JUGGERNAUT Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Open Minded Intelligence in the classroom: including science that has been for the large part validated by the vast majority of scienticians across the globe. Closed Minded Intelligence in the classroom: presenting "scientific theories" that have very little science to back it up and has been repudiated by the scientific community in general as an equally valid option in a "debate" that frankly doesn't exist in the scientician community. And you call yourself a teacher? Do you know what Intelligent Design is rooted in? Physics & Mathematics. It's rooted in probabilities, statistics & numerical analysis of physics based data on the creation & evolution of the Universe. Now if you didn't know that, I pity your students. ID has nothing to do with religion. It's the math that proves evolution to be very weak (in some areas) & it's the math that makes alternative explanations more accurate in the models. Close-minded: teaching a theory of the Universe ignorant of the math behind it. Open-minded: teaching theories of the Universe consistent with the math behind it. Should I direct you to math & physics links so that you may expand your knowledge & increase your intelligence on the subject? FSJ: The testing & standards imposed upon schools was simply a logical response to the fact that enough tougher standards imposed on schools in Japan, S Korea, Singapore, India, Thailand, Taiwan, China, Hong Kong, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, & England are producing more productive & more capable students than the US. You had 30+ years of freedom in how you wanted to teach. It helped lead to a trade deficit that is approaching 1/2 a trillion a year. Play time is over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 I'm sorry but I can't buy your argument. You are essentially it is right to offend 99% of the people in order to be satisfy the needs of 1%. It's ridiculous to suggest that the 1% feels any stronger about their faith than the 99%. And there is nothing about our being a republic that suggests that such censorship is reaosnable or desireable. It is more desireable & reasonable of the 1% to respect the needs of the 99% over their own. That's called being kind, respectful of others, good-natured, good-willed, well-manned, polite, & charitable. I would tell you that a true student of Muslim/Jewish/Buddhist/Hindu/Zoroastrian would be mindful of the tenets of their faith & show respect to the overwhelming majority faith in the class. I guess this is where we disagree. You feel that "compelled activity" constitutes freedom and that "non-compelled activity" constitutes censorship. Not starting the day with publicly led Christian prayer is not censorship. You seem to be confusing that an awful lot. Compelling people who don't agree with your practices and beliefs to participate in them is not acceptable under any circumstances in a social, community project or activity, such as the publicly funded education of a republic's citizens. If a mostly muslim public school had its students observe the various calls to prayers throughout the school day, and asked the Christian kids to sit silently and respectfully through this - there would be outrage by the same folk who find it outrageous that those non-Christian students of a school might not find it a proper use of their time or day to pray to a God that they simply don't believe in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 open-minded intelligence: Darwin's natural selection theory has it's strengths & weaknesses as a tool for describing cross-generational change among species. It stands alone on it's strengths but there are stronger alternative explanations with respect to it's weaknesses. Those are rooted in physics, philosophy, & metaphysics. close-minded intelligence: Darwin's natural selection theory is the de-facto standard & anything alternative explanations or theories are ridiculous. The big sleight-of-hand trick the Creation 'scientists' like to pull is to poke holes in classical Darwinian evolutionary theory. Well, consider that Origin Of Species was published in 1859, and the core arguments it contains were developed two decades before that (Darwin respectfully waited for the Beagle's Captain, Fitzroy, to pass on before publishing his treatise because of the strong Christian/Creationist beliefs of this good friend). By comparison, how would you like to check into a surgical ward at a hospital that follows procedures set forth befor the Civil War?!? Darwin's theories represent the beginning and not the end. Creationists would be at least approaching a level playing field if they would debate the merite of Neo-Darwinism - which is Darwin plus Mendellian inheritance mechanisms at a mechanims, and Darwin + Mendel + Dobzhanski + Goldberg + Wright + a half-dozen other seminal minds who refined the science. If they ever bother to look at the molecular and genomic evidence of the last 30 years they would be absolutely sunk - and so they don't. How hard is it to find shortcomings in anything espoused 150 years ago. Not that hard, obviously, because even the Creation 'scientists' have managed to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 And you call yourself a teacher? Do you know what Intelligent Design is rooted in? Physics & Mathematics. It's rooted in probabilities, statistics & numerical analysis of physics based data on the creation & evolution of the Universe. Now if you didn't know that, I pity your students. ID has nothing to do with religion. It's the math that proves evolution to be very weak (in some areas) & it's the math that makes alternative explanations more accurate in the models. Close-minded: teaching a theory of the Universe ignorant of the math behind it. Open-minded: teaching theories of the Universe consistent with the math behind it. Should I direct you to math & physics links so that you may expand your knowledge & increase your intelligence on the subject? Actually, I call myself a salesman. Because I'm not a teacher. But from Wikipedia, here's ID in a nutshell Intelligent design (ID) is the claim that empirical evidence points to the conclusion that life on earth was deliberately designed by an intelligent agent. The phrase "Intelligent Design," was first widely publicized by legal scholar Phillip E. Johnson in his 1991 book Darwin on Trial, though earlier references can be found in creationist literature. Johnson's argument, and a key tenet of the ID movement, is that philosophical naturalism is false. The ID movement presents a case for "reasonable doubt" about the standard scientific model of evolution by natural selection. ID includes arguments that abiogenesis is impossible, that evolution cannot account for the complexity of life, particularly irreducible complexity, and that the universe is "fine tuned" for living things in a manner that must have been by design, though ID makes no explicit claims about the identity of the intelligent designer, its motives, or methods of operation. ID proponents argue that it is reasonable to infer intelligent causes when natural laws and causes provide no satisfactory explanation for how things have come about. The overwhelming majority of professional scientists reject the ID arguments; organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences and the National Center for Science Education characterize ID as pseudoscience. When you look at the fact that ID is not in fact an actual testable theory, that makes it, by definition, not really scientific. It's instead, more of a philosophy. They have classes for philosophy. I think they're called philosophy. The theory of evolution is backed by scientists and data. The theory of ID is back by politicians, conservative theologians and a few pop science books which contain largely debunked material. I'd rather my kids learn what scientists learn in their science classes. Let them learn what others think in Social Studies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Do you know what Intelligent Design is rooted in? Physics & Mathematics. It's rooted in probabilities, statistics & numerical analysis of physics based data on the creation & evolution of the Universe. No. It is rooted on a fallback foot-in-the-door strategy conceived by the Creationists who never could ram their dreck past the Supreme Court and into the classrooms. It is essentially Creationism without naming the Creator - simply saying that, 'the universe is so b****ing it simply HAD to have been the product of rational design, but gosh, we're not suggesting who the architect of that plan might be... (wink wink)' And of course it is all hogwash. Statistics falls sqarely on the side of those who think that 4+ billion years and trillions upon trillions of imperfectly replicating cells is more than adequate to stack up some measure of organic differentiation and diversification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Not starting the day with publicly led Christian prayer is not censorship. Yes it is. You are making a judgement based on your personal bias that ultimately restricts the free speech & free assembly rights of the majority of persons affected. That is the difference between us. I view censorship as restricting those freedoms of any person. I measure the impact of that censorship by the number of people it affects. It matters to me not what that freedom is. For example: Suppose there is a school in a town where the majority believe that the creator is an alien from a different dimension. Suppose that believe is so strong that they choose to begin each day with some acknowledgement of that belief. Let's suppose a Christian family moves to that school district. Should that child have the right to censor the custom of that school? The answer is no. So what options does the kid have? Arrive late, participate out of respect to the class, town, & school, asked to be excused during the custom, home school, & long distance learning. With that many options there is no dire need to censor the custom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 No. It is rooted on a fallback foot-in-the-door strategy conceived by the Creationists who never could ram their dreck past the Supreme Court and into the classrooms. It is essentially Creationism without naming the Creator - simply saying that, 'the universe is so b****ing it simply HAD to have been the product of rational design, but gosh, we're not suggesting who the architect of that plan might be... (wink wink)' And of course it is all hogwash. Statistics falls sqarely on the side of those who think that 4+ billion years and trillions upon trillions of imperfectly replicating cells is more than adequate to stack up some measure of organic differentiation