Should Intelligent Design Be Taught as an Alternative Theory to Evolution?

[BurtWorm]

Poll question: Should Intelligent Design Be Taught as an Alternative Theory to Evolution?

[JanMichael]

1. One answer tests? 1. How did <insert question>?

Answer: God dun it.

Edited for sloppy subject line...

[JCMach1]

2. No, it's not science!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:grr:

[ElsewheresDaughter]

287. ProfessorJimmyCarter Slams GA's attempt to scrub"Evolution" from text book

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01/30/georgia.evolution/index.html

[wryter2000]

3. Good grief!

I never expected to see this put forward seriously here. I come to DU to get away from that kind of nonsense.

[BurtWorm]

10. I'm curious about the people who have voted "yes"

I wish they'd feel comfortable telling eveyone why they did. But they're probably afraid (justly) that they're going to be eaten alive.

[Bandit]

53. I didn't vote because I believe in something a bit different

I don't believe in the standard thoughts about evolution. I think what is currently taught in school should be taught and not creationism no matter how you dress it up but I don't believe totally what is currently being taught. I feel mankind has recorded history for about twelve thousand years and at the rate species have "evolved" through out the history of the world we should have witnessed a recordable evolution. Probably hundreds considering the number of species and the time frame mentioned. We have found mutations but no real solid evolution. Until a horse changes into a new animal entirely I will reserve judgement. I don't believe in the Biblical explanation either. I just went back and voted other/don't know.

[Beetwasher]

68. That's not true

Evolution among an organism as complex as humans happens much, much slower than you imagine. 12,000 years is literally no time at all. However, evolution happens much, much quicker in less complex organisms such as viruses and bacteria. Evolution has been observed in the laboratory in simpler organisms. Evolution in viruses happens from one year to the next, thus the need for a different flu shot every year to handle the newest evolotionary leap of the virus. Anti-biotics are becoming less effective fighting certain infections due to the quick evolution of the organisms they were initially created to fight.

You would have to observe a more complex species over hundred's of thousands of years (maybe longer) before any noticeable change would be observable.

[Az]

72. Um, we have witnessed evolution

From bacteria and insects outpacing out attempts to control them to specfic examples of speciation in both the lab and the wild. There are numerous recorded examples of new species arising in our scientific recordings.

Here is a link to an excellent article detailing several of the known examples of speciation we have witnessed. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

[Jane Roe]

75. And we have also experienced . . .

surprisingly large gaps in the fossil record. Just because evolution exists does not necessarily mean that it is the exclusive agent of origin.

[Beetwasher]

81. So what?

No one said evolution is an agent of origin. Who says that? That's absurd. Only religious people make any claims to know the "agent of origin" whatever that is.

Just because we haven't found every fossil on the planet doesn't mean anything...You know, there might not even BE fossils that exist to close the gaps. Fossils just happen to be one source of evidence for evolution, but not every stage of the evolutionary process for every species has to have been recorded via fossilization. That's just plain silly.

[Jane Roe]

88. Trivia question: what was the title of Darwin's book on evolution? nt

[Az]

95. It was not

The Ultimate Origin of the Species.

[Beetwasher]

96. Irrelevant

"origin of species" does not imply an originator or rather an "agent of origin" as you put, IOW, god (that's what I assume your implying with that ambiguity, if not, please clarify). It implies speciation. Did you read it? I did. Evolution is the means by which different SPECIES were created, not the whole kit and kaboodle which is what you were implying.

[Jane Roe]

104. What about cleansing agents? chemical agents?

Are there little gods inside these things, too, because the word "agent" is used by scientists in these cases?

[Beetwasher]

112. What an absurd and ridiculous strawman

Explain what you meant then. What is an "Agent of origin"? Also please provide any evidence that any reputable scientist thinks evolution is an "agent of origin". "Origin of SPECIES" is most definitely not the same thing as "Agent of ORIGIN" If you don't see the difference then I can't help you and if you actually read the book then you'd know how silly that claim is.

[Az]

119. When conversations get this out of synch

it may be necissary for the participants to stop and rexamine what each is trying to say. Perhaps restating each position here is warranted to keep a productive exchange of ideas going.

[Jane Roe]

135. answers

1. I initially misunderstood your objection. I still maintain that "agent," as generally used in science does not imply any intelligence on the part of the "agent." Since you seem to want to make such a big deal out of this minor aspect of the discussion: replace "agent of origin" with "mechanism of origin" instead. That should help move discussion along.

2. We do not know whether all species were created by the same mechanism. You seem to exclude the possibility that some species were originated by a mechanism other than evolution. This possibility should continue to be considered by science because of two things:

Thing One: modern evolutionary scientists think that there are problems with using evolutionary explanations for some species.

thing Two: Current scientific string theory says there are like 11 or 19 or some big number of dimensions to the universe -- only 4 of which can we experience directly. This means plenty of other dimensions available for intelligent life, perhaps god-like, perhaps not, perhaps responsible for patterns here on earth that science has trouble explaining, perhaps not.

[Beetwasher]

142. Fair Enough, thank you for clearing that up

But still no scientist even claims that evolution is the mechanism of origin. They only claim that evolution is the best theory out there that explains the differentiation of species, or, the ORIGIN of DIFFERENT species.

The mechanism of origin or agent of origin of life in general is a whole different topic.

"2. We do not know whether all species were created by the same mechanism. You seem to exclude the possibility
that some species were originated by a mechanism other than evolution. This possibility should continue to be
considered by science because of two things:"

Once again, evolution is not a theory of creation in any way, sense or form. Maybe there is another method for the differentiation of some species, however, the commonality of genetics suggests that pretty much all species share too many of the same genes to have had completely different origins, whatever the mechanism for that origin is.

"Thing One: modern evolutionary scientists think that there are problems with using evolutionary explanations for
some species."

The differences at this point are pretty much academic. There is some dispute over the rate of evolution as some species have shown what appear to be evolutionary leaps as it were. There is not much dispute however over the fact that all speicies share an overwhelming similar genetic pattern and history, too similar to be coincidental or for one species to have originated differently or separately from every other species. Barring of course the discovery of a species on earth with and completely alien genetic code.

"thing Two: Current scientific string theory says there are like 11 or 19 or some big number of dimensions to the
universe -- only 4 of which can we experience directly. This means plenty of other dimensions available for
intelligent life, perhaps god-like, perhaps not, perhaps responsible for patterns here on earth that science has
trouble explaining, perhaps not."

Who can argue with this? I could also say that those other dimension are the land of elves, fairies and leprechauns and no one can argue with that notion either. What this has to do w/ evolution, I can't fathom.

[Jane Roe]

145. In evolutionary science there is a term called 'the hopeful monster'

It is quite possible, so far as current science goes, that intelligent beings from the 10th to 14th dimensions reached into our universe and tampered with DNA every time a hopeful monster arose.

This possible explanation may be weak, but not much weaker than the way evolutionary theory currently deals with these hopeful monsters.

Final note: it is not likely that the beings of the 10th to 14th dimensions look like fairies because these dimensions have no physical space, which would be required by fairies as we currently understand them.

[Beetwasher]

169. Wrong

"It is quite possible, so far as current science goes, that intelligent beings from the 10th to 14th dimensions reached
into our universe and tampered with DNA every time a hopeful monster arose."

Sure, that's possible. It's also possible aliens were responsible. Or ghosts. Whatever. I could postulate any type of nonsense and claim it's possible. The next step is finding evidence.

"This possible explanation may be weak, but not much weaker than the way evolutionary theory currently deals with
these hopeful monsters."

See, here's where your wrong. Very wrong. Evolutionary theory doesn't deal w/ hopeful monsters or fairies or aliens from the 14th dimension. It deals with observed evidence. We've seen it happen in labs, in viruses, in bacteria and in the fossil record. There's NO evidence of aliens from the 14th dimension reaching in and tampering w/ DNA. There is evidence of other causes for genetic mutation though, such as radiation, just as an example. It also doesn't address teh fact that there are dead ends in evolution. Mutations that went nowhere. Now, If ID were valid and there was an intelligence behind evolution, or aliens from the 14th dimension, why all the trial and error? Maybe I shouldn't even begin down that slippery slope, but I can't help it...


" Final note: it is not likely that the beings of the 10th to 14th dimensions look like fairies because these dimensions
have no physical space, which would be required by fairies as we currently understand them."

I suppose you've been to these dimensions? :eyes: Just how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin? Wow...No physical space and yet you're positing beings from there reaching in to these dimensions to tamper w/ our DNA???? Uhh, OK...

[Jane Roe]

188. correction

"hopeful monster" is a term that was coined by evolutionary science. So it is fair to say that evolutionary science deals with hopeful monsters.

[Beetwasher]

193. My mistake

That was more of a typo on my part. I was listing the being that supposedly might have reached in to influence the "hopeful monsters" and inadvertantly listed them as being one of those beings, it should read something like "Evolution doesnt' deal w/ hopeful monster BEING INFLUENCED BY fairies etc"...My points still stand, just remove "hopeful monsters" from that list, or keep them in there, it doesn't change the validity of my argument...

[Jane Roe]

196. More on hopeful monsters

The point is that evolutionary scientists don't know what hopeful monsters were influenced by and the good ones (the scientists, that is, not the monsters) close off possibilities only with evidence, not with their political motivations.

[Beetwasher]

203. Eh? What's the point?

The evidence is there that genetic mutation happens and is the driving force behind evolution. Why inject god into it or some mystical force as an "influence"? It's not necessary. Genetic mutation happens for various reasons, including things like radiation.

[Jane Roe]

209. Some of the problems should be obvious

If there is a drastic genetic mutation:

How does the monster survive at all?

Where does she find her mate?

What is the probability that a drastic mutation would lead to something useful such that the monsters non-adaptive change could ever crowd out species fine tuned by millenia of adaptive change?

etc, etc

[Beetwasher]

221. This shows you are not familiar with evolutionary theory at all

"If there is a drastic genetic mutation:

How does the monster survive at all?"

It doesn't. It dies. Unless the mutation is benficial. That's the whole point. Natural selection, get it?



"Where does she find her mate?"

Where she always has...

" What is the probability that a drastic mutation would lead to something useful such that the monsters non-adaptive
change could ever crowd out species fine tuned by millenia of adaptive change?"

Not sure what you're getting at here, it's not clear. But you grossly misunderstand evolution, that's for sure. Evolution, for the most part, is not about DRASTIC mutation. Mutations for the most part are small and subtle, but cumulative. There's also NO PROBABILITY involved. It's all about NATURAL SELECTION. A change happens. If it helps the animal survive better, well then the animal survives better and thrives and reproduces better than the animals not effected. The beneficial mutation gives them the edge and is therefore passed on and becomes predominant. Lot's of changes happened that were detrimental. The animal dies and the changes are discontinued. Lot's of superfluous or neutral changes happen that are neither helpful or detrimental, some continue to get passed on and some don't. There's evidence of this in many species.

I would suggest that you do your homework about evolution.

[Jane Roe]

225. Can someone familiar with the hopeful monster problem help me out here

This poster seems to think that the hopeful monster theory is some kind of red herring planted by creationists, rather than a problem recognized and debated primarily within the community of evolutionary scientists.

[Beetwasher]

231. Heh? Where did I say anything about a red herring planted by creationists?

What sort of nonsense is this? Why do you insist on using dishonest tactics?

I let Stephen Gould speak for me:

"Goldschmidt raised no objection to the standard accounts of microevolution; he
devoted the first half of his major work, The Material Basis of Evolution (Yale
University Press, 1940), to gradual and continuous change within species. He broke
sharply with the synthetic theory, however in arguing that new species arise abruptly
by discontinuous variation, or macromutation. He admitted that the vast majority of
macromutations could only be viewed as disastrou—these he called "monsters." But,
Goldschmidt continued, every once in a while a macromutation might, by sheer good
fortune, adapt an organism to a new mode of life, a "hopeful monster" in his
terminology. Macroevolution proceeds by the rare success of these hopeful monsters,
not by an accumulation of small changes within populations.

I want to argue that defenders of the synthetic theory made a caricature of
Goldschmidt's ideas in establishing their whipping boy. I shall not defend everything
Goldschmidt said; indeed, I disagree fundamentally with his claim that abrupt
macroevolution discredits Darwinism. For Goldschmidt also failed to heed Huxley's
warning that the essence of Darwinism—the control of evolution by natural
selection—does not require a belief in gradual change."

Nothing I've said is any way shape or form claims "hopeful monsters" are a red herring planted by creationists, nor does anything I've posted been inconsistent in regard to the idea of "hopeful monsters". Tsk tsk, such dishonest tactics on your part.

[Jane Roe]

234. I was just trying to get you to understand that . . .

teh hopeful monster theory was a real problem for the scientific community (notwithstang the late Gould's confidence in his own ideas).

I wanted to stop getting flip answers like "she just does, always has."

Looks like I succeeded in getting you onto GOOGLE and into some of the relevant scientific texts.

[Beetwasher]

238. No, you didn't succeed

in doing anything except showing that you still haven't answered any of my questions or presented anything to back up your own claims. I'm still waiting. I've had nothing but flip answers from you.

I don't have to Google Gould, I have most of his works right at my fingertips in my bookcase as well as Darwin's. I suggest you maybe should do a bit of googling about scientific method though since you seem to have a problem understanding it.

[Jane Roe]

243. You sure do use long quotes . . .

for someone who isn't GOOGLING (not that there is anything wrong with GOOGLE-ing).

[Beetwasher]

246. Care To Make A Single Relevant Point?

How about answering these direct questions:

Is it ok to teach ID in schools as a theory supported by scientific method, evidence and observation? Is ID a valid scientific theory? If so, what's the evidence? How is this theory falsifiable?

[Jane Roe]

250. Asked and answered

see, inter alia, posts 26, 64, 73, 86 and 223.

[Beetwasher]

254. What a Cop Out

Try again. They should be easy enough to answer otherwise I'll have to assume that you don't have answers...None of those posts did. If you think they did, then cut and paste them, because I sure as hell didn't see my questions answered there.

[Selwynn]

282. You've got it backward, friend....

Sure, that's possible. It's also possible aliens were responsible. Or ghosts. Whatever. I could postulate any type of nonsense and claim it's possible. The next step is finding evidence.

No no no no no no no no! :) That's not the "next" step. That's the first step before making any claim!

Science shouldn't speculate premises first then try to find evidence to support a conclusion already held! That's the oldest definition of biased thinking on the books. That's what creationists do. Science must start with observable data - evidence and form the theorist that are investigated and tested based on that data. The observation of the data comes first, not a whimsical speculative conclusion based on nothing.

When you go around trying to prove what you already believe you are guaranteed to prove it - because you want it to be true, so everywhere you look you'll see more "evidence" to reinforce what you already think. Science must remain silent toward speculation that has no evidentiary support, and must always be observers of data first, seeking to form conclusions based on observation, not speculation.

[Az]

91. Um, ease up there

Never said evolution was the point of origin. That is a different theory (abiogenesis). Evolution is simply the best argument we have currently to describe what transpired between abiogenesis and now. as a theory it must remain open ended. Thus if there is evidence to overturn it so be it. Science does not require faith to use it. Scientists do not sit around holding hands and chanting they will have faith that gravity continues to work. It is simply a tool. Use it as you see fit. Its certainly has proven itself to be more accurate than reading entrails.

[Beetwasher]

102. I think

you meant to reply to post #75?

[Az]

110. Yeah, a lil misfire went off there

It is social taboo (I say bah to taboos) to discuss religion and politics. Thus conversations of such topics can get heated quickly. We have both combined here and thus we can superheat quickly. I believe the value of discussing these issues is paramount. Thus when they start to superheat I believe it is necissary to cool them down so they can remain active and productive. Once angers are flared the untility of such discussions wanes quickly.

[Jane Roe]

107. You make a good distinction

A good distinction for both this discussion and in the high school curriculum.

[Peregrine]

233. those surprising large gaps in the fossil record

are getting smaller at surprisingly fast rates. Just 2 years ago the fossil gap between H. erectus and H. sapien was about 1.5 MY now it is less than 800 KY.

Just 10 years ago, H. sapien was a european, now he is african. Because the fossil record keeps on growing. I read somewhere that at least one new fossil species is discovered every year.

The fossil record for dogs, cats, and horses are very complete and the record for whales is pretty close. Gap just got smaller: 8 MY old whale found in Maryland

[Jane Roe]

245. Glad to hear it

maybe my children will be learning ID as something akin to flat earth theory, rather than as something akin to the competing scientific theories about what happens to a person when she dies.

[The White Tree]

90. Evolution in our Time

If anyone is looking for a good book about some people who are attempting to witness and record instances of Evolution in our time I recommend the following Pulitzer Prize winning book:

The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in our Time by Jonathan Weinar. This book is a well written and very accessable account of the research of Rosemary and Peter Grant who each year go to the Galapagos Islands to record changes in the finch populations that first inspired Darwin's theories.

From the publisher:
On the Galapagos Islands Charles Darwin gave his first hint at his theory of natural selection, writing about the finches he studied there. In Darwin's time there was no proof of this theoretical mechanism for evolution. Indeed it would have been thought absurd to imagine observing it actually happen; the process was thought to take geological time spans.

Weiner, an outstanding science journalist, details research done in the last 20 years that proves otherwise. Biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant have documented the evolution of Darwin's Galapagos finches, demonstrating that it is neither rare nor slow, but can be watched by the hour. Weiner's superb account reads like a thriller and won the 1995 Pulitzer Prize for nonfiction.

[arcane1]

267. really? When would natural selection apply to humans

in recent history? Methinks your understanding is a bit off

[Bandit]

292. Let's put it this way

There are, existing today on this planet literally millions of species of animal and using our archaeological records ten times that many have become extinct. By common sense and mathematics in a period of twelve thousand years we should have seen the creation of numerous new species develop. We have created a mule but it cannot replicate itself. We have seen one bird adapt to it's environment by growing a beak a bit different than it's predecessors had. I would expect by logic and mathematics that we should have witnessed literally thousands of complete changes. We can say we have witnessed bacteria change but I need more. I'm sorry but I just need proof. I say the same for creationism. Show me proof.

[treepig]

298. ok, let's say that life has existed on earth for 2 billion years

and there are 20,000,000 million species.

that means that a new species should arise every one hundred years (of course, speciation does not take place at a uniform rate, but i'll humor you here). or as you claim, at ten times that rate.

well, there have been almost three times that many (i.e, almost 30) documented cases of speciation over the past century, as listed below (consult the link for the documentation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html )


5.0 Observed Instances of Speciation The following are several examples of observations of speciation.

5.1 Speciations Involving Polyploidy, Hybridization or Hybridization Followed by Polyploidization.

5.1.1 Plants (See also the discussion in de Wet 1971).

5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

5.1.1.2 Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)

5.1.1.3 Trapopogonan

5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica

5.1.1.5 Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)

5.1.1.6 Madia citrigracilis

5.1.1.7 Brassica


5.1.1.8 Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)

5.1.1.9 Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)


5.2 Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy

5.2.1 Stephanomeira malheurensis

5.2.2 Maize (Zea mays)

5.2.3 Speciation as a Result of Selection for Tolerance to a Toxin: Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)
5.3 The Fruit Fly Literature

5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum

5.3.2 Disruptive Selection on Drosophila melanogaster

5.3.3 Selection on Courtship Behavior in Drosophila melanogaster

5.3.4 Sexual Isolation as a Byproduct of Adaptation to Environmental Conditions in Drosophila melanogaster

5.3.5 Sympatric Speciation in Drosophila melanogaster


5.3.6 Isolation Produced as an Incidental Effect of Selection on several Drosophila species

5.3.7 Selection for Reinforcement in Drosophila melanogaster

5.3.8 Tests of the Founder-flush Speciation Hypothesis Using Drosophila

5.4 Housefly Speciation Experiments

5.4.1 A Test of the Founder-flush Hypothesis Using Houseflies

5.4.2 Selection for Geotaxis with and without Gene Flow . Four populations were established:



5.5 Speciation Through Host Race Differentiation

5.5.1 Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella)


5.5.2 Gall Former Fly (Eurosta solidaginis)

5.6 Flour Beetles (Tribolium castaneum)

5.7 Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata

5.8 Speciation Through Cytoplasmic Incompatability Resulting from the Presence of a Parasite or Symbiont

5.9 A Couple of Ambiguous Cases:

5.9.1 Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris

5.9.2 Morphological Changes in Bacteria

[Az]

To reiterate, creationism is not science

Evolution is taught as part of the science curriculum. Evolution is a critical part of understanding biology. Without it biology makes no sense.

This brings us to the question of whether creationism should be taught in school at all. It is a viable subject if taught alongside other religious creation stories in a comparative religions class. Singled out though it runs afoul of the seperation issue.

[StClone]

4. Yes

Intelligent design as it pertains to human made things... otherwise no.

[BurtWorm]

7. I'm glad you edited that!

:crazy:

[oldshoe]

13. Absurd!

Our shared DNA with so many species, and in proportions closely corresponding to the paleontological and other evidence makes it so blatantly clear that we are critters too, that to exempt us as special is raw religious bigotry.

[BurtWorm]

15. I think St. Clone was being facetious.

[earthman dave]

22. Not necessarily

The Big Guy made loads of creatures that share DNA to trick us into believing in evolution, the same reason he buried all them fossils and made rock formations that look like they're millions of years old. God, apparently, wants to trick us into going to hell. With gods like that, who needs enemies? :evilgrin:

[arcane1]

43. well, he did create hell too, after all

he wouldn't want it to go to waste :evilgrin:

[HereSince1628]

27. Yes - - as a _bad example_

Its a bad example of how scientists use of the word theory

Its an example of the bad influence "pop culture" can have on science.

Its a GOOD example of the failure of people to understand the bounds and methods of science.

[Terwilliger]

5. No, it's more desperation crap

Creationism?

Evolution.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN! IT'S SO PERFECT, IT MUST HAVE BEEN MADE BY SOMETHING INTELLIGENT

Sounds like intelligent people who sacrifice their intelligence in the name of their fears.

[Az]

9. Perfect?

Tell that to my spine. It is not designed for walking around upright all the time and thus I have back problems.

[K-W]

12. There are so many examples of bad design in humans alone.

And then you reach the big questions like, why did god create viruses and bacteria that kill humans.

[Az]

31. Letters from Earth by Mark Twain

Twain rips on this vary issue in his short work Letters from Earth. He comes to the conclusion that humans are not gods favorite. He makes it clear that Noah and his family must have been packed solid with germs and worms (particular praise is given to the hookworm).

[kath]

58. Heh, what a great book "Letters from the Earth" is . HIGHLY recommend!

[Terwilliger]

28. well, I'M not arguing that

:D

If it was so perfect, I'm sure we wouldn't be on the verge of a class war, on the eve of global armageddon.

[K-W]

6. Only if unicorns are taught as an alternative theory to horses.

And dragons an alternative theory to the lunar cycles.

