Weird Science - ID - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

cyrnel · 11-09-2005, 07:40 AM

This is the bad dream come true. I haven't seen much from U.S. sources but Irish and African papers mention Kansas passed their Intelligent Design... initiative? This saddens me. I hoped reason would prevail. Bringing faith into the science classroom insults both.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irland Online

Intelligent design movement wins in Kansas
09/11/2005 - 13:29:10

The Kansas state Board of Education adopted new science standards for classrooms that, more than other such measures approved in the US, go further in challenging Darwin’s theory of evolution and redefine the word “science” itself.

Yesterday’s 6-4 vote by the education board was a big win for proponents of “intelligent design” – those who believe the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.

The new standards cast doubt on Darwinism and defy mainstream views on the mystery of mankind's origins.

The measure’s language redefines “science” so that it’s not limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.

But critics say intelligent design is merely creationism – a literal reading of the Bible’s story of creation – camouflaged in scientific language, and it does not belong in a science curriculum.

They worry that the vote will encourage attacks on evolution in other states.

“This action is likely to be the playbook for creationism for the next several years,” said Eugenie Scott, director of the National Centre for Science Education.

“We can predict this fight happening elsewhere.”

The Kansas board’s action is already part of a national debate on teaching evolution.

In Pennsylvania yesterday, voters came down hard on school board members who backed a statement on intelligent design being read in biology class, ousting eight Republicans and replacing them with Democrats who want the concept stripped from the science curriculum.

The election unfolded amid a landmark federal trial involving the Dover public schools and the question of whether intelligent design promotes the Bible’s view of creation. Eight Dover families sued, saying it violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

In August, President George Bush endorsed teaching intelligent design alongside evolution.

The Kansas board’s vote is likely to heap fresh national criticism on the state. In 1999, the board deleted most references to evolution in the science standards. That decision was overturned in 2001.

But supporters of the new regulations say they will lead to open discussions.

“We are being very brave. We are brave enough to have all areas discussed,” said board member Kathy Martin, a Clay Centre Republican. “Students will be informed and not indoctrinated.”

The board does not mandate what will be taught to public school students; that decision is left to local school boards.

However, it does determine what students are expected to know for state assessment tests. The new standards will be in effect starting in 2008.

Some educators fear pressure will increase to teach less about evolution or more about creationism or intelligent design.

“What this does is open the door for teachers to bring creationist arguments into the classroom and point to the standards and say it’s OK,” said Jack Krebs, an Oskaloosa High School maths teacher and vice president of Kansas Citizens for Science, which opposes the changes.

The new standards say high school students must understand major evolutionary concepts. But they also declare that the basic Darwinian theory – that all life had a common origin and that natural chemical processes created the building blocks of life – have been challenged in recent years by fossil evidence and molecular biology.

If you're still taking science classes and are confronted with this new reality, you have my permission to wear underwear on your head.

politicophile · 11-09-2005, 07:46 AM

How batshit crazy must a theory be before it isn't accepted by the Kansas Board of Education? Biology is a science class. Back in my day, science was an analysis of empirical evidence, not a form of bible study.

alansmithee · 11-09-2005, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicophile

How batshit crazy must a theory be before it isn't accepted by the Kansas Board of Education? Biology is a science class. Back in my day, science was an analysis of empirical evidence, not a form of bible study.

For all you religion haters out there, I would like to see your empirical evidence showing the origins of life. Oh wait, there isn't any. Evolution only shows the process of life evolving after the origin, not the origin itself. But realizing that wouldn't allow people to keep demonizing religion.

And also, ID has nothing to do with religion, anyways. Many noted scientists agree with the principles of ID. But again, that gets in the way of the "OmG, tEh r31iGiOn iZ tEh SuXx0rZ!1!!!!111!!11!1" "arguement" that many people want to put out currently.

highthief · 11-09-2005, 08:19 AM

I have no problem, despite being a proponent of evolution, with a text book saying "Current evolutionary theory is not infallible and there are enough gaps in our knowledge to allow for the possibility of other theories being valid as well" or words to that effect. Evolutionary theory changes all the time.

I do agree that if the ID theory specifically is to be proposed, it has a better place in a religion class than in a science class.

stevo · 11-09-2005, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

Evolution only shows the process of life evolving after the origin, not the origin itself.

