Do you need an alternative theory to examine theories already in existence?
ID and evolution in science.
- Thread starter Sidhe
- Start date
Do you need an alternative theory to examine theories already in existence?
They can do science, I took the article to mean they wre trying to poke holes in evolution by means of science. But according to Perfection this is not about scientific method? Although I am unsure he is right, if your at war then by all means necessary is the best strategy. If it's just talk and no walk it'll fall flat on it's face.
A theory is scientific, as much as proving it wrong is, even if the attempt is doomed, it's the effort that counts, in doing so you bring more rigor to the original theory, of course if you succeed a new theory is born; not that I think that will happen, but I personally believe attacking a theory is good science if done scientifically.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Yeh, but if you're say.. doing research about Einstein's theory of relativity, you're not going to say you're doing "Intelligent Relations" research.. catch my drift?
Sounds to me like these people aren't interested in forming an actual theory, but rather re-defining what it means for something to be scientific.. THEN and only then would they come up with a theory, and they're gonna go.. "Look! In this new framework we devised, this is an actual theory. It works! WOOO!"
It's a bunch of BS if you ask me.
It's like attempting to solve a mathematical problem, and instead of actually tackling the problem, you're redefining how to add and to subtract.
If they truly valued science, they wouldn't pick and choose the theories to accept that are part of the scientific consensus. (assuming that you are talking about YEC or another form of creationism that is incompatible with evolution)
Bluemofia
F=ma
Well, either they would skew the data, or their "research" will crash and burn.
Only 2 possibilities really. Both of which would probably lead to nothing for Creationism except for Press.
Only 2 possibilities really. Both of which would probably lead to nothing for Creationism except for Press.
Perfection
The Great Head.
The Discovery Institute is not those people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
Science doesn't operate in a vacuum, Sidhe. It needs funding and legal support as well as a constant stream of new recruits.
Of course but with the exception of the US - and not for much longer I hope - only Bush places creationists above scientists.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Yeah, I don't think it's going to work, but it is evil and it does hurt.
I'm not so sure, it's not like theirs a brain drain deal going on, most educated people consider the ID thing to be irrelevant to where they want to go in there careers, those that don't probably wouldn't go into a scientific field anyway.
Thus I think anything that encourages the religious to go into science actually more likely draws out those who wouldn't of gone into it otherwise, which is good for science, and let's not forget that ignorance never triumphs over reason anyway. That which does not kill science makes it stronger.
god, why are we revisiting the dead horse of a topic? Quit kicking the corpse already.
Seriously, you might as well ask if you prefer magic or physics... And then, after that, we can do the astronomy vs. astrology thread.
Seriously, you might as well ask if you prefer magic or physics... And then, after that, we can do the astronomy vs. astrology thread.
Actually I was hoping to discuss the articles, but since no one appears to have read them, it's kind of devolved into what's best science or ID. Not my fault I did try.
Perfection
The Great Head.
Educated people are not who determines funding, that's the job of the public. A confused ID supporting public is not going to put thier money into scientific research as much. Also, if the Discovery Institute has its way ID will be sort of like an internet troll forcing scientists to debate this topic instead of much better ones.
I don't think the ID movement encourages people to go into science I think it encourages people to mistrust science. I've attended a lecture by Behe and slandering the scientific community is certainly part of his shtick.
No, science can be weakened by things. I'm certain it will grow and overcome this stupid thing, but it's still not a good thing.
OK if you want me to admit your country is f'd up job done.
But then think of how much damage this is doing in the real world, outside of the US? We're laughing our tits off, and even Christians are laughing their tits off. Especially the ones I've spoken to, they find the whole thing embarassing and don't see a need to assosciate themselves with these people. They are foremost a scientist at work and a christian in their lives. You've got to see the bigger picture here.
But then think of how much damage this is doing in the real world, outside of the US? We're laughing our tits off, and even Christians are laughing their tits off. Especially the ones I've spoken to, they find the whole thing embarassing and don't see a need to assosciate themselves with these people. They are foremost a scientist at work and a christian in their lives. You've got to see the bigger picture here.
skadistic
Caomhanach
If I wanted to read a novela........
Oh and spoiler tags help when stuff is so long too.
If I wanted to read a novela........
Oh and spoiler tags help when stuff is so long too.
Point taken editing it.
Perfection
The Great Head.
I want you to admit that the ID movement is detrimental to science.
I can't I don't agree, I think their just launching themselves into a field and by their efforts making it stronger, maybe not in the US, but not for long. The rest of the world will not take such crap seriously and they are damaging themselves before the world of science. If as you say they do not use science, then they are just making themselves look bad, but then you haven't read the article so it's a moot point.
Of course I exclude those who are just saying God done it, and not getting involved.
skadistic
Caomhanach
Sweet my scrolling finger thanks you.
To the point at hand I find ID to be nothing but a lame atempt at the last throws or christain fundamentalists to control the "truth". Unfortunatly in America the sheeple are swayed far to easily buy the snake oil sales men. Look at the gay, stemcell, and ID problems. Two of those are sciences realm but the "moral majority" can't keep their grubby little paws out of it. If the funding public is swayed away from facts by imaginary fear you can kiss the next level of research goodbye in the US. It will instead go to Korea or Japan where the dogmatic restaints are all but non-exsistant. ID is not science and to try and mask it as such is not only dishonest but potentialy detrimental to the future of what is acceptable science to endever into.
Perfection
The Great Head.
This is outweighed by the detriment to the scientific community at large by the bad PR.
The US public is important to American research which is important to worldwide research.
And I did read the articles.
nihilistic
Intergalatic Delivery Boy
That's pretty much it. They have not produced any scientific results. The whole ID camp is in fact a public relations machine. Note that their main motive for this new "attempt" at research is nevertheless aimed at the high school classrooms.
What theory already in existence? ID currently does not qualify as a scientific theory; it is at most a conjecture. Though you might want to call it a "theory" in the colloquial sense, that colloquial definition is unclear and signifies nothing. A scientific theory must be backed by falsifiable evidence. Nothing currently falsifies ID.
Similar threads
- Poll
