evolution and ID in public schools

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Reasoning a creator in this case is just as consitent with reality, one chooses between there being a beginning to existence and there being an eternal existence.

The concept of a creator who doesn't have any particular laws to follow is consistent with absolutely anything. That's why the idea is vapid and unscientific.

The question is, what explains what we observe? Evolution explains things; god explains nothing.

~~ Paul

 

[Upchurch]

Keeps them from thinking too much.

I thought that's why we had Reality TV. We're still thinking too much?

 

[drkitten]

I thought that's why we had Reality TV. We're still thinking too much?

I guess not enough people watch Reality TV.

 

[Upchurch]

I guess not enough people watch Reality TV.

Good for them! My faith in humanity is slowly being restored.

 

[Rufo]

So if a large group thought whites were genetically superior to blacks, but all scientists disagreed with it, you'd still support it being taught in science class?

Are you actually saying that popular opinion should decide what is taught in science class, and not what is actually science?

Should the same be true of all the subjects in school? If enough people believe Kennedy was assasinated by the CIA, should that be taught in school?

I know I'm asking pretty much the same kind of questions that you replied to, but are you serious?

I'm terribly sorry - I misread your question. I thought you asked if it would be taught, not if it should be. I was merely trying to say that science can - sadly - easily be changed by popular opinion, not that I thought it should be affected by it. Science research should always be objective.

 

[Ryokan]

I'm terribly sorry - I misread your question. I thought you asked if it would be taught, not if it should be. I was merely trying to say that science can - sadly - easily be changed by popular opinion, not that I thought it should be affected by it. Science research should always be objective.

Ah, we're on the same page, then!

But yes, this whole discussion is about the 'should' part, the 'would' part is, sadly, obvious.

 

[sphenisc]

The problem is that ID isn't a real "theory" . It isn't science because it isn't subject to falsification or change.

Your evidence?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Evidence? Why don't you summarize or link to the Theory of Intelligent Design so we can see what it is? You won't find a theory based on empirical evidence. You will find some sort of hand-wave based on probability, but not a single example of a biological system proven to be irreducibly complex.

So where's the theory?

~~ Paul

 

[Ducky]

Your evidence?

How about we start where Behe himself admits the ID fails the scientific definition of the word "theory."

Rothschild suggested that Behe’s definition was so loose that astrology would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe’s definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS’s definition of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.

 

[Upchurch]

Your evidence?

Well, in order for ID to falsifiable, there has to be a falsifiable claim that, if shown to be incorrect, means that ID is impossible.

The big one, of course, is irreducibe complexity, correct? (the only one?) However, in order to show that irreducible complexity is false, we must show that there is no irreducible complexity anywhere in the universe. We can show that each individual "X is irreducibly complex" for every value of X, but there will always be the possibility that there is some irreducibly complex system that we just haven't found yet.

This is called trying to prove a negative (i.e. "prove that something doesn't exist") and it is damn near impossible.

So, as it is impossible to show that there is no irreducibly complex anywhere in the universe, there is no way to definitively prove it false. Thus, it is unfalsifiable.

 

[Ducky]

Well, in order for ID to falsifiable, there has to be a falsifiable claim that, if shown to be incorrect, means that ID is impossible.

The big one, of course, is irreducibe complexity, correct? (the only one?) However, in order to show that irreducible complexity is false, we must show that there is no irreducible complexity anywhere in the universe. We can show that each individual "X is irreducibly complex" for every value of X, but there will always be the possibility that there is some irreducibly complex system that we just haven't found yet.

This is called trying to prove a negative (i.e. "prove that something doesn't exist") and it is damn near impossible.

So, as it is impossible to show that there is no irreducibly complex anywhere in the universe, there is no way to definitively prove it false. Thus, it is unfalsifiable.

Nicely put, Papa Funkosophy.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The big one, of course, is irreducibe complexity, correct? (the only one?) However, in order to show that irreducible complexity is false, we must show that there is no irreducible complexity anywhere in the universe. We can show that each individual "X is irreducibly complex" for every value of X, but there will always be the possibility that there is some irreducibly complex system that we just haven't found yet.

Absolutely, and I say we don't have to worry about it at all until at least one irreducibly complex mechanism is demonstrated. Why should IC get any special favors over and above, say, the claim that Santa Claus delivers toys on Christmas? Is there some committee somewhere trying to prove he has never done so, even once?

~~ Paul

 

[Upchurch]

D'oh. after reading the praises of my post, I realized that it should have been:

We can show that each individual "X is not irreducibly complex" for every value of X, but there will always be the possibility that there is some irreducibly complex system that we just haven't found yet.

Kind of a critical difference, there.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

A beautiful example of the Brain Filling in the Nots effect.

~~ Paul

 

[sphenisc]

Well, in order for ID to falsifiable, there has to be a falsifiable claim that, if shown to be incorrect, means that ID is impossible.

The big one, of course, is irreducibe complexity, correct? (the only one?) However, in order to show that irreducible complexity is false, we must show that there is no irreducible complexity anywhere in the universe. We can show that each individual "X is irreducibly complex" for every value of X, but there will always be the possibility that there is some irreducibly complex system that we just haven't found yet.

