Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on December 01, 2007, 08:30:57 pm

Title: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Kosh on December 01, 2007, 08:30:57 pm
http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/12/01/0551221.shtml


And in other news the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the eart. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: BloodEagle on December 01, 2007, 09:44:08 pm
I can feel the trolls coming.  :nervous:
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Sarafan on December 01, 2007, 09:53:26 pm
http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/12/01/0551221.shtml


And in other news the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the eart. :rolleyes:

You're complaining about a correct decision?

Quoting from the article:

"although state regulations require her not to have any opinion 'on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral".

It's her own fault, she favored something when she shouldnt have.
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: NGTM-1R on December 01, 2007, 09:58:05 pm
There's also a "repeated acts" mentioned. Still, I'm not quite sure if it's enough all things considered. It says she only circulated, not originated, the e-mail. This could be construed as informative action so her subordinates know about it rather than supportive of the contents.
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Stealth on December 02, 2007, 12:22:53 am
she broke a rule, and got fired.  end of story...  there's no need for debate on ethics, morals, etc. here. 
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Bobboau on December 02, 2007, 03:47:51 am
someone willing to take the consequences of standing up for the right thing, a person I can admire.
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Bobboau on December 03, 2007, 04:42:52 pm
I am very disappointed in all of you :doubt:
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Ace on December 04, 2007, 12:57:43 am
How the hell is this something that the Director of the Science Curriculum supposed to have a neutral stance on?
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: jr2 on December 04, 2007, 01:18:16 am
Think of it this way:

Thou shalt not mention... efff essss thr33
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Flaser on December 04, 2007, 01:38:31 am
This is ridiculous. The separation of church and state is a must if you want democracy.
ID is nothing more than redressed religious dogma. There is NO, let me repeat it, NO evidence that can be put to the TEST. Which is the scientific method, evolution or not non-withstanding. Therefore it, is NOT science.
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Bobboau on December 04, 2007, 01:45:36 am
well, I'd say it's more of a must if you want to live in a first world country that has clean water and electricity and computers and such magic.
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Edward Bradshaw on December 04, 2007, 08:10:01 am
she broke a rule, and got fired.  end of story...  there's no need for debate on ethics, morals, etc. here. 

Shes a director of science and saying ID isnt science. Whats the problem? Its with the morons that decided that ID should be given immunity just because some religious people cant deal with the fact that it isnt scientific. Apparently faith isnt enough for them
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Marcus Vesper on December 04, 2007, 02:06:14 pm
Faith doesn't mean suspending our logical faculties, or believing in things that are patently false.  If anything, the evolution curriculum in schools and the mindset among scientists is far more faith then science.  We teach unproven conjecture as truth, employ circular reasoning to reach conclusions, utilize known to be faulty methodology, and make colossal assumptions about things we can't prove because we didn't watch them happen.  Then when something comes along that poses a serious problem for our mindset, we gloss over it or bend ourselves backwards making the theory work without requiring the intervention of a deity.

And that's why evolution isn't really science: It refuses from the start to acknowledge the possibility of more then mere physical reality, even if such a possibility is more likely then the alternative.  When you know the conclusion before you start, how is that not faith?  True objective reason precludes rejecting potential conclusions out of hand.

I don't think instruction in ID should be a mandatory part of the classroom, but teaching the arguments against Darwinism should be.  All too often groups of scientists campaign against curriculum that merely detailed problems with Darwinian evolutionary theory, without mentioning ID at all.  Sounds an awful lot like religious behavior on their part.

If you still think this is an example of someone standing up for truth, I have to ask how much you really know about the subject matter.  Calling ID "bunk" because "Scientific Journals" have published articles that claim to "disprove" their ideas is a lot like suggesting Louis Pasteur was crazy because all the other doctors didn't believe in germs and said as much.
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: karajorma on December 04, 2007, 02:31:04 pm
What testable claims does ID make?
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Edward Bradshaw on December 04, 2007, 02:35:22 pm
Sigh. The question I ask myself is do I have time to argue the same thing with a new person.

Faith doesn't mean suspending our logical faculties, or believing in things that are patently false. 
Apparently though faith isnt enough for these religious types in this case because they need to pretend their religious views are scientifically supportable

Quote
If anything, the evolution curriculum in schools and the mindset among scientists is far more faith then science.  We teach unproven conjecture as truth, employ circular reasoning to reach conclusions, utilize known to be faulty methodology, and make colossal assumptions about things we can't prove because we didn't watch them happen.  


"Prove", you keep using that word. I dont think it means what you think it means.

We cant observe anything in forensic science in the same way either, but its still science. FYI, all science is theory even science we do observe with our own eyes.

Quote
Then when something comes along that poses a serious problem for our mindset, we gloss over it or bend ourselves backwards making the theory work without requiring the intervention of a deity.

