posted
"Paul, ID theory is a specific variant that says specifically that examples of irreducible complexity are evidence of an intelligent creative force at work in developing the critters that appear in our world.
If one wants to talk about a theory that just says "a (or THE) God" did it, then we should probably call it by a different name in order to distinguish it from the (partially) testable theory of ID.
Given that ID depends on findings of truly irreducibile complexity, it is false that the fossil record supports Evolution and ID equally. It does not."
I disagree with your statement about what ID specifically says. See here (The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection)
or the wiki ( William Dembski, one of Intelligent Design's leading proponents, has stated that the fundamental claim of Intelligent Design is that "there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence),
You'll see that irreducible complexity is one concept among many that ID proponents advance to show that life is designed.
Using the definition from IDnetwork, any peice of data could be argued to be in support of ID, regardless of what the data actually is.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would ID proponents need to define, then, what they would consider evidence of non-intelligent design?
I can scan the MRIs of my lower back with the L4/L5 disk herniating out so badly that I could not walk. Would that be sufficient proof of non-intelligent design? What else might suffice?
Here's the problem (at least from what I could glean from the sites that you linked to -- the wiki one wouldn't open, the other two did).
I was referring to the rather recent restatement of ID that was begun in the late 90's (or maybe a little earlier) by a particular scientist (whose name I will have to look up when I get home). That theory was called "Intelligent Design" and, for what it's worth, it was not the vague "whatever Evolution can't explain MUST be evidence of ID" theory that is outlined in the links you provided.
I agree, after reading those two links, that there are people going around selling a theory they call ID which has become the vague and, frankly, nonsensical, thing described. In effect what they have done is try to merge creation "science" -- the easily dispensed with young-earth, God is a trickster -- with what I guess we now have to call "scientific" ID theory in order to distinguish it from this junk.
I think it is telling that both of the sites that did open are political action-type sites rather than anything having to do with scientific discussion. One was apparently set up mainly to do what needed to be done in order to get Kansas' Education System to derail itself.
The other is affiliated with something called "Leadership U" which is apparenlty a fake "university" in which a list of "faculty" is provided based on their Christian stance on learning. To whit:
quote:Welcome to the Virtual Faculty Offices page. Below you will find a list of the personal Web sites of university professors representing virtually every discipline.The professors listed here are men and women who have found that a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ informs and enhances every aspect of their personal and academic lives.
I personally think this is all rather odd. The originator of modern ID was careful to tread lightly on the issue of God. This set up, to me, looks like a 2nd wave adoption of his theory by the Christian activists hoping to use it to gain entre into the science education curriculum.
I can't say that the first guy had "real" ID and these people are just perverting it, of course, because it's been known all along that ID was just another version of creationism anyway.
At any rate, I apologize. I clearly no longer know what ID is or what it stands for, or proposes as major tenets. It indeed does appear that ID can mean anything. And therefor, nothing.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Big mistake on their part, IMHO. It's like the mistake of "inserting" God into the spaces where they currently think Evolution can't account for it. It's the same mistake that pious but scientifically ignorant people have made through the ages, too.
It just forces the human concept of God into an ever shrinking box, instead of getting God out of the box altogether.
Creation Science/ID is probably the worst thing a religious person could promote in terms of an educational strategy that would (or would not as the case may be) provide a bulwark against atheism in the educational system. And, more importantly, against the eventual rejection of all religion by students who feel ultimately betrayed when they learn that the facts and the theory don't align.
Or rather, when they realize that the "alternative" theory is not science and relies on "and then a miracle happens" to explain everything. All this does is, eventually, teach people that miracles can usually be explained (away) by naturally occurring phenomena.
quote:It indeed does appear that ID can mean anything. And therefor, nothing.
