Merged Evolution battle brews in Texas / Victory for Evolution in Texas

summand said:
New instruction material prepared by the Board of Education says the 'null hypothesis' has to be that there had to be some intelligent agency behind the appearance of living things.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/142452/20110507/texas-controversy-over-teaching-evolution-brews.htm
Click to expand...



The article has this gem:

> "Sample...emphasizes that he wants
> students to learn to think critically..."

Maybe he ought to get some of those students to come around here and partake in my little exercise in "critical thinking"! :)
 
RLBaty said:
Maybe he ought to get some of those students to come around here and partake in my little exercise in "critical thinking"! :)
Click to expand...

this is what will happen
1. they will say its invalid
2, you will ignore their objections and questions
3. you will lie to other people about the results

or in other words
the normal fundie procedure
:rolleyes:
 
Marduk said:
This is what will happen:

1. They will say its invalid.

2, You will ignore their objections and questions.

3. You will lie to other people about the results.
Click to expand...

1. Some already have. What say ye, Marduk!

2. False. I have a long history of dealing with legitimate objections and qustions; though my patronage of anonymous, illegitimate snipers does have its limits.

3. False. What my ministry here has demonstrated is that, if there is lying about results regarding such things, the anonymous skeptic is most likely the guilty party.

Should there be any legitimate interests regarding such things, they are welcome to engage that discussion under the "critical thinking" thread I started; or even get out of the house and come around to my place for a discussion (e.g., a little requited love would be a nice gesture).
 
RLBaty said:
1. Some already have. What say ye, Marduk!

2. False. I have a long history of dealing with legitimate objections and qustions; though my patronage of anonymous, illegitimate snipers does have its limits.

3. False. What my ministry here has demonstrated is that, if there is lying about results regarding such things, the anonymous skeptic is most likely the guilty party.

Should there be any legitimate interests regarding such things, they are welcome to engage that discussion under the "critical thinking" thread I started; or even get out of the house and come around to my place for a discussion (e.g., a little requited love would be a nice gesture).
Click to expand...

Do you have any explanation why the null hypothesis should be intelligent design?
 
From Slide #7:
The slide below tells students that “until advocates of non-intelligent causes sustain their claim,” students must accept that life on earth is a result of intelligent causes.
Click to expand...
'Nuff said. This isn't even an attempt at objectivity. It's creationist claptrap.
 
Yea I read Slide 7 and, well it's ID bullcrap. I assume Baty will ignore the obvious and be obtuse.
 
Wowbagger said:
How can "intelligent agency" be the null hypothesis? Wouldn't that be a positive claim that, itself, would require a null hypothesis, if it could be tested?
Click to expand...

The null hypothesis should be the "default" position. Phrase it like that ("We must assume it's Intelligent Design until proven otherwise") and it a) probably wouldn't be swallowed by many people who are agreeably baffled by the terminology, and b) tells you all you need to know about the agenda (critical thinking my ass...)
 
Dancing David said:
It looks as though it is a possible choice, not yet decided. But yuck, 'teach all sides', so "here we have alchemy and druidism"
Click to expand...

Yeah, the "teach all sides" garbage is simply that: garbage. It's a false equivalency made in an attempt to bring legitimacy to nothing more than fundamentalist religion into the science lab. It's insidious.
 
Wowbagger said:
How can "intelligent agency" be the null hypothesis? Wouldn't that be a positive claim that, itself, would require a null hypothesis, if it could be tested?
Click to expand...

To a scientist, yes.

To someone who values tradition over evidence, the intelligent agency is the null hypothesis because that's what most people believed for thousands of years.
 
godless dave said:
To someone who values tradition over evidence, the intelligent agency is the null hypothesis because that's what most people believed for thousands of years.
Click to expand...
For a null hypothesis to be useful to science, it would need to be tested-for. We should ask these folks: How, exactly, does one go about testing for the existence of the "Intelligent Agency"? How can we, more specifically, isolate and measure the very properties of God?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom