Luigi Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 Quit jumping to conclusions and playing word games. Present the evidences and arguments. I am not going to argue merits of one theory over another. But there are competing theories irregardless of what you may think of them.Name one. Intelligent design has been shown repeatedly (and even been decided in court) to not be a scientific theory. Did you have something else in mind?
katherine the great Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 My own suspicion is that American school performance in the sciences, which is pretty miserable, would be improved by the introduction of controversy into the classroom.I'm very disappointed to hear an educator say this. This is about Biology, not all the sciences. Our children need to learn dependable scientific theories and principles in science class not be confused and distracted by alternative, non scientific information and debating something that really isn't debatable. It isn't the school's function to teach our children religion. That is our function as parents and as a church. We are doing our children a great disservice if we don't teach them that God and science are perfectly compatible.
Rob Osborn Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 Religious dogma?What about radiacal scientific dogma?It never fails that almost every single biology or other science book begins teaching its evolutinary theory part with a stint on the actuality and probability of abiogenesis even though, tests after countless tests have proven that life does not nor cannot originate from no-directed unguided intelligent processes.Ya, that really gets me!The only real reason evolutinary scientists don't want include ID in the discussion of lifes origins is that it just may turn out that ID sways people into believeing evolutionary theory as the fraud that it is! Gee, what would all those evolutionary scientists do when they have no jobs? I guess they could be palm readers, after all, most of their acclaimed "facts" are nothing more than conjecture and guesses based off of unobservable ideas
thesometimesaint Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 Rob:What a anti-science diatribe. This from you while you are using the most technologically/scientifically advanced machine known to man. Please either join the 21st Century or go live somewhere of the 5th. I'm sure you will enjoy it.Ps. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
katherine the great Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 The only real reason evolutinary scientists don't want include ID in the discussion of lifes origins is that it just may turn out that ID sways people into believeing evolutionary theory as the fraud that it is! Yeah. I'm sure you're right. (dang them evolutinary scientists for believeing evolutionary theory!)
krose Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 Covering ID in a science class would be a very simple thing in actual practice. One sentence would cover it, then you would be finished..."A few scientists have advanced the idea that the best explanation for the complexity of life on earth is that it was created by an intelligent designer, although they do not specify who or what this designer was."That's really all you can say, because there is nothing you could teach about the mechanisms of the design process. Although I suppose you could spend a few more minutes wondering how the designer (which must be even more complex) came to be without another, even more intelligent designer, one level up.
William James Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 I did not vote because I believe a simple "yes" or "no" would not do justice to my views on the subject. The subject of evolution is a hot-button topic among many groups. Some see it as a theory spawned by Satan, the goal of which is to make people stop believing in God. Some people believe evolution is completely bogus, while others see it as practically gospel. I think there are a few things most people would agree with, namely:(1) There is very compelling evidence that evolution, at least on a micro-organism level, occurs as a matter of fact;(2) There is evidence that evolution of species also occurs, but there are sufficient gaps in the fossil record to prevent us from proving beyond doubt that human beings evolved from apes, who in turn evolved from lower life forms, on down the line until everything, including humans, evolved from microorganisms.(3) There are aspects about human nature, personality, and physiology which are sufficiently complex that it is difficult to provide a complete explanation for their existence based upon only the current evidence we have concerning evolution; many people believe that such evidence will be found as the science and technology to analyze organisms advances, and many people are satisfied with the current evidence being sufficient to show that humans were created through the evolutionary process, although some of the details have yet to be ironed out.