http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

It's NOVA, so it should be good.

I'm wondering, though-- isn't this debate settled?

11/7/2007 11:49:04 PM

The problem I see with teach ID is that here in Jesusland it will be taught as the Christian God being the man behind the curtain. While I will not argue for nor against the concept of intelligence being behind the process in and of itself my contention is that the message will be heavily bias toward one religion to make all of the thumpers happy.

11/7/2007 11:57:53 PM

ID is not science and should only be taught in a science classroom as a classic example of how one does not do science under any circumstances whatsoever.

11/8/2007 12:36:48 AM

Quote :

"Judgement"

Are you British? The Bible doesn't spell the word in question that way--and it's not the preferred spelling in America--teacher. FYI.

11/8/2007 12:36:55 AM

How does that even begin to contribute to the conversation? He misspelled the word, obviously. I see no reason to get on a huge derail about it.

11/8/2007 12:38:59 AM

^ How does one post with a simple correction in it amount to a "huge derail," Captain Logic?

11/8/2007 12:44:48 AM

Well, partially through my response and then your response. I'm just saying -- what did correcting his spelling add? It's a common misspelling, and we all knew what he was talking about. I don't see how your post added any value to the thread, and now here we are.

11/8/2007 12:49:52 AM

^ A bit of a paradox, yes?

11/8/2007 12:56:06 AM

Holy shit dude,

I apologize for the typo.

11/8/2007 1:07:17 AM

damn straight motherfucker.

now GTFO.


















fucking darwinian fucks.






[Edited on November 8, 2007 at 1:20 AM. Reason : ]

11/8/2007 1:16:38 AM

 








[Edited on November 8, 2007 at 1:20 AM. Reason : ]

11/8/2007 1:18:08 AM

free thread

11/8/2007 1:57:27 AM

I think a lot of the trouble in this particular debate is that detractors lump creationists and intelligent design proponents together--this seems to have already happened here. In most cases, though, "members" of the two groups hold very different views.

11/8/2007 2:03:35 AM

That being the case, ID and creationism both share the trait that they're not scientific systems. Why should they be taught in a science classroom? It'd be like teaching poetry in math class.

11/8/2007 2:59:00 AM

this was an interesting story... from what, i think 2004? im surprised Nova is running it now.

i mean its an important issue, and i was glad to see a conservative (and religious) federal judge picked by GWB himself slap down these silly ID people. it really gave Bush a black eye for his fundamentalist base.

it was especially newsworthy here because "The Discovery Institute" is located in Seattle. they are the intellectual/academic think-tank behind the movement to force ID as a "wedge" into public school curriculum. they were providing legal assistance to the ID proponents in Dover, and elsewhere around the country.

(tangent: how is it that one of the most liberal, literate, scientific, and "godless" metropolitan areas in the country has the headquarters of the main driving force pushing creationism into public science curriculum. )

it was great fun to see the Discovery Institute spokespeople try to put a positive spin on this major loss, as they slunk back with their tails between their legs.

11/8/2007 4:15:43 AM

Quote :

"hooksaw : I think a lot of the trouble in this particular debate is that detractors lump creationists and intelligent design proponents together--this seems to have already happened here. In most cases, though, "members" of the two groups hold very different views."

On the contrary.

Quote :

"The evidence at trial demonstrates that intelligent design is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. ... [Intelligent Design] cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. --US District Court Judge John E. Jones III, Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, 2005 "

the Dover School District lost (and had to pay >$1M in expenses and damages to plaintiff) because I.D. was found to have been a "front" for inserting Creationist doctrine into public schools. It probably didn't help that they were represented by counsel from The Discovery Institute.

