Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Half a brain (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Half a brain
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- Eight families have filed a lawsuit against a school district that is requiring students to learn about alternatives to the theory of evolution, claiming the curriculum violates the separation of church and state.

The ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State said the lawsuit is the first to challenge whether public schools should teach "intelligent design," which holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by some higher power. The two organizations are representing the parents in the federal lawsuit.

The Dover Area School District voted 6-3 on October 18 to include intelligent design in the ninth-grade science curriculum, in what is believed to be the first such requirement in the country.

The American Civil Liberties Union contends intelligent design is a more secular form of creationism -- a biblical-based view that credits the origin of species to God -- and may violate the constitutional separation of church and state.

One of the parents bringing suit, Tammy Kitzmiller, expressed concern that the school board would mandate the teaching of "something that isn't accepted as science." Kitzmiller has two children who attend Dover High School, where teachers of ninth-grade biology are expected to discuss evolution sometime next month.

School officials had no immediate comment on the lawsuit.

At least one other district has recently become embroiled in federal litigation over teaching evolution. A federal judge in Georgia is considering the constitutionality of a suburban Atlanta district's decision to include a warning sticker about evolution in biology textbooks.

Two of the three dissenting board members have resigned in protest. Angie Yingling, a board member who originally supported the policy, said she later reconsidered her vote.

"Anyone with half a brain should have known we were going to be sued," she said. "You can't do this."


Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know what? I can live with the "teaching of intelligent design". I'm assuming a study period in a US high school is 45 minutes, same as here.

Pick any one biology lesson in the ninth grade.

Have the teacher write the following on the blackboard: "The theory of 'intelligent design' holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by some higher power" and read it out loud.


Then have him or her write and read the following: "However, this is NOT a scientific theory, as it can neither be proved or disproved through experimentation or observation, and is therefore a matter of personal faith"

Have the students copy this to their notebooks.

Whole thing would take 5 minutes, but lets devote an entire 45 minute lesson to discussing the difference between science and faith. When the next test comes up, have it include the question: "Why is 'Intelligent Design' not a scientific theory?"

End of story, and the obsessive bible thumpers won't be able to say the poor brainwashed chiildren are being denied access to the very idea of god.

What say ye?

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I know this isn't really the topic, but since this topic is warmed-over leftovers. How many scientists rely on "faith" that is not the religious kind? How many have faith in their hypothesis before they try to prove it? One would presume, almost all of them. How many advance scientific ideas that are not truly subject to the scientific method? Elements of psychology spring to mind, but aren't there others? Sociology for instance?

Maybe we can take a fresh look at how much "faith" is presented as "science" outside of religion...

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yikes, that one's a minefield, Drake.

You ould stir up a hornet's nest just mentioning the terms "global warming" and "faith" in the same paragraph.

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Naldiin
Member
Member # 1840

 - posted      Profile for Naldiin     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Meh, the debate over evolution simply isn't that important in my mind, however I think anyone taking science as dogma is being foolish. This is the same science that 80 years ago told us you could judge intelligance by the bumps on a person's head. And the same science that had to admit a few years ago that well over half of the matter in the universe (Dark Matter) is not observable by any scientific means. It has to be there. It has to exist. We just have no idea where/how/when/what, and absolutely no way of finding out.
Posts: 239 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Naldiin is right. The teaching of any scientific theory should include stressing that this is just the best we know today, and subject to utter change tomorrow. There should also be a stressing of the difference between the teaching of scientific theories like gravity, which are provable by the fact that we use them to fly even if we could discover tomorrow that we didn't quite get it all right before, and evolution, the truth of which which is less demontrable.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It should also be stressed the criteria of how a scientific theory becomes accepted. My main beef with ID and creationism is that, so far, they have not met these criteria.

Although faith does come into play for those who advocate a new hypothesis, what makes it a theory is when you get most of the experts to agree there is something to it, even though they may not want to. It is achieving that level of proof based on data that makes science so compelling.

