Author Topic: Public Charter Schools Teaching Creationism And Right-Wing Propaganda In Texas  (Read 13123 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male

How does teaching a Hindu myth have anything to do with teaching Intelligent Design? ID is not a religion. Strange analogy.

Who are you kidding? One of the significant facts discovered during the Dover Trial was that the Creationist textbook, 'Of Pandas and People' was merely edited to become an Intelligent DesignWiki textbook by changing each mention of god with designer and so on.  There can be no doubt that the whole purpose of ID was to try and evade the rules that banned creationism in US schools. It was designed (pun intended) to replace the teaching of creationism (a clearly religious idea) but retain the concepts of creationism. Why else keep a creationist textbook save for a few word changes?
« Last Edit: February 12, 2014, 03:40:34 PM by wheels5894 »
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Online SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.

Excellent! So you would support equal teaching of various other creation myths... say the Hindu myth or any of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths ? Now there are quite a lot of them, so, say, 3 a week and the Judeo-Christian creation myth would be no more or less prominent than any of the others?

I agree. Teach the controversy! The controversy is that only one creation myth is taught.

How does teaching a Hindu myth have anything to do with teaching Intelligent Design? ID is not a religion. Strange analogy.

In my opinion, ID is precisely a religion pretending to not be a religion.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2014, 04:18:20 PM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4773
  • Darwins +546/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
How does teaching a Hindu myth have anything to do with teaching Intelligent Design? ID is not a religion. Strange analogy.
Intelligent design isn't itself a religion.  However, it is religious; it's an adjunct to Christianity, specifically the Biblical literalism of many Protestant sects.  The pretense that it is not is so threadbare that it doesn't even serve as a fig leaf anymore.  Look at who primarily pushes intelligent design - the Discovery Institute, a Christian think tank.  They freely acknowledge that they're basing their position on Judeo-Christian culture, which essentially means Christianity.  They even specifically talk about "the reality of God" and pushing ethics based on the Judeo-Christian mindset.

Intelligent design is a re-envisioning of Christian creationism, an attempt to do an end run around the separation of church and state principle so that they can teach an essentially religious belief in taxpayer-funded public school classrooms.  It may not push any one specific creation myth (unlike, say, Ken Ham), but it is pretty clearly predicated on the Christian belief system.  More to the point, it isn't a scientific theory in the first place, because it makes no real effort to explain the origins of life using the scientific method.  It simply dresses up "God did it" in language that is intentionally vague, to make it look like it isn't actually a religious belief.

Ask yourself this, BibleStudent.  If intelligent design isn't a religious belief, how come everyone who supports it is?

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Ask yourself this, BibleStudent.  If intelligent design isn't a religious belief, how come everyone who supports it is?

The answer to that is quite simple. Intelligent Design Theory does an excellent job of scientifically demonstrating how a Designer could be the cause of the beginning of life.

Why would individuals who have written off any hope of discovering a Creator be interested in supporting it?

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1712
  • Darwins +181/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Intelligent Design Theory does an excellent job of scientifically demonstrating how a Designer could be the cause of the beginning of life.

It does no such thing, as has been repeatedly explained to you throughout this thread.
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Intelligent Design Theory does an excellent job of scientifically demonstrating how a Designer could be the cause of the beginning of life.

It does no such thing, as has been repeatedly explained to you throughout this thread.

That is not an accurate assessment. I provided an example in post #69 of IDT as science and there were some rather feeble attempts to tear it down..... but certainly nothing that clearly made it an unscientific endeavor. 

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Ask yourself this, BibleStudent.  If intelligent design isn't a religious belief, how come everyone who supports it is?

The answer to that is quite simple. Intelligent Design Theory does an excellent job of scientifically demonstrating how a Designer could be the cause of the beginning of life.

Why would individuals who have written off any hope of discovering a Creator be interested in supporting it?

Have you read what we posted? ID is a cover for creationism - don't be fooled.

Meanwhile, why not try some work on the topic yourself and report back? We need to know the following to take your claims seriously -

1. ID currently only makes claims that something or other in nature could not have evolved. It doesn't explain anything. I think we need to know how this whole design process was done - i.e. why is there some wonderfully intricate 'designs' inside cells yet humans, from a design point of view are a mess. The same applies down to the smallest viruses. How do you suppose the design process went along?

2. Identify a designer - no, I don't mean pop into Genesis and pick a name! I mean use the evidence that is carefully researched to work back to find out who did it.

Let us know when you can answer the above with evidence and not guesses  and we will have something to talk about.

