Behe?
23 A Well, I am not a historian of science. And
24 certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the
25 educated community has not accepted astrology as a science
1 for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle
2 Ages and before that, when people were struggling to
3 describe the natural world, some people might indeed think
4 that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what
5 we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the
6 earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the
7 earth.

Behe's point: ID is a theory, Evolution is a theory, some theories are wrong.
Rothchild's point: Teaching ID is as stupid as teaching Astrology.

What really is the point of continuing the inquisition in any event?

The "gubment" skools are going to teach Neo-Darwinism long after every hope of finding evidence to support it has disappeared. Long after palentologists have given up on the hunt for non-existent transitional lifeforms, long after biochemists have accepted that chemical reactions do not create information, and long after astronomers have accepted that we are in fact in an enormously "privilleged position" in the galaxy, high school biology teachers will be trotting out the outdated and outmoded theories of Darwin and performing the yearly ritual of dogmatically teaching were we came from in accordance with their roles as the new priesthood of the reigning paradigm - Darwinian Fundamentalism. Meanwhile those schools will continue to decline, to become more and more toxic to kids, until anyone with a shred of sanity and enough money, will have moved their children to private schools or started homeschooling. That is if the NEA hasn't managed to legally end both of those practices by then.

Have fun in your brave new world. Having grown up there, I can honestly say I just wish it were somehow possible to keep my kids from having to interact with it.
SEAGOON aka Pastor Andy Webb
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Offline SOB

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10138
Intelligent Design out of Pub Schools in PA
« Reply #58 on: December 21, 2005, 10:01:53 PM »
You should start a commune, Seagoon.  Just make sure to pay your taxes and don't have a small arsenal.  Then your kids could be sheltered from the evil non-Christians.
Three Times One Minus One.  Dayum!

Offline StSanta

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
Intelligent Design out of Pub Schools in PA
« Reply #59 on: December 21, 2005, 11:25:42 PM »
Seagoon, all behe manages to do there is to paint himself into a corner with an age old (and still as wrong as ever) lofical fallacy I call it the Layman's Switch-n-bait, but it's real name is a fancy Latin one I cannot remember.

In essence, a word has one meaning, which is what is being discussed and someone use another meaning for it and argues based on that.

In this case Behe demonstrates his complete lack of knowledge (or even worse, he intentionally misrepresents) of scientific theories.


A theory on the JFK assassination or why Santa's reindeer has a red nose is pretty different from a scientific theory.

Wikipedia:
Quote

The modern synthesis, like its Mendelian and Darwinian antecedents, is a scientific theory. In plain English, people use the word "theory" to signify "conjecture", "speculation", or "opinion". In this popular sense, "theories" are opposed to "facts" — parts of the world, or claims about the world, that are real or true regardless of what people think. In scientific terminology however, a theory is a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which falsifiable hypotheses can be generated and tested through controlled experiments, or be verified through empirical observation. In this scientific sense, "facts" are parts of theories – they are things, or relationships between things, that theories must take for granted in order to make predictions, or that theories predict. In other words, for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition, but rather exist in a reciprocal relationship – for example, it is a "fact" that every apple ever dropped on earth (under normal, controlled conditions) has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet in a straight line, and the "theory" which explains these observations is the current theory of gravitation. In this same sense evolution is a fact and modern synthesis is currently the most powerful theory explaining evolution, variation and speciation. Within the science of biology, modern synthesis has completely replaced earlier accepted explanations for the origin of species, including Lamarckism and creationism.
 


Fact: life exists on earth
Speculation: the creation of life is infinitely complex
Conclusion: therefore god did it.

is not as good as:

fact: life exists on earth
Totally dumbfounded: how did *that* happen?

At least the latter is not comitting another logical fallacy - "we don't know, therefore it must be [insert choice]

So, it's easy to seem to win a argument if your supporters support you with religious fervor and are not afraid of misrepresenting issues to fit their own agenda. It's a disingenious and dishonest thing but it happens all the time.

This ain't a personal attack on you or your faith Seagoon. What sometimes baffle me is that people of obvious above average intellect such a Behe simply decide not to let the world affect their worldview and have it it the other way around instead. People who can do understand advanced philosophical concepts fail on a most basic level. It's actually a bit scary. I wouldn't want these people to lead me or educate me.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2005, 11:29:41 PM by StSanta »