How's that for a Chrsitmas present?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Thats a fantastic holiday gift from PA.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Way to go, Judge Jones!
The Dean of our School just suggested making today official "Judge Jones Day".
Between him and Congressman Murtha, Pennsylvania is on a roll.
Posted by JenniK (Member # 3939) on :
Very cool.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
You can actually find the 139 page ruling, in PDF form, on some of the news sites. Excellent reading, if you're getting tired of (un)sound bites.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
I'm just trying to see how they can say it's "unconstitutional", whether you agree with it or not.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Seperation of church and state. Its a public school system, and intelligent design is based on religion.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Well, the "Seperation of Church and State" in the US Bill of Rights is actually "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"... Does PA have a constitution that states no state-funded organization will have any religious content?
Considering how prevalent religion is in the world, I would kind of like the idea of a CLASS that dealt with religion. Not preaching, but that actually looked at the different religions, what they believed, how they interacted, etc. Heck, make it elective. The point here seemed to be that the school wanted to present a different view, not that they wanted to preach creationism to the class. Yes, creationism has it's roots in religion. But you could argue that Darwinism is a religion as well. Not trying to argue that point, just pointing it out.
It's kind of beside the point, I've heard several religions groups don't actually like the intelligent design theory either.
Posted by TrapperKeeper (Member # 7680) on :
Thats a good way of putting it adam.
Would it be a bit ironic if the first thing I said when I saw this was "Amen," or "Thank God!"
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
While I don't believe "intelligent design" or creationism should be taught on the same level as evolution in a science class, isn't it only fair to consider that a lot of people do believe in some alternative to evolution. To me, not only does the first amendment say that government shouldn't establish a religion, but also that it shouldn't "disestablish" one either so effectively teaching kids in class that their religious beliefs are flatout wrong and unacceptable is as offensive as insisting that there's equal scientific evidence to support creationism.
Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
Finally some sanity!
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"one either so effectively teaching kids in class that their religious beliefs are flatout wrong and unacceptable is as offensive as insisting that there's equal scientific evidence to support creationism."
Umm, from a scientific perspective, many people's religious beliefs ARE flat out wrong. And, if you are going to teach science accurately, that problem will be encountered. THe question becomes whether we teach science without religious bias, or with religious bias. If without, then we teach science as is, and let people handle any conflicts they have between what the scientific results are, and their religious beliefs.
I agree that it would be offensive to say in class "And this counters the ridiculous claims by religious group X." But if you can't handle a science teacher who says "The earth is about 4.5 billion years old," thats not the problem of the school.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
While there's a lack of evidence to support most of those religious beliefs, that isn't the same as those beliefs are flatout wrong. I know this may be a hard idea for non-religious people to grasp and I'm sure it sounds completely illogical to you, but if there is a god or gods then he or she or they could essentially do anything they wanted including creating fake evidence for evolution. Because this is completely unprovable on any level beyond blind faith I'm not advocating that this idea be taught in schools. I am advocating that instead of, "The earth is about 4.5 billion years old." how about, "Scientists currently believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old." I'm not even saying you should include the fact that people believe otherwise.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Listen, not trying to argue the point, and couldn't, because my views aren't completely defined, but you're taking it on faith that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. I kind of doubt you personally came up with the test to determine age, then performed the test, and know with absolute certainty that the test is valid. I'm not arguing that science is pointing us to believe what the age of the earth is, or that they are bad scientists, that it's a conspiracy, blah blah blah. Just sayin'
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by newfoundlogic: While I don't believe "intelligent design" or creationism should be taught on the same level as evolution in a science class, isn't it only fair to consider that a lot of people do believe in some alternative to evolution. To me, not only does the first amendment say that government shouldn't establish a religion, but also that it shouldn't "disestablish" one either so effectively teaching kids in class that their religious beliefs are flatout wrong and unacceptable is as offensive as insisting that there's equal scientific evidence to support creationism.
I don't believe just teaching evolution does teach kids their beliefs are wrong. It is teaching facts based on the best scientific evidence available. Its still up to the kids to interpret those facts.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I'm sorry, I can't get behind that proposition. If you follow the train of logic that you're using, then you are not teaching science, but some other philosophy.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
It might be up to the kids to interpret the facts if when they put, "God created the world and everything on it in six days." on a test they didn't get the question wrong.
Since you aren't 4.5 billion years old yourself you can't actually be sure that that's how old the earth is. The only thing you can be sure of is that scientists basing their beliefs on the best evidence they have available believe the earth to be that old. Furthermore, considering that scientists have changed their minds and adjusted their number considerably throughout history, I think its reasonable to assume that children one hundred years from now will be learning a different number entirely.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:I know this may be a hard idea for non-religious people to grasp and I'm sure it sounds completely illogical to you, but if there is a god or gods then he or she or they could essentially do anything they wanted including creating fake evidence for evolution.
As a religous person, can you explain the logic in this possibility that doesn't make god a liar?
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Well, that's my point. We're using the best methods we have now, but those methods are constantly refined. You're taking it on faith that this is the correct method. Science isn't an absolute. It's the current perception of the way things work, which is obviously fluid. It's not "philosophy", but it is a theory that you are working from.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
KarlEd -
Faith is constantly tested. But I have heard the theory that evidence of evolution was "planted" by Satan. I'd rather believe that God didn't feel like going into detail with sheep herders, myself, but I don't know the answers.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by newfoundlogic: It might be up to the kids to interpret the facts if when they put, "God created the world and everything on it in six days." on a test they didn't get the question wrong.
Since you aren't 4.5 billion years old yourself you can't actually be sure that that's how old the earth is. The only thing you can be sure of is that scientists basing their beliefs on the best evidence they have available believe the earth to be that old. Furthermore, considering that scientists have changed their minds and adjusted their number considerably throughout history, I think its reasonable to assume that children one hundred years from now will be learning a different number entirely.
Even if the 4.5 billion year mark is off, we do know that its older then 6,000 years. In fact it seem like scientists keep making the number older.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Does Intelligent Design allow for G-d designing events that led to evolution?
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
I think the point is, we don't KNOW anything - we BELIEVE...
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
First, it doesn't matter if God is a liar, only that's it possible. Second, in some religions the god or gods aren't perfect, but just because you don't lend them any credibility doesn't mean that people have any less right to believe in them and not have their beliefs infringed upon. Third, it could simply be a test of faith. What would consider someone who put Job what he went through and yet that story is still in the Bible. I'm not out to explain God's motives, because I don't know what they are any more than I know the answer the to the question, "Why do bad things happen to good people?"
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Well, Intelligent Design in and of itself doesn't mention God at all. Just an intelligent life form, which is the problem some religious groups have. According to ID, it could have been an alien race as well. Or Buddha. Who, as we all know, is sitting with God and Colonel Sanders.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
The Bible is written by people, who could have misunderstood what they were told, embellished, forgot points, etc. Since it's divinly inspired, what I said may be blesphemy. But I always wondered if maybe something wasn't lost in translation. I don't know that if I received a vision, I would be properly able to decode it the way it was intended. I've heard scholars point out certain phrases which means "this is literal" and "this is not literal", but I'm certainly no expert.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by smitty: Well, Intelligent Design in and of itself doesn't mention God at all. Just an intelligent life form, which is the problem some religious groups have. According to ID, it could have been an alien race as well. Or Buddha. Who, as we all know, is sitting with God and Colonel Sanders.
I guess my problem with Intelligent design is the lack of any physical evidence. Its all, could have been this or that.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Please don't conflate religious belief with scientific "belief." There is no comparison between the two, as they come from fundamentally different perspectives. Scientific acceptance of a particular scenario, under ANY situation, is based on what theory best fits the current evidence. Therefore, when a scientists says that he accepts the theory of evolution, he is saying that (a) the evidence, as determined empirically, strongly supports adaptation and change in species over time, and that (b) the evidence does not CONTRADICT evolution. Find significant evidence falsifying Darwin's theory and any good scientist will reject evolution as demonstrably false. Unfortunately for the ID movement, no such evidence against evolution exists. Indeed, 150 years of research have only provided a ridiculously detailed picture of how evolution can and does occur.
Anyway, back on topic: Go Judge Jones!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
nfl, are you seriosuly putting 'it could be a test of faith' on the same level as 'the fossil record, genetics, and zoology show that'? Be glad nobody else does; I think you would not have been amused if your doctor had told you 'your cancer is a test of faith; just pray hard enough, and it will go away.'
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
Noooooo, not Flying Spaghetti Monsterism!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think you are kind of missing my point here, adam. Sure, it could be a test of faith. Also, we could be living in the Matrix. But to equate that with treatments that actually work, well, it's a bit of a jump. Next time you turn on a light in your home, be sure to remind yourself that Maxwell's equations could just be a test of your faith.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: Also, we could be living in the Matrix.
Wait. We're not? Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, I see. Perhaps I should have said, 'be glad nobody in charge of med-school curricula does', then.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
When did I say that? All I am saying is that the fossil record, etc. is just what scientists believe and that people should be allowed to believe in what ever other theories they want to. People are also allowed to believe that praying is better than chemotherapy as a treatment for cancer, but a doctor shouldn't be allowed to take that approach in his or her treatment of a patient. In the same way a teacher shouldn't be allowed to say that a theory other than evolution is the correct theory for the creation of the world, but they should still allow for students to believe in something other than evolution. If that were somehow relevant to the treatment of diseases then the teacher should mention that evolution is the only acceptable theory to be used in treating those diseases, but since that isn't the case this is really a moot point.
