or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Kitzmiller v. Dover Board of Ed. -- aka the "Panda Trial"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Kitzmiller v. Dover Board of Ed. -- aka the "Panda Trial" - Page 2

post #41 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Let's settle for getting the children wondering, "Hmmm. What makes things suddenly "poof!" into existence?"

It's true...we don't want anyone wondering about anything. That would create untold of problems down the road.
post #42 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
So is this the real, over-arching concern...that people might begin thinking about "design" as a possibility?

No the concern is that they assume design is true, and then get stuck in that quagmire of falsitude.

The thinking about design has nothing to do with assuming it is true, however in all forms now out there, intelligent design adherents have to assume it (or some derivation of it) is true...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #43 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
No the concern is that they assume design is true, and then get stuck in that quagmire of falsitude.

The thinking about design has nothing to do with assuming it is true, however in all forms now out there, intelligent design adherents have to assume it (or some derivation of it) is true...

You are exactly right. We do need to guard against things that are assumed to be true...or are taught that way.
post #44 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
What's fascinating is just how slender a sliver these guys seem willing to settle for.

From the ACLU blog:

So, when the Panda Trial goes down in flames, it looks like we might have to look forward to the "Sudden Emergence" movement.

First, they try to peddle Biblical Creationism. That doesn't work.

Next... toss out their own particular God and the Bible and try to get Intelligent Design in the door. At least the little kiddies will get the God hint, right?

That's not working? Okay, 86 the Designer. Let's settle for getting the children wondering, "Hmmm. What makes things suddenly "poof!" into existence?"

Maybe we'll end up with "Surprising Complexity".

But as has been mentioned, who, outside of a few people with book deals at stake, is going to go to the wall for something as vague "Sudden Emergence"?

It seems like for that to fly, you'd have to actually sit down with congregations across America and spell out the plan: "See, I know this doesn't really much look like we're celebrating the glory of God here, but just be patient. If we can just get them talking about "Surprising Complexity", we can work our way back to Creationism within a generation. So let's all get out there and harass our school boards and write letters to the editor and vote for the right kind of Republican!"
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #45 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You are exactly right. We do need to guard against things that are assumed to be true...or are taught that way.

So the problem is with the teaching of subjects in school, and teaching free thinking.

That is a grander social issue than is reasonable to discuss in this thread.

[hypothetical]
I would love it to see you getting your ass argued into a hole by your children, but you wouldn't... so you demand that the schools only stick to the guidelines and not stray into teaching kids how to argue down their bozo parents. [/hypothetical]
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #46 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
So the problem is with the teaching of subjects in school, and teaching free thinking.

Frankly, I don't think the (public) schools are really teaching kids to think. They are teaching them to take multiple-choice tests.
post #47 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
It's true...we don't want anyone wondering about anything. That would create untold of problems down the road.

Oh for fuck's sake.

Right, this is all about crushing the nascent sense of wonder in school children. We should be sure that our science classes encourage students to "wonder" if distant galaxies are where God lives, and if the souls of the dead can be captured on film, if the Salem witches maybe didn't really have it coming and if the sub-atomic realm is populated by tiny guardian angels.

Or it will be the death of hope.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #48 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Oh for fuck's sake.

Right, this is all about crushing the nascent sense of wonder in school children. We should be sure that our science classes encourage students to "wonder" if distant galaxies are where God lives, and if the souls of the dead can be captured on film, if the Salem witches maybe didn't really have it coming and if the sub-atomic realm is populated by tiny guardian angels.

Or it will be the death of hope.

It's okay addabox...it's really okay...you can calm down. It looks like you have those ignorant, myth-believing, intolerant, hateful, creation-believing, design-believing nutjob loonies on the run.
post #49 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
It's okay addabox...it's really okay...you can calm down. It looks like you have those ignorant, myth-believing, intolerant, hateful, creation-believing, design-believing nutjob loonies on the run.

Oh. You're just a troll.

Sorry, I mistook you for somebody else.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #50 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Oh. You're just a troll.