Then provide a good reason why we should assume a supernatural explanation.

Quote
And that's why evolution isn't really science: It refuses from the start to acknowledge the possibility of more then mere physical reality, even if such a possibility is more likely then the alternative.

Thats not just Evolution, thats the case with all of science. Science cant start with the assumption there is more than "physical reality" if it has no reason to presume it.

Quote
When you know the conclusion before you start, how is that not faith?  True objective reason precludes rejecting potential conclusions out of hand.

Very true but thats the case for religion and why ID and Creationism isnt science.

Quote
I don't think instruction in ID should be a mandatory part of the classroom, but teaching the arguments against Darwinism should be.  

And what arguments would that be? Im all for that if it were true, but arguments IDists and Creationists put forward are usually not only false but dishonest misrepresentations and usually completely wrong about damned near everything.

Quote
All too often groups of scientists campaign against curriculum that merely detailed problems with Darwinian evolutionary theory, without mentioning ID at all.  Sounds an awful lot like religious behavior on their part.

ID is just way to get Creationism into class without calling it Creationism, as they knew they couldnt win another court case.  The Discovery Institute even used a Creationist text book and slowly changed all the references from creator to designer over several years. Thats what Pandas to People became. They didnt even bother to use new arguments. I dont think theres any new argument that wasnt just a rehashed version Creationists hadent been using for decades. After the Dover trial which ruled that you couldnt teach ID  as it wasnt scientific, Dr Kenneth Miller said they now want to try just emphasising the "problems" of evolution rather than mentioning ID at all! Its just a new tactic, but it all comes from the same dishonest origin.

Quote
Calling ID "bunk" because "Scientific Journals" have published articles that claim to "disprove" their ideas is a lot like suggesting Louis Pasteur was crazy because all the other doctors didn't believe in germs and said as much.

Pasteur had real scientific evidence which is why they had to accept it, same with every scientific theory. ID has no scientific evidence. Prof Behe admitted in the Dover trial that ID is a scientific theory like Astrology was, when asked to explain his definiton of a scientific theory.

Ed

Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: TrashMan on December 04, 2007, 03:10:02 pm
Speaking of stubberness of science and dogma, I jsut have to post this:

Quote
Red...its not hate per se...it is just a shrewd eye towards the same pattern repeated in science again and again when a theory bangs up against its limitations. This is, of course, only my lay opinion based on 30 odd years of science reading, but dark energy and dark matter seem no more valid than expanding out the number of greek celestial spheres once some bright boy pointed out retrograde motion. Of COURSE, DE and DM makes matches in observed behaviour becuase both were CREATED to make observed behaviour make sense in the current model.

I don't hate the current model any more than I hate newtonian physics, nor do I think it is any more "wrong" than newtonian physics. On the other hand, for a body that is so BRUTALLY dogmatic about anything new, this careless embracing of a "branch" of physics that is lab untested in any way, undetected and requires ever more outlandish properties to be applied to the "Dark", seems both hypocritical and unhealthy for the basic tenets of science.

The guy going "Whoah whoah whoah...I think there is weirdness in how gravity behaves." has had to fight an uphill battle for the past ten years. The Dark Matter crowd was able to folllow up "Its super dense AND transparent to photons AND mutually repulsive so it only exists in galactic halos" with "And there is this super repulsive energy now that ONLY exists in the macro structures of the universe" and nobody even batted an eyelash and they get their own anniversary.

Seems like a double standard to this layman.


ps- Fib, yeah that was kind of my point. Whether CF exists or not it was at least an experimental science where claims could be tested and even then, the men first making the claims were destroyed professionally and branded fakers and charlatens, despite the fact that more careful work lately has resulted in a "Hmmm, there might be something going on after all....Ooops, sorry about that whole burning you at the stake thing!" DM and DE make far more outlandish claims, are based on being made to fit observations and then repeated observations of the exact thing they were created to explain is taken as "proof". Again, dubious to me.

This from another forums, but boy is hte guy right :P
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: MP-Ryan on December 04, 2007, 03:17:50 pm
This is going to turn into another religion/science/creation/evolution/faith mess again, isn't it?

ID = Creationist nonsense worded in scientific terms.
Evolution = plausible theory with known problems expected to be refined and adjusted over time to fit observation.

Are there problems with evolutionary theory?  Absolutely!  But it doesn't make Creationism or ID scientifically valid.  This isn't a one-or-the-other kind of issue.

All that aside, while the scientist in me is offended that a science director was fired for favouring evolution over ID, it's a bad policy that requires impartiality on an issue that is anything but that's the problem.  Firing = justified.  Policy = crap.
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Inquisitor on December 04, 2007, 03:53:10 pm
Quote
This is going to turn into another religion/science/creation/evolution/faith mess again, isn't it?