On a side note, during my first hospitalization I happened to see a sort of informecial advocating that cancer patients not get chemotherapy and instead rely on eating certain foods. While I regard that as incredibly irresponsible I would also have no problem with a med school professor mentioning that chemo is just currently best option science has presented itself as long as its made clear that since it is best option its the only acceptable one to use when actually treating patients that aren't in a last ditch clinical trial. However, the very fact that these last ditch clinical trials exists just shows how an open mind is necessary if we're ever going to come up with better treatments for things like cancer.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: I kind of doubt you personally came up with the test to determine age, then performed the test, and know with absolute certainty that the test is valid.
Actually while I haven't performed the tests personally, I absolutely have done the math on radioactive nucleotide decay curves that show the age is much older. And if those decay curves were wrong, we'd have a lot of nuclear reactors malfunctioning.
There are ways to get around it, such as saying the rates were different earlier (pre-flood) but now they are steady or there is the Creationist doctrine of "appearance of age" which means God made the world looking older than it is because he liked it that way. Appearance of age in geological layers can also be attributed to the Flood, but that doesn't change the radioactive dating.
I've seen some creationist attempts to show "flaws" in the radioactive dating systems, and they were pretty lame (in fact it was the lameness therof that pretty my much took me away from being a 7-day literalist myself)
There is also (though this is a bit out of vogue) the idea that between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 there was a large amount of time that took place, wherein Satan fell.
I also know several people who are fundamentalist theistic evolutionists, who generally fellowship among ardent creationists. They don't believe in a literal account of Genesis 1. However, they subscribe in general to the fundamentalist methods of interpreting the Bible. They do believe in literal miracles etc. So the acceptance of evolution is *not* necessarily a slippery slope to deny God. They believe God used evolution as a mechanism, and then instilled a soul at some point making the literal Adam and Eve. The key issue is that they believe it was *possible* for God to have made the earth in a literal 7 day frame, because of course he could have done so if he's God.
AJ
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
NFL,
quote:...people should be allowed to believe in what ever other theories they want to.
But you are. But I really think that teachers in public schools should refrain from teaching out-and-out religious BS. Or any other BS, for that matter.
But, you know, there are plenty of stupid people in the school systems these days, on both sides of the desk. Once you've graduated from High School, you're more than welcome to pack grocery bags at the local Krogers or Piggly Wiggly, while my children go on to develop cures for cancer, or (better yet) own that Piggly Wiggly, and consistently "eat your lunch."
We need more stupid people in this country so that we can compete with the cheap, uneducated labor constantly provided in the third world. We can't be paying everybody $100,000 a year. But if we're only going to pay $100,000 to a handful of people, I'd rather it be my educated kids, and not some dumb-ass who thinks that the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old, and that faeries make the sun rise.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Sorry, I did not mean to imply that NFL is that stupid.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by ssywak:
But, you know, there are plenty of stupid people in the school systems these days, on both sides of the desk. Once you've graduated from High School, you're more than welcome to pack grocery bags at the local Krogers or Piggly Wiggly, while my children go on to develop cures for cancer, or (better yet) own that Piggly Wiggly, and consistently "eat your lunch."
We need more stupid people in this country so that we can compete with the cheap, uneducated labor constantly provided in the third world. We can't be paying everybody $100,000 a year. But if we're only going to pay $100,000 to a handful of people, I'd rather it be my educated kids, and not some dumb-ass who thinks that the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old, and that faeries make the sun rise. [/QB]
If this is your idea of an impassioned, rational argument, then I would say there is at least one more stupid person in this conversation than you realize.....
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
You're going to have to do a better job of explaining why believing in the Bible or some other alternate theory of creation is more likely to mean that you won't develop cures for cancer or own your own Piggly Wiggly. You're also going to have to explain why a school teacher allowing for the fact that other people believe in those theories harms the students education. If anything it should allow for students to keep a more open mind.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Kwea,
I've made all the impassioned, rational arguments before, as have a n umber of the other poseters on this particualr thread. It was a thread that wound up being about 13-15 pages long:
The end result of that thread was pretty much that all agreed on the following (including the proponents of ID)
1) ID is all about Creationism
1a) There is absolutely no scientific backing to any of the concepts presented in ID (what few concepts there are).
2) ID has nothing to do with "making sure that students understand the flaws inherent in science and the scientific method." It is, as mentioned before, all about introducing Creationism into the school system.
3) No one, on either side of the aisle, has the slightest problem with ID being taught, as religion or as myth, in an appropriate class (such as "History of Religion," "History of Natural Philosophy," "World Creatoin Myths," etc. No...wait...a few of the ID proponents were opposed to ID being mentioned in a non-science class, since it would imply that they had somehow "lost" the debate.
4) All attempts to get ID introduced into science classes turned out, eventually, to be disingenuous.
So, basically, since this whole issue has been asked and answered, I have to assume that anyone who still favors ID being taught in science class must, therefore, be pretty close-minded.
But, if you note, I never called anyone who supported ID "stupid." I merely said that there are plenty of stupid people, who choose to believe what they believe in the face of overwhelming ecvidence to the contrary. And if such a mind-set makes it impossible for them to learn anything of value, so be it. There's still an important place for them in our society.
I don't understand why you should take this so personally.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
NFL,
Read the ruling. Read what the school board (now mostly voted out) wanted represented in class.
I never said "Believing in the Bible" was a problem. But discrediting evolution in favor of creationism does not, for the most part, lead to good science (or good scientists). It's all about accepting a certain level of proof. The thresh-hold for creationists is substantially lower than that for evolutionists. Given a choice between the two, I'd take my cancer cures from a real scientist.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
"But, if you note, I never called anyone who supported ID "stupid." I merely said that there are plenty of stupid people, who choose to believe what they believe in the face of overwhelming ecvidence to the contrary. And if such a mind-set makes it impossible for them to learn anything of value, so be it. There's still an important place for them in our society.
I don't understand why you should take this so personally"
"We need more stupid people in this country so that we can compete with the cheap, uneducated labor constantly provided in the third world. We can't be paying everybody $100,000 a year. But if we're only going to pay $100,000 to a handful of people, I'd rather it be my educated kids, and not some dumb-ass who thinks that the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old, and that faeries make the sun rise. "
Why would I not take that personally? Unless I'm totally misreading that last quote (which is possible) you pretty much stated that anyone who believes in Christianity is a dumbass and doesn't deserve the same as those who don't believe in a higher power.
I'm all for not teaching intelligent design in science class, and really don't believe theological discussions belong there. I personally think just one sentence would cover the whole thing: "Some people do subscribe to the theory of a higher power being responsible for life, but we will not get into that." It worked for me in my classes.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
The founders were wise not to use the term separation of church and state; it can be achieved by banning religious expression. As it is here (at least according to the judge).
(I am not defending ID, which AFAIK is indefensible.)
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
Side note:
Will, just while I do have your attention a bit, could you please go look at that thread where you said I was resorted to a yo mama joke. I do feel bad about that thread and am hoping you are not left with any harsh feelings over a misunderstanding. I did write an explanation on that thread for you.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Well, I will admit to a certain bias against strict "Young Earthers." Please don't tell me that you think that someone who believes that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old, that God faked the fossil record, rigged Carbon dating, etc., etc. is someone you'd want to leave at home babysitting your kids. Or running your country.
Similarly, I think it's safe to say that everybody here would look askance at someone who was honestly promoting an earth-centric universe.
What else did I say?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: I don't understand why you should take this so personally.
Funny thing is that I disagree with ID being taught as a psuedo-science and agree mostly with the ruling....
So it isn't that I take it personally, I just disliked your assumptions, and your attitude about it. You were condescending, arrogant, and went out of your way to be offensive...so I didn't think you would care if anyone got annoyed, as that seemed to be your purpose.
BTW, some of the most intelligent people in the world are religious, and still manage to own business and corporations and retain wealth....and many of them would agree with what ID teaches. I personally agree with it as it seems to bridge the gap between my faith and what my reason sees....
I just don't think it belongs in a science class.
So therefore your assessment of people who believe in ID is flawed, and is not scientifically provable, IMO. Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Kwea,
I think we should just hug, or shake hands, or something. My argument wasn't with you; it was with NFL's "It's OK for people to believe whatever it is that they want to believe."
First off, he's right. You can believe whatever you want to believe. But certain beliefs carry certain results. If your requirement for "proof" is so slim as to be able to accept ID as a valid replacement for evolution, then what other cons are you going to be subject to? Wars of agression based on invisible but promised Weapons of Mass Destruction? A national fiscal policy that states the more money we give to the rich, the more money we'll have for the poor, and the war, and the Alaskan bridges to nowhere?
To be honest, I actually worked with a bona fide "Young Earther" once. He ran the robotics lab at Grumman Aerospace. He was an OK guy, except for that one thing, and ran a clean lab. Probably made good money, too.
So, FWIW, accept my apology for being overly agressive. It was my way of roling my eyes as that poor, dead horse got beat all over again.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I wasn't part of the first conversation, not that I remember, so I can understand why it got aggrivating.
It's all good, if everyone agreed with me all the time I wouldn't have anyone to "discuss" things wiht...
(even if you all would be better off accepting my obvious brilliance. )
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
But I do accept your obvious brilliance. Except when your utterly and incontrovertibly wrong.
Just like everyone else here!
Except, of course, those that are always wrong (and you don't know who you are, do you?).