Sorry, I mistook you for somebody else.

When things strike too close to the truth...pull out the "troll" bit.

post #51 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Frankly, I don't think the (public) schools are really teaching kids to think. They are teaching them to take multiple-choice tests.

They should be teaching them to think.

To be honest, you have private schools which teach children either that daddy will take care of it, or that god is the answer to everything, or you have public schools where the best case scenario is myself, and the worse is unthinkable.

We should be teaching children that thinking is healthy and much easier than not thinking, and not thinking is the entire point of edumacation at this moment.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #52 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
They should be teaching them to think.

I agree. But I don't think they really are.
post #53 of 576
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I agree. But I don't think they really are.

I've been trying to just ignore you, because I do believe you're acting in a very troll-like manner, but this is ridiculous... you agreeing that students need to be taught thinking skills?

You've demonstrated very little ability at clear thinking yourself. (And please, can you even try to stifle for just a moment the reflexive "Me? What about you!?" that's probably immediately bursting forth in your head at this very moment?)

I have attempted to engage you on numerous occassion to get you to really explain what you mean -- especially about what is and is not "scientific" -- and have never gotten anything out of you but dodging, bobbing, weaving, and very tired rhetorical tricks.

All of which you may think clever, all of which may lead you to believe you're "winning" by avoiding any confrontation with any deficiency in the case you're making -- but none of which are signs of a mind gifted with clear, rational thought. This is not a skill you demonstrate. I say that not because you disagree with me on any specific issue, but because of how you go about those disagreements, in ways that strike me as not only irrational, but (perhaps not deliberatly) intellectually dishonest.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #54 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
you agreeing that students need to be taught thinking skills?

Yes.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
You've demonstrated very little ability at clear thinking yourself. (And please, can you even try to stifle for just a moment the reflexive "Me? What about you!?" that's probably immediately bursting forth in your head at this very moment?)

Oh stop.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
I have attempted to engage you on numerous occassion to get you to really explain what you mean -- especially about what is and is not "scientific" -- and have never gotten anything out of you but dodging, bobbing, weaving, and very tired rhetorical tricks.

Like where? And how? I've been quite clear about this. Don't blame me for your blindness. Simply put..."scientific" is that which follows the scientific method (observation, hypothesis, predication and testing of hypothesis) without presumption or presuppostion of the causes.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
All of which you may think clever, all of which may lead you to believe you're "winning" by avoiding any confrontation with any deficiency in the case you're making -- but none of which are signs of a mind gifted with clear, rational thought. This is not a skill you demonstrate. I say that not because you disagree with me on any specific issue, but because of how you go about those disagreements, in ways that strike me as not only irrational, but (perhaps not deliberatly) intellectually dishonest.

Right.
post #55 of 576
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Like where? And how? I've been quite clear about this.

If you really want to play with the Search function on these forums, be my guest. In the meantime, I'll just re-ask something you never satisfactorily engaged in or dealt with which I have asked (in more or less the same form) before.

First of all, you repeat (ad naseum) that evolution has "never been proven" -- and then typically site as an example for this lack of proof some experiment which has never been done, or some particular bit of evidence which has never been gathered. These all basically amount to "Show me this evolution thing (and it's got to be more than 'microevolution') happening right before my eyes -- apes turning into people, fish growing legs, cells bursting forth from a vat of non-living chemical (a request which shows no understanding that evolution and biogenesis are two different fields)... or you evolutionists haven't proved your case."

You act as if this is the "proper" scientific pose, and that everyone else who can't see your wisdom on this has blinders on or is hiding something. (Don't you think it's odd that even people like Behe and Dembski give evolution more credit for being scientific than you do?)

So, before I go further, is this indeed where you stand on whether evolution is sufficiently scientific or not?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #56 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
you repeat (ad naseum) that evolution has "never been proven"

Correct. Do you think it has been proven?

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
and then typically site as an example for this lack of proof some experiment which has never been done, or some particular bit of evidence which has never been gathered.

It seems reasonable to me to ask if the hyopthesis that "over a gazillion years" has been tested (or is even testable.

It seems reasonable to me that pre-ordained/pre-assumed causes (only naturalistic one) ought to be set aside in favor of...well...observation...predication...hypothesis ...AND...testing.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
These all basically amount to "Show me this evolution thing (and it's got to be more than 'microevolution') happening right before my eyes -- apes turning into people, fish growing legs, cells bursting forth from a vat of non-living chemical (a request which shows no understanding that evolution and biogenesis are two different fields)... or you evolutionists haven't proved your case."

I have never asked for any of those things. That is your poor interpretation of what me (or anyone else positing a creationist viewpoint) wants to see.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
So, before I go further, is this indeed where you stand on whether evolution is sufficiently scientific or not?

The scientific method is:

1. observation
2. prediction
3. hypothesis
4. testing (of hypothesis).

Show me where "over a gazillion years" (natural selection, random utation and trait transmission will produce new species) has been tested. The fact is, you cannot.

The fact is evolution (at least as it regards speciation) stops at #3...because it has established timetables tables which this must all occur that are not testable (in our lifetimes).

The fact is that those who believe in evolution see what they want to see when they look at the evidence (everything evolved). It is the only possible conclusion...but anything extra-natural (anything that cannot be seen, touched, smelt, heard, etc.) cannot exist.

Mind you, I don't have a problem with the idea that evolution is a possible explanation for the emergence of all species. Where the problem comes in is the defacto, a priori assumption that it has happened and the indignant outrage when anyone doesn't assume the same thing.
post #57 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Oh for fuck's sake.

Right, this is all about crushing the nascent sense of wonder in school children. We should be sure that our science classes encourage students to "wonder" if distant galaxies are where God lives, and if the souls of the dead can be captured on film, if the Salem witches maybe didn't really have it coming and if the sub-atomic realm is populated by tiny guardian angels.

Or it will be the death of hope.

There's not really any answer to this post.

It's like someone just led you into their kitchen and pointed out the washing machine.

'It's a fridge,' you say.

'Oh, for goodness sake,' they reply.

'Ooh, bit close to the bone?' you say.

No.

It's a fucking washing machine.
post #58 of 576
The left actually wants us to believe that man came from monkeys! The problem is that you think you are smarter than you are. The evolutionists are too arrogant to accept that there are powers greater than themselves and that they can't understand everthing.
Moe has left the building
Reply
Moe has left the building
Reply
post #59 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
The left actually wants us to believe that man came from monkeys! The problem is that you think you are smarter than you are. The evolutionists are too arrogant to accept that there are powers greater than themselves and that they can't understand everthing.

Listen.

It's not 'the left'. The evidence doesn't give a toss about politics. Water boils at 100 degrees C. It just does, whether you're you're in your Texan conehood or making a pot of Korean tea in Stoke Newington.

OK?

Secondly, evolutionary theory does not say that we 'come from monkeys'.

It says we share a common ancestor with living primates.

If you don't even know the fundamental precepts of the science you're denigrating, you're not qualified to open your mouth to talk about it.
post #60 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
The left actually wants us to believe that man came from monkeys! The problem is that you think you are smarter than you are. The evolutionists are too arrogant to accept that there are powers greater than themselves and that they can't understand everthing.

One, that statement clearly shows your lack of understanding of the basic tennants of evolutionary theory.

Two, I am continually flabergasted by the notion that evolutionary theory and Christian faith are somehow unreconcilable.

My mother is a deeply religious Christian. Does she "believe" in evolution? Of course she does! She's an intelligent, logical person. Does she think God created the world 10,000 years ago and humans used to hang out with dinosaurs? Of course not! Again, she's an intelligent, logical person. But she's still very religous, and she's still a good Christian, as opposed to the "Christians" masquereading themselves all over the TV in this country, most of whome I think Jesus would have a very low opinion of.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #61 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by Flounder
Does she "believe" in evolution? Of course she does! She's an intelligent, logical person. Does she think God created the world 10,000 years ago and humans used to hang out with dinosaurs? Of course not! Again, she's an intelligent, logical person.

That statement clearly shows your assumption that anyone who does not hold to the basic evolutionary doctrine must not be intelligent or logical. And the conversation ends. Insulting the opponent is not a valid line of argumentation.
post #62 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
That statement clearly shows your assumption that anyone who does not hold to the basic evolutionary doctrine must not be intelligent or logical.

No, they could just be ignorant too

But unintelligent is pretty likely.

Some people deserve to be insulted.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #63 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by Flounder
But unintelligent is pretty likely.

Some people deserve to be insulted.

And with that, the discussion ends.
post #64 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Mind you, I don't have a problem with the idea that evolution is a possible explanation for the emergence of all species. Where the problem comes in is the defacto, a priori assumption that it has happened and the indignant outrage when anyone doesn't assume the same thing.

Schools teaching science should make it clear what a theory is, sure. When the students get the historical facts of how different theories have superseded one another, they'd be idiots not to understand the current ones can also, in time, be superseded by others.

What doesn't make sense is to ignore existing evidence because there isn't a specific experiment that can be made to duplicate what happened.

For example, there is a great deal of evidence showing that people die if sufficiently dehydrated. This isn't something a reputable scientist can do as an experiment. However, I don't think any doctor would think the notion that people die for dehydration unscientific.

The tool that science has for situations like this is Occam's Razor. Look at the facts, and go with the theory that requires the least imagination. If the thing can be explained with already-known phenomena, then it will, until there is new evidence to contradict this explanation. An intelligent, supernatural, all-powerful designer (such as an invisible pink unicorn or a flying spaghetti monster) is the ultimate leap of imagination because there is no limit to what can be explained by them.
post #65 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
The scientific method is:

1. observation
2. prediction
3. hypothesis
4. testing (of hypothesis).

Show me where "over a gazillion years" (natural selection, random utation and trait transmission will produce new species) has been tested. The fact is, you cannot.

The fact is evolution (at least as it regards speciation) stops at #3...because it has established timetables tables which this must all occur that are not testable (in our lifetimes).

The fact is that those who believe in evolution see what they want to see when they look at the evidence (everything evolved). It is the only possible conclusion...but anything extra-natural (anything that cannot be seen, touched, smelt, heard, etc.) cannot exist.

Mind you, I don't have a problem with the idea that evolution is a possible explanation for the emergence of all species. Where the problem comes in is the defacto, a priori assumption that it has happened and the indignant outrage when anyone doesn't assume the same thing.

Sorry Chris, but you would not make a very good scientist. You overlook the actual evidence and then start talking about extra-natural causes. There is some inconsistency there don't you think?
post #66 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
You overlook the actual evidence

I absolutely do not! I merely see something different in the evidence than (perhaps) you do.
post #67 of 576
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Correct. Do you think it has been proven?

Please note that I used the word "proof" in quotes before, and I did that for a reason. Too often this word is taken as meaning "100%, no way out of it, everything else absolutely ruled out" -- and that's not what science is about.

Science is about preponderance of evidence, about finding consistent patterns, about finding the best explanation you can that fits available data.

I would re-ask the question this way: Has evolution proven to be the best explanation so far for the diversity of life as it exists now, the geographic distribution and genetic make-up of life as it exists now, and for the fossil record of life in the past?

To that question, I'd say the answer is a resounding yes. Two "yeses" actually, because there are two meanings of "evolution" to deal with -- the what and the how of evolution.

The "what" of evolution is the basic time line of life on this planet, running over a course of billions of years, showing many species to have come and gone, showing changes over time with much of that change being gradual shifts in the forms of living creatures, with many species appearing in the fossil record looking like variations upon previously existing species. Let's call this "what" "historical evolution".

The "how" of evolution is the mechanism or mechanisms proposed to explain the "what" of evolution. While scientists still debate the specifics and the relative importance of various mechanisms, the overall consensus can be summed up as descent with modification mediated by natural selection. Let's call this "how" the "theory of evolution".

My greatest impatience with those who deny evolution is when they deny historical evolution. You want to believe that only God or alien robots from Andromeda are smart enough to have managed creating all these life forms? Go ahead, knock yourself out. But denying historical evolution takes either incredible ignorance or irrational denial.

Of course, anyone can deny anything that isn't right in front of their faces -- some can manage to maintain their denial even then -- so the mere fact that someone can hold out against whatever references to evidence another person might bring forth is hardly surprising.

Please answer me this: Do you outright deny science any say over the historical? When you clamor that evolution hasn't been tested, what, in your mind, constitutes a test for any historical event?

Hypothesis: George Washington was the first president of the United States.
Test: What goes here? This idea simply can't be tested? Believing that George Washington was the first President can't be anything other than a mere matter of faith?

If you applied the same standards to "proving" Washington's presidency that you apply to evolution, it's as if the only valid proof would be re-creating the revolutionary United States in a laboratory, watching it for a few years, and checking to see if Washington becomes President again. If you applied the same standard to "proving" a murder case, you'd be demanding that forensic scientists make the suspect re-kill the same victim he's accused of killing.

If you can't accept that valid "testing" includes examination of existing artifacts and data -- the chemistry of ink in historical documents, DNA sampling of blood stains found in a carpet, fossils found in a dry lake bed -- and that validation comes from finding patterns and significant correlations among those artifacts and data, that validation comes from making prediction of what kinds of things you expect to find later and then indeed finding those thing... if you can't accept this, you're essentially saying that the past is closed off to science, and that science can only speak to the immediate present.

If you do accept this kind of testing and validation and don't wish to close off the past to science -- for everything except historical evolution -- then you're merely exhibiting a hostile prejudice against this particular area of science.

I'll have to get to the theory part of evolution later.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #68 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
School boards tend to have little overall impact simply because when you look at the breadth of teachers and of subjects and time spent teaching in total it is just too much for a school board to micromanage. No one has any interest in interfering in algebra anyway. But what they can do is have pet projects like evolution or drug testing or sex ed or no weapons in school and such that they get involved in as Activist Judg...er...Activist School Board Members and then they really can control things in some cases. A lot of school board members even get elected on such platforms. Alternatively it may be something more mundane to the general public but which really gets the ire of parents like redistricting or some such issue. Many of them are well meaning but often even those with good intentions can be busy bodies with nothing else to do any so they become completely immersed in the politics of schooling. Unfortunately nothing makes people more irrational and completely resolute in their stances than anything relating to their kids. School politics tend to fly below the radar but it is really a fascinating little culture.


I think, that you have a point here. When it comes to kids education, people love to bring their own agenda.
Agendas should stay away from school.
post #69 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
But denying historical evolution takes either incredible ignorance or irrational denial.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Do you outright deny science any say over the historical?

No.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
When you clamor that evolution hasn't been tested, what, in your mind, constitutes a test for any historical event?

You are referring to the fossil evidence, which gives us snap shots in time which we choose layer an interpretation on top of. One interpretation is that of evolution.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Hypothesis: George Washington was the first president of the United States.
Test: What goes here? This idea simply can't be tested? Believing that George Washington was the first President can't be anything other than a mere matter of faith?

Yes, actually.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
If you applied the same standards to "proving" Washington's presidency that you apply to evolution, it's as if the only valid proof would be re-creating the revolutionary United States in a laboratory, watching it for a few years, and checking to see if Washington becomes President again. If you applied the same standard to "proving" a murder case, you'd be demanding that forensic scientists make the suspect re-kill the same victim he's accused of killing.

Actually, the testability thing I was applying to the future/predictable view of evolution.

The past is not really testable and whatever has happened is a matter of faith. It may be a reasonable faith or an unreasonable one. You think that evolution as the explanation for the emergence of all species is a reasonable faith about what has happened in the past. I am unconvinced. You can say that I am incredibly ignorant (or even stupid if wish) or irrational or in denial. If all of that makes you feel better.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
If you can't accept that valid "testing" includes examination of existing artifacts and data

I'd call that observation (in the overall method).