[Selwynn]

284. One of the better posts on this thread. :) (nt)

[Bill McBlueState]

8. no

Intelligent design is a copout used by people who don't want to put the effort into doing or understanding science.

I mean, maybe some "intelligent actor" is responsible for creating the universe, but that doesn't really tell us anything about how speciation occurs, or how stars and planets form, for that matter.

[Az]

17. Incorrect

ID is an attempt to endrun the nations laws by trying to dress creationism up as science. It attempts to place its claims in terms that sound like real science. Because law makers are not always familiar with science this ruse can sway them to passing laws compliant with the religious rights desire to return their particular religion to the halls of public education.

[Bill McBlueState]

237. Incorrect?

I don't think what you said and what I said are incompatible, so it's a little strange that you labeled what I said "incorrect."

If those lawmakers you mention, and their constituents, put a little more effort into understanding science, nobody would ever suggest that intelligent design be taught in a science class. It's not science, it's merely speculation about original causes.

[mhr]

11. Intelligent Design? Begs The Question On The Designer's Identity!

Seems this is not a scientific theory without discussing a designer.

If the designer is seen as Mother Nature, this would suggest that evolution and natural selection are still the principal theories in play.

[camero]

44. Evolution begs the same question

We may never know that one. I think theses things are all theory. That's all. None has been proven yet though some are closer to be proven than others.

[rman]

50. a theory is a theory *because* it has been proven

or better: because it is supported by evidence, and because there's no refuting evidence.
("proof" is more of an abstract mathematical think, science ulimately requires 'material evidence').

You seem to be confusing "theory" with "idea".

[camero]

51. You're confusing theory with fact

A theory has some supporting evidence but has yet been proven as a whole. It still begs the same question.

Take the big bang theory. If it all started with just 2 atoms colliding, then it begs the question of where those 2 atoms came from.

[truthspeaker]

60. your definition of theory is wrong, and your understanding of BB way off

A theory is a hypothesis with enough supporting evidence to be accepted as fact, unless and until something else comes along.

And two atoms colliding? Where did you get that?

[camero]

80. to be accepted, not proven

We are accepting something which can only be proven if we were there at the outset. Our best guess is what evolution is. Not fact.

[camero]

92. Your question

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html

In 1927, the Belgian priest Georges Lemaître was the first to propose that the universe began with the explosion of a primeval atom. His proposal came after observing the red shift in distant nebulas by astronomers to a model of the universe based on relativity. Years later, Edwin Hubble found experimental evidence to help justify Lemaître's theory. He found that distant galaxies in every direction are going away from us with speeds proportional to their distance.



Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proved; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions.

[Az]

98. Proof is for math, Evidence is for science

Science does not prove things. In fact it is nearly defined by the opposite. It uncovers the truth by disproving the false. A vital aspect of scientific theory is that it must remain an open ended process. Thus it can never achieve absolute proof of a thing. It can raise our certainty of a thing to such a level that it is ridiculous to deny it. But even that is not proof.

[camero]

101. I am aware of that

It is just the reason why I view both theories with an ounce of skepticism.

[Az]

116. Never let go of skepticism

Evolution really should not be believed. That is it should continue to prove itself. Giving up on testing and deciding to believe it is no different than a religious belief. However active denial without evidence is a bit more problematic.

[camero]

123. I agree

I just think the jury is still out on it. And that both could possibly be correct or not correct. I think that both could be taught with the misnomer that some believe evolution and some believe ID.

[Az]

127. Let us say this

While the statement evolution could be wrong is true in its absolute sense, it is becoming increasingly difficult to deny it as a valid description of what is going on.

As it is the current working theory behind science and biology is a science class then it is appropriate to teach it in public schools.

ID is believed by many people. It is not a scientific theory. It does not leave itself open for refutation. Thus it has no place in a science class. It may be taught as part of a comparitive religion course along side other creation theories.

[camero]

133. You're right

That would be a good place to put it. In a class on religion.

[truthspeaker]

300. It's not about belief, it's about evidence

Evidence for evolution: lots

Evidence for ID: none

[LibInternationalist]

99. quick, prove something

can't do it? interesting -- guess "God" did it, then

[camero]

103. Where in the hell did I say that?

The point is that we don't know. And atheists seem to make evolution a religion when we don't know or have any way of knowing. Besides a very good educated guess.

[LibInternationalist]

105. an "educated guess," as you put it

is ALL THAT WE CAN EVER HAVE -- it is impossible to prove anything material beyond any doubt

[camero]

109. Which is why it is healthy

To have doubt about any theory.

[camero]

106. Tell me something

Where did the initial reaction come from? If the universe as we know it was started by the explosion of an atom or set of atoms. Where did these atoms come from? We don't know. Neither do I.

[LibInternationalist]

111. it makes more sense to believe that the universe always existed

or came into existence out of nothing than to believe in God or any religious mythologies -- why add another layer of complexity? My point is that we can't ever KNOW anything, but some beliefs are backed up by more observations and therefore have greater credibility

[camero]

114. Then call evolution what it is

A belief, not a fact. We believe things happened this way. It doesn't mean that it actually did.

[LibInternationalist]

EVERYTHING is a belief

that does not mean that all beliefs are equally credible -- in this case, evolution is far more credible than intelligent design

[camero]

136. Not everything

I come down when I jump. Thus proving the concept of gravity. But it does not mean that we accept the theory of evolution as gospel.
Or any human theory for that matter.

[LibInternationalist]

141. and you believe that you come down because of gravity

hell, you believe that you jump -- what if the earth moved away from you? what if you're in some sort of elaborate virtual reality environment -- see what I'm saying? evolution has been observed, too, but not to your satisfaction -- nothing can be proven beyond any doubt

[camero]

144. No ,not to my satisfaction

I believe that I jump because I do and others can see. The same with coming down. Gravity is easily provable. The origin of our species and of the universe is not.

[LibInternationalist]

147. you believe -- it cannot be proven, because nothing can

by your standard, nothing before written history can be believed to have happened -- you choose what to believe, fine, but don't pretend that it's the only logical belief

[camero]

153. Who said I did?

Besides my original point is still valid. It begs the question of whether there was a designer.

It does not give you the right to push your beliefs on me. Seeing is believing my friend.

[lapislzi]

150. It's a belief that is supported by evidence

Deductive as opposed to inductive reasoning.

We observe that species change over time. We deduce that evolution is responsible for this phenomenon.

[camero]

154. A reasoned deduction

Not fact.

[donco6]

115. We don't know . . . yet.

You left out a word.

[camero]

118. Thanks

We may actually learn the origin of them. But the key is to keep searching.

[Az]

56. Theories

Theories are science's means to lay out concepts of what is going on in the world around us. In order for a theory to be scientific it must be refutable. That is it must have some means of being demonstrated to be false. If the theory is proven to be false it must be discarded or reworked.

Lets say the theory is that all shirts are red. The refutation to this theory would be to provide a shirt that was not red. If such a shirt were found the red shirt theory would be discarded.

In the case of evolution there are a number of ways to refute it. In fact it has been modified to some extent since its first conceptualization due to discoveries made since Darwin first proposed it. However no evidence has been found to completely dismantle it as the best theory we have concering the current state of life on this planet. Keep in mind, evolution is not the theory concerning the origin of life on this planet. It merely concerns itself with what transpired after that moment of abiogenesis took place.

Creationism and its recent sibling Intelligent Design do not leave themself open for refutation. They start from a premise (something really smart made the universe and everyting in it) and then try to fit peaces to get to it. They do not leave the possibility to refute the premise open. Institutes such as the ICR (Institute fro Creation Research) even have a waiver its researchers sign that any evidence they find that may refute the bible must be discarded as false evidence.

[camero]

57. I couldn't have explained it any better.

[Danieljay]

85. what if..

the designers identity was the design itself? Mother nature and evolution simply part of it...

[camero]

177. That's a possibility.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

14. How in the hell...

Can an article of faith be taught as a scientific fact?

[9215]

16. Nobody with any intelligence would have designed things like this

No way!

It is all a cosmic farce.

[Danieljay]

97. There is no "nobody" the design itself is the thing, and

its US that that get in the way of ourselves being part of it or at least the perceptions that we are separate.

Of course, this in itself could be part of the cosmic farce theory too. : )

[daveskilt]

18. not a serious question

Just to reconfirm on this since I live in Georgia, I asked my friend who is a molecular biologist at UGA what is said in scientific communities about this whole creationism debate. He just looked blankly at me and said what debate? Basically the only questions at all about evolution for any scientist are how fast does it happen? and how do cross species jumps happen? Yes it is only a theory but there is more evidence to support evolution than there is for gravity.

It is embarrassing to live in Georgia where people take seriously an arguement that is 100 years out of date.

[BurtWorm]

29. Going on 150 years out of date.

It's the old natural theology/argument from design bit that Darwin really and honestly finished in 1859 by showing how it was not only possible, but necessary to think cogently about the origin of species without confusing the issue by bringing God into it.

[bloom]

41. My brother

has a scientific degree (engineering) and believes in ID as opposed to evolution. He gave my son an anti-Darwin book awhile back.

I don't get it. I have a degree in fine arts. I don't see where there is a debate, either. :shrug:


(He's going back to school to study religion - I guess that makes sense.)

[GreenPartyVoter]

19. I believe God invented evolution

But that's just me. :shrug:

[DuctapeFatwa]

24. Please do not escalate the Theological Crisis the fundies are in

They are having a hard enough time reconciling the "Muslims have a different god" thing with monotheism.

[GreenPartyVoter]

25. I go to a church with a lot of fundies

but it actually hasn't been too bad. Maybe I'm starting to learn to have the tolerance I want them to have? *l*

[DuctapeFatwa]

37. I am definitely in favor of tolerance. Especially religious. If someone

believes that God made everything except evolution, and that there is only one God except the one over there, and every word of the Bible is the literal word of a divine being and should be followed to the letter except the parts that sound really weird like that women wearing purple and selling your daughter as a slave (the latter is located about an inch above eye for an eye), then I will defend that person's right to express those beliefs and practice those beliefs in every way that does not infringe on the rights of their neighbor to practice their beliefs.

The US is, at least it's supposed to be, a secular state with a constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. That means that teachers have the right to use common sense, as do state curriculum committees.

There is nothing wrong with teaching kids "because it happened so long ago, no one can say exactly how the world began, but scientists have found this, and think that. It's an interesting question, and one that everybody asks. Religions and cultures have their own stories and traditions. Scientists and theologians work together to help us learn all we can about history, so we can understand more about how the world, and people, began."

As you get into the upper grades, you can go into more detail, evolution, Darwin, Durga, Eve, Adam, jaguars, there are lots of creation stories, and few religions have doctrines that preclude the involvement of a supreme being with, excuse the expression, the evolution of science.

[GreenPartyVoter]

39. Yep

The two big issues for the literalist Christian fundies are:

"Six days" (of the 24 hour variety)

and "In His own image"

[DuctapeFatwa]

62. Yes the "own image" one is a source of high amusement

since the same people will acknowledge that God has no particular physical form unless he so desires one in any given moment, in which case he could, being omnipotent, and the creator of all including the concept of form itself, assume the "image" of a ham sandwich.

[Az]

63. Really want to throw them for a loop?

Ask a full blown literalist fundimentalist if Adam had a belly button. If yes then did god have one too?

[DuctapeFatwa]

146. ROFL! And why the hell isn't his wife wearing purple?

Is she a harlot, or what?

