Who honestly doesn't belive in intelligent design?

[Foxfyre]

actually, you presented some hypothetical kid and advocated that a science teacher should support his belief that an IDer explains how nature is. remember?

No sir. I did not do that. And you'll have a damnedly difficult time finding any post of mine that even suggests that. There is a world of difference between a science teacher not presuming to destroy a student's religious beliefs and in supporting them. I believe, however, that I was quite clear in saying that the science teacher should do neither.

this is where you propose handling fundiekid in a way which understates scientific findings to (what i would call) support the scientific plausibility of theory which is not scientifically plausible:

When a student insists that God (or whatever Deity) created the universe in seven days or whatever religious theory he uses, the teacher will agree that millions of people believe that and he won't attempt to dispute it. However, that also cannot be falsified or otherwise scientifically tested and it won't be on the test or accepted as a correct answer on a test. The students are not required to believe what they are taught in science class, but they are required to know it. And they will be tested on it

you've also proposed that a good teacher might propose the belief in ID in the classroom them self. i think your good teacher invites the misunderstanding that science and religious faith are juxtaposed in the way ignorant pastors miseducate their flocks.

apart from going to great length to separate ID from a religious belief system, you conversely propose that it should be treated as a religious belief in the context of a classroom. this type of direct contradiction is characteristic of your ambiguous, shifty definition of ID. i have pointed out that there is a huge difference between religious and faith-based beliefs and science or natural observation-based beliefs like mainstream ID. the latter constitute mischaracterizations of science. mainstream ID proposals present fallacies like irreducible complexity which employ misinformation to empower their conclusions. lending credence to such concepts in your billions-served umbrella of ID constitutes a breach of obligation for a science teacher, and as you have argued part of the time, ought not offend religious belief at all. this would merely be a correction to a misunderstanding or malpractice of science, much like correcting the nawmsayn kid i hypothesized.

nawmsayn?

If you interpret not disputing a thng or accurately affirming that millions do believe a thing as being the same thing as affirming it, there isn't much I can do for you here. I know these to be entirely two separate things. But I suppose some are unable to make the distinction.

And there is also a world of difference between a science teacher accurately explaining that there are holes in the evidence and many unanswered questions in all theories of the origins and evolution of the Universe and origins and evolution of the species on Earth and that teacher also embracing Intelligent Design. Yet the teacher would be accurately affirming that there are other theories that fill in some of those holes and that Intelligent Design is one of those. I have had science teachers who in fact did that. But he would also be accurate to explain that I.D. and some other theories are outside the disciplines of science and therefore will not be included in the coursework.

And if you cannot see how this is an honest approach to neither affirm nor deny a student's religious beliefs, then again, there isn't much I can do for you. And if he, as many of my science teachers have already done, explained the theories of Plato, Aristotle, et al as components of the very large scope of all of scientific knowledge, some of which has stood the test of time and some that has not, I would count him as a brilliant and capable teacher.

I advocate educating students and not merely indoctrinating them.

 

[antagon]

somehow i think the belief that "God (or whatever Deity) created the universe in seven days..." "...cannot be falsified or otherwise scientifically tested..." is central to your position and i feel these 'gaps' which you refer to may be in your own understanding.

 

[Foxfyre]

somehow i think the belief that "God (or whatever Deity) created the universe in seven days..." "...cannot be falsified or otherwise scientifically tested..." is central to your position and i feel these 'gaps' which you refer to may be in your own understanding.

Not central to my posiition since I can't remember EVER believing the universe was created in seven days. Nor do I believe it was the six days as stated in Genesis. (Six days, not seven. Even after I pointed out your error earlier on that, you still aren't precise.)

That passage was actually one of the more recent manuscripts included in the Old Testament. Did you know that? And it was later further clarified by revelations that a thousand years--a very VERY long time in Jewish vernacular--is but a day to the Lord. So I think I'm on pretty safe ground believing that only a small number of fundamentalists take that passage literally.

So.....until YOU can tell me where the material that exists in the universe originated, I will maintain that there are gaps in scientific knowledge. Until you can explain how it is that natural selection produced the human beings alone among all species that has any concern for other species, even species it has never experienced, I will maintain that there are gaps in scientific knowledge.

And unless you can come up with something new to reinforce your side of the debate, I suggest we end this as you are now rather predictably repeating yourself, making the same glaring errors, and that is requiring me to repeat myself and that is getting really REALLY boring.

