|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
 Posted - 01/12/2006 : 02:05:16
|
The Creationists try the next tactic.
In CA a high school introduce ID in a "philosophy class" and is of course sued by Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
http://us.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/01/11/evolution.debate.calif.ap/index.htmlquote:
An initial course description sent to parents in December said it would examine "evolution as a theory and will discuss the scientific, biological and Biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin's philosophy is not rock solid."
...
Superintendent John Wight,[...] said last week that the class, "Philosophy of Design," was not being taught as science
...
Americans United for Separation of Church and State said that with one exception the course "relies exclusively on videos that advocate religious perspectives and present religious theories as scientific ones."
quote:
Defendant Kitty Jo Nelson, one of two school board trustees who opposed the class, said the costs of the lawsuit would ultimately deprive students. "I'm extremely disappointed and saddened," she said.
Articles on AU and Pharyngula.
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
 Posted - 01/12/2006 : 02:22:40 [Permalink]
|
As long as we don't address the myth that we are keeping discussion and alternative theories out of the evolution debate this is going to go on and on.
Too many people are under the mistaken impression scientific debate is being stifled.
At the risk of saying this too many times, control the question and you control the debate.
The question isn't ID, that's not science. But irreducible complexity is science. You can allow it in a science class, you can debate it in a science class, you can look at the evidence for it in a science class. Turns out you can quickly rule it out as not being supported by the evidence (unless you are Behe anyway).
But the important thing in changing the question is it leaves no more fuel for the religious war on the theory of evolution. |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2006 : 06:07:32 [Permalink]
|
Well, after a few more times of swabing the courtroom floor with their tongues, perhaps they'll either get discouraged of find some other flim-flam. But either way, they'll keep the spavined literature going. quote:
The Dead ID Sketch
(With apologies to Monty Python)
Customer: Hello. I wish to complain about this so-called "scientific theory" what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very establishment.
Salesman: Oh yes, "Intelligent Design". What, uh... what's wrong with it?
Customer: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. Its vacuous, that's what's wrong with it!
Salesman: No, no, uh... what we need now is to "teach the controversy"...
Customer: Look matey, I know an empty "argument from incredulity" when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Salesman: No, no, it's not empty: it's just being elaborated. Remarkable theory, 'Intelligent Design', innit, eh? I mean, just look at all these books and articles: millions and millions of words...!
Customer: The verbiage don't enter into it, my lad. It's stone dead. It's a non-starter. Empirically untestable, it belongs in metaphysics. This "theory" makes no predictions; has no contribution to make beyond extended polemics; and can't even be honest about who it thinks the "Designer" was. Bereft of all logical and epistemological credibility, it has no scientific status! If certain right-wing and fundamentalist pressure-groups hadn't hit upon it as a way of opposing decades of uncomfortable scientific and social progress, it'd be pushing up daisies! It's off the table. It's kicked the waste-paper bucket. THIS IS A NON-THEORY!
Salesman: Well, I'd better replace it then. [takes a quick peek around] Sorry, squire: looks like that's all we've got...
Customer: I see, I see. I get the picture.
Salesman: I've got a piece of coal that looks quite a bit like a human tibia, if you squint at it...
Customer: Pray, is it part of a theory that unifies the paleontological and biological sciences and leads to a powerful understanding of observed homologies and the nested hierarchy of life?
Salesman: Not really.
Customer: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT FOR DARWINISM THEN, IS IT?
Found it at NAiG.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2006 : 08:50:16 [Permalink]
|
The problem with this particular class is that they were teaching ID as a scientificly valid theory. Not as, the name of the class would imply, a philosophy or world view.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2006 : 14:01:46 [Permalink]
|
| I was taught both the basics of ID (only it was called rather more honestly, simply "creationism") and irreducible complexity in philosophy in High School. I really don't see the problem with teaching it there, as it is where it belongs. That, or in comparative religion. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2006 : 14:17:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
I was taught both the basics of ID (only it was called rather more honestly, simply "creationism") and irreducible complexity in philosophy in High School. I really don't see the problem with teaching it there, as it is where it belongs. That, or in comparative religion.
Teaching it critically? Or teaching it uncritically as a salesman would pitch it?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2006 : 14:53:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
I was taught both the basics of ID (only it was called rather more honestly, simply "creationism") and irreducible complexity in philosophy in High School. I really don't see the problem with teaching it there, as it is where it belongs. That, or in comparative religion.