[reprobate]

35. OK, but WHICH god?

[GreenPartyVoter]

84. Oh, you know

The benevolent being "out there" somewhere in the heavens. The one we keep trying to pin different names to and say that it's a "different" god. As far as I am concerned, it's just God. No specific religion, image, or gender. the whole name situation is kinda like having three siblings who argue that "Mommy" is better than "Mother" and "Mom". Doesn't change the fact that they are all arguing over the same being. :)

(Though I admit, out of force of habit, to still ending all my prayers in 'in Jesus' Name'. Which is all right because he was a great radical liberal. *g*)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

20. Yes, for laughing at

"This, children, is your brain. And this is your brain on creationism. Any questions?"

[Cat Atomic]

21. Yes.

In religious schools. Religious dogma has no place in public schools.

I would ask proponents of this idea whether they would support the teaching of Hindu ideas on the creation of the world as a legitimate alternative to evolution. Or American Indian legends.

[IrateCitizen]

23. Creationism is not science. It is a belief.

Evolution is just a THEORY, not a scientific LAW. But it is a theory that has been subjected to the process of the scientific method -- so it is therefore recognized as potentially viable from a scientific point of view. People are free to accept or reject it if they wish.

Creationism, OTOH, is simply an attempt to translate religious dogma into scientific belief. But in the end, it is only that -- a belief. It falls apart when subjected to the scientific method, and what we know about natural processes and the physical laws of the universe.

[Jane Roe]

26. I like the way my public high school handled it

We learned the history of this debate, a lot in science class and a little in history class.

We learned the controversy caused by evolutionary theory in the 1800s and 1900s.

We learned a bit about the evidence supporting evolutionary theory.

We also learned a bit about the modern problems being debated in evolutionary theory and some of the older (intelligent design) and newer (panspermia, is it called) "alternatives."

Note: I put alternatives in quotes because any theory of origins is probably at least going to acknowledge micro-evolutionary process of the kind that Darwin noticed in his swallow bills.

Learning about the evolution of the evolution debate has helped me much, much more than knowing evolutionary theory itself has helped me!

[K-W]

32. My science teacher explained why creationism wasnt a theory

and thus why he would not be talking anymore about it, then he moved on and explained evolution.

[Jane Roe]

64. Creationism has not been disproven

There is simply a lack of empirical evidence for it.

Also, evolution has still has considearable problems explaining some of the more sudden and drastic species shifts found in the fossil record.

Looks like your science teacher taught you to simply believe the prevailing theory of your time and be done with it. This lack of critical questioning is bad science and when you know the history of the evolution debate in more detail, it becomes easier to avoid this kind of intellectual laziness.

[Az]

65. The cretionist argument

is not put forward in a way that it can be refuted. It is not science. It is insistance that god created the universe and that you must keep banging on evidence and people until you make it fit their premise. You must discard any evidence that thwarts your position.

This is simply not how science is done. You do not get to force everything you find to fit your pet idea. If the evidence does not fit you have to discard the idea and come up with one that fits the evidence.

[Jane Roe]

73. I don't think that is the way classical Greeks . . .

argued their version of creationism. Creationism sure has had some irresponsible, unselfcritical exponents over the years. However, you seem to be confusing the value of the theory with the value of the messengers.

[Az]

78. I am examining the current motiffe

The current trend in creationism is not one of a scientific endevour. Instead they are bent on a socio/legal endeavor to leverage their teachings back into the public schools. To do this they have to disguise their ideas as something that can pass the smell test of the school boards. Thus they dress creationism up as Intelligent Design. But its the same old bogey. It is not a proper scientific theory and thus does not belong in a science class. It is more than welcome in a comparitive religion class but do not mix up genres by placing it in a biology class room.

[Jane Roe]

86. It sure is a proper theory -- it is simply unsupported

If creationism is an improper theory, then you should be able to show me where experiment or observation has disproved the existence of a creator being. Unless and until that happens, creationism remains a proper theory for further investigation (and possible disproof) as we get better observational tools and design more creative experiments.

Science does not reject an idea just because it was first put forward by the "wrong" people. Science rejects theories based on real, empirical evidence.

[Az]

132. That is exactly why it is not a theory

Its explanation is not put forward in a way it can be refuted. A theory to be proper has to have a reasonable means to refute it. Using a logical fallacy (disprove a negative) does not constitute validation of a theory.

[Beetwasher]

134. Can you DISPROVE That I am the creator being?

If not, then I have a theory: Beetwasher is the Creator Being. If you can't disprove it, then it's a valid theory.

Pretty silly huh?

[Jane Roe]

139. Your ? asks if I can prove that you are the Creator being.

Maybe you meant a different question, but the above question is the one your subject line asks as a matter of symbolic logic.

So, I will go about my proof the way a scientist would here:

First:

Are you the creator being, Beetwasher?

Second:

If so, please create a new species for me so that I can observe you at work and feel confident about your claim.

[Beetwasher]

158. No, My theory is

Beetwasher is the creator being, now titled "Beetwasherism"

By the logic in your post, if you can't DISPROVE this, then it's a valid theory.

Now, personally, I would say that first I would have to prove that I am the creator being since I'm the one making the claim. But I'm not the one who wrote the following:

"If creationism is an improper theory, then you should be able to show me where experiment or observation has
disproved the existence of a creator being. Unless and until that happens, creationism remains a proper theory for
further investigation (and possible disproof) as we get better observational tools and design more creative
experiments."

If "Beetwasherism" is an improper theory, then you should be able to show me where experiment or observation has disproved the existence of "Beetwasher". etc....Yes it's silly, I know, but no more silly than what you wrote.

It's not possible to DISPROVE a creator being. It's not possible to DISPROVE the existence of fairies either. It's not possible to DISPROVE my existence. It's not possible to DISPROVE the statment that "I created the universe". It's not possible to DISPROVE the statement "God created the Universe".

[earthman dave]

163. I am convinced by your argument

...and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. :evilgrin:

[Beetwasher]

181. LOL! That'll be

$21.95 a month, just send cash!

[Jane Roe]

167. Sort of agree

I don't think Beetwasherism is "valid." (Not sure what exactly "valid" means in this context).

However, Beetwasherism is a theory that: (1) would explain a lot we want to know; and (2) is backed by no good scientific evidence right now. It is important to know and appreciate the limits of unsupported theories. Our investigation of Beetwasherism really seems to have helped you understand these importnat things. Maybe I should teach high school science!

[Beetwasher]

180. Ok, instead of valid

Use proper, since you used improper.


"However, Beetwasherism is a theory that: (1) would explain a lot we want to know; and (2) is backed by no good
scientific evidence right now. It is important to know and appreciate the limits of unsupported theories. Our
investigation of Beetwasherism really seems to have helped you understand these importnat things. Maybe I should
teach high school science!"

Uhhh, yeah, OK. Honestly, if your defending ID, then I hope they keep you far away from HS Science classes.

Your points 1 and 2 go equally well for ID. I hope you see that. I think you may be sort of be joking here, but you did make my point for me. Just replace Beetwasherism w/ ID or Creationism and you should get the idea. Evolution on the other hand, unlike Beetwasherism, ID or Creationism, also explains a lot we want to know and in addition is backed by lot's of good science and observation.

[Jane Roe]

190. I learned both points one and two

in the context of teaching ID by a 10th grade biology teacher who was know for his political liberalism and vigorous atheism. He did not advocate ID (nor do I). He merely taught that it was a popular theory, not disproven, but also sadly unproven in view of its extreme popularity.

This was a great lesson for me, even though people on this thread can't seem to understand that you can teach ID without teaching them to advocate it or misbelieve that ID theory is scientifically compelling. All this may be a little subtle for adults, but 10th graders have no problem with it (at least in Mr. Baker's class).

[Beetwasher]

197. Except it's dangerous to teach it as valid science

It's NOT valid science. I could see it being taught in a science class as an example of BAD science or science being misused. I wouldn't expect a 10th grader to naturally know the difference without being shown.

It's a slippery slope to introduce ID into a science class though, regardless of how it's done. What's next? The Great Flood being taught as the cause for the Grand Canyon? Why not?

[Jane Roe]

206. question, comment

What do you mean by "valid?" If the answer is "proper," then what do you mean by "proper?"

The evidence for Great Floods is not the Grand Canyon, but rather the same evidence noted by scientists of the ancient world, specifically there were fossils on mountaintops that should not be there. It is true that any Great Flood probably did not cover the entire world, but some scientists think that the Black Sea may have flooded sufficiently to cover the entire world from the perspective of the authors of the Old Testament.

btw, other cultures have great flood stories, and scientists think that other cultures may have experienced great floods. As a matter of fact, scientists find these cultural accounts somewhat helpful in a limited sense (certainly not as definitive proof of anything).

Clarification: I am not suggesting the teaching of Great Flood theory in high school. This is an arcane debate compared to ID versus evolution.

[Beetwasher]

215. Look

I'm not going to get into a debate about valid or proper science. Suffice it to say valid or proper science is science that follows the scientific method. I hope that 's sufficient for you. If not, then I'm sorry, but I would hope you would know what that is.

I'm also not going to get into a discussion about whether or not the great flood happened. It's only relevant to this discussion in that you just wrote this:

"Clarification: I am not suggesting the teaching of Great Flood theory in high school. This is an arcane debate
compared to ID versus evolution."

You see, it's not arcane compared to ID vs. evolution. ID is essentially creationism which is based on a story from the bible. It's EXACTLY the same thing. Why do you think all these fundie yahoos try to claim that they actually found Noah's Ark? You are even trying to validate the great flood by claiming fossils on mountains as evidence (this is evidence of tectonic shift btw, NOT a great flood) Evolution is a flexible scientific theory based on observation and accumulation of evidence and is revised accordingly when the evidence warrants (THAT'S VALID SCIENCE). ID is an intransigent theory based on a fairy tale in the bible with evidence that fits it tacked on and any evidence that contradicts it is ignored (THAT'S INVALID SCIENCE).

[Jane Roe]

217. You substitute political conviction for scientific proof / disproof

Specifically, your argument suggests that if a fundie yahoo passionately believes something it must be wrong. You basically make the same mistake that fundie yahoos do, just pointed in the opposite direction.

[Beetwasher]

226. Nonsense

Where did I do that? That's ridiculous. I never said "if a fundie yahoo passionately believes something it must be wrong." Don't put words in my mouth, that's dishonest. Please point out where I said this. Nice strawman though, I see how you completely avoid all the main points of my arguments and my post, so I'll post the gist again and give you an opportunity to actually discuss the topic:

Evolution is a flexible scientific theory based on observation and
accumulation of evidence and is revised accordingly when the evidence warrants (THAT'S VALID SCIENCE). ID is an
intransigent theory based on a fairy tale in the bible with evidence that fits it tacked on and any evidence that
contradicts it is ignored (THAT'S INVALID SCIENCE).

Stay on topic please and don't put words in my mouth.

[Jane Roe]

228. Then why are you so sure that fundie yahoos are wrong about ID?

Again: I understand that some species origins are definitely evolution. I am talking about ID in the context of unexplained spoecies origins and the "ultimate origin of life."

[Beetwasher]

235. Whoever said I was SURE they were wrong?

I didn't say that. Again, you put words in my mouth. I only said they have a theory that's not scientific and not backed by the evidence and that they ONLY use evidence that fits the theory while disregarding evidence that doesn't fit. They could be right. Maybe there is god. But it's NOT provable by science and therefore not the realm of science and shouldn't be taught as science. The main source of 'evidence' for their theory is 1. the bible 2. the claim that evolutionary theory isn't perfect and therefore, something else must be at work. That's it. That's NOT how a scientific theory should be arrived at.