(4) Children in a classroom are likely to have their views influenced by the content of the materials presented to them by their teacher and the manner of the presentation.(5) No one has provided objective, verifiable proof of God's existence to the rest of the world, although many people claim to have had subjective spiritual experiences witnessing to them that God exists. (6) There is wide disagreement on whether observable conditions and phenomena in the universe support the view that God exists.(7) Parents generally should have input on what children are taught, but this principle should not be applied so as to deny a child exposure to a range of ideas, even ideas with which the parent disagrees.In light of the foregoing principles, I suggest that children in school (whether public or private) should be exposed, as objectively as possible, to both the theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design. Teachers should be required, however, to present the material in a way which does not pressure students to disregard either theory or accept one over the other. For example, I would not be in favor of a curriculum where the teacher is allowed to tell its 10-year-olds something like, "Today, we're going to talk about evolution, a satanic theory which denies the existence of God and which has been thoroughly debunked by respected Christian scientists. We'll also talk about intelligent design, and learn how God created the world as described in the Book of Genesis." Likewise, I would not want a teacher teaching its fifth-graders, "Everyone but a few Christian wackos knows that evolution is true and that humans evolved from other species. The fossil record clearly shows that neither God nor anyone else had any guiding hand in how humans evolved. So-called 'intelligent design' is just an irrational theory designed by ignorant theists to cope with the unpleasant fact that they don't have a shred of evidence for God's existence and that all the science shows that humans are mere animals who were created through nature."Any curriculum must acknowledge and explore the controversy between the two theories, fairly present the arguments on both sides of the debate, accurately and objectively acknowledge the majority consensus in the scientific community, make clear to the students that they are free to formulate their own opinions on the subject based upon the arguments and evidence put forth, and also clarify that the role of formal non-religious education is to focus on science and facts, not teach theology or advocate any set of religious beliefs.
Luigi Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 Religious dogma?What about radiacal scientific dogma?It never fails that almost every single biology or other science book begins teaching its evolutinary theory part with a stint on the actuality and probability of abiogenesis even though, tests after countless tests have proven that life does not nor cannot originate from no-directed unguided intelligent processes.When has it ever been proven that life originates from directed, guided intelligent processes? You think the propagation of bacteria and viruses is directed, guided and intelligent? In fact about the only species that appears to propagate itself with any rational intent at all is human beings (and even among humans that is arguably the minority;). Most scientists agree they don't know how life actually started and the process of abiogenesis is unknown and that there are only hypothetical explanations as of now. What is known is how organisms spread and diversify and that is evolution by natural selection. Not being sure of the start is no call for attributing it to magical beings or intelligent designers. Ya, that really gets me!The only real reason evolutinary scientists don't want include ID in the discussion of lifes origins is that it just may turn out that ID sways people into believeing evolutionary theory as the fraud that it is! Gee, what would all those evolutionary scientists do when they have no jobs? I guess they could be palm readers, after all, most of their acclaimed "facts" are nothing more than conjecture and guesses based off of unobservable ideasYou think that evolutionary biologists are protecting their jobs? You don't think a prominent evolutionary biologist who could prove intelligent design wouldn't become a hero? If nothing else he could become a celebrity overnight with the Christian Fundamentalist crowd and probably amass a considerable fortune. Intelligent design is not an accepted theory because it boils down to 'life is so complex that it must be magic'. That is the same reasoning of the Greeks for attributing lightning to Zeus. It is not science, it is god-of-the-gaps foolishness.
thesometimesaint Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 William James:Good overall, but I have two exceptions.1. No scientist that I know of says that man evolved from apes. We do have a common ancestor.2. If done within the context of a study of Creation myths, or the Bible as literature, then I'm fine with it. But leave it out of the sciences.
