| Revision as of 15:45, 17 August 2006 editIkanreed (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,672 edits →Attribution← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:46, 17 August 2006 edit undoIkanreed (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,672 edits blasted wikicodeNext edit → | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| *Mr. X asserted that the TTC campaign will "undermine the teaching of evolution" by introducing non-material explanations to a topic that our group wants kept strictly on a materialistic basis. Science should and must only explore natural causes. Scientists must '''not''' use scientific techniques or reasoning to explore the non-material world. Not because we say it doesn't exist or that God doesn't exist, but because (his reason goes here). --] 15:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC) | *Mr. X asserted that the TTC campaign will "undermine the teaching of evolution" by introducing non-material explanations to a topic that our group wants kept strictly on a materialistic basis. Science should and must only explore natural causes. Scientists must '''not''' use scientific techniques or reasoning to explore the non-material world. Not because we say it doesn't exist or that God doesn't exist, but because (his reason goes here). --] 15:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::The best source I can direct you to, which isn't quite what you mean, is the , which suggests the purpose is to undermine the credibility of science. Which might be POV in the some people consider science inappropriate for a science class, but pushing the limit of reasonability there. Looking forward to your reply, ] 15:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)/ | ::The best source I can direct you to, which isn't quite what you mean, is the , which suggests the purpose is to undermine the credibility of science. Which might be POV in the some people consider science inappropriate for a science class, but pushing the limit of reasonability there. Looking forward to your reply, ] 15:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)/ | ||
Revision as of 15:46, 17 August 2006
 Archives |
|---|
Attribution
The Mooney and Dembski ref's in the intro do not actually say that IDM is trying to get ID taught in schools, and Nick Matzke's analysis is just his POV (not a "fact"). --Uncle Ed 17:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Which number footnotes are you objecting to exactly? FeloniousMonk 17:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
In this version, #6 and #7.
By the way, the following quote by Larry Taylor of Parents for Truth in Education specifically mentions the thing you said it "didn't support":
- "I was not for removing or de-emphasizing the subject of Darwinian evolution from the science classroom. However, in my remarks I did object to the dogmatic approach to science instruction which is propagated by organizations such as NCSE, an approach characterized by an intolerance of varying viewpoints, where any alternative viewpoints are censored, and where conformity to a blind acceptance of Darwinian evolution is demanded."
So your rm source Ed added was not supportive/relevant of the passage edit summary doesn't make much sense. Don't you think you should make specific objections on talk before reverting another user's contributions? You seem to regard that as some sort of rule we all should follow. --Uncle Ed 18:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- So you think changing the goal of the Teach the Controversy campaign from "intended to undermine the teaching of evolution while promoting intelligent design" to simply parroting the pro-ID viewpoint and Discovery Institute party line that TTC is "intended to counter a 'dogmatic approach' to classroom instruction about evolution" based on one cite from an insignificant source? No. The original passage was supported by no less than 6 supporting cites covering a wide range of significant primary and secondary sources. Your change deleted half of the cites, leaving 3, 2 of which ran counter to your changes in overall tone and another which quotes a genuine nobody in the movement. And then you wonder why you get reverted? Amazing.
- Larry Taylor and his Parents for Truth in Education hardly is a definitive speaker for the TTC group, they're a small-potatoes, local pro-ID outfit in Georgia. He clearly has a stake in making such a claim considering his group is concerned more about furthering its own agenda of getting ID into public school science classrooms than it is about actual science, so let's not over emphasize the significant of his op-ed piece, especially when it's to replace or run counter to such excellent sources as the AAAS's, the world's largest scientific professional organization, policy statement, the ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, an article in the The American Prospect, the statement from leading ID proponent William Dembski that "The clarion call of the intelligent design movement is to 'teach the controversy.' There is a very real controversy centering on how properly to account for biological complexity, and it is a scientific controversy." and a witness for the successful plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Compared to the significance of the long-standing sources, Larry Taylor's "Open Letter to the NCSE" is insignificant and marginally relevant, he's not central to the TTC campaign. In fact, he's not even I minor player. Your edits were totally unsupported by this cite, as is your use of the NPOV tag. Please become better read on the topic before raising a big stink again here, a lot of frustration and disruption could be avoided if you simply better understood the subject and checked your personal ideology at the door when you login. FeloniousMonk 22:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the problem is your view of "undermining the teaching of evolution". If you personally believe that the Theory of Evolution should be taught as the only possible scientific explanation for the emergence of new species (especially human beings), then YES any other idea would undermine this.
In that case, you should quote some published source who says this:
- Mr. X asserted that the TTC campaign will "undermine the teaching of evolution" by introducing non-material explanations to a topic that our group wants kept strictly on a materialistic basis. Science should and must only explore natural causes. Scientists must not use scientific techniques or reasoning to explore the non-material world. Not because we say it doesn't exist or that God doesn't exist, but because (his reason goes here). --Uncle Ed 15:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- The best source I can direct you to, which isn't quite what you mean, is the wedge docuement, which suggests the purpose is to undermine the credibility of science. Which might be POV in the some people consider science inappropriate for a science class, but pushing the limit of reasonability there. Looking forward to your reply, i kan reed 15:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)/