and diversification. Let me see here. I have one person referring to Wikpedia as the de-facto source of Intelligent Design & I have the other person demonstrating absolutely ZERO understanding of the mathematics behind the Universe. Ok. I'm done. The bias is clear. There is no point in debating the math & science because it's clear they are not open to understanding it. I suggest both of you go to your public libary & look up intelligent design under the study of mathematics & physics. Of course if you're really not interested than I can provide you links to papers on the subject that have both accreditation & approval of their respective communities. Why don't you just visit Sciencedaily.com & look it up? Oh, I forgot. Your so open-minded that you have no read to continue learning. Really if you're going to teach or debate issues of science you really should increase your knowledge of the subject & keep up to date with it. For those who are curious (open-minded) I suggest you visit the site. What you will find is that through the expansion of the field of genetics mathematicans & physcists are now able to apply real numbers to the evolution processes. That has very little to do with outer space. We are talking species on Earth. This is where natural selection is breaking down as a plausible theory. The numbers are simply not adding up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 For example: Suppose there is a school in a town where the majority believe that the creator is an alien from a different dimension. Suppose that believe is so strong that they choose to begin each day with some acknowledgement of that belief. Let's suppose a Christian family moves to that school district. Should that child have the right to censor the custom of that school? The answer is no. So what options does the kid have? Arrive late, participate out of respect to the class, town, & school, asked to be excused during the custom, home school, & long distance learning. Suppose all of this was happening at a privately funded school - then knock yourself out, worship the Aliens, worship the Lettuce, worship the Nazz. But if it is a government-funded school system, that should be the end of the argument. I'd like to see kids get their silent moment with the lettuce/alien/Nazz (I always gave it to them - and I also always made the Under Gawd part of the Pledge optional). And they should be welcome to form their Dungeons and Dragons/Jesus Loves Me before- or after-school organization, and, again, they can and should take time some out of their 16 or 17 hours away from school to worship however they see fit. To force the issue and demand that everybody around me stand up and take notice when I pray - rather than keeping me and my God betwwen me and my God - well, that is a bunch of shallow and pretentious holier-than-thou crap that isn't getting anyone past the pearly gates any faster than anybody else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Oh this is a novel concept: Because it's a PUBLIC school the PUBLIC should decide what is best for it. PUBLIC being those who make use of the school. Oh, but wait that would mean the moral relativism of that PUBLIC would supercede your own moral relativism. Hmmm, is that right? Should the moral relativism of the people making use of the school supercede that of someone who doesn't? I of course am debating this from a macro level dealing with the all issue of censorship & majority rights. But interjecting my own moral relativism into the debate specifically on the issue of school prayer it seems to me that this about customs & practices. School prayer is a custom & a practice of a school. Since we now live in a global community all customs & practices should be welcomed. The only limitation is time. I'm sure that can be managed easily enough. Maybe do the Christian thing 3 times a week & anything else 2 times a week. An all-inclusive approach is better than censorship. Likewise defining it as a custom opens it up the non-relgious as well. References to philosophy are always a good choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Let me see here. I have one person referring to Wikpedia as the de-facto source of Intelligent Design & I have the other person demonstrating absolutely ZERO understanding of the mathematics behind the Universe. This from the person who posited metaphysics as one of the key sources of information about the natural world? Yeah, OK. I'm not going to get into comparing brainpans with you Juggs, because there's not much reason for it. I can guarantee I've read a lot more primary source Creationist "textbooks" than you have because I get a kick out of seeing what passes for science over at the shallow end of the gene pool. I also spend a portion of my professional life 'watching the skies' and helping make sure that when the UberChristians in Florida or Ohio or Kentucky or Texas, etc. get it in their mind that they are going to take another swipe at evolution that they are kept in check and science wins out over bulls***. So, it's good to be familiar with the bulls***. You, friend, are full of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Oh, but wait that would mean the moral relativism of that PUBLIC would supercede your own moral relativism. Hmmm, is that right? Should the moral relativism of the people making use of the school supercede that of someone