Yes.

Quote
"Prove", you keep using that word. I dont think it means what you think it means.

And you are my new favorite person, Edward. Also, an excellent name if I do say so myself.

Have fun storming the castle ;)
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Mars on December 04, 2007, 07:34:59 pm
You can believe God* created the universe without believing in ID. It's simple really; if God created the universe in the first place the universe behaves naturally the way he wants it to, no intervention required.

*-God may not be your God, God may vary.
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Bobboau on December 05, 2007, 05:54:23 pm
sence no one else has responded in a while I'll have to respond to the largest creationist post in this thread

Faith doesn't mean suspending our logical faculties, or believing in things that are patently false. though it's not a requirement of faith that you beleive in BS and anti-logic, it does facilitate it If anything, the evolution curriculum in schools and the mindset among scientists is far more faith then science.  We teach unproven conjecture as truth, no, we teach the only viable theory at hand employ circular reasoning to reach conclusions provide an example, utilize known to be faulty methodology you mean like testing? reproducibility of results?, and make colossal assumptions about things we can't prove because we didn't watch them happen such as EVERYTHING the creationists say, scientists at least have evidence to back up what they say.  Then when something comes along that poses a serious problem for our mindset, we gloss over it or bend ourselves backwards making the theory work without requiring the intervention of a deity. again give an example of what you are talking about, untill I saw the 'without' in that sentence I was thinking you were talking about yourself

And that's why evolution isn't really science: It refuses from the start to acknowledge the possibility of more then mere physical reality, even if such a possibility is more likely then the alternativelike all science it does not guess about things that can't be guessed about, for all we know the entire physical world as we know it is just a computer simulation running on some alien computer, there is no way to prove it isn't, but there is no reason to think it is.  When you know the conclusion before you start, how is that not faith? ok, so at least you are smart enough to be able to know what faith is True objective reason precludes rejecting potential conclusions out of hand.

I don't think instruction in ID should be a mandatory part of the classroom, but teaching the arguments against Darwinism should be. why? there aren't any good ones All too often groups of scientists campaign against curriculum that merely detailed problems with Darwinian evolutionary theory because they are BS 'questions', they are things which have been long ago addressed, the only person who still accepts them as questions is the person who refuses to allow evolution to be right even if all the evedence in the world says it is, without mentioning ID at all.  Sounds an awful lot like religious behavior on their part.

If you still think this is an example of someone standing up for truth, I have to ask how much you really know about the subject matter. I would wager more than you, but please try to prove me wrong Calling ID "bunk" because "Scientific Journals" have published articles that claim to "disprove" their ideas is a lot like suggesting Louis Pasteur was crazy because all the other doctors didn't believe in germs and said as much. until the evidence mounted in his favor, every new theory has to fight an uphill battle to prove it is better than what it is replacing. to start off what predictions does ID give
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Mefustae on December 05, 2007, 07:31:52 pm
I think you scared him off. We need some more creationists on this forum.
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: NGTM-1R on December 05, 2007, 09:25:15 pm
I think you scared him off. We need some more creationists on this forum.

Don't say things like that.
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Bobboau on December 06, 2007, 12:01:53 am
but it's boring without enough of them to put up some sort of fight, can't we at least get someone who trys to use the second law of thermodynamics, or maybe a full on young earther or something.
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: jr2 on December 06, 2007, 01:23:31 am
As long as you guys don't bother being considerate in how many responses you give one post, no one will be likely to bother much.  One point at a time.  Niiice, and slow... you might get places.  Although this thread doesn't have this problem, yet.  But if enough people get going on this, you'll have a Evolutionist / Creationist post ratio of 10:1  .... no thx.  No point trying to keep track of what ten people's points are.
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Mefustae on December 06, 2007, 06:56:35 am
As long as you guys don't bother being considerate in how many responses you give one post, no one will be likely to bother much.  One point at a time.  Niiice, and slow... you might get places.  Although this thread doesn't have this problem, yet.  But if enough people get going on this, you'll have a Evolutionist / Creationist post ratio of 10:1  .... no thx.  No point trying to keep track of what ten people's points are.
You may not have noticed, but therein lies a deliciously ironic point. Creationists try to argue that they know how the universe/world/life began, and either can't be stuffed or just downright refuse to actually read any of the large amount of easily-obtainable information about either side of the issue. It's no small surprise that that behavior is mirrored in discussion threads.

