Kansas Evolution Fight Escalates...

[HypnoPsi]

Which means public health and safety will be directly impacted by this decision. Do you want to live in a community where the local board of health does not understand how antibiotic resistance develops?

This is the kind of talk that justifies the IDers fears that evolution lessons are being used as a vehicle for atheism. Are you honestly trying to say that someone who understands ID, who even beleives in ID, can't be as good a physician as someone who has no knowledge of it or belief in it?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Dr Adequate]

So why do you think it is the staunch evolutionists are only focussing on the genetics side of things? Why aren't they leaving room for conscious choice in animal behaviour?

I'll get round to those questions once I've figured out why you beat your wife.

 

[Dr Adequate]

This is the kind of talk that justifies the IDers fears that evolution lessons are being used as a vehicle for atheism. Are you honestly trying to say that someone who understands ID, who even beleives in ID, can't be as good a physician as someone who has no knowledge of it or belief in it?

Well I'd have to guess that what drkitten is honestly trying to say is:

Do you want to live in a community where the local board of health does not understand how antibiotic resistance develops?

This guess is based on the fact that this is what drkitten actually said.

I was a bit puzzled at first as to why you should say that "this kind of talk" should lead to "the IDers fears that evolution lessons are being used as a vehicle for atheism". And then I realized: it's because every solid scientific argument you offer creationists leads them to fear that evolution lessons are being used as a vehicle for atheism, because they are paranoid hysterical idiots.

There's nothing we can do about that.

 

[HypnoPsi]

I'll get round to those questions once I've figured out why you beat your wife.

WTF??

 

[Dr Adequate]

Of course, some people might start off by wondering whether you beat your wife, or indeed whether "the staunch evolutionists are only focussing on the genetics side of things," and whether they "aren't leaving room for conscious choice in animal behaviour".

But you and I know that there's no time to waste fiddling about with those pesky facts, when we could be indulging in amateur psychoanalysis.

 

[Jeff Corey]

This is the kind of talk that justifies the IDers fears that evolution lessons are being used as a vehicle for atheism. Are you honestly trying to say that someone who understands ID, who even beleives in ID, can't be as good a physician as someone who has no knowledge of it or belief in it?
_
HypnoPsi

Yes. Nobody understands ID, because there is nothing to understand.
It is an empty superstitious belief based on writings by people who thought that it was a really bad idea to have menstruating women around you and some other wacky things about dietary practices.

 

[tsg]

This is the kind of talk that justifies the IDers fears that evolution lessons are being used as a vehicle for atheism. Are you honestly trying to say that someone who understands ID, who even beleives in ID, can't be as good a physician as someone who has no knowledge of it or belief in it?

The person who doesn't understand science can't be as good a physician as someone who does. That is the point. ID is not science. Those who think it is don't understand science. Teaching it as if it is science is going to breed an entire generation of students who also don't understand science.

 

[delphi_ote]

Wish I could. I'm still waiting for someone to find an actual example to look at.

So if I provide you with an example, how will you know you're looking at one?

 

[Dymanic]

Hold on a second. The IDers are just wanting their views included. They're not doing anything to prevent students from gaining "a grouding in evolutionary theory".

It is where they are wanting those views included that causes the difficulty. They want them included as science. To allow this would require either redefining science, or strengthening ID (inclusion of an actual theory would be a good start). Students who do not understand why ID is not and can never be science (since acceptance of its most central premise violates one of science's most fundamental axioms), and who do not appreciate why personal incredulity is not evidence, are not well prepared to evaluate evidence of any kind.

Alongside modern studies classes there should also be philosophy and religious studies classes.

I agree, at least with respect to philosophy.

I think you should also consider things in their real perspective. Plenty of people go on to become perfectly good bioscientists without even having taken biology in high-school (or having done badly at biology in high-school).

Thanks for helping me get a rational perspective on this. It doesn't really matter that much what the heck we teach at the high-school level! Might as well teach the kids astrology, tell them it's science. What harm? Most of them probably aren't paying attention anyway!

 

[Ed]

This is the kind of talk that justifies the IDers fears that evolution lessons are being used as a vehicle for atheism. Are you honestly trying to say that someone who understands ID, who even beleives in ID, can't be as good a physician as someone who has no knowledge of it or belief in it?
_
HypnoPsi

Yes, absolutely.

