11-08-2005, 10:39 PM | #301 | ||
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
||
11-09-2005, 02:05 AM | #302 |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
I love scientific experiments.
Kansas' School Board voted to change their standards back to evolution-unfriendly standards. I couldn't find the text of the new standards, so I don't really want to comment until I can read them. But the standards will actually have to be reworked again, because the the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association have refused them the right to use those organizations' science materials (which are the basis for most science curricula in the nation).
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. |
11-09-2005, 02:58 PM | #303 |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Wow, amazing ... It seems like the NAS and the NSTA have an agenda. I mean, if they think their materials are good, why not let Kansas use them? Why try to dictate what Kansas schools think is good to teach besides evolution? Why not say, "Here, these are the best books available by good scientists - please take them and use them!" Why not?
And I can't agree with your characterization of "evolution-unfriendly", given that they still teach evolution as the most widely supported model around. They just spend a miniscule amount of classroom time to present some things about evolution that they think are important for students to know to get the whole picture. How is that "evolution-unfriendly"? Good for Kansas. I think the Dover people went too far too soon, though, and they're paying for it. And I say good for Michael Behe, who has the guts to stand up and be cannon fodder for something he believes in. Of course he's only one guy, and the subject is very new and under development in an extremely hostile environment, and there's gaps and weak areas - and he's not going to be perfect by any means. But I admire him - he must have known they'd be angry and loaded for bear.
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
11-09-2005, 03:15 PM | #304 |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
The "agenda" of these organizations is that they do not believe part of their curriculum should be taught without another part. And evolution-over-other-theories is part of their curriculum. That is their prerogative. I also would take a bet they're pissed Kansas changed its definition of the "Nature of Science" from "the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us" (2001 standards) to "a systematic method of continuing investigation...to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena" or something similar (text quoted from the August 9th, 2005 draft standards). The elimination of the requirement for natural explanations is unscientific.
If someone does something you cannot support, you do what you can to make them change. If you are doing something I don't like, I can stop helping you do something else in order to make you change the first thing. I'm not required to keep on helping you do the second thing just because it isn't directly connected to the thing I dislike. And they are evolution-unfriendly (at least the August draft is - the text of the standards passed yesterday is still not up on their site). I didn't say ANTI-evolution. There is a distinction. They are evolution-unfriendly because they single evolution out as a theory to be disputed, and they over-emphasize the degree to which it is questioned. They are not anti-evolution because yes, evolution is still taught as a majority opinion. And I say I admire Michael Behe's courage immensely. I also think he uses circular arguments, treats his material unscientifically, and is most likely wrong. Guts he has. An actual cohesive argument, not so much.
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. Last edited by Count Comfect : 11-09-2005 at 03:21 PM. |
11-09-2005, 03:47 PM | #305 | ||
Friendly Neigborhood Sith Lord
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 2,080
|
i haven't seen Behe's arguements but, i doubt they could be any worse than the circular reasoning that evolutionists are so very fond of using.
__________________
I was Press Secretary for the Berlioz administration and also, but not limited to, owner and co operator of fully armed and operational battle station EDDIE Quote:
Quote:
|
||
11-09-2005, 03:53 PM | #306 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
11-09-2005, 05:37 PM | #307 | |||
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
EDIT - be sure to follow the link at the top that says "click here to download the complete report" - it gives very specific details. VERY interesting! Quote:
Quote:
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! Last edited by Rían : 11-09-2005 at 05:41 PM. |
|||
11-09-2005, 06:19 PM | #308 |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
Rohirrim - here's an example of Behe's logic: test evolution by observing hundreds or thousands of generations of a non-flagellated bacterium and seeing if it develops a flagellum. If it doesn't, ID is true.
