• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

evolution and ID in public schools

idk much about these theories but i know that when i look gravity up in the dictionary and compare it to reality then I think i reasonably conclude gravity plays out in reality as a fact.

And if you look up "evolution" in the dictionary and compare it to reality, you should draw exactly the same conclusion.

The only difference is that there's not a well-funded political organization with the mandate and mission to lie (yes, lie) in an effort to confuse you.
 
The problem is that ID isn't a real "theory" by any stretch of the imagination or any credible use of that word. You can use the popular parlance "theory" but that doesn't trump the sceintific meaning of the word. ID is magic. Now, if you want to teach magic in science class it changes the nature of the class, it will no longer be a science class. The students int he class will no longer be learning science. Maybe that is ok with you...but it seems to defeat the purpose of science education.

Here's the point. It isn't science because it isn't subject to falsification or change. If ID is your answer it is your answer today, as it would have been 200 years ago, or 100 years from now. It is a intellectual brick wall that you can never go around or get over. It stops you in its tracks, as it were.

The theory of evolution CHANGES every time there is a new piece of evidence or analysis that expands the facts available and forces those facts to be reinterpreted in a new light. Evolutionary theory is different today than it was 100 years ago because more facts, data, analysis, expirimentation, etc. has changed the analysis. With ID, what changes the analsyis? It is a meaningless concept, scientifically. Therefore, teaching it in "science" class, giving it "scientific" credibility undermines the very concept of science and how it is done.

It is positively Orwellian. It is the Ministry of Love. It is an Un-good. It is a intellectual worm-hole.

Just abecause someone calls it a "theory" doesn't make it a scientific "theory"...based on your interpretation, what shouldn't they teach in "science"...alchemey? witch-craft and spells? Magic -- both practical and entertainment?

We're talking about teaching science not Hoggswart's (sp?) magic acadamy fopr Ed's sake.
 
idk much about these theories but i know that when i look gravity up in the dictionary and compare it to reality then I think i reasonably conclude gravity plays out in reality as a fact.

You are confused. The observation of the behavior we call gravity; that is not in dispute, as the principles upon which evolution is based are not in dispute: animals resemble one another to the point that anything with forearm bones has two. Populations of animals change. Variants show up occasionally. There were animals in the past that are not like the ones we have now.

The theory of gravity is an explanation for why it behaves how it does, and includes testable predictions for the mechanism purported in the explanation.

Similarly, evolution is a theory of change over time that provides a testable mechanism along with an explanation of why things are as they are.

God, as far as I know, is not testable under any conditions.
 
Today we know evolution happened. Period.

get off the stuff man. Nah i know you didnt really mean it the way it sounded right?

Looking at the natural world and claiming "God did it" is not a scientific theory at all. It does not base it's conclusions on facts,it does not conduct experiments,It does not make predictions,It is not falsifiable..It's simply not a scientific theory by any means.

I hope i didnt say it was a scientific theory, i dont think i did though.
 
idk much about these theories but i know that when i look gravity up in the dictionary and compare it to reality then I think i reasonably conclude gravity plays out in reality as a fact.
What you believe or think doens't change the fact that you are wrong.

Newton is NOT consistent with reality, it is NOT a fact.
Einsteins theory of gravity is NOT consistent with reality, it is NOT a fact.

Both are known to be wrong.

Einstein was closer to reality than Newton, but it is still not consistent with reality.

Both are close enough to reality that they can be used, for many things, but both are known to not be accurate.

Both of these are still Theories.
 
I hope i didnt say it was a scientific theory, i dont think i did though.

So why would you teach a non-scientific theory in Science class...and where would you draw the line. How is the Flying Spaghetti Monster not just as credible a theory as what the ID movement pushes? Why would you not require science classes to spend time on it? Buddhist origin theories?

Lysenko had some wonderful "theories" about biology...should Lysenkoist biology be revived and taught along side molecular biology?

