Discrimination On Scientists That Back ID

[no1tovote4]

The only portions of ID that might be considered scientific are the ones that do nothing other than attack the holes in evolution. But none of that has anything to do with an intelligent designer.

This doesn't effect that portions of ID theorizing are within the scientific process and should get at least a note in a science class when teaching Evolutionary Theory.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

People who work to disprove theories are within the scientific process. Gathering evidence to disprove a theory is as much a part of the scientific process as attempting to gather evidence in support of a theory. Those people who work in those boundaries are within the scientific process.

So then, I would be fine with discussing disproof of portions of evolution in science class, so long as said disproof fell within the definitions of science.

At the end of the day, showing that evolution has holes in it in no way requires that intelligent design even be mentioned. "This is evolution, and these are some of the flaws some have found in it."

 

[no1tovote4]

So then, I would be fine with discussing disproof of portions of evolution in science class, so long as said disproof fell within the definitions of science.

At the end of the day, showing that evolution has holes in it in no way requires that intelligent design even be mentioned. "This is evolution, and these are some of the flaws some have found in it."

Right, but who found those flaws? What methods did they use? Why is their methodology within scientific process? Why are some of their methods outside the scientific process? Which portions are within those processes?

This information should be taught while teaching any Scientific Theory. A better understanding of scientific process is my goal, so that simply stating, "It is not science" becomes a standard in order to promote dogmatic scientism when it is not a truism. "Portions are within the processes of science" would be much more accurate statement and a truism.

 

[Powerman]

This doesn't effect that portions of ID theorizing are within the scientific process and should get at least a note in a science class when teaching Evolutionary Theory.

Sure. So long as every scientific theory has it's own fair share of critique from opposing theories.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Right, but who found those flaws? What methods did they use? Why is their methodology within scientific process? Why are some of their methods outside the scientific process? Which portions are within those processes?

This information should be taught while teaching any Scientific Theory. A better understanding of scientific process is my goal, so that simply stating, "It is not science" becomes a standard in order to promote dogmatic scientism when it is not a truism. "Portions are within the processes of science" would be much more accurate statement and a truism.

Fair enough. At the end of the day, though, I don't think the motivation that these people are trying to disprove evolution because they believe in a non-scientific theory is relavent to the discussion. Science isn't a class about why people prove things, just like math class doesn't go into why algebra was created. They just teach you the algebra. The history of algebra (and the reasons for wanting to disprove evolution) are for another class.

 

[no1tovote4]

Fair enough. At the end of the day, though, I don't think the motivation that these people are trying to disprove evolution because they believe in a non-scientific theory is relavent to the discussion. Science isn't a class about why people prove things, just like math class doesn't go into why algebra was created. They just teach you the algebra. The history of algebra (and the reasons for wanting to disprove evolution) are for another class.

Motivation wasn't discussed. Simply what groups and their methods was discussed. Why some were within the processes of science and why some were not was also discussed. Motivation should be saved for philosophy classes.

In my math courses the history of the discoveries were often discussed as well as practical application. Of course that was in College and I was a math major.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Of course that was in College and I was a math major.

Oh god, you're one of those.

 

[Powerman]

Oh god, you're one of those.

Hey he can't be much worse than me. I'm a senior electrical engineering major.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Hey he can't be much worse than me. I'm a senior electrical engineering major.

Dear lord.

 

[no1tovote4]

Dear lord.

Yes. It is a conspiracy. At last month's meeting we decided to... Crap! I've said too much!

:fifty:

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Certainly there are many situations where logic can lead you to multiple conclusions, no?

I've never really thought about that too much before. if at all.

One thing I dont do, is to rely on certain things to determine what I ultimately believe. For example, the ongoing debate as to when and who wrote the gospels, etc. or did the flood really happen, did God create evil,,,

I mean, far superior minds than any of ours have been debating those issues for centuries, and NO DEFINITIVE answer has been found. Hence, there must not be one.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Yes. Which was my point earlier. Logic can you lead you to wrong conclusions.

Thats just not logical.....

 

[LuvRPgrl]

So your argument is introduce a competing theory, even one with no evidence, so that evolution isn't the only theory?.