RenegadeOfPhunk Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 ...In light of the foregoing principles, I suggest that children in school (whether public or private) should be exposed, as objectively as possible, to both the theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design. Teachers should be required, however, to present the material in a way which does not pressure students to disregard either theory or accept one over the other....I've seen you as a very reasonable guy on these forums - in my time here.I only mention that so that you believe I'm not asking the next questions in some kind of 'got-ya' way. I'm honestly interested in your answer...If you do allow the kind of attempt at 'objectivity' in the classroom you are aiming for (and I actually genuinely admire the desire you are showing to be objective / fair here...), then what about the:* Anti Big-Bang-ists?http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/...shouldn't you also be giving equal time to the arguments against the Big Bang? Treating the alternate theories (Steady State etc.) with 'equal respect' - in the most objective manner possible?* Anti General-relativists?http://www.anti-relativity.com/...how about we give them their say? They claim to have 'arguments', 'evidence' - the whole nine yards....so why not let them join the party too?A further question...How do you rate the possibility that the only reason we aren't discussing teaching the arguments against the 'Big Bang' theory or the Theory of 'General Relativity' in schools is that neither of these theories particularly challenge the notion of God - and therefore there isn't the political will (certainly in America) to challenge the teaching of them?Many theists I know actually quite like the Big Bang for instance - it's a nice place for God to have pushed the 'ON' button. It's perhaps then not that surprising that the movement is 'anti-Evolution', rather than 'anti-Big Bang'...
ERayR Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 Are you kidding ERay? Children need to learn basic scientific concepts in science class so that they can eventually go on to college and have a starting place if they decide to pursue a career in a science field. Do you also propose that we bring anti Mormon speakers into our children's Sunday School classes to present the "evidences and arguments?" As far as Biology is concerned, there is NO evidence against evolution and no intelligent argument to make against it that follows the scientific method. There is no place in science class for "alternative" theories (and I use the word loosely.) I think it would be perfectly appropriate to have a philosophy or religion class where these things are presented, but not science class because it is not science.No I am not kidding. I went back to college at a much older student. I had some interesting conversations with my professors. One of the things several of them told me is that the kids coming out of high school are trained to regurgitate information and not to think about it. I was told by more than one that a large amount of time has to be spent on teaching them to think before they can teach them anything else. There is no place in science class for "alternative" theories Are you kidding katherine? Where do you suggest alternative theories be discussed? Its ideas like that that are turning our kids into robots.
ERayR Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 I've seen you as a very reasonable guy on these forums - in my time here.I only mention that so that you believe I'm not asking the next questions in some kind of 'got-ya' way. I'm honestly interested in your answer...If you do allow the kind of attempt at 'objectivity' in the classroom you are aiming for (and I actually genuinely admire the desire you are showing to be objective / fair here...), then what about the:* Anti Big-Bang-ists?http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/...shouldn't you also be giving equal time to the arguments against the Big Bang? Treating the alternate theories (Steady State etc.) with 'equal respect' - in the most objective manner possible?* Anti General-relativists?http://www.anti-relativity.com/...how about we give them their say? They claim to have 'arguments', 'evidence' - the whole nine yards....so why not let them join the party too?A further question...How do you rate the possibility that the only reason we aren't discussing teaching the arguments against the 'Big Bang' theory or the Theory of 'General Relativity' in schools is that neither of these theories particularly challenge the notion of God - and therefore there isn't the political will (certainly in America) to challenge the teaching of them?Many theists I know actually quite like the Big Bang for instance - it's a nice place for God to have pushed the 'ON' button. It's perhaps then not that surprising that the movement is 'anti-Evolution', rather than 'anti-Big Bang'...Willim James is right on. They can be presented as competing theories with a summary of their best evidences. At that level great detail is not required.Lest anybody thinks I am anti evolution, you would be wrong. I just don't think they have all of it right yet.
Jason Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 Interestingly enough, I did learn about the "steady state" theories in High School while studying the Big Bang.
RenegadeOfPhunk Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 Interestingly enough, I did learn about the "steady state" theories in High School while studying the Big Bang.But was it presented in the way William James proposed?i.e. 'equal time'? Not preferencing one over the other?I highly doubt it. If so, I'd love to know where you went to school...
Jason Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 But was it presented in the way William James proposed?i.e. 'equal time'? Not preferencing one over the other?I highly doubt it. If so, I'd love to know where you went to school...No, it wasn't. The Big Bang theory was clearly the lead theory. No one said Steady State was flat-out wrong, but it was given less overall time and most of that was presented were the problems with the idea.