But yes, having every pro-Creationist post followed by a barrage of 10+ posts each pointing out different ways in why the original poster was wrong can be somewhat disheartening. :p
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: jr2 on December 06, 2007, 07:06:04 am
*cough*  Not to mention, this is done in one's spare time.  Ten Evolutionist posters may have fifteen minutes each, but I sincerely doubt the Creationist poster is going to take two and a half hours to respond.  (Well, G0atmaster might try... I'll give him credit for that.)  Then, when the Creationist's response fails to answer all of the points raised (at least to the Evolutionists' satisfaction), they claim that the Creationist didn't read what they posted.  Hmm... maybe he didn't... who's to blame him?  Proper debates have ground rules... I suppose we could set some of those up, it'd make it a whole lot nicer.
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Mefustae on December 06, 2007, 07:12:51 am
Proper debates have ground rules... I suppose we could set some of those up, it'd make it a whole lot nicer.
Well, except for the fact that a "proper debate" would legitimatize creationism or, God forbid, Intelligent Design as an actual alternative to the current scientific models.

Remember, children: Science is for how the nuts and bolts fit together, philosophy is for why the nuts and bolts fit together.
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: karajorma on December 06, 2007, 07:14:48 am
Kinda makes nonsense of the creationists favourite claim that evolution is still a highly controversial or scientifically debated theory if pretty much everyone says the same thing about it too. :p
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: TrashMan on December 06, 2007, 08:09:48 am
All I'm gonna say is, that as much as I love science, it has it's limits and flaws.

People who balantly go against it without thinking are idiots - no question about it. But not even science is allways right and can be as dogmatic and blind as the worst of religions.
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Wobble73 on December 06, 2007, 08:30:55 am
All I'm gonna say is, that as much as I love science, it has it's limits and flaws.


That's because science is conducted by humans and we all know how they make mistakes, it's why they put the eraser at the end of a pencil!
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Ace on December 06, 2007, 07:35:07 pm
But if enough people get going on this, you'll have a Evolutionist / Creationist post ratio of 10:1  .... no thx.

gg, no re.

Really the ratio should be 5.6 billion: 0

Until then, none of us are safe from...

THE LAND OF NOD!

...and other such bibleverse threats to humanity.

Yessiree that's right. Tons of nasty threats:
1. Land of Nod
2. Ezekiel's Wheel People/Things/Xeno Scum
3. Seraphim

...and it goes on!
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: jr2 on December 06, 2007, 08:00:36 pm
:wtf:  Duuude.. where'd you get that catnip from?  Seems like it's the bomb.
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Ace on December 07, 2007, 01:18:32 am
Hey, if you guys say you believe every word of that book as literal truth, then you gotta account for those bits too.
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Kosh on December 07, 2007, 05:36:00 am
What about the Brotherhood of Nod?



EDIT: OMG! You're right! We have so much to ph34r!!!!!!!!!!111111111111oneoneoneone

http://www.landofnod.com/

Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: TrashMan on December 07, 2007, 09:45:47 am
 :lol: EGADS! The HORRORS! Kane is making a new army for himself!
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: hip63 on December 07, 2007, 09:35:08 pm
To believe in the invisble man or everthing popped out of a big galactic firecracker?

I think everybody is stupid.

The real answer? NOBODY FREAKIN' KNOWS, OK???!!!!

Except maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

hip63 :p
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Stealth on December 08, 2007, 01:10:42 am
she broke a rule, and got fired.  end of story...  there's no need for debate on ethics, morals, etc. here. 

Shes a director of science and saying ID isnt science. Whats the problem? Its with the morons that decided that ID should be given immunity just because some religious people cant deal with the fact that it isnt scientific. Apparently faith isnt enough for them

i'm sure there were procedures for presenting a new idea, or a new 'fact' or whatever you want to call it.  procedures she clearly didn't follow. she obviously didn't play by the rules.  she broke them.  and for that she was fired.
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Stealth on December 08, 2007, 01:16:36 am
Sigh. The question I ask myself is do I have time to argue the same thing with a new person.

Faith doesn't mean suspending our logical faculties, or believing in things that are patently false. 
Apparently though faith isnt enough for these religious types in this case because they need to pretend their religious views are scientifically supportable

Quote
If anything, the evolution curriculum in schools and the mindset among scientists is far more faith then science.  We teach unproven conjecture as truth, employ circular reasoning to reach conclusions, utilize known to be faulty methodology, and make colossal assumptions about things we can't prove because we didn't watch them happen.  


"Prove", you keep using that word. I dont think it means what you think it means.

We cant observe anything in forensic science in the same way either, but its still science. FYI, all science is theory even science we do observe with our own eyes.

Quote
Then when something comes along that poses a serious problem for our mindset, we gloss over it or bend ourselves backwards making the theory work without requiring the intervention of a deity.

Then provide a good reason why we should assume a supernatural explanation.

Quote
And that's why evolution isn't really science: It refuses from the start to acknowledge the possibility of more then mere physical reality, even if such a possibility is more likely then the alternative.

Thats not just Evolution, thats the case with all of science. Science cant start with the assumption there is more than "physical reality" if it has no reason to presume it.

Quote
When you know the conclusion before you start, how is that not faith?  True objective reason precludes rejecting potential conclusions out of hand.

Very true but thats the case for religion and why ID and Creationism isnt science.

Quote
I don't think instruction in ID should be a mandatory part of the classroom, but teaching the arguments against Darwinism should be.  

And what arguments would that be? Im all for that if it were true, but arguments IDists and Creationists put forward are usually not only false but dishonest misrepresentations and usually completely wrong about damned near everything.

Quote
All too often groups of scientists campaign against curriculum that merely detailed problems with Darwinian evolutionary theory, without mentioning ID at all.  Sounds an awful lot like religious behavior on their part.

ID is just way to get Creationism into class without calling it Creationism, as they knew they couldnt win another court case.  The Discovery Institute even used a Creationist text book and slowly changed all the references from creator to designer over several years. Thats what Pandas to People became. They didnt even bother to use new arguments. I dont think theres any new argument that wasnt just a rehashed version Creationists hadent been using for decades. After the Dover trial which ruled that you couldnt teach ID  as it wasnt scientific, Dr Kenneth Miller said they now want to try just emphasising the "problems" of evolution rather than mentioning ID at all! Its just a new tactic, but it all comes from the same dishonest origin.

Quote
Calling ID "bunk" because "Scientific Journals" have published articles that claim to "disprove" their ideas is a lot like suggesting Louis Pasteur was crazy because all the other doctors didn't believe in germs and said as much.

Pasteur had real scientific evidence which is why they had to accept it, same with every scientific theory. ID has no scientific evidence. Prof Behe admitted in the Dover trial that ID is a scientific theory like Astrology was, when asked to explain his definiton of a scientific theory.

Ed



(http://www.swooh.com/lorenzo/hlphosted/wlwr4j.jpg)
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Bobboau on December 08, 2007, 01:33:51 am
i'm sure there were procedures for presenting a new idea, or a new 'fact' or whatever you want to call it.  procedures she clearly didn't follow. she obviously didn't play by the rules.  she broke them.  and for that she was fired.

ok, two points, she forwarded information about a speech someone else was going to give, she didn't say much herself.

but much more importantly, she is the science director, does it not make since that she would try to defend science, is that not a good quality to have in some one who's job it is to make sure that the science curriculum is in good order? are these policies not in fact in conflict with each other? it's like telling the captain of a ship, 'ok it's your job to make sure the ship doesn't hit any ice bergs, but your not allowed to change the ship's speed or heading'
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Edward Bradshaw on December 08, 2007, 05:35:34 am
she broke a rule, and got fired.  end of story...  there's no need for debate on ethics, morals, etc. here. 

Shes a director of science and saying ID isnt science. Whats the problem? Its with the morons that decided that ID should be given immunity just because some religious people cant deal with the fact that it isnt scientific. Apparently faith isnt enough for them

i'm sure there were procedures for presenting a new idea, or a new 'fact' or whatever you want to call it.  procedures she clearly didn't follow. she obviously didn't play by the rules.  she broke them.  and for that she was fired.

There are new procedures and ID doesnt follow them they want to bypass the scientific process. So she did nothing wrong  but if she was in a Creationist school she should have known they would fire her.
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Stealth on December 08, 2007, 10:57:24 am
Edward, you're showing your ignorance here... i wasn't talking about ID being a "new procedure"... i was talking about procedures she needed to follow if she felt ID needed to be criticized.  she could've brought it to the board's attention, or whatever other PROCEDURE was in place for something like this.

she. disobeyed. the. rules... end of story.  doesn't matter how honorable her objective was, it doesn't detract from the fact that she still broke... the... rules...... why is that so hard to understand?

Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Edward Bradshaw on December 08, 2007, 11:23:52 am
Edward, you're showing your ignorance here... i wasn't talking about ID being a "new procedure"... i was talking about procedures she needed to follow if she felt ID needed to be criticized.  she could've brought it to the board's attention, or whatever other PROCEDURE was in place for something like this.

she. disobeyed. the. rules... end of story.  doesn't matter how honorable her objective was, it doesn't detract from the fact that she still broke... the... rules...... why is that so hard to understand?

And you're giving me bureaucratic policy.  The fact is its ridiculous that a science director cannot give her opinion on whether ID is science. She should be able to say Astrology isnt science either, even though amusingly Prof Behe said ID is science like Astrology is science - and he was arguing FOR Intelligent design!

