quote:No, because it is not agreed upon that ID has no backing or scientific validity. Many people believe it does, including some scientists....
quote:But denying the existence of controversy teaches the opposite lesson - that science really is a set of facts that are not to be questioned, that we accept because scientists tell us to accept them.
This is one of the most ridiculous things I've read all week. And I've been reading computer manuals
Tres, have you actually read even a page of a bona fide scientific book lately? An article in Scientific American? You would have found that acceptance of and presentation of controversy, uncertainty, and ignorance abound in typical science writing.
[And incidentally, it is then turned against scientists the other way -- 'they aren't even sure!' -- like the way Lisa ridiculed the article on speciation that was linked to here, for spending its first 1/3 explaining how little research there is and how poor the evidence is. Sounds like damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't.]
You're absolutely right about one thing: It isn't responsible science, or science education, if it doesn't acknowledge where the gaps are, the margins of error in experimental data, the unknowns, and the most likely alternative explanations extant, along with a thumbnail sketch of the preliminary evidence leading one way or another.
I'm not sure where you got the idea (since you seem to support the notion that 'scientific method' is a creditable pursuit and worthy of being taught accurately) that 'many people believe it' is by itself sufficient reason for something to be listed by a scientist as an alternative explanation for something she is studying.
As I have noted before, every scientific assertion on any topic ever written could be appended with, "or, an 'intelligent' force or being could cause this to occur."
Here's an exercise for you: Try appending that clause after each of the following:
"Get your flu shots, they will protect you from the virus, or if you catch the virus, the disease's course will be less severe."
"The yeast causes the dough to rise."
"Rising global temperatures may be caused by a natural climatic cycle, or by a greenhouse effect exacerbated by human activity."
"Unprotected sex furthers the spread of some diseases like AIDS."
Would you consider those amended sentences to be scientific? Is the appended clause susceptible to research? Evidence?
Now, for each of those amended sentences, which is MORE scientific if instead you append the clause "or, according to many people, an 'intelligent' force or being could cause this to occur"?
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Except that scientific "weight" should not stem from the percentage of scientists who believe something. It stems only from the scientific evidence you can provide to support that thing and the degree to which that evidence is convincing. Discussions distribute weight in exactly that way."
It won't in a high school classroom. High school biology teachers are not experts in the field of evolution, which is unsurprising since they teach evolution for 15 minutes. To properly run a discussion on this would require that all high school biology teachers have masters graduate work concentrated in evolution. Further, you'd need to turn it from a 15 minute segment into a 3 week segment, in order for the students to properly participate in the discussion. I'm not willing to cut out three weeks of real biology so that religious folk can try to undermine the scientific method by putting ID into science classrooms.
A discussion is great, when its feasible. Its not so great in a high school classroom when to have a productive discussion requires that all the participants have a depth of understanding of a specific field that high schoolers never attain for any specific field.
"Do I have to point out what's wrong with insinuating that philosophical and religious questions are so trivial that they only merit being discussed while drinking?"
In a scientific discussion they are EXACTLY that trivial. Philosophy and religion do not belong on in a scientific discussion, and thats exactly what is wrong with your whole attempt to get ID into the classroom. Its putting philosophy and religion into science. What a good science teacher is trying to drum into his students head during high school is that philosophy and religion should NOT be in science. This is one of the reasons I so object to ID in the high school. It undermines science. Whether thats a deliberate attempt or not, I won't say for any individual person. But thats the effect.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, JVP is absolutely correct. The version of ID now being bandied about would essentially insert God into everything (not just science). As an example, we would have to add a section in Philosophy classes that would discuss how human reason is really just an illusion created by God to trip us up, or otherwise steer mankind in one direction or another.
In fact, the possibility that "I think, therefore I am" was delivered through divine revelation, rather than logic, must be entertained whenever we teach the segment on the Enlightenment.
And in nutrition classes, we must teach that there's a possibility that the reason carbohydrates break down into cellular fuel is that God is there with a little chisel working at the molecules (whatever those are) and turning a crank inside each cell.
In math classes, 1 + 1 = 2 not because of an immutable property of numbering systems, but because God is there to ensure that it always works out that way. Phew! Thank God for that!
I'm sorry to say it, but ID theory has bitten itself in the tail as near as I can tell from the links provided a page or two ago.
And if you insist that it belongs in Science class, I beg you to explain how or why it should be limited to just that segment of learning when it clearly touches on every thing, every time, and every possible thought, action or event in our world. I submit that ID as currently proposed is the only thing that should or would ever get taught anywhere if it should ever be taught at all.
quote:Would you consider those amended sentences to be scientific? Is the appended clause susceptible to research?
As I said, I don't consider ID to be completely scientific - rather it is just a science-related model that integrates other scientific theories. The historical model of evolution fits in the same category.
quote:In specialized fields, only qualified people can have good grounds for questioning results unless their claim is that the methodology of the field is unsound.
This is false. Good grounds for questioning results are good ground for questioning results regardless of who is presenting those refutations. It may be that "qualified" scientists are more likely to question results well, because of their training. It also may be that in some situations "qualified" scientists are more likely to fail to question results well, because their training prevents them from seeing certain questions they should ask. Both effects have been demonstrated historically. There is no shortage of scientific ideas that came from the fringes of science - from people who were at first viewed as wackos who did not know what they were talking about. And this is true for almost any acadmeic discipline.
