ID = Retarded Nonsense
by MikeGeneThe critical thinkers at SMU have made some changes in the course web page. Gone is the ID = BS equation at the bottom of the page. Instead, the class reading now includes this:
The professors also feel the need to explain themselves:
New! For those of you who think incorrectly that both sides of every issue should be presented just to be fair, a webpage cataloguing all of the scientific evidence in favor of Intelligent Design and a list of all the articles published by Intelligent Design proponents in peer-reviewed science journals showing that Intelligent Design is a valid research program.
LOL. I, for one, certainly do not expect these peer reviewers to be fair. I just thought that a class on critical thinking would teach students how to critically think. Silly me.
September 16th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Actually, that entire site seems to be doing a brilliant job. I consider it a critical thinking exercise to read through what's written there, catalog the out-and-out insults, the exaggerations, the misrepresentations, etc.
Sometimes the professor manages to teach in spite of him/herself, you know.
Though I pity anyone who comes out of that course believing that 'critical thinking' = 'being cocky'. Which, sadly, seems to be the belief nowadays.
Comment by nullasalus — September 16, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
September 16th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
What's the big deal anyway? ID simply means that there seems to be a place for a transcendent "something" out there which jumpstarted everything and that's it - why make such a fuss about it?
If one thinks rationally, science leaves a lot to be desired for, and I for one think that Dawkins doesn't have the clout on rationality as firm as he thinks he does.
Comment by dimasok — September 16, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
September 16th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
This kind of thing is evidence of desperation, not critical thinking.
Comment by GilDodgen — September 16, 2007 @ 8:35 pm
September 16th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Hi Gil,
I don't think it is desperation. Just spite.
Comment by MikeGene — September 16, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
September 16th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Mike,
I always enjoy visiting your blog. A sea change is taking place in the 21st century, and it doesn't bode well for materialistic philosophy.
Gil
Comment by GilDodgen — September 16, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
September 17th, 2007 at 2:17 am
Again folks
all you say could be directed against the good folk at the DI and UD who constantly misrepresent and lie about evidence, not to mention quote mine.
Most commenters here do not even try to acknowledge the duplicity of these sites but decry the statements from representatives of science.
Were their lists wrong or did you just resent their tone.
Facts can't be bad, they can only be right or wrong.
Oh and Gil it doesn't matter how many times you stamp your feet and wish it so, only evidence matters in an argument.
Comment by DaveC — September 17, 2007 @ 2:17 am
September 17th, 2007 at 6:22 am
DaveC, why not supplement your allegations with specifics? That way we can distinguish between assertions and evidence.
Comment by Bradford — September 17, 2007 @ 6:22 am
September 17th, 2007 at 7:04 am
Hi DaveC,
You are trying to change the topic. Please stick to the topic. Is mocking an appropriate way to teach critical thinking?
Comment by MikeGene — September 17, 2007 @ 7:04 am
September 17th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
You are trying to change the topic. Please stick to the topic. Is mocking an appropriate way to teach critical thinking?
Mike, I think you have made a category mistake here: They do not propose to use mockery as a teaching technique, however having applied the standards of critical thinking that they deem relevant, they have concluded that certain topics are worthy of mockery.
To answer your question: It may be appropriate if the subject matter in question is indeed worthy of ridicule. For example, supposing somebody was arguing that new-age crystal-healing should be considered as an alternative to more evidence-based surgery in a busy hospital's A&E ward. The proposer might of such an idea might deserver mockery because the idea is so blatantly contrary to well-verified medical knowledge. I'm sure you can see the funny side of an idea as odd as that?
I notice that the course does not focus exclusively on ID / Creationism issues - for example they investigate a number of popular folk-beliefs that appear to have no basis in science. Do you feel that some of the other subjects are being unfairly mocked?
Comment by SteamboatWillie — September 17, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
September 17th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Hi Mike
I wasn't mocking. Sorry if it appeared that way.
Nobody pulled apart the lists on the site or stated specifically how items should not be included on them.
The line directed towards Gil was in response to his statement about materialism immediately above my comment which was general in nature and offered no clarification. If that was overly mocking then I apologise but his idea of a sea-change did seem to be reaching a bit.
Bradford - will do and I take it you are referring to the UD & DI claims. I don't want to cause hassle with Mike if this is redirecting the topic inappropriately.
Comment by DaveC — September 17, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
September 17th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
The target is ID Willie. By lumping ID together with discredited concepts one makes an indirect inference. It's an old, lowlife debating tactic.
Comment by Bradford — September 17, 2007 @ 6:01 pm
September 17th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
SteamboatWilly,
I can't speak for Mike, but I would answer this way. If their intent is to show that ID, Astrology, Sam Harris's New Age Mysticism, Bill Maher's denial of the germ theory of disease–any or all of these things isnot science, they should say so, professionally, in their course materials, somewhat as an open question. Then they should use the course to substantiate their claims. Instead they, in a mocking tone, include their goals as facts in their materials. It stinks.
Comment by David Heddle — September 17, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
September 17th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Hi David,
I agree with you. I have no problem whatsoever with them wanting to teach ID = pseudoscience (after all, I'm not like the ID critic who wants to control what others do and think). In fact, we at TT defended Paul Mirecki's right to teach his proposed anti-ID course. Yet the course appears to me as a hasty, emotional reaction to the ID talk they had at SMU a year ago. I'm sure some NCSE-types will eventually step in and help them "clean it up."
What's most noteworthy is that these professors played their hand so publicly and honestly. When they hear "ID" with their ears, we know their minds hear "Retarded Nonsense," "Crap," and "BS." They've now told us so. This is the type of dime-a-dozen closed-mindedness we get routinely from the anti-ID trolls on the Internet. Yet there is another name for such professors "“ peer reviewers.
Comment by MikeGene — September 17, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
September 17th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Mike wrote:
Which ID critic is that?
Comment by keiths — September 17, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
September 17th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Keiths:
Did you miss the recent library blog entry by Krauze?
Comment by Bradford — September 17, 2007 @ 9:19 pm