The state may be supported by a bunch of Creationists which put out that particular piece of arcane legislation or put that rule in place and if she knew about it then she was risking her job by doing what she did, however that does not stop it being a stupid situation. Why should she have to go through the proper channels to say what isnt science? Its not like there is a scientific debate.
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Bobboau on December 08, 2007, 12:19:55 pm
ok, so her job is to make a good science curriculum for the state of Texas, and the 'all holy rules' say she is not allowed to say that a politically motivated attempt to undermine science is not science, so she forwarded an email about a speech about the subject. the rules are wrong. the rules are contradictory. the rules are broken. she did the right thing by standing up against the rules. if you have a bad rule the worst thing you can possibly do is blindly follow it.
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: redsniper on December 08, 2007, 01:34:15 pm
I don't think Stealth is trying to say they're good rules. Just that if you decide to break the rules, for whatever reason, there will be consequences.
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Bobboau on December 08, 2007, 01:37:18 pm
she probably didn't think there would be any thing come from what she did.
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Edward Bradshaw on December 08, 2007, 03:53:59 pm
I don't think Stealth is trying to say they're good rules. Just that if you decide to break the rules, for whatever reason, there will be consequences.

Well Im sure we will all agree she broke the rules and that she got fired becuase she broke the rules, but the point was they are stupid rules.

But Stealth says theres no need to debate anything, and no other points matter. She broke the rule...end of story, as he says.

she broke a rule, and got fired.  end of story...  there's no need for debate on ethics, morals, etc. here.   

Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Hazaanko on December 08, 2007, 05:50:14 pm
I just read the full article from NYT, but I have only just skimmed over everybody's posts here regarding the issue... so I apologize if I'm making an argument that has already been finished.  It sounds to to me like she wasn't "forced to resign" because she was merely critical of ID or creationism, but more that she was getting all political about it.  Its an AP story, so like usual, you have to read between the lines.  Seems like they left a lot of pertinent facts out - an example being who exactly were the people she sent the email to.

According to the article (which takes her side), she was "forced to resign" for...:
"repeated acts of misconduct and insubordination."
"violat(ing) a directive that she not communicate with anyone outside the agency regarding a pending science curriculum review."
"giving a presentation and attending an off-site meeting without approval."

I'm just assuming this, but it really sounds like she was fired for a lot more than just "criticizing Intelligent Design." - and she just uses that excuse because she's out for blood.

Like most other stories like this - we'll probably never really know since we weren't there.  On a different note, if she did get the can for just being critical of intelligent design... I'd say thats fairly outrageous.  But, again, I think that's unlikely.

P.S. I recently found this little gem while cruising around:
http://craptaculus.com/eac/ID/id-faq.shtml
My favorite is the third one down lol
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Bobboau on December 08, 2007, 10:10:41 pm
I don't know number 13 is fairly awesome :lol:
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Stealth on December 09, 2007, 12:59:19 am
I don't think Stealth is trying to say they're good rules. Just that if you decide to break the rules, for whatever reason, there will be consequences.

Well Im sure we will all agree she broke the rules and that she got fired becuase she broke the rules, but the point was they are stupid rules.

But Stealth says theres no need to debate anything, and no other points matter. She broke the rule...end of story, as he says.

she broke a rule, and got fired.  end of story...  there's no need for debate on ethics, morals, etc. here.   



"the point is they were stupid rules"?

OK... so the way we do things in society, is if we think a rule (or law) is "stupid", we just go break it?

... wow. glad i don't live in the society you clearly support :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: karajorma on December 09, 2007, 02:30:06 am
I don't know number 13 is fairly awesome :lol:

Talk about hedging your bets. :D
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Bobboau on December 09, 2007, 03:29:14 am
"the point is they were stupid rules"?

OK... so the way we do things in society, is if we think a rule (or law) is "stupid", we just go break it?

... wow. glad i don't live in the society you clearly support :rolleyes:

yeah, like if the laws state that you are to be taxed even though you have no representation in parliament, or people of color must yield there seats to white passengers on public transportation.

so what society is it you live in again?
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: jr2 on December 09, 2007, 08:14:19 am
So, Bob, tell me... how long did we try to solve things using proper procedure before we started a Revolution?
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Stealth on December 09, 2007, 08:59:03 am
"the point is they were stupid rules"?

OK... so the way we do things in society, is if we think a rule (or law) is "stupid", we just go break it?

... wow. glad i don't live in the society you clearly support :rolleyes:

yeah, like if the laws state that you are to be taxed even though you have no representation in parliament, or people of color must yield there seats to white passengers on public transportation.

so what society is it you live in again?

we live in a society, where, if you don't think something's right, you don't take the law into your own hands and do what you think is right... you follow procedure to make your case known.
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: karajorma on December 09, 2007, 10:19:03 am
So, Bob, tell me... how long did we try to solve things using proper procedure before we started a Revolution?

