ID expert admits 'It's not science'

[blackheart]

Wrong. Remember it says congress shall make no law....there is nothing in the law that says ID should or should not be taught in schools. Curriculum is set by the school boards right? so if some school decides to offer it as a science and some other doesnt then big deal.

Let's see, prayer lead by the school is illegal, teaching Christianity in a religious-conversion sense is illegal, and ID falls under the category of Christian dogma, so therefore it would be illegal, but that's for the courts to decide. It is a big deal if you're going to be teaching students something that's not science and not accepted as science by the rest of the world.

 

[Perfection]

If like Perfection said, a chapter of evolution is about right in high school, the impact of a chapter of ID as well would be negliable. Honestly. And thats what we are talking about here...a high school.

The capter on ID undermines the teaching of the scientific method.

 

[Atlas14]

I still think you guys are making a big deal over nothing. And I tend to think you overblow the importance of evolution in how its presented in middle school or high school. I will grant that for someone majoring in biology or some type of advanced study, yes, an understanding of it is required. But guys, we are talking about high school kids here...not scientists.

If like Perfection said, a chapter of evolution is about right in high school, the impact of a chapter of ID as well would be negliable. Honestly. And thats what we are talking about here...a high school.

You guys (both sides) are wasting so much energy argueing over this for subjects that 95% of kids today will forget anyway and never use.

To be honest I am not pro or con either side. Wasted effort in my opinion.

How evolution is presented makes a world of difference. One chapter of false but emotionally desirable and convincing information can be enough to brainwash just about any kid, and this is unfair to those trying to receive an honest education, not a hodgepodge of random theological propaganda. To even give students the option of being taught scientifically unproven ID nonsense essentially defeats the purpose of even coming to school at all.
If I was taught ID, I would be turned off immediately from the field of biology, because Im not a big fan of contradictions, and as a 9th grader I wasn't necessarily well-informed enough to distinguish between the facts and fictions of evolution and ID. Heck, even last year I believed in Creationism. All because emphasis and content on evolution was not enough in the curriculum.

 

[Bluemofia]

The thing is, we are not going to have contradictory results in biology. We spent 1 full week discussing what is science, what is testable, why they are science, and what isn't science. If ID is introduced, the only reasonable way to do so is to make it mandatory to mention it under the brief pseudo science discussion, before returning to true science.

CONPTT

Consistent (when tested)
Observable (possible to sense it)
Natural (not supernatural)
Predictable (can predict if it is a theory)
Testable (can be tested for correctness)
Tentative (subject to change)

ID:

Consistent (no one has ever tested it, so no results to be consistant with)
Observable (not observable. One time deal.)
Natural (hmm, God. No.)
Predictable (makes no predictions at all. Just says this happens, and that's final)
Testable (not testable obviously...)
Tenative (I don't think they believe that ID is subject to change...)

Evolution:

Consistent (things keep changing. So far the same exact expierements have yielded pretty much the same results)
Observable (just go look under a microscope for a while, and keep tallies on things)
Natural (not supernatural, using completly naturalistic processes)
Predictable (predicts that animals change over time)
Testable (tested before... Darwin's finches, bacteria, etc.)
Tentative (it is subject to change, at least the mecagnisms)

 

[Kyriakos]

Sometime in the future religious people must understand that the belief of religious person A has essentially nothing in common with the belief of religious person B.

-Their beliefs are formed in different ways, depending on level of education, IQ, specific psychical already existant prior to the forming of the belief parameters.

-Their beliefs serve a different purpose. They often are of the view (if they are not against communal religious feeling that is) that they share fundamental similarities with other believers, due to a holly book or due to what would appear to be a common end. In reality their beliefs serve very specific purposes in the, again, very specific individual psychical world they have.

-The reason the phenomenon of faith (entirely real phenomenon as far as its dynamics in the human psyche go, but that was inevitable since any thought/thought group/ thought pattern etc has a dynamic in one's psyche) can impress the religious people is due to the fact that it can help them organise their psyche in ways that in their own view would have been impossible without their faith. This is a specific break up in the level of immediate consciousness, a break-up to a consciousness of the self and a consciousness of an other, which other ussually though is one the one hand a consciousness of a tendancy to move towards the subconscious, along with a tendancy guardian which stops the individual from being sucked in that black hole. What religious people are unaware of is that the game they are playing will in the end make it impossible for them (depending on their level of intellect ofcourse) to ever get rid of this sort of basic mental formation, since even if the religious part of it is cancelled they would still be left with the tendancy to be sucked to the subconscious, since that tendancy exists for reasons other than their faith.

I would have written more, but i realise that people who are religious really have a lot more vested interest in keeping themselves in this little mental tablegame with their set rules about their faith, so i just suggest that they take some time to read some philosophy or psychology, since the way the mind works is not a topic that has not been examined theoretically. If one is analytical he can break up any mental phenomenon to a huge amount of parts, an although the associations in the brain never really end, still every phenomenon consists of a few core parts which can be examined.

 

[BasketCase]

Some of the claims made by ID'ers actually do have a scientific basis. Example: initial premise = certain biological structures (the human eye seems to be a popular one) are too complex to have evolved naturally. Conclusion: the eye must have evolved by some other means. Currently the only explanation we have for that is the G word. Hypothesis --> conclusion.

Uh, no!

Where is testability? Where are predictions from this?

Umm....Carlos, I already said that.
Perhaps you should have read my very next paragraph:

The problem with the above line of thought is that the counter-claim that the eye must have been created by a God is unprovable. It isn't fact until you can verify it experimentally.

I had already SAID that the exact problem with the ID'ers' logic was lack of testability. Pay attention, will ya???