If we decide to treat science as a church and its scientists as prophets who cannot be questioned by the common person, it should be no surprise when those who disagree with its claims refuse to accept it as a discipline. And it almost makes teaching science in schools pointless. Why bother having students do labs if what they should really do is learn how to obey scientists unquestioningly? Why bother teaching them details about science if they aren't allowed to use these details without first deferring to whatever the scientific community tells them is true?
quote:Philosophy and religion do not belong on in a scientific discussion, and thats exactly what is wrong with your whole attempt to get ID into the classroom. Its putting philosophy and religion into science. What a good science teacher is trying to drum into his students head during high school is that philosophy and religion should NOT be in science.
A good science teacher should show how philosophy and religion relate to science, and should definitely NOT try to keep them out of scientific discussion. Science is most definitely not a field in isolation. Its authority stems from the philosophy behind the scientific method. Its implications can apply to almost every field concerned with empirical reality. And the conclusions of other fields can impact how we consider it. If we are teaching students that other disciplines do not belong in science, we are teaching a fundamentally flawed lesson.
quote:High school biology teachers are not experts in the field of evolution, which is unsurprising since they teach evolution for 15 minutes. To properly run a discussion on this would require that all high school biology teachers have masters graduate work concentrated in evolution.
Then why do we allow them to teach evolution at all? If they can do that, I think science teachers are capable of devising discussions of the issue that will be informative and fair to the evidence in question.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gah, isn't this thread dead yet? I wish starLisa would come back, at least she was willing to argue on actual evidence. Well, up until that started going against her, anyway.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"As I said, I don't consider ID to be completely scientific - rather it is just a science-related model that integrates other scientific theories. The historical model of evolution fits in the same category."
Again, this is entirely false. The historical model of evolution is entirely scientific. Remember, one of the fundamental tenets of scienctific inquiry is that the laws that govern the natural world are constant, unless there is a change that leaves evidence that can be detected through the scientific method that those laws change. Which is why scientific theories, such as evolution, can predict backwards in time. If the laws apply today, then they applied yesterday, even if we weren't checking yesterday to see if those laws applied.
Again, if you want to try to compare ID and evolution, please provide an unfalsified peice of evidence that supports ID contrary to evolution. I suggest the reason you can't do so is not because you aren't an expert in the field, but rather there is none to be found.
"A good science teacher should show how philosophy and religion relate to science, and should definitely NOT try to keep them out of scientific discussion. Science is most definitely not a field in isolation. Its authority stems from the philosophy behind the scientific method."
Philosophies and religion other then the epistomology of science do not relate to scientific inquiry, other then when philosophies and religions use scientific results to justify their own standing. Science is an epistomology, and understanding that epsitomology is essential for high school students. But its also essential that high school students understand that if it is not contained within that epistomology, then it is not science.
" And the conclusions of other fields can impact how we consider it."
Yes, we might derive interesting questions that we'd like science to explore, using other fields. But simply because we ask a question in another field and then ask science to investigate the question, does not make the question necessarily scientific. And what is TRULY not scientific is reaching a conclusion through other epistomologies or religions, and then saying that there must be scientific evidence to support that conclusion, so therefore the conclusion is science.
This is exactly what you are doing, btw.
"If we are teaching students that other disciplines do not belong in science, we are teaching a fundamentally flawed lesson."
No, we're teaching exactly the correct lesson. Scientific inquiry IS isolated, in that anything that is known via methods that are not scientific has no place in a scientific theory. Yes, science interacts with other fields, but does not interact with other fields in gaining knowledge. Once the knowledge is gained, science can disseminate that knowledge, and that knowledge can effect other philosophies, and can effect how people view science, but because science is a strict epistomology, results from other fields cannot be used other then to ask questions within science.
"Then why do we allow them to teach evolution at all?"
For the same reason we allow all teachers to teach what they do. We do not ask teachers to have masters level work concentrating in every idea they will teach. Can you imagine asking a history teacher to have a masters in colonial america, another in the american revolution, another in the civil war, another in reconstruction, etc? Its simply not feasible. What we ask teachers to do is have strong knowledge of the content they will teach, but not expert level knowledge... expert level knowledge takes a long time to gather, and is unnecessary for teaching high school students.
" If they can do that, I think science teachers are capable of devising discussions of the issue that will be informative and fair to the evidence in question."
Not within a reasonable time frame, they can't. Have you seen how many falacies there are concerning evolution? It would take weeks to go over all the falacies, and why they are falacious, if we're going to provide evidence. Don't waste time in a science classroom by making science teachers spend a 2-3 week unit discussing something that shouldn't even be in a science room to begin with.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Remember, one of the fundamental tenets of scienctific inquiry is that the laws that govern the natural world are constant, unless there is a change that leaves evidence that can be detected through the scientific method that those laws change.
Science would lack any reason to make such a claim. Again, science is only as powerful as logic entails it can be. It has no way of scientifically testing whether 1 million years ago, the laws of science operated in just the same way as they do now. And if, as people have suggested, science has no business making non-scientific claims, then science has no business making the assumption that natural laws did act the same way back then.
Again, I disagree - I think making such claims IS science's business, which is why historical evolution is relevant to science, in why ID is as well.
quote:Again, if you want to try to compare ID and evolution, please provide an unfalsified peice of evidence that supports ID contrary to evolution.
Can you provide a piece of evidence that supports evolution contrary to ID?
quote:Philosophies and religion other then the epistomology of science do not relate to scientific inquiry, other then when philosophies and religions use scientific results to justify their own standing.
