Yes, but are you on board with the metric of significance and quantity of data contributed as the primary scientific credential?

—–”Scientific credentials are the data one contributes, with very rare exceptions for revolutionary predictions.”

Yes, I am on board with you on this one. It seems consistent with my point that multiple degrees don’t always reflect a high level of education.

Having been formally educated at the higher levels myself, I can attest to the fact that whatever wisdom I have attained came from resisting the non-wisdom of the academy and getting the other side of the story.

I have concluded that there are three kinds of people [A] Well educated, [B] uneducated, and [C] badly educated. If one cannot attain [A], they are far better off with [B] than [C].

Dittos.

What exactly do you mean by “highly credentialed,” Stephen?

Do you realize that one of the most famous paleontologists in the world never finished his bachelor’s degree?

Scientific credentials are the data one contributes, with very rare exceptions for revolutionary predictions.

I submit that the principle should precede the details. That way the student gets the general idea even if some of the details are missing. That is precisely the problem we have in education today. Young Skulls full of mush are filled with facts, but they don’t know how to process them. Without an overarching principle, there is no way to put facts in perspective or weigh their relative value to other facts.

Principles and paradigms are not synonymous with dogmas. The former asks for INTELLECTUAL UNDERSTANDING; the latter asks for INTELLECTUAL ASSENT. We should not avoid the former while guarding against the latter. It is important to know the meaning of such terms as “methodological naturalism,” “design,” “randomness,” and “law,” and yes, “purpose.” To pretend that science doesn’t overlap with other disciplines is to remain ignorant of the very subject matter under discussion.

It is unnatural to keep students uninformed about these and other basic principles of out of some misguided fear that ideology will creep in to the discussion. But that is precisely what has happened. Many who come on this blog to dialogue about ID and evolution are completely oblivious of the historical context of the controversy. Indeed, they come here with a script and they can’t depart from it long enough to do any critical thinking. They know only one paradigm.

I remember once having a dialogue with someone who was highly credentialed in the field of science. To be precise, I was arguing for the EXISTENCE of a non-material reality called the “mind.” It was only after several interchanges that I discovered he did had not yet learned the DEFINITION of a non-material mind. Get this—he had never heard of any such a thing. The distinction between mind and brain had been withheld from him throughout his entire education. In effect, I was dueling with an unarmed man, and it was the educational establishment who had consciously and maliciously disarmed him.

Wouldn’t any qualified experts in the academy be far more involved in testing the predictions of Darwin’s theory, thereby producing new data regardless of whether Darwin was right or wrong?

What you’re describing sounds more like English lit criticism than science.

“I remember, from a 2004 conference, a most interesting exchange between Nick Matzke and an ID guy whose name now escapes me. I couldn’t follow the discussion but they appeared, from their body language, to be evenly matched.”

What did the evidence suggest to you about the exchange?

As I understand it, O’Leary uses the term “de-normalize” to describe the process of “outing” abnormal people who have been posing as normal people. That would seem to include two classes of people: [A] ideologues who pose as disinterested scientists and [B] ideologues who pose as disinterested scientists who also misbehave over the internet. It doesn’t matter whether [A] spills over into [B]. What matters is that both conditions are abnormal, even though [B] is the more outrageous of the two.

I have no objection whatever to teaching students that all such theories have strengths and weaknesses.

Of course not. However there is only limited time in a classroom – where do you draw the line? Does this “equal time” apply across the board? In all subjects?

Students need not grasp the details to understand that science is not a secular religion and that great scientists can be wrong.

I disagree. If the details are not given then students are the last people that are going to follow blindy what the authority figure at the front of the class says – they’ve always been the most resistant to dogma.

Examples from the history of science that students can readily grasp abound. And Darwin is certainly not immune.

Agreed. Care to make a prediction as to the likely time that’ll pass before Darwin becomes consigned to “the history of science”?

I only regret that legislation is thought necessary to accomplish so obvious a purpose. But in the presence of the Darwin lobby – for many of whom science IS a secular religion – it may be the only option.

Perhaps the scientists who did not identify themselves in expelled could help by identifiing themselves? It might inspire others to do the same.

As a textbook editor, I always did my best to ensure that critical thinking was a component of every program I worked on.

What do you think the most important things to address are? What’s top of the list for critical examination?

It’s part of developing critical thinking skills.

Students need not grasp the details to understand that science is not a secular religion and that great scientists can be wrong.

Examples from the history of science that students can readily grasp abound. And Darwin is certainly not immune.

I only regret that legislation is thought necessary to accomplish so obvious a purpose. But in the presence of the Darwin lobby – for many of whom science IS a secular religion – it may be the only option.

As a textbook editor, I always did my best to ensure that critical thinking was a component of every program I worked on.