I agree. Teaching ID does not mean you cannot teach evolution. Darwin believed in ID. ID just explains the origin of life, it also, to me helps the arguement of evolution. Its hard to see this all as chance, but if life on earth was intelligently designed, well then it is easier to see how evolution came to work out so well.

Pacifier · 11-09-2005, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

And also, ID has nothing to do with religion, anyways.

Then, who is the designer and who designed him?
ID (the theory formerly known as Creationism) is a not so smart attempt to get a religious foot into science.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

Many noted scientists agree with the principles of ID.

Since ID is no science no scientist agrees with ID. Anyone who thinks that ID is a valid scientific theory is no scientist.

Unless of cource you accept alchemy as science too, maybe the "philosopher's stone" wasn't such a wierd idea.
Or your Idea of sex education is telling stories about the stork

Gatorade Frost · 11-09-2005, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacifier

Since ID is no science no scientist agrees with ID. Anyone who thinks that ID is a valid scientific theory is no scientist.

Are you yourself a scientist? If not, I don't see where you have the credibility to make statements about other's beliefs, especially in regards to the scientists who have reason to believe one thing or another. Until there's valid proof of the creation of the universe all angles are open for debate.

P.S. - I'm against ID as a whole, I'm just bothered by the occasional statement.

Redlemon · 11-09-2005, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

And also, ID has nothing to do with religion, anyways. Many noted scientists agree with the principles of ID. But again, that gets in the way of the "OmG, tEh r31iGiOn iZ tEh SuXx0rZ!1!!!!111!!11!1" "arguement" that many people want to put out currently.

I've never understood this statement. Can you provide an example of an intelligent designer that is not God?

Also, the Vatican has rejected ID and supports evolution: Evolution in the bible, says Vatican - The Other Side - Breaking News 24/7 - NEWS.com.au

Quote:

THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.

His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".

His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.

politicophile · 11-09-2005, 08:48 AM

I don't hate religion. I don't even hate creationism. But if you want to teach a religious theory in school, it had better be in a theology class and not in bio.

You may want to take a look at this, as well...
http://venganza.org/

Pacifier · 11-09-2005, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorade Frost

Are you yourself a scientist? If not, I don't see where you have the credibility to make statements about other's beliefs, especially in regards to the scientists who have reason to believe one thing or another. Until there's valid proof of the creation of the universe all angles are open for debate.

science deals with real world events and object, an "inteligent designer" is no real world entity, it is a supernatural entity. Thus ID is no scientific theory.

For further reading i suggest: Philosophy_of_science

Additionally science works with the principle of falsification. ID dodges falsification since it attributes every exceptions to some obscure "designer" (who is not inteligent at all, 'cause his creations contain a lot of flaws....who created the designer anyway?)

ID is no science, it is just an excuse for those who are too lazy to think

alansmithee · 11-09-2005, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlemon

I've never understood this statement. Can you provide an example of an intelligent designer that is not God?

Also, the Vatican has rejected ID and supports evolution: Evolution in the bible, says Vatican - The Other Side - Breaking News 24/7 - NEWS.com.au

Its funny you should say that, because in the article you quote, they state the basis of (one) ID theory

Quote:

Originally Posted by your article

He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

Now, if that isn't ID, I don't know what is. You misinterpreted the title of the article, as well as misinterpreted ID. Evolution and ID are NOT incompatible. ID just gives a reason for the initial spark (which evolution doesn't, and for which there is no empirical evidence). It doesn't give a progression from point A (first appearance of life) to point B (where we are now) and beyond, which is what evolution does. And in this case, the Vatican has supported ID and evolution.

Where the secularists get so lathered up is in confusing the two. Are there people who would teach that the world is only approx. 6000 years old, and that there were never dinosaurs? Yes, there are. And I would agree that wouldn't be scientific. But that has nothing to do with ID. To assume it does is foolish, and a purposeful misinterpretation just to fuel a anti-Christian agenda.

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

I have no problem, despite being a proponent of evolution, with a text book saying "Current evolutionary theory is not infallible and there are enough gaps in our knowledge to allow for the possibility of other theories being valid as well" or words to that effect. Evolutionary theory changes all the time.

