ID is not a valid scientific hypothesis, so ID should not be taught in science class

[Charlemagne_II]

buffalo

*Evolutionism and ID should be taught in philosophy class. All kids should have to take philosophy and metaphysics. *

But then when you think of how many educators are skeptics of religion, I wonder how many arguments would be advanced for atheism and against religion. Would the teaching in general be slanted in favor of liberal, subjective, and relativist philosophies?

 

[buffalo]

buffalo

*Evolutionism and ID should be taught in philosophy class. All kids should have to take philosophy and metaphysics. *

But then when you think of how many educators are skeptics of religion, I wonder how many arguments would be advanced for atheism and against religion. Would the teaching in general be slanted in favor of liberal, subjective, and relativist philosophies?

It would be foolish to think things are not biased now. However, I would like to see them understand the concepts and logic so they are better tooled to search for the truth.

Currently most do not even have a clue on how to go about it.

 

[Leela]

Isn’t all of the combative dialog rather useless?
All of this stuff is in our minds.
None of it is really real.
Think about the dialog herein.
Nothing but heresay.
Nothing more than thoughts of thoughts.

jd

Hi JD,

Can you explain what you are talking about? What makes you so skeptical as to think that nothing is real? It seems to me that we need good reason to doubt what we already believe as much as we need good reason to continue to believe what we believe. Is there some way in which “all this stuff is in our minds” is born out in lived experience, while “all this stuff is talk about reality” is not?

Best,
Leela

 

[Charlemagne_II]

buffalo
*
Currently most do not even have a clue on how to go about it. *

You are speaking of students here. I would speak of their teachers as well. The people going into the classroom today are a generation of agnostics, atheists, and skeptics. Give these same teachers a source book (designed, edited and published by other skeptics) and you will see that the students will get clues aplenty, but not the right ones; clues that will clue them in on skepticism rather than religion. All religions will be taught (already it is being done) as equally false and relative. Atheism will emerge as the only constant throughout history, and therefore the only absolute. I fear what moral crises will follow when the seductive lure of “empiricism” and “logic” goes against the common-sense absolutes of Christianity … “love God and love one another.”

Let me suggest another trap we may fall into: if it be argued that both sides of any issue must be presented (for example, evolution versus ID, or pro-choice versus pro-life) the editor of the textbooks will choose the strongest essay for evolution and the weakest one for ID, the strongest one for pro-choice, the weakest one for pro-life). This has been my experience as a teacher. The editors always slant “pro and con” texts to reflect their own bias, and the bias of most editors today is decidedly liberal to radical-liberal.

When, for example, did the last college anthology include an essay by Chesterton to oppose Clarence Darrow’s “Why I Am an Agnostic,” which is included in many college anthologies? Yet it was Chesterton who trounced Darrow in a public debate in NYC in 1931 when they debated the question, “Will the world Return to Religion?”

 

[Leela]

Suppose ID rises to empirical science? What say you then?

If ID proponents made a falsifiable hypothesis, found ways of distinguishing data that is consistent from data that is inconsistent with their hypothesis, and verified predictions based on their hypothesis, then ID would be a scientific theory worth teaching in science class.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I never ever never ever - did you get this - ever stated ID should be taught in science class.

I said you did? (Barbarian checks) Not that I can see.

You were mistaken. This is your statement:

“(Barbarian notes that buffalo is upset that only empirical science is allowed in public school classes)”

This doesn’t say you want ID in science classes.

 

[buffalo]

I said you did? (Barbarian checks) Not that I can see.

“(Barbarian notes that buffalo is upset that only empirical science is allowed in public school classes)”

This doesn’t say you want ID in science classes.

Obviously we have a failure to communicate. Perhaps your DNA was subject to radiation.

 

[buffalo]

If ID proponents made a falsifiable hypothesis, found ways of distinguishing data that is consistent from data that is inconsistent with their hypothesis, and verified predictions based on their hypothesis, then ID would be a scientific theory worth teaching in science class.

Great!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

If ID proponents made a falsifiable hypothesis, found ways of distinguishing data that is consistent from data that is inconsistent with their hypothesis, and verified predictions based on their hypothesis, then ID would be a scientific theory worth teaching in science class.

If Einstein’s theories of relativity had not been verified by later discoveries, would they never have been worth teaching in physics classes?

If the Big Bang had not been verified by later discoveries, would it not have been worth teaching in astronomy classes?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Obviously we have a failure to communicate.