 

[JBeukema]

Baruch Spinoza (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Bill Angel]

So.....until YOU can tell me where the material that exists in the universe originated, I will maintain that there are gaps in scientific knowledge. Until you can explain how it is that natural selection produced the human beings alone among all species that has any concern for other species, even species it has never experienced, I will maintain that there are gaps in scientific knowledge.

And unless you can come up with something new to reinforce your side of the debate, I suggest we end this as you are now rather predictably repeating yourself, making the same glaring errors, and that is requiring me to repeat myself and that is getting really REALLY boring.

It isn't true that "natural selection produced human beings alone among all species that has any concern for other species".

For example:
The Symbiotic Relationship Between Pistol Shrimp and Goby Fish

"The Goby fish and a shrimp: The shrimp digs and cleans a burrow in the sand in which both the shrimp and the Goby fish live. The shrimp is almost blind and this leaves it vulnerable to predators. The goby fish touches the shrimp with its tail to warn it of impending dangers, and both shrimp and goby fish quickly retreat into the burrow."

 

[Foxfyre]

So.....until YOU can tell me where the material that exists in the universe originated, I will maintain that there are gaps in scientific knowledge. Until you can explain how it is that natural selection produced the human beings alone among all species that has any concern for other species, even species it has never experienced, I will maintain that there are gaps in scientific knowledge.

And unless you can come up with something new to reinforce your side of the debate, I suggest we end this as you are now rather predictably repeating yourself, making the same glaring errors, and that is requiring me to repeat myself and that is getting really REALLY boring.

It isn't true that "natural selection produced human beings alone among all species that has any concern for other species".

For example:
The Symbiotic Relationship Between Pistol Shrimp and Goby Fish

"The Goby fish and a shrimp: The shrimp digs and cleans a burrow in the sand in which both the shrimp and the Goby fish live. The shrimp is almost blind and this leaves it vulnerable to predators. The goby fish touches the shrimp with its tail to warn it of impending dangers, and both shrimp and goby fish quickly retreat into the burrow."

I didn't say human beings were the only creature with capacity to form relationships with or become friends with other species. There are countless observations of such in nature; some of most unusual varieties.

But unless you can convince me that those shrimp care about any other shrimp or any Goby fish other than those they directly interact with, then my opinion stands as unrefuted.

 

[eagleseven]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GexkLLlHTaE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GexkLLlHTaE[/ame]

 

[eagleseven]

But unless you can convince me that those shrimp care about any other shrimp or any Goby fish other than those they directly interact with, then my opinion stands as unrefuted.

Would you be happy with a Goby fish wearing a PETA shirt?

 

[Foxfyre]

But unless you can convince me that those shrimp care about any other shrimp or any Goby fish other than those they directly interact with, then my opinion stands as unrefuted.

Would you be happy with a Goby fish wearing a PETA shirt?

Okay, if they start protesting at drilling platforms or marching with PETA, I'll have to rethink my position on that.

 

[antagon]

somehow i think the belief that "God (or whatever Deity) created the universe in seven days..." "...cannot be falsified or otherwise scientifically tested..." is central to your position and i feel these 'gaps' which you refer to may be in your own understanding.

Not central to my posiition since I can't remember EVER believing the universe was created in seven days. Nor do I believe it was the six days as stated in Genesis. (Six days, not seven. Even after I pointed out your error earlier on that, you still aren't precise.)

c'mon, this is a direct quote from one of your posts. when you pointed it out earlier, i alluded to the same.

That passage was actually one of the more recent manuscripts included in the Old Testament. Did you know that? And it was later further clarified by revelations that a thousand years--a very VERY long time in Jewish vernacular--is but a day to the Lord. So I think I'm on pretty safe ground believing that only a small number of fundamentalists take that passage literally.

again, this was your hypothetical kid. i've never heard of these situations ever happening in a classroom. furthermore, a great deal of fundies do contend that the world is but several thousand years old. this isn't one of your gaps either.

So.....until YOU can tell me where the material that exists in the universe originated, I will maintain that there are gaps in scientific knowledge. Until you can explain how it is that natural selection produced the human beings alone among all species that has any concern for other species, even species it has never experienced, I will maintain that there are gaps in scientific knowledge.

And unless you can come up with something new to reinforce your side of the debate, I suggest we end this as you are now rather predictably repeating yourself, making the same glaring errors, and that is requiring me to repeat myself and that is getting really REALLY boring.

these 'gaps' are severally the basis of scientific theory which aims to explain each. these theories have a basis in observation and/or physical laws we understand more intimately. a science teacher should be up on these theories on a cursory level, such that their students are familiar with what cutting edge science is about rather than merely relaying science for its longer-established theory. my idea of a good teacher is one who invites students into scientific exploration rather than your alternative gaps, optional belief and rote test competency method.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Yet the teacher would be accurately affirming that there are other theories that fill in some of those holes and that Intelligent Design is one of those.