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
finding patterns and significant correlations among those artifacts and data,

Finding patterns and correlations is an observation. Interpreting what the patterns and correlations say is a hypothesis. It is know that we look back at history through a "dark glass". And when someone (from the evolution-defending, scientific world) says something like "the fossil record is a like a motion picture in which 999 out of a thousand frames is missing" it raises an eyebrow (at least for me).

The probabilities required for the hypothesis of evolution...that through random genetic mutation and generational trait transmission both the complexity and systematic order of the stunning array of plant and animal species has come about...are so absurdly unrealistic as to defy reason and to require a much greater faith than a mere belief in an intelligent being (which we are currently unable to detect with our physical instrumentation) creating, designing or guiding the process.

Nowhere do we see order evolving from randomness. Quite the opposite in fact. Additionally, typically, we see that genetic mutations (unless an intelligent being...like a genetic engineer...is making it happen) result in worse outcomes rather than better outcomes...further stacking the deck against the idea that random genetic mutations will lead to more, higher and more cmplex life-forms.

All of this, combined with the possibility (probability?) that we are looking at 1/10 of 1% of the "film" to draw our conclusions...seems especially arrogant and absurd.
post #70 of 576
The scientific method is taught to 7th graders and is not a rigid description of the general process of science.

We have been over this.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #71 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
The scientific method is taught to 7th graders and is not a rigid description of the general process of science.

We have been over this.

Oh...so now we can just flux the method to whatever we want to get the answers we want.

Rigidity...don't they that call that "disciplined"?

It's not that complicated actually. Observe. Hypothesis. Predict. Test. What should we be flexible about?
post #72 of 576
Look guys, CC knows something every scientist in this field on planet Earth knows does not. Get over it already.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #73 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Look guys, CC knows something every scientist in this field on planet Earth knows does not. Get over it already.

Yes. I am the last remaining soul on the planet that doesn't adhere to the prevailing doctrine of evolution.

You could discuss...but you are so much better at just being a smart-ass. Too bad for you.
post #74 of 576
Thread Starter 
More terribly unskilled and inept lying from a member of the Dover, PA Board of Ed.:
Quote:
From this article in the York Daily Record:

After Alan Bonsell finished his testimony Monday, in which he accused two local newspaper reporters of making up the information that drove the Dover Area School District into a First Amendment lawsuit, Judge John E. Jones III demanded to see a copy of Bonsell's previous sworn statements.

Steve Harvey, the plaintiffs' attorney who had cross-examined the Dover Area school board member, offered to provide a clean copy later in chambers.

"I want it now if you have it," the federal judge said. At the end of the first day of the sixth week of Dover's court battle over intelligent design in U.S. Middle District Court, Jones had some questions.

Bonsell sat quietly on the stand chewing gum and swiveling in his chair as Jones reviewed the man's Jan. 3 deposition in which he denied knowing anyone, besides his father, who had been involved in donating copies of the textbook "Of Pandas and People" to the Dover school district.

After he finished reading, Jones asked Bonsell when he became aware that his father, Donald, was in possession of an $850 check used to purchase copies of the pro-intelligent design textbook.

Bonsell said he had given the check to his father.

Last week, former board member Bill Buckingham testified he handed the check, dated Oct. 4, 2004, to Alan Bonsell and asked him to forward it to Donald Bonsell. Written in the check's memo line were the words: "for Pandas and People books."

"You tell me why you didn't say Mr. Buckingham was involved," a visibly angry Jones said, staring at Bonsell as he read from his deposition.

Bonsell said he misspoke. And then, "That's my fault, your honor."

Bonsell said he didn't think it mattered because Buckingham had not actually donated any of his money. Rather, the money had been collected from members of his church.

But Jones pointed out that Bonsell had said he had never spoken to anybody else about the donations.

The judge also wanted to know why the money needed to be forwarded to his father, why Buckingham couldn't have purchased the books himself.

Bonsell stammered.

"I still haven't heard an answer from you," Jones said.