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Even if they did know, they'd be wrong...
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
[Steve's brain explodes in a burst of logic]
Posted by Stark (Member # 6831) on :
I strongly suggest everyone read that judge's ruling. It's actually the clearest, most well spoken argument I've seen from anyone regarding why ID shouldn't be taught in schools.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I agree with Stark. I thought legal language was supposed to be impenetrable, but this judge writes with clarity, effectiveness, and the occasional touch of humour. It is a superb exposition of why ID is nonsense.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Many judges write extremely clear decisions. I tend to enjoy reading them.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Just to clarify, I don't think it should be taught in a science class. But I do know several people who honestly believe that fossil records, evolution evidence, etc is a test of faith, and is "planted".
AJ, I wasn't questioning the integrity/ability of the people doing the tests and/or calculations. My point is, people take it on faith that it's true, and that it works, without knowing anything about it.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by smitty: Faith is constantly tested. But I have heard the theory that evidence of evolution was "planted" by Satan. I'd rather believe that God didn't feel like going into detail with sheep herders, myself, but I don't know the answers.
Presumably those who buy into this "Satan planted false evidence" theory also believe God is Omnipotent. Therefore by allowing the situation that His Earth appears to exist in a state that by all rational observation is contrary to "reality", he has implicitly participated in a falsehood. If I know that you are being lied to and that lie will lead you to your death, am I blameless if I allow the lie to stand? Does it count if I leave you a note revealing the lie, but sign it with the name of someone you know to be untrustworthy? I submit that such a God does not love rationality. That he is not intent on helping man develop his true potential, but instead wants a race of dogs that will run after non-existent balls for his amusement whenever he makes a throwing motion.
quote:Originally posted by newfoundlogic: First, it doesn't matter if God is a liar, only that's it possible. . . . [etc]
No, it does not matter at all what beliefs are "possible", but which ones make sense. Surely you don't believe that all ideas, even the most outlandish, deserve any kind of official nod in school simply because it's possible someone, somewhere, could believe it to be true? I don't think even politeness requires a disclaimer before teaching evolution. The only disclaimer required for K-12 education should be the same for all fields:
"We are teaching what we believe to be the best of human knowledge. You are free to take any measures you feel are necessary to ensure your current worldview is not altered, but you will still be required to know the material being discussed and to pass your tests if you wish to graduate."
That disclaimer, if indeed necessary, should be read at the start of the school year in "home room". Evolution needs no more special disclaimer than any other lessons, and probably less so than such lessons as "literary interpretation" and "what makes an effective US President".
quote:Originally posted by smitty: I don't know that if I received a vision, I would be properly able to decode it the way it was intended.
An omnipotent God should be able to send a message in a form the recipient would be able to understand unquestionably. If he chooses not to, then the fault is his. If he sends a message, knowing it is going to be misunderstood by the primary recipient then again, that makes him a liar and unworthy of worship by thinking people.
quote:what I said may be blesphemy.
Blesphemy? Isn't that the action of bestowing good will on an undeserving target? Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
KarlEd - God probably could send me a message I could understand. But, I'm constrained by my current views of reality, not to mention, if I need to share this message with others, the popular view of reality. I guess my point was more that he's going to send me something I can understand and work with. So this working theory - not necessarrily my belief, but something I've thought about, is that God is going to send me a message I can understand, and can relay to others. And I'm a sheep farmer. Thousands of years ago. The message my have been simplified a bit.
We are at odds over the whole "race of dogs" thing. If he wanted a race of mindless worshippers, he need only to present himself. I believe he instead wants rational worshippers - not out of fear, but out of love. He's given his message. He's not going to beg us to come back to the fold. He's not going to shock and awe us into submission. We have a choice. If the choice were obvious, it wouldn't be a choice anymore, would it?
I am so not the guy to be arguing this stuff. Where are the serious theists when you need them? Where are the people who are getting enough sleep?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Presumably those who buy into this "Satan planted false evidence" theory also believe God is Omnipotent. Therefore by allowing the situation that His Earth appears to exist in a state that by all rational observation is contrary to "reality", he has implicitly participated in a falsehood.
Not that I buy into the Satan planted the evidence theory, but your conclusion doesn't really follow unless you want to go into the good God tolerating evil argument, which would require a lot more than two sentences to explore fully.
quote:"We are teaching what we believe to be the best of human knowledge. You are free to take any measures you feel are necessary to ensure your current worldview is not altered, but you will still be required to know the material being discussed and to pass your tests if you wish to graduate."
I don't think such a disclaimer is necessary, but I understand some of the reasons for wanting one for science in particular. Science, more than any other subject, is presented as "true." If people (note I didn't say science teachers) didn't fairly often assert that science is somehow proving that God doesn't exist, or that such and such miracle didn't happen, then this wouldn't be such a problem.
But when we complain about science not being understood correctly, we need to not only complain about those who introduce non-scientific subject matter into science, but also those who introduce science into non-scientific subject matter.
Improved science education all around would help greatly with both problems, but only attempting to correct one of these types of problems will initiate a backlash.
It doesn't have to be the school doing the misrperesenting to make such correction necessary. And I agree the disclaimer is silly, because more time needs to be spent correcting the underlying problem than a disclaimer can provide.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
You know I actually did have a babysitter once upon a time who appeared to believe the earth would only be about 6,000 years old. Amazingly this didn't make her a worse babysitter and no she's not where I got my beliefs from because at the time I already had my theory regarding the probable age of the earth and she was Christian while I am Jewish so I certainly wasn't going to get my religious beliefs from her. I still don't think today that the earth is necessarily 6,000 years old. I simply think its possible, just like I think its possible that over that minimum 6,000 years someone writing down the Bible left out a few zeros or mistranslated a few words. As far as I'm concerned, if you think believing in the literal translation of the Bible or any other mainstream religious work inherently makes you less qualified to be a doctor or teacher then you're as bigoted as the religious wackos who insist not teaching creationism will lead to the whole United States being cast into the darkest corner of Hell.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I'm not in the least saying that "science disproves God" or anything remotely similar. I just lose patience quickly with the attitude that just because something is someone's belief it is automatically equally valid as all other beliefs. We can play "well maybe" games until the cows come home. Well maybe God did create a world that coincidentally looks by all empirical evidence to be much older than it is. Well, maybe God didn't create it that way, but Satan planted the (false) evidence? Well maybe it's all just as science has discovered it is and that's because God planned it that way. The fact is all those suppositions are just that, but each one says something somewhat different about the theoretical God that would create each of those theoretical realities. You can't just toss out "maybies" to show what science doesn't know without also considering how those "maybies" might also show how you really know nothing about God at all.
quote:If people (note I didn't say science teachers) didn't fairly often assert that science is somehow proving that God doesn't exist, or that such and such miracle didn't happen, then this wouldn't be such a problem.
OK, but (noting that you didn't say science teachers) if it is a "problem" it's not necessarily one created by elementary science education. It is a fact of life that there are differing and incompatible worldviews. Certain proponents of those worldviews will overstate their arguements and will be inaccurate and/or rude in expressing them. It's not the responsibility of science teachers to decry every inaccuracy spouted in the name of science anymore than it is the responsibility of every preacher to begin his sermon with a message of disassociation from Rev. Phelps.
Perhaps there is a problem of a general misunderstanding of the limitations of science, but that problem isn't going to be alleviated in the slightest by kowtowing to the overly sensitive whose worldview can't stand a little scientific inquiry. And this raises the question of just how far one must go in avoiding their message being misunderstood by the casual listeners. Is it your 5th grade science teacher's fault if you think science can quantify Love or Faith? Is it the pope's fault that Rev Phelps is an idiot?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm not in the least saying that "science disproves God" or anything remotely similar.
I know you're not.
quote:I just lose patience quickly with the attitude that just because something is someone's belief it is automatically equally valid as all other beliefs. We can play "well maybe" games until the cows come home. Well maybe God did create a world that coincidentally looks by all empirical evidence to be much older than it is. Well, maybe God didn't create it that way, but Satan planted the (false) evidence? Well maybe it's all just as science has discovered it is and that's because God planned it that way. The fact is all those suppositions are just that, but each one says something somewhat different about the theoretical God that would create each of those theoretical realities. You can't just toss out "maybies" to show what science doesn't know without also considering how those "maybies" might also show how you really know nothing about God at all.
Um. Ok. Didn't say anything about that.
quote:OK, but (noting that you didn't say science teachers) if it is a "problem" it's not necessarily one created by elementary science education. It is a fact of life that there are differing and incompatible worldviews. Certain proponents of those worldviews will overstate their arguements and will be inaccurate and/or rude in expressing them. It's not the responsibility of science teachers to decry every inaccuracy spouted in the name of science anymore than it is the responsibility of every preacher to begin his sermon with a message of disassociation from Rev. Phelps.
No, but it is there responsibility to teach science correctly. Since it is a common misuse of science, it deserves correction in a science education class.
quote:Perhaps there is a problem of a general misunderstanding of the limitations of science, but that problem isn't going to be alleviated in the slightest by kowtowing to the overly sensitive whose worldview can't stand a little scientific inquiry.
Right. Good thing that's nothing at ALL similar to what I advocated.
quote:And this raises the question of just how far one must go in avoiding their message being misunderstood by the casual listeners. Is it your 5th grade science teacher's fault if you think science can quantify Love or Faith?
It is if the fifth grade teacher was supposed to teach you what subject matter is appropriate to science and what subject matter isn't, and then failed to do so.
quote:Is it the pope's fault that Rev Phelps is an idiot?