Except ID is NOT a valid theory to fill in those holes in any type of scientific manner. A teacher may affirm that several unfounded crack-pot theories exist, and ID is one of them, but it is negligent to explain ID as a valid scientific alternative to a lack of information.

So.....until YOU can tell me where the material that exists in the universe originated, I will maintain that there are gaps in scientific knowledge.

There ARE gaps in scientific knowledge. That does NOT mean we should just GUESS at things we don't understand. ID is not a valid scientific alternative.

Until you can explain how it is that natural selection produced the human beings alone among all species that has any concern for other species, even species it has never experienced

False. And still irrelevant to the conversation.

And unless you can come up with something new to reinforce your side of the debate, I suggest we end this as you are now rather predictably repeating yourself

Yes, truth and logic can be consistent like that.

 

[antagon]

Yet the teacher would be accurately affirming that there are other theories that fill in some of those holes and that Intelligent Design is one of those.

Except ID is NOT a valid theory to fill in those holes in any type of scientific manner. A teacher may affirm that several unfounded crack-pot theories exist, and ID is one of them, but it is negligent to explain ID as a valid scientific alternative to a lack of information.

obviously i agree with this. i feel strongly that what a science teacher says is assumed by their students to be science. the recognition of these gap fillers in science class is misleading students into a misunderstanding of science and what is supposed to be plausible in that context.

what science does with 'gaps' aka questions, is propose theory based on what we do know. my idea of a good science teacher would be one who reinforces the role of this method. without good teaching of my flavor, science will be about memorizing theoretical history (as Foxfyre has proposed), rather than understanding the process whereby theory is derived in the first place.

 

[Foxfyre]

somehow i think the belief that "God (or whatever Deity) created the universe in seven days..." "...cannot be falsified or otherwise scientifically tested..." is central to your position and i feel these 'gaps' which you refer to may be in your own understanding.

Not central to my posiition since I can't remember EVER believing the universe was created in seven days. Nor do I believe it was the six days as stated in Genesis. (Six days, not seven. Even after I pointed out your error earlier on that, you still aren't precise.)

c'mon, this is a direct quote from one of your posts. when you pointed it out earlier, i alluded to the same.

But you alluded to something that isn't in it. That was my objection.

That passage was actually one of the more recent manuscripts included in the Old Testament. Did you know that? And it was later further clarified by revelations that a thousand years--a very VERY long time in Jewish vernacular--is but a day to the Lord. So I think I'm on pretty safe ground believing that only a small number of fundamentalists take that passage literally.

again, this was your hypothetical kid. i've never heard of these situations ever happening in a classroom. furthermore, a great deal of fundies do contend that the world is but several thousand years old. this isn't one of your gaps either.

A few 'fundies' as you call them do not speak for billions of Christians. And YOU were the one who brought up that particular passage. So if it is irrelevent to the classroom, why did you bring it up?

So.....until YOU can tell me where the material that exists in the universe originated, I will maintain that there are gaps in scientific knowledge. Until you can explain how it is that natural selection produced the human beings alone among all species that has any concern for other species, even species it has never experienced, I will maintain that there are gaps in scientific knowledge.

And unless you can come up with something new to reinforce your side of the debate, I suggest we end this as you are now rather predictably repeating yourself, making the same glaring errors, and that is requiring me to repeat myself and that is getting really REALLY boring.

these 'gaps' are severally the basis of scientific theory which aims to explain each. these theories have a basis in observation and/or physical laws we understand more intimately. a science teacher should be up on these theories on a cursory level, such that their students are familiar with what cutting edge science is about rather than merely relaying science for its longer-established theory. my idea of a good teacher is one who invites students into scientific exploration rather than your alternative gaps, optional belief and rote test competency method.

None of which answers the questions posed to you. So just admit you don't know. Admit that I.D. is at least one way to explain the gaps whether or not you or anybody else believes in I.D. And we'll be done here.

I hate circular arguments.