This doesn't follow. Plenty of things that are used to refer to many different things do still mean something - democracy, Christianity, liberalism, etc. Even Evolution can refer to a whole variety of ideas, from the fact that populations have beeen observed to evolve in lab environemtns, to the certain theory of how non-matter eventually became man, and so on, although each is united by the common notion of life evolving from one species into a nother. Similarly, although ID could mean a number of different things, all of these share in common the use of an intelligent being to solve percieved holes in evolutionary theory. In order to become a more complete theory, it must be crystalized into more specific forms over time, as usually is the case with any new theory in almost any discipline.
quote:Creation Science/ID is probably the worst thing a religious person could promote in terms of an educational strategy that would (or would not as the case may be) provide a bulwark against atheism in the educational system. And, more importantly, against the eventual rejection of all religion by students who feel ultimately betrayed when they learn that the facts and the theory don't align.
Except that the supporters of ID believe the facts and theory do align, and that people will be convinced of this eventually.
I do wonder, though, why the religious would really want to put God into science. This seems to do little more than open the door to science to tell them how their religion is proven wrong. After all, if God's nature becomes testable, then there would be a secular means to reject certain religions flat out. Of course, I suppose that again these advocates believe their religion is 100% right, and thus could not be proven wrong.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Similarly, although ID could mean a number of different things, all of these share in common the use of an intelligent being to solve percieved holes in evolutionary theory. In order to become a more complete theory, it must be crystalized into more specific forms over time, as usually is the case with any new theory in almost any discipline.
Tres, the problem isn't that it means "many" things. It's that now (according to those websites that Paul linked to) ID explains EVERYTHING with a deux ex machina insertion. This means: 1) It no longer generates testable hypotheses -- something that Meyer's "original" formulation of ID had going for it, but that this generalized version no longer does.
2) It no longer actually generates ANY hypotheses, other than "God did it." Which is fine for a religion, but tends to stifle rather than promote scientific discovery. It simply ceases to even masquerade as science -- something that was clearly the goal of ID from the beginning.
So, because this is "everything" it is, in fact, "nothing" from a scientific point of view. And, based on what I read on those sites, this was done on purpose in order to make ID inclusive of such things as "young Earth creationism" rather than for any reason having to do with scientific discovery.
quote:Except that the supporters of ID believe the facts and theory do align, and that people will be convinced of this eventually.
We have hundreds of years of history on this that should not be ignored. Because the popes fought scientific explanations of natural phenomenon, they routinely picked the wrong (and I do mean PROVEABLY wrong) side of arguments that could be settled empirically. The other thing they did was encourage people to look for God in the special acts that made things "happen" in the universe.
ID is not special in this regard. It is in the same vein -- an explanation that eventually puts faith-based reasoning in a position superior to that based on empirically-determined facts.
Since empiricism works better for describing observable phenomenon, I think we can safely say that eventually ID (as it is currently described on those websites) is going to fail time and time again to provide an explanation that is better than (or even as good as) the one coming from an evolutionary framework. It makes itself irrelevant over time with each new discovery that is explainable with ANY theory that doesn't require the deus ex machina.
This is a guaranteed method of making God irrelevant. The very thing they accuse scientists of wanting to do now. And, ultimately, they will have no-one to blame but themselves because they are the ones forcing God into this particular box.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is interesting what happens when you shine the same bright, seering light on ID details, that ID tries to shine on Evolution details.
I also agree with Bob. When you search for God in the cracks of nature and science, then you miss the bulk of God that is Nature and Science.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:2) It no longer actually generates ANY hypotheses, other than "God did it." Which is fine for a religion, but tends to stifle rather than promote scientific discovery.
This is false. Versions of ID share, at the minimum, an idea that some part of observed evidence we have regarding the origin of life is inconsistent with evolutionary theory. Thus it would have to generate the hypothesis that problems arising with evolution will continue to remain unsolveable without appealing to intelligence. I have not heard any version of ID claim that evolution occurred exactly as mainstream science says, except there is an intelligent designer controlling it in totally unobservable ways - this would not be ID.
quote:ID is not special in this regard. It is in the same vein -- an explanation that eventually puts faith-based reasoning in a position superior to that based on empirically-determined facts.