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1941
  • Darwins +347/-7
  • Ex-rosary squad
That is not an accurate assessment. I provided an example in post #69 of IDT as science and there were some rather feeble attempts to tear it down..... but certainly nothing that clearly made it an unscientific endeavor.

Could you post a direct link to that post?  I just want to make sure that we're all clear on which one you're referring to.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Look, Biblestudent, you are looking at the school text book, These are books for teenagers not for graduates. There is no way the such a book can go into all the intricacies of assessing the details in the family tree of life. Your first suggestion of an error turned out to be nothing more than nit-picking.

Nit-picking? The book clearly conveyed that snakes evolved from lizards. It was not stated as a likelihood or a possibility. It said it has been proven. That is false and misleading.....which seems acceptable to you yet you will take exception to Responsive Ed teaching alleged inaccuracies and lies? Do you see what I'm getting at here?



You say false and misleading. How would you phrase the text to make it fit your view of things? It is going to have to be a very few changes but have a go.

I simply would have presented it as a popular hypotheses.

Quote
While you are at it, please state some prediction made by ID theory.

Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):
(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).
(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.
(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.
(4) Much so-called "junk DNA" will turn out to perform valuable functions.

http://www.evolutionnews.org

This doesn't answer anything mentioned to you recently, Biblestudent
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1712
  • Darwins +181/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
That is not an accurate assessment. I provided an example in post #69 of IDT as science and there were some rather feeble attempts to tear it down..... but certainly nothing that clearly made it an unscientific endeavor.

Could you post a direct link to that post?  I just want to make sure that we're all clear on which one you're referring to.
Seconded. Please link.
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
This is the post I am referring to:


Look, Biblestudent, you are looking at the school text book, These are books for teenagers not for graduates. There is no way the such a book can go into all the intricacies of assessing the details in the family tree of life. Your first suggestion of an error turned out to be nothing more than nit-picking.

Nit-picking? The book clearly conveyed that snakes evolved from lizards. It was not stated as a likelihood or a possibility. It said it has been proven. That is false and misleading.....which seems acceptable to you yet you will take exception to Responsive Ed teaching alleged inaccuracies and lies? Do you see what I'm getting at here?



You say false and misleading. How would you phrase the text to make it fit your view of things? It is going to have to be a very few changes but have a go.

I simply would have presented it as a popular hypotheses.

Quote
While you are at it, please state some prediction made by ID theory.

Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):
(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).
(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.
(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.
(4) Much so-called "junk DNA" will turn out to perform valuable functions.

http://www.evolutionnews.org


Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12224
  • Darwins +268/-31
  • Gender: Male
They have to be "predictions" that are somehow different from what we'd expect if the organisms had come about naturally.  Otherwise, you might as well also include the prediction that "the designed organism will reside on Earth", too.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2014, 05:51:59 PM by Azdgari »
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1712
  • Darwins +181/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
This is the post I am referring to:


Look, Biblestudent, you are looking at the school text book, These are books for teenagers not for graduates. There is no way the such a book can go into all the intricacies of assessing the details in the family tree of life. Your first suggestion of an error turned out to be nothing more than nit-picking.

Nit-picking? The book clearly conveyed that snakes evolved from lizards. It was not stated as a likelihood or a possibility. It said it has been proven. That is false and misleading.....which seems acceptable to you yet you will take exception to Responsive Ed teaching alleged inaccuracies and lies? Do you see what I'm getting at here?



You say false and misleading. How would you phrase the text to make it fit your view of things? It is going to have to be a very few changes but have a go.

I simply would have presented it as a popular hypotheses.

Quote
While you are at it, please state some prediction made by ID theory.

Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):
(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).
(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.
(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.
(4) Much so-called "junk DNA" will turn out to perform valuable functions.

http://www.evolutionnews.org

Oh I see. So you believe the numerous responses that explained why you are wrong in calling this "science" are feeble? In that case...
Intelligent Design Theory does an excellent job of scientifically demonstrating how a Designer could be the cause of the beginning of life.

It does no such thing, as has been repeatedly explained to you throughout this thread.

...I rest my case.

This is why it's all but impossible to talk to creationists about science - you folks have no idea what you are arguing against, particularly regarding the scientific method and what the ToE actually claims.

And you're also applying "survival of the fittest" incorrectly.
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Have you read what we posted? ID is a cover for creationism - don't be fooled.

I am not fooled. I know precisely what I am talking about.

Quote
Meanwhile, why not try some work on the topic yourself and report back? We need to know the following to take your claims seriously -

1. ID currently only makes claims that something or other in nature could not have evolved. It doesn't explain anything. I think we need to know how this whole design process was done - i.e. why is there some wonderfully intricate 'designs' inside cells yet humans, from a design point of view are a mess. The same applies down to the smallest viruses. How do you suppose the design process went along?

I don't know how the "design process went along." I only know that ID provides a more plausible explanation for how life began.

Quote
2. Identify a designer - no, I don't mean pop into Genesis and pick a name! I mean use the evidence that is carefully researched to work back to find out who did it.

While ID does not posit a specific creator, I believe it was the Christian God of the Bible and I have already described in a previous post how I reached this conclusion. You can go back and read it again if you'd like.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
...I rest my case.

This is why it's all but impossible to talk to creationists about science - you folks have no idea what you are arguing against, particularly regarding the scientific method and what the ToE actually claims.

And you're also applying "survival of the fittest" incorrectly.
Quote
Oh I see. So you believe the numerous responses that explained why you are wrong in calling this "science" are feeble? In that case...

What I received was responses based on individual interpretations of what science is and what science does. No one cited where these so-called boundaries (demarcation) originate from. In other words, technically speaking, the scientific method is being employed by IDT but being disregarded as pseudoscience based on what amounts to nothing more than personal opinions. It is simply not possible to invalidate IDT as science because it follows all of the rules.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2014, 05:20:06 PM by BibleStudent »

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
They have to be "predictions" that are somehow different from what we'd expect if they organisms had come about naturally.  Otherwise, you might as well also include the prediction that "the designed organism will reside on Earth", too.

Why would the predictions have to be different? I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at here.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
They have to be "predictions" that are somehow different from what we'd expect if they organisms had come about naturally.  Otherwise, you might as well also include the prediction that "the designed organism will reside on Earth", too.

Why would the predictions have to be different? I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at here.

Prediction of something you already know is not prediction. All 4 of your so-called predictions are, in fact, already known. Its the equivalent to predicting the lottery numbers a hour after the draw!

Predictions have to be something we don't know and then have to be tested. ID makes a prediction that there is a designer. Finding evidence that there is a designer - i.e evidence of the existence of one - would make a great start. No jumps to faith though - it needs evidence.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline RED_ApeTHEIST

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 77
  • Darwins +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Hyperintelligent Orangutan
I don't know how the "design process went along." I only know that ID provides a more plausible explanation for how life began.

What is ID more plausible than, and how is it more plausible? You do realize that "we don't know" is a viable answer, right? Plausible doesn't mean correct.


The relevant equation is: Knowledge = power = energy = matter = mass; a good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows how to read." - Terry Pratchet

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
I don't know how the "design process went along." I only know that ID provides a more plausible explanation for how life began.

What is ID more plausible than, and how is it more plausible? You do realize that "we don't know" is a viable answer, right? Plausible doesn't mean correct.

See my post #152.

Online SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Oh I see. So you believe the numerous responses that explained why you are wrong in calling this "science" are feeble? In that case...

What I received was responses based on individual interpretations of what science is and what science does. No one cited where these so-called boundaries (demarcation) originate from. In other words, technically speaking, the scientific method is being employed by IDT but being disregarded as pseudoscience based on what amounts to nothing more than personal opinions. It is simply not possible to invalidate IDT as science because it follows all of the rules.

It has been thoroughly explained to you that "Intelligent Design" does not follow the rules.  ID fails to use its own definitions properly, and is specifically tailored to trick you.  See my reply #280 for all of the details.



"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 520
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
What I received was responses based on individual interpretations of what science is and what science does. No one cited where these so-called boundaries (demarcation) originate from. In other words, technically speaking, the scientific method is being employed by IDT but being disregarded as pseudoscience based on what amounts to nothing more than personal opinions. It is simply not possible to invalidate IDT as science because it follows all of the rules.

Look, ignoring his strawman atheist, even Matt Slick - a prominent Christian apologist - understands what science entails:

http://carm.org/atheist-error-asking-for-material-evidence-for-god

The scientific method is philosophically based on methodological naturalism. ID violates that philosophy with a supernatural "conclusion" which cannot be falsified. By all means you can continue to throw your blanket over this and totally ignore it, but this is what science is based on, like it or lump it.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Look, ignoring his strawman atheist, even Matt Slick - a prominent Christian apologist - understands what science entails:

http://carm.org/atheist-error-asking-for-material-evidence-for-god

The scientific method is philosophically based on methodological naturalism. ID violates that philosophy with a supernatural "conclusion" which cannot be falsified. By all means you can continue to throw your blanket over this and totally ignore it, but this is what science is based on, like it or lump it.

Kindly explain how any theory relating to abiogenesis is any more scientific than IDT.

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 520
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Look, ignoring his strawman atheist, even Matt Slick - a prominent Christian apologist - understands what science entails:

http://carm.org/atheist-error-asking-for-material-evidence-for-god

The scientific method is philosophically based on methodological naturalism. ID violates that philosophy with a supernatural "conclusion" which cannot be falsified. By all means you can continue to throw your blanket over this and totally ignore it, but this is what science is based on, like it or lump it.

Kindly explain how any theory relating to abiogenesis is any more scientific than IDT.

Because the conclusions are based on naturalistic explanations.

Regardless of this, not one scientific theory relating to abiogenesis eliminates ID.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Online SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 703
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.

Kindly explain how any theory relating to abiogenesis is any more scientific than IDT.

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, not a theory.  Abiogenesis hypotheses use the scientific method.  Intelligent Design does not use the scientific method.

Again, it has been explained to you that Intelligent Design does not use the scientific method.  See my reply #280 for details.

EDIT:

Furthermore, why do you keep insisting that Intelligent Design is a theory?  You have offered no evidence that Intelligent Deisgn uses the scientific method properly or that it is a theory.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2014, 06:04:48 PM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12224
  • Darwins +268/-31
  • Gender: Male
They have to be "predictions" that are somehow different from what we'd expect if they organisms had come about naturally.  Otherwise, you might as well also include the prediction that "the designed organism will reside on Earth", too.

Why would the predictions have to be different? I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at here.

Because if ID doesn't predict any details that aren't covered by present theories, then it's not explaining anything any better than present theories.  It brings nothing to the table.  It is empty.  That was my point with the "organism will reside on Earth" part.  We could add "the organisms will be Carbon-based" as well.  That wouldn't be a relevant prediction, either, so it would fit right into your list as well.

Here's an example of what I mean, with flat-Earthism.  As a scientific hypothesis[1], it predicts that we can walk along the surface of the Earth as though it were flat.  But the competing "round-Earth" hypothesis also predicts that we should be able to walk along the Earth as though it were flat.  So the prediction of being able to walk on a fairly flat surface of the Earth isn't a useful prediction in favor of flat-Earthism.

Let's say someone makes the further hypothesis, and reasoning, of how a round Earth means that other celestial bodies should also usually appear to be spheroids - expanding the model.  Nothing in flat-Earthism says that other celestial objects can't be spheroids, but it's certainly not a prediction of that model or anything that comes from it.  So this would be a case where the round-Earth model predicts things about the universe that the flat-Earth model does not.  This ends up being a point in its favor.

That's why a theoretical model making unique predictions is important.  If its predictions are not unique, then they don't belong to that model - they instead belong to some other more general one that encompasses both it and the models that are competing with it.  In my example, "ability to walk in a straight line" is a prediction that belongs to neither the round-Earth model nor to the flat-Earth model; it could be said to belong to a "large surface" model that is more general and encompasses both the other models.[2]
 1. Disregarding for the moment the fact that it's been falsified; the fact that it's been proven false isn't relevant to my point.
 2. The "large surface" model in this case would simply be, "the Earth is really big, regardless of its shape".
« Last Edit: February 12, 2014, 06:07:16 PM by Azdgari »
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79

Kindly explain how any theory relating to abiogenesis is any more scientific than IDT.

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, not a theory.  Abiogenesis hypotheses use the scientific method.  Intelligent Design does not use the scientific method.

Again, it has been explained to you that Intelligent Design does not use the scientific method.  See my reply #280 for details.

EDIT:

Furthermore, why do you keep insisting that Intelligent Design is a theory?  You have offered no evidence that Intelligent Deisgn uses the scientific method properly or that it is a theory.

Regarding abiogenesis, what is the 'observation'?

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Because if ID doesn't predict any details that aren't covered by present theories, then it's not explaining anything any better than present theories.

What "present theories" are you referring to that provides us with a basis for the origin of life?

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12224
  • Darwins +268/-31
  • Gender: Male
Regarding abiogenesis, what is the 'observation'?

Abiogenic production of amino acids in the lab is but one of them.  It demonstrates that there is a set of mechanisms by which the building blocks of life can come about naturally.

What is the mechanism proposed by ID?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12224
  • Darwins +268/-31
  • Gender: Male
What "present theories" are you referring to that provides us with a basis for the origin of life?

I'm not talking about that, specifically, in my post.  I was talking about the origin of species.  The whole of natural science has a pretty coherent model for how that happened, in the context of Earth's geological history.

For the origin-point of biological activity on Earth, prevailing models are chemical.  They don't have a lot of predictions yet, but one they share is that amino acids and other organic components should be able to be produced abiogenically (they can be).  This is a prediction not contradicted, but also not made, by ID.

Care to address the rest of my post?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.