Category: science education
|June 7, 2015||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Education, Ethics, FYI-FTR, science education, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society, Selective Hyperskepticism||
In a current UD News thread, we see how Megan Fox at PJ Media reports: >>If you want to know why people dislike atheists, it’s because they’re thoroughly dislikeable. And if you should find yourself on the wrong side of atheists, like I did by simply posting a video [–> perhaps, this] of myself walking through […]
|May 24, 2015||Posted by News under News, science education|
Here, based on this post on a remarkably pungent academic disgrace: Peter Thiel’s comments on the American university system say it all. A variety of academics, scientists and particularly Ivy League professors and alumni inherit a priestly-caste status. They are the truth holders. They are the diviners of the universe. And we must pour an endless […]
|May 8, 2015||Posted by News under Global Warming, Media, News, science education|
From John Cook, climate communications guy at the University of Queensland at The Conversation: Ironically, the practice of throwing more science at science denial ignores the social science research into denial. You can’t adequately address this issue without considering the root cause: personal beliefs and ideology driving the rejection of scientific evidence. Attempts at science […]
|May 4, 2015||Posted by News under Darwinism, Intelligent Design, News, science education|
… his fight for Darwin-only schools in Louisiana. If so that’s significant, because the media party is sure backing him. Their ignorance and prejudice is his strength. Get a load of the cream puff interview at I09: We last spoke with Kopplin in early 2013. Since then, he has continued to campaign tirelessly against the […]
|May 4, 2015||Posted by News under News, science education|
From chemistry site Compound Interest: The vast majority of people will get their science news from online news site articles, and rarely delve into the research that the article is based on. Personally, I think it’s therefore important that people are capable of spotting bad scientific methods, or realising when articles are being economical with […]
|April 11, 2015||Posted by News under News, science education|
Had to happen: The theory of “intelligent design” holds that the universe and living beings are so complex that they must have been created by an “intelligent” force typically identified as a deity. Conservative Christian opponents of teaching evolution have advocated that “intelligent design” be taught as an alternative. Perzanoski in a phone interview Tuesday […]
|March 12, 2015||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, News, science education|
And why it might not really matter in the long run As Jonathan Wells, author of author of The Myth of Junk DNA , tells it at Evolution News & Views(March 9): Berkman and Plutzer’s findings were reported in the March 6 issue of Science. The report was accompanied by a photo of a biology […]
|January 29, 2015||Posted by News under News, science education|
Paper encourages us to consider that intelligent design may help us understand complex systems.
|January 12, 2015||Posted by News under News, science education|
Actually, Tyson can say pretty much whatever he wants about anyone or any group he chooses; that’s what being a science celeb means these days.
|December 30, 2014||Posted by News under Media, News, science education|
on intelligent design in the schools
|December 5, 2014||Posted by News under News, science education|
In other news, no one in North America is trying to shoot him. We just think he is dumb and boring.
|September 17, 2014||Posted by News under Climate change, Intelligent Design, science education|
He is demonstrating, it seems, that any number can play at that “science denial” game.
BA77’s observation: “many influential people in academia simply don’t want Design to be true no matter what evidence . . .”
|August 4, 2014||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, ID Foundations, science education, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
The inimitable BA77 observes: I [used] to think that if ID could only get its evidence to the right people in the right places then they would change their mind about Darwinian evolution and we would have a fundamental ‘paradigm shift’ from the ‘top down’. But after a few years of banging my head on […]
|July 22, 2014||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, News, science education|
The flattening of information hierarchies often means that small, independent outfits can draw level with or surge ahead of major approved sources of information.
|April 26, 2014||Posted by News under News, science education|
“Evolution,” used this way, = “magic” and we were all told not to believe in magic.
|April 26, 2014||Posted by News under Darwinism, Intelligent Design, News, science education|
If students knew more, they would be even less likely to believe classroom dogma
|April 1, 2014||Posted by News under Genetics, News, science education|
You must be a student at the University of British Columbia, but this may spark some ideas elsewhere as well.
|February 12, 2014||Posted by News under News, science education|
Textbook publishing is in the hands of a few conglomerates, scalping the property tax payer who is obliged to support the compulsory public school systems, however bad. The Darwin lobby helps prevent any serious evaluation of what’s in the biology books vs. what’s in reality.
|February 3, 2014||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, News, science education|
Increasingly generic language = there is less and less of a fit between Darwin’s followers views and the realities of biology, as known today. So it would not take much to offend them.
