| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Spaceman" |
| Date: |
26 Jan 2005 06:30:54 PM |
| Object: |
Michigan: Gull Lake debates ideas of evolution |
From the article:
------------------------------------
RICHLAND -- A debate on whether the theory of intelligent design should be
taught alongside evolutionary theories in science classes at Gull Lake
Community Schools isn't over.
On Tuesday night, about 250 people showed up at Gull Lake High School for a
community forum organized by a Gull Lake parent who believes students should
learn the theories of both evolution and intelligent design. Intelligent design
assumes an unnamed creator must be responsible for life's origins.
Chris Jakway, a philosophy instructor at Kellogg Community College, presented a
two-hour lecture called "Intelligent Design, What is the Scientific Evidence?"
to an audience of Gull Lake parents.
-----------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.mlive.com/news/kzgazette/index.ssf?/base/news-12/1106763622278360.xml
or http://tinyurl.com/6zwlo
J. Spaceman
--
My email address (notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org) is fake. Email sent to it
will only get caught in my spam tarpit.
.
|
|
| User: "Harry K" |
|
| Title: Re: Michigan: Gull Lake debates ideas of evolution |
26 Jan 2005 09:55:51 PM |
|
|
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
------------------------------------
<snip>
Chris Jakway, a philosophy instructor at Kellogg Community College,
presented a
two-hour lecture called "Intelligent Design, What is the Scientific
Evidence?"
to an audience of Gull Lake parents.
-----------------------------------
J. Spaceman
Two hours discussing nonexisting evidence?? I'm impressed.
Harry K
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bobby D. Bryant" |
|
| Title: Re: Michigan: Gull Lake debates ideas of evolution |
26 Jan 2005 11:00:39 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, "Harry K" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
------------------------------------
<snip>
Chris Jakway, a philosophy instructor at Kellogg Community College,
presented a
two-hour lecture called "Intelligent Design, What is the Scientific
Evidence?"
to an audience of Gull Lake parents.
-----------------------------------
Two hours discussing nonexisting evidence?? I'm impressed.
They don't call it "gull" Lake for nothing.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sasha" |
|
| Title: Re: Michigan: Gull Lake debates ideas of evolution |
27 Jan 2005 08:57:50 AM |
|
|
A philosophy "instructor" lecturing about the scientific evidence for
Intelligent Design? Isn't that like a pastry chef lecturing about
quantum mathematics?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Michigan: Gull Lake debates ideas of evolution |
27 Jan 2005 02:26:29 PM |
|
|
On 27 Jan 2005 06:57:50 -0800, "Sasha" <scironi@gmail.com> said in
alt.atheism:
A philosophy "instructor" lecturing about the scientific evidence for
Intelligent Design? Isn't that like a pastry chef lecturing about
quantum mathematics?
Or a mathematician lecturing about creating the perfect puff pastry.
--
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social
ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he
had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
-Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sasha" |
|
| Title: Re: Michigan: Gull Lake debates ideas of evolution |
27 Jan 2005 02:36:08 PM |
|
|
Touche. :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Michigan: Gull Lake debates ideas of evolution |
27 Jan 2005 04:04:29 PM |
|
|
Sasha <scironi@gmail.com> wrote:
A philosophy "instructor" lecturing about the scientific evidence for
Intelligent Design? Isn't that like a pastry chef lecturing about
quantum mathematics?
They don't even have a philosophy program there, so I guess he teaches
pretty lowgrade stuff.
--
John S. Wilkins AA#2207
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
And John said, "Let there be lunch", and there was lunch.
And John tasted that it was good.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Michigan: Gull Lake debates ideas of evolution |
27 Jan 2005 04:15:57 PM |
|
|
"John Wilkins" <johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gr3amx.15a8ku3nzv8afN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au...
Sasha <scironi@gmail.com> wrote:
A philosophy "instructor" lecturing about the scientific evidence for
Intelligent Design? Isn't that like a pastry chef lecturing about
quantum mathematics?
They don't even have a philosophy program there, so I guess he teaches
pretty lowgrade stuff.
Maybe he's also in charge of the sheep dip
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "josephus" |
|
| Title: Re: Michigan: Gull Lake debates ideas of evolution |
01 Feb 2005 12:00:02 PM |
|
|
Dana Tweedy wrote:
"John Wilkins" <johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1gr3amx.15a8ku3nzv8afN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au...
Sasha <scironi@gmail.com> wrote:
A philosophy "instructor" lecturing about the scientific evidence for
Intelligent Design? Isn't that like a pastry chef lecturing about
quantum mathematics?
They don't even have a philosophy program there, so I guess he teaches
pretty lowgrade stuff.
Maybe he's also in charge of the sheep dip
DJT
Its funny but I have never even heard of some of the ID data. One of my
friends used to list all the CS datum about stata anomolies and problems
with KINDS. I used to shrug them off beccause I did not have access to
the web and talk groups like this one.
does any body have any good references for the ID litrature and/or its
favorit problems.
josephus
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Michigan: Gull Lake debates ideas of evolution |
01 Feb 2005 02:50:07 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 18:00:02 GMT, josephus <dogbird@earthlink.net>
said in alt.atheism:
does any body have any good references for the ID litrature and/or its
favorit problems.
