How to teach ID?

[hammegk]

Being that it's fairly obvious I meant the statements would be tailored to each respective theory,

Sorry, but I didn't find it obvious.

I'm going to interpret your post as, "I'm a troll with nothing to contribute. Please give me the attention I can't find in my sad, sad life."

Alternatively, what wording would you propose to preface teaching gravity, thermodynamics, and The Holocaust? Or are you the troll?

 

[delphi_ote]

Sorry, but I didn't find it obvious.

Being that you can construct a direct substitution with almost any text editor, your pretense of ignorance is weak at best.

The _____________ Academic Standards require students to learn about The Holocaust and eventually to take a standardized test of which The Holocaust is a part.

Because The Holocaust is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the genocide of the Jewish people in Nazi Germany to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments."

 

[wastepanel]

I think that some of you need to research ID before you comment on it. You are assuming that ID contradicts or refutes Darwin's Theory of Evolution. All ID says is that God started everything and moves the evolution process along.

What would actually be funny is that if creationism is taught in schools, there are thousands of theories of creationism for Christianity alone. Some "refute" Darwin's theory, others accept all science. I think if it were allowed to be taught, you'd have the religious community cannabilizing itself in an attempt to get their theories into the books.

 

[hammegk]

delphi_ote: Are you David Irving?


In any case do you actually care to propose that:

"Because The Holocaust is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the genocide of the Jewish people in Nazi Germany to individual students and their families."

and

"Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families."

are analogous? I do agree that the victors write the history books, as always. However, The Theory of History ... interesting concept, and yup, there indeed are plenty of gaps. Evidence? That's another matter.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Being that you can construct a direct substitution with almost any text editor, your pretense of ignorance is weak at best.

The _____________ Academic Standards require students to learn about The Holocaust and eventually to take a standardized test of which The Holocaust is a part.

Because The Holocaust is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the genocide of the Jewish people in Nazi Germany to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments."

Other than the fact that after reading this kind of statement to a class before every single course will bore the crap out of schoolkids, I don't see anything wrong with keeping an open mind towards any theory.
However, it should also be stressed that for some theories, "well-tested" means: "there's an unholy buttload of evidence for it".
Which is also the case in the (in my opinion somewhat dramatic) example you've chosen.

 

[drkitten]

I think that some of you need to research ID before you comment on it. You are assuming that ID contradicts or refutes Darwin's Theory of Evolution. All ID says is that God started everything and moves the evolution process along.

This is flatly contradicted by the writings of the various ID proponents, including the Discovery Institute, and the authors of Of Pandas and People. See the recent Dover trial for examples galore, particularly in the testimony of Drs. Forrest and Behe.

 

[drkitten]

In any case do you actually care to propose that:

"Because The Holocaust is a theory, [...]"

and

"Because Darwin's theory is a theory, [...]"

are analogous?

If he doesn't, I do. Down to the identity of the proponents of the various forms of denial.

 

[H'ethetheth]

I think that some of you need to research ID before you comment on it. You are assuming that ID contradicts or refutes Darwin's Theory of Evolution. All ID says is that God started everything and moves the evolution process along.

What would actually be funny is that if creationism is taught in schools, there are thousands of theories of creationism for Christianity alone. Some "refute" Darwin's theory, others accept all science. I think if it were allowed to be taught, you'd have the religious community cannabilizing itself in an attempt to get their theories into the books.

Ah, finally! On topic again.
So, God moves the process of evolution along. That's all fine and dandy, but in two spare afternoons of reading what ID actually has to say, I haven't read but the haziest conception of how and why this intelligent agency accomplishes this.
So there you are, standing in front of a class of eager high school children, explaining: "Well children, the theory of Intelligent Design states that it is possible to empirically discern "designedness".
You can establish the designedness of something if you can't think of any way it came into existence that is not ludicrously improbable. However if someone else comes up with a way you hadn't thought of that isn't ludicrously improbable, you are free to ignore them, because what they're telling you is just a theory, and has "gaps for which there is no evidence".
Designed things, as you know, are of course designed by some intelligent actor and subsequently built sometimes.

Well, that's that. Next week it's botany children".

ETA: In case I didn't get my point across: 'Gap' is the magic word here. As far as I can tell ID is replacing the gaps by an abyss.

 

[delphi_ote]

If he doesn't, I do. Down to the identity of the proponents of the various forms of denial.