"He said he'd take it off the table," Bonsell said.

"You knew you were under oath?" Jones asked at one point.

Later, outside the courthouse, plaintiffs' attorneys had no comment on Jones' questioning, and Dover's attorney Patrick Gillen had little to say.

"I won't speculate" about the judge's actions, Gillen said. "I'm confident that he's seeking the truth in these proceedings."

And we're supposed to believe it when this guy, and the equally mendacious Buckingham, claim to have never, ever mentioned "creationism", and that any such account is someone else's bad memory, someone else's bad note taking, someone else's deceit, or the collusion of two reporters from two different newspapers with some shared nefarious agenda?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #75 of 576
Christians lie to spread the good word, it's one of the most common tactics. It's the preacher's bread-and-butter.

CC:

Quote:
Yes. I am the last remaining soul on the planet that doesn't adhere to the prevailing doctrine of evolution.

Didn't you just scold me for being a smart-ass?

The fact is you have a belief you do not want to challenge you simply blunder past all challenges and loudly repeat that none exist. That's why you cannot answer honestly when asked if there is any way you could be convinced of Darwinist evolution.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #76 of 576
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Yes, actually.

I want to be absolutely, perfectly clear on this. Your claim is that the scientific method can have no bearing on a question such as "Was George Washington the first president of the United States?", and that anyone's belief or disbelief in this historical fact can only be characterized as a matter of faith?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #77 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
More terribly unskilled and inept lying from a member of the Dover, PA Board of Ed.:


And we're supposed to believe it when this guy, and the equally mendacious Buckingham, claim to have never, ever mentioned "creationism", and that any such account is someone else's bad memory, someone else's bad note taking, someone else's deceit, or the collusion of two reporters from two different newspapers with some shared nefarious agenda?

Man, these guys aren't very good at this, are they?

The direction of this thread kind of reminds me of WMD threads of yore, or a number of other right wing vs. reality threads.

At heart you have a con game, based on misdirection, spin, fake "experts", compliant media, etc.

The con is to sell us something most of us wouldn't take, if the cards were laid out on the table.

The con itself, once you start actually looking at the evidence, is fairly transparent and indefensible, so its defenders change the subject.

In the case of ID, just as in WMD, we stop talking about the actual who and what and why, and get enmeshed in pointless minutiae and sophomoric "how do we know what we know" cul-de-sacs, which is just how the apologists for various cons would have it.

Fortunately, the court rooms still operate on the assumption of objective truth, so it's really interesting to get this window into the actual motivations and politics of the people pressing to move ID into the classroom, without all the hand waving.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #78 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Christians lie to spread the good word, it's one of the most common tactics. It's the preacher's bread-and-butter.

Do I smell a diversionary, broad-sweeping statement about a huge group of people for which the generalized statement surely doesn't apply to all?

Yep, sure do.

Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Didn't you just scold me for being a smart-ass?

Yes.

Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
The fact is you have a belief you do not want to challenge you simply blunder past all challenges and loudly repeat that none exist.

The fact is you are wrong.

Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
That's why you cannot answer honestly when asked if there is any way you could be convinced of Darwinist evolution.

I'll ask you, plainly, what would convince you that things were created (not "created" by some random set of events over a gazillion years...but created by some kind of creator)? What would you need to see? Hear? Touch? Taste? Feel?
post #79 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Yes. I am the last remaining soul on the planet that doesn't adhere to the prevailing doctrine of evolution.

You could discuss...but you are so much better at just being a smart-ass. Too bad for you.

This is not a doctrine, it's a scientifical thesis.

Imagine that someone call christianism a superstition instead of a religion. I bet you won't be happy with that, and you will be right.
post #80 of 576
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
I want to be absolutely, perfectly clear on this. Your claim is that the scientific method can have no bearing on a question such as "Was George Washington the first president of the United States?", and that anyone's belief or disbelief in this historical fact can only be characterized as a matter of faith?

Yes.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Kitzmiller v. Dover Board of Ed. -- aka the "Panda Trial"