ID is specifically designed in a way to NOT be in that vein. That's the idea behind it. It seeks to justify an Intelligent Designer through empirically-determined facts. And those supporting it certainly seem to believe that is possible.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Versions of ID share, at the minimum, an idea that some part of observed evidence we have regarding the origin of life is inconsistent with evolutionary theory.
Which parts, specifically? Let's work this out...
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I am getting from this discussion is that ID is not a theory as much as an attack on a theory.
Scientist proposes X. Someone else proposes that X is wrong. That is how science works. To have someone else propose that Not-X is in itself a theory we call Blue is misleading and detrimental to the debate. That is how politics works.
Anything that argues against Evolution is proof of ID.
Anything that argues against ID is just someones lack of understanding about the other facets of ID.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Which parts, specifically? Let's work this out...
You would have to find an ID proponent who studies this sort of thing to get those details. And my suspicion would be that there are different varitions on the theory that dispute different parts.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
So basically you can refute all of our points because we don't really understand what ID is, but if we want to really talk about it we need to find someone who knows what they're talking about?
And up to now I thought the "cork" comments were just mean.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No Tres, that's not how it goes. You made a claim. Either back it up or take it back. If you don't know about something, you don't get to claim that it is true but then back away when someone asks you to substantiate it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, Tres has tipped his hand here. He doesn't really understand anything about the issue. It's just that theoretically there could be some possible way of phrasing ID so that it has substance. Since it's theoretically possible, it must exist even though he doesn't know what it is.
But it's real. At least as real as we are, what with being figments of his imagination and all.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:No Tres, that's not how it goes. You made a claim.
I backed up my claims, namely that ID should be taught in school and that ID is not by nature less scientific than the historical theory of Evolution. But now you are expecting me to back up a claim that I've never made and don't even believe - namely that ID is the correct model and supported by the evidence.
Of course I don't fully understand the supposed evidence for ID. I'm not a scientist, I don't believe in ID, and my school did not have the foresight to teach it to me. I'm not going to put arguments into the mouths of ID supporters as if I am qualified to make their points for them.
If I defended the right to practice the LDS religion, would you then require me to prove to you why the LDS religion is the one right religion? I'm not even LDS, so how could I do that?
posted
"I backed up my claims, namely that ID should be taught in school and that ID is not by nature less scientific than the historical theory of Evolution"
In order to back up the second of these claims, you do indeed have to show "But now you are expecting me to back up a claim that I've never made and don't even believe - namely that ID is the correct model and supported by the evidence."
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That doesn't follow. There are countless scientific theories that have turned out to be false and not supported by all the evidence. Hence, to be a scientific theory does not entail being true, proven, or even supported by all the evidence.
I would have no idea how to give evidence for quantum mechanics, for instance, and it might someday turn out to be false - but that does not mean I can't tell you that it is most definitely a scientific theory and belongs in school science classes.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"That doesn't follow." Well, yes it does. In order to show that something is not less scientific then something else, you need to show how it is backed scientifically, assuming the "something else" has supporting scientific evidence that has been provided (which it has, repeatedly, on this thread).
"ence, to be a scientific theory does not entail being true, proven, or even supported by all the evidence."
While this is true, there is NO scientific theory that is not supported by SOME of the evidence. You've yet to show that there is any of this evidence, so you have yet to show that ID meets one of the minimum criteria for being considered science.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hypothesis: Heavier objects fall faster than light objects.
This theory is not supported by any of the evidence, yet it is still a scientific theory, because it is easily testable through scientific methods and makes clearly observable predictions. It just happens to be a wrong scientific theory.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay... is a falsified scientific hypothesis less scientific than a scientific theory, or just less justified?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, that wasn't very helpful. Let me try again.