I would even go farther than that. You can teach evolutionary theory-it is something being tested, and that (generally) stands up to scientific proofs. But evolution doesn't explain how life initially started, which is what ID is about. And when evolution supporters do try to use it to show the origins of life, they are being no more scientific than those who support ID. Because neither have empirical evidence or can be tested (at this time).

Personally, I think they both should be left out. Talk about Darwin and the evolution of life, but leave out mentioning anything about the origins of life. And if people want to know, a teacher can direct them to literature that discusses the issue, or just say that there is no sure answer. That would skirt the whole issue. But I'm sure neither side of the debate would listen to something like that.

raveneye · 11-09-2005, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

And when evolution supporters do try to use it to show the origins of life, they are being no more scientific than those who support ID. Because neither have empirical evidence or can be tested (at this time).

Incorrect. Scientific research on the origins of life is testable in all the ways that any science is testable, whereas ID is not testable in any way whatsoever, even in theory.

To see some science on the origin of life, check out the Wikipedia article on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

alansmithee · 11-09-2005, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

Incorrect. Scientific research on the origins of life is testable in all the ways that any science is testable, whereas ID is not testable in any way whatsoever, even in theory.

To see some science on the origin of life, check out the Wikipedia article on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

I read that site. I was familiar with many of those theories, some I wasn't. But they all came down to guesswork. None of the experiments could form "life". They could form some basic blocks of what life is thought to be originated from, but that's about it. None of those theories are currently testable. And ID isn't testable currently, either. But this doesn't mean in the future that they will remain untestable.

Redlemon · 11-09-2005, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

Its funny you should say that, because in the article you quote, they state the basis of (one) ID theory

Now, if that isn't ID, I don't know what is. You misinterpreted the title of the article, as well as misinterpreted ID. Evolution and ID are NOT incompatible. ID just gives a reason for the initial spark (which evolution doesn't, and for which there is no empirical evidence). It doesn't give a progression from point A (first appearance of life) to point B (where we are now) and beyond, which is what evolution does. And in this case, the Vatican has supported ID and evolution.

That is counter to everything that I have read on ID. ID, for example, states that the eye could not have evolved because it is irreducibly complex, and therefore the creation of it must have been guided by a designer. I agree that evolution does not explain the initial spark. But, ID is (as I understand it) about the guided design process, not the initial spark.

raveneye · 11-09-2005, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

None of those theories are currently testable.

They certainly are currently testable. All that testability requires is to be open to empirical refutation. They are all open to empirical refutation, therefore they are testable, therefore they are science.

On the other hand, ID is not open to empirical refutation in any way whatsoever, therefore it is not science.

raveneye · 11-09-2005, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

But they all came down to guesswork.

As long as the guesswork is testable, it's science.

alansmithee · 11-09-2005, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

They certainly are currently testable. All that testability requires is to be open to empirical refutation. They are all open to empirical refutation, therefore they are testable, therefore they are science.

On the other hand, ID is not open to empirical refutation in any way whatsoever, therefore it is not science.

I thought that in science, you propose a theory, and showed proof, not that you make a theory and leave it up to people to disprove it. Because my understanding was that you can't prove a negative (unless you put forth a conflicting theory and prove that).

alansmithee · 11-09-2005, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

As long as the guesswork is testable, it's science.

That's the thing-these theories aren't testable currently. That was my whole point.

Jinn · 11-09-2005, 09:52 AM

evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory which explains the limited spectrum of evolution.

ID is not a scientific theory, nor does it attempt to limit itself to "the origin of life." It goes further and tries to apply that we're soooooo complex that we require an an intelligent entity for our creation.

I'm sorry but I've heard this argument so many damn times and it really comes down to one point; the definition of science. The definition hasn't changed in the last 100 years, and last time I checked it had to be REFUTABLE. It has to be TESTABLE. ID has NONE of these.. it has nothing to do with anti-christian motives. I just want SCIENCE taught as SCIENCE, and THEOLOGY taught as THEOLOGY.

Jinn · 11-09-2005, 09:54 AM

Quote:

That's the thing-these theories aren't testable currently. That was my whole point.

