Developing College-Level ID/Creation Courses

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@John_Harshman

What class? As I understand it, there currently is no class. I see this as merely an attempt to avoid confronting the issues. Of course you are free to avoid anything you like, right here. You are even free to provide bogus excuses.

You could very easily make a youtube conversation discussing common descent with Sal using zoom. We could post it here and then discuss. The conversation could be very educational.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@stcordova

Because I don’t represent miracles as a scientific theory that is directly accessible by science. Abiogenesis and evolutionary theory posture as if they’re operational theories (like electromagnetism and gravity), but they’re not, they’re faith beliefs.

That doesn’t explain why you think supernaturalist miracles are under a different burden of proof(other than you just claim or define them to be).

Either you think claims need to be demonstrated experimentally, or you do not. You can’t just invent a separate category for things that get a pass into which you put all the things you already believe. The double standard at work here is hard to get around.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@stcordova

The creation of ancestral cells wasn’t observed by anyone alive today. So it’s a matter of inference how they came to be.

That’s true for all claims about the past. We can’t recreate the past, we can only infer what happened by comparing observations we do in the wild to predictive models. What do the rock layers look like, what do our models say they should look like? What do organisms look like(patterns in genetics, physiology, morphology), what do our models say they should look like? All science about the past is inferential and based on comparing models to observations.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Rumraket

Either you think claims need to be demonstrated experimentally, or you do not. You can’t just invent a separate category for things that get a pass into which you put all the things you already believe. The double standard at work here is hard to get around.

Are these Rum rules

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@colewd

Are these Rum rules

Are you asking because you disagree? Do you find it intellectually honest, or consistent, to invent a category for things that don’t need experimental demonstration and then stick a whole bunch of your personal beliefs into it, and then have a separate category for things you disagree with but you demand to be experimentally demonstrated?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Rumraket

That’s true for all claims about the past. We can’t recreate the past, we can only infer what happened by comparing observations we do in the wild to predictive models.

The issues are the current models for OOL and UCD are faith based speculations.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@colewd

The issues are the current models for OOL and UCD are faith based speculations.

No, that’s not the issue. The issue is that Sal has a double standard, that this double standard is obvious and I have pointed it out, and now you want to try to distract and change the subject. That is THE issue.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Rumraket

Are you asking because you disagree? Do you find it intellectually honest, or consistent, to invent a category for things that don’t need experimental demonstration and then stick a whole bunch of your personal beliefs into it, and then have a separate category for things you disagree with but you demand to be experimentally demonstrated?

This is how the world works Rum. There are different standards for evidence depending on the discipline. You are fighting city hall here.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@colewd

This is how the world works Rum. There are different standards for evidence depending on the discipline. You are fighting city hall here.

That may be how things work where you come from, but then I think you should start lobbying for change.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Rumraket

No, that’s not the issue. The issue is that Sal has a double standard,

Are you claiming that history and science should have the same standard?

[John_Harshman]

@colewd

The conversation could be very educational.

The usual response to invitations for public debate with creationists: looks good on your CV, not so much on mine. Let Sal come here and talk.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@colewd

Are you claiming that history and science should have the same standard?

I have no idea what you’re talking about now. Science is in fact involved in studying the past. The standards of science are even used in studying human history(not just astronomical, biological, or geological history), in fields such as archaeology and anthropology, where scientific methods and fields intersect to understand the past evolution of human biology, culture, society, technology and so on.

Heck, even in linguistics, the evolution of human languages, methods very much like those used to study the evolution of life are used. Phylogenetic methods are employed to understand how languages have changed and spread over time.

And they all use inferences about the past by comparing observations and collected data to predictive models in various ways. Nobody asks for the Sumerian civilization to be recreated in the laboratory to know about it’s existence or how and when and where it changed. The fact that Sumeria isn’t recreated in the laboratory doesn’t mean studying Sumerian civilization is somehow a religious faith endeavour.

Sorry Bill, your bad excuse for Sal’s demands for a different burden of proof for scientific ideas he dislikes won’t fly.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

Quick, inb4 “origin of eukaryotes looks like separate origin event”, “origin of PRPF8 protein”, “origin of spliceosomal complex”, and “Sal’s flower”.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Rumraket

I have no idea what you’re talking about now. Science is in fact involved in studying the past.

This does not answer my question. Being involved and having the same standards are different. You are spinning the truth Rum. It is you that has the double standard Rum as you are making scientific claims that don’t fit in the category under the standard of the scientific method. This is the point Sal is making.

You have a loose standard for science to fit your personal narrative.

You guys have been trying to claim that ID is not science and now you want it back

[davecarlson]

@colewd

It is you that has the double standard Rum as you are making scientific claims that don’t fit in the category under the standard of the scientific method. This is the point Sal is making.

That is indeed Sal’s claim. Of course, it’s completely wrong.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@colewd

You guys have been trying to claim that ID is not science and now you want it back

ID can be taught in a philosophy class, but if it relies on incorrect scientific information it isn’t valid philosophy. I appreciate that @stcordova is letting go of the science class push, but teaching incorrect science to make an ID philosophy argument doesn’t calm anyone’s objections.

There are reasonable arguments in philosophy for “design”, that dont rely on incorrect data. Why not use those instead?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@swamidass

ID can be taught in a philosophy class, but if it relies on incorrect scientific information it isn’t valid philosophy.

We agree here. Now how do we determine what is correct and incorrect scientific information?

[John_Harshman]

@colewd

Now how do we determine what is correct and incorrect scientific information?

Well, we first have to look at it and try to understand it. Why not take that first step?

[stcordova (Salvador Cordova)]

Bill, Exactly, we can have a conversation, audio/video. Dr. Harshman (or any other scholar posting under his real name) is invited to have a conversation, time and resources permitting as the class material is made available.

[stcordova (Salvador Cordova)]

but teaching incorrect science to make an ID philosophy argument doesn’t calm anyone’s objections.

James Tour, Marcos Eberlin, Joe Deweese, Change Tan, Rob Stadler, and several science faculty and Deans at Christian universities who hold the Design viewpoint are qualified to teach science. I’ve invited some of them to help with the modules and provide video lectures, or I’ll simply link to published videos (like James Tour).