Homework assignment for proponents of ID

[Powerman]

So one could assume, based on your self profile, that you knew the answer before you posed the question. Then you posed it anyways, attempting to bash Bonnie for an attempt to answer it. Your response was that her response 'did not qualify.'

Some might conclude that you are an asshat for setting something like this up. That might be harsh, but then again, maybe not.

Hah. I wasn't trying to make her look stupid. I wasn't 100% sure that no accredited college taught ID or creationism as science and I'm still not. But as far as we know now there isn't one until someone can point that out to me. When I thanked Bonnie I meant it in a sincere way. Given my history here I could see why you might think it was sarcasm. Her answer did not qualify because it didn't meet the requirements of the question. We shouldn't hold that against her.

 

[Annie]

Hah. I wasn't trying to make her look stupid. I wasn't 100% sure that no accredited college taught ID or creationism as science and I'm still not. But as far as we know now there isn't one until someone can point that out to me. When I thanked Bonnie I meant it in a sincere way. Given my history here I could see why you might think it was sarcasm. Her answer did not qualify because it didn't meet the requirements of the question. We shouldn't hold that against her.

Then again, your original question posed, assumes an outcome that there is no basis for. So one might find that her and her site responses were more in line with the suppositions of the original question than with your false bait.

 

[Powerman]

Then again, your original question posed assumes an outcome that there is no basis for. So one might find that her and her sites responses were more in line with the suppositions of the original question, than your false bait.

It wasn't bait

 

[Annie]

It wasn't bait

Why should anyone believe that? You set anyone up, that responded to your original post.

 

[Gunny]

OK a couple of things that stick out here. First I would like to thank Bonnie for finding us some colleges that teach intelligent design so let's all give her a round of applause.

*pauses until applause stops

But I do believe that I asked for an accredited university. Unfortunately none of these universities are accredited by ABET who is the people who accredit univeristy programs in the areas of applied science, computing, engineering, and technology. It's all on their website as you can see....

http://www.abet.org/

You can search for accredited universities on this website by all of these fields...so if the university has at least one accredited program out of science, computing, engineering, or technology it will show up in the search.

You will notice that none of these colleges that were listed in the links were accredited by ABET. Although in one of the links they claim that there is an accredited school called the Institution for Creation Research Graduate School or something to that effect. If you scroll down further in the page it claims that they are accredited by some Christian Bible school association or something of the sort. Hardly an endorsement by science... All of these schools are bible study schools. If you want to study the bible and be a theologian they are probably good schools to go to. I certainly wouldn't want to go to these if I actually wanted to learn science though.

Stacking the deck with colleges that teach only what YOU believe? Total BS. Perhaps we should see what Oral Roberts U has to say on the matter?

 

[Bonnie]

Seal of Disapproval
Are evangelical views singled out for discrimination?

BY NAOMI SCHAEFER
Friday, May 24, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT

Schools shudder at the thought of not being accredited--not receiving the seal of approval from a reviewing board or agency. Accreditation tells the world--tuition-paying parents and employers perusing résumés--that a school is teaching the right things in the right way.

In recent years, the most prestigious accrediting agencies have come under attack in certain quarters for lax standards and left-wing biases that harm the approval chances of conservative schools. Thus was born the American Academy of Liberal Education (AALE), a more rigorously traditional accrediting group.
So you can imagine the distress Michael Farris, the president of Patrick Henry College, felt last week when the AALE denied accreditation to his conservative, religiously based school, which first opened its doors in Purcellville, Va., in 2000 to a class of 75. His public statement said in part: "We simply cannot understand why the AALE has singled out our evangelical Christian viewpoint for particularized discrimination."

But this is not quite right. Since it was founded in 1992, the AALE has granted accreditation to many schools with strong religious identities, including evangelical ones. The AALE did not name Patrick Henry's religious identity as the reason for its decision. Rather, Patrick Henry had not complied with two essential criteria. By insisting that its faculty teach only a strict creationist doctrine and by requiring that students and teachers sign a profession of faith, the school had failed to ensure that "liberty of thought and freedom of speech are supported and protected." Relatedly, the school was not providing a "basic knowledge" of the biological sciences.


Religiously based colleges can produce well-rounded students whose education is grounded as much in the great texts of Western civilization as in revealed religion. Southern Virginia University, for instance, which serves the Mormon community, has just received the AALE's blessing. No one at SVU is required to sign a profession of faith, though most of its faculty and 98% of its students are Mormon. Rather, SVU looks for faculty and students who can support its mission, which includes studying the liberal arts to "enrich the spiritual lives of its students."
Mormons consider the Old Testament to be God-given and true, but as I discovered on a visit to SVU, many students and professors there view the pursuit of scientific knowledge as a way of using the brain God gave us to explore the world he created. Others see scientific understanding as itself a form of revelation. One student explained to his Sunday-school audience that, in the 19th century, when God spoke to Joseph Smith, "the light of God was restored to the human race," leading to "great advances in medicine and modern technology."
The differences between SVU and Patrick Henry are striking, but not based on doctrinal distinctions between Mormons and evangelicals. Jeremy Weatherford, a pre-med student at Wheaton College in Illinois, an evangelical school, observes: "Christians have even more of a reason to study science because they should be studying God's creations and nature." And Niva Tro, a chemistry professor at the evangelical Westmont College in California argues: "You should follow truth wherever it leads because in the end, if the Christian faith is correct, then each truth should lead you back to the Christian faith."