In a similar vein didn't the Dover court case already decide that ID was a bunch of religious unscientific bull**** designed for the sole purpose of sneaking around separation of church and state?

See this already has been settled by proper procedure. Which therefore surely means that this woman was acting correctly and  it was the people pushing ID who were breaking the rules.
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: MP-Ryan on December 09, 2007, 12:52:01 pm
I don't know number 13 is fairly awesome :lol:

Talk about hedging your bets. :D

I liked number 4 myself.
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: karajorma on December 09, 2007, 01:03:03 pm
Like I said on an earlier thread instead of using parody like Flying Spaghetti Monster we should simply hijack ID and explain how it teaches that the world was created by aliens.

Which leaves the ID proponents having to either agree with the arguments that aliens did it or having to tear down their own arguments.
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Edward Bradshaw on December 09, 2007, 03:47:20 pm
we live in a society, where, if you don't think something's right, you don't take the law into your own hands and do what you think is right... you follow procedure to make your case known.

As has already been pointed out, its already been ruled in a court of law (even though that is not how science operates) that ID is unscientific and illegal to teach. The proper channels to get a science into school are not followed by ID.

Ed
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: jr2 on December 10, 2007, 03:16:00 am
Like I said on an earlier thread instead of using parody like Flying Spaghetti Monster we should simply hijack ID and explain how it teaches that the world was created by aliens.

Which leaves the ID proponents having to either agree with the arguments that aliens did it or having to tear down their own arguments.

:sigh:  Yes, it could be used to say that.  At least you admit it... to determine the actual creator, you'd have to study the evidence.
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: karajorma on December 10, 2007, 03:55:02 am
Admit what? That the bull**** theory of ID spits out other solutions just as likely as God did it? I've admitted that from the start. It doesn't mean that ID is correct. Simply that we should point out to proponents of ID who say "ID proves evolution is wrong therefore God did it" and show them that ID says nothing of the sort even if you believe in ID!

There is no evidence within ID that provides any more evidence for God than that extra dimensional aliens did it. Which means unless you start pulling in the bible as evidence (which is something ID can't do and still pass itself off as science) aliens are as likely to be the intelligent designer as God. 
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: jr2 on December 10, 2007, 09:26:42 am
There is no evidence within ID that provides any more evidence for God than that extra dimensional aliens did it. Which means unless you start pulling in the bible as evidence (which is something ID can't do and still pass itself off as science) aliens are as likely to be the intelligent designer as God. 

Hmm... /me smells circular reasoning, perhaps.  ID isn't about proving "God did it".  It's about proving something intelligent did it... from there, we can argue about who/what, without people jumping in and saying it's all nonsense because nothing did it, or it did it itself.  :rolleyes:

You want us not to use ID because it doesn't prove "God did it"
You want us to believe atheistic (or non-intelligent-originistic <?> ) Evolution is correct
-If you can prove the second on its own merits, the first is already pwnt.  If the first is however correct, then the ID crowd will be happy that at least you can be searching for whoever/whatever made us, instead of claiming it was a freak occurrence.

Why can't you see that according to the ID crowd, they just don't want bad science taught as fact?
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: karajorma on December 10, 2007, 10:08:18 am
Because that is exactly what the ID crowd want. ID is bad science. In fact it's not science at all. It makes no testable claims.


ID is simply a smokescreen to sneak creationism in through the back door. It's not science. And it's not even true creationism because it avoids saying when God actually created the universe so as to avoid breaking apart the two fundamental groups that make it up (Young Earth and Old Earth creationists).

If you want to believe in God go ahead and do it. But don't waste your time with ID. It's not science and it's not religion. After the Dover case proved it was nonsense didn't you wonder why it disappeared? It disappeared because it had failed in its purpose.

The simple fact is that a lot of people don't understand what that is and think ID is basically creationism. It isn't. Most people arguing for ID don't actually understand it. I'll ask again cause I always ask ID proponents, "What are the 3 fundamental parts of the ID theory?"
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Ghostavo on December 10, 2007, 10:11:23 am
It should be noted that evolution doesn't throw out the idea of god/gods/whatever. Afterall, most religious denominations support the idea of evolution.
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: MP-Ryan on December 10, 2007, 10:47:50 am
It should be noted that evolution doesn't throw out the idea of god/gods/whatever. Afterall, most religious denominations support the idea of evolution.

This is something I perpetually try to beat into the heads of people who "don't believe" in evolution.

Evolution merely states that life has changed over time from a single common ancestor into a myriad of complex forms through natural selection.  It says nothing about how that single common ancestor came about.  The hangup point for most religious types is that they view natural selection as meaning purely random chance, which isn't accurate.  The mechanisms which allow natural selection to occur are purely random, but the selection process itself is anything but.  At any rate, that's one of the reasons for the invention of ID - so they can claim that the process of evolution has been guided.  To me, if someone says they believe in ID but not evolution that tells me they don't understand either of them.  ID is merely God in the Details (not the gaps; natural selection is a soundly explained mechanism).

