My opinion (not verifiable, falsifiable, or quantifiable)? I'd say that the moon landing being faked is more likely than the holocaust being faked, which is more likely than the Earth being created in 6 days.

Where it landed on the scale was faked, though. :thumbsup:

i think you guys are misunderstanding my point.

Holocaust denial is highly relevant and critical to understanding the underlying causes of such events. Why live in a bubble? That is selective teaching. I think exposing or introducing Holocaust denial is a very good tool in the classroom. Like discussing the KKK and how it impacts the Civil Rights movement etc.

With ID, it can go in many directions. It is a historical fact that the theory of ID exists and many people believe in it. Perfect set up to contrast with say, the scientifi method. A great illustration to put them side by side using that model. I find it interesting that people are so afraid of ID. A couple of paragraphs or a lecture or two would be a great class.

We still teach that old scientists who thought the earth was the center of the universe and that the world was flat. Should we remove those examples from the textbooks and lesson plans?

Facts are subjective. And that's a fact. Simply because we are always learning and "evolving". It used to be a fact that Pluto was a planet. Now it is not. No problem, we can adapt. No reason to banish that historical fact from the books or to supress that expression. It used to be a fact that Columbus discovered America, but now it's not.

Lots of professors express their opinion in class. The day after 9/11, my astronomy professor went off on Bush. How is that relevant to astronomy? So what if a teacher wants to express his views (including religion)? My anthropology professor ( a Muslim) dared to tell us that not all Muslims were terrorists, they do not represent Islam and that his God does not approve of what they do . Wow, how dare a man of science express a religious opinion in class!!!

I think you guys are not giving us enough credit. I think people can decide for themselves. I feel there is room for discussion and learning and hearing different viewpoints is conducive to that.

ID isn't a religious opinion. Creationism is a religious opinion. I hope that's clear. ID is nothing but ignorance. If there was an ignorance class in school, ID is what would be taught. In religion class one would learn about creationism. In science class one would learn about evolution.

ID can't be compares to old world science either because they didn't really have the scientific knowledge at their fingertips like we have now. Had ID been introduced 600 years ago, I'd have applauded them for trying to move science towards science and away from religion. The thing is, we already have answers to the questions that ID poses. The answers that ID propose are preposterous.

Were on the same page, I think the holocaust denial should be covered, but from a historical accurate view point, from the view point of that it really did happen and there are people for what ever reason that say it didn't. The same is true with ID, it should be covered from the stand point that people believe it and the reasons it is wrong.

I still disagree with the facts... it is a fact that we once believed that Columbus discovered America, it was never a fact that he did, we only thought he did. it is a fact that Pluto used to fit the description of a planet, but they changed the definition of planet so Pluto no longer fits that definition. so it is a fact that Pluto no longer fits the definition of a planet, however, without defining a planet, you can't say it is a fact that Pluto is or isn't a planet. I could say, it is a fact that Pluto is no longer defined as a planet, or that Pluto used to fit the definition of a planet. Fact, just like Theory is misunderstood by most people. A fact is universal and infallible, it is always true and never false, can never be false. facts are mostly in math, 2+2 = 4, that is a fact. the soda can on my desk contains 12 oz of soda (at the time of me writing this)

Sure thing, I agree with some of what you say and disagree with some of what you say too.

This is an interesting direction we're headed - almost colliding with Art's "fact" thread.

jorge,

never said religious people can't teach (assuming that was directed at me); just said if some hard core guy with a definite agenda to further ID in schools (getting rid of "some" regulations preventing "some" material...) then yeah, i wouldn't want that dude teaching science or heading up the school board.

when i was in high school, i had a guy like that who somehow got to head up the sex ed committee. i was one of three highschool kids they asked to be on the committee. so from day one, the discussion wasn't whether or not what we should teach. it was "why is abstinence-only so awesome" and how would could implement abstincence only education. of course, the idea was shot down before it really got implemented, but the concept of teaching about protection and safe sex was just right out the door.

i don't blame these people for their beliefs. i just don't want them to be implemented. as far as i'm concerned, they can believe that the moon is made of cheese. i just don't want to see anyone try to harvest it.

i dont think that the arguments re. "fact" are the way to go about dismissing id.

