TenuredVulture wrote:

phdave wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I wouldn't let an intelligent design guy work on my furnace, as I suspect they are pretty much con artists, somewhere between Don Lapre and prosperity gospel preachers.

If your furnace is broken, isn't that pretty much evidence against intelligent design?

If my furnace had evolved, instead of being designed, it wouldn't break.

Unless the environment changed from the environment of evolutionary adaptedness for furnaces. Perhaps in the evolutionary past there were certain furnaces who were able to out-reproduce other furnaces and their offspring (space heaters) were also able to reproduce very successfully once they grew up to be furnaces. But then there was a shift in the environmental conditions and those furnaces formerly very successful at reproducing and producing successfully reproducing space heaters were unable to find enough fuel to burn in the furnace or the outlets all had child safety caps and the space heaters had no opposable thumbs and they all died before growing up to reproductive maturity. Then the analogy is air tight.

phdave wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I wouldn't let an intelligent design guy work on my furnace, as I suspect they are pretty much con artists, somewhere between Don Lapre and prosperity gospel preachers.

If your furnace is broken, isn't that pretty much evidence against intelligent design?

The designer also created the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, apparently.

Polar Bear Phan wrote:

phdave wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I wouldn't let an intelligent design guy work on my furnace, as I suspect they are pretty much con artists, somewhere between Don Lapre and prosperity gospel preachers.

If your furnace is broken, isn't that pretty much evidence against intelligent design?

The designer also created the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, apparently.

There's always a loop-hole.

TenuredVulture wrote:

Werthless wrote:

Camp Holdout wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:In other words, fully accepting evolutionary theory while still believing in a God who knowingly set the conditions for this evolution in motion, as Catholics are encouraged to do, is NOT what is meant by Intelligent Design.

is there a useful word for that belief then?

i think there may be a fair number of those people in the world, they might call themselves "spiritual" or something.

I refer to these people as IDers. Creationists (who believe the universe is 6,000 years old) who simply call their views ID does not make them IDers, anymore so that McCain calling himself Maverick makes it so, or Biden saying that paying taxes is patriotic makes it so.

But it's purely semantics.

No, it's not semantics.

The theory Mozart described is not ID. If it was, it would entail a lack of free will.

IDers take money from the credulous claiming that they will find evidence for intelligence in the design process. Of course they can't, which is why I believe they're perpetuating a scam little different from the Psychic Friend Hotline.

Here's a description from the Discovery Institute:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.

That's not the same thing in substance as what Mozart describes.

It is semantics, as I was obviously using the word incorrectly. Bring back the hounds.

Werthless wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Werthless wrote:

Camp Holdout wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:In other words, fully accepting evolutionary theory while still believing in a God who knowingly set the conditions for this evolution in motion, as Catholics are encouraged to do, is NOT what is meant by Intelligent Design.

is there a useful word for that belief then?

i think there may be a fair number of those people in the world, they might call themselves "spiritual" or something.

I refer to these people as IDers. Creationists (who believe the universe is 6,000 years old) who simply call their views ID does not make them IDers, anymore so that McCain calling himself Maverick makes it so, or Biden saying that paying taxes is patriotic makes it so.

But it's purely semantics.

No, it's not semantics.

The theory Mozart described is not ID. If it was, it would entail a lack of free will.

IDers take money from the credulous claiming that they will find evidence for intelligence in the design process. Of course they can't, which is why I believe they're perpetuating a scam little different from the Psychic Friend Hotline.

Here's a description from the Discovery Institute:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.

That's not the same thing in substance as what Mozart describes.

It is semantics, as I was obviously using the word incorrectly. Bring back the hounds.

Which word were you using incorrectly? ID? Semantic?

OK NEW RULE

CREATIONISM IS STUPID AND THIS IS NOT ARGUABLE SO BELOW THIS LINE YOU CAN NOT TALK ABOUT CREATIONISM OK THEN

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

TenuredVulture wrote:

Werthless wrote:It is semantics, as I was obviously using the word incorrectly. Bring back the hounds.

Which word were you using incorrectly? ID? Semantic?

