27 Apr 08
Originally posted by KellyJayHe specifically said the opposite really.
You believe anyone who thinks ID could be real shouldn't be able
to teach anything?
Kelly
Do you think someone who believes the civil war didn't happen should be able to teach American history? I don't.
ID isn't good science so it shouldn't be taught in science class.
27 Apr 08
Originally posted by PsychoPawnYou prove the point that people who think ID is possible can get their
He specifically said the opposite really.
Do you think someone who believes the civil war didn't happen should be able to teach American history? I don't.
ID isn't good science so it shouldn't be taught in science class.
lives ruined by the attitude you are portraying here now,. I do not
equate your examples the way you do, for me you are comparing
apples and oranges, one is a specific event, the other a "possible
cause" which are not the same type thing making your comparison
unfair.
Kelly
27 Apr 08
Originally posted by KellyJayI didn't prove any such thing and you've failed to explain how.
You prove the point that people who think ID is possible can get their
lives ruined by the attitude you are portraying here now,. I do not
equate your examples the way you do, for me you are comparing
apples and oranges, one is a specific event, the other a "possible
cause" which are not the same type thing making your comparison
unfair.
Kelly
I also think you've missed the point of the example I gave. I know that they aren't identical, but the point is that if you are demonstrably not providing good science (or history, or any other topic) you shouldn't be teaching that topic. I don't think people who believe in ID should be banned from science - but whatever you teach had better be good science and ID isn't good science.
People who believe in ID have every ability to provide good science behind their theory. The problem is, they haven't! This "everyone is out to get us" nonsense is exactly that. ID theories do not have an inherent right to be published in scientific journals without review - something every other article goes through!
Scientists have every motivation to challenge the status quo and frankly, it should go through a thorough gauntlet of peer review and criticism to make sure it's valid and better than the alternative.
ID shouldn't be taught in schools until it has the same kind of evidence and theoretical falsifiability that evolution does. It doesn't.
27 Apr 08
2 edits
Originally posted by PsychoPawnWhich is the point isn't it, "but whatever you teach had better be good
I didn't prove any such thing and you've failed to explain how.
I also think you've missed the point of the example I gave. I know that they aren't identical, but the point is that if you are demonstrably not providing good science (or history, or any other topic) you shouldn't be teaching that topic. I don't think people who believe in ID should be b me kind of evidence and theoretical falsifiability that evolution does. It doesn't.
science and ID isn't good science.” It does not matter to you, as soon
as ID is expressed as a possibility they are in your eyes no longer
suited to teach that topic. Right away you have put the fear of losing
a job if you are a teacher or grants if that is what you do just for
thinking something could be true. The more you talk, the more I want
to see this movie.
Kelly
27 Apr 08
Originally posted by KellyJayI just said I think they can teach stuff.
You believe anyone who thinks ID could be real shouldn't be able
to teach anything?
Kelly
Obviously not biology and the like - again, it will be like a flat-earther teaching geography.
Would you go to a university where they give tenure to a flat-earther geographer?
I have no problems learning, say, computer science, from a qualified IDer.
27 Apr 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Not physical geography. That's practically geology.
Intelligent design proponents say that although evidence pointing to the nature of an "intelligent cause or agent" may not be directly observable, its effects on nature can be detected. Dembski, in Signs of Intelligence, states: "Proponents of intelligent design regard it as a scientific resea ...[text shortened]... nt_design[33]
It's just not science. Come on. Propose an ID experiment. Can you?
Originally posted by KellyJay
Lets see, we could try to build something and see if we can create life.
Isn't that being done all the time?
Kelly
I'm sorry but that's not an experiment that can prove that ID is right.
I mean, the ancient Greeks couldn't create lightning, but it does not serve as an evidence that lightning is created by an "Intelligent Lightning-er".
If ID is science it would make certain predictions, predictions that you could than use to make an experiment.
For example, Theory of Relativity made the prediction that a radioactive particle would take more time to decay if accelerated to near light speeds. That's a testable prediction.
Evolution also makes powerful predictions - for example, way before anyone discovered DNA, the theory of evolution predicted the relations between different species (like us and the apes) - later verified via DNA homology.
27 Apr 08
Originally posted by KellyJayIndeed, Id-ers should not be compared with people who deny a specific historical event but rather to people who disregard a major scientific theory (the only one in its field, and one that almost all the other parts of that science relay on) because it runs against something that they belive.
