My upcoming debate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-02-2014, 12:47 AM
RE: My upcoming debate
(03-02-2014 10:00 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  They want to debate people like Stephen Meyer but they dont want the topic discussed in schools???
I can't comment on the US situation, but as far as Germany is concerned, that notion is utterly false. Not only do recent biology textbooks spend several pages on addressing the objections of ID proponents, we also talked about it directly during our lessons.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 01:39 AM
RE: My upcoming debate
WOW.
It seems like they are giving ID some official recognition.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 01:42 AM
RE: My upcoming debate
(04-02-2014 01:39 AM)Lion IRC Wrote:  WOW.
It seems like they are giving ID some official recognition.

Right, like studying history and talking about how the Catholic Church suppressed Galileo's work is 'official recognition' of geocentrism.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like EvolutionKills's post
04-02-2014, 05:13 AM
RE: My upcoming debate
Should we teach flat earth theories in geography classes? Should we teach every random conspiracy theory or Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark in history classes? How about adding phrenology to the biology curriculum as well? Or that 2+2=5 in maths?

No, of course not. Because it's all nonsense that's been debunked. Just like ID.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Elder Cunningham's post
04-02-2014, 05:17 AM
RE: My upcoming debate
(03-02-2014 11:17 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Really, what is wrong with an open contest of ideas in the science class room?

What is wrong with an open contest of religions for a child's mind at Sunday school?

Although the difference here is that ID is not science whereas other religions are still religions.

ID could have been considered science if it was proposed in a previous century before we knew better, such as with Lamarckian evolution, but that would mean that it would still be just as irrelevant to modern science because of all the evidence to the contrary. (although it may be interesting in a history of science class)

Of course I and everyone else here will be able to repeat this ad infinitum and you will still keep harping on about ID as a battle for open ideas because you:

1) Do not understand the scientific process
2) Don't want to understand the scientific process
3) Don't care why the push for ID is not part of the scientific process
4) Don't care about whether there is evidence for ID or not
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
04-02-2014, 07:25 AM
RE: My upcoming debate
(03-02-2014 10:33 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(03-02-2014 10:29 PM)WindyCityJazz Wrote:  Because, like evolution, it needs to have good, solid evidence if it is going to be taught alongside it. Science is about proof, not making up anything you want and saying "this has just as much credibility as anything else!" Science will never claim something that has no proof to be true, and it will never hold onto the idea that something is still true after it has clearly been debunked.

Why are "soft" sciences taught in schools?
Psychology?

Psychology will teach about experiments by Psychologists like Pavlov and what their hypotheses were and how their results measured up. It does not say "this will work in every situation". Again, it talks about things which have PROOF. If those experiments showed to have been completely void of proof they would not be discussed. Where, in ANY situation, does science say "this deserves credibility, even though it has no proof whatsoever"? Again, the word is PROOF! The creationist argument offers NONE of it!

“Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.” - Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WindyCityJazz's post
04-02-2014, 07:37 AM (This post was last modified: 04-02-2014 07:53 AM by anonymous66.)
RE: My upcoming debate
(03-02-2014 08:21 PM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  This is my senior year in college, making it the "year of capstone courses." The anthropology capstone is basically a debate class. The professor has chosen a list of controversial subjects, and the students are supposed to muster our knowledge gained from four years of anthropology classes--1 year in my case since I changed my major late--to debate these from either a pro or a con stance. The subjects range from the reburial of native artifacts to cannibalism in the early human lineage. Today's debate was about the evolutionary advantage (or lack there) of homosexuality.

I have chosen to be the con side of the next debate, which asks if Intelligent Design should replace science in the class room. The person who reluctantly volunteered for the pro side is most likely an atheist himself, so this is going to be interesting. I've already got a good idea of what I'm going to say since I've got a book by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) that lays out the various arguments from both sides, and I also have a book that explores the history of Intelligent Design and its obvious connection to religion. But what you guys mention?


I was taught that creationism was true, and bought into it for many years until I started reading information comparing it to the theory of evolution. Since ID is the newest version of creationism, I did a lot of research into the subject. I'd look into Ken Miller and Francis Collins. They're both believers, yet speak out against ID, and are very knowledgeable about evolution. Here's Ken Miller's website. And Francis Collins Biologos website. They're both Christians and yet find the evidence for evolution to be overwhelming.

I also read and reviewed the newest version of the ID textbook The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems (newest version of Of Pandas and People). I can forward it to you if you're interested.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2014, 10:50 AM
RE: My upcoming debate
Let's teach all the controversies while we're at it. Have to be fair to all "sides" after all. Besides, what could possibly be the problem with teaching every perspective out there?

[Image: devil.png]

[Image: geocentric.gif]

[Image: ufo.png]

[Image: f9a2c5286436e23e3d4ec3bcac8fa0e4ad97cc86_m.gif]

[Image: elements.png]

[Image: cryptozoology_440.jpg]

[Image: bermudatriangle.png]

[Image: preformationism.png]

[Image: 146.jpg]

[Image: i-33c79dd70fa3fd99681f2beb6a27a565-atlantis.gif]

[Image: teapot.png]

[Image: cthulhu.png]

[Image: teachcontroversy_creationism.jpg.CROP.or...iginal.jpg]

[Image: reincarnation.gif]

[Image: doublethink-2-2-5-doublethink_design.png]

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Raptor Jesus's post
04-02-2014, 10:50 AM
RE: My upcoming debate
And…
[Image: Teach-the-Controversy.jpeg]

[Image: esp.png]

[Image: perpetual-motion-perpetual_design.png]

[Image: spoonbending.png]

[Image: humors.png]

[Image: unicorn.png]

[Image: scarab.png]

[Image: elvis.png]

[Image: hollow.png]

[Image: reptoid.png]

[Image: fountain.png]

[Image: demons.png]

[Image: rib.png]

[Image: dowsing.png]

[Image: poltergeists.png]

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Raptor Jesus's post
04-02-2014, 10:51 AM
RE: My upcoming debate
And lastly…
[Image: xenu.png]

[Image: paul.png]

[Image: 2012.png]

[Image: astrology.png]

[Image: illuminati.png]

[Image: timecube.png]

[Image: stork.png]

[Image: flatearth.png]

[Image: chemtrails.png]

[Image: phlogiston.png]

...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Raptor Jesus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: