Discovery Education Policy per Eddie

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

I’m having trouble seeing how clarifying the meaning of the document’s earlier statements poses any threat to teaching good science in the classroom.

There’s nothing about the process of science in it. It promotes the teaching of pseudoscience as science.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Faizal_Ali

@Eddie

It is explicit that Discovery does not support mandating ID instruction in the schools.

And why doesn’t it?

AnswersInGenesis want creationism taught in schools, but don’t want it made mandatory because (i) they don’t think it would be presented fairly or competently by non-creationists, (ii) it would face legal challenges.

I suspect DI have the same policy for the same reasons.

Any claim by the DI that they don’t want ID taught to schoolchildren can be easily countered by noting that they keep writing textbooks.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@gbrooks9

######################################################

Model Academic Freedom Resolution

######################################################

@Eddie,

a sky blue link is right above my second paragraph of discussion addressed to you.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Eddie

I was discussing chemical origin of life scenarios. You aren’t even at the level of biology until you get to life. You’re still in the realm of chemistry. So the insight of someone who knows how difficult it is make indiscriminate chemical mixtures turn into anything stable or useful is very relevant there.

Wrong. He makes little cars for a living. That in no way qualifies someone as knowledgeable about origin of life issues.

@Eddie

What he says is that it’s very difficult to conceive of how the molecular arrangements required for life (arrangements much more complex than those in his nanocars, which certainly required intelligent design) could have arisen without any intelligent intervention.

Which just shows how inept he is at logic. The fact that he cannot figure out how to design the molecules necessary for life only shows that it is difficult to design them. It has no bearing on how they arose thru natural processes over time periods much longer than a human life time.

@Eddie

And have utterly failed to solve it.

Wrong. Significant process is being made all the time. That is not “failure.”

But while we’re on the subject, how are things coming with the ID creationists’ efforts to demonstrate the exact process by which they believe life was “designed”? Any success yet?

@Eddie

Your byline says you are a psychiatrist. If that’s your academic specialty, how are you qualified to say who is a crackpot in molecular biology and who isn’t?

I have a brain and know how logic works. I also listen to the people who are experts in molecular biology. But if you approach things with the attitude that everything said by anyone with a degree is correct, that is not going to work very well for you. As it clearly isn’t.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Eddie

Here you seem to be mixed up about what the addendum refers to. It is not talking about what will go on in the schools; it is talking about the above document . It means that nothing in the document shall be construed as promoting discrimination etc.

@Eddie,

The note puts words into the mouths of the State legislatures… thinking that they have protected the citizenry from religious zealotry.

Unfortunately, in these words there is also a State-confirmed prohibition against even promoting established science!:

“…[it] shall not be construed to promote any … non-religious doctrine, [or] promote discrimination for …a particular set of non-[religious] beliefs, or promote discrimination against religio[ous] [positions].”

In short, there is simply no way to safely craft an Intelligent Design language that will provide any assistance to “Intelligent Design” without grievously endangering America’s landmark “separation of Church vs. State”.

.
.
.
THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDIOTA NOTES:
The above only is intended to support the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or non-religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or non-beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Eddie

In the meantime, do you now concede that all of Discovery’s explicit policy statements from 2005 forward clearly state that ID should not be mandated in the classroom?

@Eddie,

Just last year, @Agauger quoted a Discovery policy which was terribly worded. I suspect your awareness of 14 consecutive years of DI policies is probably not complete.

I will see if I can find the statement that Prof. @Agauger posted (it may be back in BioLogos).

[Timothy_Horton]

@Eddie

I don’t see “ID” or “intelligent design” anywhere in this document. And if ID is not mentioned in the document, the document can hardly to be said to presume anything about ID.

What is the scientific controversy over biological evolution and the chemical origins of life the DI is speaking of in this statement?

@gbrooks9

(2) The teaching of some scientific subjects required to be taught under the curriculum framework developed by the state board of education may cause controversy including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning; and

The DI must think everyone is as naive and clueless as its scientifically illiterate fanboys.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Timothy_Horton

The DI must think everyone is as naive and clueless as its scientifically illiterate fanboys.

@Eddie,

What exactly is the point of saying that a policy (and/or promotional description) comes after 2005?

This quote comes from 2005… and the page is STILL active!

"Texas also requires students to “analyze and evaluate” core evolutionary claims including “common ancestry,” “natural selection,” and “adaptation,” and also to “compare and contrast scientific explanations for cellular complexity.” Additionally, teachers must help students to “examine scientific explanations” for both “the origin of DNA” and “abrupt appearance and stasis in the fossil record.”

From this link:

Discovery Institute’s Science Education Policy

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

I see this document as an academic freedom resolution, and a resolution about how best to teach science, but not as a document about ID.

I don’t see anything in it about how to teach science. It’s all about raising up pseudoscience to be on an equal footing with science.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Eddie

Here you seem to be mixed up about what the addendum refers to. It is not talking about what will go on in the schools; it is talking about the above document. It means that nothing in the document shall be construed as promoting discrimination etc.

I know what the addendum refers to. It’s an attempt to deny what they are doing.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

This conversation will be closed shortly. I have a challenge for @eddie.