Are you unfamiliar with Paleontologists? Anthropologists? What about biologists who study microevolution? (yes, that's right.. they WATCH evolution happen..)

EDIT: Sorry, I find it rude to ask someone if they're "not familiar" with something as it is a subtle attack. So.. "If you aren't familiar with paleontologists, anthropologists, or biological studies on microevolution, would you be willing to read these:"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

Quote:

Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level. These changes may be due to several processes: mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, as well as natural selection. Population genetics is the branch of biology that provides the mathematical structure for the study of the process of microevolution. Biologists distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution, which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a long period of time (and may culminate in the evolution of new species).

Typically, observable instances of evolution are examples of microevolution; for example, bacterial strains that have become resistant to antibiotics. Because microevolution can be observed directly, both pro-evolution and some anti-evolution groups agree that it is a fact of life.

Quote:

Modern whales have hip bones in their flesh that
they do not use because they do not walk. They probably evolved from mammals
that did walk. Paleontologists have found a fossil whale called Pakicetus
that has more developed rear legs. Older whales should look more like their
ancestors if evolution is correct. Without evolution, we could not understand
why whales have hip bones. I should also emphasize that homologous structures
do not have to be used for the same purpose. Whale flippers and human hands
are homologous, but are used in very different ways. Another interesting
fossil is Archaeopteryx. This was a dinosaur that had feathered wings, like
birds. Bird and dinosaurs have a common ancestry. This fossil has teeth,
although no bird has teeth. It has the skeleton of a dinosaur, but the
feathers of a bird. It shows that there was a time when the difference
between birds and dinosaurs was not obvious.

These are all testable things..

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Google "proof for evolution" or "evolution tests" if you're more interested in understanding why evolution IS a scientific theory.

raveneye · 11-09-2005, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

That's the thing-these theories aren't testable currently. That was my whole point.

Then you don't understand what testable means, or what science is. Testable simply means open to empirical refutation. All those origin models are open to empirical refutation. There is abundant ongoing empirical research as we speak that could strike down any of those scientific models tomorrow.

However, there is no empirical research whatsoever that could be done that could strike down ID. That's because ID is not science.

raveneye · 11-09-2005, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

I thought that in science, you propose a theory, and showed proof, not that you make a theory and leave it up to people to disprove it.

You are misusing the terms "theory" and "proof" here. You might try reading the Wikipedia article on science to start informing yourself better about what science is and does.

alansmithee · 11-09-2005, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

Then you don't understand what testable means, or what science is. Testable simply means open to empirical refutation. All those origin models are open to empirical refutation. There is abundant ongoing empirical research as we speak that could strike down any of those scientific models tomorrow.

However, there is no empirical research whatsoever that could be done that could strike down ID. That's because ID is not science.

How could ID not be struck down? If they prove one of those other theories, ID is disproved. And the scientific method requires that a hypothesis be able to be experimented. Now, to my knowledge, there are no experiments that are being done that prove or disprove any of the "scientific" origin of life hypotheses.

alansmithee · 11-09-2005, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

Are you unfamiliar with Paleontologists? Anthropologists? What about biologists who study microevolution? (yes, that's right.. they WATCH evolution happen..)

EDIT: Sorry, I find it rude to ask someone if they're "not familiar" with something as it is a subtle attack. So.. "If you aren't familiar with paleontologists, anthropologists, or biological studies on microevolution, would you be willing to read these:"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

These are all testable things..

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Google "proof for evolution" or "evolution tests" if you're more interested in understanding why evolution IS a scientific theory.

Did you read ANYTHING I wrote earlier? I said that EVOLUTION is testable, and a scientifically proven theory. However, they don't have these things in regards to the origins of life.

alansmithee · 11-09-2005, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

You are misusing the terms "theory" and "proof" here. You might try reading the Wikipedia article on science to start informing yourself better about what science is and does.

Sorry, I typed "theory" instead of "hypothesis. I do know the difference.

politicophile · 11-09-2005, 10:16 AM

alansmithee,

Could you explain how one might test the validity of the intelligent design hypothesis? What sort of evidence would one be looking for?

Also, are you saying that ID is totally wrong when it claims that the Designer influences evolution, as is evidenced by the existence of the human eye? If so, how do you justify supporting ID when it comes to the creation of life?