To be a scientific theory, something has to be unfalsified, and it has to be supported by the evidence, and falsifiable, and make predictions that can be tested. (Ok, there's more to it then that, but without those, its not a scientific theory). You can make a hypothesis, using the scientific method, and gather data, using the scientific method, but you can't assert, as scientifically valid, a falsified hypothesis. You can assert a falsified hypothesis as having been reached through the scientific method, but you can't say that the hypothesis is currently scientific, because the scientific method doesn't justify it.
So the answer to the question is, because it is less justified, it is also less scientific.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
...and we're back to ID being relegated to an "oh, by the way, there is also ID theory, which has been pushed by a bunch of religious fundamentalists as an explanation for life's existence and development on earth, but it has absolutely no scientific backing or validity. It has no more validity than the Geocentric universe model that was favored prior to Copernicus."
But something tells me that's not what the ID proponents have been pushing for, is it?
Treso, if you agree that the first statement is all that's necessary, then I think we can consider this question answered, and we can all go home.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me ID seems to be one in a long line of holy Crusades designed not so much to change the world, but to solidify support with in the church.
How do you hold so many denominations, so many differences in doctrine and ideals together? You give them someone to fight.
After all, living a truly Christ-like life is hard. Battling Satan is easy--especially when you pick which Satan to fight.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:...and we're back to ID being relegated to an "oh, by the way, there is also ID theory, which has been pushed by a bunch of religious fundamentalists as an explanation for life's existence and development on earth, but it has absolutely no scientific backing or validity. It has no more validity than the Geocentric universe model that was favored prior to Copernicus."
No, because it is not agreed upon that ID has no backing or scientific validity. Many people believe it does, including some scientists, so to say it has "absolutely no scientific backing or validity" would be misleading at best. Instead, the truth should be taught: "ID is a hypothesis widely opposed by many scientists but supported by some other scientists, including many believers in God. Here are the reasons and evidence given in favor of it, and here are the reasons and evidence given to oppose it...."
And again, if you are confident that the reasons so clearly all favor Evolution, then what are you worried about?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tresopax- It has no scientific backing or validity, because the only bits of concrete testable evidence that have been offered up have been refuted. If you ask most scientists who say they believe ID to be true, and are doing work in the area, they will tell you they are looking to find evidence to support the hypothesis, not that they have unrefuted scientific evidence for the hypothesis.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"And again, if you are confident that the reasons so clearly all favor Evolution, then what are you worried about?"
I'm worried that our students, who already have a middling to poor understanding of the scientific method, will be further hindered in gaining an understanding of what the scientific method is.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:VATICAN CITY - The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.
The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.
"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be," the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."
quote:And again, if you are confident that the reasons so clearly all favor Evolution, then what are you worried about?
I'll tell you what I'm worried about.
I'm worried about the insular, alternative epistemology that American social conservatives are building for themselves. They want to be able to believe what their parents believed, and do so comfortably, regardless of the evidence that's actually out there. When honest news media makes that difficult, they create Fox News. When their college professors make it difficult, they get David Horowitz to push for a "student's bill of rights" and hiring preferences for conservative faculty. And when science rocks their self-deceptive boat, they want the "controversy" to be taught.
They don't want to look at the facts; they just want the self-satisfaction of knowing that ID "experts" disagree with the real experts and agree with them.
In reality, the only controversy is between knowledge and ignorance.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've no basis for this, but I think the Church is learning from the bad example set by a lot of the American Protestant groups. It's like they're holding up a mirror to what the Church sort of used to be like. My sense of the ironic finds the idea of the Church being redeemed by their distaste of the authoritarianism and anti-intellectual ignorance of many of the Protestants to be delightful.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It has no scientific backing or validity, because the only bits of concrete testable evidence that have been offered up have been refuted. If you ask most scientists who say they believe ID to be true, and are doing work in the area, they will tell you they are looking to find evidence to support the hypothesis, not that they have unrefuted scientific evidence for the hypothesis.