who doesn't? Should the separation of state and any form of state-sanctioned religious worship be ensured in the public school system? Yes it should. Doesn't mean Christianity cannot be explored in a Social Studies-type setting, and it doesn't mean debates in such a seeting shouldn't get heated at times. Despitte the lack of understanding of this concept by the current Administration, there is not supposed to be a state religion, and the Founding fathers actually made a point of sayinng so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 I can guarantee I've read a lot more primary source Creationist "textbooks" than you have because I get a kick out of seeing what passes for science over at the shallow end of the gene pool. The source of your knowledge of science comes from high school text books. You my friend, are clueless. Go to the library or go to the web site & learn! In case you missed it, it's sciencedaily.com. They have actual scientific papers you can read. You know the stuff text books of the future are based on Please, that was just too funny! Time to call it a night. She's getting pissed. I laughed too loud. I have masters degrees in science & engineering disciplines & I am working on my Phd. Any time you want to debate science I'm game. But I should warn you .. outdated text books will not represent the source of my knowledge Too funny! If text book readers represent the deep end, I'm damn proud to be a member of the other side. We read actual scientic papers over here G'night Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 The big sleight-of-hand trick the Creation 'scientists' like to pull is to poke holes in classical Darwinian evolutionary theory. Well, consider that Origin Of Species was published in 1859, and the core arguments it contains were developed two decades before that (Darwin respectfully waited for the Beagle's Captain, Fitzroy, to pass on before publishing his treatise because of the strong Christian/Creationist beliefs of this good friend). By comparison, how would you like to check into a surgical ward at a hospital that follows procedures set forth befor the Civil War?!? Darwin's theories represent the beginning and not the end. Creationists would be at least approaching a level playing field if they would debate the merite of Neo-Darwinism - which is Darwin plus Mendellian inheritance mechanisms at a mechanims, and Darwin + Mendel + Dobzhanski + Goldberg + Wright + a half-dozen other seminal minds who refined the science. If they ever bother to look at the molecular and genomic evidence of the last 30 years they would be absolutely sunk - and so they don't. How hard is it to find shortcomings in anything espoused 150 years ago. Not that hard, obviously, because even the Creation 'scientists' have managed to do it. Perhaps Darwin, et.al. have "discovered" God's plan? . . . And of course, linking this back to Jay or using Gay as an insult, is going to be pretty interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 (edited) The source of your knowledge of science comes from high school text books. Wrong. Again. The source of my knowledge about Creation 'science' and Intelligent Design and all such other rubbish comes from these silly rags that try to pass them off as textbooks. For the life of me I cannot understand how you misunderstood the direct reference to having read several primary source Creationist "textbooks" as some blanket statement about how myself or any in the modern sciences garners knowledge. Unless, the 'misunderstanding' was deliberate. I'm as big a fan of overturning the long-discredited dogma passed off in most textbooks as there is. It is the nature of the beast that it takes about 10 years for new ideas and findings to make it from peer-reviewed primary literature into college textbooks, meaning they arre somewhat outated before they even hit the shelves. But hopefully only by 10 years. The Creationist "textbooks" in contrast are outdated by about 150 years. And about that Ph.D.... I have seen them advertised online for $89.95 or so. I think that's your best bet. Edited December 31, 2004 by FlaSoxxJim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 (edited) And about that Ph.D.... I have seen them advertised online for $89.95 or so. I think that's your best bet. That is only a computer sciences degree, it goes back to the Pentium's oiginal math error, the others are quite a bit more Edited December 31, 2004 by Texsox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Perhaps Darwin, et.al. have "discovered" God's plan? . . . And of course, linking this back to Jay or using Gay as an insult, is going to be pretty interesting. Perhaps they have. As for getting back to the original topic, I don't think it's happening and I'd say the thread has been irreversibly hijacked, as Juggs had intended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Perhaps they have. As for getting back to the original topic, I don't think it's happening and I'd say the thread has been irreversibly hijacked, as Juggs had intended. On the bright side, it's is always nice when a student debates a Professor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 The source of your knowledge of science comes from high school text books. You my friend, are clueless. Go to the library or go to the web site & learn! In case you missed it, it's sciencedaily.com. They have actual