Thirdly, how do you feel about the Flying Spaghetti Monster Hypothesis and do you think it should be taught in public schools as an alternative theory?

raveneye · 11-09-2005, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

How could ID not be struck down? If they prove one of those other theories, ID is disproved.

No it's not disproved at all. The proponents of ID would just say that that "proven theory [sic]" was just an example of the intelligent designer at work.

Quote:

Now, to my knowledge, there are no experiments that are being done that prove or disprove any of the "scientific" origin of life hypotheses.

Would you like to learn about them? If so, find a library and a biology textbook.

pig · 11-09-2005, 10:28 AM

I think this is one of the worst things I have seen in a long time. If I lived in Kansas and had children, I would relocate to another state. How could I help my child with their homework? How could I tell them that it was important to understand that there could be, maybe, an intelligent designer somewhere who could have, in some way, guided the development of reality as we perceive it? I mean, if we're dealing in possibilities, then do have to teach our children everything that could possibly explain a phenomena, not only the ones we can reproducibly test and verify? Because I can explain gravity with tiny invisible flying hypopotami, that carry airplanes their back, and that pull some objects down the earth at acceleration of 9.81 m^2/sec. You make up any argument you want and explain anything you want; the question is whether you can test /reject / verify using the Scientific Method. I can not begin to imagine teaching biology, and having to try to teach some indistinct mumbo jumbo arising from the fact that we can't fully explain the procession of species/biological system via current evolutionary theories, therefore it is logically reasonable to assume that a deity must have had a hand in it. The fact that evolution is simply an idea, which does not completely explain every nuiance associated with it, is inherently implied in the term "the theory of evolution." Intelligent Design / Intelligent Designer is an inherently theistic viewpoint; this directly implies religion/theology. That's what personified deities are: pieces / aspects of theologies/relgions. Period. End of story.

I have heard some good arguments around the fact that 14-15 billion years is a very short period of time for something as complicatd as human DNA to have arisen via a strict process of random/chaotic mutations, statistically; true. This does not necessitate a personified deity to explain it. It simply means that we don't understand everything about the processes that lead to the development of the world as we currently think we understand it. This was already well known, well stated, and inherent in the study/research in evolutionary development. If we thought we already knew it all, it would be a closed area of study. It is not. It has not been. And regardless of this ridiculous decision and the possible effects it could have on the study of biology in the US, it will remain an area of active research and investigation. I fear that there will be some places which undertake ID research; there already are. Places like the university that Pat Robertson works with link.

I am disgusted.

raveneye · 11-09-2005, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

Did you read ANYTHING I wrote earlier? I said that EVOLUTION is testable, and a scientifically proven theory. However, they don't have these things in regards to the origins of life.

Well then by your logic: Viruses certainly evolve. [HIV, common cold, flu, etc.] Therefore they are alive. But we can create viruses in a testtube. Therefore we can create life empirically. Therefore the origin of life is an empirically testable area of research.

Willravel · 11-09-2005, 10:54 AM

I've tried playing devils advocate for ID and against evolution for years. I had to give up. From a scientific standpoint, ID is theoretically improbable, right on the edge of impossible. There really is no evidence to support it, besides some cultural anthropology that can easily be explained away. Evolution is a probable theory that has a mountain of evidence. If you don't believe me, ask Hanukkah Harry.

pig · 11-09-2005, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I've tried playing devils advocate for ID and against evolution for years.

The thing that really annoys me the most about this whole thing is the insuation by proponents of ID that "evolutionists" claim that that evolution is a perfect, finished theory that completely explains everything that ever was, slaying God and Baby Jesus and Allah, Moses, and Siva too, on the way. That's just crap. Some of the points of ID are valid - the best lies contain hints of the truth. Evolution isn't a complete theory. There is definately "something else going on" than what we currently know. THERE ALWAYS IS. Scientists are just a ready to admit this as "theologists" are to point it out. That's part of being a scientist. Knowing the limitations of your knowledge. But to misconstrue some valid criticisms of current evolutionary theory (which biologists and other scientists themselves will readily admit, bring up, and frequently originate) to imply that a personified deity must be involved, and that this should somehow be taught in public schools is just inane. Seriously...I have got to see these lesson plans. I can not imagine being in front of that classroom. It would be bad enough having to pretend that I thought the Bronte sisters didn't suck ass, or something of that nature. I can't imagine being that teacher.

