Isn't it the "Theory of Evolution"? I say this because . . .

[kitkat65]

If it's just a theory and Fundies want Creationism and Intelligent Design taught along with Evolution, wouldn't they have to call the religion-based ideas "theories" as well? Wouldn't that completely fly against the concept of faith? As in, we can't prove the "Theory of Creationism" is the right one so neither can we prove the existence of God?

Makes you wonder if they really thought this whole push to put it into the school thing through.

[Harry S Truman]

1. Evolution is NOT a theory

Evolution is a mechanism. (It's a fact, too) Natural Selection is the theory.
Intelligent design is a concept, a doctrine. It is NOT a theory.

[Zynx]

2. Misuse of word "Theory"

Scientific theories are detalied combinations of known scientific principles and laws.

Rather different from the common use of the word.

[YOY]

4. Like 'Fact' and 'Truth' these days

[kitkat65]

6. Maybe I'm not making myself clear. Fundies think it's only "fair" that

creationism and intelligent design be taught in schools.

Aren't ideas in science labeled theories until they are absolutely proven true (Theory of relativity? "Darwin's theory of evolution")

So, to keep things "fair" then creationism and intelligent design must also become theories since we cannot tangibly prove the existence of God. In the realm of science, these ideas can no longer be a doctrine or faith. Within the realm of science, one HAS to question the existence of God in order to prove these theories true.

[punpirate]

11. Okay, a quick lesson in scientific method...

... since that will help with the scientific definition of "theory," as opposed to the colloquial use of the word.

Theory is a very specific word in science, for this reason. Scientific method describes a means of investigation of fact. Let's say, from your observations, you say the sky is blue. The scientist first asks, "I wonder why the sky is blue?" From that question comes an initial hypothesis, a way of guessing at what it might be. The hypothesis might go as follows, "Because the atmosphere is made up of gases and light passes through that layer of gases, there must be something about the interaction of some gas or gases with light which makes the sky appear blue to us on the surface of the earth."

The second step is to devise an experiment to test the hypothesis. Then, according to the experiment plan, evidence is gathered. Finally, if the evidence is clear about why the sky is blue, the results are announced. Other scientists check the results and repeat the experiments and offer their own opinions. If there's a general consensus, based on the evidence, then a theory is established, in this case, about light frequency absorptions and reflections of nitrogen and oxygen.

So:

Hypothesis-->Experimental Outline-->Gather Evidence-->Make Conclusions-->Independent Verification-->Establishment of Theory.

Now, in science, at any point that new evidence becomes available, the theory might be modified, or changed completely. To the scientist, a theory is a best estimate of the nature of a phenomenon based on the best, most current evidence. Darwin's ideas and observations on natural selection are accepted today because all genuine evidence found continues to support that theory. Nothing has yet challenged it.

The creationist/ID people want to turn the process of scientific method inside out and start with the conclusion (current diversity), and pick and choose evidence supporting their hypothesis (a six-thousand year-old earth as the Bible says), and ignore the rest of the evidence.

No matter how they define theory, they are ignoring scientific method--and that's the principal reason why creationism/ID should not be taught as science. It's not, because its proponents seek to ignore the method behind science itself in the attempt to further religious, not scientific, aims.

Cheers.

[kitkat65]

16. I guess it would come down to who would frame the curriculum

Theologians, ministers, science teachers?

See my post 14 which supposes such a curriculum based on scientific principles alone.

A logical conclusion (I know, I know, were're not dealing with very logical people) that unless there's is a willingness to either put creationism and intelligent design to scientific principles or admit that it's faith and doesn't belong in a science classroom.

[punpirate]

18. Logic has no part in it...

... the people promoting creationism/ID are not logical--otherwise, they would not attempt to interject faith into science classes, where it does not belong (since, as faith, it can't be determined by scientific method and can only be disputed as fact). Their agenda is to supplant science, to legitimize and institutionalize their world view based on the Bible. Ultimately, they don't want creationism/ID to co-exist with science in the classroom--they want it to replace science. Getting through the door into the classroom is the first necessary step.

These people are not sane. They are fundamentalists who believe their own interpretations of Biblical inerrancy. An essential in their plans is forcing everyone else to believe as they do. They will not be satisfied until they obtain that goal. Traditionally, the only way to marginalize them was to leave them to their own devices. Unfortunately, now, we have a government doing its level best to enable their views.

All this is about branding (in a marketing sense) Christianity, and creating cross-brand recognition between the Republican Party and their brand of Christianity. It fits the plans of the neo-conservatives perfectly, according to the teachings of Leo Strauss.

But, in order for them to push other ways of looking at the world out of the way, they first have to get close enough to give science, for example, a good shove.

Cheers.

[kitkat65]

22. I'm just trying to wrap my brain around this one

I just got done rereading the Wikipedia link (thanks Johnaries) regarding Intelligent Design. I have to admit the first time I read the definition, I really only read the first paragraph and figured, oh, heck, there's no real way to prove this and can't be considered science.