ID is the assertion that, since the universe and life are too
complicated to have come about by chance, they must have been
designed.
We're still waiting for anything else - like a theory.
--
"If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his father, mother, wife, brothers, and sisters and even himself, he cannot be my disciple."
Luke 14:26
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Michigan: Gull Lake debates ideas of evolution |
26 Jan 2005 08:51:06 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:30:54 -0500, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> said in alt.atheism:
From the article:
"Jakway said that while the theory known as creationism"
There's a theory now?
"is linked to organized religion, intelligent design is not because
the designer to which the theory refers isn't specifically named as
'God'."
Neither is the definition of "religion".
"Deb Ryan, president of the Gull Lake school board, said the issue is
not going to involve the board but may go back to the panel.
"'It's still an administrative process. It's not over,' Ryan said."
The panel already made their decision:
"Last week, the seven-person panel voted 5 to 2 against including
intelligent design in the science curriculum, Wendzel said." What is
this, "let's keep resubmitting it until they get tired and vote for
it"?
"I want our kids to be able to think critically on both sides of the
issue," Showerman said.
Now there's a long oxymoron.
--
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Michigan: Gull Lake debates ideas of evolution |
27 Jan 2005 07:53:46 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:30:54 -0500, Jason Spaceman
<notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> said in alt.atheism:
From the article:
"Jakway said that while the theory known as creationism"
There's a theory now?
"is linked to organized religion, intelligent design is not because
the designer to which the theory refers isn't specifically named as
'God'."
Neither is the definition of "religion".
"Deb Ryan, president of the Gull Lake school board, said the issue is
not going to involve the board but may go back to the panel.
"'It's still an administrative process. It's not over,' Ryan said."
The panel already made their decision:
"Last week, the seven-person panel voted 5 to 2 against including
intelligent design in the science curriculum, Wendzel said." What is
this, "let's keep resubmitting it until they get tired and vote for
it"?
"I want our kids to be able to think critically on both sides of the
issue," Showerman said.
Now there's a long oxymoron.
--
What I think is the most damning thing about the "intelligent design"
issue is how hard the proponents have to work to remain ignorant. They
don't seem to want to know what they are talking about. It is true
that they have repeatedly been lied to about "theory," but just a
cursory look at this issue would tell them that all the bunk about ID
theory is just bunk. They obviously didn't learn anything from Ohio
and they can't seem to bother to look into places like Dover so that
they can avoid the pitfalls of the creationists there and save their
district court costs. No one seems to be able to claim that a
scientific theory of ID exists. When they claim that they are going to
teach this scientific theory, one never appears to be taught. Just
look into Ohio and look for any ID theory in the lesson plan that was
put forward. Just look at the statement that the Dover board put
forward and look for the "theory." They knew that they couldn't claim
to have a scientific theory so they only called ID a "concept." They
just didn't bother mentioning that it is a "concept" with a 100%
failure rate upon testing in science. They knew that testing is
important because one of the criteria of a scientific theory (such as
biological evolution) is that it be well tested. ID is sort of well
tested, but the results aren't what they want to advertize.
If they want to claim that ID is more than a failed concept, just let
them put forward a single ID success in science. Just one thing that
space aliens or supernatural designers have been found to be
responsible for. It is a no brainer to put up all the failures. 100%
failure is ID's legacy, and they still want to teach it as a valid
means of doing science. If they want to teach it as a concept let them
first come up with something positive to teach about it. Something
real that they have been able to verify. Something equivalent to the
alternative that they don't like. Until they can do that why teach it?
If you do teach it you should be sure to teach that it has a 100%
failure rate upon testing. Note that there isn't a single positive
success that anyone can claim exists. It would be irresponsible for
anyone to tell students that this is a vaild option without telling
them that there is a zero success rate in using it to explain things
that we study in nature. If they still want to waste their time using
it then you have, at least, warned them like putting the labels on
cigarettes.
The warning label could be something like: Warning, Intelligent Design
is not considered to be good science. It is such bad science that most
scientists do not include it as being part of science. It is so bad
that even the proponents only call it a "concept" rather than a
scientific theory. As a concept it has a 100% failure rate upon
testing. Once assertions based on the concept have become
scientifically testable it has always been found that the concept does
not result in an explanation consistent with intelligent design, but an
alternative explanation has taken its place. There have been no
exceptions to this 100% failure rate. The only explanations based on
this concept that are still standing are the ones that science has not
been able to test at this time.
They can also add something like: No other concept with a 100% failure
rate is required to be taught in the science class. Intelligent design
is an exception based on religious rather than scientific
considerations. You will be taught intelligent design even though
there are no postive examples of it, found in nature, that can be put
forward that are reliable enough to teach to students.
Ron Okimoto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