Both. Not so much semantics, but me using a phrase (intelligent design) which I had always used in a general sense as the attempted synthesis of evolutionary theory with Biblical teaching. Apparently you guys view the term differently, which is likely an indication that my usage was wrong.. If that is the meaning of the term, then fine, but then what do I call people who fit the following?

fully accepting evolutionary theory while still believing in a God who knowingly set the conditions for this evolution in motion

For someone so impassioned with the proper use of vocabulary, I'm hoping for something more specific than "less insane."

dajafi wrote:

gr wrote:passed this around the office a few weeks ago, in case you didn't see it as well. all that love for her and you didn't know she's a tiny cartoon character of a person? check out the photo gallery in the story, frame #2. i love the look on the kid's face: "yes, mrs. rhee, i'm learning today, i swear!"

I missed that--my Ed Week reading is occasional hit, most often miss.

But it's awesome. And that Randi Weingarten, whom I really can't stand, doesn't support what Rhee is doing, makes me all the more disposed to believe she's on the right track.

What Weingarten knows, but won't say, is that "rookies who will work their hearts and souls out for a few years and then burn out” describes HALF of New York City teachers right now; 50 percent of new teachers leave after three years, either for easier gigs in the 'burbs or out of the profession altogether. That isn't all about money, and the reformers need to figure out how to better support young teachers--not assigning them to the worst schools might help--but a greater financial reward would seem like part of the answer.

To get back to your original contention, "professionalize the teaching profession" would seem to be a winning strategy on education, for either party. But the Dems almost certainly aren't brave enough to take on the Weingartens of the world, and the Republicans can't or won't get beyond their traditional destructionist impulses (from "close the Dept of Ed" to "privatize it all") in this area.

A huge part of the problem, one rarely discussed, is teacher training. Education majors takes most of their hours in education courses, rather than in the subject matter they're supposed to be teaching. Now, some of this makes sense--knowing how to read and teaching someone else how to read are different things. But the balance is out of whack.

Second, related to the first, is that what passes for scholarship in education (that is, the kinds of things university education researchers do) would simply not pass muster in other fields. Research methodologies and statistics are laughably bad, and yet it is on that basis that curricula are developed and implemented. It's like Joe Morgan v. Billy Beane.

So called education professionals (not school teachers, but the higher education superstructure and the various accrediting and credentialing agencies) spend an enormous amount of time generating documents. There is an amazingly pervasive paperwork fetish, and this creates a horrible demand on actual in the classroom teachers as well.

dajafi wrote:

Woody wrote:Didn't the PA supreme court rule that Intelligent Design was "creationism in disguise"? Didn't they find evidence that the ID folks basically took a creationism text and did and Edit>>Replace to make it replace creationism with "intelligent design"?

Yes and yes.

MP I think referred to the "God the watch-maker" theory: to me, if one wants to assert that The Great Winding happened pre-Big Bang, rock on. (The Founding Fathers, that bunch of Deists, allegedly were of this view.)

But my understanding of ID is that its adherents believe that God kept putting His hand in: a reversible thumb here, a complex optical nerve there... they just can't produce any credible science to back this up.

Good take, d.

The IDers who push the latter version not only have no scientific proof, but also put forward a theory essentially rejecting the idea of "free will", which many people of faith believe is God's greatest gift to humankind (which I believe adds on to the points TV has been making, but I'm just jumping back in so I may have missed something).

Laexile wrote:

seke2 wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:

Laexile wrote:Democrats seem to think that being pro-life or believing in creationism somehow disqualifies a person from seeking office.

Doesn't everyone who doesn't believe in creationism think that?

I do. In fact, I would say believing in creationism would disqualify you from being my doctor, a teacher for my child, or my accountant or lawyer. I might, in a pinch, let you work on my furnace.

Agreed. I don't see how this is unfair at all. I would not want someone I know to be a believer in creationism to be making important decisions for me.

Why? What difference does it make? Most of America believes in creationism.

Most of America probably shouldn't run for public office.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:Werthless and MP, do you guys really think that McCain is super-spiritual?

Not sure where this question comes from, but if you're asking if I think McCain believes in God, than I'd answer "yes".

Mountainphan wrote:

dajafi wrote:

Woody wrote:Didn't the PA supreme court rule that Intelligent Design was "creationism in disguise"? Didn't they find evidence that the ID folks basically took a creationism text and did and Edit>>Replace to make it replace creationism with "intelligent design"?

Yes and yes.

MP I think referred to the "God the watch-maker" theory: to me, if one wants to assert that The Great Winding happened pre-Big Bang, rock on. (The Founding Fathers, that bunch of Deists, allegedly were of this view.)