Unfortunately, the presentation is geared towards backdooring it and presenting it as science cloaked in philosophy.
If it was presented as a philosophy, I wouldn't have a problem with it. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Bunga
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
74 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2006 : 15:45:15 [Permalink]
|
Either my old highschool's idea of a philosophy class was wildly different than this one or someone, most likely me, has gone mad. Is is even possible to present anything in a philosophy class "uncrittically"? Sure; my old teacher had some weird ideas he presented as facts, but given that the main conversation we had after pretty much every single lesson in that class was if he was serious or not it stretches my credulity to think anyone accepts anything taught in philosophy at face value.
Having spoken to my younger brother and sister over christmas who attend that school now; the teacher is still the same and the students' reactions are the same.
It says in the original quote that the course: "present(s) religious theories as scientific ones." I can see a problem with that, but that is teaching philosophy classes 'wrong' rather than teaching science classes 'wrong'. Given a choice; I know which one I would prefer. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2006 : 17:00:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
Is is even possible to present anything in a philosophy class "uncrittically"? Sure; my old teacher had some weird ideas he presented as facts, but given that the main conversation we had after pretty much every single lesson in that class was if he was serious or not it stretches my credulity to think anyone accepts anything taught in philosophy at face value.
Bunga, you be the judge. This is the course trying pass itself off as a "philosophy" class:
quote:
The AU's press release notes that the original course description clearly showed that this class will advocate creationism:
quote:
The "Philosophy of Design" course description, which was given to students and their families in early December, stated that it would "take a close look at evolution as a theory and will discuss the scientific, biological, and Biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin's philosophy is not rock solid.... Physical and chemical evidence will be presented suggesting the earth is thousands of years old, not billions."
There have been two syllabi for the course so far. The first syllabus was incredibly blatant in advocating creationism and looks as though it was thrown together on the back fo a cocktail napkin. It includes a list of some 19 creationist videos to be shown and not a single resource on evolution to be used. Perhaps the most amusing thing about the original syllabus is that it includes as a speaker "Francis Krich - evolutionist". Apparently, someone recommended to the teacher that she ask Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA along with James Watson to speak to the class. Good idea, except for the fact that he's dead.
Read the original here.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 01/12/2006 17:02:30 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 06:22:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bunga
It says in the original quote that the course: "present(s) religious theories as scientific ones." I can see a problem with that, but that is teaching philosophy classes 'wrong' rather than teaching science classes 'wrong'. Given a choice; I know which one I would prefer.
Sorry, Bunga, I really can't agree. Both courses are being taught correctly now, why should we settle for something less than we have now to appease religious zealots? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 06:25:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The "Philosophy of Design" course description, which was given to students and their families in early December, stated that it would "take a close look at evolution as a theory and will discuss the scientific, biological, and Biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin's philosophy is not rock solid.... Physical and chemical evidence will be presented suggesting the earth is thousands of years old, not billions."
Sounds like a science class to me....and it appears they won't discuss the scientific, biological, and Biblical aspects that suggest why creationism/ID is a load of bullish fecal droppings. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 12:13:47 [Permalink]
|
Creationists...I give you ID.
And now, I give you....philosophy! Science is nothing more than a belief system and particular philosophy.
Sounds to me like the wedge strategy has found a new avenue. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 01:25:28 [Permalink]
|
I hope AU and NCSE keep this Dembski post from last summer for future reference. quote:
I therefore offer the following proposal if ID gets outlawed from our public schools: retitle it Intelligent Evolution (IE). The evolution here would be reconceived not as blind evolution but as technological evolution. Nor would it be committed to Darwin's idea of descent with modification. But, hey, it would still be evolution, and evolution can be taught in schools. In fact, I think I'll title my next book Intelligent Evolution: The Mindful Deviation of Evolutionary Pathways.
Dembski refer to it in this post from last friday quote:
Let me reiterate that ID has been very, very good to me!
No shit.... |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 03:14:56 [Permalink]
|
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9691 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 06:44:39 [Permalink]
|
| CNN aparently reported that the teacher of the philosophy class was married to a Christian minister. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2006 : 06:54:14 [Permalink]
|
| What a surprise! |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
