How is this for an ID lesson plan?
Sarah Berel-Harrop
Vedic Hymn of Creation
Neither non-being nor being was as yet,
Neither was airy space nor heavens beyond;
What was enveloped? And where? Sheltered by whom?
And was there water? Bottomless, unfathomed?
Neither was there death nor immortality,
Nor was there any sign then of night or day;
Totally windless, by itself, the One breathed;
Beyond that, indeed, nothing whatever was.
In the Principle darkness concealed darkness;
Undifferentiated surge was this whole world.
The pregnant point covered by the form matrix,
From conscious fervor, mightily, brought forth the One.
In the Principle, thereupon, rose desire,
Which of consciousness was the primeval seed.
Then the wise, searching within their hearts
perceived That in non-being lay the bond of being.
Stretched crosswise was their line, a ray of glory.
Was there a below? And was there an above?
There were sowers of seeds and forces of might:
Potency from beneath and from on high the Will.
Who really knows, who could here proclaim
Whence this creation flows, where is its origin?
With this great surge the Gods made their appearance.
Who therefore knows from where it did arise?
This flow of creation, from where it did arise,
Whether it was ordered or was not,
He, the Observer, in the highest heaven,
He alone knows, unless.He knows it not.
--
Time to resign from the human race,
Wipe those tears from your lovely face.
Baby, wave to the man in the old red caboose,
Before all hell breaks loose.
(Kinky Friedman)
Frank J
No, because the DI does not want religion-speak of any kind in science
class other than its "evidence of design." Granted, most DI fellows
are fundamentalist Christians who want students to be the same, but as
I have said in many posts, their indirect method is more effective
than the direct method of biblical creationists, who conceivably could
have students asking "Is it old earth or young?" And when they get the
runaround many students will say "Gee, maybe all those creationisms
are wrong." ID, with its "don't ask don't tell" policy that even
extends to common descent, ID can avoid these pitfalls.
The ID lesson plan, AIUI, will consist mainly of the usual "evidence
of design" (IC, SC), coupled with the totally irrelevant (but not to
students who are predisposed to accept a false dichotomy) strawman
arguments against "Darwinism." My more radical claim, however, is that
ID activists have their lesson plan exactly where they want it - not
in high school science class, but in the media.
Sarah Berel-Harrop
--
Time to resign from the human race,
Wipe those tears from your lovely face.
Baby, wave to the man in the old red caboose,
Before all hell breaks loose.
(Kinky Friedman)
"Frank J" <fn...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:38c5d0dd.04030...@posting.google.com...
> "Sarah Berel-Harrop" <s...@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:<404acc35$0$7049$a726...@news.hal-pc.org>...
> The ID lesson plan, AIUI, will consist mainly of the usual "evidence
> of design" (IC, SC), coupled with the totally irrelevant (but not to
> students who are predisposed to accept a false dichotomy) strawman
> arguments against "Darwinism." My more radical claim, however, is that
> ID activists have their lesson plan exactly where they want it - not
> in high school science class, but in the media.
well, the original post was a bit tongue in
cheek, I guess. Yes, I think this is true, and
an important point. Those who are committed
to ID and creationism ALREADY have their
kids learning it (homeschool and private
school ) by and large. The media coverage
is part of a strategy of dealing with the larger
culture war. For one thing, to erode support
for public schools with their allegations of
intolerance and bias. For the second thing,
playing to the Republican base to keep them
politically mobilized on a whole host of issues.
Daniel Harper
Hmm... So how do we help to fight this battle on these terms? How do we
help to win the media war? Better education is the best answer for the
long haul, but what about the short haul?
Are we doomed to having to pit sound bites against sound bites?
--
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor'and 'hate your enemy.'
But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, that
you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on
the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
(Matthew 5:43-45, New English Translation)
--Daniel Harper
(Change terra to earth for email)
Frank J
It occurred to me recently that, unfortunately, we might just have to
do that. One that could catch on is "IDers think they can catch God in
an irreducubly complex mousetrap." The last thing we want to do is
sound anti-religion. But it could help to have *them* sound
anti-religion:
http://www.asa3.org/evolution/irred_compl.html
Daniel Harper
That's a nice link.
The fundamentalist movement has so taken over the definition of
"Christianity" by this point that it's very difficult, at least in the
popular mind, to separate the mainstream Christian denominations and rank
atheists in many people's minds. The fact that evolution (and before that,
the geological discoveries that led to the rejection of YEC two centuries
ago) seem to contradict the "literal word of the Bible" is not a problem
for most Christians.