They think it is scientific and being scientific requires having evidence for it, but then admit that there is no evidence for it?
Michael Behe, who spoke at the trial itself, certainly seems to thinks there is evidence for it.
quote:I'm worried that our students, who already have a middling to poor understanding of the scientific method, will be further hindered in gaining an understanding of what the scientific method is.
But why would discussing a controversy over the scientific method prevent them from understanding the scientific method? I think the reverse is true. A failure to discuss controversies over the scientific method would harm their ability to judge science from non-science. It is through controversy that such lines become clearer.
quote:They don't want to look at the facts; they just want the self-satisfaction of knowing that ID "experts" disagree with the real experts and agree with them.
Yes, but keeping such a debate out of schools only serves to further allow this separation of fact and false faith. You don't refute an idea by suppressing the discussion of it. You don't refute it by mocking it or calling it unscientific or blasting it through all mainstream authorities. If an idea is false, people must be allowed to see for themselves why it is false - including on Hatrack.
This is all part of a larger relativism problem. There is an idea that all people have a right to not only believe what they want but also be correct about it, at least for themselves. This idea is extremely dangerous, and it stems from basic philosophical ideas our society has accepted. However, I don't think stopping the discussion of a topic among children is going to help change that idea. I think the reverse is true - we advocate good judgement by teaching how to compare one "alternate" truth to another, and how to make a judgement about which is better.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Schools only have so much time to devote to certain area of studies. Common sense dictates that they should study those subjects that have been deemed by authority to be worthwhile and as-near-to-fact-as-possible-right-now.
ID doesn't qualify, if I understand things correctly.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I believe that Mr. Sokal must have been one of the co-authors of the TimeCube treatise.
I say...TEACH IT! Teach the controversy!
I also think that we should devote at least two classes a week in Home Economics to teaching TimeCube.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
If you really don't support ID, then just what the heck point is it you are trying to make? And, more importantly, why?
I know the whole Cyrano de Bergerac (Voltaire) thing, "I may not believe in a word you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it," but no one's really stopping people from espousing ID. We're just trying to make sure that it doesn't go where it doesn't belong.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You don't refute an idea by suppressing the discussion of it. You don't refute it by mocking it or calling it unscientific or blasting it through all mainstream authorities.
I don't know about refutation, but you'll certainly help prevent self-respecting people from believing it.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Many people believe it does, including some scientists
Tres. Please stop using "scientists" like it is some homogeneous group. If a nuclear physicist renders an opinion in support of ID based on his/her belief in God, my immediate reaction is to look at that person's background and areas of expertise. If they don't appear to have any background in modern biology, my secondary reaction is to discount their statements because they are talking about a field that they have no expertise in.
Likewise, if a chemist (say Meyers, for instance) creates the modern version of ID theory, my reaction is to look at his background and areas of expertise.
Calling Meyers ANY kind of biologist is a stretch beyond the breaking point, IMHO.
And frankly, if the number of "scientists" with a background in biology who believe in ID is vanishingly small, it doesn't deserve to be taught in High School science class as ANYTHING.
Why? Because the time in High School Classes is so short and so precious that covering anything beyond the basic and accepted facts and theories in any particular field is actually doing a disservice to the students. People who graduate high school and go on to college are expected to have a pretty good grasp of the essentials of the fields that are important for their major or their general studies requirements.
I could see this, maybe, coming up in AP Biology or a class devoted almost entirely to Evolutionary Biology. but it's not even close to earning a spot in a general Bio course. Those courses spend so little time on Evolution now that taking any of that time away for odd-ball sideshow theories is just a disservice to everyone involved.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Common sense dictates that they should study those subjects that have been deemed by authority to be worthwhile and as-near-to-fact-as-possible-right-now.
What authority? What common sense?