I'm done. This whole thing pisses me off enough I start to hear voices from my avatar.

Willravel · 11-09-2005, 11:32 AM

"Finished Theory" is a contradiction in terms. Evolution isn't law and fact yet.

pig · 11-09-2005, 11:38 AM

Nope. In the strictest sense, it never will be fact. Neither is any knowledge, theory, postulate etc. But that's just nitpicking.

Willravel · 11-09-2005, 11:41 AM

It will be fact when we prove it conclusivly. When will that be? In several hundred thousand years when we are able to create life out of non life ourselves through controlled evolution. It's not nitpicking, it's science. There are laws like gravity right now that were theories, tested again and again until it became a law. Evolution, if proven, will become law.

pig · 11-09-2005, 12:08 PM

i disagree in the strictest sense. the law of gravity is only an approximation, albeit a very good one as far as we can tell. f = mg? well, not really...they've added other terms, they've created/discovered gravitons, they've posited aspects of wave/particle duality and string theory. the fact is, it's good enough. it explains it well enough that we can accept it. i think the same will be true of evolution. we'll never prove it completely and totally, which i personally think is one of the coolest things about science. you never know it all. but i think that we'll be able to use the theory to explain and predict a ton of things; many of them probably inconceivable at the present time. but like i said, i think you and i are nitpicking semantics here...we mostly agree on this subject, from what i can see.

sapiens · 11-09-2005, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

It will be fact when we prove it conclusivly. When will that be? In several hundred thousand years when we are able to create life out of non life ourselves through controlled evolution. It's not nitpicking, it's science. There are laws like gravity right now that were theories, tested again and again until it became a law. Evolution, if proven, will become law.

Evolution will never be proven fact. In science, you can never prove anything. You just find support or fail to find support.

Also, regarding gravity, there are still theories of gravity and there will always be theories of gravity. Sometimes critics of science use the word "theory" as though a theory is something lesser or weaker than other things. A "theory" in scientific terms is a tool, a good theory is a useful tool.

A good scientific theory is: logically consistent both internally and with other domains of scientific investigation, organizes and explains existing data , makes predictions about new patterns in data, leads to new domains of knowledge, etc. The theory of evolution by natural selection does all of these things.

The explanation of the origins of life as described by evolution by natural selection is fundamental to the theory. The continued empirical support for hypotheses and predictions derived from general evolutionary theory supports its explanation of the origins of life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee

How could ID not be struck down? If they prove one of those other theories, ID is disproved.

That's not how science works. Scientific theories, unlike, ID generate testable hypotheses and predictions. ID is no more testable than my contention that a giant bunny rabbit named Harvey follows me around all day and keeps me out of trouble. Nobody can see him except me. If you can't you prove that he doesn't exist, then he exists. (My contention about Harvey makes no sense).

frogza · 11-09-2005, 01:03 PM

My only issue with this is that parents somehow think that schools should be teaching beliefs. Parents who want their kids to accept/reject religious teachings should be doing that teaching in the home. It is primarily their, the parents, responsibilty to teach moral arguments.

Willravel · 11-09-2005, 01:30 PM

If people want religion taught in school, let the kids take a religion class. i would have loved to learn about Islam, Judism, Hinduism, and other world religions in school. Simply take the history of and general teachings of a given religious body and teach it in a class about world religions. So long as it is taught as a social science or history class, not science.

Willravel · 11-09-2005, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapiens

Evolution will never be proven fact. In science, you can never prove anything. You just find support or fail to find support.

Also, regarding gravity, there are still theories of gravity and there will always be theories of gravity. Sometimes critics of science use the word "theory" as though a theory is something lesser or weaker than other things. A "theory" in scientific terms is a tool, a good theory is a useful tool.

