Michael Behe back at it

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Simply being uninformed doesn't mean being goofy. Your typical biology class is not set up to refute creationist claims, so lots of people can pass a course while still being convinced of creationism.

That actually makes sense. The goofy part is when grandiose claims are offered as evidence such as Behe's irreducible complexity.

 

[pood]

I don’t think anyone in this thread is advocating teaching ID in biology class. What some of us (me) might be advocating is doing what, oh, UC Berkeley does.

I believe you said a place for ID is in college philosophy. Why say that?

Why don’t you go back and carefully read what I said for context, as well as read the entirety of my posts in this thread?

 

[steve_bank]

I don’t think anyone in this thread is advocating teaching ID in biology class. What some of us (me) might be advocating is doing what, oh, UC Berkeley does.

I believe you said a place for ID is in college philosophy. Why say that?

Why don’t you go back and carefully read what I said for context, as well as read the entirety of my posts in this thread?

Ok. if I misread then you do not think ID has a place in college education? Just to make it clear if you will.

Where should it be taught?

I am not anti philosophy and it has usefulness. I find some philosophers try to equate philosophy and science as equal, which is not true.

Natural Philosohy based in metaphysics was superseded by modern nodel based experimental science.
In that regards I categorize ID as philosophy although misguided.

On science, philosophy has become commentary and speculation based on science. Philosophy tries to reduce the complex process of science in simplistic fixed terms of rules on how it is done.

 

[steve_bank]

Simply being uninformed doesn't mean being goofy. Your typical biology class is not set up to refute creationist claims, so lots of people can pass a course while still being convinced of creationism.

Anticaccers are well informed. It is impossible to watch news amd not be.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Simply being uninformed doesn't mean being goofy. Your typical biology class is not set up to refute creationist claims, so lots of people can pass a course while still being convinced of creationism.

Anticaccers are well informed. It is impossible to watch news amd not be.

I would not agree with that because it does not follow. That they're not processing information similarly would be my guess. Maybe too much neural noise, but they're certainly not getting the same picture. They're obviously sensing because they're reacting but the program is all different so they're concluding differently.

 

[steve_bank]

Simply being uninformed doesn't mean being goofy. Your typical biology class is not set up to refute creationist claims, so lots of people can pass a course while still being convinced of creationism.

Anticaccers are well informed. It is impossible to watch news amd not be.

I would not agree with that because it does not follow. That they're not processing information similarly would be my guess. Maybe too much neural noise, but they're certainly not getting the same picture. They're obviously sensing because they're reacting but the program is all different so they're concluding differently.

I see your point.