expelled

Originally posted by Retrovirus
I just said I think they can teach stuff.
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.

Obviously, not biology and things like that. Why would anyone in those
fields not fear for their jobs with your mind set out there?
Kelly

Originally posted by Retrovirus
Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]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 intellige ...[text shortened]... between different species (like us and the apes) - later verified via DNA homology.

If you cannot use something and make a prediction no matter what it
is, it isn't science? Is that how you have come to define science, or I
should say is that how science is defined now? The ability to predict
is a must?
Kelly

Originally posted by Retrovirus
Indeed, 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.

Again, Flat Earthers is the analogy we are looking for.

O ...[text shortened]... ion = Belief in Weather God/s/ess to Meteorology = Jack Frost to Ice Crystallization on Windows.

Like I said, the thought police are out there enforcing the right way
to think about how life, became a reality...I guess I don't need to
see the movie you guys have made me a believer the claims I have
heard spoken about in that movie have been played out here.
Kelly

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
[b]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.

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 ...[text shortened]... ure bids, etc. Also not a single case was able to show harassment or a ruining of their career.[/b]

"...prevented from teaching subjects where that belief would get in the way ..."

Yea, lets keep them from jobs that might some day show they were
right, keep them out of the schools so they cannot teach subjects
that you think need protected from unclean thoughts.
Kelly

Originally posted by timebombted
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 ...[text shortened]... itical analysis of the film, especially considering your knowledge of the evolutionary subject.

You don't think those guys with degrees in those very subjects you are
saying ID people shouldn't be allowed to teach, don't have a clue? Is it
that they just need to get their heads right, get help, go see a doctor
to get their minds right or something? Could it be they do have a clue,
but just because they may not agree with you they don't obviously
under stand the topic, because if they did they would agree with you?
Sort of like people who think only those that believe in God the way
they do are the only ones right with God, all the other are just off the
mark and sinners that need to be dealt with one way or another?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Like I said, the thought police are out there enforcing the right way
to think about how life, became a reality...I guess I don't need to
see the movie you guys have made me a believer the claims I have
heard spoken about in that movie have been played out here.
Kelly

All my examples (except flat earthrs, let's leave them aside for a while) are of the same format:

Q: Why such an such?
A: Because Magic Man* did it.

Although the answer is somewhat better than "Because because", it is not such a great improvement.

* Zeus, God, Jack Frost, take your pick.

What is that "thought police" you are talking about?
You can freely think whatever you like, no one will try to get you arrested...

People are free to advocate ID - freedom of speech, after all, right?
Freedom of speech is the corner stone of democracy.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Obviously, not biology and things like that. Why would anyone in those
fields not fear for their jobs with your mind set out there?
Kelly

Let's say I am a physicist.
I'm teaching my students that it is possible to translocate yourself at hyper luminal velocities using pure thought.
If I can prove it - I guess I would be awarded the Nobel Prize.

If, however, I just taught my students that particular "piece of information" because I liked Alfred Bester's scifi book "The Stars My Destination", I am likely to find myself outside the university gates with the proverbial kick mark on by behind.

And would you blame them?

If, on the other hand, I believe that conventional medicine is a scam and that one should only use homeopathic medicine and natural stuff ect. , but I teach Computer Science - well, that's nobody else's business.

To farther illustrate the point - yes, an IDer could teach biology. As long as he sticks to science and leaves his beliefs for after school. Hell, he can even give a lecture in evolution for all I care - just like an atheist professor for theology.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you cannot use something and make a prediction no matter what it
is, it isn't science? Is that how you have come to define science, or I
should say is that how science is defined now? The ability to predict
is a must?
Kelly

It's scientific method time!

1)First, you begin with a phenomenon or finding you want to explain.

2) Then, construct and hypothesis that explains them.

3) Testing of the hypothesis. Conduct an experiment that tests predications made by the hypothesis.
Do the results verify the predictions?

4a) If not, discard hypothesis or modify it and restart the process

4b) If true, re-challenge it again and again while attempting to construct a logically self-consistent framework from it - a theory

5) Put the theory to more tests, retaining, modifying or discarding it, depending on the results.

----

So, without making predictions, how can you test an hypothsis (3) ?