[ December 15, 2004, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TCB
Member
Member # 1677

 - posted      Profile for TCB         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Naldiin said:
quote:
This is the same science that 80 years ago told us you could judge intelligance by the bumps on a person's head.
I'd thought that phrenology was discredited by the scientific community since the mid-1800s. I have a hard time believing that such psuedo-science offered without an ounce of proof could be accepted by a reputable scientific journal today. Science is done in a far more disciplined fashion today than it was in the 19th century.

You're correct that physicists don't know what dark matter is, but I don't see how that's an indictment of science. They don't have proof of what it is, so they don't claim to know what it is. That's how science works these days.

Posts: 824 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Godot
Member
Member # 2099

 - posted      Profile for Godot   Email Godot   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Drake:
How many scientists rely on "faith" that is not the religious kind? How many have faith in their hypothesis before they try to prove it? One would presume, almost all of them.

Faith in a hypothesis is not the same as religious faith. A hypothesis is a tentative theory that, if verified, helps to explain certain facts or phenomena. Scientific faith is simply the belief that they can find repeatable proof for their hypothesis. Religious faith, to me, is the safe belief in something that cannot be disproved and is therefore unchallengeable.

quote:
How many advance scientific ideas that are not truly subject to the scientific method?
Then, be definition, they do not fall in the category of “science”.
Posts: 444 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aupton15
Member
Member # 1771

 - posted      Profile for aupton15   Email aupton15   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Most research in psychology today adheres to the scientific method to a much greater degree than the theorists who support intelligent design. There are some fringe groups who might still be basing everything on the writings of Freud, but that is not the case on the whole. Psychology is a young science, and there are some practitioners of this science who aren't very good at it. But as a community, psychological scientists rigorously defend their hypotheses with results, and question other theories with the same effort. It's not perfect yet, but science is being practiced by most of psychology.
Posts: 1445 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aupton15
Member
Member # 1771

 - posted      Profile for aupton15   Email aupton15   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As far as intelligent design goes, I don't know why anyone would want it in a science class. If it must be included Ricky's idea is a pretty good one. I'm beginning to think that part of science education in schools should be the history of science. What mistakes have been made, how does it work. The focus now seems to be on the results rather than the process, and in my opinion the process is much more important. I bet this thread goes on for five pages.
Posts: 1445 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that intelligent design should be taught on the same day as Occam's Razor.
Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In public schools, should we teach either/both:

(a) History of (Comparative) Religion
(b) History of Science

??

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Both!
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aupton15
Member
Member # 1771

 - posted      Profile for aupton15   Email aupton15   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Two thumbs up!
Posts: 1445 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mr Peabody
Member
Member # 2203

 - posted      Profile for Mr Peabody         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What the "intelligent design" camp are arguing about in the public forum is to quit using the US government education processes to restrict the discussion of the universal principles of good and evil (or right and wrong) by having it declaring as a void subject in the science classes of our schools. Not everyone likes to even think or talk about the concepts of "Eternal consequences of your actions" pointed to by all the major religions of the earth. The authors of the Constitution knew this. And they also knew many of them loved to talk about it, and did not want their government, which they were designing, to side with or convey power to any one of the then arguing (Church) parties, but to allow each individual to think it out (or go fishing instead) for themselves. Freedom (of religion)! NOT stifling of inquiry! So, therefore if they did not want to end the discussion then, why should we allow a collection of Biologist (Baptists or what ever you want to call your church) try to get the court system to convey the power to themselves today? Just because the text book writing Biologists (Baptists or what ever you want to call your church) are tired of hearing others continue to reflect on the concepts of “Eternal consequences” (which to me is very unscientific!) does not allow them to VETO BY SHOUTING HOW DARWIN WAS ONTO SOMETHING. Now you have to admit they are crafty in trying to declare that the “Study of Good and Evil” is a Church. It is not! Church just happens to be the name of the gathering location for people who like to continue to study the concept and dynamics of “Eternal Consequence”. It is the department found between math and ethics ;-).
Posts: 9 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
nemes_ie
Member
Member # 804

 - posted      Profile for nemes_ie   Email nemes_ie   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On the general science vs faith thing:

Science that is taught should be the best available theory. However, it does, maybe, need to be stated more often that this is only a theory and is subject to correction.

However, from where I'm sitting, faith generally states that the particular belief in question is the only, final , absolute theory. This should be a fairly painless way to distinguish the two.

Any thoughts?

Posts: 312 | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ikemook
Member
Member # 1519

 - posted      Profile for Ikemook   Email Ikemook   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mr. Peabody,

Discussions of right and wrong ARE void in science classrooms, because those science classes are there to teach SCIENCE. If you want to discuss ethics or morality, make a different class. All "biologists" (and it's really seems to be parents here, not biologists) are asking is that you teach actual science, rather than pseudoscience, in science classrooms.

And what the hell does eternal consequences have to do with either intelligent design or evolution??

And for the record: History and philosophy of science needs to be stressed more, as does emphasizing that science is a PROCESS, a means to an end, and not an end in and of itself. Too many people come out of public schooling having this weird idea that science is somehow perfect, and right every time, when in fact it isn't always right (at least, in the short term). So when someone points out a mistake science has made, or a flaw, these same people go haywire, as if science making a mistake is some dramatic, terrible thing.

Sincerely and Respectfully,

David Carlson

Posts: 415 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
musket
Member
Member # 552

 - posted      Profile for musket         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Peabody:
What the "intelligent design" camp are arguing about in the public forum is to quit using the US government education processes to restrict the discussion of the universal principles of good and evil (or right and wrong) by having it declaring as a void subject in the science classes of our schools. Not everyone likes to even think or talk about the concepts of "Eternal consequences of your actions" pointed to by all the major religions of the earth. The authors of the Constitution knew this. And they also knew many of them loved to talk about it, and did not want their government, which they were designing, to side with or convey power to any one of the then arguing (Church) parties, but to allow each individual to think it out (or go fishing instead) for themselves. Freedom (of religion)! NOT stifling of inquiry! So, therefore if they did not want to end the discussion then, why should we allow a collection of Biologist (Baptists or what ever you want to call your church) try to get the court system to convey the power to themselves today? Just because the text book writing Biologists (Baptists or what ever you want to call your church) are tired of hearing others continue to reflect on the concepts of “Eternal consequences” (which to me is very unscientific!) does not allow them to VETO BY SHOUTING HOW DARWIN WAS ONTO SOMETHING. Now you have to admit they are crafty in trying to declare that the “Study of Good and Evil” is a Church. It is not! Church just happens to be the name of the gathering location for people who like to continue to study the concept and dynamics of “Eternal Consequence”. It is the department found between math and ethics ;-).

What in the world are you talking about? [Confused]

[ December 17, 2004, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: musket ]

Posts: 1524 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's the rub. The "Intelligent design" crowd don't want just that kids be taught the idea that an intelligent being designed the unniverse - but that this is a specific intelligent being, who wants specific things of us as humans, which are knowable

We godless libruls will continue to reject that. That's religion. We do not preach religion in our public schools. Don't like it? Find a new new world and start a new country. This is America, jack.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
nemes_ie
Member
Member # 804

 - posted      Profile for nemes_ie   Email nemes_ie   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Right on, RickyB
Posts: 312 | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
RB:

It is not only 'godless libruls' who would agree with your premise but also a few godly conservatives.

Happy Lugh's, Amalthaon's, Zeus's, Apollo's, Shamish's, Re's, Aten's, Sol's (et alia)'s birthday to all, BTW, so Happy New Year 2781 (just dating it from the earliest actually tracked date).

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JLMyers
Member
Member # 1983

 - posted      Profile for JLMyers   Email JLMyers   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is just a poorly disguised attempt by the religious right to insist their ridiculous ideas about creation be taught in public schools. It's not science. It shouldn't be taught in science or biology class. End of story.