[Jane Roe]

241. You say you are SURE of this

everytime you say that ID is "invalid science" or improper for scientific investigation.

Science only stops investigating a theory, when it is sure that the theory is wrong. True, more scientific resources may be devoted to likely-true theories (like Big Bang) and ones that we are more likely to prove or disprove (looking for extra terrestrial life).

However, none of that turns ID into into anything invalid or improper from a scientific perspective. It only becomes invaild or improper in the eyes of science when we can be SURE it is wrong (like flat earth).

[Beetwasher]

248. You're misunderstanding of scientific method is noted

No wonder you are so confused.

ID is improper for scientific investigation because it is UNFALSIFIABLE. Do you understand what that means? How would you go about falsifying the theory of ID? If you say by disproving the existence of a creator being, then you've just made my point.

[Jane Roe]

255. ID is unfalsifiable with current methods

There are many ways to falsify ID that may develop (and probably will) in the fullness of time.

One theoretical falsification (using tools and methods of the far future) is to perform the hard to explain species differentiations and generation of life from inanimate matter in a lab.

Another potential ID falsification method of the future is to get in touch with a more intelligent extraterrestrial or extra-dimensional race (assuming such races exist) and ask them for the real story.

You seem so impatient waiting for these things to happen!

Just because something is unfalsifiable now doesn't mean it always will be. For millenia the theory of a round earth was unfalsifiable. Of course, this theory later turned out to became falsifiable and proven true. Similarly, for millenia the theory of a flat eart was unfalsifiable. This theory later became falsifiable and falsified.

[Beetwasher]

264. What a complete and total cop out

Well, gee, it's just not falsifiable yet! But maybe one day when we're advance enough! What crap!

Generation of life from inanimate matter in the lab wouldn't falsify ID nor would duplicating the hard to explain species differentiation. How would this falsify the idea that an intelligence is behind speciation? It would merely show that OUR intelligence can duplicate what that mysterious other intelligence did. It doesn't falsify the theory.

Asking aliens for the real story is your idea of falsification? Are you serious? That's absurd. I can't believe you even wrote that. That's called an "appeal to authority" and is a BIG no no in science. Surely you understand that.

I'm not impatient at all, I just know bullshit when I see it and I know an unfalsifiable theory when I see it.

Your continued misunderstanding of the idea of falsification is noted.

Your round earth analogy is terrible. People back then actually were able to know HOW to falsify it, even if they didn't have the means and anyway the DID have the means. They sailed around the earth, among other things. You can't even come up with a way to even begin to falsify ID. That means it's a belief NOT a scientific theory.

Even scientific theories for which we have no MEANS to falsify at the moment, we at least know HOW they CAN be falsified.

[earthman dave]

138. Creationism has never been disproved

because it is incapable of being disproved. A theory is falsifiable. Creationism is not falsifiable - it explains anything, predicts nothing. Your coy "misunderstanding" is telling.

[Jane Roe]

140. There are a lot of things science cannot yet explain

Creationism is not alone in the land of currently unfalsifiable theories.

As far as what the future holds: what I will guarantee you is that there will be great change.

[earthman dave]

157. "Great change"?

Perhaps you could explain the nature of this change. While you're at it, can you describe the future technology we'll have that will enable us to scientifically test creationism?

[Jane Roe]

173. These are good things to contemplate . . .

In another post I theorized that the creator being(s) might reside in the 10th to 14th dimensions. String theorists are currently trying to find out as much about these and other dimensions as they can, including the question of whether intelligent life resides there. They are having a hard time, and might not make much progress in our life times, but still they labor on.

This example shows why I cannot predict the exact nature of great changes, there are too many possibility and too much imagination is involved for any single individual to set forth too many of the far-flung possibilities.

[earthman dave]

183. !

:tinfoilhat:

[Jane Roe]

187. We don't even know all the species in the ocean

and you think it is crazy to posit species in other dimensions?

I think the tin foil hat should only go on my head when I say that I know there are species in other dimensions, not for merely pointing out that science is currently investigating these dimensions.

[earthman dave]

191. That was the first response that sprang to mind

Don't you think getting the law involved "just in case" we find intelligent beings in dimensions ten through fourteen is a bit extreme? You're clever, so you say "reasonable" things, but really - what response do you expect? This is an attempt to bring god in by the back door - you've heard of occam's razor, presumably? What is your view on speciation? Do the n-dimensional overlords intervene occasionally, or was creation a one-off event?

[Jane Roe]

195. I do not propose that we start writing statutes for the 14th dim

I merely think that good critical thinking is a talent that runs across law and science.

There is no reason that a good lawyer cannot be a good scientist, and throughout history many people have been both.

Even Einstein was a patent clerk, which is to say, a legal functionary.

[Az]

202. Good, cuz there are only 11 dimensions

Or at least that is one prominent theory. Furthermore moving from one dimense to another would involve more energy than there is in the entire universe. So this moves it to the unlikely category.

[Jane Roe]

216. So you think you have disproved life in other dimensions

It would be interesting to hear a scientist's critique of your disproof.

I am no scientist, but it strikes me as less than perfectly rigorous.

Clarification: Of course, I am not suggesting that any of this actively proves the existence of life in other dimensions. All I am saying is that science doesn't now know one way or the other.

[Az]

224. Oh, by no means

The response was mostly intended as humor but the science was accurate (to the extent that it is a current theory).

The serious aspect of my statement was that if there were life in another dimense (not dimension, that is a misused term in SciFi) to exit that universe and enter this one would require more energy than is available in either universe. Thus while there may well be beings living in another dimense, their ability to get here is seriously questionable. And again note that this does not preclude the possibility of it being the case. It merely lowers its odds to the point that it need not be readily considered.

[Jane Roe]

227. Yes, the gods of the 14th dimense

cannot get here using energy and energy transfer mechanism we have observed in our tiny 4 dimense slice of life.

They would have to have some stuff we aren't familiar with yet.

[earthman dave]

204. I see no reason to bring god into the classroom

and the idea that god may be found in a higher dimension doesn't change that. If n-dimensional beings did create life on earth, why do it in such a way that it is indistinguishable from evolution? Why bring in a "theory" that can explain anything at all, when the one we have explains the world we see? Forgive my suspicious nature, but I don't think it's uncertainty about the contents of the fourteenth dimension that is at the root of your arguments here. I smell fundamentalism.

[Jane Roe]

212. Your olfactory sense is way off.

The answer is God belongs in the science class so that the children can learn that theological arguments are not scientific proof. This wouldn't be a necessary lesson, but for the fact that so, so many people have made this mistake over history.

[Selwynn]

286. Neither has buttshitism - the theory that the world was crapped into being

Doesn't mean we should waste a lot of time on it....

[Jane Roe]

288. Already answered at post #281 nt

[Selwynn]

289. That may have been an answer ot "some" statement - just not mine

[Jane Roe]

290. Buttshittism has impeded science as much as Biblical creationism?

I'd never heard of that. Is there a link to the Buttshitism story? Did anything like the scopes trial happen?

[BurtWorm]

83. Is it science's job to prove there is a God?

Is it science's job to wonder if there is a God?


Incidentally, here is the first footnote in Darwin's "Historical Sketch," which appeared in the second edition of The Origin of Species:

Aristotle, in his 'Physicae Auscultationes' (lib. 2, cap. 8, s. 2), after remarking that rain does not fall in order to make the corn grow, any more than it falls to spoil the farmer's corn when threshed out of doors, applies the same argument to organization: and adds (as translated by Mr. Clair Grece, who first pointed out the passage to me), "So what hinders the different parts <of the body> from having this merely accidental relation in nature? as the teeth, for example, grow by necessity, the front ones sharp, adapted for dividing, and the grinders flat, and serviceable for masticating the food; since they were not made for the sake of this, but it was the result of accident. And in like manner as to the other parts in which there appears to exist an adaptation to an end. Wheresoever, therefore, all things together (that is all the parts of one whole) happened like as if they were made for the sake of something, these were preserved, having been appropriately constituted by an internal spontaneity, and whatsoever things were not thus constituted, perished, and still perish. We here see the principle of natural selection shadowed forth, but how little Aristotle fully comprehended the principle, is shown by his remarks on the formation of the teeth.

[Jane Roe]

93. Answers

Yes, it is science's job to wonder if there is a God. It is science's job to wonder about everything.

However, while theology may focus on proving the existence of a God, science is supposed to be skeptical and focus on disproving the existence of God. When science succeeds in this, they will have made a valuable contribution to humankind's existence.

[BurtWorm]

100. Science can't disprove the existence of God. It isn't equipped to deal

with metaphysical questions. That is a philosophical question, as well as a theological one. In the 18th Century, philosophy and science were conflated. But as soon as Darwin and others made clear that science didn't need to concern itself with the confusing and fruitless question of God, metaphysics and science parted company.

This may be an oversimplification, but it's an oversimplification of a truth.

[Jane Roe]

117. Metaphysics is just a way of saying . . .

that science doesn't currently have the tools to give us the answer to a question. It doesn't mean that science should not even try, but it does mean that science should be forthright about things it is unable to definitively explain at any point in history.

Above in this thread a poster drew a helpful distinction between species origin (eg, microevolution) and ultimate origin (eg, macroevolution). High schoolers should be taught that science has done a better job answering questions in one of these areas, but not the other (yet). Part of knowing science is an understanding of the current limits of science, and techniques that we humans use when science is silent or inconclusive. Of course, these techniques include "non-natural" philosophy, metaphysics and religion.

[BurtWorm]

126. If science doesn't have the tools to make sense of metaphysical

questions, why should high school science teachers be stuck trying to teach about them? Don't we want science teachers to teach science? Should we have them teach the rules of Gin Rummy as well? ;)

[Jane Roe]

143. Science teachers should teach . . .

what the limits of current science are -- and there are impiortant limits.

High schoolers need to know less about subject matter that lies beyond what science can currently explain, but I think high schoolers should be taught that: (1) this currently-unexplaianble subject matter exists; (2) that generally are non-scientific methods that humans use to try to deal with what lies beyond the limits of science.

As a practical example of what I mean by the previous paragraph: we learned about round and flat earth theories in high school (9th grade) and we learned that for centuries our science could not definitively answer this question. We learned that, during those centuries, there were metaphysical and theological arguments on both sides of the debate. We also learned that science eventually gave us a definitive answer as to the Earth's shape, when our powers of observation sufficiently developed. I have found knowing this piece of scientific and metaphysical history to be extremely important in my life.

[BurtWorm]

152. Well, exactly. Science teachers should explain what the limits of

science are, what science can study, and why there are limits.

That would leave ID out in the cold, incidentally.

[Jane Roe]

155. That doesn't leave ID in the cold

it merely puts ID along with theories whose proof currently lies beyond the limits (but not the investigations of science). Other such theories include:

string theory
extraterrestrial life
big bang theory
theories of "lost" civilizations

and so on.

On edit: if ID is taught, the science teacher should certainly teach: (1) empirical evidence does not support it; and (2) religious arguments mean exactly el-zilcho in the world of science. Some people on this thread seem to think that religous argument form a sort of scientific disproof, but IMO this is not true.

[BurtWorm]

162. Should a biology teacher go into string theory? Big Bang theory?

How much time should a high school biology teacher spend on "cryptozoology" or "close encounters of the third kind?"

Is it a high school biology teacher's job to teach his or her students everything they need to know about science?

What are the limits of what we can expect from our high school biology teachers?

[Jane Roe]

179. science teachers don't have to teach every unproven theory

However, they should teach some.