Of the five evangelical colleges I have visited in the past year, four teach evolution along with creationism and "intelligent design," encouraging their students to think critically about each theory. But Patrick Henry is clearly not prepared to have students take this risky approach--in any discipline.
In each of the (nonscience) classes I attended there, the professors resembled drill instructors: Information was presented along with what the students were obliged to think about it. A class on state and local government culminated in a professorial diatribe against governmental regulation. Not that I disagreed! But there was something so heavy-handed and anti-intellectual about the whole approach that it was easy to understand why the AALE arrived at its decision.

Mr. Farris says Patrick Henry's mission "is to train those who will lead our nation and shape our culture." An admirable goal. Basic science would help, along with liberty of thought and freedom of speech.

Ms. Schaefer is writing a book on religious colleges.

http://opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110001751

 

[elephant]

To the person that called me stupid and wanted me to search for intelligent design on the Harvard website....looks like there is no scientific classes that deal with intelligent design. The first 2 results were from a law class and a philosophy class respectively. Maybe you would be interested in what was said about intelligent design in the lecture titled "Intelligent Design: A New Holy War Against Science"?

It can be found in the link below...

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/10.11/14-thingstodo.html

I don't see anything here that would give you a decent grade on the homework assignment I proposed. There are no science classes that teach intelligent design. Oddly enough they have classes that teach evolution. Isn't that funny?

I saw intelligent design on syllabi at Harvard, Princeton and Lehigh. These searches took about two minutes total.

You could also try journal searches at your school's library. There seem to be plenty of ID articles published.

 

[Bonnie]

I saw intelligent design on syllabi at Harvard, Princeton and Lehigh. These searches took about two minutes total.

You could also try journal searches at your school's library. There seem to be plenty of ID articles published.

Yes but are they "accredited"?? LOL

 

[no1tovote4]

I saw intelligent design on syllabi at Harvard, Princeton and Lehigh. These searches took about two minutes total.

You could also try journal searches at your school's library. There seem to be plenty of ID articles published.

Are they part of the Science curriculum?

 

[elephant]

From the department of "Evolution, Ecology and Organismal Biology".

http://www.biosci.ohio-state.edu/~awolfe/class/syllabus.710.1999.html

It is a graduate class.

I'm telling you, this is easy.

To: no1tovote4

Some classes are in the science departments and some are not. I am only pointing out that almost every university includes as part of the learning.

 

[Powerman]

Stacking the deck with colleges that teach only what YOU believe? Total BS. Perhaps we should see what Oral Roberts U has to say on the matter?

I didn't say that it could only be atheist colleges or anything. I said that it had to be accredited colleges. What the fuck is wrong with that? That just means that they are certified programs. I wouldn't call that stacking the deck.

 

[Powerman]

I saw intelligent design on syllabi at Harvard, Princeton and Lehigh. These searches took about two minutes total.

You could also try journal searches at your school's library. There seem to be plenty of ID articles published.

I did not see any syllabus on ID at harvard. I did the search. Did you actually look at the search results?

 

[Powerman]

From the department of "Evolution, Ecology and Organismal Biology".

http://www.biosci.ohio-state.edu/~awolfe/class/syllabus.710.1999.html

It is a graduate class.

I'm telling you, this is easy.

To: no1tovote4

Some classes are in the science departments and some are not. I am only pointing out that almost every university includes as part of the learning.

That isn't a science class endorsing intelligent design. It's merely a history of the conrtraversy that Darwinism started and the creation science and ID movement in America. Maybe you can link me to the syllabus from Harvard because I certainly didn't see one.

 

[Abbey Normal]

It is precisely because science departments refuse to teach ID, that the ID movement has gained some ground. The fact that it may be hard to find ID in the science curriculum only adds to the evidence that science professors are closed-minded about such things. Not much else can be proved by pointing out that most science dpeartments don't teach it.

 

[Powerman]

It is precisely because science departments refuse to teach ID, that the ID movement has gained some ground. The fact that it may be hard to find ID in the science curriculum only adds to the evidence that science professors are closed-minded about such things. Not much else can be proved by pointing out that most science dpeartments don't teach it.

Actually it's just more proof of what I claimed and backed up with factual documentation earlier. ID is not science because it is not testable, observable, or falsifiable. If it were science then some accredited university would be teaching it as such.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Actually it's just more proof of what I claimed and backed up with factual documentation earlier. ID is not science because it is not testable, observable, or falsifiable. If it were science then some accredited university would be teaching it as such.

