Fishteacher73 Posted May 6, 2005 Report Posted May 6, 2005 In Kansas they are attempting to get evolution down graded and have teachers talk about "alternate theories". One odd thing in this hearing was that the pro-evolutionist decided to not put scientists on the stand in defense of evolution. I am torn on this move because it at first does not seem to be a wise move, yet I can understand the idea that they did not want to put the theory of evolution on trial. What you think?? Here's a link to the NY Times story: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/06/education/06evolution.html?ex=1273032000&en=216a34f472e087c6&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
C1ay Posted May 6, 2005 Report Posted May 6, 2005 The only thing that bothers me about any of these cases is the desire to discuss non-scientific theories in science class. I really don't see why they can't just argue to have discussions on supernatural or religious beliefs in philosophy classes. Why do the religious want religion in science class when there's no sound scientific evidence to support it?
bumab Posted May 6, 2005 Report Posted May 6, 2005 In Kansas they are attempting to get evolution down graded and have teachers talk about "alternate theories". One odd thing in this hearing was that the pro-evolutionist decided to not put scientists on the stand in defense of evolution. I am torn on this move because it at first does not seem to be a wise move, yet I can understand the idea that they did not want to put the theory of evolution on trial. What you think?? It's pretty sad that folks would have to keep scientists out of a scientific trial, but I understand why they did it, I suppose. The real issue SHOULD be whether the alternate theories are scientific, hence the witnesses should be geared towards the scientific validity of either POV. This is doubly annoying as a believer and a scientist, because not only does it make believers look bad, it's just bad science. But we all know that.... :(
Buffy Posted May 6, 2005 Report Posted May 6, 2005 It's pretty sad that folks would have to keep scientists out of a scientific trial, but I understand why they did it, I suppose. The real issue SHOULD be whether the alternate theories are scientific, hence the witnesses should be geared towards the scientific validity of either POV.I gathered the point of keeping the science folks out--which was the choice of the people on the Evolution side--was to argue that creationism/ID *was religious* as opposed to being *not scientific*, which is a completely different angle of attack, and to me has some merit, as it got some of the suposedly ID people on the state school board to admit to their motives in public. It might well backfire, but there probably will be blowback if it goes through again... Cheers,Buffy
Biochemist Posted May 7, 2005 Report Posted May 7, 2005 Why do the religious want religion in science class when there's no sound scientific evidence to support it?In case it is not obvious, the core issue is not evolution, it is Naturalism. Those of you who contend that sicence should be "value neutral" cannot contend that it is legitimate to assert specific causality to the origin of the universe when the origin is unknown. Asserting non-theististic causality is naturalism, and that is unsubstantiated by science. The case in Kansas was exclusively related to school board(s) allowing teaching of ID as an alternative thesis. Nothing about instruction in evolution would change. I understand discomfort with asserting rights to teach Creationism. This ain't that.
Stargazer Posted May 7, 2005 Report Posted May 7, 2005 In Kansas they are attempting to get evolution down graded and have teachers talk about "alternate theories". One odd thing in this hearing was that the pro-evolutionist decided to not put scientists on the stand in defense of evolution. I am torn on this move because it at first does not seem to be a wise move, yet I can understand the idea that they did not want to put the theory of evolution on trial. What you think?? Here's a link to the NY Times story: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/06/education/06evolution.html?ex=1273032000&en=216a34f472e087c6&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rssExactly what alternate theories? The ID theory? It would be laughable if only it existed in the first place. ID is not science, it's not a theory or even a hypothesis. I am beginning to wonder if USA is tired of being in a leading position in science, the way they're allowing antiscience and pseudoscience and religion to attack science education.
lindagarrette Posted May 7, 2005 Report Posted May 7, 2005 In Kansas they are attempting to get evolution down graded and have teachers talk about "alternate theories". One odd thing in this hearing was that the pro-evolutionist decided to not put scientists on the stand in defense of evolution. I am torn on this move because it at first does not seem to be a wise move, yet I can understand the idea that they did not want to put the theory of evolution on trial. What you think?? Here's a link to the NY Times story: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/06/education/06evolution.html?ex=1273032000&en=216a34f472e087c6&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rssI think the purpose is to not teach evolution at all. ID can be covered in one sentence, so it takes no study and it won't be on the tests students are being prepped for under the current regime. Biological sciences will be and probably for the most part, still are taught in much the same way as when I was in school, Just a lot of memorizing boring details.
Biochemist Posted May 7, 2005 Report Posted May 7, 2005 ..ID is not science, it's not a theory or even a hypothesis...(emphasis added) It's not a hypothesis???? This type of biased mischaracterization is why Kansans open a public forum on the topic. You can complain all you like about the weak support for the hypothesis (as I do), but to suggest it is not "even a hypothesis" is ludicrous, and directly at odds with the scientific method.