All scientific models are grounded in philosophical non-scientific claims in order to make those models meaningful. Starting with the extremely basic, almost all models assume the physical existence of things - a nonscientific claim. Almost all assume there is some sort of link between causes and effects - another claim that cannot be tested. Science must make the nonscientific assumptions that their instruments reflect the things they are supposed to be measuring, rather than just the instruments themselves. Math is used by all science and taught in science class, yet is not scientifically determined. More field specific, scientific models that relate to history almost always integrate non-scientific historical claims into their models. In order to relate to the actual human mind, psychology must make numerous non-scientific assumptions about the relationship between observable behavior and the internal mental state of individuals, and about those individuals' ability to self-report to some degree. Ethics even comes into play when medical theories are made to determine what should or should not be done to a given patient. And you, yourself, attempted to include the nonscientific claim that "one of the fundamental tenets of scienctific inquiry is that the laws that govern the natural world are constant" in the scope of science. Even science itself would not exist without the philosophical invention of the scientific method that gives it any epistemological value. Science cannot function as we need it to without these nonscientific claims - no matter how much scientists tend to overlook them (and I suspect they often do).
quote:It would take weeks to go over all the falacies, and why they are falacious, if we're going to provide evidence.
I would prefer a shorter unit, simply designed to introduce the main claims and the main disputes over those main claims. Going over every detail is not necessary for the issue, any more than going over every detail of evolution is. We're not asking students to be experts on the ID debate. We are merely hoping to introduce it to them in the way we are introducing everything else to them, so they can understand what it is about later in life. And we are hoping to show them how scientific issues can be debated, and to get them to think about what it means to be scientific. Doing so does not require weeks and weeks of classtime.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Science would lack any reason to make such a claim"
Thats because its one of the fundamental underlying axiom's of science. It is not based upon any scientific inquiry... it is the premise upon which science is built. If you reject the premise that the laws governing the universe are unchanged unless the a law that changes leaves indications that can be discovered scientifically, then you are outside the realm of science. This is a fundamental postulate to science. Without it, you might be doing something that looks like science... but it isn't.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"We're not asking students to be experts on the ID debate. We are merely hoping to introduce it to them in the way we are introducing everything else to them, so they can understand what it is about later in life. And we are hoping to show them how scientific issues can be debated, and to get them to think about what it means to be scientific. Doing so does not require weeks and weeks of classtime."
Yes it does, because otherwise they will come away with the completely unscientific notion that ID has scientific merit. Just as, for some reason, you have.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Can you provide a piece of evidence that supports evolution contrary to ID?"
No I can't, because of the unscientific nature of ID. Any peice of evidence can be claimed by the IDer to exist because of the intelligent nature of the designer. ID does not make any predictions that can be used to seperate it from any other scientific theory, which is part of why it is not scientific. I can provide you with dozens of attempts by IDers to show irreducible complexity, that have been falsified by evolutionary science. I can show you thousands of examples of speciazation, and thousands of examples of experiments in the lab that show seperation of population in accordance with the principles of evolutionary theory. I can show you an evolutionary tree that has fewer evidenciary gaps then IDers will try to get you to believe there are. I can show you evidence for increased diversification of life over time, and I can show you failed species, and successful species. I can show you DNA evidence. I can show examples with evidence of, really, everything evolution claims should occur.
In other words, what I can show you is that evolution does not need ID in order to explain all the evidence we have, and the evidenciary gaps are steadily closing. We'll probably never have complete evidence for the universal descent of species, simply because of the nature of what we're looking at. But I can show you a complete theory, with evidenciary backing.
ID, to have any scientific credibility at ALL, is "Evolution plus god." (alter god to whatever). Because there is no evidence for that "plus god," bit, evolution is distinguished from ID. Science deals with positive proof for theories. That is, for something to be established as a scientific theory, it must have evidence in support of it. Every peice of evidence that could be used for ID is part of evolutionary theory... but there's no extra bit of evidence to support "plus god" to distinguish ID from evolution.
In other words, evolution is distinuished from ID by every peice of evidence that does not require "plus god" to explain. Which is, literally, tens of thousands of peices of evidence. So let me start with one: The inheritence of genes from parents is a peice of evidence in support of evolutionary theory that distinguishes it from ID, as there is no positive scientific evidence within that transfer to suggest "god did it."
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
You are ignoring a whole swath of extremely pertinent information in Paul's posts, John's posts, my posts, fugu's posts.
I don't really understand what it is you think you are accomplishing, but I do wish you'd either respond or tell us that you have nothing to say.
I realize it's tough trying to answer 4 different people all of whom are making different points about your posts, but I suspect that this argument would've ended 4x already had you forced yourself to address the points you have chosen not to address.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Can you provide a piece of evidence that supports evolution contrary to ID?"
No I can't, because of the unscientific nature of ID. Any peice of evidence can be claimed by the IDer to exist because of the intelligent nature of the designer.
Well... If we take 'Intelligent' to mean 'a good engineer', ie the usual sense of the word, then you can point to any number of bad designs in nature. Consider the human spine, for example, plainly intended for a four-legged gait. (I'm sure starLisa would agree with that one.) Or the human eye, whose sensory cells are upside-down and therefore less acute than those of the octopus.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but the IDer can simply respond to bad designs in nature by saying "Ahh, but the designer didn't design that part." Or, more classically "Ineffableness of god!"
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, that's why I specified 'good engineer' for intelligence. If the IDer really, really wants to argue for a Stupid Designer, that's their business.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't really understand what it is you think you are accomplishing, but I do wish you'd either respond or tell us that you have nothing to say.
