Darth Wong wrote:Hello, "Intelligent Design" Pussies. Where are you?
Right here! It's a perfect opportunity to demonstrate what a scientific theory isn't. The people educated about the lack of any scientific support of ID will be better able to resist insane non-scientific blithering in the future.
Right here! It's a perfect opportunity to demonstrate what a scientific theory isn't. The people educated about the lack of any scientific support of ID will be better able to resist insane non-scientific blithering in the future.
ArmorPierce wrote:That said, how are we going to see the results. Will they be posted here. ARe they going to be broken up by board? How long is the poll up for?
*cough*
Plushie wrote:
The poll will be closed at the end of August (August 31) and results tallied and reposted on all boards the poll was posted on
They won't answer; they never do. You can have 100 people vote in a poll with 99 voting for one option and 99 posted replies; the one who votes differently is the one who doesn't post, so you just end up with a thread of people saying basically the same thing.
They likely have some kind of fear of potential criticism or persecution, so they're either meek apologists or are part of the local 'voiceless dissenting voice' lurkers.
Anydangway, I vote 'no'. Pseudoscience has no place in a science class. What next, 'alternate viewpoints' in algebra? Since when did teaching become about confusing kids with conflicting info and telling them to choose? They don't know how to analyze science and chose what's valid, that's why they need to be freakin' taught. ID is pure smokescreen to put the facts in questionable light to people and make them susceptable to religious mantra.
Might as well say "some people merely claim clouds are water vapor, but some theories suggest they're cotton, so who's to say they couldn't contain magical castles and angels on top of them?"
Darth Wong wrote:Hello, "Intelligent Design" Pussies. Where are you?
Right here! It's a perfect opportunity to demonstrate what a scientific theory isn't. The people educated about the lack of any scientific support of ID will be better able to resist insane non-scientific blithering in the future.
Awwwww, and here we were all arming up for a smackdown. Still, an excellent point. Especially with ID's development being so new.
Say, can anyone think of any parallel instances of someone making up something like this as a "middle ground" before? I can't think of any other examples.
Rogue 9 wrote:
Awwwww, and here we were all arming up for a smackdown.
I'm sorry to dissapoint you. I'm sure in the future I will say something assenine for you to smack me down on. There is no need to panic.
Now, back to the subject:
Utsanomiko wrote:Anydangway, I vote 'no'. Pseudoscience has no place in a science class. What next, 'alternate viewpoints' in algebra? Since when did teaching become about confusing kids with conflicting info and telling them to choose? They don't know how to analyze science and chose what's valid, that's why they need to be freakin' taught. ID is pure smokescreen to put the facts in questionable light to people and make them susceptable to religious mantra.
I disagree. They are going to hear about ID sooner or later anyway, and it is best that it is taught in a classroom where it is easily concluded to be a fallacy.
After all, if they are stupid enough to fall for it in the classroom, it will be even easier for them to fall for it outside from some random person on the street.[/quote]
DrkHelmet wrote:I disagree. They are going to hear about ID sooner or later anyway, and it is best that it is taught in a classroom where it is easily concluded to be a fallacy.
It's not called "teaching" about ID when you're citing it as a fallacy. That's simply using it as an example.
No. It shouldn't even be taught as an example of pseudoscience. Any effort that would extend its longetivity should be avoided.
"The rest of the poem plays upon that pun. On the contrary, says Catullus, although my verses are soft (molliculi ac parum pudici in line 8, reversing the play on words), they can arouse even limp old men. Should Furius and Aurelius have any remaining doubts about Catullus' virility, he offers to fuck them anally and orally to prove otherwise." - Catullus 16, Wikipedia
Pick wrote:No. It shouldn't even be taught as an example of pseudoscience. Any effort that would extend its longetivity should be avoided.
Then again, it's probably here to stay if nothing is done to educate against it. I don't know; I'm not enough of an expert in education to really advocate a position, but I wouldn't dismiss the idea out of hand.
Of course, it should not be taught as a potentially valid theory, which is what the poll is asking. So really voting yes on that issue because you think it should be taught and identified as incorrect is really answering the wrong question.
I think that properly teaching about evolution is enough to educate against ID.
Brotherhood of the Monkey @( !.! )@ To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. ~Steve Prefontaine Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.
DrkHelmet wrote:It's a perfect opportunity to demonstrate what a scientific theory isn't. The people educated about the lack of any scientific support of ID will be better able to resist insane non-scientific blithering in the future.
You're assuming that these students have already or will be educated properly on how science works, what a scientific theory is, the process of evolution, etc. I don't see this happening.
The most basic assumption about the world is that it does not contradict itself.
The only reason ID should ever be brought up in a science classroom is as an example of what does not constitute a valid scientific theory, with prompt explanations as to why it is not one. Otherwise, my answer to the poll is an obvious no.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
Rogue 9 wrote:
Awwwww, and here we were all arming up for a smackdown. Still, an excellent point. Especially with ID's development being so new.
Intelligent Design is a new label, it's not 'new'.
The original 'Argument from design' is in William Paley's Natural Theology, published in 1802. That was the origin of the concept that the existence of a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker.
I believe that this argument should be covered before teaching evolution, in order to point out all the things Reverend Paley was wrong about, and all the false assumtions he made. One of the key tenets of the argument from design as Paley presented it is that you can tell that a watch has been designed because it has a definite purpose as well as being very complex. Organic life does not have a definite purpose, and therefore does not require a designer.
So only one ID acutal moron.
On my side, Hell fucking no, if you want to teach Intellgent design on the basis of how bullshit a "theory" it is then you might as well substite the flying Flying Spaghetti Monsterism and piss off less Fundies.
"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
Posting while on holiday, haven't managed to get to a computer lately.
Any way, a resounding NO.
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.
Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
Ghost Rider wrote:No, because it would confuse the stupid, and the less they can get wrong the better.
Well posted.
CotK <mew> | HAB | JL | MM | TTC | Cybertron
TAX THE CHURCHES! - Lord Zentei TTC Supreme Grand Prophet
And the LORD said, Let there be Bosons! Yea and let there be Bosoms too!
I'd rather be the great great grandson of a demon ninja than some jackass who grew potatos. -- Covenant
Dead cows don't fart. -- CJvR
...and I like strudel! -- Asuka
I vote "no". As the Bible verse says, "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it" (Proverbs 22:6).
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
NEG. NEIN. NO. NYET. ID should be taught in schools just like how we teach them that bloodletting is good for the T-zone, and Smiley Pete's Snakeoil Tonic heals cancer. At least the Tonic gives you something to drink, and the bloodletting gives you a jar of.... live... leeches.
Still, an excellent point. Especially with ID's development being so new. 
-- Asuka