This is called trying to prove a negative (i.e. "prove that something doesn't exist") and it is damn near impossible.

So, as it is impossible to show that there is no irreducibly complex anywhere in the universe, there is no way to definitively prove it false. Thus, it is unfalsifiable.

Then it's the claim that "There exists an irreducibly complex object somewhere in the universe" that you regard as unfalsifiable?

 

[PatKelley]

Then it's the claim that "There exists an irreducibly complex object somewhere in the universe" that you regard as unfalsifiable?

I could make a similar claim that is equally unfalsifiable. "There exists a thing in the universe that is a color that can't be named."

This is on par with your statement in that it is unfalsifiable. The hinted demand is that the entire universe be shaken loose and examined before anyone can say anything conclusive.

Hence, it is not science. Science says "we think things work like this; until it is shown otherwise, we assume all things work like this." To disprove it, you just have to show one thing that does not work like this, you don't have to show that no thing other than this exists. Hence, to truly supplant evolution, ID would have to produce an item that does not work like this, this being the current theory of evolution. There is, by the way, no delineation between "micro" and "macro" evolution in biology.

 

[Upchurch]

Then it's the claim that "There exists an irreducibly complex object somewhere in the universe" that you regard as unfalsifiable?

Are there other claims to ID?


eta: What Pat said.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Then it's the claim that "There exists an irreducibly complex object somewhere in the universe" that you regard as unfalsifiable?

It's egregiously unfalsifiable, especially since irreducibly complex is not well defined.

It's on par with Zammit's demand that someone falsify all the evidence for the afterlife.

Although, we do know there is an invisible pink hamster orbiting Neptune.

~~ Paul

 

[Upchurch]

Then it's the claim that "There exists an irreducibly complex object somewhere in the universe" that you regard as unfalsifiable?

What bothers me about this question is the implication that there are other claims from ID that I regard as falsifiable (and thus, within the domain of science). Sort of a "do you still beat your wife" question.

To my knowledge, the existance of irreducible complexity is the central assumption of ID. All other claims stem from this one claim. As such, if the irreducible complexity claim is unfalsifiable, anything based upon that claim is also unfalsifiable. For example, if irreducible complexity exists, then there is an intelligent designer. There is no possibility to absolutely disprove irreducible complexity, so there is no possibility to absolutely disprove an intelligent designer.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

So your changing your wording from Scientific theory to Theory?

I agree that it is not a scientific theory in the sense that it cannot abide by your questions stated above. But to say it is not a theory at all, I dont see that being the case.

If it's not a scientific theory then it's not science...

If it's not science it does not belong in science class.

It's that simple.

Politically speaking, people in America don't like the fact that many of their kids are only being taught evolution in schools as the main theory of how the universe came to be, because statistically most Americans don't agree with that.

1.It makes no difference what Americans like or don't like about the facts. Those are the facts and that's all there is to it. Wether or not Americans agree with evolution or not is completly beyond the point. Evolution happens,That's all there is to it.

It is not that ID is a scientific theory, it is that it is another theory for how the universe came to be, a way to say "here's one way many people think it happened, (but in order to reduce influence over young minds toward atheism) here's another way many people think it happened."

1.ID not being a scientific theory means it's not even on the level of evolution.
2.It's obvious you're still uneducated about Evolution. Evolution does NOT say how the "universe" came to exist. Evolution is biological. meaning it explains how LIFE evolved and came to be the way it is today. That's all it does.
3.Evolution being purely biological and not philosophical could not possibly incluence people towards atheism. All it does is influence people away from fundamental christianity,And that is a good thing.

This objection among theist parents is similar to the objection among atheist parents against prayer in schools. Both cases involve not wanting kids to be brainwashed towards opposing viewpoints, and wanting kids to be raised the way they think their kids should be raised.

Big difference between Prayer and Evolution. Evolution is science and can be proven. Prayer is religion and can not.

(Though if I had a kid I wouldn't be so controlling, i'd simply demonstrate my beliefs throughout his/her life processes and my kid would hopefully be attracted to my beliefs instead of me telling my kid what he/she must believe in...this would also allow the kid to make the belief his/her own.) But many parents do feel like they are being violated when their kids are being influenced by opposing viewpoints, in both cases of prayer in schools and evolution. It has little to do with science. It has more to do with the kids, and what is being taught in school, not necessarily the science class. The thing is, if you do introduce this theory, the best time is to introduce it would be in contrast to the scientific theory of evolution- which is taught in science class. It's not like they're going to teach ID in english, history, math, or music class.

It has absolutely everything to do with science. Not only with science but the future of our nation. If our children are not taught basic science because it goes against their religious delusions than our Nation will be far behind the rest in science.
Is it no wonder Many other nations pump out more scientists a year than America does?

You yourself admited ID is not science. This means it does not belong in science class. No matter what the parents want.

Since you can't support ID with any facts or any evidence then WHY does it belong in a science class opposed to evolution when evolution CAN support it's claims with evidence and facts and DOES fit the criteria of a scientific theory?