posted
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.
Posts: 58 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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? Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
Intelligent Design makes no predictions about nature and clearly fails any true test of the scientific method.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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"
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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."
posted
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. Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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
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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, you need to stop playing Devil's Advocate all the time. I think it's messing with your head.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