Forgive me, I didn't get much sleep last night. In Biology, we are taught that certian cells have cilia. The cilia are made up of microtubules and are designed to move the cell or move fluids around the cell. Is this a theory? Is there a theory of cilia? Or is it generally accepted as fact by most if not all the scientific community? When I say law, I realize that proof is as rare as finding evidenvce of ID (heh). Does anyone question the cilia? Not really. If you look at them through a microscope, you can see clearly what they are, how they work, and what they are used for. Evolution is a lot closer to that level of certianty than ID.

pig · 11-09-2005, 01:51 PM

willravel,
i personally agree with what i think you're saying - like I said I think it's semantics, with the caveat that we may indeed find out one day that cilia are in fact moving in order to affect sub-nanoscopic quantum leaps, which are related to the tendency of heavenly bodies to rotate around black holes or some such craziness, and the movement of the cell by the cilia is only a secondary effect in the grand scheme of things. or that the cells are actually caused to move by the release of currently undetectable particles I'll call pigions, and the movement of the cilia is only an effect of this movement. Or that they are only waving to each other and saying "Wassupppppp" and that a small tongue-like appendage is displayed when they do so. Ok, I'm being foolish now. Like I said, in the strict sense, all knowledge is just a theory. It's just a question of how useful that theory is. we can never know anything as an absolute "oh yes huh it is so" fact. we just use that term for shorthand, because some theories seem to hold so well in normal circumstances that we inherently assume within language. At least, that's the way I understand it.

11-09-2005, 07:46 AM	#2 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	How batshit crazy must a theory be before it isn't accepted by the Kansas Board of Education? Biology is a science class. Back in my day, science was an analysis of empirical evidence, not a form of bible study. __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

11-09-2005, 08:19 AM	#4 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	I have no problem, despite being a proponent of evolution, with a text book saying "Current evolutionary theory is not infallible and there are enough gaps in our knowledge to allow for the possibility of other theories being valid as well" or words to that effect. Evolutionary theory changes all the time. I do agree that if the ID theory specifically is to be proposed, it has a better place in a religion class than in a science class. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

11-09-2005, 08:48 AM	#9 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	I don't hate religion. I don't even hate creationism. But if you want to teach a religious theory in school, it had better be in a theology class and not in bio. You may want to take a look at this, as well... http://venganza.org/ __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

11-09-2005, 09:52 AM	#19 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory which explains the limited spectrum of evolution. ID is not a scientific theory, nor does it attempt to limit itself to "the origin of life." It goes further and tries to apply that we're soooooo complex that we require an an intelligent entity for our creation. I'm sorry but I've heard this argument so many damn times and it really comes down to one point; the definition of science. The definition hasn't changed in the last 100 years, and last time I checked it had to be REFUTABLE. It has to be TESTABLE. ID has NONE of these.. it has nothing to do with anti-christian motives. I just want SCIENCE taught as SCIENCE, and THEOLOGY taught as THEOLOGY. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

11-09-2005, 10:16 AM	#26 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	alansmithee, Could you explain how one might test the validity of the intelligent design hypothesis? What sort of evidence would one be looking for? Also, are you saying that ID is totally wrong when it claims that the Designer influences evolution, as is evidenced by the existence of the human eye? If so, how do you justify supporting ID when it comes to the creation of life? Thirdly, how do you feel about the Flying Spaghetti Monster Hypothesis and do you think it should be taught in public schools as an alternative theory? __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

11-09-2005, 10:28 AM	#28 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	I think this is one of the worst things I have seen in a long time. If I lived in Kansas and had children, I would relocate to another state. How could I help my child with their homework? How could I tell them that it was important to understand that there could be, maybe, an intelligent designer somewhere who could have, in some way, guided the development of reality as we perceive it? I mean, if we're dealing in possibilities, then do have to teach our children everything that could possibly explain a phenomena, not only the ones we can reproducibly test and verify? Because I can explain gravity with tiny invisible flying hypopotami, that carry airplanes their back, and that pull some objects down the earth at acceleration of 9.81 m^2/sec. You make up any argument you want and explain anything you want; the question is whether you can test /reject / verify using the Scientific Method. I can not begin to imagine teaching biology, and having to try to teach some indistinct mumbo jumbo arising from the fact that we can't fully explain the procession of species/biological system via current evolutionary theories, therefore it is logically reasonable to assume that a deity must have had a hand in it. The fact that evolution is simply an idea, which does not completely explain every nuiance associated with it, is inherently implied in the term "the theory of evolution." Intelligent Design / Intelligent Designer is an inherently theistic viewpoint; this directly implies religion/theology. That's what personified deities are: pieces / aspects of theologies/relgions. Period. End of story. I have heard some good arguments around the fact that 14-15 billion years is a very short period of time for something as complicatd as human DNA to have arisen via a strict process of random/chaotic mutations, statistically; true. This does not necessitate a personified deity to explain it. It simply means that we don't understand everything about the processes that lead to the development of the world as we currently think we understand it. This was already well known, well stated, and inherent in the study/research in evolutionary development. If we thought we already knew it all, it would be a closed area of study. It is not. It has not been. And regardless of this ridiculous decision and the possible effects it could have on the study of biology in the US, it will remain an area of active research and investigation. I fear that there will be some places which undertake ID research; there already are. Places like the university that Pat Robertson works with link. I am disgusted. __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