Big Bang theory is a good candidate because this shows an example of a theory that has made much progress in the recent past nad is likely, though unproven.

String theory is a nice one because it shows how creative and weird scientific theorizing can get, even though this theory is far, far away from being scientifically proven.

Creationism is good to teach because it shows how religion can get in the way of science, both by making people accept unproven theory for bad reasons (the fundies) and for making people absolutely reject unproven theories for bad reasons (this thread).

[BurtWorm]

186. The fundamental question I'm asking: What should a biology teacher teach?

What do you want your child to learn from a high school biology class? What would you want to learn from a class calling itself "Biology?"

[Jane Roe]

198. Good litmus test

If the average, non-scientist adult has heard of an unproven theory, then it is probably a good one to teach.

Of course, this means that the vast majority of unproven theories will go untaught, which is probably just as well at the high school level.

As I have stressed before: it is important to teach that completely unsupported theories are just that and to then go on to examine why they are popular despite poor status in the scientific community.

[BurtWorm]

201. Isn't the obvious answer that a biology teacher should teach biology?

:think:

[Jane Roe]

213. The mis-steps biology has made is a part of biology

You cannot understand and appreciate scientific theory solely through a study of science's unvarnished success stories.

[BurtWorm]

219. But how much are you going to devote to mis-steps?

How much is devoted to actually doing biology?

"Well, kids, ordinarily at this time of year, we dissect a drusophila, but the new curriculum requires us to cover mis-step #4,869."

[Jane Roe]

223. I like the approach my teacher took

He spent much more of the year on the physiology and taxonomy of various species than he spent on scientific theory and culture.

However, I will say that the parts of the course on scientific theory and culture has been more directly applicable to my life than knowing mitosis, mitochondria, radial symmetry, phyla, xylem or any of the other crazy stuff we learned (most of which I have forgotten, for better or worse).

[BurtWorm]

229. Well, I would have appreciated my biology teacher spreading

the theoretical and historical issues out a bit more over the year to help us through the dull empirical stretches. I'm not a biologist, thanks to that class and other aspects of my temperament. But I wonder what it would have been like to have had my sister's biology teacher. She's not a biologist either, but she still quotes lessons she learned from him.

(Moral: it's hard enough as it is to get a good teacher. Why not make them excel at their subjects rather than try to shoe-horn an irrelevant agenda into their curricula?)

[Jane Roe]

232. What is more relevant to your life?

a. The debate on this thread; or

b. xylem?

For me, the answer is a, by a country mile.

[BurtWorm]

239. The debate on this thread is spectacle.

It's entertainment. It's fun, but it's a distraction.

I wish I could have received a firmer sense of knowing why "xylem" is relevant to my life. I wish my teacher had conveyed more of the sense of excitement a biologist feels when coming to understand something about a subject of study. Of course a lot of that can't be taught. But why burden a teacher with unnecessary tasks when the job is difficult enough as it is?

[Jane Roe]

247. My advice: forget about xylem

Unless you study trees, it is just represents wasted space in your brain.

[BurtWorm]

251. You can't be serious!

I'll just assume you're not serious.

That is one of the most anti-intellectual statements from a defender of critical thinking I think I can imagine.

[Jane Roe]

256. Nothing about critical thinking . . .

means you have to be a trivia expert, or even that being a trivia expert is generally helpful.

Maybe I am just now discovering why Mr. Baker took the time to teach us what "xylem" is -- this classtime taught us all the valuable lesson that some knowledge is not worth the time and mental effort it takes to acquire it.

[BurtWorm]

259. You really think you learned about xylem to help you distinguish

between trivia and matters of significance? You don't think it was because your teacher thought it might be important for you to have a deeper understanding of what a tree is?

[Jane Roe]

265. You seem to acknowledge that some true knowledge is useless trivia

so I think we agree on the important thing here.

Also, I think we agree that secondary education should focus on subject matter that is likely to be relevant to the lives of a substantial proportion of the students.

We just disagree as to whether "xylem" meets the standard of the previous paragraph. seems like a pretty minor disagreement to me.

[BurtWorm]

266. The basic disagreement is on whether biology teachers

should teach something other than biology, if I understand you correctly. My position is they should excel at teaching biology. Your position seems to be that in order for them to be excellent they need to teach something in addition to biology. Is that right? This is not just a trivial disagreement. This goes to the heart of the ID in the schools debate, in the US at least.

[Jane Roe]

274. I would frame our differences differently

You seem to think that biology teachers should teach only currently known and accepted biological knowledge and currently-respected theories. I think many people would agree with you.

I think biology teachers should dump some of the more arcane knowledge and additionally teach the history of biology, its development as a science, some of the mistakes it has made in the past, some of the famous personalities involved, methods of scientific thinking and the fact that some currently accepted theories may be seen as wrong or woefully incomplete. Of course, I don't just feel this way about boiology -- I feel the same way about chemistry, physics, earth science and (to some extent math). I feel this way because I think knowledge about the way in which knowledge is acquired is just as important (or more important) than the bare facts (like knowing apart xylem and phloegm).

I guess I am pretty radical in this way of thinking, so it is not surprising that I seem to be catching a lot of flak on this thread.

[BurtWorm]

293. This is not so radical.

"I think biology teachers should dump some of the more arcane knowledge and additionally teach the history of biology, its development as a science, some of the mistakes it has made in the past, some of the famous personalities involved, methods of scientific thinking and the fact that some currently accepted theories may be seen as wrong or woefully incomplete."

I don't know what you mean by "dumping some of the more arcane knowledge," but otherwise I have no problem with what you're describing. I don't think biology should be taught as though every student is going to become a professional biologist, but my point is, the subject should be biology--not philosophy or theology. The object in high school biology classes should be to give high school students a firm foundation in biology.

[rexcat]

291. Try the theroy of punctuated equilibrium by Stephen Jay Gould...

May I suggest before you start discussing areas of science you have obviously not kept up on (i.e. evoulution) you do your homework before you make any sweeping statements that evolution can't explain sudden and draistic speicies shifts. Dr. Gould, proir to his untimely death last year of cancer, laid out his theory of punctuated equilibrium to explain that the fossil records are correct but for years they have been misinterpreted.

[Jane Roe]

294. Already addressed at post #245

Also, wasn't I just reading some trenchant criticism of the late Gould last year in Harper's. Maybe I should start subscribing to more progressive mags.

[BurtWorm]

33. You've made a very good point. Teaching the controversy

teaches the difference between science and theology. Why is creationism/inteligent design not really a science? There could be a whole new discipline in high school, science in society. It was a major where I went to university. Why not start high school students on the subject?

[Jane Roe]

200. yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes nt

[Az]

210. Careful

Teaching the controversy implies teaching that a particular religious belief is wrong in a direct manner. Teaching evolution leaves enough room that they must figure out the mistakes of a particular religious tenant. Teaching the belief and showing how it went wrong runs a foul of Church/State seperation issues. It would be up there with offering a class on the logical fallacies of Christianity.

[BurtWorm]

214. No it does not imply that at all.

If you teach the abortion controversy in school, do you teach that one side or the other is wrong? Not at all. This is not about right and wrong, but about figuring out why this is a controversy in the first place. The object is not to determine who wins the argument, but what the issues and arguments actually are and why there is no resolution between them. Controversy itself is the subject, not origins of species per se.

[Jane Roe]

220. Science disproving religion

I have no problem with teaching that science teaches that the world is over 5000 years old or that the Earth rotates around the sun. If this conflicts with some kid's religion, then t.s.

However, it is imporatnt not to overstate what science actually has disproven. Some people on this thread seem to think that science has disproven more theological theories than it really has.

[BurtWorm]

222. It's not in the business of proving or disproving theological theories!

It has nothing to do with theology at all! That rift is unbridgeable.

[Jane Roe]

230. Both science and theology deal with a lot of the same questions

High schoolers need to understand that there is a difference in the two approaches and how to recognize apart a theological approach from a scientific approach.

The history of ID versus evolution is probably the best way to do this -- I mean do you have a better object lesson to get this important distinction across?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

36. I went to Catholic School in Massachusetts-we learned Evolution

we learned about the controversy as well, but creationism was never put forth as a viable theory.

[Jane Roe]

66. How were the current problems with evolutionary theory addressed? nt

[Kathy in Cambridge]

71. This was in the early '80s

our biology teacher basically said creationism was a nice belief, but did not stand up to the scientific method. No one in my class believed in creationism so it wasn't really an issue. Personally, I don't think a religious belief should be presented as a viable theory. That's bullshit.

[Jane Roe]

149. It would have been nice . . .

If he had taught you something about the shortcomings and limitations of evolutionary theory.

It probably would have helped the students form better critical thinking skills and a healthy appreciation for the limits of science.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

156. I have a Masters in History and my Catholic School was rated

one of the best in the nation. Trust me, there is nothing wrong with the critical thinking skills of many of my fellow graduates who went on to teach at Harvard, start businesses, become prominent lawyers and represent their constituencies in the state senate.

Those that lack critical thinking skills tend to believe in creationism. Do you think DNA evidence linking species is false? Do you think someone planted dinosaur fossils? Talk about tinfoil hat conspiracy theories.

[Jane Roe]

184. If your critical thinking skills are so honed

Then why do you not acknowledge the shortcomings and weak points of modern evolutionary theories that evolutionary scientists are still working on and actively debating with vigor.

As far as how I explain DNA, you will see from my other posts on this thread that I understand that evolution has been virtually proven as the mechanism of origin for many (if not most) species.

By the way, you mentiobned lawyers. Law school can be an excellent place to pick up critical thinking schools late in life. For an example of a law professor writing about the critical thinking aspects of evolutionary theory, I recommend Prof Phil Johnson's 1990 book on the subject.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

207. Because creationism is a political tool

and anyone who argues for its inclusion in a modern biology course is blinded by their belief system.

[Jane Roe]

236. For anyone able to follow this thread,

the lack of critical thought in this post should be manifest.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

269. I’m just not convinced by your sophistry

It's not about my inability to think critically; it's an inability to be bullshitted.

I've seen your anti-choice arguments and they smack of the same convoluted reasoning present in this thread.

Enjoy your brief stint on your high horse-I'll let my fellow Democrats knock you off.

[Jane Roe]

275. They're a-tryin'

But I will win in the end.

[bowens43]

30. ID isn't a theory in the scientific sense of the word.

[K-W]

38. Well, it is a theory, it is just a really aweful theory.

It is unfalsifiable.

On top of that it isnt even very logically sound.

[IrateCitizen]

40. No, it isn't a theory. It's a hypothesis.

And a bad one which falls apart upon application of natural physical laws that we already know.

Evolution, OTOH, is a theory which has been subjected to numerous experiments via the scientific method. While it cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt -- in which case it would be a LAW -- it still has withstood the experiments applied to it.

If you refer to creationism as a "theory", you're attributing more weight to it than it deserves. It is just a belief, that is all.

[not systems]

34. What about "flat earth science" the...

alternate view of geography.

:crazy:

[Courtney_P]

42. I am a practicing Catholic but........

My religious beliefs have no place in a classroom. At heart I am a creationist, but that is a personal belief, not a scientific or academic belief.

[Az]

46. As a Catholic you don't have to worry anymore

The pope acknowledged evolution and agreed it takes place. He kept the door open for Catholics to believe that god had some special action concerning the creation of humans. But Catholics need not fear evolution any further.

[Courtney_P]

67. Oh I am not worried per se

I lean toward the intelligent design theory myself. So many people believe that Christianity and science are mutually exclusive. I think that both can coexist quite harmoniously.

