I actually have no experience with IDists in my life. .Academic integrity means avoiding plagiarism and cheating, among other misconduct behaviours no? If so enlighten me . Did they fall in one those things? And if they did that proves that they should be out of academia? Isnt that point where academia freedom must be applied? Again im not defending their actions rather than the right to teach the things they do
They reject the scientific consensus. They fake intellectual “power”. They abuse trust in fellow religious in their promotion of “weaponized theistic science apologetics”. They taunt scientists who do serious, credible, and replicable work when it goes against their ideology.
It’s obvious you don’t have any experience with IDists & are just defending an abstract principle. It’s unfortunate you are unaware of the lack of academic integrity of IDists. If you were, perhaps you might sympathize with people defending academic integrity.
Answer me this please. If all of these you stated didnt happen ,would you be ok with them teaching what they teach?
Sorry, I’m not going to entertain a fantasy, when the reality of the DI’s refusal to respect academic integrity is visible for anyone sincere and concerned to see. Go read Gora, please. Thanks.
Nick, he stated they are good to go teaching ID in religion or philosophy class. It is teaching pseudoscience as science that I see as objectionable.
1 Like
Maybe i didnt see the comment. In that case im sorry . I dont want to raise any trouble. Yec is a “dangerous” idea too but i believe people have the right to express it. Thanks
I used to teach public school. There were policies about what we could not post on our personal social media accounts in our free time, and there were definitely policies about what you could or could not say in the classroom. There is a whole range of speech that would get a teacher fired for Title IX violations. If people think that employees can say whatever they whenever they want, because free speech, they are deluded. People are very confused about what free speech means. Like all the people who think I can’t delete their posts on this forum because they have freedom of speech. Sorry, not what it means.
2 Likes
In addition to those things we couldn’t say as public school teachers there were also plenty of things I wouldn’t want to say for fear of being divisive and creating extra difficulty for some students in learning from me. For anyone who values the ability to say whatever they want whenever they want, the classroom isn’t the place. I never felt constrained from what I could say online, but then again Berkeley is where the free speech movement started so our norms were probably atypical.
1 Like
You have to teach science in the public school science classroom. In the Kitzmiller trial, the science teachers refused to read the statement about ID provided by the ID crowd because it would be violating the oath they took to not lie to their students. So genetics would be ok to teach but not Lysenkoism. (Look it up.)
It’s so wonderful that everyone at BioLogos agrees contra-IDism. For this, I am thankful, as a consensus against “ID theory” would be a welcome development. Of course, Reasons to Believe would never agree to reject “ID” the way BioLogos does. Yet still, anti-IDism at BioLogos serves a valid constituency.
Unfortunately, not the same agreement contra-evolutionism has been achieved among ex-YECists at BioLogos yet. Maybe that is still to come.
Unfortunately BioLogos has a reputation. My Methodist brother swears he won’t check it out. Unfortunately I weakened my influence when I used to argue that if his God were omnipotent there was no in principle no reason why He couldn’t slow cook the universe, using evolution and everything else science can uncover rather than magic. My interest and insight into Christianity wasn’t very developed then or perhaps I could’ve picked smaller points? Now he avoids discussing religion with me though he does maintain contact. So who knows?
@jbabraham88 @NickolaosPappas @cewoldt
Richard Dawkins opens the door for considering God as a scientific hypothesis in his book “The God Delusion.” So perhaps ID and “The God Delusion” can be mentioned in the same sentence. LOL There is too much to learn in biology to waste time on such stuff however.
So if you really want to give it more time than that to this you need a religion class. Then as long as you don’t give any preference to one religion over another then you can discuss ID along with Wicca, Mormonism, Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism… Sounds cool to me. Why shouldn’t students be introduced to all these religions so they have some idea what they are all about.
But of course, I disagree with Dawkins. God is not a proper scientific hypothesis, and his “The God Delusion” book isn’t science any more than ID is.
Of course freedom of speech is not hate speech. But if someome is not isulting or harrasing or isnt intimidative why cant he express himself? Im speaking generally now .
Then why did Paul write in Romans 1:20, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse?”
Freedom of speech is such any opinion can be expressed, it just can’t be expressed here, as the forum is not yours, but BioLogos’ and they have a right to limit its use to their purposes and their restrictions.
The problem with Twitter, Facebook and such, is that when a company gets so dominant as to be monopolistic, it could be argued that it becomes a public utility rather than private enterprise, and loses the right to self regulate.
Personally, I agree that the total cut off was a poor business and political decision on their part, likely to increase the divide and the paranoia, but we will see. They also had the problem of liability, and I could see civil and maybe even criminal charges arising from them allowing such content resulting in damages. In fact, it will be interesting to see if some of the families who lost loved ones in the riot sue social media for damages.
I was speaking generally. I wasnt even refering to websites in my mind. Just you know everyday conversations . Sorry if i got misunderstood
Sorry if I didn’t follow you. My answer would be that it is fine to express those opinions, but you can’t yell Fire! In a crowded theater as it endangers others. When hard results, the speaker is also responsible for that harm. Legal definitions get involved, but if lies are told that cause damage, that is wrong. There must be some control. Sometimes I think we allow too much freedom, and allow false statements to be made in the name of free speech, that does real harm. I see it in advertising all the time where dubious claims are made and scams are perpetuated.
In my opinion things have changed over time. For
Instance democrasy back at ancient greek was everyone statung their opinion. There were no representatives . Same with free speech . Back then there wasnt any limit really to what you could say expect some blapshmey laws they had if im not mistaken. So i really agree into that spectrum that you can tell anything you want as long as its not hate speech. If you spread lies well of course its not good but i dont think people are too naive to believe evrything. Of course there are these kind of people and exist everywhere. But thats how opinions form right?
That is evidence, and there is plenty of evidence pointing to God. But evidence is not scientific proof in the way IDers are trying, unsuccessfully, to portray.
First, Paul states that the creation (“what he has made”) shows God’s eternal power and divine nature so clearly evident that there is no excuse for not seeing these. “Without excuse.”
But according to your narrative, God does not want his existence provable. That doesn’t square with “without excuse.” And please, what is the difference between “evidence” and “scientific evidence?” Is that like the difference between “truth” and “scientific truth?” Truth is truth, and evidence is evidence. To suggest that there are different levels of truth or evidence by adding the adjective “scientific” smacks of scientism.
Well, maybe in your clarification your terms, your view will be exonerated.
And since it all depends on the definitions, I offer these: Philosopher Tom Sorell offers this definition, which I call weak scientism: “Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture.” MIT physicist Ian Hutchinson offers a more extreme version which I call “strong scientism”: “Science, modeled on the natural sciences, is the only source of real knowledge.”