Funny you should mention that, since on many, many occasions the Pope has cautioned against justifying hatred and mistreatment of homosexuals based on the church's teaching concerning homosexuality and homosexual actions.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Yes it is.
Now that I have solved those questions, how about a hard one? Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
This ruling is a serious blow to science. When judges start outlawing certain scientific models from being taught, science class has ceased being scientific. The lessons students learn from this are (a) that science is closed-minded towards alternate models from the standardly taught dogma accepted by most scientists, hence (b) science is hostile towards religion, and (c) science should not be respected as a method of truth, but rather (at least to the very religious) should be fought as an alternate anti-religion.
If science really wants to get past the ID issue, it needs to teach people to stop concluding that science is calling their religion wrong.
quote:The end result of that thread was pretty much that all agreed on the following (including the proponents of ID)
1) ID is all about Creationism
1a) There is absolutely no scientific backing to any of the concepts presented in ID (what few concepts there are).
2) ID has nothing to do with "making sure that students understand the flaws inherent in science and the scientific method." It is, as mentioned before, all about introducing Creationism into the school system.
3) No one, on either side of the aisle, has the slightest problem with ID being taught, as religion or as myth, in an appropriate class (such as "History of Religion," "History of Natural Philosophy," "World Creatoin Myths," etc. No...wait...a few of the ID proponents were opposed to ID being mentioned in a non-science class, since it would imply that they had somehow "lost" the debate.
4) All attempts to get ID introduced into science classes turned out, eventually, to be disingenuous.
That is just plain false. You may still believe the above, but at the very least we didn't ALL agree on those things. I'm not sure what others concluded, but I believe that I successfully argued in that thread at least that...
(1) Teaching ID is very much about introducing the concepts behind creationism into science class, as an alternative model, but attempting to do so in a way that is testable according to scientific method.
(2) Teaching ID should also be very much about helping students to understand the flaws inherent in the scientific method, the limitations of the scientific method, and the advantages of the scientific method, including its inherent openness towards alternative theories to experimentation.
(3) Although most mainstream scientists (and apparently a bunch of Hatrackers) don't buy the evidence given to support ID, there are some scientists and laymen who do. And because science is a rational tool, whether or not the individual student or person accepts or rejects the supposed evidence for ID should depend on the rational persuasiveness of the evidence itself, not on a majority vote by the scientific community.
(4) A theory that is not strictly scientific can still be taught in science class if it relates to science in an important way. Science class should prepare students to relate science to other areas of life, and should prepare them to make decisions about current political, ethical, and social controversies that involve science - including the ID/Creationism/Evolution contraversy.
(5) Thus there are good reasons to include ID in science classes, at least insofar as it continues to be a controversy that students will have to face, and continues to serve as an interesting question that highlights the importance of the limits and boundries of the scientific method.
[ December 21, 2005, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Intelligent Design makes no predictions about nature and clearly fails any true test of the scientific method.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Um. Ok. Didn't say anything about that.
I wasn't replying to your post in the part you quoted, just to the tone of the thread in general.
quote:Right. Good thing that's nothing at ALL similar to what I advocated.
Again, not pointed at you, though since it comes after my quoting you, I can understand why you might think it was. Sorry.
Regarding the last two pieces you quoted from me, I don't necessarily intend the questions as completely rhetorical. Perhaps it would be a good discussion to talk about what responsibility one has for the misuse of one's message. I just think it is unrealistic and unfair to blame science teachers for the state of percieved oppression on the part of the religiously sensitive. I agree that teachers should teach science, including what it can't really tell us about the world as much as what it can.
Maybe science's part in the problem is that very little of science education is about the philosophy behind science. It's almost exclusively about the application of science after a brief discussion of the scientific method. I'd certainly have no problem with an increase in education about the philosophy behind science. I think the fact that some people pick and choose when that philosphy is inconvenient to their worldview is irrelevant to the teaching of science. The fact is that nearly every person on Earth goes about their daily lives as if the underlying philosphy of how we know what we know about the world (and how science knows it) is true except when specific findings of science seemingly contradict one of their specific (and usually uncritically held) religious beliefs. It's amazing that such people are so quick to discount the philosophy that demonstrably works in millions of other ways in their daily lives and so seldom quick to revise their religious outlook in light of scientific knowledge.
And before you think I'm painting all religious people with a very broad brush, I am not saying that all who hold religious views do so uncritically. Hatrack is full of religious people of all stripes who seem honest in their own self examination and critical thinking about many things, including religion. But in my experience Hatrack is far above average over the world at large.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Treso,
I posted those points before I read the federal ruling. I read the fderal ruling last night, and--lo and behold--it made every one of those very same points! Now, that has nothing to do with what any of us did or didn't agree on in the Hatrack thread, but I find it an interesting point.
quote:When judges start outlawing certain scientific models from being taught, science class has ceased being scientific
I hope you're not still thinking that ID is somehow scientific. We all know it's not. Even you. I seem to recall you saying that it has limited scientific value in that linked thread. I also seem to recall you got quite a spanking there for your wholly unsupported belief that there was somehow some science behind it. I also seem to recall that at some point you invoked Sywak's sixth law of theological debate: "I never really believed it, anyhow. I was just making the argument...um...um...for a friend"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Again, not pointed at you, though since it comes after my quoting you, I can understand why you might think it was. Sorry.
No problem.
quote:The fact is that nearly every person on Earth goes about their daily lives as if the underlying philosphy of how we know what we know about the world (and how science knows it) is true except when specific findings of science seemingly contradict one of their specific (and usually uncritically held) religious beliefs. It's amazing that such people are so quick to discount the philosophy that demonstrably works in millions of other ways in their daily lives and so seldom quick to revise their religious outlook in light of scientific knowledge.
Similarly, even people who insist that science can produce all knowledge blithely go through their life using non-scientific reason every single day in almost every single choice they make.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I hope you're not still thinking that ID is somehow scientific.
It is a scientific model in the same way evolution is a scientific model - it takes working scientific theories and combines them with nonscientific explanations for those theories, to attempt to provide an understandable model of how things function. ID is interesting because it seems to accept all or almost all the testable scientific theories that constitute the Evolutionary model, and only disagrees on the nonscientific elements of that model. For instance, it agrees we will find fossils, that life will evolve on the micro level in experiments, and most of the other testable parts of the evolutionary model that I can think of.
quote:I also seem to recall you got quite a spanking there for your wholly unsupported belief that there was somehow some science behind it.
What I recall is that you made up some claims, claimed I made those claims, and then spanked those claims you made up.
Really, whether or not there actually is scientific evidence found somewhere to support ID is not something I can speak to, nor is it something I try to speak to. I can only speak to the fact that some scientists do believe such evidence exists, because I've read arguments by them.
[ December 21, 2005, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:You can't just toss out "maybies" to show what science doesn't know without also considering how those "maybies" might also show how you really know nothing about God at all.
KarlEd, this is the most brilliant thing I have read on Hatrack in an age.
Thank you!
By the way, since I believe that we (as a group) know NEXT TO nothing about God, am I allowed a few maybies from time to time?
I do speculate on how things might be all the time...it makes the study of how things ARE a lot more interesting for me, and helps to identify gaps in knowledge. This technique can, IMHO, be the very definition of intellectual honesty. It's called the method of multiple working hypotheses in a scientific setting.
Which brings me to Tresopax... Tres, last time through this issue, my recollection is just as Steve has posted here. You were flattened, rolled into a tube and mailed home to yourself postage due. I can understand how you might not want to face that fact, but an honest man would recognize when he had been forced to admit that his only arguments in favor of teaching ID in a science class were vague general principals that, ultimately, didn't work in the case of ID (at least not for him) because he had to finally agree it wasn't science.
To assert that this never happened further distorts and undermines your otherwise decent record of taking the unpopular track on (almost) every issue and arguing a philosophical basis in favor of that point of view.
Not having ID take up valuable time in a science class is nothing but sensible policy made in reaction to a push by a minority of people who aren't qualified to insert their views into this portion of the school curriculum.
And, as I have shown before, ID harms religion (esp. Christianity) much more than it does science. Science can (and already has...numerous times) refute this theory, and even the broader versions of it that I have dubbed "External Influence Theory" (ID is just this with lipstick on...). Going back as far as Origin of Species we have cogent refutations of this view backed up by real data. If you look into the history, even before Darwin (in Lamark's time on the stage) this "External Influence Theory" had been well considered and rejected. Putting it in a shiny new box and forcing "science" to re-examine it...yet again...is a waste of time and resources for a purpose that has nothing to do with science at all.
What WOULD be good for science is an explanation of what a scientific theory IS, and IS NOT. If that's all that ID people wanted, I'd say let's put it on the front page, on the side of the box of Cheerios, and emblazon it on the Periodic Table and put this issue to rest for all time. They're (almost) completely right about the nature of scientific theories. It'd be wonderful if students learned that about science. I'd pay extra to see it.
But...that fact does not mean that EVERY theory that can be proposed has equal footing in a scientific setting, or that refutation by logic and data has NO BEARING on whether a theory should continue to be taught.
That is your assertion, plainly and simply stated. And it is false and ultimately damaging to education and to science.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Bob, I do the "maybe" thing all the time, too. I also think it's a great way to keep an open mind and to avoid getting trapped by your own pet hypothesis.