 

[antagon]

Fox, the rest day is part of creation, an important lesson carried through the bible with implications to the sabbath being an important part of the week. whatever your interpretation. you were the first person to mention seven days. i've only gone along with that, and i dont even think that's wrong.

for me, these aren't gaps like you contend. these are subjects of scientific theory in each of cosmology and physics, and evolutionary psychology and ethology, respectively. ID is not a plausible explanation for physical phenomena for me because irrelevant to a designer or design, everything in our universe has a physical explanation up to this point, and it is the purview of science to examine these relationships.

if ID or creation were evoked as the answer to sexual reproduction, it would not change the mechanics of that creation which we understand through science. this does not displace the possibility that this is the work of God, but it does displace the acceptibility of an argument whereby phenomena are explained through ID. ID is not an answer to a question about how the universe works. it is equivalent to a declaration that birth occurs by the graces of god, when science has explored how those graces, if they've contributed to the issue, have specifically effected reproduction.

that's what science does. that's what science classes are for. that's what science teachers ought to teach.

 

[Foxfyre]

You're repeating yourself again and again Antaon and so far have refused to directly rebut any of my arguments. So again, I get really bored repeating myself. I've spoken my opinion and have been called stupid and neg repped because I'm so 'stupid' and otherwise insulted and attacked, but so far nobody has offered any rebuttal for the points I've made.

I have no quarrel with any scientific theories out there, but the thesis of this thread is Intelligent Design and I have focused on that. When you and/or others who aren't idiots, numbnuts, or exercises in futility decide to address the points I've made about that, I'll re-engage. Until then, again, I hate circular arguments.

 

[antagon]

you've not made arguments, Foxfyre. you've stated what i consider to be falsehoods in ways which i feel to be disengenuous, and i've just pointed that out with consistency commensurate with your insistence in this sort of presentation of your case. having addressed your contentions with the position which i feel science and instructors of science are obliged to maintain, you've shifted from arguing that point to arguing that i dont have anything new to offer.

have you considered that you've not offered any substance to how you define ID or faced with my argument that ID is not an explanation of physical phenomena, that you haven't defended how it might be? i know that it might require breaking from your insistent ambiguity as to what you mean by ID, but declaring that ID could have this facility seems like an affirmation of the definition which ID originally possessed prior to your hijack. i thought there was supposed to be something different.

 

[eagleseven]

Fact is, science cannot comment on the supernatural, by definition.

Thus, you a free to hatch whatever magnificent creation stories you wish to believe regarding the creation of the universe. Just make sure that it doesn't contradict any of the known natural laws of the universe, and you're set.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZlWmYe8HM4"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZlWmYe8HM4[/ame]

 

[SmarterThanHick]

what science does with 'gaps' aka questions, is propose theory based on what we do know. my idea of a good science teacher would be one who reinforces the role of this method. without good teaching of my flavor, science will be about memorizing theoretical history (as Foxfyre has proposed), rather than understanding the process whereby theory is derived in the first place.

The explanation you provide is one of higher learning and better understanding of the methods and logic behind science; an understanding that appears to not be shared by Foxfyre, who most likely only achieved an elementary overview of science which appeared as if it was only memorized facts.

Not central to my posiition since I can't remember EVER believing the universe was created in seven days. Nor do I believe it was the six days as stated in Genesis. (Six days, not seven. Even after I pointed out your error earlier on that, you still aren't precise.)

c'mon, this is a direct quote from one of your posts. when you pointed it out earlier, i alluded to the same.

But you alluded to something that isn't in it. That was my objection.

So it's not that he was wrong, it was that in this SPECIFIC instance he alluded to something not in a quote which you previously stated. That "objection" of yours is pretty desperate.

None of which answers the questions posed to you. So just admit you don't know. Admit that I.D. is at least one way to explain the gaps whether or not you or anybody else believes in I.D. And we'll be done here.

Yes, of course ID is one way to explain a gap. The idea of space monkeys vomiting out the earth and its first life is another way to explain a gap. Note how neither is more valid than the next explanation, being that neither is based in any sound reasoning or has a lick of supporting evidence. We can make up explanations about the gaps all day long. Why should any teacher claiming to focus on science ever present such fictional creations of the imagination in a classroom?

You still haven't answered this question. You never will. In fact, you can't. So you ignore people like me and questions like that, and claim no one can present a good reason.

You're repeating yourself again and again Antaon and so far have refused to directly rebut any of my arguments. So again, I get really bored repeating myself. I've spoken my opinion and have been called stupid and neg repped because I'm so 'stupid' and otherwise insulted and attacked, but so far nobody has offered any rebuttal for the points I've made.

As stated, the rebuttal has been made and is solid. You choose to ignore it or overlook it. Perhaps if antagon makes the same exact point as I, and you are left with absolutely no one to respond to, you can continue convincing yourself that no one has presented a clear counterargument. Such is called ignorance.

 

[antagon]

even space-monkey vomit puts forward a mechanism by which the question can be explained. proposing ID is like saying 'just cuz'.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

just found this. real game. I feel enlightened.