You prove the point that people who think ID is possible can get their
lives ruined by the attitude you are portraying here now,. I do not
equate your examples the way you do, for me you are comparing
apples and oranges, one is a specific event, the other a "possible
cause" which are not the same type thing making your comparison
unfair.
Kelly
Again, Flat Earthers is the analogy we are looking for.
Or:
Flat Earhters to Geography = ID to Evolution = Belief in Weather God/s/ess to Meteorology = Jack Frost to Ice Crystallization on Windows.
27 Apr 08
Originally posted by KellyJayRepeat
Your idea of a small grasp is not agreeing with your views in my
opinion, so it matters very little to me that you think such a thing.
Kelly
Do you think you are in a position to critically analyse (without bias) the validity of the claims made in this movie?
27 Apr 08
Originally posted by KellyJayIt does not matter to you, as soon
Which is the point isn't it, "but whatever you teach had better be good
science and ID isn't good science.” It does not matter to you, as soon
as ID is expressed as a possibility they are in your eyes no longer
suited to teach that topic. Right away you have put the fear of losing
a job if you are a teacher or grants if that is what you do just for
thinking something could be true. The more you talk, the more I want
to see this movie.
Kelly
as ID is expressed as a possibility they are in your eyes no longer
suited to teach that topic.
Wrong. That is not true about my views at all.
I am saying that ID shouldn't be taught in science classes without scientific evidence and theoretical backing just like any other theory should not without said backing and evidence.
People who believe in ID should not be prevented from teaching subjects where that belief would get in the way of teaching proper scientific theories and facts.
Until ID becomes a real scientific theory, then it should not be seen as such.
Right away you have put the fear of losing
a job if you are a teacher or grants if that is what you do just for
thinking something could be true.
There should be no such fear. The examples put forward by the movie are quite weak and there are plenty of reasons outside of their belief in ID that are quite legitimate why they have lost their tenure bids, etc. Also not a single case was able to show harassment or a ruining of their career.
27 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayWhich is the point isn't it, "but whatever you teach had better be good
Which is the point isn't it, "but whatever you teach had better be good
science and ID isn't good science.” It does not matter to you, as soon
as ID is expressed as a possibility they are in your eyes no longer
suited to teach that topic. Right away you have put the fear of losing
a job if you are a teacher or grants if that is what you do just for
thinking something could be true. The more you talk, the more I want
to see this movie.
Kelly
geography and flat-earthism isn't good geography.” It does not matter to you, as soon
as flat-earthism is expressed as a possibility they are in your eyes no longer
suited to teach that topic. Right away you have put the fear of losing
a job if you are a teacher or grants if that is what you do just for
thinking something could be true. The more you talk, the more I want
to see this movie.
28 Apr 08
Originally posted by KellyJayLeaving ID out of the equation, can you answer this question.
You prove the point that people who think ID is possible can get their
lives ruined by the attitude you are portraying here now,. I do not
equate your examples the way you do, for me you are comparing
apples and oranges, one is a specific event, the other a "possible
cause" which are not the same type thing making your comparison
unfair.
Kelly
If a teacher in a specific academic field teaches material that has no truth / evidence / support, do you believe this teacher should be allowed to continue teaching this material? (note no one is saying they cannot teach full stop).
Would you be happy to let your children be taught by these teachers?
Obviously if you homeschool (do you?) you have the right to teach your children whatever you want, but in a classroom of many the curriculum should clearly stick to current evidence. There is no room for fabrication.
I'd still like to hear you unbiased critical analysis of the film, especially considering your knowledge of the evolutionary subject.
28 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by timebombtedAll right students, settle down. JIMMY, put away that spitwad.
Leaving ID out of the equation, can you answer this question.
If a teacher in a specific academic field teaches material that has no truth / evidence / support, do you believe this teacher should be allowed to continue teaching this material? (note no one is saying they cannot teach full stop).
Would you be happy to let your children be taught by t itical analysis of the film, especially considering your knowledge of the evolutionary subject.
Ok, now lets get on with todays lesson. When you see lights in the moving, they are really aliens who are going to help us out of all our troubles. They will be curing the sick and giving us endless energy and spaceships and showing us how to grow food for the whole world on just ten hectares of land! You say you don't think so, well look at this: we have photo's of them, look for yourself. Some of them are very noisy and they may LOOK like passenger jets but they are aliens in disguise. I have done much research on this and it is absolutely true. It could be no other way. Ok kids, thats enough for today. Tomorrow we will examine the actual aliens. See you at 2 pm sharp thursday. Remember, science forever!