To be clear, though, what I'm criticising is the tendency I see in some people to apply the "maybe" in only one direction and to use it only to weaken (in their own minds) the opposition's point of view. What I see time and time again goes like this: Someone lists portions of the overwhelming evidence in support of an old earth and evolution. Someone says something like "maybe the world was created to look like it was older, but was really only created 6000 years ago." That would be fine if it didn't usually stop there with an implied or even stated "so, HA!, something else is possible so science obviously doesn't know anything, so therefore I'm safe in my unexamined philosophy."
Why not carry those "maybies" through to examine how they affect your religous philosophy too? If you discover they imply something about God that you don't/can't believe or your inner revelator tells you is not true - in short if it turns out it's something you reject in light of your religious "knowledge", it's hardly intellectually honest to offer it as a blow to scientific "knowledge". There are very few wrecking balls that don't swing back at you, at least to some degree.
What I don't get is how so many people can so easily dismiss the evidence of our five empirical senses yet often rely so uncritically on the set of senses within us that not only lead us to "God", but also fairly consistently lead us to bad relationships, Ponzi schemes, and Miss Cleo. It's a double standard where we seem to require science to be proven but of the things we claim are of ultimate importance, we only require that they can't be disproven.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote: That would be fine if it didn't usually stop there with an implied or even stated "so, HA!, something else is possible so science obviously doesn't know anything, so therefore I'm safe in my unexamined philosophy."
Yep.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
You know, even if the carbon dating and fossil record and all that were planted as a test of faith, well, it STILL should be taught in school. I mean, if that is true, then G'd went through an awful lot of trouble setting up the test, and it wouldn't be right not to take it.
By trying to keep it out of the schools, certain people are trying to THWART G'D's WILL that we should be tested. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres, last time through this issue, my recollection is just as Steve has posted here. You were flattened, rolled into a tube and mailed home to yourself postage due. I can understand how you might not want to face that fact, but an honest man would recognize when he had been forced to admit that his only arguments in favor of teaching ID in a science class were vague general principals that, ultimately, didn't work in the case of ID (at least not for him) because he had to finally agree it wasn't science.
Bob, you ended up AGREEING with the almost all of my argument on that thread. Here is a quote from you, from one of the final posts (emphasis added):
quote:I see your point and, as I've said earlier, if what we are doing is using ID as an instructional tool to teach the difference between a scientific explanation and one based on religion, I'm all for including it in the curriculum.
My hope is that the only ones doing so would be supremely qualified Biology teachers, and then only in advanced courses so that the subject could be treated in sufficient detail.
I do see how maybe a general science class could benefit from addressing the controversy (as you suggest). Again, just teaching the difference between a valid scientific theory and an invalid one would be worth the time.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
If that's almost all of your arguement (i.e. that ID is an invalid scientific theory and is useful only insomuch as it serves as an example of bad science), then it directly contradicts what you posted above.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
It also contradicts a good chunk of your posts in the previous thread, Tres. You're still moving the goalposts.
ID is indeed not a valid scientific theory, while evolution is -- despite your continued assertions to the contrary. ID only makes one significant prediction: that complexity is irreducible. This prediction is untestable and cannot be supported with evidence, becuase the threshold beyond which we consider complexity to be irreducible is completely arbitrary.
On the other hand, a not insignificant portion of modern biological science would be completely invalidated were evolutionary theory as a whole suddenly shown to be false. Indeed, the predictions made by evolutionary theory have by and large been borne out as we become able to devise tests for them.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
This is a little off the topic, but does anyone know whether evolution has had a reasonable amount of time to have created life as it is today? Sometimes I just get a feeling there wasn't enough time (though I really know nothing about the issue one way or the other).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Tres, you need to stop playing Devil's Advocate all the time. I think it's messing with your head.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by smitty: Ok, this is relatively funny.
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: This is a little off the topic, but does anyone know whether evolution has had a reasonable amount of time to have created life as it is today? Sometimes I just get a feeling there wasn't enough time (though I really know nothing about the issue one way or the other).
Enough time? Well, that's a good question. On the one hand, evolution has a whole lot of evidence for its validity, and life does in fact exist here and now, so the answer is pretty much "yes". On the other hand, if it could be proven that there wasn't enough time then certain aspects of evolutionary theory would have to be re-examined.
But I think most people have no real concept of the vast amounts of time we're talking about. A billion years is over 100 thousand times the amount of time of all recorded human history. We can witness the evolution of the flue virus from one year to the next. Multiply that times a billion and it really doesn't seem too hard to believe that evolution could produce life in all the variety we see today.
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
ID quite simply fails the test for scientific theory because it advances a supernatural cause. This exactly opposes scientific theory that looks for a natural cause. I would also posit that espousing the idea that there is no natual cause for a particula phenomenon also inhibits the search for a scientific explanation and therfore stymies further research.
I have no problem with those that choose to believe that there is some master plan governing our physical universe but defining that belief as science doesn't wash considering the definition of science insofar as science is defined as the search for natural explanations for natural phenomenon.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Omega M.
Consider this:
Let's create a time map for evolution, and the existence of the Earth.
Let 1" (one inch) equal 100 years. Let's be generous (and approximate), and say that the evolutionary theory has been around for about 200 years. That would be 2" on the timeline.
The Earth has been around for about 4.5 billion years (and to be blunt and quick to the point, anyone who wants to make the claim that it's only been around for 6000 to 10000 years can go suck on my ass). That's about 700 miles.
The Universe, BTW, has been around for roughly 14 billion years or so. That's 2200 miles.
Let's go for a drive, shall we. AT 70 MILES PER HOUR. (I must state, for legal reasons, that 70 mph is illegal in all states in the U.S.)
How long does it take us to pass over the 2" stretch that is how long we've been evaluating evolution? Now mind you, we've seen ACTIVE evidence of evolution [/i]within[/i] species during that time, and we've also seen some small-scale SPECIATION within that time frame. To travel 2 inches at 70 mph takes LESS THAN TWO-THOUSANDTHS OF A SECOND. That's 0.0016 seconds.
And how long would it take to travel two thousand years (the start of the current, popular Creation Myth)? It would take 0.016 seconds.
But what about traveling to the dawn of the Earth's creation? That would take you TEN HOURS STRAIGHT, DRIVING AT 70 MILES PER HOUR.
And to the dawn of time itself? THIRTY ONE HOURS. Well, 31.4 hours.
So you have to ask yourself. If we've seen signs of speciation in the 0.0016 seconds we've had to actually look for it in LIVING CREATURES (not fossils), don't you think that it's entirely reasonable for a wide range of evolutionary development, including the formation of live from non-living chemicals (yes, I know you purists out there will remind us all--Darwin said absolutely nothing about ABIOGENESIS, or the initial ORIGINS OF LIFE) in a relative TEN HOUR PERIOD?
Think of how many 0.0016 second snippets occur in a TEN HOUR PERIOD.
This is, obviously, not a proof. It is meant purely as an exercise in "scale"--to put things in perspective.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If that's almost all of your arguement (i.e. that ID is an invalid scientific theory and is useful only insomuch as it serves as an example of bad science), then it directly contradicts what you posted above.
My argument was that evolution and ID were not strictly scientific theories, but rather were models used to better understand scientific theories, that incorporate significant non-scientific elements. In addition, my argument was that we should teach ID in science class because it is a current controversy that students need to be informed about in order to make decisions about it, and because teaching it illustrates a lot about the difference between science, non-science, and what makes a scientific theory valid. And I explicitly said it should be taught neutrally, by giving the evidence both sides present, rather than assuming it is automatically false and giving students the impression that science is dogmatic rather than open to criticism. It would be fair to state quite blunty that almost all scientists reject it, because they do, but it is both wrong and misleading to say that that fact proves it must be invalid.
This is what I laid out in the posts before the quote I gave above, in the earlier thread, and I think it is also what I have been arguing so far in this thread. Bob, I thought at the time, appeared to disagree only with the assertion that evolution was not scientific in the same way ID was (a sub-argument not necessary for the main point) and with the idea that we should teach it neutrally.
quote:Tres, you need to stop playing Devil's Advocate all the time. I think it's messing with your head.
Tom, you need to stop trying to use "you're just playing Devil's Advocate" as an arguing tactic. That's just an ad hominem. I don't make arguments for argument sake. I make arguments because I think they are valid, or at least seem valid, and have not been appreciated as much as they deserve. If you want to refute them, please use counterarguments, rather than just writing off any unpopular view as "Devil's Advocate."
If I support unpopular views often, it's in a large part because the popular views tend to already be well-explained and fairly represented by plenty of other people, better than I could explain them. There would really be no reason to explain here, for instance, what's wrong with ID. It's already been done well enough.
[ December 22, 2005, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Tres, what you seem to not be "getting" is that I've been consistent all along, as most of us have. Teaching what a scientific theory is and is not could certainly include ID as an example of how NOT to do things. I've stated numerous times that I wish science classes (and various shoutings from rooftops) included a bit about what it means to be a scientific theory so that EVERY person in the world could understand that.
Why?
For the precise reason that we could STOP wasting time on theories like ID.
You on the other hand have variously insisted that it MUST be included in science classes and taught in a form that is not negatively skewed, then you finally came around to the viewpoint that the rest of us held, and now want to claim it as your own. Then you come into this "new" thread and go back to your old arguments (the ones that insist it be "taught" with no qualifiers)...
Clearly your re-education didn't stick.
Or you forgot to chant the mantra.
Whatever.
