evolution and ID in public schools

[Ducky]

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.



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.




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.



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




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?

Good post, Dustin.

 

[sphenisc]

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.

You said in your original posting that IR was 'the big one' [implying that there might be littler ones] and '(the only one?)' [with a question mark], so I don't think my implication was entirely unjustified, certainly not to the extent of it being a "do you still beat your wife" question.

 

[sphenisc]

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.

The implication aside, the real point of my question is that your/my characterisation of the IR claim is designed to set it up to fail the falsifiability test (sorry, that hurts my head...) what I mean is:

The unfalsifability of the statement is dependent not on any intrinsic property of IR but on the fact that humans are very small, slow and localised, and the universe is big. Really big. You just won’t believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is.
[Got distracted there for a minute - back on track now.]

So for example, the existence of heritable elements is central to the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. If there is no possibility of disproving the existence in the universe of a heritable element, there is no possibility to absolutely disproving TOEBNS. So TOEBNS is not science.

My point is that a poor characterisation of the main claim will allow any conjecture to be dismissed as unfalsifiable, and it might be more productive to discuss ways in which claims can be reformulated to satisfy the falsifability condition. [I'd also note that Newton's Laws of Gravitation are frequently described as 'Universal', without anybody complaining that this is unfalsifable.

 

[sphenisc]

The implication aside, the real point of my question is that your/my characterisation of the IR claim is designed to set it up to fail the falsifiability test (sorry, that hurts my head...) what I mean is:

The unfalsifability of the statement is dependent not on any intrinsic property of IR but on the fact that humans are very small, slow and localised, and the universe is big. Really big. You just won’t believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is.
[Got distracted there for a minute - back on track now.]

So for example, the existence of heritable elements is central to the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. If there is no possibility of disproving the existence in the universe of a heritable element, there is no possibility to absolutely disproving TOEBNS. So TOEBNS is not science.

My point is that a poor characterisation of the main claim will allow any conjecture to be dismissed as unfalsifiable, and it might be more productive to discuss ways in which claims can be reformulated to satisfy the falsifability condition. [I'd also note that Newton's Laws of Gravitation are frequently described as 'Universal', without anybody complaining that this is unfalsifable. ]

Hopethat makes sense ...

 

[DarkMagician]

This objection among theist parents is similar to the objection among atheist parents against prayer in schools.

Except that most of the time it's not atheists but Catholics and minority Christian sects that usually object to school-sponsored prayer.

 

[BJQ87]

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

youd rather teach it in english? history? math? theres no more relevant subject than science because it relates to science as the theory is that God created life....and science.

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.

Americans run this country. If evolution were more convincing then perhaps there would be more agreement against ID being taught in schools alongside of evolution. And it is no good to state theory as fact.

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.

is not the big bang theory a part of evolutionary theory? If not then I admit i had that misconception, because it is taught in schools seemingly as part of evolutionary theory. A big bang of some sort probably did happen i agree, but to say that it is not from God is a theory itself. Science doesn't explain anymore back in time, it just points to a big bang, then the theory pretty much stops and when it does that it leaves the very understandable misconception among children and even adults, that the thoery is actually saying there is no God. Because people respect what they are being taught in school, especially children, they see it as an authoritive way of seeing things, and are suseptable to brainwashing...

All it does is influence people away from fundamental christianity,And that is a good thing.

Those people you are talking about are children. when you admit that it does influence children away from fundamental christianity, you are getting to the heart of the issue, because there are a whole lot of christians in this country that are strongly against this. I for one don't really care personally, as i have said before, yet i do care from a sociological and political perspective that so many others care, and are affected by this personally.

Evolution is science and can be proven. Prayer is religion and can not.

nice theory. Maybe one day it will be proven, maybe one day it will be proven wrong.

 

[BJQ87]

Originally Posted by BJQ87 :
This objection among theist parents is similar to the objection among atheist parents against prayer in schools.

Except that most of the time it's not atheists but Catholics and minority Christian sects that usually object to school-sponsored prayer.

I haven't really disagreed with you on that, though i hesitate to agree with you either, im not educated on the statistics it would be nice if i were. I daresay though, most all atheists, whether parents or not, would be against prayer in school whether they make a public objection or not.

 

[Belz...]

youd rather teach it in english? history? math? theres no more relevant subject than science because it relates to science as the theory is that God created life....and science.

First off, I'd teach it in RELIGION class. Second, no. No he didn't.

Americans run this country. If evolution were more convincing then perhaps there would be more agreement against ID being taught in schools alongside of evolution. And it is no good to state theory as fact.

Theory and fact are closely related. Religion is not.

A big bang of some sort probably did happen i agree, but to say that it is not from God is a theory itself.