If you follow this issue at all, you might recall the "Wedge Strategy" -- a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, academic force behind the promotion of Intelligent Design.

from their own words, their goal is to

Quote :

""defeat [scientific] materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions," to "affirm the reality of God," and "renew" American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian values. -- Discovery Institute, The "Wedge" Document (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf) "

and here, from the guy who conceived it:

Quote :

" I'm glad for an opportunity to explain the "wedge strategy" because I conceived it. ... I thought of it this way with Darwinism. I thought my job is to be the sharp edge, to use my academic credentials and legal abilities to get some hearing for the proposition that there really is something fundamentally wrong with the Darwinian story. -- Phillip Johnson, "the Father of Intelligent Design" "

ID proponents always claim that they are just trying to posit an alternate "scientific theory" unrelated to Creationism. too bad for them, none of the facts support their contention.

11/8/2007 4:48:53 AM

^ So, since we're apparently accepting the rulings of courts on the matter of beliefs, I can use a British court's recent ruling that An Inconvenient Truth contains numerous errors and omissions and partisan political views to support my belief that Al Gore's global warming alarmism is bullshit, right?

[Edited on November 8, 2007 at 5:27 AM. Reason : .]

11/8/2007 5:27:21 AM

the argument you were making was that Intelligent Design proponents are a generally non-overlapping group with Creationists. This is not a "belief". This is either true or false. In cases of truth (or fact), yes - court rulings are perfectly acceptable to use as an argument.

In addition, you conveniently skipped over the most damning evidence in that the Discovery Institute, the leading proponent of Intelligent Design, and Phillip Johnson, the father of ID and co-founder of the Discovery Institute, are both outwardly Christian and are unabashed in spreading their Christian beliefs under the veil of "intelligent design" in an attempt to gain a wider audience. And I don't know about you or intelligent design proponents, but I would prefer not to take my talking points from a guy who doesn't even believe that HIV is the cause of AIDS.....

11/8/2007 7:54:40 AM

^^ We certainly shouldn't base anything on your poor understanding of the British court case in question, whether it be due to ignorance, stupidity, or a little of both.

11/8/2007 9:20:41 AM

hooksaw:

11/8/2007 9:45:42 AM

I listened to the podcast on this and it sounded very thoughtful.

11/8/2007 10:16:42 AM

when will the silliness end?

11/8/2007 12:25:53 PM

That's the thing--

can we pretty much call this debate finished?

I guess I was looking for a debate on whether or not there's still a debate

11/8/2007 12:31:06 PM

well, you gotta realize that hooksaw will take any topic and argue the GOP party line.

he's like salisburybot only he posts more.

11/8/2007 1:03:40 PM

Quote :

"That being the case, ID and creationism both share the trait that they're not scientific systems. Why should they be taught in a science classroom? It'd be like teaching poetry in math class."

ID belong in a science classroom as soon as a reputable scientist publishes a SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PAPER based on it. Scientists only talk about ID. They do not posit scientific research for it, against it, or because of it.

11/8/2007 1:38:47 PM

Quote :

"We certainly shouldn't base anything on your poor understanding of the British court case in question, whether it be due to ignorance, stupidity, or a little of both."

spöokyjon

Nothing I posted about the British court case at issue is incorrect. And I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Quote :

"well, you gotta realize that hooksaw will take any topic and argue the GOP party line. he's like salisburybot only he posts more."

BobbyDigital

(1) I'm not in the GOP, and (2) I vote for local and state Democrats in every election, smart guy--I've never voted a straight-party ticket in my life and I've been voting for ~20 years. I simply happen to think that national Democrats are dangerous for America on a number of fronts. Why is that so hard to understand?

And the salisburyboy shit is lame. Try to be a little more creative.

[Edited on November 8, 2007 at 2:48 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2007 2:48:18 PM

^^Nailed it. I agree completely with this assessment.

^If you've been voting for 20 years, that makes you about 40... Just wondering, but what makes a 40-year-old compelled to spend his time arguing with college-age students online? Especially trying to use such intellectual and mature arguments as "Your shit is lame."
...Oh, right, you're not going to answer that. You're just going to say I'm trolling you.