Personally, I think religious evolutionists (the term "theistic
evolutionist" carries baggage that, while not necessarily implied by the
term, nonetheless causes me to dislike using it to describe myself) should
be much more outspoken in their opposition to anti-evolutionism. While you
and I and everyone else here knows that just because Dawkins is an
atheist, it doesn't mean you have to be an atheist to agree with him, Joe
Blow on the street doesn't always discern things that way.
An interesting factor that is relevant to the evolution/creation "debate"
came to me when discussing certain religion-tinged issues (on another
topic) with a co-worker and good friend of mine. He's a conservative
Christian, but certainly no fundamentalist in terms of his viewpoint. But
he spoke some of the same old canards that we hear from conservative
groups on the topic we were discussing, the equivalent of "why are there
still monkeys" if moved to the topic of this group. It wasn't so much that
he'd studied the issues, knew what the various arguments were, and
believed the fundamentalist viewpoint, so much as the "Some guy told me"
or "I heard somewhere" phenomenon. It was just that he'd heard it, it
agreed with his prejudices on the subject, and that was far enough for
him.
(Of course, we all do that to some degree or another, on some issue or
another. It takes years and a great deal of mental discipline to rid
oneself of that particular nasty habit.)
The point being that we can refute the anti-evolutionists time and time
again in this forum and in every other one like it; we can strike down the
creationist/ID movements in classrooms around the country; we can cite the
numbers of Christians who accept evolution to everyone we see, but until
we have the same kind of "echo chamber" that fundamentalists (and other
social conservatives have) to get out their views, we're just not going to
be heard by a whole lot of people.
I think we probably need to work harder at setting the terms of the
debate. In which case, to get back to the earlier point, showing the
numbers of good, honest, and in many cases conservative Christians who
nonetheless agree with evolutionary biology is a step in the right
direction.
<gets off of soapbox>
Richard Forrest
I think the way to develope a 'creation science'lesson plan is to ask
the ICR to formulate one, with the stipulation that all members of the
organisation must agree that the lesson plan acurately reflects their
theories.
Then leave it to the old-earthers, the young-earthers, the theists,
the omphalists, the flat-earthers and the
goddiditwhenitdon'tknowtheanswertoyour questionsers to argue out an
acceptable form of words.
RF
Frank J
Please stay on the soapbox!
As for this not being a religion vs atheism issue, unlike may
anti-evolutionists, and sadly many evolutionists, like to pretend, you
have probably seen this:
And as you know, it's not a liberal vs conservative issue either:
http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/publication/publication.cfm?id=43#671
(if the link doesn't work, "Politicizing Science Education" by Paul
Gross can be found with a little Googling)
There is a political aspect, however:
http://reason.com/9707/fe.bailey.shtml
But above all, it's science (evolution) vs pseudoscience (the ID
strategy and the mutually contradictory creationisms). Some like to
call ID "creationism lite," but I prefer "pseudoscience Xtreme" (how's
that for a sound bite?)
Frank J
Unfortunately now that the ID crowd has taken over, the
intra-creationism debates are less likely. I recently saw a proposed
course outline on the web. Although the wording was far more "classic
creationist" than "Discovery Institute," it made sure to defer such
"details" as the "timing and sequence of events." Whether YEC, OEC,
even pro common descent, the strategy is always "misrepresent
evolution first."
david ford
Getting the IDiots fired from their jobs would be a good start.
david ford
>
> Vedic Hymn of Creation
Maybe. I suspect Dawkins would approve.
Dawkins favors teaching of both design & evolution arguments
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.21L.01.0011250952260.615582-100000%40irix1.gl.umbc.edu
david ford
> "Sarah Berel-Harrop" <s...@hal-pc.org> wrote in message news:<404acc35$0$7049$a726...@news.hal-pc.org>...
> > Think DI would approve??
> >
> > Vedic Hymn of Creation
> >
> > Neither non-being nor being was as yet,
> > Neither was airy space nor heavens beyond;
[....]
> > He, the Observer, in the highest heaven,
> > He alone knows, unless.He knows it not.
