Posted on 12/03/2005 5:28:45 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
TO read the headlines, intelligent design as a challenge to evolution seems to be building momentum.
...
Behind the headlines, however, intelligent design as a field of inquiry is failing to gain the traction its supporters had hoped for. It has gained little support among the academics who should have been its natural allies. And if the intelligent design proponents lose the case in Dover, there could be serious consequences for the movement's credibility.
On college campuses, the movement's theorists are academic pariahs, publicly denounced by their own colleagues. Design proponents have published few papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Why would you assume Zeroisanumber is a Hindu?
What research are the IDers proposing? If there is any, why can't the DI, the ICR, the Scientologists, or the Wahhabis fund it?
Sex ed fantasy gay classes are not electives. One guy went to jail for trying to prevent his son from attending. And I never advocated such. I find it ironic that Darwinists have no problem with them in fact, but solely with ID lately. Public education's problem is not ID. Get a grip.
If they can read, that is. It puzzles me why you put your trust in a bureaucratic organization that has made illiteracy a way of life in America . . .
The obsessive determination to kill ID only reveals another agenda, and it ain't pretty; but it is very San Francisco!
I would argue that there's nothing sophisticated about charlatan pseudo science. But, to get to your point, other than dishonest deception that seems to be synonymous with the ID crowd, I don't see anything wrong an elective class in ID. That's not the issue of the debate. The issue is that dishonest people with a dubious agenda are trying to sneak this charlatan pseudoscience into science class thus depriving prospective career scientists of their education and that is very detrimental.
I never knew the Ark was built with steel I-Beams ...
No, you are mistaken. Newton's three laws are a special case, and continue to be useful until you begin to approach light speed. A recent poll of British scientists voted Newton as the greatest scientist of all time, and Einstein second.
I majored in physics at Harvard before switching majors, and I can assure you that we studied differential equations (mostly Newton's idea) and classical dynamic theory as well as Einstein.
Not to teach Newton in school because he is "outmoded" would be the height of stupidity. F=MA continues to apply in the practical world.
Like the standards used by Arnd Leike of the University of Munich, in demonstrating that beer froth obeys the mathematical Law of Exponential Decay?
[REFERENCE: "Demonstration of the Exponential Decay Law Using Beer Froth," Arnd Leike, European Journal of Physics, vol. 23, January 2002, pp. 21-26.]
see discussion at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chaos_theory
and also
http://www.ncst.ernet.in/kbcs/vivek/issues/11.4/puneet/puneet.html
Determinism: Determinism in comparison to stochastic behavior depends on the number of dimensions in the system. The number of dimensions in a system is the total number of independent units (after converting the derived units) present in the system. For example, the number of dimensions in velocity , is 1+1=2. A dimension of ten or more is not computationally feasible and stochastic behavior is used in such conditions. The difference between Stochastic behavior and Chaotic behavior is that the output of Chaotic systems is exponential whereas that of Stochastic systems is random
I've never met a scientist who couldn't read.
ID isn't science, it is a wish.
"No, that is the standard that scientist require of science."
Are you claiming that a true scientist must reject the theory that the message, "E = MC^2" found on the beach was written by an intelligent being?
If so, then the game is over. Checkmate.
Wait until the folks pushing ID take over. It won't be long after that.
see post 214.
And how can one idea addressed in one area of one branch of science taught in one year of high school possibly be "depriving prospective career scientists of their education"?
It's not like these kids have never heard of the notion of ID or creation before. Teaching as if they don't exist is silly. Fine. They're not "science" as you guys define it but covering the concept that the universe was created and designed (and not teaching any one specific creation account)in a few minutes of a class is not going to warp someone for life.
Get a grip.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.