uh---facts are universal and infallible?
depends what you have defined as relevant yes?
here's a demonstration---but sadly, i can't find a graphic for this, and it is really good...ugh...-----anyway, on 1+1=2: that the statement is true depends on what you are counting.

josef albers worked out a neat demonstration for the claim 1+1=3 or more. the demonstration (along with albers quite lovely visuals) can be found in edward tufte's "envisioning information" p. 61 or in albers "search versus re-search" pp. 17-18.

the following is not as good, but it uses what i could find online....so maybe you can derive it from this:

you add one black line to another black line on a white surface...

http://www2.cs.uregina.ca/~rbm/cs100..._one_three.gif

if you add the two lines by placing them one across the other, 1+1=4 or more.



so an even apparently self-evident claim (1+1=2) is a function of rules that you bring to bear on the operation, and these rules are frame-contingent.

it is because "facts" are frame contingent that it matters so much which frames are brought into play.

this is not a relativist argument, btw. think about it.

While an interesting tangent, we humans have the ability to reason, and use what common sense we have to place things into a perspective of likelyhood. It is (in my opinion) this ability that has allowed us as a species to progress beyond tool making monkeys in the first place. The sciences are a wonderful example of this tendency to be rational in action, as they place observation and reproduction of results as a prerequisite to reasonable Data.
The above experiment can certainly be true if one decides to set the parameters in such a way to create the results they are hoping for, just as ID can be true under these circumstances. True scientific evaluation of a thing however, requires one to ignore artificial criteria, and focus on the rational explanations that Data point to.

it's not that easy. tec.
the albers demonstration is every bit as rational as any other.
it is not a parlor game, not a joke: within the rules that shape it, the results are true--true in that they are formally correct--they violate no rules. a true statement is simply one that violates none of the relevant rules. it's validity is a direct function of the procedures that enable it.
that's it. it doesnt matter is these statements are intuitively evident or not. it doesnt matter if the results violate "common sense"--which is every bit as rule-bound a space/way of thinking as any other.

'common sense' holds no weight. you cant appeal to it and expect that resolves anything. "common sense" is nothing more or less than a social space within which the rule-bound nature of basic operations (perception for example) are naturalized, collapsed into what appears to be given. if you want to think about the relationship between rules/conventions and outputs, it is the last zone of activity that you would want to appeal to. another way: common sense begs all questions.

the point is that arguments against id cannot appeal to some notion of "fact" as if facts are what they are as they are outside of a series of assumptions. a fact is only what it is--is only "true"---BECAUSE there are procedures that enable the meta-operation of verification. and it is entirely possible that the framework within which these procedures operate can turn out to be wrong--think about classical mechanics, think about euclidian geometry (taken as frameworks that adequately describe the experiential world and its regularities or "laws"...that the descriptive power of these frameworks is not total does not mean that they cease to exist--they are functional within certain, highly circumscribed areas of activity/inquiry...)

just to say what should be obvious: this is in NO WAY an argument for a theory as self-evidently goofy as intelligent design.
i dont feel like repeating myself any more.
suffice it to say that this is why i understand the central problem at issue to be political or sociological.
but now things circular grow.
i may need more coffee before i track the circularity of it again.
i may need more coffee to do it than i am capable of drinking.

http://www2.cs.uregina.ca/~rbm/cs100..._one_three.gif

well no, that is not 1+1=3 that is
1 black line + 1 black line + 1 white line = 2 black lines +1 white line = 3 lines.

1 + 1 + 1 = 2 + 1 = 3

depends how you look at it, doesn't it?
in one way, you're right.
in another, you're not.
depends on the rules.

i wonder if we should split this into another thread?
i dont have time to work out an op at the moment, but if someone else does, i'd be happy to play more later with this.

Depending on how the ID is framed, ID isn't necessarily inconsistent with evolution. The problem is that it isn't science. It isn't necessarily wrong, either. It's just not scientific, and shouldn't be "dignified" with the title of science. It follows that if it is to be taught in public schools, it should be taught in social studies rather than science classes, and be an object of study similar to Zoroastrianism.