Yes. You have enough to argue with what I actually say. Don’t have me saying things I did not.

 

[PJM]

=Leela;4895896]Hi All,

Advocates of intelligent design argue that it is a scientific theory,[11] and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.[12] The consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.[13][14][15][16] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that “creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.”[17] The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[18] Others in the scientific community have concurred, and some have called it junk science.[19][20]

Are these the same folks advocating “Global Warming?” Current evidence seems to indicate the polar opposite:doh2: The earth has actually 9and scientifically) been cooling!

ID is not scientifically false, but scientifically irrelevant. Design as a theory tells us nothing about the world that is scientifically interesting. It tells us nothing about the world as it is, because it would be just as consistent with the universe being completely different. It is just religion trying to pass for science, and as such, it has no place in science classrooms.

I don’t know nuttin about science stuff, but I can still use logic.

So share with us how the following evolved…

One’s “mind” (not brain) “mind,” “intellect,” “memory,” 'freewill" “reasoning”…

Now quanitify your “mind” for us. How much does it weigh, how long, deep, wide is it, what color is it, can you show it to me? Not demonistrate it, that only proves you have one. Show me a picture of it. You can’t because they are SPIRIT, not MATTER, like the rest of our physical body.

So my friend how did they evolve? And by the way, each and every one is uniquely different. How do the differences evolve?:tiphat:

Love and prayers,

 

[edwest2]

If ID proponents made a falsifiable hypothesis, found ways of distinguishing data that is consistent from data that is inconsistent with their hypothesis, and verified predictions based on their hypothesis, then ID would be a scientific theory worth teaching in science class.

It exists. Design requires a designer. Life does not arise spontaneously.

Prediction: I find a rock. Using scientific reasoning, I can determine if it is a piece of rock or an arrowhead. Something archaeologists do all the time. A piece of stone has marks on it. Tool marks, ancient writing? These sorts of signs of intelligence are recognized by science.

Peace,
Ed

 

[The_Barbarian]

Are these the same folks advocating “Global Warming?” Current evidence seems to indicate the polar opposite The earth has actually 9and scientifically) been cooling!

Someone’s misled you on that one. We are in a profound sunspot minimum as well as a strong La Nina, which should have caused much lower than normal temperatures. In spite of that, 2008 was the ninth hottest on record, and hotter than any year before 1988. And the January numbers are in. Fifth hottest ever. The two cooling factors were only able to moderate warming. But it would be very unwise to count on them as permanent controls.

ID is not scientifically false, but scientifically irrelevant. Design as a theory tells us nothing about the world that is scientifically interesting. It tells us nothing about the world as it is, because it would be just as consistent with the universe being completely different. It is just religion trying to pass for science, and as such, it has no place in science classrooms.

I don’t know nuttin about science stuff, but I can still use logic.

“I don’t know anything about the subject at hand, but I’m a smart guy, so I don’t need to know anything.” Let’s see how that goes…

So share with us how the following evolved…

One’s “mind” (not brain) “mind,” “intellect,” “memory,” 'freewill" “reasoning”…

A bit at a time. The evidence is that it is part of the general trend in primates, almost all of which have larger than normal brains and our closest relatives have surprisingly astute reasoning, including the ability to infer mental states in others.

The increase in the size of the cerebral cortex allowed a considerable greater flexibility in behavior, with more of it driven by experience, and less by the lower and midbrains.

Now quanitify your “mind” for us. How much does it weigh, how long, deep, wide is it, what color is it, can you show it to me?

Why don’t you show us that for “love” or “resemblance”, or “happy”, first? You do realize that not everything that exists is a quantity, don’t you?

Not demonistrate it, that only proves you have one. Show me a picture of it. You can’t because they are SPIRIT, not MATTER, like the rest of our physical body.

Mind is not “spirit.” If that were true, acephalic newborns would not be human. Think.

So my friend how did they evolve? And by the way, each and every one is uniquely different. How do the differences evolve?

In humans, minds are very plastic, and develop differently largely by experience.

 

[Leela]

Leela

If ID proponents made a falsifiable hypothesis, found ways of distinguishing data that is consistent from data that is inconsistent with their hypothesis, and verified predictions based on their hypothesis, then ID would be a scientific theory worth teaching in science class.

If Einstein’s theories of relativity had not been verified by later discoveries, would they never have been worth teaching in physics classes?

If the Big Bang had not been verified by later discoveries, would it not have been worth teaching in astronomy classes?

No, of course not, on both counts.