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you cannot use something and make a prediction no matter what it
is, it isn't science? Is that how you have come to define science, or I
should say is that how science is defined now? The ability to predict
is a must?
Kelly

That's the way science works. Several theories has gone down the drain because it cannot be tested experiemtally to support the statements. Science is not about believing, it is about testing the theories.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"...prevented from teaching subjects where that belief would get in the way ..."

Yea, lets keep them from jobs that might some day show they were
right, keep them out of the schools so they cannot teach subjects
that you think need protected from unclean thoughts.
Kelly

Wow.. Do you intentionally misread things? I'm honestly wondering.

If they have actual evidence and can use the scientific method to develop a theory then that theory and evidence should be taken and judged on how scientific it is - no matter what the claim.

If you are applying to a job and you believe that a non-scientific theory is scientific then they are right to judge your scientific credentials based on that - no matter what non-scientific theory we're talking about.

You blatantly lie when you present my position as somehow protecting people from unclean thoughts. Please at least try to be honest whether you agree with me or not.

ID can be taught in schools - just not yet as being science. When/If ID becomes a real scientific theory then it should and would get much more scientific research put towards it.

ID shouldn't be taught as science just because people believe in it. NO claim should be taught as science just because people believe in it. It has to provide evidence, predictions and be peer reviewed just like every other potential scientific theory.

Originally posted by Retrovirus
All my examples (except flat earthrs, let's leave them aside for a while) are of the same format:

Q: Why such an such?
A: Because Magic Man* did it.

Although the answer is somewhat better than "Because because", it is not such a great improvement.

* Zeus, God, Jack Frost, take your pick.

What is that "thought police" you are talking about?
...[text shortened]... - freedom of speech, after all, right?
Freedom of speech is the corner stone of democracy.

At what point has a "magic man" popped up in our conversation? As
was pointed out before, simply acknowledging ID does not mean any
thing outside of acknowledging ID, going beyond that is just like
saying evolution is true, because there is no God, Your bringing that
up suggests you are not going to acknowledge ID more so because
you are scared of whose ID it could have been, not because it is
possible life requires ID.
Kelly

Originally posted by Retrovirus
All my examples (except flat earthrs, let's leave them aside for a while) are of the same format:

Q: Why such an such?
A: Because Magic Man* did it.

Although the answer is somewhat better than "Because because", it is not such a great improvement.

* Zeus, God, Jack Frost, take your pick.

What is that "thought police" you are talking about?
...[text shortened]... - freedom of speech, after all, right?
Freedom of speech is the corner stone of democracy.

You go back and read the posts in this thread, simply acknowledging
ID to more than a few people here means they cannot teach various
subjects, period. That is what I mean by the thought police, they look
at a something someone acknowledges and punishes them for it, they
would restrict their ablitiy to earn an income in certain fields,
regardless of the degrees they could have in it.
Kelly

Originally posted by Retrovirus
Let's say I am a physicist.
I'm teaching my students that it is possible to translocate yourself at hyper luminal velocities using pure thought.
If I can prove it - I guess I would be awarded the Nobel Prize.

If, however, I just taught my students that particular "piece of information" because I liked Alfred Bester's scifi book "The Stars My Destin ...[text shortened]... ve a lecture in evolution for all I care - just like an atheist professor for theology.

You equate suggesting ID is a possiblity, that is like saying to you
that someone could translocate themselves at hyper luminal velorcites
using pure thought? Wow, you got it in for those that agree it may
be required in life don't you?
Kelly

Originally posted by FabianFnas
That's the way science works. Several theories has gone down the drain because it cannot be tested experiemtally to support the statements. Science is not about believing, it is about testing the theories.

Not in this case, in this case it is loss of jobs and everything else.
Kelly

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Wow.. Do you intentionally misread things? I'm honestly wondering.

If they have actual evidence and can use the scientific method to develop a theory then that theory and evidence should be taken and judged on how scientific it is - no matter what the claim.

If you are applying to a job and you believe that a non-scientific theory is scientific th ...[text shortened]... evidence, predictions and be peer reviewed just like every other potential scientific theory.

You are free with the word liar. At no point have I lied here, it is
sickening that you would suggest it too. I have no doubt after talking
to you, you would sink someone's lively hood because they don't
agree with you after on this matter. That isn't a lie, I believe it and
I'm saying it because I do believe it.
Kelly