Nope. We say that it came from something specific. Science doesn't say it didn't come from God.

Science doesn't explain anymore back in time, it just points to a big bang, then the theory pretty much stops and when it does that it leaves the very understandable misconception among children and even adults, that the thoery is actually saying there is no God. Because people respect what they are being taught in school, especially children, they see it as an authoritive way of seeing things, and are suseptable to brainwashing...

Actually QM has a very interesting and well-supported theory about all this.

nice theory. Maybe one day it will be proven, maybe one day it will be proven wrong.

Somehow I doubt it. Religion is notoriously immune to evidence.

 

[sphenisc]

Um... okay.

If you found vertebrate fossils embedded in undisturbed Cambrian sediments, evolution would be falsified.

Okay, your turn.

Hi Tricky,

http://www.palaeos.com/Paleozoic/Cambrian/Cambrian.htm

The main issue concerning Cambrian vertebrates is whether there were any. It seems likely that at least one lineage of vertebrates existed before the Ordovician, but the issue is not entirely settled. Two organisms in particular are possible Cambrian vertebrates: Haikouichthys and Anatolepis. In addition, two other vertebrate lineages are ancient enough that it would be reasonable to suppose they originated in the Cambrian, even without a clear fossil record: conodonts and thelodonts.

Evolution is hereby declared to be falsified, (or as near as da...it).

Tricky, The Discovery Institute looks forward to your first membership subscription.

 

[BJQ87]

First off, I'd teach it in RELIGION class. Second, no. No he didn't.

In regaurds to the first, it all depends if they have a religion class. I think my opinion has become more solidified throughout this debate that as a democracy, we should simply not introduce evolution until junior highschool. If a load of people are going to be against this though saying that it would lead to us being significantly increased in inferiority to other countries in regaurds to advancement (which i happen to disagree with) Then perhaps teach both theories in science so that they are in contrast (this being in regaurds to what i said in my last post about children respecting what they are taught in school as the authoritive way of seeing things) up until junior high. Those are the two best scenarios in my humble opinion. Perhaps more people will desire this compromise once it becomes more mutual, which is probable to happen in the next decade if a lot of schools to accept this ID. (though in my opinion they should re-establish the ID theory as non-scientific)

 

[gnome]

In regaurds to the first, it all depends if they have a religion class. I think my opinion has become more solidified throughout this debate that as a democracy, we should simply not introduce evolution until junior highschool. If a load of people are going to be against this though saying that it would lead to us being significantly increased in inferiority to other countries in regaurds to advancement (which i happen to disagree with) Then perhaps teach both theories in science so that they are in contrast (this being in regaurds to what i said in my last post about children respecting what they are taught in school as the authoritive way of seeing things) up until junior high. Those are the two best scenarios in my humble opinion. Perhaps more people will desire this compromise once it becomes more mutual, which is probable to happen in the next decade if a lot of schools to accept this ID. (though in my opinion they should re-establish the ID theory as non-scientific)

Why insist on the scientific word "Theory" if you admit it's not science? All that does is to reinforce the popular misconception of what "theory" means. By saying "both theories" you present them as equal in the eyes of science.

You may admit it is not science--but you seem just fine with people mistaking it for science.

 

[BJQ87]

By saying "both theories" you present them as equal in the eyes of science.

I present them as equally probable, not equally supported. Perhaps you are just offended by me saying they are equally probable?

You may admit it is not science--but you seem just fine with people mistaking it for science.

no I'm not fine with it, though it is not the end of the world. All you opinionated towards atheism seem to be just fine with people mistaking the big bang as saying that God does not exist. But this is similarly probably not the case.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I present them as equally probable, not equally supported. Perhaps you are just offended by me saying they are equally probable?

Someone calculated the probabilities of the theory of evolution and ID?

~~ Paul

 

[Z]

I present them as equally probable, not equally supported. Perhaps you are just offended by me saying they are equally probable?

You are just not very well educated, are you?

If one theory is not as well supported, then it is not as probable. A scientific theory is based upon observation and calculation; ID is not. The theory of Evolution is highly probable, while the Idea of Intelligent Design is not. Frankly, the Supreme Court ought to rule that Creationism be called for what it is, and not falsely dressed up in scientific terms.

And the Big Bang has very little, if anything, to do with either atheism or evolution.

no I'm not fine with it, though it is not the end of the world. All you opinionated towards atheism seem to be just fine with people mistaking the big bang as saying that God does not exist. But this is similarly probably not the case.

Did you graduate school?

 

[Tricky]

Hi Tricky,

http://www.palaeos.com/Paleozoic/Cambrian/Cambrian.htm



Evolution is hereby declared to be falsified, (or as near as da...it).