>
> No, because the DI does not want religion-speak of any kind in science
> class other than its "evidence of design." Granted, most DI fellows
> are fundamentalist Christians who want students to be the same, but as
> I have said in many posts, their indirect method is more effective
> than the direct method of biblical creationists,
"more effective"-- now that's frightening.
> who conceivably could
> have students asking "Is it old earth or young?" And when they get the
> runaround many students will say "Gee, maybe all those creationisms
> are wrong." ID, with its "don't ask don't tell" policy that even
> extends to common descent, ID can avoid these pitfalls.
it seems that some of the creationist morons are learning. to avoid
some of their pitfalls, at any rate.
> The ID lesson plan, AIUI, will consist mainly of the usual "evidence
> of design" (IC, SC), coupled with the totally irrelevant (but not to
> students who are predisposed to accept a false dichotomy) strawman
> arguments against "Darwinism."
"arguments" against the theory of evolution, and "arguments" against
the theory of natural selection, have no place whatsoever in any
classroom anywhere under any circumstances. period.
Daniel Harper
<scrambles back up> Aye, aye, sir! Should I stand here in just my boxers
and recite _The Origin of Species_ to you now?
> As for this not being a religion vs atheism issue, unlike may
> anti-evolutionists, and sadly many evolutionists, like to pretend, you
> have probably seen this:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/cxfr
>
(Isn't it sad that I recognize that tinyurl without even bothering to
visit it first?)
Yes, the "Voices for Evolution" page is quite nice. Of course, many
fundamentalists don't recognize any of those groups as being truly
Christian, but it _can_ help to stamp down any idea that evolution is by
nature "atheistic".
> And as you know, it's not a liberal vs conservative issue either:
>
> http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/publication/publication.cfm?id=43#671
> (if the link doesn't work, "Politicizing Science Education" by Paul Gross
> can be found with a little Googling)
>
I'll check it out.
> There is a political aspect, however:
>
> http://reason.com/9707/fe.bailey.shtml
>
> But above all, it's science (evolution) vs pseudoscience (the ID strategy
> and the mutually contradictory creationisms). Some like to call ID
> "creationism lite," but I prefer "pseudoscience Xtreme" (how's that for a
> sound bite?)
>
>
That is a nice sound bite. Almost .sig worthy.
david ford
> > well, the original post was a bit tongue in cheek, I guess. Yes, I think
> > this is true, and an important point. Those who are committed to ID and
> > creationism ALREADY have their kids learning it (homeschool and private
> > school ) by and large. The media coverage is part of a strategy of
> > dealing with the larger culture war. For one thing, to erode support for
> > public schools with their allegations of intolerance and bias. For the
> > second thing, playing to the Republican base to keep them politically
> > mobilized on a whole host of issues.
>
> Hmm... So how do we help to fight this battle on these terms?
Getting the IDiots fired from their jobs would be a good start.
> How do we
> help to win the media war?
Get the IDiots fired from their jobs.
> Better education is the best answer for the
> long haul, but what about the short haul?
Get the IDiots fired from their jobs.
> Are we doomed to having to pit sound bites against sound bites?
No. Once all the IDiots have been fired from their jobs, we'll have won.
Daniel Harper
Am I to assume that you're not the biggest fan of ID?
GRGaud
> >
> > Getting the IDiots fired from their jobs would be a good start.
> >
> >> How do we
> >> help to win the media war?
> >
> > Get the IDiots fired from their jobs.
> >
> >> Better education is the best answer for the
> >> long haul, but what about the short haul?
> >
> > Get the IDiots fired from their jobs.
> >
> >> Are we doomed to having to pit sound bites against sound bites?
> >
> > No. Once all the IDiots have been fired from their jobs, we'll have won.
>
> Am I to assume that you're not the biggest fan of ID?
[GR] Gee, ya think?
--
<grgaud at sympatico dot ca>
<http://grgaud.exchristian.info.>
God was my copilot, but we crashed
in the mountains and I had to eat him.
Sarah Berel-Harrop
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 04:25:09 +0000, david ford wrote:
>
> > No. Once all the IDiots have been fired from their jobs, we'll have
won.
>
> Am I to assume that you're not the biggest fan of ID?
More in the spirit of Dembski's publicity stunt.
I do not believe there are people advocating
firing ID'rs for their views. To the extent
that they wish to teach ID in a biology class
as science, I do believe that is inappropriate,
particularly at a high-school level. Since most
professional ID'rs are ministers, philosophers,
professors of law, etc, they should not *be*
teaching biology classes.
david ford
Daniel Harper:
david ford:
> > > Once all the IDiots have been fired from
> > > their jobs, we'll have won.