ERayR Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 ERayR:You do know what a theory is?No need to get patronizing. Of course I know what a theory is. I wonder if the some of the rest of you do. Having my eyes open I see that when all the evidence is considered there are some places that don't fit real well and there are other places where it does.If I may get a little patronizing, are you sure you are capable of evaluating evidence impartially?
RenegadeOfPhunk Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 No, it wasn't. The Big Bang theory was clearly the lead theory. No one said Steady State was flat-out wrong, but it was given less overall time and most of that was presented were the problems with the idea.Right. So I hope that - first of all - we can agree that your Big Bang vs. Steady State education doesn't match what William James was proposing in regards to Darwinism vs. ID education.If it had, you would have perhaps experienced:* Equal time spent on both Big Bang and Steady State theories...* Equal emphasis on 'best evidences' and 'worst problems' - for both theories.* No 'opinion' from the 'educator' as to which was better. It would have been up to YOU to decide.In other words you - a high school student - would be expected to do the same intellectual leg-work that some of the greatest minds in the world did over decades if you were to have had any hope of reaching an informed conclusion on the matter.Now - I would admire the sense of fair-play involved. But really - it would have been your education that would have been on the losing side of the equation in all this, if that had been the case.As far as 'mentioning' ID in the same kind of way that Steady State theory was 'mentioned' to you - well, I actually have no problem with that.The only trouble is I don't think ID proponents will like it at all.After all, let's compare the two:Steady State theory:* Was the dominant - almost 'assumed' - scientific consensus for centuries.* Those who ended up arguing against it never disputed it as a legitimate 'scientific proposal'. They just disagreed with it based on evidence and argumentation.* Big-bang theorists never tried to 'bypass' the scientific process by trying to push their ideas into schools before they had won the scientific consensus (No matter how long they patiently had to 'battle against' the hardened 'Steady State theories'. [The history of which is fascinating - I highly recommend looking into the various battles Fred Hoyle - and others - fought on this front...])compared to:ID* Has never been accepted as even a 'legitimate' scientific theory by the majority of scientists (even though it's been around as an idea since the 70's - see the Discovery Institute website...)* Have repeatedly tried to 'bypass' the usual scientific process - attempting to get ID taught (in some form or another) in schools before they have won the scientific consensus...by all means, let's teach the above 'history'. I have no problem with that....ID'ers might though I imagine. Even though all the above is correct...
thesometimesaint Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 ERayR:It was not my intent to appear patronizing. Sorry if it came across that way. Many lay people confuse a scientific theory with just a guess. It isn't.http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
ERayR Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 ERayR:It was not my intent to appear patronizing. Sorry if it came across that way. Many lay people confuse a scientific theory with just a guess. It isn't.http://wilstar.com/theories.htmAnd it also seems that many people confuse a scientific theory as a bone fide natural law. It isn't.
WalkerW Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 I for one am not supportive of teaching ID in school until it gains larger ground in the scientific community. I think the school teachers should be responsible in their teaching, letting the children know that science is a process and that it is changing often. What is considered scientific today may not be tomorrow. This is how science works. When bringing up evolution, it should be explained that it is the theory that holds the consensus of the scientific community. I have no problem with ID being mentioned as a minority theory, but as for class time being devoted to explaining it in detail, I can't say I am supportive. There will always be competing theories and differing opinions. This is true of most things. But I think Kenneth Miller sums up the idea of ID being taught school very well:
Doc Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 ERayR:There are competing theories on minor points of Evolution. Such is the nature of science.Did you have in mind things like Stephen Jay Gould's "punctuated equilibrium?" Doc~
ERayR Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 ERayR:Agreed, but it is darn close. Part of it could probably be considered as natural law but there are parts that are very iffy.
thesometimesaint Posted October 28, 2009 Posted October 28, 2009 ERayR:If you mean subject to change, with good reason, while upholding the Scientific Method then I'll agree. OTOH to throw out a theory without compelling reason puts us exactly nowhere.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.