[Az]

69. I would suggest

That whatever is true need fear nothing from science. Science is just a method for chipping away that which is false. What is left behind is our current best guess as to what is true. Thus if god exists there is no reason to expect that science will not lead us to his/her/its door. However conversely if there is no god one must expect that this absense may be demonstrated over time as well (albeit difficultly due to the inability to prove a negative).

[not systems]

47. Ok. I agree. n/t

[Kathy in Cambridge]

48. I never learned creationism-and I went to Catholic school

We learned Religion in Religion class-it never entered our regular curriculum. Seems the nuns thought like you too-religion has no place in the classroom, except in courses that specifically addressed Catholic dogma.

[donco6]

108. I went to Catholic School and never learned creationism

Curious why you would have a problem with it.

[markses]

45. It's funny

Henri Bergson did a great riff on so-called "Intelligent design" and standard evolutionary at the turn of the century. people should look back at his "Creative Evolution."

[rman]

49. No, because ID is not a theory

You know how people sometimes say "it's just theory"?
Well, ID is "just an idea".

[9215]

52. Here's the deal.....

if the fundies want to bring church to the schools ( compromising Church and State Separation)then Evolution should be given equal time in church and bible school and all non-secular arenas. Darwin's Origin of Species taught alonside the Bible.

Don't ask me how to operationalize it but if "balance" is what these bozos want, which of course really isn't what they want, then let's give equal time to evolution theory when the issue is raised. Call it the Fairness Doctrine for Fundies or something.

[billyskank]

54. If it can be taught as an alternative theory, then let's be fair

why is the Christian conception being singled out for being taught? For example, Hindus believe that the universe was created by a demigod called Brahma who was empowered by God for the task (he had to meditate and perform austerities before he knew how to do his job though). As a theory, that's at least as good as creationism. So I say yes, but if creationism can be taught then so should all religions' theories - fair's fair after all.

[chiburb]

55. I thought "Intelligent Design"....

Was a show on HGTV...

[On the Road]

59. Not Until It Qualifies as a Scientific Theory on a Par with Evolution

Once intelligent design has a detailed cohesive view of biology, geology, and all the subordinate disciplines, it can share the textbooks with evolution. But there's well over a century of catching up to do.

What you have now are the equivalent of high school term papers.

[lapislzi]

61. 15 answers to creationist nonsense

<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2>

I keep this in my favorites folder for occasions just like these.

[baldguy]

70. Yes.

If you want to include the Hindu idea of creationism, or the Native American ideas, or the SE Asian, South American, Austalian, Inuit, African, Siberian, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Then you can add that the earth is at the center of the universe, and that it's flat. Illnesses are caused by "bad thoughts" and "bad air" and not viruses and bacteria.

The only way to include creationism, or any other of these ideas, in science curricula is to remove the science.

[Honesthumanbeing]

74. I voted "other"

I don't consider either to be science and so neither should be taught in a science curriculum.

[Terwilliger]

76. and math is not credible because you can't count?

:shrug:

[Honesthumanbeing]

161. Pardon?

Are you attempting an analogy here? I didn't say "evolution isn't credible because I don't understand it." I said that it isn't science, period. Just because people call it science doesn't mean it proceeds in the spirit of true science--kinda like with social science. I didn't even say it wasn't credible--in fact, I believe there is a lot of truth to it. But I don't consider it to be science.

[DrWeird]

194. But you clearly don't understand it.

Because by any lucid definition of the word science, evolution is a science.

It's the cornerstone to biology which, in case you didn't know, is also a science.

If you disagree please explain. You may also want to let the thousands of scientists who work with evolution that it is not a science, and be sure to tell the editors of all of the scientific journals that publish papers on evolution that it is also not a science.

[Honesthumanbeing]

253. My definition of "science"

Excludes inquiry into past events that were not experienced by human consciousness--I have philosophical reasons to believe this but I'm not interested in trying to convince you of them. Insofar as the theory of evolution makes tangible predictions about the future, I am willing to call it science. I realize that this isn't the prevailing definition of science. However, I feel it is dangerous to equate different sorts of inquiries under one label--clearly evolution is not science in the same way that physics is science.

[DrWeird]

270. Mmm, I see.

So astronomy isn't a science. Because the events we're witnessing now happened millions of years ago.

And paleontology isn't a science because dinosaurs lived before people.

And geology isn't a science because plate tectonics built the mountains before human consciousness.

Glad yours isn't the prevailing definition.

[Jane Roe]

79. I am curious to do further Internet "research"

any good links on the scientific shortcomings of evolution theory?

[Az]

87. A good source for evolution

can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org . This site should be required reading for anyone preparing to engage in creation/evolution debate.

[Bridget Burke]

130. Here's a good source.

Ought to be right up your alley!

www.landoverbaptist.org/subjectarchive/creationscience.html

[Jane Roe]

151. This is not helpful at all.

In fact, I think its crap.

I am not sure that you understand my my point of view very well.

[Bridget Burke]

159. Landover Baptist is not crap! How dare you say that!

You requested information on the shortcomings of evolution. They've got a whole list of 'em. Plus many more items of vital importance.

I'm pretty sure that I do understand your point of view.

[Az]

171. Please keep in mind

Just because you do not agree with a persons beliefs does not mean they do not have a great deal of their life invested in their belief. Just because you may see elementary flaws in their ideas does not mean the belief is not an important definition of who they are. When discussing things of this weight with someone who you would have be an allie or friend it is probably not a good idea to poke fun at their beliefs.

[treepig]

299. you probably made a good point

but when somebody has beliefs that are just so absolutely bizarre - it's just a bit too tempting to poke at bit of fun their way.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

295. Landover Baptist Church The Godly Wanted The Unsaved Unwelcome

[BurtWorm]

121. How is the theory of evolution "not science"?

:hi:

[Honesthumanbeing]

172. It's too speculative.

[BurtWorm]

174. Where is it written that science must not speculate?

[rman]

301. speculation does not provide insight, isn't that obvious?

speculation is just a lot of maybe's

[Danieljay]

77. it IS intellegent design...

who could argue with that? Its beautiful, its marvelous, and it works! The process of evolution, the new discoveries in quantum physics, if the process that IS this is not by some standards intelligent, I don't know what is.

That being said... Creationism, as proposed by Biblical fundamentalists, has no basis in reality. As a student in Seminary, and knowing how much of the Bible is "Lost in Translation", Those that teach that the Genesis story is the literal account of Creation need to return to school, learn Hebrew and Aramaic, and read those chapters again from the ORIGINAL text, or at least study with someone who can.

[NeonLX]

82. Yup, agreed...

The "creationists" are doing themselves (and Christianity) a real disservice by sticking their heads in the sand like this. God didn't allow us to evolve brains if He didn't want us to think and discover how the universe actually works.

Drew, the agnostic Christian guy

[Beetwasher]

89. I could argue with that

Indeed, lot's of people can.

You are starting with a conclusion and then taking evidence and jamming into that conclusion. It has no basis in reality. Just because it's a nice and comfortable notion and just because events may follow some semblance of cause and effect or some set of physical laws does not imply that an intelligence and by inference some greater being is guiding them. Not in the least IMO. I could argue this a great deal.

[Danieljay]

148. why are people stuck on the notion

that intelligence is by some inference a "greater being" which is "guiding" them. Could it be perhaps that intelligences is the design itself, and that includes US? This being the case intelligent design works in and through us, as us? Could it perhaps be that was what the more enlightened persons have been trying to tell us all along? What if "God" was a process, in other words the process itself and we are part of that process, and "sin" (literally meaning "missing the mark") is the simply the belief that we are somehow separate? Quantum physics is now beginning to show us that matter is not even the basis of all being, "consciousness" is.

My use of the word "intelligence" is not a conclusion, but a description of that which is not fully known. Science itself is limited by the same thing. Science can describe a process, and even begin to predict outcomes based on observation, but its still a description of that which is observed, and anything observed is limited by the perception of the observer.

I've read recently that scientists are beginning to discover that often times the outcomes of experiments can be affected by the belief of the one conducting the experiment. Its fascinating research. They are literally discovering that consciouness can affect the material world.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

94. I agree that ID is not science. So what is it?

ID is not science, but what exactly IS it? Philosophy? Theology? It seems to go to the very heart of what science is. I mean, what was science before there was science? Before there was even the idea of empirical evidence and the other basic concepts that define what science is? I tend to like the educational approach cited in post #26, and I think post #33 makes a good point as well. I guess I would have to say that ID tends to fall best under the heading of philosophy, but then I don't know that much about the different branches of philosophy. Anyone else have any opinions on this?

[baldguy]

113. Look up "falsifiable"

[chimpy the poopthrower]

137. I don't need to look it up.

I know what "falsifiable" means, and that's why I said ID is NOT science. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here or what point you think I was trying to make. :shrug:

edit...
I think "epistemology" is the branch of philosophy I had in mind. Does that sound correct?

[Honesthumanbeing]

164. Please supply me with a set of conditions

that would falsify evolution.

[baldguy]

242. #3

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF

[Honesthumanbeing]

258. Well this contains a useful little evasion

"It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor."

Lemme guess what one of those was...

I don't think this article provides any good falsifiabilty criteria for evolution--the examples cited are specific theories about HOW evolution occurred, and an inconsistancy with the evidence in such things would almost certainly only result in a change in our conception of how it occurred, and not a rejection of the primary idea.

[BurtWorm]

120. ID is fundamentalist theology pretending to be science

so it can subvert the completely non-supernatural, Bible-contradicting theory of evolution. Evolution is not intended to contradict the Bible or disprove God but to be as faithful to the truth as we humans, with our imperfect sensory and intellectual equipment, can hope to get to it. But ID/creationism is directly hostile to evolution--and science.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

185. Ah, but you are the author of post #33 that I cited!

I guess this is what I'm thinking... I remember from my own school days learning some things in science class that were not strictly science but had more to do with the history and philosophy of science.

For example, I remember learning about some arguments Ancient Romans (or Greeks maybe?) had about atoms. They were very fundamental and philophical arguments about whether atoms could actually exist, and of course this was long before anyone had even the vaguest idea of what an atom really was. I also remember learning about 18th Century (I think) scientists who believed in the notion of "spontaneous generation" until someone (I forget who) did some experiments with bell jars and flies and showed them to be wrong, and I believe that was considered the beginning of modern science, or at least it was a major milestone.

Anyway, I can see how someone could make the argument that teaching about ID is comparable to teaching about these other discarded theories, or hypotheses, or whatever you would call these ideas and arguments. I can also see some arguments against it. For example, that these early philosophers and "scientists" may have been mistaken about some things but that even their errors contributed to the progress of modern science, whereas ID proponents are actually taking us a step backward. Also, that these early thinkers were at least part of the "scientific" communities of their time period whereas no modern serious scientist today accepts ID. On the other hand, if ID proponents have become powerful enough to make inroads into many school districts, maybe it's best to deal with it head on? I realize that's a bit of circular logic, but maybe steps backward are just as important to discuss as steps forward?

Anyway, I don't know whether science class is the best place to deal with ID or not. I suppose as long as it's not taught as science, it might be allright. I also have a general feeling that it's always better to teach more than less... to discuss issues rather than dismiss them out of hand. So I would say that I'd prefer that ID not be forced upon schools, but that even if it is, I think there are good and bad ways to handle it.

[BurtWorm]

189. I think kids can learn a lot about science from studying the controversy,

but I'm dubious about whether biology class is the proper place for it. ID is not biology. Its agenda is not to study what biology studies but to glorify God. There's no place for it in a biology class. We shouldn't expect biology teachers to make room for it on their already crowded curricula, if we're serious about giving our children the best education in biology.

