No, judging from the quality of his intellect and powers of reason I doubt he is. It is, however, interesting to see how he adopts the superficial trappings of sound pedagogy, just as he adopts the superficial trappings of actual science.
And I think it’s important to know the man and where he’s coming from when he talks about ID and evolution fitting into a Christian worldview. He’s not talking about pure theology at all. He’s talking about his desire to absolutely annihilate the scientific method and destroy all the progress we’ve made since the Enlightenment and the Renaissance. When he talks about ID fitting into a Christian worldview, he means that we should totally destroy “materialism” so that supernaturalism can supplant it.
It’s the same woo-driven assault on reason and facts that we see all across the board. Saying that the removal of “materialism” (eg. facts, logic, reason, the scientific method, epistemology, etc…) is necessary for what-have-you is essentially the same lament of the spoon-benders and spirit-talkers: “my magic won’t work in the presence of you nasty skeptics!”
I also doubt that what goes on at Southern Evangelical College remotely resembles anything I’ve experienced in my 20+ years in higher education. Their website is astonishing. I work in faculty development, and I just can’t imagine trying to develop faculty that have this epistemology:
Whatever the discipline, instructors are usually trying to get students to challenge their own assumptions and adopt a rigorous way to critique and analyze information. I would imagine things would be quite different there; I wonder what it’s like to be a student who somehow decides to go to a fundamentalist seminary but has the intellectual curiosity to challenge some of the assumptions? Are they expelled? Do they fail? Or do they just perform an excorcism?
I work in faculty development, and even if I suspend all other judgment, I think Dembski could use one of our workshops. For example, his one stated goal is to “help students understand…” (quoted above). That’s a teacher-centered goal. He’s not talking about what students will do, or how they actualize their understanding. I would encourage him to articulate objectives that show how students will demonstrate their understanding, develop rubrics for their assignments, etc. He’d probably be OK with it, even. I don’t think he’d argue against students developing and demonstrating higher order thinking, he’d just have a very different idea of what that means.
Combined with a disgust for “materialism,” I wonder if there really is some philosophical underpinning; it doesn’t matter if any of this is true, it is our duty to believe it.
I’ve been formulating a theory that today’s conservative movement owes a lot to decades of liberal school teachers who taught them that everyone is entitled to their opinion and that it is heroic to stand up for what you believe in, but nothing about epistemology.
Once again, FinnAgain goes off on some tangent, providing a cite that does nothing more than say “these are possible mechanisms for macroevolution, and here’s why they might be wrong, but the fact of Macroevolution exists”. None of the evidence presented serves as PROOF, which those of us who actually understand science require. It is highly probable that some of them are accurate, but FinnAgain’s blatant failure to understand the science he preaches on and on and on and on about serves more to illustrate that he can’t do anything but call people stupid and refer to them as “woo”. Of course, why should we look at the scientific work in high level journals that are well respected in the community? Those fucking people are in it for the woo! Fucking retard Nobel nominees!
Finn, you fucking mouth-breathing waste of space, why don’t you explain to me how it is that we have developed this process we call the scientific method? I realize that you don’t actually understand it, but if I recall correctly (which I do), the scientific method sprang up from people thinking about things that are essentially unprovable. Yes, indeed, without epistemology, which is the sort of fuzzy “woo-based” science (aka philosophy) that you rail so charmingly against, we would have a much harder time doing science. I guess that fucking Bayes guy was a fundie or something!
You are basically the intellectual equivalent of a teabagger. I’ll call your party the douchebaggers. You do nothing more than attempt to polarize a debate and “win” by simply providing a lot of useless information, half of which supports my point. Take Sagan’s fat cancer cock out of your mouth for a minute, and explain how the example I gave of an ID theory serves to “destroy science and take us back to the dark ages”. You can’t, because you are a somewhat well-read highschooler who never learned the skill of critical thinking. You’re not a troll, but you are something similar – someone who doesn’t do anything but spew a barrage of parroted talking points triggered by keywords. It’s not valuable or intellectual – you’re just a monkey at a keyboard.