If I answered every individual point made by four separate posters, I'd be writing posts all day and they'd be so long and convoluted that they'd be unreadable. Some points I think I've already addressed. Some points overlap. I try to answer the ones I think are most important that I haven't yet really answered and that I think will most broadly answer the problems you all seem to be having with my position. If there is one particular point you'd like me to address, please distinguish it - but I can't answer ten from four different people every time I post.
quote:Thats because its one of the fundamental underlying axiom's of science. It is not based upon any scientific inquiry... it is the premise upon which science is built.
I don't think it is a fundamental premise of science that laws are unchangeable. For instance, if science said the laws of physics might not apply in the early stages of the big bang, I would not find this inherently unscientific. Science IS based on the idea of using natural laws to explain and predict behavior in the present, future, and past. I think science itself, strictly speaking, is the use of observations to create and test these proposed natural laws. But these laws do not have to be unchanging - they could hold true only depending on certain circumstances being true. A will cause B, when C is the case, but will cease to be true when C is no longer the case. You could choose to make a hypothesis in which there is no C, where A will always cause B, but you could just as easily choose a counterhypothesis in which the law applies to a limited situation. If both hypotheses are supported the same evidence, you can't really reject one or the other. This does not mean only one can be scientific, and it does not mean the distinction between the two does not belong in science. Instead, it means both interpretations are consistent with science for the time being, that neither is supported by science above the other, and that science for now cannot answer the question of which is wrong. In this way, it doesn't need to assume anything it can't logically justify. It informs based on exactly how far it is justified in informing us, and leaves further conclusions to us to interpret.
quote:Yes it does, because otherwise they will come away with the completely unscientific notion that ID has scientific merit. Just as, for some reason, you have.
If by having scientific merit you mean it can stand as a hypothesis until scientific evidence is found to reject it or until a convincing reason is given why it is inherently beyond the scope of science, then yes - this is what I would want students to learn in science class. If by having scientific merit you mean we have reason to think it is true, I don't think they will conclude that unless the ID side of debate can present such a compelling reason, which you all have claimed does not exist to be presented.
quote:ID, to have any scientific credibility at ALL, is "Evolution plus god." (alter god to whatever). Because there is no evidence for that "plus god," bit, evolution is distinguished from ID. Science deals with positive proof for theories.
Firstly, science deals with negative proof against theories. It cannot give positive proof (there is no way to prove something will always hold true), but it can let a theory stand time and time again as long as it does not fail (there is an easy way to prove something will not always hold true - by finding one case in which it is false!)
Secondly, just as ID could be called "Evolution plus God", Evolution could be called "ID minus God". It is (presumably) the same theory but without the intelligent designer. And since science can't prove the "minus God" part, why should it assume it? In short, the same argument goes both ways. I think you may be using Occam's Razor to prevent that argument from going both ways, but Occam's Razor is yet another assumption that I don't think science itself has any business making. We, as we interpret science, can choose to accept Occam's Razor and reject ID. Or we could decide not. And thus science would tell us certain evolutionary processes occur, but cannot determine the exact process of what is driving those processes, whether it is simply natural laws or whether it is intelligence - and the argument could end there.
EXCEPT... ID proponents don't seem to agree that the theory they are presenting cannot be distringuished from evolution in any scientific way. Thus I don't think it could be fair to their position to claim what they are saying is simply "Evolution plus God". They seem to think that the evidence we have is inconsistent with any evolution without an intelligence manipulating it, thus supporting their claim that there must be an intelligence. It is their job to show why this is true, and to convincingly answer the refutations from those who do not accept their reasoning. But they are entitled to present their argument, even if they aren't experts. And if there are enough that continue to see the evidence as sufficient, so much so that it becomes a national debate and laws being passed to support one side or another, then we have a responsibility to teach children what the debate is all about and how it relates to science. And finally, since science is about the evidence being convincing rather than accepting whatever scientists say, we should teach it through explaining evidence, rather than simply declaring correct whatever most scientsts say. If you are correct in that there is very clearly no real evidence, then it should be readily apparent when the supposed evidence is laid out, even if briefly, before students.
quote:The inheritence of genes from parents is a peice of evidence in support of evolutionary theory that distinguishes it from ID, as there is no positive scientific evidence within that transfer to suggest "god did it."
As I alluded to above, the same evidence distinguishes ID from Evolution, because there is no positive scientific evidence within that transfer to suggest god didn't do it. Occam's Razor should not be considered a law of science.
quote:Well... If we take 'Intelligent' to mean 'a good engineer', ie the usual sense of the word, then you can point to any number of bad designs in nature.
I agree that this should be considered possible evidence against ID - and could be easily conveyed even to high school students. It is possible, though, to refine ID around it - but you can only refine so far before a theory becomes unbelievable even if for purely unscientific reasons. Even if consistent with all evidence, I doubt many would accept the existence of a Stupid Designer, for the simple nonscientific assumption that beings capable of controlling evolution shouldn't be too stupid.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you are correct in that there is very clearly no real evidence, then it should be readily apparent when the supposed evidence is laid out, even if briefly, before students.
In my opinion, the supposed evidence should be laid out in front of scientists first, and then they can decide whether or not to lay it in front of students. Since when did students get to decide whether a theory had merit?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I would take it as a personal favor if you would answer my first post on this page. If you need to cut back a bit, just deal with the last paragraph, or link to where you think you've already answered it.
Again, I'm sorry we're kind of inundating you with points to answer, but I do see you as picking only those that you feel you can answer and just leaving the rest aside because you have no good answer and they are just to damaging to your case.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:In my opinion, the supposed evidence should be laid out in front of scientists first, and then they can decide whether or not to lay it in front of students. Since when did students get to decide whether a theory had merit?