 

[carlosMM]

Umm....Carlos, I already said that.
Perhaps you should have read my very next paragraph:

I had already SAID that the exact problem with the ID'ers' logic was lack of testability. Pay attention, will ya???

tsk tsk tsk:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3444735&postcount=49

The problem with the above line of thought is that the counter-claim that the eye must have been created by a God is unprovable. It isn't fact until you can verify it experimentally.

So you see the problem.....

In the end, it's the same old problem: we agree with Mr. Behe for one reason, and one reason only--because he's saying what we already believe.

Nope, we assume that if he tells two stories, one UNDER OATH and one NOT UNDER OATH, that IN COURT he will tell the truth, especially if said truth is backed by facts while his other story is totally unfounded.


Please, get off you 'science is a conspiracy' horse, willya?

I saw your next line, but that doesn't make your first paragraph any better than it was. It is not a 'problem' with that line of reasoning - the line is BS.

So, pay attention, will ya before flaming people!

 

[Archbob]

I still think you guys are making a big deal over nothing. And I tend to think you overblow the importance of evolution in how its presented in middle school or high school. I will grant that for someone majoring in biology or some type of advanced study, yes, an understanding of it is required. But guys, we are talking about high school kids here...not scientists.

If like Perfection said, a chapter of evolution is about right in high school, the impact of a chapter of ID as well would be negliable. Honestly. And thats what we are talking about here...a high school.

You guys (both sides) are wasting so much energy argueing over this for subjects that 95% of kids today will forget anyway and never use.

To be honest I am not pro or con either side. Wasted effort in my opinion.

But why even teach it in a science class when its not a science at all?
And why teach it if it can have no beneficial effects and only negative effects.

I support it being taught in an optional religious studies class, but not in a mainstream science course.

 

[BasketCase]

In junior college, one of my politics teachers taught us about fascism.

That was a good thing (the teaching, not the fascism). The teacher described the basic tenets of fascism, and I was very surprised. I'll keep it short and simply say Hitler's Germany wasn't even close.

Now I know what fascism is, and so I know why it's a bad thing.

Teach people about bad things so they know the dangers.

In junior college, one of my politics teachers taught us about fascism.

That was a good thing (the teaching, not the fascism). The teacher described the basic tenets of fascism, and I was very surprised. I'll keep it short and simply say Hitler's Germany wasn't even close.

Now I know what fascism is, and so I know why it's a bad thing.

Teach people about bad things so they know the dangers.


I personally am pro-evolution (I think I scared Bluemofia and one or two other people), but I can understand where the other side of the aisle is coming from. If something is too complex to evolve naturally (I agree with Bluemofia--I know irreducible complexity CAN evolve naturally, because I've seen it happen), then it must have evolved unnaturally. Logically sound. It's not known whether the initial premise is flawed, but the conclusion is unprovable. That's the big problem with ID.

 

[Archbob]

Sure, but you need to make sure they know that ID is just a theory that is not backed at all by scientific evidence.

You need to state the facts and make sure they know that ID is not science, its faith.

 

[BasketCase]

My politics teacher didn't do that with fascism.

He described what it is, completely without bias I must add, and left us to make our own decisions.

 

[Archbob]

But see, you can debate whether facism is or isn't a good form of goverment because it is a form of government.

You can't debate whether ID is or is not science, but it isn't. It does not meet the requirements to be a scientific hypothesis as mentioned before in thsi thread.

 

[Masquerouge]

Anyone who has watched his computer cables (mouse, phones, power cord, internet cable) be hopelessly tangled into each other with no apparent outside cause knows for certain that irreductible complexity CAN evolve naturally.

 

[BasketCase]

I never saw a cable tangle I couldn't unravel. Conway's Life game is a better proof IMO. A simple square grid and rules that are totally deterministic (i.e. no random chance)--yet nobody has ever found a way to predict what any pattern in the game will evolve into (except by actually seeing it evolve), and there's usually no way to look at any given game state and figure out what it evolved from.

You can't debate whether ID is or is not science

Uhh....some folks are doing that right now.

 

[Bluemofia]

Uhh....some folks are doing that right now.

And losing too.

Science is clearly defined. Just look it up in Answers.com.

 

[Archbob]

No, we are not debating whether it is or isn't a science, we are debating whether it should be taught in a science class. That does not make it a science. And the expert on ID just admitted it is not a science.

My argument for it not being taught in science class is because it isn't a science. But some are argueing it should be taught because its another point of view and should be taught regardless of whether its science or not.

 

[Bluemofia]

No, we are not debating whether it is or isn't a science, we are debating whether it should be taught in a science class. That does not make it a science. And the expert on ID just admitted it is not a science.

My argument for it not being taught in science class is because it isn't a science. But some are argueing it should be taught because its another point of view and should be taught regardless of whether its science or not.

Unfortunatly, if they believe non-science should be taught in science class, then we might as well teach French in German, Japanese in AP European History, Calculus in English III, Art in Music class, World History in Gym class, or Evoultion in Churches.

 

[carlosMM]

Evoultion in Churches.

Hehe, I volunteer as a teacher for THAT!

 

[Kyriakos]

Either way the Usa will still be the only civilised country where ID is taught in schools. Having a general class about religion would be a better solution i think. Making it voluntary in participation would probably be the best.
In my view spending cash so as to grant religion a place in highschool or academies is neither fruitfull nor sustainable in the long run.

 

[bhsup]

Either way the Usa will still be the only civilised country where ID is taught in schools.

This whole issue is over whether it SHOULD be taught in schools. To the best of my knowledge, it hasn't yet begun in any, though Kansas seems hell-bent (pardon the expression) on starting up probably next year.

Also, try to keep in mind that as far as education goes, there is no "U.S. system". There are 50 independent systems.