Essentially, in many places, it is compulsory to teach common ancestry of humans and apes as a dogma and illegal to teach any evidence against it. The progressive vilifies the people who object on any grounds…
In the course of exploring the marginalisation/disappear-ING of moral knowledge, Professor Dallas Willard gave an expanded definition of knowledge that also draws out the legitimate authority of knowledge; including, moral knowledge, i.e. knowledge of duty to right conduct etc. As we can see from his handout for a 2010 video lecture: What is knowledge and Read More…
Again, let’s go out of chronological order in 48a (Plato comes later as there is a dismissive attitude) and speak to a paradigm story used to radically relativise our thinking from elementary school days on. Here, 143: >>In a world in which abstract processes such as logical inference and explicit argument are increasingly “other” and Read More…
Here’s a question: Given what we (hope we) know today about the origin and development of life forms, would anyone today propose neo-Darwinism (natural selection) in any of its forms as an explanation – if they hadn’t already had to accept it anyway in order to get to where they are today?
In Part 1, we look at evidence that the universe had a beginning, therefore it had a Beginner – a Creator. We look more deeply at the information in DNA that makes life possible. Part 2 applies the core concepts of irreducible complexity and functional coherence to one of the most important functions in each cell – energy production.
Perhaps we all need to recall something: The Iron Ring of the Canadian engineers is forged from the steel of a bridge that collapsed and cost 75 lives. That ring is intended as a warning, not a training manual. It turns out that in the real world, right or wrong answers in math do matter.
Palmer: Part 1 begins with the basic concepts of Darwinian Evolution. Darwin’s theory related to heredity, but the science behind genetics was a mystery in his day. Darwin’s assumptions about heredity have proven to be mistaken.
Would the decline of U’s in favor of online learning be better or worse for ID?
Weinstein, an atheist himself, didn’t realize that atheism today means illiteracy, innumeracy, and total control by the biggest totalitarian power — with no appeal. 2 + 2 better make 5. Atheism has no values to defend.
If no one has ever been able to demonstrate in real life that an alarm clock assembles itself all by itself, why should I believe that a life form does? Why should that be taught in school? Can’’t we just say that we don’t know? It’s really a matter of belief. Or not, as the case may be. No one should be persecuted for doubt in such a case.
In discussing implication logic and first duties, Wikipedia on ID came up yet again. The lead’s manifest failure to be responsibly objective, descending into slander from the outset, speaks volumes: Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as “an evidence-based scientific theory about life’s origins”. Proponents Read More…
Egnor: “Notably, Swamidass completely leaves out the one criterion that is the cornerstone of accreditation of educational institutions: outcome metrics… don’t know (and Swamidass has nothing to say about it) how students from Christian colleges compare, but is it well established that homeschooled kids (who are disproportionately taught by conservative Christian families) score almost 100 points higher on the SAT and score correspondingly higher on the ACT than the national average.” Okay, but no one sponsoring the war on math is concerned about outcomes because educators have the power to jimmy marks to reward whatever they want to reward and then pass the problem on to others who must then do the same.
Whatever the courts decide, if the goal is “liberation, transformation, decolonization,” the Woke can’t avoid a war on science. While science today is a global enterprise, the European origin of the modern version is a historical fact, one they are finding harder all the time to live with.
Bartlett: … one thing that is helpful for parents, students, and teachers is for students to show their work. I know it can be hard to get students to do this. My own children hate to do it. However, being explicit about the steps in their reasoning is important for a number of reasons. First, showing their work helps students with harder problems… So, what does Equitable Math say about this practice? According to their published guide, “White supremacy culture shows up in math class when students are required to show their work”
It feels odd to hear math, a multi-ethnic enterprise for as long as we have had written records, described as “white supremacy.”