|
Weird Science - ID
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:
|
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.
|
Quote:
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 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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
ID (the theory formerly known as Creationism) is a not so smart attempt to get a religious foot into science. Quote:
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 |
Quote:
P.S. - I'm against ID as a whole, I'm just bothered by the occasional statement. |
Quote:
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:
|
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/ |
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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. |
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
On the other hand, ID is not open to empirical refutation in any way whatsoever, therefore it is not science. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
However, there is no empirical research whatsoever that could be done that could strike down ID. That's because ID is not science. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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? |
Quote:
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
I'm done. This whole thing pisses me off enough I start to hear voices from my avatar. |
"Finished Theory" is a contradiction in terms. Evolution isn't law and fact yet.
|
Nope. In the strictest sense, it never will be fact. Neither is any knowledge, theory, postulate etc. But that's just nitpicking.
|
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.
|
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.
|
Quote:
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:
|
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.
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
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. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:17 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project