I agreed with you for the (apparently) one brief shining moment where you were forced to admit that teaching ID as anything BUT a lousy, failed attempt that represents bad pseudo-science is just an all-around crummy idea... IF that teaching is to take place INSIDE the boundaries of a science class.
<insert Bill-the-cat pffffffttttttthhhhhhhtttt here.>
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I have been as consistent as you have, I think. But it appears we were mistaken when we both thought the other had come to agree with ourselves.
I just don't see why it would be preferable to teach ID as a lousy theory, rather than offer the evidence neutrally and allow that evidence to speak for itself. I think young scientists should be taught to view theories critically and look for evidence, rather than think dogmatically. They should be skeptical of any class in which they are taught an extremely one-sided view of an issue, and not given real evidence or reasons. And if they are taught to look at evidence fairly and neutraly, and if ID really is such an invalid theory, then scientists and laymen alike will continue to see its supposedly obvious invalidity and there should be no problem.
The only way I see science as being undermined by ID or Creationism is if science allows itself to become an alternative religion, in conflict with other religions, rather than as a method of observing reality. Then science and Christianity are on equal footing, and fundamentalists can simply say their religion is better than science's.
*Sidenote: I never said ID "MUST" be taught. I said it should be, to better teach students science.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Ah the stars are aligned. I'm back to disagreeing with Tresopax!
Merry Christmas, you philosopher, you.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
God bless us, everyone! Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Look! It's Tiny Timsopax!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:to be blunt and quick to the point, anyone who wants to make the claim that it's only been around for 6000 to 10000 years can go suck on my ass.
You'd have to pull your head out of it first.
quote:I must state, for legal reasons, that 70 mph is illegal in all states in the U.S.
Not true.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Not even remotely true. I thought Iowa was one of the last holdouts, and we switched this summer. Are there still states where you can't legally drive 70 on the interstate?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Tres, let me offer you a hypothetical : Suppose for a moment that the Flat-Earth theory was backed by a powerful religious group. (Indeed, this idea has just as much support in the Bible as does literal creation, but for some reason it doesn't arouse the same passion.) Suppose they attacked the proofs of a round earth at every opportunity; produced their own 'proofs', some of them faked, of a flat earth; got believers elected to school boards; fought tooth and nail in the courts for their views. Would you then argue that, because this view was held by a large group, the controversy should be taught in schools? If you don't like the Flat-Earth example, pick your own discredited theory : astrology, alchemy, phlogiston (which, incidentally, is by no means a stupid theory, it just happens to get a sign wrong), fixed continents, Lamarckism (a perfect example, by the way, of what happens when you let this sort of thing get out of hand : Check the history of Lysenko), electricity as a fluid, indefinitely divisible matter, light travelling through a medium, action at a distance... There's no end to the now-discredited theories that arouse no passion; yet all of the examples I mention have at one time or another been held by scientists of much greater eminence than the people promoting ID.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Dag,
1) Please show me evidence of my having my head up my ass, and I'll gladly accept your response. (or would that have to be a lack of evidence of my not having my head up my ass? What the hell! TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!)
2) You mean there are states where 70 mph is legal!?! I'm moving there!
3) Anyone actually want to comment about the content of my post, or just the window dressing?
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by punwit:
ID quite simply fails the test for scientific theory because it advances a supernatural cause. This exactly opposes scientific theory that looks for a natural cause. I would also posit that espousing the idea that there is no natual cause for a particula phenomenon also inhibits the search for a scientific explanation and therfore stymies further research.
Maybe some ID supporters do this, but it seems that you can determine that something was most likely designed by a creature without saying whether that creature is in the universe or outside it. For instance, if you're exploring a far-off planet and come upon ruins of an Earthlike city, you'll probably assume that they were built by a long-dead alien species, but that species itself could have evolved naturally. Or, to take an example with living creatures, if you're walking in the woods here on Earth and come upon a single plant glowing like a firefly, you'll probably think some people had genetically engineered it and planted it there.
Of course, none of the "ordinary" creatures on Earth seems to have such blatant evidence of design.
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
Omega M, I'm not sure I understand your post, could you clarify? If you are a proponent of Intelligent Design I'd be interested in hearing how you believe that this "theory" qualifies as science. To reiterate, I have no qualms with those that ascribe to a belief that there is a God or Designer only those that try to disquise this religious viewpoint as somehow scientific.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:1) Please show me evidence of my having my head up my ass, and I'll gladly accept your response. (or would that have to be a lack of evidence of my not having my head up my ass? What the hell! TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!)
You're providing plenty of evidence on your own with your ongoing onslaught of snarky asinine comments.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It seems to me that Omega is saying we can readily detect design in structures that do not breed, and therefore cannot evolve; and we can also in principle detect design in living creatures, if they have structures that could not have evolved naturally; but that no known creatures hvae such featrues. (This latter part I'm not so sure of, nature is more ingenious than you'd think. After all, when making a glow-in-the-dark flower, we don't make up a new gene out of whole cloth, we steal it from a different glow-in-the-dark creature.)
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Would you then argue that, because this view was held by a large group, the controversy should be taught in schools? If you don't like the Flat-Earth example, pick your own discredited theory : astrology, alchemy, phlogiston (which, incidentally, is by no means a stupid theory, it just happens to get a sign wrong), fixed continents, Lamarckism (a perfect example, by the way, of what happens when you let this sort of thing get out of hand : Check the history of Lysenko), electricity as a fluid, indefinitely divisible matter, light travelling through a medium, action at a distance...
Yes, I would think it should be taught fairly in schools as a theory that is supported by many yet rejected by the vast majority of scientists. I'm inclined to think the best way to fight mistaken beliefs is to treat that belief fairly and educate people about the evidence for and against that belief. And I'm inclined to think attacking and silencing debate on a belief is a good way to ensure people continue to defy us and believe it.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Yes, I would think it should be taught fairly in schools as a theory that is supported by many yet rejected by the vast majority of scientists."
Would you also explain how it has zero backing evidence and doesn't meet teh criteria for a scientific hypothesis based on an inability to make predictions, that it can't be falsified, and relies for its very existence on working from the conclusion rather then the evidence?
If not, then you aren't treating it fairly.
" I'm inclined to think the best way to fight mistaken beliefs is to treat that belief fairly and educate people about the evidence for and against that belief."
This can be true. But 1) You'd have to take time away from other, real, scientific theories, in order to do this and 2) High schoolers think that if you can have a debate about it, then both sides are equally legitimate.
So, what month are you cutting from the high school biology curriculum in order to go through the actual science enough so that your students understand not only why ID isn't a scientific theory, but why all the objections to evolutionary theory upon which the support for ID rests are false objections?
" And I'm inclined to think attacking and silencing debate on a belief is a good way to ensure people continue to defy us and believe it"
We're not trying to silence debate. We're trying to keep you from redefining science in order to get your religious beliefs in public school classrooms. There's a huge difference.
When ID is a legitimate scientific theory, stronger then evolution, we'll put it into high school classrooms. But there's no reason to put a non-viable scientific theory into high school classrooms when we can't get all the REAL science into the classroom that belongs there, due to time constraints.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If I support unpopular views often, it's in a large part because the popular views tend to already be well-explained and fairly represented by plenty of other people, better than I could explain them.
Yeah, which amounts to -- like I said -- paying Devil's Advocate. Because your concern in all these arguments is never to actually make any sense, or to even necessarily be right, but to argue the unpopular opinion because you feel sorry for it.
Posted by Stark (Member # 6831) on :
Tresopax, you're effectively asking the scientific community to prove a negative. It's up to the ID people to come up with evidence for it (of which there is none that follows the scientific method). There is a basic difference between the kind of evidence supporting evolution and the kind of evidence supporting ID. Evolution has been fine tuned and tested by intelligent, competent people following an established method for centuries. ID's core premise can't even be tested by that same method--which is a clear and persistant reason not to teach it alongside well established theories. Not to mention the other smaller inconsistancies with ID.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Yeah, which amounts to -- like I said -- paying Devil's Advocate. Because your concern in all these arguments is never to actually make any sense, or to even necessarily be right, but to argue the unpopular opinion because you feel sorry for it.
I guessed that's what you mean by Devil's Advocate - but that's not what I'm doing, so stop using that ad hominem. I make these arguments because I believe they ARE right, and not appreciated as right, often because of knee-jerk reactions, assumptions, and broad generalizations that should not be made. In this case, I think the mistaken assumption is that religion and science can never mix.
quote:Would you also explain how it has zero backing evidence and doesn't meet teh criteria for a scientific hypothesis based on an inability to make predictions, that it can't be falsified, and relies for its very existence on working from the conclusion rather then the evidence?
I would explain that opponents argue all of the above. I would also explain that supporters dispute all of the above. I'd add that within the scientific community, opponents make up the vast majority.
quote:1) You'd have to take time away from other, real, scientific theories, in order to do this and 2) High schoolers think that if you can have a debate about it, then both sides are equally legitimate
(1) I remember spending two class periods in high school biology coloring pictures of various animals to create a timeline of evolution - this is what I think is generally called "busy work". That would be more than enough time to introduce this topic. And remember, in a high school course we only need to prepare them enough to make informed decisions on the issue; the goal is not to spend a month making them experts. (2) This was not true of the debates we had in high school. When we debated Euthanasia in government class, students on either side tended to think their view was the only legitimate view, and that the opposite view was totally wrong. And really, if students think that both side of any debate are equally valid, that is a far more serious problem than having students that think ID is scientific.
quote:We're not trying to silence debate. We're trying to keep you from redefining science in order to get your religious beliefs in public school classrooms.