[Az]

192. Do you want

Do you want a public school teaching that a specific religious claim is wrong? Teaching that evolution is the current theory used by science is within the venue given to public schools. Taking apart a religious argument is probably not the best choice for a country that advocates seperation of church and state.

[BurtWorm]

199. There's a way to teach the controversy that puts it on the table

and leaves it up to the kids to use their critical thinking skills to deal with it. It's a way of teaching critical thinking skills, in fact. There's no need to tear any argument to pieces for them. But it removes ID from the biology class, where it doesn't belong. It becomes merely another phenomenon for study, and not quite in the way the creationists want it to be studied, i.e., as a valid alternative theory about the origins of species to evolution.

My feeling is, if ID were allowed into the schools this way, the creationists wouldn't want it in there at all, because they would not be in control of the agenda. Their agenda is purely to undermine evolutionary theory. But the only legitimate use for ID in the schools is as a means of teaching kids how to think critically. I would have loved a class like that in high school.

[Az]

205. That would comply

with the idea of teaching it along side other creation myths from other religions. Completely acceptable. Unfortunately ID and Creationism have never been about doing the right thing. They have been socio/legal attempts to end run science in the schools. Thus the religious right will not be satisfied with such a measure.

[BurtWorm]

211. You're right, alas.

It's so transparent what they're up to. Disgusting. We should insist they make room for evolution in Sunday school, or on the pulpit. Any time they talk about "God making man" they have to insert a few words about how this is an unproven theory, of course...

[Astarho]

268. I agree, it's philosophy

with elements of theology.

And if it is to be taught, it should be taught as philosophy.

[rman]

303. ID = the biblical story of creation

It's just another word for creationism, without "creation" in it.
Yes some try to pass ID as being different from creationism. But ID does imply a designer of a special kind (certainly no human creator could design the universe). And once designed, how does the design become reality? by means of a devine manufacturer?

[noonwitch]

122. No, but teachers should have some freedom to open up classroom discussion

Kids should be able to express their beliefs in intelligent design without being harrassed, as long as they are being respectful of the teacher and their peers.
I personally don't find a conflict between Genesis and Darwin, because I view a lot of the Bible, especially the oldest stories, as being allegories.

[BurtWorm]

124. The question, however, is should biology teachers teach ID?

Ask most biology teachers their opinion. They'll most likely say that they weren't taught ID in their biology classes for a good reason: ID is not biology.

[Tactical Progressive]

125. Yes, intelligent design should be taught

to help explain:

1) Why intelligent beings designed a 'God' to explain their world.

2) To ponder who or what created 'God' out of the void of nothingness. How could something so powerful and prescient have come into being by itself? Isn't it obvious that something must have created a 'God' to do these things?

3) Most importantly, by contrasting the magnificent puzzle of the science of evolution with the fervent belief in storytelling, we show how mankind has evolved from superstitions born of ignorance, to serious study of the world around us. This will have the more broadly beneficial cultural effect of undercutting the credibility of ALL religious dogma. What could be better than that?

[Beetwasher]

128. LOL!

I like that curriculum! Welcome to DU!

[BurtWorm]

129. But should biology teachers be wasting their time on that?

Or should it be handled somewhere else? (Hint: pick B! pick B!)

[Danieljay]

166. no, biology teachers should teach biology

and science teachers, physics teachers, should be teaching systems theory and quantum physics. Students can draw their own conclusions as to what they want to call the process. I wouldn't be opposed to it being discussed in an elective course such as philosophy or world religion, but NEVER required OR taught by an biology teacher.

[BurtWorm]

168. But as you can see from the Georgia crap,

makers of curriculum standards are trying to force ID into science curricula. They want biology teachers to avoid using the word "evolution." This is like asking English teachers to avoid using the word "word."

[Danieljay]

176. Kansas tried removing it completely

and caused such an uproar they put it back in. They wanted any reference to evolution OR the big bang removed completely from the text books. The text book companies said forget it and refused to remove it. This was eventually overturned and several politicians were voted out as a result. I hope Georgians do the same thing, but the south I believe is even more conservative than Kansas.

I left Kansas and moved to Portland last spring. I love it here, very progressive, its hard to find anyone who likes George Bush.

I'm not in Kansas any more, Toto!

[David Zephyr]

131. Absolutely Not!

Faith is not science. It's the opposite of science.

[DrWeird]

160. Dammit, I'm always late to these things.

I think teaching creationism in science class is like teaching that the holocaust didn't happen in history class.

[BurtWorm]

165. Don't you hate that when that happens?

Being late to a thread, I meant, but holocaust revision applies too.

[Danieljay]

170. Creationism belongs in Sunday School n/t

[Az]

175. Not sure the logic there follows

Science does not teach the history of all claims. It attempts to teach the scientific method and the current best theories in place. History teaches what happened. The holocuast certainly happened thus belongs in the class.

[BurtWorm]

178. That seems to be what Dr. Weird is saying.

Just because there's a claim that the Holocaust didn't happen doesn't mean it needs to be taught alongside the history of the Holocaust in history classes. You're saying the same thing.

[Az]

182. Doh, misread his arg. My bad nt

[rocktivity]

208. Creationism isn't a theory at all!

It barely qualifies as philosophy. Science teachers should not have to teach what has no scientific basis?


rocknation

[KamaAina]

218. "Intelligent design" is an oxymoron

like "conservative thinker".

Then there's Rush, the OxyMoron... :-)

[Carl Spackler]

240. You're kind of debating a straw man

The more "modern" (?) view of creationism is that the original Intelligent Design allows for microevolution and that the fall of man into sin, the changed ecology of the post-flood world, and the cumulative effect of genetic degradation since creation explains why creation is not perfect.

Theories of evolution have changed quite a bit as more has become known, so creationists should be allowed to modify their theories as well I suppose.

[BurtWorm]

249. But ID is still about inventing a theory that doesn't violate a belief

system. It puts the cart before the horse, in other words. It doesn't look at evidence and deduce a theory to explain why it is how it is from it. It starts with the explanation and then tries to make the evidence fit the "theory." It discards anything that doesn't fit the theory (which is that the world was created just as the Bible says), or explains it in a way that won't contradict that original explanation. So it doesn't matter how sophisticated it has become on the surface. Scratch the surface just a little and you'll find the same rigid Biblical inerrancy underneath.

[Dob Bole]

244. Both are inherently philosophical

Every science or study will eventually reach the end of its knowledge and get to "why." When this happens, science ends and philosophy begins.

Both intelligent design and evolutionary theory are takes on the follwing why- Why do we exist?

[Jacobin]

252. Only if we give equal time to Flat Earth Society Doctrine

And make Druidology a required subject for graduation from High School

[Bolo Boffin]

257. Scientific American Article: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&catID=2

Excellent article.

[Edge]

262. That's a great article.

You should forward that link to all the RW whackos who need it the most.

[Edge]

260. As a Christian...

I think the RW christian fundies are a bunch of whackos and they need to be thrown into the nut house because of this latest movement down in Georgia. Taking The Theory of Evolution out from schools would be like taking out every other theory that exists in science.

Last I checked, it was a freedom of speech to teach evolution in schools, books, libraries, or whatever means.

Also, isn't there a thing called "Separation of Church and State" listed somewhere in the Constitution? Religion should NOT be brought into the education system. Religion should certainely NOT dictate what's taught in schools either. The Republicans need to get a clue on how the school system (as well as the government) is run before they start flapping their gums.

Don't get me wrong, I love God and stuff, but I also believe in Evolution completely. Yes, religion and evolution can coexist and you can believe in both of them. There's some cool books written out there that explain this. I don't know any of the names offhand, but my Biology prof told me this today.

This whole mess by the Republicans is pissing me off as each day passes. :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :eyes:

Hopefully someone with sense (a Democrat) is voted into office this November.

[durutti]

261. Nope.

One is science, the other isn't.

[treepig]

263. i don't believe in intelligent design

because it violates newton's second law of thermodynamics.

oh wait, maybe it's evolution that's in violation.

egad, these science threads are oh so very confusing. i wish they would just go away and leave me with my very own warm and fuzzy thoughts.

[fujiyama]

271. How about...

a HELL NO! "Intelligent Design" is a trojan horse to teach creationism in public schools. It's pathetic how big a debate this is in the US because in Europe they laugh at how much power the Christian right has here.

If a science instructor were to talk about creationism, I would walk out. If I were interested in creationism stories and myths I would take a religion course.

I'm sorry, but science classes should deal with things that are explained using the scientific method. We learn about it in 4th grade. It's a process. Creationism stories have not derived from this process and are therefore irrelevant in a science class.

That said, I think Evolution should be taught not as an absolute fact, but as the most plusable theory accepted upon the evidence collected using the scientific method. The evidence that supports evolution should be presented and its strengths and weaknesses should be evaluated as should be the case with all scientific theories.

Science is not about facts. It's about the process. It's about meticulous detail...about endless hypothesizing and experimenting. Conclusions take years to develop and some are rejected, while others are accepted in the mainstream. If data concludes later, that a certain theory was incorrect, it would be replaced or modified. It's about being able to repeat certain experiments and comparing the results.

That's how things work in all scientific disciplines.

[jsw_81]

272. No

This intelligent design crap is nothing more than thinly-veiled creationism. It would be akin to teaching alchemy alongside chemistry or astrology alongside astronomy.

[quaker bill]

273. In a philosophy class or comparative religion class perhaps

Not in a science class.

Once again into the breech:

Darwinism or Evolutionary Theory simply does not address the issue of the presence or absence of a god-like entity. It is simply not relevant to that spiritual question. It simply explains a mechanism that could result in all of the present biodiversity without a need for any 'divine intervention'.

Evolutionary theory cannot rule out 'divine intervention', if you choose to believe in some. Accordingly, it makes no attempt to do so.

There is an appropriate place to teach kids about belief systems, it is not science class.

[Mattforclark]

276. Exactly

ID = metaphysics

Evolution = science

ID makes the same predictions as evolution, it just adds some metaphysical baggage.

[earthman dave]

277. Why won't this thread die?

Die, dammit!

[Jane Roe]

278. Why do you care, dammit? nt

[ElsewheresDaughter]

279. yes BUT in churches and sunday school .......NOT in the public schools

[Selwynn]

280. Only if the selwynnian theory that the universe was shat into creation....

...by the great super-dog Boo Boo is taught as a Alternative too.

I mean, my theory is just as legitimate.

[Jane Roe]

281. No

Because your theory hasn't slowed down good science nearly as much as Biblically-based creationism has. This makes your theory lesson compelling as a lesson in important history and less important as an object lesson in how not to do science.

On edit: thoose who don't know history are doomed to repeat it -- let's not make this mistake with our future scientists now in secondary school.

[jsw_81]

283. You're mistaken

The universe was created last week when I made it poof into existance. All your "memories" are just a fantasy that I uploaded into your brain. I demand that this be taught in science class! Anything less would be unfair! </sarcasm>

[ElsewheresDaughter]

285. Jimmy Carter Slams Georgia's attempt to scrub "Evolution" from text books

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01/30/georgia.evolution/index.html

[Liberal Veteran]

296. Should faith healing be taugh in med school as an alternative?

Same difference to me.

[K-W]

302. Unless you got sick.

Then I think you might care a little more.

[Liberal Veteran]

297. The Soviet Union lagged in genetics and related fields because....

...they put ideology ahead of real science.

Do we really want America to go down the same path where we reject real science because it doesn't fit theological/ideological viewpoints of fundamentalist Christians?