By the way, since you are apparently a huge fan of Sagan, you might have read Contact. You remember anything about how the aliens were looking at certain numbers? You remember how they talked about hidden messages in the randomness of, for example, pi? As I recall, Sagan didn’t treat the idea as sneeringly and as dishonestly as you do. He, unlike you, had the open mind that science requires, and the ability to look at things and think about them. In short, not a worthless automaton like you.
No, it doesn’t. Atheism is as scientifically unverifiable as religion. You can argue that the lack of evidence for something is the same as evidence against something, but that’s only true on a superficial basis. Hempel’s ravens are a prime example of why such pat statements are wrong. I did conflate you with some other poster, btw. I am sorry that I wasted time asking you to try to debate me on anywhere close to my level. But think of this as your shining moment, your time to rise up and speak truth. Or you can continue to suck. Up to you.
I can’t tell if you are kidding here, but yes, Bayes was something of a fundie.
What Bayes does tell us, though, is that your posterior beliefs are a function of your priors and of the evidence. Despite your presumptions of great sophistication and open-mindedness, all you are really yammering on about are your priors.
Priors are like assholes. It’s rude to show them to other people unless they specifically request to see them.
And you’re an ignorant, dishonest, lying poopey head. The fact is that intelligent design is not necessarily a wedge to get to creationism.
If they have nothing to do with each other, then one being true has nothing to do with the other being wrong. Right?
I don’t see anyone here arguing that. If so, who?
It may be used as you describe. But not necessarily. You seem unable to grasp that very basic point.
What is the evidence? Keep in mind that atheism is simply the lack of belief in god(s). It has nothing to do with any specific religion.
You’ve already been shown to be wrong about this.
You’re the one who is being dishonest. You want to say that macroevolution and intelligent design theory are inextricably linked to religion. That’s not true. Is that often the case? Yes. But that doesn’t give you license to equate it as something it is not. Not if you want to debate honestly.
On a different note, you seem to have missed responding to Post 216 in this thread. You seemed very interested in that thread then disappeared. I can only assume that you missed my post to you, so I thought I’d do you the service of bringing it to your attention. I am not the only one there who is interested in your response.
Dope, not doper. The dope being Dembski’s student, who is no doubt not fit to clean the keyboard of any real Doper. And please point me to non-troll started ID threads around here. I can think of maybe two off the top of my head, and I think we convinced the starter of one, who was actually interested in the debate, not witnessing.
Intelligent design has taken on two different meanings. Behe’s original meaning was his contention that evolution could not explain all features we see, and so some other mechanism - god, space aliens, the FSM - had to be called in. Behe specifically says he accepts evolution. That intelligent design can happen is not in dispute - dogs and plants are both intelligently designed - by us. But before us it is unfalsifiable, since whenever someone comes up with an evolutionary explanation for a supposedly irreducibly complex feature, Behe can find another one.
If that’s all it was Behe would just be another guy with a bunch of rejected papers in his desk drawer. But the Creationists, looking for scientific pasties to satisfy the First Amendment morals squad, latched onto it, and distorted it. I suppose Behe liked people giving him money and recognition, so instead of pointing out that they are nutcases, whored out. For instance, they reissued a creationist textbook with creationism scratched out and ID written in its place. Behe, who was supposed to be a reviewer, never bothered to read his chapters. If Behe said what he actually believed in Dembski’s class, he’d probably be burned as a heretic. He’s a Catholic, not a fundie. You know, not really Christian.
Not necessarily, but that is how it is used today. Do you deny that there has been attempts to bring ID into the classroom? The version they were attempting to push was not Behe’s version, which I think any legitimate scientist would say has not been demonstrated strongly enough to make it to the point of general consumption, but rather creationism with a new name. I’d say that even Behe would say this, but sometimes people get so wrapped up in their pet hypotheses that they go a little bonkers.
Behe’s tragedy is not that he came up with an incorrect hypothesis; plenty of people do that. It’s not even that he won’t let it go; that is common also. It is that he let it be hijacked by anti-science loons for fame. That’s unethical.
I hate to break it to you, but Contact was fiction.
Are you saying science requires proof? If so, you don’t understand a lot about science. If not, are you saying that speciation has not been demonstrated to or above the level of other well accepted scientific theories? Do you deny that evolution has led to correct predictions where ID (in whatever flavor) has led to none.
Anyhow, don’t you have a town hall meeting somewhere to rant at?