That's yet another reason ID is such blarney... people can believe in a God and still believe in evolution.
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: karajorma on December 10, 2007, 11:14:23 am
Exactly. There's no good reason for an Old Earth Creationist not to believe in evolution. It's only the Young Earth Creationists who actually need to have any problem with it.

A conversation with a reasonable creationist would go like this.

Him: I believe God pushed evolution in a certain direction
Me: Evolution doesn't need God to push evolution
Him: I know, but I believe he exists and he did it by doing subtle things like dropping an asteroid on the dinosaurs and setting off the Toba eruption, there's no need for him to get directly involved.
Me: Fair enough. Let's go point and laugh at YECs together then.
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: redsniper on December 10, 2007, 06:35:56 pm
Wasn't there even a pope who said evolution was a great theory or am I just imagining things?
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Edward Bradshaw on December 10, 2007, 07:04:07 pm
There is no evidence within ID that provides any more evidence for God than that extra dimensional aliens did it. Which means unless you start pulling in the bible as evidence (which is something ID can't do and still pass itself off as science) aliens are as likely to be the intelligent designer as God. 

Hmm... /me smells circular reasoning, perhaps.  ID isn't about proving "God did it".  It's about proving something intelligent did it... from there, we can argue about who/what, without people jumping in and saying it's all nonsense because nothing did it, or it did it itself.  :rolleyes:

You want us not to use ID because it doesn't prove "God did it"
You want us to believe atheistic (or non-intelligent-originistic <?> ) Evolution is correct
-If you can prove the second on its own merits, the first is already pwnt.  If the first is however correct, then the ID crowd will be happy that at least you can be searching for whoever/whatever made us, instead of claiming it was a freak occurrence.

Why can't you see that according to the ID crowd, they just don't want bad science taught as fact?

Lets get this clarified...

 + The idea that the Intelligent Designer is God is inherently unscientific, so lets stop there.

 + The idea that the Intelligent Designer is aliens is NOT inherently unscientific. But it doesnt matter, the science is not there. Behes arguments for example are nonsence, really. All he does is say, look, this sure looks complicated it couldnt have come about naturally via evolution without some kind of Intelligent input. But when he is shown to be wrong, he can just move onto some other biological structure we currently have an grey area in, or he'll just says its not good enough an explanation (but we can never have 100% understanding so he can just move the goal posts). Its a pretty standard Creationist arguing style really he's just wrapped it up in a more sciencey way. He even falsely compared life to a mouse trap and actual human made machines just like Paley did centuries because him with his Watchmaker argument. Life isnt a watch or a mousetrap, if we saw mousetraps and watches in nature growing and reproducing like animals maybe we wouldnt be so quick to think they were Intelligently Designed. And as for Dembski, he writes very long papers about why evolution doesnt work mathematically because he claims "information" doesnt increase yet he, nor any Creationist, has NEVER defined information. So if you try arguing with them that information does increase, they will just move the goal posts, because they never have defined what they mean bythe words they use.

 + Theres no such thing as "atheist evolution", there is only Evolution. No science makes claims about god. If there is atheist evolution then there is "atheist gravity" or "atheist aerodynamics". Ironically, considering how much Creationists bash him, Darwin credited God as the creator when he wrote Origin of the Species but that doesnt mean it was science when he  or any scientist expresses their personel religious views. All science is therefore "atheist science", if you want to be an ass about it. 

 ++ This "bad science" IDists claim to be taught in Evolution are misrepresentations and usually dishonestly so. They want to teach bad science, not make sure good science is taught.


Him: I believe God pushed evolution in a certain direction
Me: Evolution doesn't need God to push evolution
Him: I know, but I believe he exists and he did it by doing subtle things like dropping an asteroid on the dinosaurs and setting off the Toba eruption, there's no need for him to get directly involved.
Me: Fair enough. Let's go point and laugh at YECs together then.

They exist, they are called Theistic Evolutionists, which makes up most of the people that accept Evolution.
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: karajorma on December 11, 2007, 02:15:03 am
Exactly. ID proponents like to paint the picture that you must believe in God or evolution but it's a load of bollocks. There are lots of people who accept evolution as scientific fact but still believe in God. The two are most definitely not exclusive.
Title: Re: Texas science director criticizes ID, is forced to resign
Post by: Maniax on December 11, 2007, 04:36:21 am
Exactly. ID proponents like to paint the picture that you must believe in God or evolution but it's a load of bollocks. There are lots of people who accept evolution as scientific fact but still believe in God. The two are most definitely not exclusive.

Amen to that!