But, in doing so, you are still redefining science. You teach students that it is something that silences unpopular theories.... Because whether or not silencing the ID supporters is your goal, outlawing discussion of ID in science class will be viewed as just that, especially by students who are now not being taught any reason why ID should be silenced and will now hear about ID only from their church's perspective.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" And really, if students think that both side of any debate are equally valid, that is a far more serious problem than having students that think ID is scientific."
Not valid... legitimate. THere's a different between right and wrong, and being a legitimate opinion.
" You teach students that it is something that silences unpopular theories..."
If you approach it right, you teach them that science doesn't deal with metaphysics. Sadly, you want students to think that a legitimate scientific opinion is one which is a metaphysical statement.
"And remember, in a high school course we only need to prepare them enough to make informed decisions on the issue; the goal is not to spend a month making them experts."
Of course. But on THIS issue, if you spend enough only giving them the basics, then they'll walk away with the view that ID is a legitimate scientific theory. Its not. Even according to Michael Behe, it is only as legitimate as astrology. And what you REALLY need to be teaching in high school is scientific method. If kids come away from high school thinking ID is a valid scientific hypothesis, then you've failed in that mission.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
[whispers]paul, logic won't work. that's why all i'm going to do from now on is janx him.[/whispers]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: [QUOTE] I don't make arguments for argument sake.
Then I guess I haven't been reading Hatrack at all these few years after all.....
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
No, Tres, you are the one redefining science, as something that deals with arguments of what could be, not what is derivable from evidence. And science does silence theories, not because they are unpopular, but because they are damn well wrong.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: In this case, I think the mistaken assumption is that religion and science can never mix.
Which is why you're arguing past everyone here, because NO ONE ELSE on the thread is making that claim.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Umm...I hate to be devil's advocate, but it seems like religion and science are allowed to come pretty close together, but never reallybe in the same room.
If you have a nuclear physicist who also believes that the universe is 6,000 years old (for religious reasons), you only trust her as a nuclear scientist insofar as her ridiculous belief in a Ultra-Young Earth is left out of all discussions of focusing those high-powered gamma-ray beams at the plutonium seed, correct?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I think it's just a "leave it home" issue when the religious beliefs contradict scientific evidence. There are many religious beliefs that either do not intersect with scientific issues at all, or are perfectly in line with them. I imagine those can be found fairly frequently peacefully co-existing with science.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Lions and Zebras can coexist on opposite sides of a wall. But they cannot mix (well, the lions wouldn't mind, but the Zebras might...)
Is that what we have with science and religion?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Still don't understand why this is even an argument. I really, really don't.
Stick a sidebar in the biology textbook that describes challenges to the theory of evolution. Mention the notable opposing theories, put them in context by explaining that evolution is accepted by more scientists (and why) but that there are many people who believe differently.
Look what's happened. Opposing theories have been given air time. ID-believing parents may educate their children on their preferred theories, and children who believe in ID aren't frozen out entirely in class. The discussion of the theory of evolution has actually been strengthened because this allows discussion of scientific theories vs hypotheses. And children are given context for their education by having the realities of real life acknowledged: a lot of people believe in something like ID.
A good teacher should use this controversy to teach scientific method, how opposing theories are invaluable in science, and how what they teach relates to events in the real world.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
But the Dover board pointed the students towards the "Panda's Thumb" book (title?), as if it was somehow good science. They weren't looking to strengthen science by emplying ID as some failed "Straw Man" argument. They were proposing it (promoting ID) as if it were a valid scientific theory, worthy of equal time.
Actually, anybody here read "The Panda's Thumb"?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Not valid... legitimate. THere's a different between right and wrong, and being a legitimate opinion.
If not legitimate doesn't mean wrong or invalid, then what are you using it to mean?
quote:And what you REALLY need to be teaching in high school is scientific method. If kids come away from high school thinking ID is a valid scientific hypothesis, then you've failed in that mission.
I disagree. I think kids coming home believing that a theory is being silenced by the scientific community is a far larger failure to teach them the scientific method. At the same time, if you are student and you come home thinking scientists used the scientific method to support ID, why would that harm your understanding of the scientific method? All it potentially means is that you think the scientific method can be used in one particular case where it (for reasons the student apparently doesn't understand) can't - it doesn't change how you think of the scientific method.
On that note, I think this whole debate is mostly irrelevant to actual students in anything but a symbolic sense. Students are not so uninformed that they don't already know about ID and Creationism from outside school. They are going to be well aware that some people don't believe evolution, long before they enter high school biology - and they will be well aware that someone can hold such a position. And they are going to also be well aware that those that do so are mostly on the religious extremes. Forcing teachers to read a statement about the "holes" in evolution and refering them to alternative textbooks, as proposed by ID supporters, is not going to alter student views. Banning such discussion is not going to alter anything either, except insofar as students hear about the ban, and come to conclude they are being kept from something... sort of like how they tend to end up well aware they are being kept from hearing about contraceptives in abstinence-only schools. In my view the only possible change that would really help them better understand this issue better and the scientific method in general is to actually INFORM them about the issue (the supposed purpose of schools.) If the needs of political symbolism prevents teachers from informing their students about this debate, however, I am willing to bet people will continue to be largely ignorant about it, and will believe whatever their church says.
And I doubt churches will teach this issue in a way completely accurate to science.
quote:Which is why you're arguing past everyone here, because NO ONE ELSE on the thread is making that claim.
I'm aware nobody made that claim, and my arguments are not directed against that claim. I'm just saying I think it is that underlying assumption that leads people, those taught to think about science in a certain way, to write off ID far too quickly.
It's sort of like the religious reasons that often lead people to quickly accept ID, even though the arguments they actually have for ID have nothing to do directly with religion. ID supporters don't normally say the Bible is evidence that ID is right, but I believe the assumption that the Bible is true leads them to be far quicker to accept ID's arguments than evolution's.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
quote:I think kids coming home believing that a theory is being silenced by the scientific community is a far larger failure to teach them the scientific method. At the same time, if you are student and you come home thinking scientists used the scientific method to support ID, why would that harm your understanding of the scientific method?
And if I used the scientific method to prove that giant invisible lobstermen from the moon were living under my bed, how would that harm anyone's understanding of the scientific method?
But to be less flippant, I can use the scientific method to prove that ID is not a scientific theory:
*Define the question: Is ID a scientific theory?
*Gather information and resources: What claims does ID make? What defines a scientific theory? A scientific theory is one that presents testable hypotheses. A scientific theory carries within itself the possibility of it's own "dis-proof"
*Form hypothesis: ID is a scientific theory. It presents testable hypotheses and allows for the possibility of being disproven.
*Perform experiment and collect data: What are the "testable hypotheses" within ID? Answer: none. Is it possible to disprove ID: No, for every possible refutation, the ID proponent will claim, "We don't understand the intelligent designer sufficiently to really know what their limits are. The thing you claim couldn't have been done really could have been done by a designer with sufficient intelligence. Also, a designer of sufficient intelligence could have hidden all evidence of his/her/its actions."
*Analyze data: [tick tick tick tick tick...DING!]
*Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses: The stated ID hypothesis fails the two primary tests for being a scientific theory. The hypothesis is false. New hypothesis: Proponents of ID must have some other reason than "ID is a scientific theory" as to why they're trying so hard to get it into high school science classes.
*Publish results: Here you are--ID is not a scientific theory.
Let's allow that into class. Let's also use the scientific method to prove that the phrase "God exists" holds no meaning.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Can anybody tell me any positive arguments in favor of ID? The only arguments that support ID that I've heard so far involve attacking evolution on the basis of the reliability of carbon dating and the fossil record.
EDIT - Also, how does ID's main premise - that life is too complex to have developed on it's own - conflict with evolutionary theory? Assuming you can get over the biblical age of the earth thing, I don't really see the issue.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: At the same time, if you are student and you come home thinking scientists used the scientific method to support ID, why would that harm your understanding of the scientific method? All it potentially means is that you think the scientific method can be used in one particular case where it (for reasons the student apparently doesn't understand) can't - it doesn't change how you think of the scientific method.
Ah, no...it would mean you don't actually understand what the scientific method was, or you would understand why it didn't apply to ID.
I think that the ID discussion should be taught in a sociology class perhaps, using it to understand current culture and the evolution of religious thought. perhaps to prove that science doesn't automatically disprove God or religion....
But to attempt to try and use ID as an actual scientific method for proving (or disproving) anything is not just wrong but plain dangerous.
The ID discussion has been silenced by science for one reason and one reason only....it isn't scientifically provable. Same as many, many other pseudo-scientific theories.
Unless you want to start teaching phrenology in class as well, Tres. It is as scientifically provable as ID is.....
[ December 24, 2005, 04:29 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Can anybody tell me any positive arguments in favor of ID?
Probably not. No one on Hatrack has yet. The closest anyone has come is the concept of "irreducible complexity", but that, in a nutshell, is the idea that when faced with an evolutionary question we can't explain we simply say "God did it" and move on.
quote:The only arguments that support ID that I've heard so far involve attacking evolution on the basis of the reliability of carbon dating and the fossil record.
