Intelligent Design is not creationism

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Teleologist:

ZZZzzz said:
"Teaching science without teaching the philosophy of science is nothing but indoctrination. "

Here's an interesting quote that ties in with this nicely:
"Science cannot be practiced in thin air."

You don't even understand what you're cutting and pasting.

The quote from z10 talked about "teaching science." The unknown quote you quoted talked about "practicing science." Do you really not know the difference?

Imagine this:
Student: I want to learn Pro Trader (a trading software written in Java).
Z10: I can't teach you Pro Trader without first teaching you Java.
Student: But I only want to know how to use it.
Teleo: A software cannot be written without a programming language.

Don't you guys ever get a clue?

 

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Don't you guys ever get a clue?

The answer to that would be no.

If they run into a question they can't answer, they merely reverse the wording and pretend that the resulting statement is a legitimate question. See Teleologist for this - he is the king (but not the King king, as in the King of men). The examples in this thread are too numerous to mention.

There is no use looking for logical consistency in the arguments of the believers. Their viewpoint is informed by an unshakeable faith in the unseen, the unknown, the unknowable. Proof is unnecessary to them. In their world, assertion is fact and anything goes so long as it's followed by an amen.

Remember the words of the Uber-Troll:

Q: ZTroll, what is the origin of life on earth?
The Troll: Magistrates were materialized out of pure potentiality.

 

[Teleologist]

James Bond:

Another false strawman for the crybabies. MN as a concept didn't even exist prior to 1986. I seriously doubt any high school science teacher is teaching it today.

The term "methodological naturalism" was coined in 1983 by Paul de Vries, a Wheaton College philosopher, however, the concept goes back to pre-Socratic philosophers. Later it can be found in the ideas of medieval scholastic thinkers during the Renaissance of the 12th century. During the late Middle Ages the concept can be found in the works of Christian natural philosophers and during the Enlightenment, a number of philosophers such as Francis Bacon and Voltaire espoused the concept of MN. Today, scientists consider MN to be the cornerstone of modern science.

To say that the cornerstone of modern science isn't discussed in science class is ludicrous. Anytime a science teacher tells students that science confines itself to natural explanations and doesn't deal with the supernatural they are discussing the concept of MN.

As for SETI, you claim it isn't science yet have no problem with it being discussed in science class. So we agree that something doesn't have to be science to be discussed in science class.

 

[Teleologist]

James Bond:

The quote from z10 talked about "teaching science." The unknown quote you quoted talked about "practicing science." Do you really not know the difference?

I'm simply saying that it's relevant to discuss in science class the philosophical presuppositions that science is built on.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from Teleologist:

The term "methodological naturalism" was coined in 1983 by Paul de Vries, a Wheaton College philosopher,

My memory was faulty (need to swap some chips).

Quote from Teleologist:

however, the concept goes back to pre-Socratic philosophers. Later it can be found in the ideas of medieval scholastic thinkers during the Renaissance of the 12th century. During the late Middle Ages the concept can be found in the works of Christian natural philosophers and during the Enlightenment, a number of philosophers such as Francis Bacon and Voltaire espoused the concept of MN. Today, scientists consider MN to be the cornerstone of modern science.

Not quite true. There is certainly a lineage that you can trace. But the idea crystalized well after major advances in science had already been made.

Quote from Teleologist:

To say that the cornerstone of modern science isn't discussed in science class is ludicrous. Anytime a science teacher tells students that the scientific method confines itself to natural explanations and doesn't deal with the supernatural they are discussing the concept of MN.

That's complete BS. You seem to be constantly making the mistake of binary choices.

Quote from Teleologist:

As for SETI, you claim it isn't science yet have no problem with it being discussed in science class. So we agree that something doesn't have to be science to be discussed in science class.

No we don't agree. What's discussed in science class has to be helpful in teaching science, even though the subject itself may not be directly science. For example, making an internal combustion engine is not science. But a teacher can use that as an example to explain various laws of physics involved in making the engine. SETI serves the same purpose. ID does not.

You seem to have the illusion that "science" is some abstract thing that is taught without any connection to the real world. You must have never taught in a classroom.

 

[Teleologist]

James Bond:

No we don't agree. What's discussed in science class has to be helpful in teaching science, even though the subject itself may not be directly science.

Yes, and ID fits that description. That you don't see this just goes to show that you don't understand ID. ID can use science and guide science.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

The issue is that I am arguing fruit, and they are talking about apples.