You render the concept of "theory" meaningless.
 
BJQ said:
are any of those theories actually popular to the point of people thinking them to be true? obviously thats what i mean when im talking about teaching stuff in public schools. There's no such thing as too much critical thinking in my opinion, you can't really have too much of a virtue. If I say "I'm too generous, its actually that I probably have poor judgement skills. Wouldn't critical thinking include taking context and attitude into consideration?
Little kids certainly believe in Santa and the Bunny. And apparently millions of people believe in alien abduction or even think they have been abducted. If "thinking something is true" is the criterion, you've got a lot of 'splaining to do, BJQ.

idk much about these theories but i know that when i look gravity up in the dictionary and compare it to reality then I think i reasonably conclude gravity plays out in reality as a fact.
Dude, we're begging you, learn what a scientific theory is.

Make us proud.

Be the first one on your block to hear that you don't know what a scientific theory is and then go and find out.

We'll praise you up, down, and sideways if you do, because no one else ever has.

~~ Paul
 
get off the stuff man. Nah i know you didnt really mean it the way it sounded right?

I'll say it also. Very plainly.

Evolution is a fact. Evolution happens. We know that evolution happens and have actually seen it working. Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology.

How evolution works is a scientific theory. That means that our current understanding has a GREAT DEAL of evidentiary support. That means that 150 years of research has enabled us to refine and narrow the theory to improve its predictive ability. It does NOT mean that we are guessing or making things up. The FACTS of evolution totally support the THEORY of evolution.

Clear enough?
 
tricky said:
If you think ID is a "theory", then tell me this: What evidence would it take to disprove the theory?

Evolution has many such areas where it is "falsifiable". Where are the falsifiable parts of ID?

You go first. :p
Um... okay.

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

Okay, your turn.:p
 
gravity is a theory now? Maybe come up with a better comparison if that's what your going to do.

Yes it is, in the same sense that Evolution is a theory. When you speak of the 'theory of evolution' your refer to a tested and generally well supported hypothesis, Thus one can speak of the 'theory' of evolution, the 'theory' of gravity, the germ 'theory' of disease, etc.

The problem comes when a lot of people, in common usage, use the word 'theory' to mean 'hypothesis' or even 'wild guess', i.e. "It's my theory that JFK was not killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, but in fact a tiger got him". So people, like you, come to think that when one refers to the 'theory of evolution' that scientists are talking about an untested, unproven idea and that is not the case.
 
How about neither, that might make more people happy, at least stop a lot of contraversy and complaining. Why not admit theory as theory and not teach theory to young kids? In public schools up to the secondary level that is. In previous years I've had elementry school and highschool science teachers straight out state evolutionary theories as facts, if they were talking about the theory of ID then most those teachers would likely have been fired.

Say there was a law that made it so neither evolution or ID were taught in schools. The theists wouldn't complain about evolution being taught and the atheists wouldn't complain about ID being taught. The only thing they could complain about is not being able to teach their own theories in public schools. And if thats their complaint then oh well, i dont think the government has to care being as teaching theories in public schools isn't a right its more like a priviledge.

Or maybe the fact that ID is slowly starting to get accepted into school systems is better. That way kids are introduced to both of the two popular theories of our time, thus being more educational. And also evening out the playing field, encouraging the stating of theory as theory instead of fact.

Your thoughts?


It's not just atheists who are revolted at the thought of ID being taught in schools. Catholicism, being probably the largest Christian organization on the planet, has no problems in accepting the process of evolution as truth.

This was in last month's Discover magazine:

"Theory

Most people use the word theory to mean uncertainty, guesswork, or a rough idea, but in science it has a different meaning. A scientific theory explains facts or phenomena that have been shown to be true by repeated independent tests and experiments. An educated guess in science is called a hypothesis.