There is no logic there. Rian - I mean singling out evolution as a theory dispute instead of gravity, quantum electrodynamics, gene theory, etc. Not as opposed to ID. If we're going to teach how one well-substantiated theory is wrong, we need to teach how all others are wrong. Then you get bogged down and don't actually learn any science - just history and comparative logic. As for the definition of science: A) one shouldn't backtrack. Just because the other states may not have good definitions doesn't mean a good one should be abandoned. B) I'm looking at the Washington (my state!) standards, and while they do indeed state "Science [is] the systematized knowledge of the natural world derived from observation, study, and investigation; also the activity of specialists to add to the body of this knowledge," they also define "natural world" as "empirically verifiable," something Kansas' new definitions do not, and something much more in line with the 2001 standards. Moving alphabetically, West Virginia is quoted in that report as "Science is a process of discovery" - but that is only the definition in the WV standards of "science as inquiry," not a general definition. It is also later defined that students must know that "science is based on a set of observations in a testable framework." Again, more naturalistic than the new standards in Kansas. Virginia's defintion is as the Discovery Institute says. Wisconsin's is as they say it is - but they miscategorize it, ignoring that it defines it as based on "produc[ing] scientific knowledge that others can confirm with experimental evidence." Kansas is not as out of line as they'd like you to think. The old standards did emphasize natural explanations over supernatural in a way most other states do not. But the new ones do not recognize the empirical nature of science as much as other states do. It isn't in line either.
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. |
11-09-2005, 06:23 PM | #309 | |||
Friendly Neigborhood Sith Lord
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 2,080
|
Quote:
__________________
I was Press Secretary for the Berlioz administration and also, but not limited to, owner and co operator of fully armed and operational battle station EDDIE Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
11-09-2005, 07:44 PM | #310 |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
http://www.slate.com/id/2128755/?nav=navoa
http://www.slate.com/id/2127052/ I must admit they are slanted (as I am ) against ID, but the quotes are there, and I think the analysis is correct. ETA: http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/trans/20...9_day12_am.pdf That's Behe's actual testimony transcript from one session. Go to the end (or search for "go into effect") and you can have fun watching him dance around how ID actually... happens.
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. Last edited by Count Comfect : 11-09-2005 at 07:49 PM. |
11-09-2005, 11:04 PM | #311 | ||||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
Quote:
I try to evaluate theories based on the best and most logical arguments for it that I've heard. I think the best arguments reflect the theory most accurately. The stopping point for me with ID as a scientific theory (obviously it is a perfectly valid philosophy/world view/religious theory) is that an Intelligent Designer must exist for the entire theory to exist. In other words, all parts of the Intelligent Design theory depend on God existing. Quote:
Another possibility is that neither ID nor evolution are true. (Though rejection of an entire scientific theory should be due to many diverse and detailed experiments IMO. Accepting or not accepting a philosophy is a personal matter - I think how one evaluates one's beliefs is very personal and hopefully involves careful thought.)
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
11-10-2005, 05:09 AM | #312 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In me taters
Posts: 3,288
|
CC, those stories are class.
Quote:
|
|
11-10-2005, 07:32 AM | #313 | |
An enigma in a conundrum
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 6,476
|
Quote:
__________________
Vizzini: "HE DIDN'T FALL?! INCONCEIVABLE!!" Inigo: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." |
|
11-10-2005, 05:38 PM | #314 | |
Entmoot Attorney-General,
Equilibrating the Scales of Justice, Administrator ♎ Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,891
|
From The Australian: Evolution in the bible, says Vatican
Quote:
My opinion is that ID should not be taught like it were a natural science because it is not. Discuss ID in social sciences class if it's necessary. The creationism/intelligent design/evolution debate is pretty much concentrated to America (Canada has imported some of it). Intelligent design is not an issue in other countries. Well, evolution isn't taught in fundamentalist Muslim countries but they don't value science that high anyway. In the rest of the world, including Protestantic and Catholic countries, evolution is taught in school. The idea of teaching intelligent design is just considered silly and wouldn't have been thought of it wasn't for the fact that everything that happens in America makes it to the news here. The world laughs at America for even having this silly debate. America is different from the backward countries of the middle and far east. America is the world leader of most sciences and the most brilliant scientists on this planet live in the US. Some of the best universities are American and the Nobel Prize is in most cases won by Americans. Therefore it is unfortunate that states like Kansas make the whole country look bad in the eyes of the world. About time I post in this thread, since I'm interested in creationism, evolution and the debate surrounding the two of them. I skimmed through all of the 16 pages just to get a little * jour with what's being discussed here. I like Nurvingiel's long intelligent posts a lot, and R*an's posts are an interesting read too