1. Who is the qualified person from DI to comment on their current policy?

2. Would you arrange an office hours with them here to discuss it?

I’m not interested in he-said she-said or reading tea leaves. I am want to invite them here to clarify their CURRENT position. Who can you bring @eddie?

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Roy

Any claim by the DI that they don’t want ID taught to schoolchildren can be easily countered by noting that they keep writing textbooks.

The “textbooks” you are referring to are designed for use in private schools and by home-schooling parents. They are not designed for use by public school boards. The DI policy regarding mandating ID in the public schools remains consistent since at least 2005.

@gbrooks9

a sky blue link is right above my second paragraph of discussion addressed to you.

Yes, I saw the the link, but it didn’t have “discovery.org” or any other reference to Discovery in it, so I was wondering why you didn’t find a Discovery page. But now I see, on opening the link, that Discovery is mentioned at the bottom of the page (not at all at the top).

@Faizal_Ali

The fact that he cannot figure out how to design the molecules necessary for life only shows that it is difficult to design them. It has no bearing on how they arose thru natural processes over time periods much longer than a human life time.

It certainly does have bearing on it. A rockslide wouldn’t spell out the Declaration of Independence merely because rockslides have been falling for a few hundred million years. Great lengths of time alone aren’t sufficient as an explanation for the origin of life. A plausible route must be demonstrated. It is thus you, not Tour, who is inept at logic.

@Faizal_Ali

how are things coming with the ID creationists’ efforts to demonstrate the exact process by which they believe life was “designed”?

This question shows that you don’t understand the nature of intelligent design theory. Maybe you should learn what it is before you attack it.

@Faizal_Ali

I have a brain and know how logic works.

I have not seen any demonstration of logic yet in your posts.

@Faizal_Ali

But if you approach things with the attitude that everything said by anyone with a degree is correct

I don’t. For example, I don’t think that just because someone has a degree in psychiatry, his views are automatically correct. Or that just because someone has a degree in climatology, his views are automatically correct. Or that just because someone has a degree in population genetics, his views on evolutionary mechanism are automatically correct.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@swamidass

I’m not interested in he-said she-said or reading tea leaves. I am want to invite them here to clarify their CURRENT position. Who can you bring @eddie?

All you have to do is write to John West and ask him if there is an article on the Discovery web site that states the current DI policy regarding the teaching of ID in the schools, and the teaching of evolutionary theory in the schools. Presumably he will point you to statements that are currently in force.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

This question shows that you don’t understand the nature of intelligent design theory.

This response shows that you are still falsely claiming the existence of such a theory.

@post:31

Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’-but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.
Paul Nelson, Touchstone Magazine 7/8 (2004): pp 64 – 65.

The nature of “intelligent design theory” is that it simply doesn’t exist.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

For example, I don’t think that just because someone has a degree in psychiatry, his views are automatically correct. Or that just because someone has a degree in climatology, his views are automatically correct. Or that just because someone has a degree in population genetics, his views on evolutionary mechanism are automatically correct.

The only rule is whether someone agrees with you. Then credentials are to be touted or ignored accordingly.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@gbrooks9

What exactly is the point of saying that a policy (and/or promotional description) comes after 2005 ?

Their policy has been in force since even before the Dover trial in 2005. If I said “after” 2005, I was just being overly cautious.

@gbrooks9

This quote comes from 2005… and the page is STILL active!

The quotation reports what the Texas school board has done. It is given as an example of what some states are doing. It is not offered as the Discovery policy. The Discovery policy is stated further up the page.

[Timothy_Horton]

@Eddie

This question shows that you don’t understand the nature of intelligent design theory. Maybe you should learn what it is before you attack it.

Your answer shows you don’t understand the scientific definition of theory. Maybe you should learn what it is before you butcher its usage by applying it to ID pseudoscience.

@Eddie

Yes, I saw the the link, but it didn’t have “discovery.org” or any other reference to Discovery in it, so I was wondering why you didn’t find a Discovery page. But now I see, on opening the link, that Discovery is mentioned at the bottom of the page (not at all at the top).

(face palm) The DI isn’t just “mentioned”, it’s their web site. The entire “Free Science” site was established and is maintained by the DI as part of their “Academic freedom” campaign to get their pseudoscience back into public schools. Your excuses have gone beyond lame and are well into pathetic.

[T_aquaticus]

@Eddie

As usual, you cavil over words, rather than addressing substance. In the book you almost certainly haven’t read by Shapiro, he argues that some organisms can reorganize their genomes in response to environmental stresses, i.e., they don’t always have to wait until a mutation just happens.

Those reorganizations are mutations in every way, shape, and form. They are also random in the same way all other mutations are random. All Shapiro has done is give new fancy words to random mutations that biologists were already well aware of.

@Eddie

So such a view, which differs from the view of genetic change held by Weismann, Dobzhansky, etc., does exist in the scientific literature. (And I said “scientific” not “primary”, so don’t bother offering another of your petty cavils.)

How does it differ?

[Art (Arthur Hunt)]

@T_aquaticus

All Shapiro has done is give new fancy words to random mutations that biologists were already well aware of.

Shapiro wants to imply that the biological equivalent of carpet bombing is actually precision-guided targeting. There is a large body of experimental work that shows that Shapiro is wrong in this regard.