> >
> > Am I to assume that you're not the biggest fan of ID?
Assumptions often get one into trouble. Of course, sometimes they
have to be done, and there is no way around using them before
proceeding in a particular situation.
> More in the spirit of Dembski's publicity stunt.
>
> I do not believe there are people advocating
> firing ID'rs for their views. To the extent
> that they wish to teach ID in a biology class
> as science, I do believe that is inappropriate,
> particularly at a high-school level. Since most
> professional ID'rs are ministers, philosophers,
> professors of law, etc, they should not *be*
> teaching biology classes.
If we can get a few IDiots fired, that would serve as a good warning
signal to other IDiots that might be thinking about exposing
themselves and lending their credibility to this ultimately-doomed
movement. As the firings increase, the IDiots that have already
exposed themselves will no longer be able to preach moribund
anti-scientific IDeas that were proven false by Darwin in the 1800s,
but will have to resort to begging in the streets to obtain income.
Of course, it is possible that they will preach their IDiocy to
passer-by, but such damaging speech is far less detrimental to science
and the general public than their pushing IDiocy from say a position
at a scientific laboratory.
In his moronic book, _The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest
Questions about Intelligent Design_ (2004), 334pp., the IDiot William
Dembski writes on page 305 about how a fellow IDiot was fired from a
research position at a "prestigious molecular biology laboratory" the
very same day a press story appeared exposing this character as being
an IDiot. The IDiot had worked there "for 10 years," illustrating
that length of employment is no guarantee of purity of thought.
Science needs many more similar firings. Only then will we win the
battle against IDiocy and for science.
We should also have every faculty member at every university sign a
statement of certitude in the scientifically well-established fact of
evolution, and anyone that does not sign the statement is to be
immediately fired. This way, the tactic of firing the IDiots
proceeds, and we also demonstrate to the world the supreme confidence
that the faculty members that remain possess in the well-proven,
scientific fact of evolution.
In the name of the great Darwin, and for the well-being of science and
the future of a scientific society, these measures against IDiocy and
against IDiots must be taken before it is too late.
zosdad
Troll alert. In this case, an antievolutionst trolling as a
nazi-darwinist, in order to depict mainstream-science supporters as
oppressive bigots.
This is about as bad as Dembski's parody:
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2004.02.SARS_Slams_ID.htm
david ford
> > I think the way to develope a 'creation science'lesson plan is to ask
> > the ICR to formulate one, with the stipulation that all members of the
> > organisation must agree that the lesson plan acurately reflects their
> > theories.
> > Then leave it to the old-earthers, the young-earthers, the theists,
> > the omphalists, the flat-earthers and the
> > goddiditwhenitdon'tknowtheanswertoyour questionsers to argue out an
> > acceptable form of words.
> >
> > RF
>
> Unfortunately now that the ID crowd has taken over, the
> intra-creationism debates are less likely.
These truly are most unfortunate developments. It was so much fun
poking holes in young-earthers' arguments for a young earth, and
enjoyable hearing them try to shoot down the Big Bang theory.
Speaking of which, another sad development is increasing use of the
Big Bang theory _for_ the creationist dogma, if you can believe that.
They really have some nerve, those IDiots, twisting true science to
their own IDiotic ends.
Fortunately for our side, scientists are coalescing around agreement
on the mechanisms responsible for evolution and for the emergence of
life. This agreement on the mechanisms will serve as a good step
toward countering the unified front that emerged when the IDiot crowd
took over the creationist side of the creation versus evolution
controversy. If we don't all hang together, the vital scientific fact
of evolution, which when you think about it is the basis for really
all science, will be torn asunder and hung separately.
The future of all of science is at stake.
> I recently saw a proposed
> course outline on the web. Although the wording was far more "classic
> creationist" than "Discovery Institute," it made sure to defer such
> "details" as the "timing and sequence of events." Whether YEC, OEC,
> even pro common descent, the strategy is always "misrepresent
> evolution first."
With the scientific community's rapidly-becoming-complete agreement on
the mechanisms of evolution and abiogenesis, that bogus strategy of
misrepresenting the scientific fact of evolution and of abiogenesis
will be even harder for the IDiots and their ilk to advance.