 

[Valke2]

Exactly. Sure wouldn’t hurt.

Can you imagine if kids coming out of high school, or college, nowadays, had taken a class on Aristotelian logic, delivered by a sympathetic professor?

jd

Why would evolutionsim be taught in a philosophy class?

 

[Leela]

It exists. Design requires a designer. Life does not arise spontaneously.

And all bachelors are male, but such tautologies do not constitute scientific hypotheses.

Prediction: I find a rock. Using scientific reasoning, I can determine if it is a piece of rock or an arrowhead. Something archaeologists do all the time. A piece of stone has marks on it. Tool marks, ancient writing? These sorts of signs of intelligence are recognized by science.

Your prediction is that it can be determined whether or not something was designed by an intelligence? That’s not really a prediction. It’s just an observation stated with the word “predict.” Like saying, I predict that am typing on my keyboard right now. Just because the word “predict” is in there doesn’t make it a hypothesis.

I agree that signs of intelligence are recognized by scientists, but these are observations, facts, not hypotheses or biological theories. If you want to think of ID as archeology for life, fine, but it’s not a theory that has any place in biology class. But you won’t have a theory until you have a method of distinguishing things that are designed from those that are not, which will be a big problem for you, because anything could have been designed by a supernatural power to be exactly the way it is (or any other way that it is not as well). There is simply no way of ruling out design as an explanation for how things are, and it is simultaneously completely unhelpful to say that everything is designed. So until you have a way of showing that something was NOT designed, you don’t have anything helpful to say when you claim that something else IS designed. It would just be a difference that doesn’t make a difference–not a difference at all.

Best,
Leela

 

[JDaniel]

Someone’s misled you on that one. We are in a profound sunspot minimum as well as a strong La Nina, which should have caused much lower than normal temperatures. In spite of that, 2008 was the ninth hottest on record, and hotter than any year before 1988. And the January numbers are in. Fifth hottest ever. The two cooling factors were only able to moderate warming. But it would be very unwise to count on them as permanent controls.

dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

Question: Look at the above website; do you believe it is junk science or lies?

jd

 

[The_Barbarian]

Question: Look at the above website; do you believe it is junk science or lies?

Your site says:

**A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C – a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year’s time. For all four sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down. **

Let’s take a look at the GISS data they say they are using:

data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

Notice, the temps for
1906 … -15
1907 … -40
1908 … -30
1909 … -31

And for:
2006 … 64
2007 … 72
2008 … 54

Your site uses one-year data, and as you see, depending on which year you chose, the increase over 100 years could be anything from 69 to 112. (which is why a one-year measurement is such a bad way to measure; you need averages to get an accurate picture)

The one-year drop for 2008 is 18. Clearly not what they told you it was. Do I think it’s junk science, or lies they are telling? If they aren’t lying, they are extremely dumb. Or maybe, they know no more about the data than you do.

We should be in a profound cooling period. We have a La Nina, and a sunspot minimum. And yet last year was the ninth hottest on record. And January 2009 was the fifth hottest January on record. Some cooling, um? What should have been a really cold year was just a little less hot.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I am impressed by your notion that unverifiable theories should not be taught as theories. So I hope for your sake that atheists in the classroom will not throw out the notion of multiple universes as a way to get around the Big Bang theory of our universe’s origin, a theory that is consistent with the Christian idea of creation.

But I’m inclined to think that the theory of multiverses has somehow become all the rage among atheists, though there is not one scintilla of evidence to verify it. It is a way of sneaking an infinite (and therefore eternal and godless) universe in through the back door. And I would fully expect the theory to be mentioned by atheist teachers in the classroom when they are discussing the Big Bang.

And please don’t tell me you don’t think they would.

 

[buffalo]

I am impressed by your notion that unverifiable theories should not be taught as theories. So I hope for your sake that atheists in the classroom will not throw out the notion of multiple universes as a way to get around the Big Bang theory of our universe’s origin, a theory that is consistent with the Christian idea of creation.

But I’m inclined to think that the theory of multiverses has somehow become all the rage among atheists, though there is not one scintilla of evidence to verify it. It is a way of sneaking an infinite (and therefore eternal and godless) universe in through the back door. And I would fully expect the theory to be mentioned by atheist teachers in the classroom when they are discussing the Big Bang.

And please don’t tell me you don’t think they would.

They haven’t thought it through. The multi-verse theory would mean there are fake universes as well as at least one with God. Which one would we be living in?