That's precisely why I used it as an example. Just because some group of intellectually dishonest people deny a given theory for political reasons doesn't mean we should entertain their doubts prior to teaching said theory.

 

[delphi_ote]

As a preemptive strike: Yes. Political reasons.

 

[hammegk]

If he doesn't, I do. Down to the identity of the proponents of the various forms of denial.

Are you saying the Creation Institute bunch are Holocaust deniers? All non-Darwinists?

And that the pictures of the living survivors in camps and other hard evidence are fakes ? I agree the personal accounts are anecdotal.



I also admit I have no idea what delphi_ote's picture of a tree means to him. It means nothing to me.

 

[drkitten]

Are you saying the Creation Institute bunch are Holocaust deniers?

I am not, but I am saying that the Creation Institute bunch and Holocaust deniers are similar political groups. (Mostly conservative, white, fundamentalist Protestants).

I also admit I have no idea what delphi_ote's picture of a tree means to him. It means nothing to me.

I'm not surprised. Reading comprehension has never been a strength of yours, as evidenced by the asininely stupid question you asked me.

 

[hammegk]

I am not, but I am saying that the Creation Institute bunch and Holocaust deniers are similar political groups. (Mostly conservative, white, fundamentalist Protestants).

I see. Do have some actual basis for that statement other than you apparently wish it to be so?

Reading comprehension has never been a strength of yours, as evidenced by the asininely stupid question you asked me.

Which question of mine have you found most asininely stupid?

And 'yo mama, too ....

 

[eri]

Delphi's tree (which I believe I saw in one of Shermer's books) is an illustration of the idea of social Darwinism - the theory basically being, since we all evolved by random chance, there's no one to whom we are responsible as human beings - do whatever the hell you like, there are no consequences. I've heard Duane Gish use this argument quite often. Basically, they claim that Darwin and the theory of evolution are to blame for everything from crime to homosexuality to rock music.

 

[delphi_ote]

I also admit I have no idea what delphi_ote's picture of a tree means to him. It means nothing to me.

It's not mine. It's a well known creationist illustration portraying evolution as the root cause of social problems. This is why I say their effort to "chop down the tree" is a matter of political belief. They irrationally believe a scientific discovery is the cause of all of society's ills.

The Holocaust Denier would lable the tree trunk "Jews," but the absurd "reasoning" remains the same.

 

[drkitten]

I see. Do have some actual basis for that statement other than you apparently wish it to be so?

Yes. See the writings of Dr. Forrest, on the one hand, and Lipstadt, on the other.

Oh, I forgot. Reading comprehension again. Perhaps they will come out with a comic book version for you sometime soon....

 

[Mojo]

In any case do you actually care to propose that:

"Because The Holocaust is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the genocide of the Jewish people in Nazi Germany to individual students and their families."

and

"Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families."

are analogous?

OK.

I'm keeping politics strictly out of this.

YES! These are analogous.

There is abundant evidence supporting the theory of evolution by natural selection, just as there is abundant evidence for the holocaust.

Deny either, and you begin to look a bit like Irving.

Edited to add: You can try this with gravity or relativity as well, if you like. You'll still end up looking bloody silly.

 

[Melendwyr]

Let's not forget the other 4.5 million people killed in the holocaust, please.

Also, it's obvious hammegk is a Holocaust-denier-denier.

 

[delphi_ote]

I'm keeping politics strictly out of this.

The only aspect of politics I'm bringing into this discussion is that the GOAL of both movements is political. Neither has anything whatsoever to do with science and discovery. They have an agenda that forces them to ignore the mountains of evidence that counter their beliefs.

 

[hammegk]

Yes. See the writings of Dr. Forrest, on the one hand, and Lipstadt, on the other.

Barbara Forrest? Deborah Lipstadt? You state their efforts demonstrate "the Creation Institute bunch and Holocaust deniers are similar political groups. (Mostly conservative, white, fundamentalist Protestants)"?

Do you think either knows or cares what Creation Institute types politics are? I don't. I'd agree some conservative, white, fundamentalist Protestants will be creationists, but Holocaust deniers as well?

Try again with something that would actually back your assertion.

Oh, I forgot. Reading comprehension again. Perhaps they will come out with a comic book version for you sometime soon....

I read just fine, and also can smell smoke when people are blowing it, like you,