__________________
An unwritten post is a delightful universe of infinite possibilities. Set down one word, however, and it immediately becomes earthbound. Set down one sentence and it’s halfway to being just like every other bloody entry that’s ever been written. ☻ Last edited by Jonathan : 11-10-2005 at 05:42 PM. |
|
11-10-2005, 05:53 PM | #315 | |
Quasi Evil
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Maryland, US
Posts: 4,634
|
Quote:
__________________
"People's political beliefs don't stem from the factual information they've acquired. Far more the facts people choose to believe are the product of their political beliefs." "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." |
|
11-10-2005, 10:09 PM | #316 | ||
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
Quote:
Glad to see you again, Jonathan! You always are very thoughtful. So do you think that all SETI scientists should be stripped of the name "scientist", kicked out of all scientific areas, and called names? They're doing the same thing that ID scientists are doing, but ID is really in its infancy while SETI has been around a while longer. They're both looking for distinguishing characteristics of an intelligence of a TYPE (but possibly a greater magnitude in the case of SETI and definitely a greater magnitude in the case of ID) than ours. I think it's unfortunate what happened in Pennsylvania, because I think ID is still in its infancy. That said, I don't believe in infanticide, either, especially of something that I think is a very viable scientific option. I think it should be explored further. As I said, I think the signal analysis part is especially promising.
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
||
11-10-2005, 11:31 PM | #317 |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
Had a post written, then the comp deleted it. Grr.
We're not taking the Vatican's line on whether evolution is science, but rather pointing to it as a source of evidence or belief that the Bible and evolution do not conflict. America has the most of a lot of things among Western societies . Death row inmates. Fundamentalist Christians. People, period. Not all of these are going to correlate with being a hotbed of ID . SETI searches for signs of design in things we could design. Therefore, since we know of the existence of at least one actor that is capable of the act in question, we can search for others. ID looks for signs of design in things we could not design, nor do we have any evidence that there is any being who could do so. To take the age-old example of an arrowhead - it implies an Indian, but only if you know Indians exist or have existed. If you don't, it's just a rock. What thing that's happened in Pennsylvania? The Dover trial? Or 8 out of the 9 Dover school board members getting voted out of office over the ID issue? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11..._board_booted/
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. |
11-11-2005, 03:16 AM | #318 | ||||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
Quote:
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
11-11-2005, 04:37 AM | #319 | |
Elf Lord
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In me taters
Posts: 3,288
|
Quote:
Actually, I think you'll find that most brilliant scientists DON'T live in America. America may have the largest number of them, and it may well have the highest per capita proportion of Nobel prize winners or whatever (though I have no data on that). But there is no cause for complacency. In fact, I think there is a major cause for concern for American science. There has been a lot of political interference in science lately in the US, and it's increasing. You have the huge investment by the oil industry in undermining environmental science, you have the president's office dictating what information can be gathered on the effectiveness of sex education programmes, you have a religious concept being promoted to the status of scientific theory to undermine mainstream science teaching which contradicts a particular narrow, some would say fundamentalist interpretation of scripture. Now, one of the great strengths of US culture is its diversity. However, if I was American, I would be worried about how science is increasingly being spun by interest groups. I would think that would discourage scientists from working there. Last edited by The Gaffer : 11-11-2005 at 04:38 AM. |
|
11-11-2005, 09:42 AM | #320 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Evidence for Evolution | jerseydevil | General Messages | 599 | 05-18-2008 02:43 PM |
How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism | Nurvingiel | General Messages | 1199 | 10-05-2005 04:43 AM |
Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution | Rían | General Messages | 1149 | 08-16-2004 06:07 PM |