KE

Posts: 2007 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
John, although I agree with your thesis completely, this is exactly the kind of disparaging remark that prompted me to call you on your anti-religious sentiments a while ago. Seriously, creationism as "ridiculous ideas"?

Maybe you meant ridiculous in the context of science or biology class, but that's not how it reads...

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JLMyers
Member
Member # 1983

 - posted      Profile for JLMyers   Email JLMyers   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Creation as I have read about it in the Bible? Adam and Eve? The Earth being 4, 6 thousands years old? In light of the scientific evidence these ideas seem ridiculous to me. I'm sorry I don't remember you calling me on my anti-religious ideas, where was that? I probably don't remember because I probably took no offense as I do harbor very anti-religious ideas. Very, very, anti-organized religion. And if they want them taught in science class, they should use the scientific method to prove their ideas.

KE

Posts: 2007 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Intelligent design makes sense to a point. The odds on life evolving on a specific planet are pretty slim. The odds of life producing human beings is even more slim. Ergo, either we were lucky, or there is a force out there.

To prove either way is (afaik) impossible by scientific standards. I don't have a problem with Intelligent Design being taught - not as a religious exercise, but as an exercise in probabilities.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aupton15
Member
Member # 1771

 - posted      Profile for aupton15   Email aupton15   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sure I think probabilities have a place in any attempt at explaining how we got here. Perhaps the most important is the near-zero probability of our ever understanding how it happened exactly.
Posts: 1445 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's the rub. The "Intelligent design" crowd don't want just that kids be taught the idea that an intelligent being designed the unniverse - but that this is a specific intelligent being, who wants specific things of us as humans, which are knowable.
It depends what part of the "intelligent design crowd" you're referring to. I, a card carrying member, would simply rather it be taught that the origins of the universe and life are, at present, unknown, and that the notion that they are the product of intelligent design is absolutely plausable. That's not imposing a religious view on anyone. Too many kids come out of HS with the idea that science disproves religion.

quote:
We godless libruls will continue to reject that. That's religion. We do not preach religion in our public schools. Don't like it? Find a new new world and start a new country. This is America, jack.
Yes, because the intelligensia has somehow determined that a school teacher mentioning the possibility of a god is somehow tantamount to Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion. The godless liberals bother me, but the brainless ones bother me even more.

This is America, and we used to believe here in freedom of speech and religion. This means that religious speech is not favored or discriminated against, and that it should properly be considered alongside all other forms of speech and thought on its objective merits, in public schools and elsewhere.

If it's determined that the account of creation given in Genesis isn't scientifically valid, fine. That doesn't mean that we can't even *mention* the *possibility* of intelligent design, particularly *alongside other theories*. This is discrimination, pure and simple, and liberals should be mad as all hell about it. I don't want to find a new world and start a new country.

I want discrimination against the free expression of religious thought halted. I don't want a new country, I just want mine back. This is America, jack.

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JLMyers
Member
Member # 1983

 - posted      Profile for JLMyers   Email JLMyers   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nobody is saying teachers shouldn't be able to voice their beliefs. Just that they shouldn't teach them in our public schools. And they damn sure shouldn't try to pass them off as science.

quote:
If it's determined that the account of creation given in Genesis isn't scientifically valid, fine. That doesn't mean that we can't even *mention* the *possibility* of intelligent design, particularly *alongside other theories*. This is discrimination, pure and simple, and liberals should be mad as all hell about it. I don't want to find a new world and start a new country.

It has been determined! And Evolution isn't some "other theory". The two aren't comparable. One is science the other is not. How nice of you to tell us what we should be mad about. We would be mad if someone was restriciting your right to free speech, or freedom to practice whatever religion you happen to believe in, but freedom of speech doesn't include religious teachers preaching in the class room or teaching of unscientific ideas in science class.

Plausable? Yeah, I guess anything is possible. Teach it as philosophy or comparative religion.

KE

Posts: 2007 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Paladine:
If it's determined that the account of creation given in Genesis isn't scientifically valid, fine. That doesn't mean that we can't even *mention* the *possibility* of intelligent design, particularly *alongside other theories*. This is discrimination, pure and simple, and liberals should be mad as all hell about it. I don't want to find a new world and start a new country.

quote:
Originally posted by God:
And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to seperate water from water. So God made the expanse and seperated the waters under the expanse from the waters above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky". And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day.

Well, I'm fairly certain that there is no expanse of water in the stratosphere. I'm similarly sure that the scientific community has ruled out the possibility of the world and all it's animals and all humanity being created in 6 days.

The fact of the matter is, Creationism isn't science. There is no objective basis for the beliefs of the Creationists. There has been no rigorous, verifiable testing of the theories presented by creationists.

In fact, creationists do not positively assert anything. They simply say "Science doesn't know everything yet, so don't rule out God." That sort of belief system does not belong in a science classroom. Science is a class for objective beliefs and verifiable data. The bible and creationism offer neither of those.

You want to teach it in philosophy? Fine by me. You can even teach it in world history or relgion class, hell, teach it in any class BUT science and mathematics.

Math and Science class both carry an unwritten contract of verifiablity and objectivity. Creationism has neither. To suggest that it does (by teaching it in a science class) is misleading for the students, and really just isn't good education practice.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, perhaps you should've read my post a bit more carefully before pouncing. I took great pains not to say that a Biblical approach to Creationist philosophy should be taught in science classes. What I said is that the possibility of intelligent design should be presented. This does *NOT* mean that the presentation would have to be *at all* consistent with Genesis.

It would merely have to be something along the lines of: "We do not know how life came to be or how the universe began. Some postulate that these were random occurances. Others suggest that there could be an intelligent design behind the universe which accounts for its beginning and the creation of life.

To date, no scientific theory has been able to explain the origin of life. Statistically, it is extremely unlikely that life could have been spontaneously produced by blind chance. Despite this, there is no physical evidence or scientific data (save the absence of a viable alternative) that suggests the presence of intelligent design. It is an interesting question that will doubtless be the topic of years of further study and research."

This seems fair, scientific, and perfectly valid. You can quibble over the exact wording of what I put in there, but I think the general concept I've presented is perfectly fair to all parties.

Science does carry an "unwritten contract of objectivity", as you put it. Accordingly, when presented with two alternatives, neither of which can be proven or disproven, science does a disservice to its students when it claims (by inclusion of the one and exclusion of the other) that one theory is somehow inherently more valid than the other, based solely on the artificial contrast created between belief in intelligent design and belief in rational science.

It is not by accident that most leading scientists are themselves religious men, or that Hawkings believes in a divine being, or that Einstein did. But this is a separate argument. The main point is that teaching intelligent design as a possibility for the origins of life and the beginning of the universe is not outlandish or unscientific. Greater scientific minds than yours or mine can and do attest to that.

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Paladine:
Well, perhaps you should've read my post a bit more carefully before pouncing. I took great pains not to say that a Biblical approach to Creationist philosophy should be taught in science classes. What I said is that the possibility of intelligent design should be presented. This does *NOT* mean that the presentation would have to be *at all* consistent with Genesis.

Well, I'm not intimately familiar with your particular brand of Creationism, or Intellegent Design, and that's the problem. There is no specific theory intellegent design puts forward, and there is no verifiable or objective or witnessable or repeatable event that suggests intellegent design.

quote:
Originally posted by Paladine:
It would merely have to be something along the lines of: "We do not know how life came to be or how the universe began. Some postulate that these were random occurances. Others suggest that there could be an intelligent design behind the universe which accounts for its beginning and the creation of life.

To date, no scientific theory has been able to explain the origin of life. Statistically, it is extremely unlikely that life could have been spontaneously produced by blind chance. Despite this, there is no physical evidence or scientific data (save the absence of a viable alternative) that suggests the presence of intelligent design. It is an interesting question that will doubtless be the topic of years of further study and research."

Well, to squabble over the specific points, statistically life isn't extremely unlikely.

Here's a poker example: The chance of me picking up a deck and dealing a royal flush is pretty low.

Statistically "extremely unlikely".

However, if I was to deal out a deck for each planet in the universe, I bet I'd get a royal flush or two.

See what I'm saying?

Anyway, I don't think you'll squabble over that detail, it wasn't really central to your point. It's just something that's bothered me about that statistics argument for a while.

Back to the topic: It seems from your post that you suggest we preface a science class with a paragraph or two that says science doesn't really assert much, and that there are other possibilities out there. One of which is Intellegent Design.

All my science teachers have done nearly that. With the exception of calling out ID by name, they clearly prefaced the course, defining theories as theories, not fact. I just don't see any reason to bring up ID specifically. There are alot of philosophical theories on how the universe were started, but none of them are science. Accordingly, they shouldn't be discussed in science class.


quote:
Originally posted by Paladine:
Science does carry an "unwritten contract of objectivity", as you put it. Accordingly, when presented with two alternatives, neither of which can be proven or disproven, science does a disservice to its students when it claims (by inclusion of the one and exclusion of the other) that one theory is somehow inherently more valid than the other, based solely on the artificial contrast created between belief in intelligent design and belief in rational science.

The fundemental difference between philosophy and science is the scientific method. A science class is about philosophical ideas that can pass scrutinty of the scientific method. Intellegent Design does not do that. Intellegent design is philosophy, not science.

Accordingly, these two theories are not "equal alternatives" in the eyes of science. The fact is, Intellgent Design does not work off of any verifiable data, it works off the lack of verifiable data. Therefore it does not and should not fall within the ciricilium of a science class.

Philisophically the two theories are very similar, and perhaps equals, but certainly not scientifically. Do you see that distinction?

quote:
Originally posted by Paladine:
It is not by accident that most leading scientists are themselves religious men, or that Hawkings believes in a divine being, or that Einstein did.

Argumentetum ad Populum from you? [Eek!] It's not by accident, purpose, or really any design at all, it's simply how things are.

Any other explaination here would just be theory. [Wink]

quote:
Originally posted by Paladine:
But this is a separate argument. The main point is that teaching intelligent design as a possibility for the origins of life and the beginning of the universe is not outlandish or unscientific.

I do not think it is outlandish, but I think I've demonstrated it is unscientific. Namely, by ignoring the scientific method and avoiding any verifiable, reproducable events upon which to base it's claims.

quote:
Originally posted by Paladine:
Greater scientific minds than yours or mine can and do attest to that.

I think you just added this for the flurish, but it's almost like you're suggesting Hawkings or Einstein came out with a proof of God. They didn't.

I should make myself more clear. I do not praise their minds. I praise the verifiable results and accurate models of the real world.

Similarly, I love GNU/Linux, but I don't take everything Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds say as gospel.

[ December 26, 2004, 01:29 AM: Message edited by: JoshuaD ]

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Back to the topic: It seems from your post that you suggest we preface a science class with a paragraph or two that says science doesn't really assert much, and that there are other possibilities out there. One of which is Intellegent Design.

All my science teachers have done nearly that. With the exception of calling out ID by name, they clearly prefaced the course, defining theories as theories, not fact. I just don't see any reason to bring up ID specifically. There are alot of philosophical theories on how the universe were started, but none of them are science. Accordingly, they shouldn't be discussed in science class.

Well, mine didn't. I liked the guy, but my AP Biology teacher made no bones about his opinion that ID was absolutely false, evolution was fact rather than theory, and life was produced randomly. I don't have a problem with that since he taught it, for the most part, as his opinion. Could you imagine the whining from the other side had he taught a religious opinion though? But anyway.....

quote:
The fundemental difference between philosophy and science is the scientific method. A science class is about philosophical ideas that can pass scrutinty of the scientific method. Intellegent Design does not do that. Intellegent design is philosophy, not science.