11/8/2007 3:22:47 PM

^ Most in TSB know my age, Johnny-come-lately. I changed my user info because someone on TWW tried to get me in trouble on my job as a TA--but it didn't work. Ha-ha!

Don't worry, though, I will hold your youth and experience against you only a little. The pwnts will sting, but they're for your own good.

[Edited on November 8, 2007 at 3:31 PM. Reason : ]

11/8/2007 3:30:27 PM

good job at avoiding your main contention in this whole thread

11/8/2007 4:05:12 PM

Ive been voting since the early 90's, mister rusty tromboner so step off us old guys' nuts, aight?




[Edited on November 8, 2007 at 4:15 PM. Reason : ]

11/8/2007 4:14:49 PM

Quote :

"ID belong in a science classroom as soon as a reputable scientist publishes a SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PAPER based on it. Scientists only talk about ID. They do not posit scientific research for it, against it, or because of it."

Quote :

"tromboner950: Nailed it. I agree completely with this assessment."

There's the position. Got one in favor. If you can't respond to this then you have no business posting in this thread. Go flame in here:

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=500208

11/8/2007 6:33:55 PM

I like how Ken Miller (a Biologist who believes in God) described science vs. religion,

Quote :

" "That is that science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we see in the natural world..." "...What religion, I think is, in a certain sense, is the attempt to account for the world which we see in terms that transcend the natural. In other words, in terms that include the natural world, but enclose it in a kind of a spiritual world view. This makes religion, I think, fundamentally a different kind of intellectual exercise from science.""

I agree with this stance.

You can listen to his statement here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defi-miller01.html

Or read the whole interview here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defense-ev.html

11/8/2007 8:24:01 PM

You know we try to seperate Church and State.

If we could only seperate Education and State, these kinds of gov't problems would go away.

11/8/2007 8:28:13 PM

so then you'd be up for each school creating its own curriculum? Christians get creationism, other's get science?

11/8/2007 8:37:19 PM

^
Each school enters the marketplace. Those which teach things that are valued will be successful. Those who produce human derelicts, unable to read or reason...unable to get through life without gov't welfare- will go out of business.

11/8/2007 9:55:12 PM

it's clear that learning Creationism over Evolution is not an "essential" part of getting an overall successful education, going to college, getting a job, etc. Otherwise, existing private schools wouldn't even exist.

but at some point, there needs to be some kind of overriding regulation and uniformity in what kids are taught. There is an overriding consensus in the education community of what constitutes "science". Like i've said, it is clear that one is able to grow up without ever being exposed to some aspects of scientific fact and theory and still be successful, but that doesn't mean there should be free reign to teach kids whatever crap each small-town school principle feels is right.

11/8/2007 10:14:42 PM

^
Let the marketplace work. Let parents choose the school that they feel will give their kids the best chance for success in life. Schools will market themselves to attract parents. The overriding regulation you seek will be the invisible hand of competition.

The problem with education today is too much uniformity. Gov't has a hard time providing services based on an single individual's needs. It naturally tries to lump everyone into easily tabulated and regulated groups.

Free-market schools will tailor their programs to fit their target parent consumer. Some schools will produce critically-minded scientists with no time for religious fantasy... While others produce theologians whose minds are filled with God's wonder and spirit. ... While still other schools produce a mix.

11/8/2007 10:36:46 PM

Yes the debate is settled. No need to question your faith. Scepticism has no place in science which is about hard inarguable facts. [/sarcasm][/thread]

11/8/2007 11:03:08 PM

Non-science should not be taught in a science class.
ID is not science.
-----------------
ID should not be taught in a science class.

Now how do I draw a little box on this thing?

11/8/2007 11:04:41 PM

Well I'm glad you know the definition of science mr. danger. I thought it wasn't so clear. But if you wish to resort to an argument of demarcation who am I to question you?

11/8/2007 11:28:46 PM

I'm curious which skeptical bullshit argument you're going to resort to this time? It's hilarious how Christians and conservatives always are the ones to break out skepticism when they always pretend to be the most straight-forward, practical thinkers.