They always have. Ultimately, I think it is always a person's own responsibility to determine what they will or will not believe - something that is especially true in any field that is supposed to be grounded entirely in reason. Even if you just believe whatever someone else says, you should remember it is your judgement call to weigh their opinion so heavily.
quote:I would take it as a personal favor if you would answer my first post on this page. If you need to cut back a bit, just deal with the last paragraph, or link to where you think you've already answered it.
Sorry Bob.... I will try to respond to it:
As I understand what you said, you are pointing out the problem that you can add God to any theory and create a new alternative theory that explains all the exact same evidence in a different way. I agree that this is a problem, and an even bigger one than that. I'll go further and say you could add an infinite number of crazy things to theories to explain away the exact same evidence, and end up generating an infinite number of alternative theories for any given set of data. You could say we are all in the Matrix, and that explains everything. You could hypothesize an alternate universe that somehow controls everything that occurs in this universe. You could make even crazier models. I believe it would be correct to admit any of those explanations are legitimate alternative theories, no matter how ridiculous the elements in them seem to be. Science would be right to say it cannot distinguish between them.
So then the first question becomes: Why don't we consider all these models (crazy or not) as equal? I said before that I think non-scientific assumptions are important to science. This is how. We have non-scientific reasons that lead us to favor one particular theory that fits the data other the others. Occam's Razor could be one of those reasons. The simple fact that a theory sounds bizarre could be another. I think in many cases the "beauty" and simplicity of a theory is a big factor into which we accept. I don't really understand how all of that works, but I'm confident it must work something like that because I know I have no evidence against a crazy theory like "we are all in the Matrix", yet I nevertheless do not find myself convinced by it. There must be assumptions I am making, justified or not, that lead me to accept this and live on accordingly until something proves otherwise. It is these same nonscientific assumptions, I believe, that lead scientists and nonscientists alike to favor whatever theory seems most believeable over those that sound crazy or needlessly complicated.
But I think it is important to note that this is different from saying science has rejected those crazier alternatives. They are still valid alternatives. If they are testable then they are scientific hypotheses that could turn out to be true. If not testable, they can still reflect meaningful disagreements between alternative scientific models that could be used to understand and explain how scientific theories fit together. The alternatives continue to be alternatives until proven false - although that does not mean they have to be the alternative we believe, at least not until every other possible alternative is gone.
Then that leads to another question: How is ID any different from these other crazy alternatives that could exist to any other theory? And that answer, I believe, is because people actually think it will prove to be a more accurate theory. You are right that God could cause 1+1 to equal 2, but nobody seems to be concerned about that alternative. For some reason, they ARE very concerned about intelligent designer's role in Evolution, though. That, in itself, distinguishes it from all those other possibilities that nobody really cares to make a big deal about. That makes it controversial, while the method through which 1+1=2 is not controversial.
But why teach controversy just for controversy's sake? Because when students get older, they will be exposed to major controversies and will probably have to make a decision. Chances are slim that the average Kansas resident will one day be asked to decide whether or not they believe God makes 1+1=2. But it is likely they will someday enter into discussions over the relationship between God and evolution. They might even have to pick their politicians according to their position on that. Thus, because something is controversial, it is important to prepare students to understand that controversy. This would be just as true if 50% of Kansas residents thought it was scientifically proven that aliens live in Roswell. If that were true, that theory too would merit some discussion, regardless of how ridiculous the theory sounds. And while we could simply say that scientists reject it and thus it must be wrong, I don't think that is how we should be teaching students that science operates, or how we should be teaching students to judge scientific theories. We should be teaching them to look at evidence. Thus, in my view, the appropriate way to make them aware of a controversy that they will one day probably have to face is by comparing the evidence for both sides, not by simplying telling them what the collective scientific community says is right.
I don't see a problem with putting this in science class because science class is not a sacred thing that is limited only to strictly scientific questions. Even if you don't believe my claim that evolution itself is historical rather than scientific, will you admit there are other unscientific claims discussed in science class? The scientific method itself is something that definitely cannot be scientifically justified. I view science, and all fields, as interconnected with everything else. A graduate of a science class should understand not just science itself but how it relates to other things, and how to apply it to other disciplines. There should not be separate compartments of truth in that person's mind, but rather one truth that integrates all disciplines. This should be the goal of science class - to achieve this with respect to those issues related to science.
So anyways, to answer your question more directly, I think ID is an important issue to teach while all those other God-related hypotheses are not because the ID question is one students will likely confront, while the others are not. Those other hypotheses are still just as possible, but until people start being convinced they are more reasonable than the more dominant accepted theories, they are at the bottom of the infinte list of things that could be discussed.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, thanks. That was a truly great post, IMHO.
I have two answers.
ANSWER 1: Sorry, but there are people who believe all of those things. They just aren't numerous.
I thought you were basing your arguments on an overarching principle, not just numbers of adherents. Your way leaves us to the point where in some communities it'll be critically important to teach ID in great detail while in others it'll be given no time at all. IMHO. This is our current situation and, to my mind, no solution at all. It dooms kids in Kansas who may not be interested EVER to have to sit through ID lessons (in some districts, but not others) while in PA (and most other states) they escape it.
ANSWER 2: 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.
. . . Unfortunately, I think we're likely to be stuck for a good long time in the scenario outlined in ANSWER 1 -- local school boards getting it "in" because they've elected a certain brand of religious folks to decide what will be taught. And that means that ID will have to be taught as if it is the truth or potentially so. And that means that your goal of educating people about the controversy isn't going to happen.