Here is a possible situation which illustrates how biology class is different from other science classes as well as other classes in public schools:

1. Johnny attends nothing but gym classes his entire educational life, nothing else.

He is asked where does man come from?

Johnny says, "I don't know, ask coach."

2. Johnny II attends nothing but computer programming classes his entire life.

He is asked where does man come from?

Johnny II says, "I don't know, the program doesn't say."

3. Johnny III attends a Christian school that teaches nothing but the Bible.

He is asked where does man come from?

Johnny III says, "In the Beginning, etc., etc. etc."

4. Johnny IV attends nothing but biology classes his entire public school life.

He is asked where does man come from?

Johnny says, "Apes, through the random unplanned mindless evolutionary process which began spontaneously from nothing."

5. Johnny V attends schools that give him a well rounded education and teaches him to think.

He is asked where does man come from?

Johnny V says: "I don't know. I have been exposed to lots of theories and ideas, but I haven't made up my mind yet. There really is not sufficient data to reach a definitive conclusion, so I am keeping an open mind and just not holding any particular belief. Holding a belief dogmatically keeps the mind closed, and is irrational to do so."

Which Johnny got a real education?

The anti ID crowd wants promote so called education in which someone is indoctrinated into evolutionary theory only, will do so without thinking or personal critique or framework of a world view of his own creation, without any philosophy, and will be a rote-spit-out clone of what teachers told him.

This is simply not educating youth to think independently.

Quote from Teleologist:

James Bond:


Yes, and ID fits that description. That you don't see this just goes to show that you don't understand ID. ID can use science and guide science.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

(All the nonsense about fictitious Johnny's nipped)

5. Johnny V attends schools that give him a well rounded education and teaches him to think.

He is asked where does man come from?

Johnny V says: "I don't know. I have been exposed to lots of theories and ideas, but I haven't made up my mind yet. There really is not sufficient data to reach a definitive conclusion, so I am keeping an open mind and just not holding any particular belief. Holding a belief dogmatically keeps the mind closed, and is irrational to do so."

Which Johnny got a real education?

The anti ID crowd wants promote so called education in which someone is indoctrinated into evolutionary theory only, will do so without thinking or personal critique or framework of a world view of his own creation, without any philosophy, and will be a rote-spit-out clone of what teachers told him.

This is simply not educating youth to think independently.

You're utterly confused. There is a difference in teaching people who use a skill, and teaching people who research new skills.

Use my previous example of Pro Trader, how would you teach a user? According to your definition, you have to teach him Java otherwise it's not a "real education."

I guess you never got a real education.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

"You're utterly confused."

"I guess you never got a real education."

Told you already, not interested in your game.

You can win that one on your own.

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

You're utterly confused. There is a difference in teaching people who use a skill, and teaching people who research new skills.

Use my previous example of Pro Trader, how would you teach a user? According to your definition, you have to teach him Java otherwise it's not a "real education."

I guess you never got a real education.

 

[stu]

Quote from Teleologist:

Methodological naturalism is considered to be the cornerstone of modern science but MN itself is not science it is a philosophical principle. So should teachers be forbidden from discussing MN in science class?

Whilst " methodological naturalism is considered to be the cornerstone of modern science " , the bedrock of modern and classical science on which that cornerstone rests , is and has always been, the scientific method ..
Using philosophy in the form of methodological naturalism is strong philosophical position and reasoning which confirms the scientific method to be sound..

Using definitive philosophy in the form of methodological naturalism, does not find ID/Creationism to be sound anywhere, period. Even it were to , all or some or any philosophical idea arising from it would still have to be brought to the scientific method, in order to see if there could be found real or practical validity in the philosophy. ID/Creationism fails that criteria in the same way Intelligent Falling does as a philosophical idea for explaining the force of gravity.

Quote from Teleologist:

I'm simply saying that it's relevant to discuss in science class the philosophical presuppositions that science is built on.

Then it is relevant to discuss the scientific method in the science class, which is what science is grounded on. You want to discuss the philosophy behind it through methodological naturalism, or presuppositions which might be raised by such discussions..?.... then go to philosophy class.
And in philosophy class, whilst discussing the philosophy which is methodological naturalism , the student would discover the scientific method is sound in philosophical reasoning.
Now discuss ID/Creationism there and you will find for all its wordplay, smokescreens and misdirection, there is nothing new. All this has been thought of and discussed over the centuries.. ID/Creationism crashes at the first hurdle, as does Intelligent Falling along with this and many other similar dewy-eyed notions based upon nothing but presuppositions.