RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register


Question: FtK's "Where Does ID Belong?" Poll :: Total Votes:71
Poll choices Votes Statistics
In Science Classes 1  [1.41%]
In Philosophy of Science Classes 21  [29.58%]
In Religion Classes 18  [25.35%]
As a separate study (via groups like the IDEA clubs) 3  [4.23%]
Ooutside of the school setting in churches, synagogues, etc. 1  [1.41%]
It should be wiped off the face of the earth. 14  [19.72%]
Other (Please Specify) 13  [18.31%]
Guests cannot vote
Pages: (6) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: FtK's "Where Does ID Belong?" Poll< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 11046
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,12:57   

These choices are crude, but I'm working with what she gave us.

   
stevestory



Posts: 11046
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,12:59   

Intelligent Design already exists in Philosophy of Science courses, by the way.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11117
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,13:12   

It's a good example of demarcation.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,13:27   

We touched briefly in Phil 160 at the UW (Washington). Although the course structure tends to differ depending the professor, ID was brought up during my class in the context of epistemology.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,13:33   

From what I see of ID, which to me is basic creationism dressed with sciency terms, it think it shouldn't be taught anywhere.
ID is a political strategy which has nothing to do with science (philosophy included). So it definitely doesn't belong to the science classroom.
Even in church, ID would remain nothing else than an attempt to deceive and to spread falsehoods about real science and our origins. This would be very bad religion.

So yes, I voted it should be wiped off the surface of the Earth. Not by killing its proponents of course, but by educating people.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,13:38   

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 29 2007,14:33)
From what I see of ID, which to me is basic creationism dressed with sciency terms, it think it shouldn't be taught anywhere.
ID is a political strategy which has nothing to do with science (philosophy included). So it definitely doesn't belong to the science classroom.
Even in church, ID would remain nothing else than an attempt to deceive and to spread falsehoods about real science and our origins. This would be very bad religion.

So yes, I voted it should be wiped off the surface of the Earth. Not by killing its proponents of course, but by educating people.

I felt it could serve as an instructive illustration of a pseudo-science attempting to pass for science; familiarity with its rhetorical strategy would enable students to make similar future discriminations.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,14:20   

Other--ID belongs in either pseudoscience or abnormal psychology courses.

  
Jasper



Posts: 76
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,14:42   

I voted "other."

ID is bad science, incoherent philosophy, and risky theology.  It clearly does not belong in a classroom.  I also would not like it to be used to deceive religious people about real science.

I guess it could be used as an example of a pseudoscience.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,14:59   

I'm with Jean on this one.  It's not just bad science, but it seeks to destroy science.  It is a counter-productive POS that should be wiped out through better education.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,15:22   

I voted for "outside of the school setting in churches, synagogues".

Quote
It should be wiped off the face of the earth.


Within a week some ID dingbat will quote this as proof that 'Darwinists' want to murder IDers. Mark my words.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 11046
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,15:35   

Those of you who didn't vote for "Philosophy of Science" courses: have you had any such courses?

   
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,16:07   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 29 2007,15:35)
Those of you who didn't vote for "Philosophy of Science" courses: have you had any such courses?

HeII no.
Do they teach IC and how to use the nixplanatory filter in those courses?

  
stevestory



Posts: 11046
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,16:10   

I don't remember any Dembski in mine, but Behe and Ruse came up.

Edited by stevestory on Sep. 29 2007,17:10

   
Henry J



Posts: 5106
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,16:30   

Where does ID belong?

Maybe in a political science course describing strategies used in political movements, especially those trying for support from people who aren't knowledgable about the subject matter.

After all, if "ID" were science, it would have been given a label that says something about the underlying science. Consider the names given to actual science theories - relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution - each of those labels actually says something about the underlying subject matter.

If there were evidence of life or some part of it being deliberately engineered by some agency, the theory describing that would be labelled in a way that explicitly refers to deliberate engineering, or to the type of engineering involved. In contrast to that, the label "intelligent design" was picked because it sounds good to the target audience.

Henry

  
stevestory



Posts: 11046
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,16:36   

I wish my Philosophy of Science courses had been post-Dover. I'd like to know what the philosopher who taught the class thinks of Jones's decision. He thought Ruse's demarcation in McLean vs Arkansas was absolute junk, btw.

   
Henry J



Posts: 5106
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,17:12   

Quote
stevestory: I wish my Philosophy of Science courses had been post-Dover. I'd like to know what the philosopher who taught the class thinks of Jones's decision. He thought Ruse's demarcation in McLean vs Arkansas was absolute junk, btw.


Write him/her a letter and ask.

Henry

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,18:07   

I voted for 'other' because I feel it should be used as a case study in psychology classes, but I could not find out how to specify what I meant.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Jkrebs



Posts: 395
Joined: Sep. 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,18:41   

I voted other, and agree with Henry J: as a current event in political science in regards to the larger "worldview war" being promulgated by many in the fundamentalist right.

  
RF Brady



Posts: 30
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,19:26   

ID should not be in either science or philosophy of science classes as it is not science. It should also not be in a religion class. A better place for it would be in a social sciences class that analyses the various social movements of the 20th (and now the 21st) centuries. It could take it's place alongside things like the KKK, Segregation (Jim Crow Laws), and other bizarre movements of our present and recent past.