Accordingly, these two theories are not "equal alternatives" in the eyes of science. The fact is, Intellgent Design does not work off of any verifiable data, it works off the lack of verifiable data. Therefore it does not and should not fall within the ciricilium of a science class.

Philisophically the two theories are very similar, and perhaps equals, but certainly not scientifically. Do you see that distinction?

Well, currently neither the theory that life was produced randomly nor the theory that life is the product of intelligent design can be justified by scientific means. I want science to be taught more in terms of *thought processes* than theories though. This is one of the problems I have with schools teaching kids *what* to think rather than *how* to think. Personally, I'd rather teachers present both ideas, teach the kids how to think scientifically, and let them come to their own conclusions. Maybe even some in-class debate? Seems a lot more interesting and a lot more useful than learning outmoded gradualistic evolutionary theories.

The beginning of life is a mystery which science cannot currently explain satisfactorily. Several experiments have managed to produce amino acids in conditions similar to those scientists believe to have existed around the time of the first organisms. They have been unable, to my knowledge, to produce anything close to a living organism, even unicellular, or to satisfactorily explain how such an organism could possibly come into existence.

This leaves us with at least two alternatives. Either life was randomly produced by some means which we're currently unable to discern, or it was produced (perhaps utilizing natural methods) as a part of some intelligent design. Neither of these theories is currently verified, but that is not at all to say that either is unverifiable.

Indeed science may someday conclude that life could not have been produced entirely by random means, and that it must have been a product of intelligent design. It could conclude the opposite: that life was in fact randomly produced by means X. Currently, there is a broad consensus around neither, and to pretend that such consensus within the scientific community exists is disingenuous.

quote:
I think you just added this for the flurish, but it's almost like you're suggesting Hawkings or Einstein came out with a proof of God. They didn't.

I should make myself more clear. I do not praise their minds. I praise the verifiable results and accurate models of the real world.

Similarly, I love GNU/Linux, but I don't take everything Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds say as gospel.

No. I was merely suggesting that when thinking about how the universe came into being, the opinions of the leading thinkers in that field should have some amount of weight. I don't take everything they say as gospel, but I think they probably know a bit more about their OS than I do, so I'd at least listen if they said something about it. Wouldn't you?
Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
All my science teachers have done nearly that. With the exception of calling out ID by name, they clearly prefaced the course, defining theories as theories, not fact. I just don't see any reason to bring up ID specifically. - JoshuaD

Well, mine didn't. I liked the guy, but my AP Biology teacher made no bones about his opinion that ID was absolutely false, evolution was fact rather than theory, and life was produced randomly. - Paladine

The irony here is that, if your teacher was actually forbidden from teaching ID in science class whatsoever, he wouldn’t have been able to introduce the false dichotomy, and couldn’t have denigrated this particular belief.

As an aside, Paladine, if your teacher actually taught that ID was false, that evolution was fact and that life was produced randomly, then he was first and foremost a bad teacher, and secondly, he either didn’t understand the theory (or science in general) in the first place, or he was being purposefully deceitful in his presentation.

Or is it possible that, at the time, you simply misunderstood the subject matter, and projected some of these conclusions onto your teacher? The distinction between scientific theory and our general use of the word theory, and the differences between randomness and random selection are both subtle and significant. Many teachers fail to teach these concepts adequately, and I would argue most high school students fail to learn them successfully.

As for the origins of life (as opposed to species) evolutionary theory does not touch on this subject. Regardless, no current scientific theory precludes that a creator kicked off the process: until a creator can be included in some form of a scientific test, science can have nothing to say about it (scientists are another matter altogether.)

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Regardless, no current scientific theory precludes that a creator kicked off the process: until a creator can be included in some form of a scientific test, science can have nothing to say about it (scientists are another matter altogether.)
Precisely what I was saying. I've got nothing to add here but to emphasize that paragraph.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
musket
Member
Member # 552

 - posted      Profile for musket         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As for the origins of life (as opposed to species) evolutionary theory does not touch on this subject.
This is widely misunderstood by Creationists of all stripes.
Posts: 1524 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JLMyers
Member
Member # 1983

 - posted      Profile for JLMyers   Email JLMyers   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Well, currently neither the theory that life was produced randomly nor the theory that life is the product of intelligent design can be justified by scientific means.