scientific papers you can read. You know the stuff text books of the future are based on Please, that was just too funny! Time to call it a night. She's getting pissed. I laughed too loud. I have masters degrees in science & engineering disciplines & I am working on my Phd. Any time you want to debate science I'm game. But I should warn you .. outdated text books will not represent the source of my knowledge Too funny! If text book readers represent the deep end, I'm damn proud to be a member of the other side. We read actual scientic papers over here G'night Your argument could be described as quite religious. With all the gaps, I can't really call it anything but hole-y. First you argue that ID should be included in education because it's a valid alternate theory to evolution. You ignore the situation that the scientician community at large disavows it, ignore the situation that ID is not a testable theory - and therefore is more philosophy than biology - and ignore the fact that its growth as a "science" has been more political than experimental. Then you argue that ID textbooks for high school students are inadequate because they are for high schoolers. So let me ask you something, what are high school teachers supposed to use for textbooks? I haven't read the nuts and bolts of ID, this is true. Maybe its because I'm a biased liberal blah blah blah... or maybe its because the subject simply doesn't interest me that much, especially given that the established scientician community, which really doesn't have that much of a political axe to grind, has pretty much disavowed ID. I have, however, followed the political movement behind ID. And I can say this about that: These days, legitimate science findings generally don't need political movements to give themselves acceptance in the scientician community, or in the classrooms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 On the bright side, it's is always nice when a student debates a Professor. Agh. My teaching semester begins this week and I'm not even close to ready. I need to redo the lab sequence to get around some of the logistics of still not having our main education building up and running after the hurricanes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 For example: Suppose there is a school in a town where the majority believe that the Jews are the devil and should be eradicated. Suppose that believe is so strong that they choose to begin each day with some measure of removing all things Jewish. Let's suppose a Jewish family moves to that school district. Should that Jewish child have the right to censor the custom of that school? The answer is no. So what options does the kid have? Get ridiculed, beaten, spit at, sent to a concentration camp, and eventually, gassed. With that many options there is no dire need to censor the custom. You'd make a fine Nazi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Here's my take on this issue. No one will convince me otherwise, so don't even try. I fully believe that the Creator created as specified in the bible. I also believe that evolution is tool the Creator uses to allow life to adapt to it's surroundings and needs for survival. I also feel that the science community would, of course, disavow creationism as a viable alternative. Science is their "religion". So using that as reason to dismiss creationism, with me, is a ludicrous as my belief in God is to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 ID is not biblical creationism. Since there is little provable science and evidence to support biblical creationism, it is not viewed as a viable alternative. Scientists make "best guesses" based on the data that they have available. More data supports evolution rather than anything else. As such, evolution seems the most viable alternative. *thinking about retearning the thread back to its original intent* Evolution is gay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 ID is not biblical creationism. Since there is little provable science and evidence to support biblical creationism, it is not viewed as a viable alternative. Scientists make "best guesses" based on the data that they have available. More data supports evolution rather than anything else. As such, evolution seems the most viable alternative. *thinking about retearning the thread back to its original intent* Evolution is gay? This post suggests otherwise: It is rooted on a fallback foot-in-the-door strategy conceived by the Creationists who never could ram their dreck past the Supreme Court and into the classrooms. It is essentially Creationism without naming the Creator - simply saying that, 'the universe is so b****ing it simply HAD to have been the product of rational design, but gosh, we're not suggesting who the architect of that plan might be... (wink wink)' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Yes, but ID generally avoids biblical creationism. It is a political movement to bring creationism back into the school - by hinting at it but not mentioning it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 31, 2004 Share Posted December 31, 2004 Yes, but ID generally avoids biblical creationism. It is a political movement to bring creationism back into the school - by hinting at it but not mentioning it. Whatever. It should be in the schools. But that's just my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.