Not at all.

Are you so desperate for an alternate theory to evolution that you think putting forth notions derived from stories is an acceptable solution?
Without evidence, such notions are nothing more than guesses..

Considering BILLIONS of people believe in creation, I would say putting it up for debate is a good idea. ANd I certainly wouldnt put that on par with some newly made up story that has no historical following. And why do you assume IM DESPERATE? I just dont like the closed minded nature of the educational world these days, see the post about the girl whose college teacher is harrasing her for having an Iraq war soldier come speak on campus.

Or another guy who was told by his professor, to get a psychiatric evaluation because the guy supported George Bush's decision to go into Iraq.

Well, hey! Maybe we ought to force Sunday Schools to teach evolution as an alternate theory for Genesis.

WEll, as soon as they make going to sunday school mandatory, I would agree.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I've never really thought about that too much before. if at all.

One thing I dont do, is to rely on certain things to determine what I ultimately believe. For example, the ongoing debate as to when and who wrote the gospels, etc. or did the flood really happen, did God create evil,,,

I mean, far superior minds than any of ours have been debating those issues for centuries, and NO DEFINITIVE answer has been found. Hence, there must not be one.

I disagree with this sentiment. Giving up on trying to find answers stalls progress.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Like the writer of the following post, I disagree with ID being added to the science curriculum, but what is happening here is wrong. Links are found at the site:


http://instapundit.com/archives/026781.php

What's so appalling? Firing a scientists for asserting that a non-scientific theory is scientific? Makes sense to me.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Calling me 'sweet stuff' is cause enough to silence you. Overlooking it this time, wrong you are, in the sense that by putting it into the scientific forums, those with the expertise are able to argue it. What part of this escapes you? It's the course of the academic rigor.

It isn't a scientific idea. It has no place in a scientific forum.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I'll agree with this, which is why it should NOT be in science curriculum for general science. On the other hand, it should be debated in scientific medium and college level courses. That is what builds strong curriculum.

It isn't science. Why should something non-scientific be in a science medium. Would you expect to learn about auto-repair on a cooking show?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Considering BILLIONS of people believe in creation, I would say putting it up for debate is a good idea. ANd I certainly wouldnt put that on par with some newly made up story that has no historical following. And why do you assume IM DESPERATE? I just dont like the closed minded nature of the educational world these days, see the post about the girl whose college teacher is harrasing her for having an Iraq war soldier come speak on campus.

It isn't close minded to keep non-science out of a science class. Science isn't a forum for the debate of every idea under the Sun - its a forum for the debate of SCIENCE. ID, as a theory, is unscientific. It is experimentally unverifiable as well as unfalsifiable.


Suppose I proposed to you this theory - that the entire universe was created 5 minutes ago and all of our memories implanted in our heads to make it seem as if we've been around longer. Try as you might - you couldn't prove me wrong! In fact, it would be impossible to prove such a theory either right or wrong, making it not a scientific theory. The same applies to ID.

 

[Powerman]

It isn't close minded to keep non-science out of a science class. Science isn't a forum for the debate of every idea under the Sun - its a forum for the debate of SCIENCE. ID, as a theory, is unscientific. It is experimentally unverifiable as well as unfalsifiable.


Suppose I proposed to you this theory - that the entire universe was created 5 minutes ago and all of our memories implanted in our heads to make it seem as if we've been around longer. Try as you might - you couldn't prove me wrong! In fact, it would be impossible to prove such a theory either right or wrong, making it not a scientific theory. The same applies to ID.

I've tried to explain the requirement of falisifiablity here before and it didn't go over well. Maybe you'll have better luck. You don't just teach something because a lot of people believe in it.

 

[Annie]

What's so appalling? Firing a scientists for asserting that a non-scientific theory is scientific? Makes sense to me.

No more along the lines that the editor's credentials, along with the writer's were sufficient to be in the journal. It's what is often done in academic journals, proposing alternative venues for study. That doesn't mean that ID belongs in the science curriculum, but the unwillingness to even allow alternative theories, no matter how 'unproven' is against all scientific basis.