It should, however be included in a post secondary curriculum, not because of any fear that ID might creep into High School curricula, but because the subject is really quite limited and specific and does not lend itself to high school curricula which is almost always broadly  a "survey" curriculum.

  
stevestory



Posts: 11046
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,20:25   

Quote (RF Brady @ Sep. 29 2007,20:26)
ID should not be in either science or philosophy of science classes as it is not science.

Would I be correct in assuming you've never had a Philosophy of Science class?

   
RF Brady



Posts: 30
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,21:35   

You are correct sir. And the last post secondary science class I had was Freshman Zoology back during the Age of Aquarius.

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,22:07   

Quote (Jkrebs @ Sep. 29 2007,18:41)
I voted other, and agree with Henry J: as a current event in political science in regards to the larger "worldview war" being promulgated by many in the fundamentalist right.

Jack, why is the "fundamentalist right" responsible for the "worldview war"?????

What about anti-ID atheist activists like PZ, Harris, Weinburg, Dawkins, Hitchens, Scott, Forrest, et. al.   Are they not equally responsible for this "worldview war"?  They are all scientists who have written books or articles which are often best sellers that promote science as a sword against religious belief.  (I realize that Scott & Forrest refrain from outwardly stating that religion is a hinderence to society, but they base their atheism on science as well).

That's the biggest gripe I had with Miller's speech the other day.  He lamblasted the "fundamentalists" for trying to use science to support their religious beliefs, yet not ONE mention of the antics from the "New Atheists" or whatever they want to be called.  

They USE science as their basis for atheism (which is a faith belief regardless of what any of you will admit).  Many of them have actually use terms like "war on religion", "The God Delusion", etc.  

That certainly comes across in the classroom regardless of whether the professor says one word about his atheist leanings.  PZ stated once that he tells his students at the beginning of his class that no one will be graded any differently regardless of their beliefs in regard to evolution or their belief or disbelief in God.  

But he also mentioned that he will work darn hard at getting through to them how ridiculous their faith in God is considering what we know about science.

The "worldview war" cannot by any means be attributed to the "fundamentalist right", and we must remember that the fundamentalist left have complete control of our classrooms at present.

The rights of religious people have all but been completely striped from the schools, yet atheists would like to see even more taken away.  Even the cross necklaces being worn by the teachers are at risk of being ripped off and trashed (I've seen this complaint mentioned several times at PZ's palace).  

Do you think this behavior is helping the culture war?   Do you think this is helping science?  It's turning it into a three ring circus!

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
stevestory



Posts: 11046
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,22:12   

FtK's in rare form tonight. I'm getting PM's about it.

   
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,22:18   

Hey, man, what can I say...I've been trying to put together the post on MN, but it's getting too long and I was getting bored with trying to cut it back.  So I figured I'd come in here and shake things up a bit. ;)

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11117
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,22:52   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 29 2007,22:12)
FtK's in rare form tonight. I'm getting PM's about it.

PM's or P.M.S?

Hey FtK, how about getting a sister poll started on UD?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 29 2007,22:56   

I voted other ....."American Pulp Fiction"

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Alan Fox



Posts: 1436
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,06:30   

I voted "off the face of the earth".

Jeannot expressed it neatly.

ID as an idea was always a fraud and will whither away since it was judged as such at Harrisburg.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2278
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,06:39   

I voted "other".  ID itself should not be taught (unless you're working to destroy a culture), but I have no problems with students being taught about ID, e.g. as an example of a movement in sociology or politics.

I guess it could also be taught in rhetoric classes.  *fart*.

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,07:31   

I'd put it in the Religion Class...only so long as they touch upon all other religions origins or creation beliefs.

This goes to another point about the disingenuous tactics of the IDiots or Creationist.  They keep talking about "alternation" views, when in fact, the only alternative view they want taught along side TOC is their Biblical view.  Not a Hindu, Muslim, Scientology...blah..blah...blah....Just theirs.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2007,14:11   

Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 30 2007,07:31)
I'd put it in the Religion Class...only so long as they touch upon all other religions origins or creation beliefs.

This goes to another point about the disingenuous tactics of the IDiots or Creationist.  They keep talking about "alternation" views, when in fact, the only alternative view they want taught along side TOC is their Biblical view.  Not a Hindu, Muslim, Scientology...blah..blah...blah....Just theirs.

Well, yeah. A crucial point in the rhetoric of IDCers and the Christian Right in general, which FTK is often guilty of herself, is to assume a bogus dichotomy between Good Conservative Protestants on the one hand versus Godless Liberals on the other, with nothing down the middle. It's crucial to their rhetoric to create an all-or-nothing scenario where you either check off ALL the religious right's boxes or none. So they pretend there aren't Liberal Christians, or Christians who support evolution, or Christians who support gay rights, or Conservative atheists. Then they pretend that all religious people are Fundamentalist Protestants or at the very least conservative Christians -- if you ain't Christian, you're an **atheist***. So this explains why their 'alternatives to Darwinism' or 'alternatives to materialism' somehow *always* consist of American Fundamentalist Protestantism, as tho that's the only way in the world not to be an atheist.

Then they pretend that conservative Fundamentalist Protestants are a majority of the country. When they deign to acknowledge Christians who don't agree with them, they imply that such people aren't real Christians, yet they count every last Christian in the country when declaring that we're a 'Christian Nation'.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
  178 replies since Sep. 29 2007,12:57 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (6) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]