11-09-2005, 10:54 AM	#30 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I've tried playing devils advocate for ID and against evolution for years. I had to give up. From a scientific standpoint, ID is theoretically improbable, right on the edge of impossible. There really is no evidence to support it, besides some cultural anthropology that can easily be explained away. Evolution is a probable theory that has a mountain of evidence. If you don't believe me, ask Hanukkah Harry. Last edited by Willravel; 11-09-2005 at 10:58 AM..

11-09-2005, 11:32 AM	#32 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	"Finished Theory" is a contradiction in terms. Evolution isn't law and fact yet.

11-09-2005, 11:38 AM	#33 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	Nope. In the strictest sense, it never will be fact. Neither is any knowledge, theory, postulate etc. But that's just nitpicking. __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

11-09-2005, 11:41 AM	#34 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	It will be fact when we prove it conclusivly. When will that be? In several hundred thousand years when we are able to create life out of non life ourselves through controlled evolution. It's not nitpicking, it's science. There are laws like gravity right now that were theories, tested again and again until it became a law. Evolution, if proven, will become law.

11-09-2005, 12:08 PM	#35 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	i disagree in the strictest sense. the law of gravity is only an approximation, albeit a very good one as far as we can tell. f = mg? well, not really...they've added other terms, they've created/discovered gravitons, they've posited aspects of wave/particle duality and string theory. the fact is, it's good enough. it explains it well enough that we can accept it. i think the same will be true of evolution. we'll never prove it completely and totally, which i personally think is one of the coolest things about science. you never know it all. but i think that we'll be able to use the theory to explain and predict a ton of things; many of them probably inconceivable at the present time. but like i said, i think you and i are nitpicking semantics here...we mostly agree on this subject, from what i can see. __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

11-09-2005, 01:03 PM	#37 (permalink)
frogza Registered User Location: Right Here	My only issue with this is that parents somehow think that schools should be teaching beliefs. Parents who want their kids to accept/reject religious teachings should be doing that teaching in the home. It is primarily their, the parents, responsibilty to teach moral arguments.

11-09-2005, 01:30 PM	#38 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	If people want religion taught in school, let the kids take a religion class. i would have loved to learn about Islam, Judism, Hinduism, and other world religions in school. Simply take the history of and general teachings of a given religious body and teach it in a class about world religions. So long as it is taught as a social science or history class, not science.

11-09-2005, 01:51 PM	#40 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	willravel, i personally agree with what i think you're saying - like I said I think it's semantics, with the caveat that we may indeed find out one day that cilia are in fact moving in order to affect sub-nanoscopic quantum leaps, which are related to the tendency of heavenly bodies to rotate around black holes or some such craziness, and the movement of the cell by the cilia is only a secondary effect in the grand scheme of things. or that the cells are actually caused to move by the release of currently undetectable particles I'll call pigions, and the movement of the cilia is only an effect of this movement. Or that they are only waving to each other and saying "Wassupppppp" and that a small tongue-like appendage is displayed when they do so. Ok, I'm being foolish now. Like I said, in the strict sense, all knowledge is just a theory. It's just a question of how useful that theory is. we can never know anything as an absolute "oh yes huh it is so" fact. we just use that term for shorthand, because some theories seem to hold so well in normal circumstances that we inherently assume within language. At least, that's the way I understand it. __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style