Then I read your post about the sociological and political motivations for pushing this agenda and decided to back and reread the Wikipedia definition and it basically says what you say in your post.

But here's what made my head spin a bit.

"Proponents of ID look for evidence of what they call signs of intelligence — physical properties of an object that necessitate design. Examples being considered include irreducible complexity, information mechanisms, and specified complexity. Many design theorists believe that living systems show one or more of these signs of intelligence, from which they infer that life is designed. This stands in opposition to naturalistic theories of evolution, which attempt to explain life exclusively through natural processes such as random mutations and natural selection."

I suppose I should preface this by saying I was never good student when it came to science. For one thing, it kinda bored me and perhaps because it bored me I found myself totally confused most of the time. I was also raised in a relatively liberal Methodist church. Same thing there, the sermons kinda bored me which resulted in a lack of specific Bible knowledge. However, because of the makeup of the congregation I learned certain princples such as God's love, tolerance, acceptance, things like that.

So now I'm in my 40s and a while back felt a spiritual something that I cant name. It wasn't a born again speaking in tongues kind of thing but more of a sense that I'm part of a bigger picture and my actions, whether I realize it or not, have ramifications both seen and not seen. Call it karma, call it whatever. Since the concept of God is what I'm familiar with, I say that yes, I believe in God. It's not necessarily the image of God that has been portrayed in art and popular culture but God as in something that is bigger than myself that I am a part of. Now, when I read the teachings of Christ in the Bible, which have been interpreted and written by men, I come away with principles like acceptance, love, humility so I call myself a "Christian" because, in my opinion, these are really good things to practice. And I don't consider the bible infallible or literal.

So figure, Christianity is practice, and God is faith.

I can't recall ever thinking that science and a belief in God can't co-exist peacefully or means one had to cancel the other out. Science just seems like a discovery and proof of the great gifts that we somehow have been given.

And wouldn't you know it, this sounds so much like the above Wikipedia description that I'm sitting here asking myself just what exactly is it that I believe.

I guess if what I believe does fall under the definition of Intelligent Design, at least I know it's a spiritual issue involving faith and can't be labeled science.

Sorry that took so long.

So why is it that some "Christians" are able to distinguish faith from science while others can't just like some can see the moral hypocrisy in the Republican party while others can't? Education? Family upbringing? Denomination?

At this point I'm rambling . . . going to bed now.

[punpirate]

23. As for your last couple of questions...

... I think, generally, it's about power over others as a projected means of protecting the ego. The fundamentalist is fairly unique among human beings, in that the concept of tolerance of other views is dangerous to his carefully-constructed view of self.

It's rather far from the question of science v. ID or creationism, but you might find Eric Hoffer's The True Believer helpful in understanding the fundamentalist mind. Initially, it will seem a bit pedantic and dry, but the insights in it about mass cult movements (and the similarities between them all) are quite remarkable.

Cheers.

[kitkat65]

19. Thanks for the clarification of what scientific theory means

In other words, in science, the theory is the result of using scientific methods and not the beginning. The hypothesis is really the beginning.

[punpirate]

20. Yup...

... it's pretty simple. The evidence drives the conclusions, not the other way around. That's why anyone who's had a decent amount of training in science knows that creationism/ID can't be treated as a scientific discipline--it doesn't obey those straightforward and rigorous rules.

That's why so many science teachers are worried about being forced to teach creationism/ID as if it were science--it will confuse the student who's unclear on scientific method.

And Darwin's explorations, observations and conclusions are a great way to teach scientific method, precisely because he came to a new conclusion from intense observation and documentation of the evidence. Up until the time he wrote {i]The Origin of the Species, most scientists had assumed that virtually all species originated separately and uniquely--that was the conventional wisdom. He turned that notion upside-down. But, he was able to do so by compelling evidence.

Even today, genetic evidence is supporting--and reinforcing--his conclusions. Genetics may eventually tell us that there are some quirks we didn't expect in the branching of the species, but the various genome projects are telling us that natural selection is the engine driving both evolution and bio-diversity. If future evidence shows some dramatic flaw in Darwin's theory, scientists will modify or discard it and define a new theory that accurately reflects the evidence. That's the nature of scientific inquiry. :)

Cheers.

Cheers.

[rexcat]

15. Let them get an alternative theory for atoms....

or chemical reactions for that matter. I am sure with a little time I could have a really long post.

[earthside]

7. Theory is an Explanation

A 'theory' is just an explanation of a fact.

I put it this way:

Gravity is a fact. But even now scientists are not sure how it works ... they have not actually found a 'gravitron' particle though they expect to. So, there are several different 'theories' of gravity ... but gravity's existence remains a fact.

Evolution is a fact ... there are different varieties of explanations for how exactly it works, 'punctuated equalibrium', uniformitarianism, etc.

So, as more evidence is accumulated, a theory can and will be modified.