Although I think that's the correct position, it's clear to me that that is way too nuanced to work in the real world. So it probably should be left to be taught in churches.

tec, i found your answer.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y29/pigglet/fs7A.gif

piggy, that's ID, not creationism. Creationism is what I posted in post #30. ID is the mistaken application of religious information that negates scientific fact being taught as science. Creationism is just religious information.

ok, how about now? :D

:thumbsup: I couldn't be happier with it.

Thanks for your post Pig. No my post wasn't directed at you, it was more in general. I thought it was pertinent to put that viewpoint out there.

In your example, the "one or the other" strategy in employed. I would advocate both. EX: Teach abstinence AND safe sex practices.

To me that seems reasonable. I don't see it as a zero sum, that is can only be one or the other.

Wow, Roach, awesome post. Very interesting stuff, definitely something to think about. I was trying to allude (in a small way) to what you were talking about. I think the other 'fact" thread is also salient here.

Will, I think I may have confused ID with Creationism. I will look into it more, but I was talking more on an applicable level as opposed to a literal one.

Great cartoon Pig.

By the way, there are plenty of Christians etc that do believe in evolution or similar theories and even some who believe in both.

jorge,

oh,i know...concerning the number of christians who take science very seriously and aren't dogmatic in the sense that i think we're talking about and around here...i'll have to get back to this, as my dog is about to eat the back door trying to make me go throw things for her to fetch..

The way I see it, Creationism is straight religion. It has nothing to do with the big bang or evolution. It's simply the words in the Bible (or Torah, or Qu'ran, etc.) and faith.

Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is the bastard love child between two entirely different species: science and religion. In order to combine the two completely different constructs, they had to make concessions on both sides. A common concession would be that the Earth is only 6000 years old according to the genealogy provided in the Bible, despite the mountain of backable and verifiable evidence to the contrary. ID is bad in that it ignores both of it's sources. ID doesn't work when applied to science because we have proof that it's claims are wrong. It doesn't work with religion because religion is about faith in god, not proving god's existence.

At least that's the way I see it. I may be an atheist, but someone who believes in creationism is simply devoted, and it's making concessions on their beliefs. I respect that deeply, whether I agree with them or not. ID people aren't being true to their beliefs or science. They're a mess.
Most Catholics believe in evolution. Many protestants believe in evolution. ID is simply a loud, stupid minority.

Ok, interesting, thanks Will for the info.

So then, is the debate against evolution,creationism, ID or what exactly? I just looked at the OP and I think we may have deviated a bit from it.

Tec wanted to know how ID could be feasibly taught in science classes. Frankly, I have no idea how they'd do it without the Bible. My point was in supporting Tec's question by trying to point out that, in my view, that teaching ID in science class is about the most absurd idea imaginable.

ID is why this discussion is going on.

(God made me post this)

....uh....she just told me you misunderstood her. what she actually said was:

"Show me YOUR post"

ID didn't happen.
Teaching it to our offspring is a bad idea.
The universe is what we live in, but personalizing it kills people.
I love you.

I find it really too bad that the very simple reductionist notion that consciousness (intelligence) is an obvious component of the universe and that this fact is all that's needed to posit that one component of the universe is consciousness (intelligence).

Accepting this simple notion does allow one to seriously consider and investigate the evidently problematic idea of an intelligent universe.

Well, I think the reason that the discussion has drifted is that the original question is practically rhetorical. We know that nothing positive comes from telling people that dinosaurs are, at most, six thousand years old, and that God carved the Grand Canyon with His hand in the matter of a day or two. We know that Fundamentalism is creeping into our schools and assaulting reason because the dwindling power base is desperate but still powerful in pockets around the nation.

In the end, I think it is a political consideration of people who want the masses to stoically persevere through God's challenges and go to heaven for their troubles, rather than valuing the here-and-now and demanding change to makes things better for them and their children.

Call me cynical. But I've always seen our public K-18 program to be more of an indoctrination than an education to begin with. This ID business is just the gravy.

I'm not so sure teachers have much say on what they teach.

These decisions are left up to the board of education

What area do they teach ID in schools anyways? It can't possibly go in science, as that breaks the fundamentals science is based upon.

so... history? :)

maybe social studies :)

I'm a little confused by Penn & Teller's stance, their for Intelligent Design? Did I read that right?

Against.

ID is silly... but I'm about as religious as a Pez dispenser.

So, yeah... ID is silly... unless MacGyver is involved.