ID doesn't follow scientific method. It has no predictive power. It cannot be experimentally tested.

It generates no claims that are of any worth to science. It's based on objecting to evolutionary theory (by pointing out the flaws in it, as if any field of science should be perfect -- we could point out the current flaws in physics all day) and then appealing to "the best explanation" after that's said and done -- which the ID theorist simply assumes to be ID.

How the fuck is this remotely a science? It's a load of bullshit generated by people like you to push your hackneyed theology onto school kids that really deserve better.

11/9/2007 7:20:02 AM

It's not Science dude, it's the truth.

11/9/2007 7:22:08 AM

Quote :

"Nothing I posted about the British court case at issue is incorrect. And I challenge you to prove otherwise."

You said:

Quote :

"I can use a British court's recent ruling that An Inconvenient Truth contains numerous errors and omissions and partisan political views to support my belief that Al Gore's global warming alarmism is bullshit, right?"

The actual judgment of the court case concluded:

Quote :

"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."

Keep in mind that the aim of the court case in question was to BAN An Inconvenient Truth from schools. The person behind the case, Stuart Dimmock, LOST in court.

Again, from the judge's ruling:

Quote :

" Mr Downes [the attorney for the plaintiff] produced a long schedule of such alleged errors or exaggerations and waxed lyrical in that regard. It was obviously helpful for me to look at the film with his critique in hand. In the event I was persuaded that only some of them were sufficiently persuasive to be relevant for the purposes of his argument, and it was those matters - 9 in all - upon which I invited Mr Chamberlain to concentrate. It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the 'errors' in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407. All these 9 'errors' that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by reference to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott."

Note that when the judge is discussing the matter from a legal standpoint, the word "errors" is in quotation marks. The reason why this is the case is because the judge isn't a scientist, and, as he said, he is in no way making a scientific judgment on the matter.

From http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing.php

Quote :

"So what is Burton assessing in his judgement? Well, s407 says that where political issues are involved there should be "a balanced presentation of opposing views" so Burton states that the government should make it clear when "there is a view to the contrary, i.e. (at least) the mainstream view". Burton calls these "errors or departures from the mainstream". So contrary to all the reporters' claims Burton did not find that there were 9 scientific errors in AIT, but that there were nine points that might be errors or where differing views should be presented for balance."

Now, we all know that science is liberally biased, but if you click on the link you can see the point-by-point analysis of the nine "errors".

This story was vastly misreported and misrepresented by the media, so I really can't hold it against anybody for not being fully informed on the matter. Now that you are, though--assuming you read my post or the material linked--you really have no excuse to continue with your line of reasoning on this matter.

11/9/2007 11:43:40 AM

^^^ You are no less faithful in your hackneyed antitheism, Captain Logic.

^ Wrong.

Pinocchio Time for Al Gore

Quote :

"The first point to make is that I am unimpressed by ad hominem attacks of the kind that Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider engaged in above. So what if the plaintiff in the British case was 'funded by...fossil fuel interests' or Gore has 'ties' to the environmental lobby? What has that got to do with a factual debate about the accuracy of specific statements in a movie? In this case, it is doubly irrelevant--unless you believe that the judge is also the tool of 'fossil fuel interests.'"

Quote :