So-called 'intelligent design' is an article of faith. A person can believe in it no matter what evidence presents itself ... so it is not scientific. It is pure religion.

[LiviaOlivia]

3. Scientific theory vs theory. Do you know the difference?

Words have meaning. You have have to start here. Yes you do...

[kitkat65]

14. I thought this would become a matter of semantics.

By the way, I'm not trying to cause an argument. I'm looking at it from a completely rhetorical standpoint and just thought it would be an interesting discussion.

When I started this thread I took term theory (with no differentiation between scientific theory and just theory in general) to mean an explanation of something based on what is tangibly known or seen. Tangible facts may come on down the line which may prove or disprove a theory. (MIHOP? LIHOP?)

So, I looked theory up in the dictionary to make sure I'm not missing something and it says in a nutshell, a set of ideas formulated from known facts to explain something, an opinion or supposition, a statement of the principles on which a subject is based as in thoery of music. I'm not really sure if the meaning of theory for science is different than the meaning for any other situation, but that's not what I want to talk about here.

Yes, there are the other terms being brought up such as hypothesis, supposition, doctrine, etc. and rightly so.

But my point/argument/perspective/whatever is that if you teach evolution alongside creationism and intelligent design in the parameters of a SCIENCE class - science which is a mixutre of many things including but not limited to experiments, hypothoses, theories, etc. - by applying scientific standards to ANY concept based on Christianity is that you open a door to the possibility that students will begin to question the existence of God. Neither, creationism nor intelligent design has been proven. And what kind of experiements could you do to try and prove it? Evolution has been proven.

Questioning something is the antithesis of faith. Faith being (for me) a trust or belief in something that doesn't necessarily have a basis in proven or observable fact.

So, if you are a good Christian and want your children to be the same, do you REALLY want to open the door to the dissection of what is an unprovable Christian belief?

edited for really bad grammar and I probably didn't catch all of it.

[GeorgeBushytail]

5. Deities are more of a hypothesis

[SharonAnn]

8. I want Alchemy taught alongside Chemistry! And Astrology

should be taught alongside Astronomy!

And Fortune-Telling alongside Psychology.

[ismnotwasm]

9. Damn straight.

:rofl:

[Maple]

10. Be careful what you

ask for....:7

[deadparrot]

12. Gravity's just a theory...

Do we see people demanding that alternatives be taught?

Like people above have said, "theory" in the science world has a much different definition than how it's used in normal conversation.

[SheilaT]

13. "Theory", as in

the Theory of Evolution or the Theory of Gravity has a very different meaning from the way non-scientists use it. It does NOT mean My Wild Guess, which is what most of us mean in a non scientific sense.

For instance, I might say, I have a theory about who really killed JFK. Or I have a theory about why men don't like to ask for directions. In those cases, I'm saying I have a guess, which may or may not be well informed. What I mean when I say theory this way is what scientists would call hypothesis.

The scientific method is quite methodical, and something doesn't get called a Theory until a lot of scientists are convinced it's an accurate way to describe how something works.

Science is one of the subjects that is often very badly taught in American schools. Too often the biology teacher is also the football coach. And far too many students don't take any science classes beyond biology. No chemistry, no physics.

History is the other subject that is often badly taught, and even more history teachers are also the basketball or football coach.

This is not to insult the many fine teachers of history and biology that are out there, nor to insult all of you who took serious science classes in high school and beyond.

[johnaries]

17. A lot of confusion here.

As a previous poster noted, Evolution is not a theory it is a proven fact (every time a new flu is discovered, it's Evolution). Darwin's Natural Selection is a theory. Just as Gravity is NOT a theory. But, there are many theories about how Gravitation works.

Per Wikipedia:
"Other claims such as Intelligent Design and homeopathy are not scientific theories, but pseudoscience."

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

also:
"Despite ID sometimes being called Intelligent Design Theory, the National Academy of Sciences has said, intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because their claims cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own, instead they find gaps within current evolutionary theory and fill them in with speculative beliefs.
...
Intelligent Design is not and does not claim to be an alternative theory replacing mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection, or speciation. All of these have been observed in laboratories and in the field. For example, humans have themselves created many new species and have observed new species appearing in nature.<12> This is contrary to how ID is sometimes characterized by both supporters and critics."

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

[insanity]

21. Science!

A little addition to the information that was offered about the scientific method. After the initial question is asked, and hypothesis is created, the scientist attempts to prove the hypothesis false. If the hypothesis can not be proved false then it becomes a theory. Evolution is a theory because there is no peer reviewed credible work to prove else wise. It is hard to deny evolution or natural selection unless your head is so far up your ass that you dating your sphincter. Take a quick look at anti-bacterial soap, and you will see clear proof in the label, "Kills 99.9% of all germs." That tenth of a percent it does not kill has evolved a resistance that is favorable for the continued life of its strain. Furthermore, a reason disease (bacterial) is less resitant to traditional medicine is because the bacteria have evolved resistance. It's really hard to argue facts that relate to everyone's daily life.