subjective science

Originally posted by @fmf
With students, it's about their thinking and their knowledge and about how they manage and present it. Of course abstentions are acceptable if asking them to attempt to make personal or value judgements, especially about metaphysical or supernatural things. They would be graded on how they arrive at that abstention. You sound like a person who was brainwashed for decades, which - of course - you are.

Says the guy who could not decide to be a Christian yet was a Christian for a few decades and then could not decide not to be a Christian yet now isn't a Christian. This doesn't exactly sound like you are in much of a position to comment on brainwashing. Sounds like you were first brainwashed to be a Christian then brainwashed not to be one.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Says the guy who could not decide to be a Christian yet was a Christian for a few decades and then could not decide not to be a Christian yet now isn't a Christian. This doesn't exactly sound like you are in much of a position to comment on brainwashing. Sounds like you were first brainwashed to be a Christian then brainwashed not to be one.

OK. Interesting. But I don’t think it warrants a response. Presumably, you think I am not one of the "actual thinkers" you were talking about. I get it.

I'd be interested in what you have to say about my thoughts on "students", on being an "educator", and teaching them to think and manage their knowledge. You ask me about it. I took time to respond. And yet you seem to have brushed past it all.

Originally posted by @fmf
OK. Interesting. But I don’t think it warrants a response. Presumably, you think I am not one of the "actual thinkers" you were talking about. I get it.

I'd be interested in what you have to say about my thoughts on "students", on being an "educator", and teaching them to think and manage their knowledge. You ask me about it. I took time to respond. And yet you seem to have brushed past it all.

My discipline is Physics. If any student responds to any of my questions with "I don't know", they get a zero. Zero for effort and zero for thought.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
[b]...published in a respected journal after peer review.

Yes, it passed the first test. But it still has a long way to go before it becomes fully incorporated into (becomes an established part of) evolution theory... when or if that ever happens.
PE met with some resistance when the 1972 'landmark' paper was published, but there was nothing inhe ...[text shortened]... ggested his paper supports the creationist definition of supernatural intelligent design.[/b]

I'm not "fussing over" the article, I am just pointing out it does not support intelligent design.

I suggest you read about the basics of the theory of evolution and learn what it says. This paper, like punctuated equilibrium, cannot ever "become an established part" of the core tenets of the theory of evolution because it does not address them in any way.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
I'm not "fussing over" the article, I am just pointing out it does not support intelligent design.

I suggest you read about the basics of the theory of evolution and learn what it says. This paper, like punctuated equilibrium, cannot ever "become an established part" of the core tenets of the theory of evolution because it does not address them in any way.

Obviously the narrow prism of your atheistic beliefs (assuming you are one) don't allow you to even consider the possibility of a creator and therefore no evidence will ever support intelligent design in your book. So much for being objective and open minded.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Obviously the narrow prism of your atheistic beliefs (assuming you are one) don't allow you to even consider the possibility of a creator and therefore no evidence will ever support intelligent design in your book. So much for being objective and open minded.

In my book, evidence in favour of intelligent design will support intelligent design. None has been presented, and it is not even clear what the empirical signatures of an intelligent designer ought to be, as proponents are vague about how the alleged intelligent designer works.

The discussed article does not support intelligent design and does not even attempt to do so.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
My discipline is Physics. If any student responds to any of my questions with "I don't know", they get a zero. Zero for effort and zero for thought.

Well, I have told you the circumstances in which I would give a student a low grade. If the 2-part question was: [1] what is creationism and [2] what do atheists think about creationism? And my student wrote "I don't know" in answer to both, then they'd get a zero and I'd advise them to read up on the subject.

If the question you've given your students is: do you think the universe is a wholly natural phenomenon without a creator or is it the creation of an intelligent supernatural being, and they say that they do not know, would you give them a zero?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
In my book, evidence in favour of intelligent design will support intelligent design. None has been presented, and it is not even clear what the empirical signatures of an intelligent designer ought to be, as proponents are vague about how the alleged intelligent designer works.

The discussed article does not support intelligent design and does not even attempt to do so.

What in your book would qualify as evidence in favor of intelligent design and what wouldn't?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
My discipline is Physics.

LOL
That's a good one.

Originally posted by @fmf
Well, I have told you the circumstances in which I would give a student a low grade. If the 2-part question was: [1] what is creationism and [2] what do atheists think about creationism? And my student wrote "I don't know" in answer to both, then they'd get a zero and I'd advise them to read up on the subject.

If the question you've given your students is: d ...[text shortened]... intelligent supernatural being, and they say that they do not know, would you give them a zero?

I would probably give them a zero for being lazy if they said "I don't know" and my question was, "based on particular evidence, which scenario do you think is more likely to have happened?" Unless of course they argued why it would be impossible to tell.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
LOL
That's a good one.

Of course to the narrow minded atheist all religious people are either uneducated or pseudoscientists.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
What in your book would qualify as evidence in favor of intelligent design and what wouldn't?

I think convincing evidence would be locating the intelligent designer, and following its progress as it goes about designing in a controlled environment.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I would probably give them a zero for being lazy if they said "I don't know" and my question was, "based on particular evidence, which scenario do you think is more likely to have happened?" Unless of course they argued why it would be impossible to tell.

This is interesting.

So the question is: Do you think the universe is a wholly natural phenomenon without a creator or is it the creation of an intelligent supernatural being?

And even if a student laid out the 'it's a wholly natural phenomenon' case and then laid out the 'it's the creation of an intelligent supernatural being' case, and did so knowledgeably and cogently, before admitting that they did not know which case was "true", or explaining that they found neither view convincing - or proven - in and of itself, would you give them zero?

Originally posted by @fmf
This is interesting.

So the question is: [b]Do you think the universe is a wholly natural phenomenon without a creator or is it the creation of an intelligent supernatural being?

And even if a student laid out the 'it's a wholly natural phenomenon' case and then laid out the 'it's the creation of an intelligent supernatural being' case, and did so kn ...[text shortened]... hat they found neither view convincing - or proven - in and of itself, would you give them zero?[/b]

That is a mischaracterization of what I said.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
That is a mischaracterization of what I said.

It is not an attempted characterization of what you said.

It is a new question - straightforward and point blank - responding to what you said, and seeking to move the conversation along.

Here it is again:

If a student laid out the 'it's a wholly natural phenomenon' case and then laid out the 'it's the creation of an intelligent supernatural being' case, and did so knowledgeably and cogently, before admitting that they did not know which case was "true", or explaining that they found neither view convincing - or proven - in and of itself, would you give them zero?