Here you confuse "support ID" with "raise questions about Evolutionary theory". The latter does not equal the former. Even if you can formulate legitimate scientific questions about the accuracy of the claims of evolutionary theory, the mere exisitence of those questions does not in any way support ID as a scientific theory. If ID is supposed to be a scientific theory, it has to make claims of its own and support them. It can't just sit back and claim all the undiscovered territory as it's own.
quote:EDIT - Also, how does ID's main premise - that life is too complex to have developed on it's own - conflict with evolutionary theory? Assuming you can get over the biblical age of the earth thing, I don't really see the issue.
It isn't as much that the claim "life is too complex to have developed on its own" conflicts with evolutionary theory as it is that the claim itself is non-scientific. Evolutionary theory basically says "Here's evidence of how things were. Here's evidence of how they are now. This is the most likely way we got from there to here." ID says "Nuh-UH! Couldn't have happened that way because you can't show every minute step from free floating hydrogen atom to full-fledged human. All those blank areas are where God must have stepped in."
This isn't a scientific claim. It nothing more than a loaded label on our scientific ignorance. It isn't scientific because it offers no testable claim. There is no way to prove something couldn't be done except by a superior intelligence. There is also not way to prove that an intelligence wasn't involved because even if Evolutionary theory one day shows every single step from Big Bang to Human being, ID can still claim the intelligence set up the big bang. Once again acting merely as a label on the parts we don't know.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
Maybe people's anger about how evolution is taught is a symptom of the fact that, in grade school, scientific explanations are taught as if they're absolute truth. There should be some way of implicitly telling kids throughout science classes that what they're learning may not be the whole story. And since evolution is a "hot topic," maybe kids could specifically be taught some things for which evolutionary theory does not have a complete explanation, with the teachers stressing that these gaps don't imply that intelligent design or any other theory is correct.
Of course, maybe science classes already do that and the kids just aren't listening (I'm not sure I would have at that age).
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: [QUOTE] The closest anyone has come is the concept of "irreducible complexity", but that, in a nutshell, is the idea that when faced with an evolutionary question we can't explain we simply say "God did it" and move on.
I think this is at the heart of the whole religion/science scuffle. I've long believed that religion was a precursor of science. Our early ancestors searched for answers and, lacking sufficient background knowledge, they ascribed all they perceived to a higher power.
We see this religion/science ballet displayed perfectly in this instance. ID supporters will argue that irreducible complexity proves there is a supernatural entity involved while pure scientists will continue to look for natural explanations.
My biggest complaint against ID is that it could lead to a less concerted effort to explain that which hasn't yet been explained, "God did it" as opposed to "How does this work?"
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: Maybe people's anger about how evolution is taught is a symptom of the fact that, in grade school, scientific explanations are taught as if they're absolute truth. There should be some way of implicitly telling kids throughout science classes that what they're learning may not be the whole story. And since evolution is a "hot topic," maybe kids could specifically be taught some things for which evolutionary theory does not have a complete explanation, with the teachers stressing that these gaps don't imply that intelligent design or any other theory is correct.
Of course, maybe science classes already do that and the kids just aren't listening (I'm not sure I would have at that age).
I specifically remember being taught the Theory of Evolution in school as well as the fact that a theory was a possible explanation for a set of facts. We were never taught that evolution was a fact, just that, given the evidence, it was the best explanation we had at the time.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Ah, no...it would mean you don't actually understand what the scientific method was, or you would understand why it didn't apply to ID.
No, ID supporters don't want to change the way the scientific method is taught, and they don't want to say the scientific method doesn't apply to ID. They want to say the scientific method DOES apply to Intelligent Design. So, teaching this is not going to change the students' understanding of the scientific method or lead them to believe it doesn't apply to ID. At worst it would only lead them to believe the scientific method can be used to support ID when it can't.
quote:Unless you want to start teaching phrenology in class as well, Tres.
Sure. But only if you think phrenology is something students might need to be aware of over their lives, enough so that it would be worth the time. Science class is not a sacred thing - it already includes plenty of theories and science-related issues that are not universally agreed to be strictly testable according to the scientific method. There is no reason to withhold information about any issue that is important enough to teach, and related to science.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:No, ID supporters don't want to change the way the scientific method is taught, and they don't want to say the scientific method doesn't apply to ID. They want to say the scientific method DOES apply to Intelligent Design. So, teaching this is not going to change the students' understanding of the scientific method or lead them to believe it doesn't apply to ID. At worst it would only lead them to believe the scientific method can be used to support ID when it can't.
Sorry, but this conclusion follows ONLY if the ID proponents are correct in their assertion that it wouldn't redefine the scientific method. Early ID theorists might've been able to make this claim. ID as it is currently proposed simply cannot.
quote:Sure. But only if you think phrenology is something students might need to be aware of over their lives, enough so that it would be worth the time. Science class is not a sacred thing - it already includes plenty of theories and science-related issues that are not universally agreed to be strictly testable according to the scientific method. There is no reason to withhold information about any issue that is important enough to teach, and related to science.
Phrenology is taught. It's taught as a historical curiosity and a cautionary tale about how people can be misled. It's a great example of how the scientific method corrects vastly popular conceptions -- even those that sound scientific, but aren't.
I've said many times that ID could be taught as another counter-example and I'd be fine with that. The people who desperately want ID taught in schools want it taught as if it was a viable alternative explanation of the origin and mutation of species. That, it fails to do...every time it is subject to the scientific method -- namely generating a testable hypothesis and then going out to find observational data or conduct experiments to actually test the hypotheses. This was true in Darwin's time and it's still true today, even if the ID people try to dress their pig up in new clothes, it's still the same theory that didn't work then.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by punwit:
I specifically remember being taught the Theory of Evolution in school as well as the fact that a theory was a possible explanation for a set of facts. We were never taught that evolution was a fact, just that, given the evidence, it was the best explanation we had at the time.
Now that you mention it, I also remember being taught what a theory was. I guess it didn't sink in because so much of the rest of science class (at least the part I was tested on) concerned the details of particular theories without the motivations for them.
Though I don't think the intelligent design advocates have positive evidence for their theory, I still think it's possible in principle for there to be evidence for intelligent design. As I said before, if you see a house in the middle of the woods, the best explanation for it being there is that some people built it, since the chance of the house having come together "at random" is infinitely small in comparison. If we someday can create single-cell organisms out of nonliving materials and establish that the chance of these organisms having come together "at random" is infinitely small in comparison, would that be evidence for intelligent design? Of course, we still couldn't say what created the organisms or how that creator came to be.
Edit: I just searched for "intelligent design" with Google and came upon this essay. Some of it seems wrong, such as its distinction between chance and law and its failure to mention that irreducibly complex structures can be created by structures "piggybacking" on others; but what it says about the probability of the first cell coming into existence "at random" seems interesting.
[ December 24, 2005, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: Omega M. ]
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: but what it says about the probability of the first cell coming into existence "at random" seems interesting.
eh. Not really. There are certain lipids that will spontaneously form bubbles.
quote:Within a critical range of concentrations, certain kinds of lipids alone in a test tube of water will self-organize to form a "bilayer". The bilayer is composed of two opposing layers of lipid molecules arranged so that their hydrocarbon tails face one another to form the oily bilayer core, while their electrically charged or polar heads face the watery or "aqueous" solutions on either side of the membrane.
From Wiki.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Sigh... nobody says you have to start with cell structures, anyway. Any crystal can self-replicate. Finding chemical compounds that exhibit some, but not all, the characteristics of life is not hard; the only reason our oceans aren't a soup of the things is that modern life, evolved through 2.7 billion years, would eat them. Yum, free nutrients! But that doesn't apply to the early Earth, so primitive half-life and quarter-life can evolve in peace, becoming a little more life-like with each passing aeon.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
Well, yeah, but my point was just that it isn't a situation where you have to have all of the other pieces together to form a cell wall, but that all of those pieces need for there to be a cell wall in the first place before they could work together. A primative cell wall is something that just falls into place under the proper circumstances.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
My point exactly, Tres...ID ISN'T important enough to teach, not in a science class, not without supporting evidence at least.
If you teach someone that a spoon is a needle, don't be surprised if their sewing sucks. That is about the same as teaching ID in science class. If a student believes that the scientific method proves that ID is valid enough to be taught in class then he will have no true idea of what the SM actually is, or how to properly apply it to problems. His standard of "proof", as needed to support a hypothesis, will be so low that he would be better off learning phrenology, to be honest.
It is not possible to teach ID is a science class and still claim to be teaching science. Not and retain any sort of credibility as a science teacher, anyway. It isn't science, it is religion (although a non-demoninational one ). It has to be accepted on faith alone, as their is no evidence, per the SM, to declare it as a valid working hypothesis.
End of discussion.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:No, ID supporters don't want to change the way the scientific method is taught, and they don't want to say the scientific method doesn't apply to ID. They want to say the scientific method DOES apply to Intelligent Design.
Which is why in Kansas they decided to change the definition of science. Since ID doesn't meet the criteria for scientific investigation, they just redefined it.
Bob:
quote:I've said many times that ID could be taught as another counter-example and I'd be fine with that.
In fact it is being used as such.
The bigger stink the creationists make over ID, the more the scientific method is discussed - in fora like this, and in science classes as well. Check out the Frayer Model for learning vocabulary. ID can only fit in the "non-examples" category for the term "scientific theory." I really don't have a problem with ID at all, precisely because it opens the topic to discussion. In the end, I predict they'll be sorry they ever brought it up.
Posted by Fusiachi (Member # 7376) on :
I thought I'd bump this thread to mentions that Judge Jones will be this year's commencement speaker here at Dickinson College. That's all.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)