Nor will they particularly well-educated about science, IMHO, if ID is taught as if it is a scientific theory.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Good grounds for questioning results are good ground for questioning results regardless of who is presenting those refutations. It may be that "qualified" scientists are more likely to question results well, because of their training. It also may be that in some situations "qualified" scientists are more likely to fail to question results well, because their training prevents them from seeing certain questions they should ask. Both effects have been demonstrated historically. There is no shortage of scientific ideas that came from the fringes of science - from people who were at first viewed as wackos who did not know what they were talking about. And this is true for almost any acadmeic discipline.
Right, by `qualified' I meant trained in the methods of the discipline. It seems just obvious to me, in the extreme example, that if you don't know math you have no grounds for questioning anyone's mathematical results unless you think that math is not in general a good way to get at the truth.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I thought you were basing your arguments on an overarching principle, not just numbers of adherents. Your way leaves us to the point where in some communities it'll be critically important to teach ID in great detail while in others it'll be given no time at all. IMHO. This is our current situation and, to my mind, no solution at all. It dooms kids in Kansas who may not be interested EVER to have to sit through ID lessons (in some districts, but not others) while in PA (and most other states) they escape it.
Well... yes, it would mean the importance of teaching it would vary by community or state. In some areas it might be unneccessary, for the time being at least. I wouldn't say it "dooms" kids though. From their perspective, I suspect a discussion of ID would be rather interesting. And from a learning perspective, I suspect it would teach them a lot about how to think about theories and how to judge their merit.
As for overaching principles, I was basing this on a number of overaching principles about what I think science should be. It should be something that derives its value from the evidence it presents, rather than from the inherent authority of scientists. And it is something that integrates and applies to other disciplines, not a thing in isolation. I think these principles, if we are following them, include ID as a topic that could fit into a science class - but whether or not it would be a priority enough to justify teaching it rather than some other material does come down to the liklihood that they will confront it in life, and thus comes down to the number of adherents.
quote:Right, by `qualified' I meant trained in the methods of the discipline. It seems just obvious to me, in the extreme example, that if you don't know math you have no grounds for questioning anyone's mathematical results unless you think that math is not in general a good way to get at the truth.
Yes, but there could be a difference between being 'trained in the discipline of math' and 'knowing math'. You can't really question a mathematical result unless you know math, but you might be able to know math without having an advanced degree in the field, or without working in the field, etc. If an amatuer mathematician finds a mistake in some mathematical theory that nobody else has seen, that mistake is not invalidated just because he is not as qualified as those who laid out the original theory. If the mistake can be verified by valid math, then it is correct to question it, even if you are not 'qualified'.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Can you provide a piece of evidence that supports evolution contrary to ID?"
No I can't, because of the unscientific nature of ID. Any peice of evidence can be claimed by the IDer to exist because of the intelligent nature of the designer.
Well... If we take 'Intelligent' to mean 'a good engineer', ie the usual sense of the word, then you can point to any number of bad designs in nature. Consider the human spine, for example, plainly intended for a four-legged gait. (I'm sure starLisa would agree with that one.) Or the human eye, whose sensory cells are upside-down and therefore less acute than those of the octopus.
So next time you design an ecosystem, you do it the way you think is right. Maybe those items are like that for a reason.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Gah, isn't this thread dead yet? I wish starLisa would come back, at least she was willing to argue on actual evidence. Well, up until that started going against her, anyway.
How cool. I don't even have to be here to be the target of smarminess from KoM. I feel special.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh good, you're back. Do you feel like responding to my previous post directed at you, or are you going to prove me right by chickening out?
And incidentally, I'm not talking about ecosystems, but individual animals. For example, just what do you think is the reason for the human spine, so badly adapted (as you are apparently well aware) for bipedal walking?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Premise: God created the universe, man, and everything.
Premise: God is perfect and so He created things perfectly.
Refutation: The universe, man, and everything suck. They're poorly designed, fall apart at the slightest breeze, mean and nasty and brutish and short, etc., etc., etc.
Counter: That's just the way God intended it to be. Isn't that just so perfect?!?
[sounds of heads banging on a wall]
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Premise: God is perfect and so He created things perfectly.
Can't a person that is perfect make something intentionaly imperfect?
quote:Refutation: The universe, man, and everything suck. They're poorly designed, fall apart at the slightest breeze, mean and nasty and brutish and short, etc., etc., etc.
It wasn't until we made it that way.
quote:Counter: That's just the way God intended it to be. Isn't that just so perfect?!?
So what your saying is that you want to understand the creator of the universe with a mind that could possible understand enough to even begin to? ( Thats not a shot at your mental capabilitys, just saying that its impossible)
Posts: 503 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, we are saying that IDers say they understand the mind of their designer. Which is the simpler explanation : The 'Intelligent' designer, for some convoluted reason of its own, does deliberately shoddy work; or evolution just takes whatever works?
In other words, why are you suddenly arguing for a Shoddy Designer? Could it be that you are not really arguing on the evidence, but - gasp - have an outside agenda?
There is a name for this fallacy : Special pleading. If you are attempting to show that something must be intelligently designed because it works so marvellously well, then it is dishonest to turn around and argue that there must be a reason for the parts that don't work very well. Either it's intelligent, or it's not. Make up your mind to one of the two, and stick to it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can't really question a mathematical result unless you know math, but you might be able to know math without having an advanced degree in the field, or without working in the field, etc. If an amatuer mathematician finds a mistake in some mathematical theory that nobody else has seen, that mistake is not invalidated just because he is not as qualified as those who laid out the original theory. If the mistake can be verified by valid math, then it is correct to question it, even if you are not 'qualified'.
Yeah, Tres, but if the people who do have formal qualifications look at the 'mistake', say "No, you forgot this, that, and the next theorem, and anyway you got this sign wrong, and also you didn't integrate xe^x correctly, oh, and 5 plus 3 is usually considered equal to 8", and the amateur goes on arguing, saying "well you're only saying that because I made you look bad! OMG scientist conspiracy!" - that's when people begin using roll-eyes smileys and calling for real, formal qualifications. And I'm sorry, but this is the level of ID discourse today.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the problem is that if ID is right we still can' can't answer it until apcolipse when Jesus comes back. And if evolution is right we will have to have some major break-through in science to anwser it.
Posts: 503 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Vasslia Cora: And if evolution is right we will have to have some major break-through in science to anwser it.
What the heck does this sentence mean? Evolution isn't a question, it is an answer. Granted it's an answer to a specific question, and there are many other questions that Evolution doesn't answer, but those remaining questions, in and of themselves, do not constitute a failing of Evolution. Evolution is the major break-through in science.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
She's using the word "answer" to mean "prove," Karl. In other words, she's saying that you won't be able to prove ID until Jesus returns, and won't be able to prove evolution barring a major scientific breakthrough.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Vasslia Cora: I think the problem is that if ID is right we still can' can't answer it until apcolipse when Jesus comes back.
Wow. You're going to have a really long wait, then.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Refutation: The universe, man, and everything suck. They're poorly designed, fall apart at the slightest breeze, mean and nasty and brutish and short, etc., etc., etc.
It wasn't until we made it that way.
Hmm...let me guess how you were brought up.
You'll have to provide some reasoning, proof, or other evidence that "we made it that way." And blaming it on "Adam and Eve"...well you can if you must, but I was seriously hoping for something, you know, not based purely in mythology.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Did you note the "persecution" statement from the opposition?
This kind of thing will never work to end the debate or satisfy those who wish to see ID mainstreamed into the science curriculum.
And it probably will just give them ammunition to complain about the perversion of religious instruction in major universities.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Score one for the science guys in Kansas-- ID = Religious Mythology
Hmmm.... If some professor created a course called "The Inherent Wrongness of the Iraq War", do you think that would help or hurt the anti-war cause?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't believe this topic is still here. Anyways, this seems pretty off the current string of conversation, but this relates to fugu's suggestion (way back on the 1st page) that the universe simply existed and had no beginning in a similar manner as I had described God existed. I don't think this is a reasonable possibilty considering that the universe is composed of matter. Like fugu said, there are definte limitations to the universe, and matter needs to have come from something. Inanimate matter cannot have simply existed with no beginning because matter does not simply exist.
The only way something could have existed for all "time" is if the thing in question is not made of matter and thus, not limited to it's laws. This can be described as spirit, since God in not made of matter (except Christ, but that's beside the point). I also want to stress the point that there is a difference between a soul and a spirit. A soul is defined as "something which animates life", thus, all living things hace a soul, but only human beings have a spirit.
Furthermore, I don't think evolution is any evidence against the existence of God. Intelligent design refers to the creation of matter while evolution refers to the developement of matter. Evolution seems to be anything but evidence against Intelligent design, and therefore, a God
Posts: 52 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pericles: why must the matter have come from something? Do you have any justification for that?
If anything, that as far as we can tell matter/energy can neither be created or destroyed (despite our best efforts to do both, and not succeeding in the least) seems to strongly suggest that it did not come from somewhere.
Also, your characterization of ID is wrong. I do not know of any proponent of any note who suggests ID involves the creation of matter, only that God causes genetic changes. Evolutionary theory most definitely speaks to whether or not that is scientifically supportable.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, but can you clearly state what Intelligent design argues then please. I'm not sure if we're even arguing the same theory anymore when you stated that ID does not involve God creating the universe.
From what I believe, Intelligent design suggests that due to the complexity of the universe, it is unlikely that it had randomly arranged itself into order. And the current result of the universe can thus be traced back to a first uncaused cause, that is God.
God created matter and the laws of science, arranged the universe into an orderly fashion and set it into motion. I don't see how that is against evolution. God created matter and got it going. He was the first cause of the universe, that does not necessarily mean He is the constantly manipulating it.
Since He created the universe and its laws, evolution, a natural part of our world, is also a by-product of His intelligent design. If I am wrong of ID, please correct me in the most criical fashion.
posted
Actually fugu, the links provided by Paul Goldner at some earlier point in this thread pretty much made it clear that ID is no longer a "pure" theory about genetic changes and the impossibility of "descent with modification" through natural selection to account for SOME phenomena. btw, Pericles, that's pretty much the ORIGINAL meaning of ID.
Nowadays, it has come to mean the same thing as Creationism (and not even the abortive "Creation Science"). That is, everything we see is due to God's activity in constant stream of creation and adjustment, etc.
It is a "theory" only in the sense that religion is a theory rather than a theology. It has ceased to even make a pretense of vagueness on WHO the intelligent designer must be. It's God. The God of Abraham, by the way, and none other.
Period.
I was shocked to find this out, but it is clear to me that the ranks of ID proponents and the responsibility for pushing the "theory" into the limelight has been taken over 99.9% by the Christian Right wing (StarLisa is perhaps in that remaining .1%) and turned into a statement about God, not about science.
(Not that ID ever was about science in the first place, but it at least pretended better than it does now)
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
1. An uncaused first cause does not have to be capital-G God. It could just as well be the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
2. An extra layer is unnecessary anyway. We know the Universe exists; therefore at some point there was an uncaused cause. Why not make the Universe its own cause? Cut out the middleman, as 'twere.