Tricky, The Discovery Institute looks forward to your first membership subscription.

From your link:

We hasten to add that this does not place Haikouichthys in the Vertebrata, as we use that term in the Vertebrate section of Palaeos.

However, it is possible that I misspoke. There might be some things which could be called vertebrates in the Cambrian, though they are certainly not members of Vertebrata. However, even this is uncertain.

If you will allow me to correct my (possible) mistake, let's say fish in the Cambrian. However, I accept that I did not properly do my research, and for that I invite chastisement.

 

[BJQ87]

If one theory is not as well supported, then it is not as probable. A scientific theory is based upon observation and calculation; ID is not. The theory of Evolution is highly probable, while the Idea of Intelligent Design is not. Frankly, the Supreme Court ought to rule that Creationism be called for what it is, and not falsely dressed up in scientific terms.

Science can't do something so the theory is less probable? There is no reason for set probability to either theory, they are both theories whether you like it or not (i've heard people say that evolution happened, as a matter of actual fact. such bias is repulsive. Hopefully they didn't mean it the way it sounded.) and I even suggest that evolution is an absurd theory. Opinions are at the heart of the conflict.

 

[Belz...]

If a load of people are going to be against this though saying that it would lead to us being significantly increased in inferiority to other countries in regaurds to advancement (which i happen to disagree with) Then perhaps teach both theories in science so that they are in contrast

ID is not a theory.

 

[Belz...]

Science can't do something so the theory is less probable? There is no reason for set probability to either theory, they are both theories whether you like it or not (i've heard people say that evolution happened, as a matter of actual fact. such bias is repulsive. Hopefully they didn't mean it the way it sounded.) and I even suggest that evolution is an absurd theory. Opinions are at the heart of the conflict.

Theories that are supported by vast bodies of evidence are more likely to be true, wouldn't you say ?

 

[cyborg]

Science can't do something so the theory is less probable?

What does ID do except argue from ignorance?

There is no reason for set probability to either theory, they are both theories whether you like it or not

It doesn't work this way. You've been told this a million times. Are you or are you not willing to understand what a SCIENTIFIC theory is? If not there's really no point talking to you.

i've heard people say that evolution happened, as a matter of actual fact. such bias is repulsive.

I've heard people say that a god exists, as a matter of actual fact. Such bias is repulsive.

and I even suggest that evolution is an absurd theory. Opinions are at the heart of the conflict.

Science is not a bunch of people sitting around giving their opinions on the way the universe works: that's what YOUR side engages in.

You opinionate all you want about how the universe works; you just leave it to us to actually find out so we can build all those useful technologies these mere opinions have given you.

 

[Z]

Science can't do something so the theory is less probable? There is no reason for set probability to either theory, they are both theories whether you like it or not (i've heard people say that evolution happened, as a matter of actual fact. such bias is repulsive. Hopefully they didn't mean it the way it sounded.) and I even suggest that evolution is an absurd theory. Opinions are at the heart of the conflict.

Incredible proof of your ignorance and bias.

In proper scientific jargon: Evolution is a theory. Intelligent Design is simply an idea. ID does NOT rank as a theory among the scientific community; nor, even, as a hypothesis.

In the vernacular jargon, ID is a theory, while evolution is a fact. Sure, you don't hear people speaking about the Law of Evolution - any more than you hear about the Law of Relativity or the Law of Pythagoras. Public jargon is often a mishmash of confused terms, for whatever reason, and in the public jargon, 'theory' is too weak a term to describe evolution. However, because the scientific community properly speaks of it as the 'theory of evolution', the public nay-sayers have clung to this, wishing to equate a scientific theory with a vernacular theory. The two just don't equate, no matter how much you'd like to try.

As for ID, it doesn't make the cut as a scientific theory; even Behe has admitted as much. Hence, if we refer to Evolution as a 'theory', ID becomes an 'idea', and nothing more.

If you don't like evolution, for whatever reason, I'm sorry. For what it's worth, I don't care for gravity. I'm pretty sure in my dreams that I fly all the time; so why can't I bypass this so-called law in reality? But the facts are the facts; and, scientifically speaking, the theories are the theories. Evolution is a theory, and a highly probably one, based upon observation and calculation. ID is just a whack idea, one that occassionally runs counter to observation, and is highly improbable, based largely on faith. Evolution has the power to make predictions, and is falsifiable. ID fails on both counts.

So, whether you like it or not, evolution is a viable theory, while ID is just an idea. Or, to use the vernacular, evolution is a 'law', while ID is a 'theory'.

***

*Please note, I'm not actually sure if evolution has been promoted to 'law' status within the scientific community - others familiar with scientific methods know what I'm talking about. But for all practical intents...