Scientific theories are not laws, which describe phenomena thought to be invariable. Theories are generally used to describe why certain laws work. For example, the law of gravity is known to be true for falling bodies, but how and why it works is explained by Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity. Einstein's theory was accepted as true only after repeated experimentation and observation. Yet not even laws are absolute. They are rarely overturned, but they may be amended should new data warrant it."

--Maia Weinstock

The process of evolution is observable, the theory is how it's explained.

Please reference any peer-reviewed, published scientific reasoning that supports the philosophy of ID. You can't, because there isn't any. NONE. Keep your navel-gazing philosophy OUT of science classrooms!!!

PS: Have you ever even read Darwin's On The Origins Of Species?

If you haven't, you should. Darwin was, quite clearly, a devout christian.
 
Why would you not require science classes to spend time on it? Buddhist origin theories?

Well, that would be a pretty short class, wouldn't it?

From a Buddhist FAQ :

Q: Who created the world?

A: We believe that we cannot answer that. It is beyond our ability to know that at this time. For if there was a creator, with the concept of cause and effect, we must ask who created the creator. It is not important for us to know that. One of the basic concepts within Buddhism is interdependence. With this teaching, we realize that all of us are interconnected and depend upon one another for our existence. Asking questions such as who created this or that is a way our mind distracts our attention to the more important matter of how I am living this moment. I am grateful to receive and have the life I have now. How do I repay that debt of gratitude? These are the questions we ask.
 
are any of those theories actually popular to the point of people thinking them to be true?
Yes. Should they be taught in schools?
gravity is a theory now?
No. Gravity is gravity. The theory of gravity is the theory of gravity. Evolution is evolution. The theory of evolution is the theory of evolution.
 
PS: Have you ever even read Darwin's On The Origins Of Species?

If you haven't, you should. Darwin was, quite clearly, a devout christian.
:notm

In particular, there is nothing in Origin of Species to suggest that. There is a single reference to a "Creator" in the first edition of OoS: "Endowed by their Creator with a few forms or one...". I understand that this was dropped from later editions. There is no reference whatsoever to any specific Christian beliefs, and I believe it would be most correct to call Darwin an agnostic.

Have you read the Origin of Species?
 
Catholicism, being probably the largest Christian organization on the planet, has no problems in accepting the process of evolution as truth.

as an organization i suppose that is true, do you know any statistics that say about what percent of people who call themselves catholic accept evolution as truth? it'd be nice to know.

Doesn't matter much anyways to me since many catholic principles dont coincide with my beliefs, in addition hasn't that same organization been bending a lot of their traditional beliefs lately?
 
No. Gravity is gravity. The theory of gravity is the theory of gravity. Evolution is evolution. The theory of evolution is the theory of evolution.

yea, 'twas a technical wording misunderstanding.
 
BJQ87...Try responding to my entire post and answering all of my questions and responding to my points. You're obviously playing the avoidance game and avoiding my questions...Here,I'll repost them for you..

What evidence is "God did it" based on?
What experiments have shown "God did it" to be a theory?
How is "god did it" falsifiable?
How does "God did it" explain vestigial organs?
How does "god did it" Explain ERV's?
How does "god did it" explain that Humans have some of the same mutations in their DNA that chimp's do which could only mean humans and chimps have a common non-human/non-chimp ancestor?
How does "god did it" explain the fossil record that supports evolution?
How does "God did it" explain Nested hierarchies?
How does "god did it" explain Redundant pseudogenes?


Evolution answers all of these questions. If "intelligent design" can't then it's not a theory. It's only a theory if it answers all of the same questions evolution answers AND supports those answers by facts and evidence.
 
Well, that would be a pretty short class, wouldn't it?

From a Buddhist FAQ :


Q: Who created the world?

A: We believe that we cannot answer that. It is beyond our ability to know that at this time. For if there was a creator, with the concept of cause and effect, we must ask who created the creator...

Wow, maybe we should teach that in science class. At least the reasoning is consistant with...I don't know...REALITY!
 

Back
Top Bottom