3. You have absolutely no information on the probability of the current Universe, because you have no data sample. 'Probability' has a precise, mathematical definition, but it only applies to things that are in principle repeatable. There are only two answers you can properly give to 'what is the probability of the current Universe' : Either 'insufficient data, not defined' or '100%'. The latter being the result of the calculation 'the number of this kind of Universes divided by all the Universes we know'.
In short, you are using bad logic and worse math to support your particular version of a feel-good Universe. That's fine, but don't expect to get taken seriously in a scientific discussion.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
It really depends on how that course is taught, don't it?
BTW, Pericles, I have a real difficulty with something coming from nothing. I guess we're on the same page, there.
So, where did this "God" thing come from? I mean, the universe is a pretty complicated place--it has to have been created by something. And if this "God" thing you talk about supposedly created the universe, then it must be just as complicated--if not more so. And something that complicated OBVIOUSLY needs to have been created by something else, and from something else.
I mean--come on! We all know; I mean that common sense tells us that complicated things don't just arise out of nothing, and they just can't "have been around for ever"!
So what created this "God" thing you're talking about?
Actually, other than (supposedly) creating this current universe, what else do we know about this "God" thing? How else would we know that it's a "real" thing, and not just some made-up thing? Or how would we know if it was the right thing, and not some poser? What evidence or proof do we have for it even existing? What tests have been performed on it? Pictures taken? Fossils found? Anything?
posted
Thanks King, I’ll try to be more careful in my wording.Probability was a wrong choice. You’re right that this god may not be the God, or a god at all. It may just be a creator.
Ssywak, I actually had a vey similar discussion with fugu at the beginning of this thread. If God was so complex, shouldn’t he/she/it have a creator as well. The simple answer is no, because He having a creator Himself would be paradoxical in His nature. It is helpful to understand the Christian perspective of God.
Most Christians recognize God as an omniscient, omnipotent, and infinite being who exists through His own will. He didn’t come into existence through His will since this implies He must have existed before in order to do the willing in the first place. The only logical answer (albeit not scientifically sound) is that He always existed.
God does not have a creator Himself because that would be a direct paradox to His omniscience, omnipotence, and infinite being. He cannot be these things and rely on another being for existence because then those listed characteristics would not be true.
Another aspect of Christian God that people often forget is that He isn’t a biological nor physical being at all (except for Christ at one point), He is spirit. Since He is not composed of matter, His existence does not depend on laws and theories concerned with biology, physics or chemistry. He is infinite, therefore impossible to fully comprehend by finite minds. If people fully understood God’s nature, He wouldn’t be God since He must not be infinite, and therefore not God at all.
Another example of ID could be that a staircase represents causality or the universe while the base represents God. The base does not rely on another plateau for it wouldn’t be a base in the first place.
As opposed to proof, there are only personal testimonies from witnesses, miracles, and photos that the Vatican has accepted but most people still deny as sound scientific proof. One example of a miracle is that which occured at Fatima. Around 70,000 witnesses all claiming to see the same thing but still people believe that every single one of these people had simply seen the same thing because they wanted to see the same thing. Please note that the crowd was not simply composed of devout or ignorant Christians, there were also scientists, news reporters, atheists and agnostics, and they claim to have seen the same things as those around them.
The reasons why you don’t see them in scientific journals or scientific articles is that either they will be ridiculed by the scientific community or that since the ’miracles’ cannot be explained by science, it must be an anomaly, a mistake that is simply discarded and ignored. They simply believe that this occurence was simply a coincidence that just happened to occur in a place of faith.
Please recognize that I’m not expecting for all these sudden converts due to what I’ve written, but I find it helpful to understand both sides. I much appreciate people correcting my logic as long as they explain why it’s wrong. I simply wanted to tell you about what I believe. I’m not denying the fact that our universe is heavilly based on scientific laws and theories and proofs and etc, I’m simply saying that’s not all it relies on.
posted
I've been checking in on this thread every few pages and I thought Tresopax's post higher up was one of the most cogent arguments yet on why we should bring up ID in the classroom. I don't think we should "teach" it, but I do think there is a place to discuss it.
There is a time in every teaching of evolution where the instructor needs to talk about what has not yet been proven, how evolutionary theories have changed from new discoveries, and what scientists are still debating over. This is the time and place for a discussion of ID and the controversy. Spend two weeks discussing evolution, spend an afternoon discussing alternative theories and popular beliefs.
In the textbook it should be one of those colored sidebars on one page. In this way you address a very real topic -- many people believe in a directed design -- without assigning it equal weight. And students would see how scientific studies have effects in non-scientific aspects of life outside the classroom.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>>Another example of ID could be that a staircase represents causality or the universe while the base represents God. The base does not rely on another plateau for it wouldn’t be a base in the first place.
If the base itself weren't resting on something, it wouldn't be very steady. I wouldn't trust it.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Most Christians recognize God as an omniscient, omnipotent, and infinite being who exists through His own will. He didn’t come into existence through His will since this implies He must have existed before in order to do the willing in the first place. The only logical answer (albeit not scientifically sound) is that He always existed.
That's all very well and good, but your argument for ID then rests on shaky ground. If something cannot exist without being created -- as you insist the rest of the universe cannot -- then you need to explain why God can exist without being created. Otherwise, we clearly have "evidence" of something existing without being created, and therefore it's conceivable that the universe, like God, could have either sprung into being or always existed.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