Biochemist Posted May 7, 2005 Report Posted May 7, 2005 ..ID can be covered in one sentence, so it takes no study...This is the intriguing part. I don't think that ID is one sentence, but it is certainly a much smaller discussion than the content in natural selection, comparative anatomy, biochemistry and paleontology. It is intriquing that the "scientific" community is so up in arms about including maybe 5% of the allotted teaching time to a contrarian hypothesis that is not at odds with the existing data, just existing philosophy.
C1ay Posted May 7, 2005 Report Posted May 7, 2005 In case it is not obvious, the core issue is not evolution, it is Naturalism. Those of you who contend that sicence should be "value neutral" cannot contend that it is legitimate to assert specific causality to the origin of the universe when the origin is unknown. Asserting non-theististic causality is naturalism, and that is unsubstantiated by science. The case in Kansas was exclusively related to school board(s) allowing teaching of ID as an alternative thesis. Nothing about instruction in evolution would change. I understand discomfort with asserting rights to teach Creationism. This ain't that.Where does evolution assert a beginning? IMO there is no evidence to support any theory on the origin of the universe and evolution is about what happened after. ID simply says life is so complex it must have been designed that way. That is not a valid scientific theory in and of itself. Discuss it in philosophy class but not science class.
Biochemist Posted May 7, 2005 Report Posted May 7, 2005 Where does evolution assert a beginning? IMO there is no evidence to support any theory on the origin of the universe and evolution is about what happened after. I think you are correct, C1ay. However,there are others (even several on this site) that contend quite strongly that the evolutionary model is a strong element of support for Naturalistic genesis of life. ID simply says life is so complex it must have been designed that way. That is not a valid scientific theory in and of itself. Discuss it in philosophy class but not science class.If ID is taught as one of two opposing theories for origin, neither has much evidenciary support, and the discussion is pretty brief. One could spend an hour(maybe) on the notion of irreducible complexity, and balance that with the probababilistic difficulties facing the ID proponents, but that would be about it. I think it would be fair to have that discussion in a science forum, versus a philosophy class. The detail discussion does not map well to philosophy.
pgrmdave Posted May 7, 2005 Report Posted May 7, 2005 a contrarian hypothesis that is not at odds with the existing data, just existing philosophy. Ah, but it is at odds with science, because it brings in outside forces that are untestable. We cannot simply fit any theory to the facts, we need to fit the simplist theory that accurately predicts and accepts all the facts. Intelligent Design brings in an outside force, just like trying to explain gravity as angels pushing things togeather is unscientific, Intelligent Design is unscientific.
pgrmdave Posted May 7, 2005 Report Posted May 7, 2005 theories for originEvolution never has been and never will be a theory on origin, but a theory on how the variety of life exists on earth.
Kirk Gregory Czuhai Posted May 7, 2005 Report Posted May 7, 2005 here I AM again! And i will tell you gently again, (you are STILL in luck) that eventually life or deathwill bring you to where you will all KNOW the TRUTH AND THE (((FINAL))) WORD!!!Please, i mean no offense, but, you see, i was just like many of you; agnostic to almost the point of atheistic/purely scientific thought at more than one time in my life, BUT NEVER AGAIN! GOD and JESUS ARE REAL! AND WOULD I DIE FOR MY BELIEFS? i am getting almost to that point; but yes i am a sinner and probably would chicken out before the cock crowed! but i tell you, GOD AND JESUS ARE REAL! AND HEAVEN OR HELL AWAITS! love and peace,and,peace and love,(kirk) kirk gregory czuhai ---> LOVES ! :(
Biochemist Posted May 7, 2005 Report Posted May 7, 2005 Ah, but it is at odds with science, because it brings in outside forces that are untestable....Intelligent Design brings in an outside force... Intelligent Design is unscientific.I agree with the core of your argument, PGD. Again, the problem is that Naturalism is often inappropriately bound with evolution as a direct philosophical underpinning. This is not science either. Adding ID as a counterbalance to Naturalism is (I think) reasonable. The ID folks will (probably) also argue that there are some ID frameworks that are testable. I am not confident that is true, but I suggest the argument ought to be heard.
Biochemist Posted May 7, 2005 Report Posted May 7, 2005 Evolution never has been and never will be a theory on origin, but a theory on how the variety of life exists on earth.I can't speak for the committed Naturalism folks, but I am pretty sure that many of them believe evolution is a theory of origin. I do understand (and agree) with your assertion.
Biochemist Posted May 7, 2005 Report Posted May 7, 2005 GOD and JESUS ARE REAL! AND WOULD I DIE FOR MY BELIEFS? i am getting almost to that point; but yes i am a sinner and probably would chicken out before the cock crowed!... I appreciate the sentiment, KGC. There are a number of Christians on this site (as well as a number of non-Christian theists). Most participants would prefer if we kept to the topic, rather than shift the focus of discussion to personal salvation or theology. I am the last guy to denigrate your content, but I think it would be reasonable to start a thread on those topics if you are motivated to carry them forward.
Recommended Posts