Common sense dictates that they should study those subjects that they will find most useful in their lives. Learning to judge what theories to accept or reject in science or science-related topics is a useful, even critical skill. The origin of mankind is an important question to most people, and one they will confront during their lives at various points in their lives. The evolution of life and the process that caused it is critical to an understanding of why biology is how it is today. For these reasons, the ID-Evolution debate is a useful topic to discuss for the typical student. I took Biology in high school, and a minority of the time was spent learning things I actually use. Most of the facts we were taught were quickly forgotten.
quote:I don't know about refutation, but you'll certainly help prevent self-respecting people from believing it.
It certainly hasn't stopped people from believing ID so far...
quote:If you really don't support ID, then just what the heck point is it you are trying to make? And, more importantly, why?
The point is that it belongs in science classes, as a discussion, whether or not it is true, because so many people consider it so important. More so, it is important to include things like this in science class - to fight the common acceptance of science as a dogma. Science is not a set of facts, and it is certainly not a religion. It is a method for examining observations and judging theories on how to explain those observations. The highest priority for science classes should thus be teaching the method of science, rather than the facts of science. 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 not the scientific method, or at least it should not be. And teaching this false lesson to the more religious students is going to inevitably force many of them to reject science, because it transforms science into a religion that is at war with their own. That is not what science is. As a way of examining observations, science only threatens religion insofar as religion is false. But as a set of dogma, or a set of experts who cannot be contradicted, science can easily be viewed as the enemy, in the same way the "liberal media" can be the enemy to so many conservatives. And as a set of dogma, science could very easily become the oppressor of the truth, rather than the truth-seeker - whenever the most accepted scientific theories end up wrong.
This issue is important because it is about more than the value of ID - it is about how to view and treat science.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The point is that it belongs in science classes, as a discussion, whether or not it is true, because so many people consider it so important."
It doesn't belong as a "discussion," because that gives equal weight to a theory that has no scientific weight, and something that has tons of scientific weight. It could easily fit into a class discussion on what scientific metholodogy is, and how ID does not meet the criteria of science, but thats not whats being pushed by "ID in school" proponents.
"But denying the existence of controversy teaches the opposite lesson"
I'm not sure who exactly is denying the existence of controversy. There is certainly controversy over this, but that doesn't mean its a scientific controversy. Literally less then 1% of practicing biologists think ID is a scientific theory. Its probably far lower even then that. The controversy here is a religious/political controversy, not a scientific one.
"This issue is important because it is about more than the value of ID - it is about how to view and treat science."
We should view and treat science as science... and not as religion. ID doesn't belong in a scientific discussion, other then, as one of my professors used to say "A question to be discussed over your favorite adult beverage." Its philosophy, or religion. But not science. And teachers should carefully explain the difference if it comes up in a science classroom.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It doesn't belong as a "discussion," because that gives equal weight to a theory that has no scientific weight, and something that has tons of scientific weight.
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.
quote:ID doesn't belong in a scientific discussion, other then, as one of my professors used to say "A question to be discussed over your favorite adult beverage."
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?
Furthermore, science should not be in the business of deciding which questions are allowed to be asked in science. It only limits the methods through which those questions can be answered. If a biologist (or anyone) thinks a question can be answered through the scientific method, they are entitled to treat it in a scientific fashion. Others can present evidence against whatever answer they come up with to that question, but they should not be mocking them with the suggestion that such topics only belong in casual bar discussions.
quote:It certainly hasn't stopped people from believing ID so far...
That's because it hasn't been universally condemned by the media and powers-that-be.
Consider: does anyone give any consideration to the "dissenting opinions" of Ward Churchill regarding 9/11? No. And not because he's been refuted. Because he's been shouted down.
And rightly so.
quote: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?
Not so trivial... just so contentious and so lacking in objective methodology.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Pardon the elitism, but this is true for everyone but the scientists. 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. And proving that is a tall order (though I think Sokal has done so with critical theory).
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