But my understanding of ID is that its adherents believe that God kept putting His hand in: a reversible thumb here, a complex optical nerve there... they just can't produce any credible science to back this up.

Good take, d.

The IDers who push the latter version not only have no scientific proof, but also put forward a theory essentially rejecting the idea of "free will", which many people of faith believe is God's greatest gift to humankind (which I believe adds on the points TV has been making, but I'm just jumping back in so I may have missed something).

Right.

Rather than read Genesis as an account of creation (since really, very little of Genesis actually discusses that, and it does so in extremely general terms) it makes more sense to read as a theodicy where evil is explained as a consequence of free will. The interesting part of the story isn't that there is a garden of eden, but that there's that pesky tree of knowledge there.

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:

gr wrote:passed this around the office a few weeks ago, in case you didn't see it as well. all that love for her and you didn't know she's a tiny cartoon character of a person? check out the photo gallery in the story, frame #2. i love the look on the kid's face: "yes, mrs. rhee, i'm learning today, i swear!"

I missed that--my Ed Week reading is occasional hit, most often miss.

But it's awesome. And that Randi Weingarten, whom I really can't stand, doesn't support what Rhee is doing, makes me all the more disposed to believe she's on the right track.

What Weingarten knows, but won't say, is that "rookies who will work their hearts and souls out for a few years and then burn out” describes HALF of New York City teachers right now; 50 percent of new teachers leave after three years, either for easier gigs in the 'burbs or out of the profession altogether. That isn't all about money, and the reformers need to figure out how to better support young teachers--not assigning them to the worst schools might help--but a greater financial reward would seem like part of the answer.

To get back to your original contention, "professionalize the teaching profession" would seem to be a winning strategy on education, for either party. But the Dems almost certainly aren't brave enough to take on the Weingartens of the world, and the Republicans can't or won't get beyond their traditional destructionist impulses (from "close the Dept of Ed" to "privatize it all") in this area.

A huge part of the problem, one rarely discussed, is teacher training. Education majors takes most of their hours in education courses, rather than in the subject matter they're supposed to be teaching. Now, some of this makes sense--knowing how to read and teaching someone else how to read are different things. But the balance is out of whack.

Second, related to the first, is that what passes for scholarship in education (that is, the kinds of things university education researchers do) would simply not pass muster in other fields. Research methodologies and statistics are laughably bad, and yet it is on that basis that curricula are developed and implemented. It's like Joe Morgan v. Billy Beane.

So called education professionals (not school teachers, but the higher education superstructure and the various accrediting and credentialing agencies) spend an enormous amount of time generating documents. There is an amazingly pervasive paperwork fetish, and this creates a horrible demand on actual in the classroom teachers as well.

I know the above isn't true at my college. You picked a major and the minored in education, and you took as many core courses as anyone else minus one of your final semesters.

pacino wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:

gr wrote:passed this around the office a few weeks ago, in case you didn't see it as well. all that love for her and you didn't know she's a tiny cartoon character of a person? check out the photo gallery in the story, frame #2. i love the look on the kid's face: "yes, mrs. rhee, i'm learning today, i swear!"

I missed that--my Ed Week reading is occasional hit, most often miss.

But it's awesome. And that Randi Weingarten, whom I really can't stand, doesn't support what Rhee is doing, makes me all the more disposed to believe she's on the right track.

What Weingarten knows, but won't say, is that "rookies who will work their hearts and souls out for a few years and then burn out” describes HALF of New York City teachers right now; 50 percent of new teachers leave after three years, either for easier gigs in the 'burbs or out of the profession altogether. That isn't all about money, and the reformers need to figure out how to better support young teachers--not assigning them to the worst schools might help--but a greater financial reward would seem like part of the answer.

To get back to your original contention, "professionalize the teaching profession" would seem to be a winning strategy on education, for either party. But the Dems almost certainly aren't brave enough to take on the Weingartens of the world, and the Republicans can't or won't get beyond their traditional destructionist impulses (from "close the Dept of Ed" to "privatize it all") in this area.

A huge part of the problem, one rarely discussed, is teacher training. Education majors takes most of their hours in education courses, rather than in the subject matter they're supposed to be teaching. Now, some of this makes sense--knowing how to read and teaching someone else how to read are different things. But the balance is out of whack.

Second, related to the first, is that what passes for scholarship in education (that is, the kinds of things university education researchers do) would simply not pass muster in other fields. Research methodologies and statistics are laughably bad, and yet it is on that basis that curricula are developed and implemented. It's like Joe Morgan v. Billy Beane.

So called education professionals (not school teachers, but the higher education superstructure and the various accrediting and credentialing agencies) spend an enormous amount of time generating documents. There is an amazingly pervasive paperwork fetish, and this creates a horrible demand on actual in the classroom teachers as well.

I know the above isn't true at my college. You picked a major and the minored in education, and you took as many core courses as anyone else minus one of your final semesters.

We're trying to implement something like that here, but the education people are somewhat obstructionist. However, that issue is above my pay grade. I think the deal is if you want to teach, you take a 5th year and get a masters in teaching.

The Dude wrote:LA, you know very well that creationism involves the deity creating humanity as well, takes the book of genesis literally

I always enjoy how you know what I'm thinking better than I do. And no, I don't know that. Because I believe in creationism but don't believe in taking the Book of Genesis literally. But you really missed my point. People criticize Palin for being a creationist when they've decided to take their definition and apply it to her. Does she believe that every word in the Bible is literally true? Despite the assurances from most people here, I've never heard her say she did. I Googled and I can't find any quote from her saying it is. I do know that the pastor of her church has said it is, but I'd like to think that we can't assume that all the congregants in a church believe what the pastor believes, now can we?

I believe in the story of Genesis. How much of it is figurative and how much is literal is something that I've made my own judgement. I don't tell other people how they should interpret the Bible. I have no idea how Sarah Palin does. But what if she believes in the Bible being literal? How does that impact anyone else? The belief is that because she believes that she's "judgmental and dictatorial, telling people how they’ve got to live their lives." This judgement doesn't come from anything Palin has said or done but people assigning beliefs to her. If you actually look at her record you'll find that her personal beliefs have played little or no part in how she's governed.

This all stems from answers Palin gave in a 2006 debate.

Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.

I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. I’m not going to pretend I know how all this came to be.

Oh, how horrible. What is her definition of intelligent design that should be taught in schools? I have no idea and since she hasn't pushed for it as governor it isn't likely that I will. I do know that many view Darwin as dismissing religion and I can see how that would get them rankled. Of course she proposes some of those other radical Christian right ideas like healthy debate and that we really don't know how this all came to be.

Some people on the right make moral judgements about others. They believe they are morally superior and that views that disagree with theirs have no merit. The left is no better. They believe they are intellectually superior to everyone else and that views that disagree with theirs also have no merit, and apparently with some, disqualify anyone who has them for all but manual labor.

As a social libertarian I believe that anyone can believe or do whatever they want as long as it doesn't impact others. I don't think that makes me better than anyone else. In fact, it's my core belief that everyone's beliefs have equal value. Yes, even those that are insane. I have no litmus test on what a person has to think when choosing a candidate. I only care about what they'll do. Based on Palin's record in public office I don't see how she's pushing her social agenda, if she has one, on anyone.

phdave wrote:

Laexile wrote:Democrats seem to think that being pro-life or believing in creationism somehow disqualifies a person from seeking office.

Does that include the Democrats who are pro-life?

Of course not everyone in a Party thinks the same way, but pro-life Democrats aren't well liked in the Democratic Party. Any more than pro-choice Republicans are liked.

Four people, a Republican, a centerist Democrat, and two independents, have told me they couldn't vote for McCain because Palin is pro-life. Social issues are evergreen issues for both parties, not just the Republicans. When it comes to fiscal and foreign policy both parties can succeed or fail. If your party's philosophy provides failures in these areas you know that social issues never will. If a Democrat is a failure he can at least tell the electorate that his Republican opponent wants to control your body and eliminate the right of abortion. He'll get votes he might not get on fiscal and foreign policy issues.

anyone whose vote is based on abortion one way or the other is an utter moron and should be deported asap

Seriously, this is becoming like WIP for me. I can't turn away. What the hell am I doing reading this guy on a Friday night for?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t ... -reco.html

Why is this guy obsessed with the baby? Whose does he think it is?

jeff2sf wrote:Seriously, this is becoming like WIP for me. I can't turn away. What the hell am I doing reading this guy on a Friday night for?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t ... -reco.html

The next post is titled "Pure Bile"

dajafi, this is embarrassing, right? Like, really, really, really embarrassing.