That person is saying, in effect, when a problem exceeds my ability to comprehend or explain I will invoke the supernatural and wash my hands of it. Further exploration is unnecessary and even blasphamous. It is an anti-intellectual mindset that is medieval.

Once you have decided it is god's work, why look further? The only correct response is to grovel.

 

[delphi_ote]

Agreed, but I can point to a dog & a cat.

Not this crap again...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1220881#post1220881

 

[Mojo]

I see. Where do you find this dog=cat?

Here, perhaps.

Or how about here?

Note that nobody else in that thread suggested anything of the sort.

And note also that nobody apart from Hammy has suggested the idea in this thread either.

Yes! This strawman was brought to you by Hammegk.

 

[Mojo]

I suppose we'd like to be able to pin down which level taxonomic group would need to be crossed, and, who knows the specificity of that.

There you go again with another typical creationist strawman. There is no suggestion that anything is going to move from one group to another. It's a question of groups diverging.

 

[Pastor Bentonit]

The fact of natural selection.

And that's it.

Such a wonderfully concise theory, isn't it?

Natural selecion is a blind spot to creationists, and to our resident troll. The simply do not see it (literally).

 

[HypnoPsi]

The person who doesn't understand science can't be as good a physician as someone who does. That is the point.

No, that's not the point; at least not the one I'm making. I'm just asking how my fellow evolutionists can seriously claim that understanding ID is a bad thing - while, at the same time, saying that evolution does not directly affect religion? I'm not talking about taking any science education away from anyone.

ID is not science. Those who think it is don't understand science. Teaching it as if it is science is going to breed an entire generation of students who also don't understand science.

I agree that ID is not science and should not be taught as science. But it should certainly be taught in modern studies class and philosophy classes and religious studies classes also have considerable merit in preparing kids for life in society.

I think the point here is: can you teach ID in such a way that you don't promote ID?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Alongside modern studies classes there should also be philosophy and religious studies classes.

I agree, at least with respect to philosophy.

Why not religious studies classes? Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism all exist in society?

Thanks for helping me get a rational perspective on this. It doesn't really matter that much what the heck we teach at the high-school level! Might as well teach the kids astrology, tell them it's science. What harm? Most of them probably aren't paying attention anyway!

Again, I'm an evolutionist and I don't support teaching kids ID as science. I'm just questioning the "if they hear about it at all they'll be damaged" mentality.
_
HypnoPsi

 

[HypnoPsi]

Are you honestly trying to say that someone who understands ID, who even beleives in ID, can't be as good a physician as someone who has no knowledge of it or belief in it?

Yes, absolutely.

That person is saying, in effect, when a problem exceeds my ability to comprehend or explain I will invoke the supernatural and wash my hands of it. Further exploration is unnecessary and even blasphamous. It is an anti-intellectual mindset that is medieval.

Once you have decided it is god's work, why look further? The only correct response is to grovel.

So in effect, you are saying that doctors who believe in God aren't as good as doctors who don't? Can you prove this? Do you have any hard data to support this assertion beyond your rationalisation above?
_
HypnoPsi

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I see. Where do you find this dog=cat?

At their common ancestor, some sort of extinct Carnivora/Pholidota/Perissodactyla creature. Unless by "=" you mean identical, in which case the question makes no sense.

Tell me, since biology is a life science, as opposed to high-school level chemistry and physics, what do you think of psychology not being included in lessons in evolution? Natural selection has as much to do with animal behaviour as it does with genetics. Migration and mate-selection are big issues in evolution.

By all means, discuss evolutionary psychology. Did I suggest not to?

Anyone who tried to hold the position that biology wasn't equally about behaviour and genetics would, frankly, be an idiot. So why do you think it is the staunch evolutionists are only focussing on the genetics side of things? Why aren't they leaving room for conscious choice in animal behaviour?

The only thing I can gather from this paragraph is that you think genetics isn't linked to behavior.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

Natural selecion is a blind spot to creationists, and to our resident troll. The simply do not see it (literally).

You may even believe that. Who knows.

Survival of the fittest continues, as always, to be the order of the day. Bacteria & antibiotics, strains of yeast with differing properties ... natural, you say; survival, definitely. And bacteria remain bacteria, yeast yeast.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You're looking for quick development of new phyla, classes, or orders? I don't think you're going to live long enough, Hammy.

~~ Paul