Wrong. Plenty of unobservable things are studied in Universities. Ever take Anthropology? Lots of supposition and guess work in those classes. I've never taken astronomy, but I am willing to bet that unobservable theories abound in that curriculum. The fact remains that the failure to even teach the concept of ID, proves closed-mindedness to the issue in our universities more than anything else, regardless of how you try to frame it.

Having said that, I do not expect the schools to embrace the idea of teaching ID. It would be nice if our schools would entertain the concept of ID along with other theories of origins of the universe, but I'm not holding my breath. We have taught our daughter our beliefs on the subject. We are not foolish enough to depend on the schools to do so, and I think all parents should do the same.

Btw, why are you still starting threads to argue against ID? Still not sure about it, are you?

 

[Powerman]

Wrong. Plenty of unobservable things are studied in Universities. Ever take Anthropology? Lots of supposition and guess work in those classes. I've never taken astronomy, but I am willing to bet that unobservable theories abound in that curriculum. The fact remains that the failure to even teach the concept of ID, proves closed-mindedness to the issue in our universities more than anything else, regardless of how you try to frame it.

Having said that, I do not expect the schools to embrace the idea of teaching ID. It would be nice if our schools would entertain the concept of ID along with other theories of origins of the universe, but I'm not holding my breath. We have taught our daughter our beliefs on the subject. We are not foolish enough to depend on the schools to do so, and I think all parents should do the same.

Btw, why are you still starting threads to argue against ID? Still not sure about it, are you?

Yes I've taken anthropology. I assume you are talking about physical and not cultrural antrhopology. It's not "guesswork." There may be some degree of guessing that goes into things but they base it on facts that are in front of them. With ID there is NOTHING and I mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to support it. The entire premise of ID is not science because it uses an unkown invisible deity that no one has ever seen to explain the unkown. That isn't science. It's spitituality. If you can not see that then you are truly blinded. Science doesn't deal with the supernatural. ID does. It's just that simple.


And the reason I'm starting threads about ID is I want to see if it's actually possible to convince people(if the shoe fits) that ID is not science. I've got mountains of evidence supporting my claim and absolutely none supporting the claim that ID is science. Yet people are still arguing with me on the subject.

 

[Abbey Normal]

And the reason I'm starting threads about ID is I want to see if it's actually possible to convince people(if the shoe fits) that ID is not science. I've got mountains of evidence supporting my claim and absolutely none supporting the claim that ID is science. Yet people are still arguing with me on the subject.

WHY?


(btw, I'm glad you admitted there is guesswork in "science")

 

[Powerman]

WHY?


(btw, I'm glad you admitted there is guesswork in "science")

There is some guesswork regarding science but it's based on facts. With antrhopology for example: say you find the remains of a fossil. You do some work with the fossil remains and you date it and you look at different characteristics of the fossil. You may look at the bone structures in the hands and come to a conclusion that this type of primate had the ability to make tools or something of the sort. Then you study the rocks in the area and you might come to the conclusion that these rocks were actually pretty good rocks for making tools out of such as knives. But all of this "guesswork" is based on some type of factual finding and there is usually debate amongst scientists on what they have actually found.

Now with ID on the other hand the premise is that a Deity or an advanced alien life form created us. There is no way you can prove that scientifically because there is absolutely zero evidence for it. Because there is no evidence for it there is also no evidence against it which makes the theory non falsifiable which means it is not science. You also can not observe or test it in any way which means it is not science. There may be a debate on this message board or in political arenas whether or not ID is science but there is no debate amongst scientists because it simply isn't science.

That being said there are some parts of ID that follow the scientific method. The only parts that do that are the ones that try to disprove darwinian evolution. They would be much better served by dropping the ID label and the claim that we were all created by an invisible being if they wanted the criticisms of evolution taught in schools. Because if they were just teaching the criticisms without supernatural claims then it would actually be considered science.

 

[no1tovote4]

"Because if they were just teaching the criticisms without supernatural claims then it would actually be considered science."

There is an assumption that they are attempting to prove that Supernatural Being(s) created life. There is no such assumption in ID, there is nothing stating who it was that might have created the life. They are not attempting to prove that they know who designed certain aspects of life, they are attempting to find evidence that it could not have been created without some intelligent design. You can disprove their theory (notice I didn't say Scientific Theory) by showing how some of those things could happen through chance, thus each of the things are falsifiable. The attempt to disregard that they are not attempting to show who it was that helped life along and attempting to say it isn't falsifiable because we don't know who is simply one of the ways that they attempt to disregard another view on the same subject by misleading people into thinking they are attempting to prove religion.

It will be interesting to see if it ever becomes a Scientific Theory by finding ways to test it in the positive rather than only disprove it by showing how it could have happened by natural means rather than Intelligent Design. However, the means for such testing is not here at this time and ideas for such a feat seem to be missing.