The theory of Evolution, as has been stated, is not a theory of how life came into existence. This seems to be your major stumbling block.

As far as I know, no theory of how life came to be is taught in our public school system. If they did teach something like that, it would belong in philosophy, or some other class not Science Class, the same place, if any, that Intelligent Design should be taught.

quote:
outmoded gradualistic evolutionary theories.
What are you talking about?

quote:
I want science to be taught more in terms of *thought processes* than theories though.
Then that wouldn't be Science Class.

What you want doesn't seem to be science. It seems you want a theory that has no scientific validity taught in Science Class. You should modify your argument to have this “theory” taught in some other class if you want to have any kind of legitimate argument. As is, you don't have a leg to stand on.

KE

Posts: 2007 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Paladine -

Experiments did manage to produce life from simulated primordial ooze. Evolution is not at odds with the theory of intelligent design. Intelligent design can be summed up in one statement - "God does not play dice".

As for it belonging in a philosophy class - hardly. It is as much science as many of the theories on the energy and expansion effects of the Universe are. However, the debate both on Ornery and in the 'real world' seems to be more a debate on the merits of evolution than the merits of teaching intelligent design.

For some reason people relate the two. They're unrelated except at a single discrete time.

I would write more, but I just got home, and am going to sleep [Smile]

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mr Peabody
Member
Member # 2203

 - posted      Profile for Mr Peabody         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I noticed no one has mentioned the Neo-evolutionist thoughts. What Neo-evolutionists noted as they studied the fossil record is that there is no change in life forms for many years and then in a very short period, a whole bunch of new, more complex organisms appear. Bursts of increased complex diversity. This is markedly different then the thesis of slow change presented by Darwin. In addition, no one has mentioned how it has been proven through DNA (I believe it is mitochondrial, but it has been some time since I read it) that all humans are descendants of a single female. These SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATIONS lend credence to continue not to rule out intelligent design. Because both of these OBSERVATIONS ("creative" periods or days; and a Grandmother Eve) parallel ideas of a popular “creation by intelligent design” record, Genesis. Key word is parallel. (Genesis is not a science book, it is a mainly a family history.) The short of it is the theory of evolution is far from complete or comprehensive, so why allow social-political parties to rule out other plausibility’s or considerations when the testing isn’t finished yet! That is the tyranny and stifling of thought that the writers of the US Constitution were trying to prevent when penning the 1st Amendment!
Posts: 9 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mr Peabody
Member
Member # 2203

 - posted      Profile for Mr Peabody         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Response to Ikemook: . Now I agree, the study of morals and ethics are not a major consideration for science classes (until you get to Med School!). I agree with the points you made on incorporating the history of science in the instruction, and that science is a PROCESS of observation and testing. It is one of the PROCESSes that I use to further my understanding of Divine Providence. I also like the point you made how many folks think “science is somehow perfect”. (Exactly! Just look at the recent drug recalls!). Why I jumped into this thread, (wasn’t the most graceful jump in [see Musket above]) was to voice that there is a collection of social-political parties using this perceived “perfection” to have subtly published in public science classes that religious study is “unscientific and illogical” (or more directly a waste of the students time.) I view these parties as a “Church” [or Paladine may term (God-Less) intelligensia)] who’s agenda (or major Creed) includes being Diametrically Opposed To Even Considering Divine Providence. Now they can believe what they want, but I am not going to have my tax dollars spent on having their “Church Doctrine” alone being taught in my schools. And, I am as opposed to having my fellow citizens yoked under this agenda/doctrine as the writers of the 1st amendment were when they wrote “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Their religion being ABSOLUTLY NO DIVINE ANYTHING.
Posts: 9 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1