|January 28, 2014||Posted by kairosfocus under academic freedom, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, ID Foundations, science education, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society, Selective Hyperskepticism, They said it . . .|
Good day, my name is JoeG and I would like to get something out in the open and hopefully have it become fully understood by everyone. For decades I have been debating against evolutionism and for decades I have been told that my position is “anti-evolution.” I found that strange because my position allows for […]
Common ancestry in combination with common design can explain the similar features that arise in biology. The real question is whether common ancestry apart from common design- in other words, materialistic evolution- can do so. The evidence of biology increasingly demonstrates that it cannot.– IBID, page 142
And from one more pro-ID book:
Many assume that if common ancestry is true, then the only viable scientific position is Darwinian evolution- in which all organisms are descended from a common ancestor via random mutation and blind selection. Such an assumption is incorrect- Intelligent Design is not necessarily incompatible with common ancestry.— page 217 of “Intelligent Design 101”
That is just a sample of what the Intelligent Design leadership say about biological evolution — they are OK with it. And the following is from “Uncommon Descent” in its Weak Argument Correctives:
The word “evolution” can mean different things. The simplest meaning is one of natural history of the appearance of different living forms. A stronger meaning implies common descent, in its universal form (all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor) or in partial form (particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor). “Evolution” is often defined as descent with modifications, or simply as changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.
None of those definitions can prove ID wrong, because none are in any way incompatible with it.
ID is a theory about the cause of genetic information, not about the modalities or the natural history of its appearance, and is in no way incompatible with many well known patterns of limited modification of that information usually defined as “microevolution.” ID affirms that design is the cause, or at least a main cause, of complex biological information. A theory which would indeed be alternative to ID, and therefore could prove it wrong, is any empirically well-supported “causal theory” which excludes design; in other words any theory that fits well with the evidence and could explain the presence or emergence of complex biological information through chance, necessity, any mix of the two, or any other scenario which does not include design. However, once we rule out “just-so stories” and the like, we will see that there is not today, nor has there ever been, such a theory. Furthermore, the only empirically well-supported source of functionally specific, complex information is: intelligence.
To sum it up: no definition of evolution is really incompatible with an ID scenario. Any causal theory of evolution which does not include design is obviously alternative to, and incompatible with, ID.
However, while many such theories have indeed been proposed, they are consistently wanting in the necessary degree of empirical support. By contrast, design is an empirically known source of the class of information – complex, specified information (CSI) — exhibited by complex biological systems.
The Weak Argument Correctives go on to say:
10] The Evidence for Common Descent is Incompatible with Intelligent Design
ID is a theory about the cause of complex biological information. Common descent (CD) is a theory about the modalities of implementation of that information. They are two separate theories about two different aspects of the problem, totally independent and totally compatible. In other words, one can affirm CD and ID, CD and Darwinian Evolution, or ID and not CD. However, if one believes in Darwinian Evolution, CD is a necessary implication.
CD theory exists in two forms, universal CD and partial CD. No one can deny that there are evidences for the theory of CD (such as ERVs, homologies and so on). That’s probably the reason why many IDists do accept CD. Others do not agree that those evidences are really convincing, or suggest that they may reflect in part common design. But ID theory, proper, has nothing to do with all that.
ID affirms that design is the key cause of complex biological information. The implementation of design can well be realized through common descent, that is through implementation of new information in existing biological beings. That can be done gradually or less gradually. All these are modalities of the implementation of information, and not causes of the information itself. ID theory is about causes.
And finally there is front loaded evolution (Mike Gene) and a prescribed evolutionary hypothesis (John Davison) — both are ID hypotheses pertaining to evolution.
Mutations are OK, differential reproduction is OK, horizontal gene transfer is OK. With Intelligent Design organisms are designed to evolve, i.e. they evolve by design. That is by “built-in responses to environmental cues” a la Dr Spetner’s “non-random evolution hypothesis” being the main process of adaptations.
As Dembski/ Wells said Intelligent design only has an issue with materialistic evolution — the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. (Also known as the blind watchmaker thesis.)
Intelligent Design is OK with all individuals in a population generally having the same number and types of genes and that those genes give rise to an array of traits and characteristics that characterize that population. It is OK with mutations that may result in two or more slightly different molecular forms of a gene- alleles- that influence a trait in different ways and that individuals of a population vary in the details of a trait when they inherit different combinations of alleles. ID is OK with any allele that may become more or less common in the population relative to other kinds at a gene locus, or it may disappear. And ID is OK with allele frequencies changing as a result of mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection, that mutation alone produces new alleles and gene flow, genetic drift, natural and artificial selection shuffle existing alleles into, through, or out of populations. IOW ID is OK with biological evolution. As Dr Behe et al., make very clear, it just argues about the mechanisms- basically design/ telic vs spontaneous/ stochastic. (Yes, design is a mechanism.)
Now we are left with:
However I cannot find any credible source that definitively states on the record that that is the case. END