"Onto the matter at hand. Contrary to Kreider's assertion, the judge did talk about 'errors' in the Gore movie, and did not always put quotation marks around the word error, as some readers maintained [emphasis added]. See points 18 and 19 in his judgment available in full here. In deciding that the movie could be shown in British schools, he agreed that Gore's presentation was 'broadly accurate.' At the same time, he insisted on new teacher guidance, including the following points [emphasis added]: [The movie] promotes partisan political views (that is to say, one-sided views about political issues); Teaching staff must be careful to ensure that they do not themselves promote those views; In order to make sure of that, they should take care to help pupils examine the scientific evidence critically (rather than simply accepting what is said at face value) and to point out where Gore's view may be inaccurate or departs from that of mainstream scientific opinion; For full teacher guidance on the movie, see here. http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/sustainableschools/upload/The%20climate%20change%20film%20pack%20-%20Guidance%20for%20teaching%20staff.pdf There is little to be gained re-examining each and every disputed point in An Inconvenient Truth. By the Gore camp's own admission, some scenes in the movie have been over-simplified. As Kreider points out, science does not transfer easily to the big screen. Scientists sympathetic to Gore have effectively conceded several errors or omissions in the movie [emphasis added]: The 'evacuation' of Pacific atolls. Kreider acknowledges that the wording of the movie, implying the wholesale evacuation of some communities to New Zealand, was 'unfortunate.' As supporting evidence, she cited a 2005 report by the United Nations Environment Program of a 'small community' on the Pacific island of Vanuatu. The only report that we have been able to find from this date states that the islanders were relocated 'higher into the interior' after their coastal homes were repeatedly swamped by storm surges and aggressive waves linked with climate change. A later news report spoke of some Tuvalans moving to New Zealand 'for many reasons - better jobs, college, overcrowding on the islands - and to escape what many see as a threat of sea level rise, caused by global warming.' The melting of snow on Kilimanjaro and the drying up of Lake Chad. Gore supporters concede that neither of these phenomena have been conclusively linked to global warming. Jonathan Foley, a climatologist at the University of Wisconsin who has studied Lake Chad extensively and admires Gore's work on climate change, said the primary explanation for the disappearance of the lake appeared to be regional climate cycles exacerbated by local irrigation practices. He said that the cycles of drought and heavy rain had been going on for 'hundreds of years,' and appeared unrelated to global warming. See his 2001 report here. Drowning polar bears. Gore cited a scientific study showing that polar bears had drowned by 'swimming long distances--up to 60 miles--to find the ice.' According to Andrew Derocher, chair of the polar bear group at the World Conservation Union, studies show that there is a good chance that the polar bears died by drowning but no definitive proof. Storms and hypothermia are other major concerns."

Quote :

"In their zeal to draw attention to the cause, even Nobel peace prize laureates can make mistakes or shade the truth a little. I award Al Gore one Pinocchio."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/pinocchio_time_for_al_gore_1.html

PWNT. In any event, no matter what left-wing blather you an others here spew, I will continue to hold my viewpoint and make it known.

Quote :

"Now, we all know that science is liberally biased. . . ."

spöokyjon

Yes--you've pinpointed the problem.

[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 12:06 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2007 11:46:07 AM

Quote :

"^^^ You are no less faithful in your hackneyed antitheism, Captain Logic."

What the hell does this even mean? Also, how the hell does opposing non-science being taught in a science class room make me an anti-theist, by any stretch of the imagination?

11/9/2007 2:31:24 PM

Quote :

"What the hell does this even mean? Also, how the hell does opposing non-science being taught in a science class room make me an anti-theist, by any stretch of the imagination? "

We see your point

11/9/2007 3:34:51 PM

Is your point that I'm going to hell for wanting to uphold standards?

11/9/2007 3:35:52 PM

No, I absolutely agree with your stance. Science and religion are two different exercises. To be fair, both science and religion should be allowed to be taught in schools. In different classes of course. It was just funny that you referenced a religious location in your reply after making anti-religious comments (i.e. Hell).

[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 3:39 PM. Reason : The bad place]

11/9/2007 3:39:15 PM

How do you construe my comments as anti-religious?

11/9/2007 4:03:12 PM

Quote :

"I'm curious which skeptical bullshit argument you're going to resort to this time? It's hilarious how Christians and conservatives always are the ones to break out skepticism when they always pretend to be the most straight-forward, practical thinkers. How the fuck is this remotely a science? It's a load of bullshit generated by people like you to push your hackneyed theology onto school kids that really deserve better."

11/9/2007 4:06:16 PM