Jump to content

So it begins: Kansas school board redefines science


Recommended Posts

Ultimately, seeing as how the public schools are mostly funded by tax dollars (with susidies and grants by the Federal Government), why not have the tax payers in each School district decide via a referendum vote? Maybe I'm completely out of the loop, but I have a feeling that the measure would fail in all but the most conservative and remote of counties across the nation.

I don't see anything unconstitutional about it, but if the referendums are approved, then the courts would most likely have to rule on the constutionality of such teaching in each state.

EDIT: Nice post Zane. I've gotta say, I think Jag is really wrong on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

quote:

The fact that ID implies a supernatural entity as a conclusion does not mean you get to just dismiss it unargued because it doesn't fit people's contemporary notions of science as an exclusively materialist enterprise.

Science doesn't accept the metaphysical. Ghosts might actually exist and mankind might have an inherent ability for mental telepathy but neither concept is taught in science class.

Animals too tiny to see with the naked eye used to be part of the metaphysical world until the invention of the microscope. Then they became science.

I personally don't believe in the Big Bang but it, nonetheless, can be used to predict the behavior of matter on a subatomic level. What can ID predict?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Science doesn't accept the metaphysical. Ghosts might actually exist and mankind might have an inherent ability for mental telepathy but neither concept is taught in science class.


I have read about countless cases of scientific research into hauntings, all to try to "prove" the metaphysical concept of ghosts. If and when concrete evidence is obtained, expect that it WILL be taught in science class. Telepathy is also scientifically researched in the process of trying to map out the large portion of the human brain about whose function we have no idea.

And I'm not just talking about "Ghost Hunters" on SCIFI.

ID is absolutely not religious OR metaphysical because it only suggests an antithesis to the utter randomness theory. It does NOT try to say anything ABOUT the creator, only that there may have been one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zane and others....

ID is RELIGION, hiding as "science".

How is this so?

All we have to do is look at the people that support this nonsense to see that it is so.

The discovery Institute, a right wing think tank, it's "scientists" chosen to take their ID case to the people, INSTEAD of through the scientific process, why is that? Because A: it is NOT scientific, and B: they are A CREATIONIST think tank.

They do their best NOT to admit it, but the fact is, if it's NOT religious, then WHY DO THEY GO TO CHURCHES to convince creationists that they are right?

Why do they NOT go to universities, or scientific conventions etc, to convince the SCIENTISTS that they are right.

Why do they go to churches, that are fundamentalist, and try to convince them?

If they TRULY believe that it is scientific, why are they not attempting to convince scientists?

ID makes NO predicitions

ID has NO scientific peer reviewed papers of ANY sort.

ID makes a statement that thing are irreducably complex, which means, we can't figure it out, so it is impossible to, therefore it was designed.

Sorry, NOT in science, in religion, YES, but in science, that means, we don't know, YET....

God did it is an excuse, NOT science.

ID is religious in nature, defended by religious people, and torn to shreads by any scientist that gets their hands on it.

ID claims an Intelligent designer does NOT mean the christian god, and therefore is scientific..

LOL, yet ID is defended by fundamentalists of ALL stripes, is taken to the churches, NOT scientists.

THrough all these different actions that the Discovery Instititue has taken, we can very Logically confirm that YES, ID is religiously based, zealously defended by religionists of all sorts.

Pat Robertson of course being one.

When he says that Dover has kicked god out of their city, and they just happened to vote out EVERY school board member that voted for ID, what else are we supposed to think?

ID is creationism, trying to convince people that it is science, when in fact, if it were TRULY scientific, it would be attempting to convince scientists, but instead tries to convince religious people that ID shows that their beliefs have some rational and scientific basis, and should therefore be taught in a science class.

NO religious beliefs have a rational and scientific basis, because there is NO scientific evidence that god exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

ID is absolutely not religious OR metaphysical because it only suggests an antithesis to the utter randomness theory. It does NOT try to say anything ABOUT the creator, only that there may have been one.

ID is RELIGIOUSLY based, sorry, it is the ONLY logical conclusion you can come to, because if it weren't. it would not be defended by the religiously based think tanks, the churches that it speaks at, and of course famous teleevangelists that are freaking becasue god was just kicked out of their schools, when in fact god was just kicked out of science class.

OH, and there is NO SUCH THING as a theory that claims utter randomness.

Evolution makes NO claims that it is random, and NEVER has....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Jag - I completely disagree.

Religion is a vehicle by which people in different cultures try to discover and understand the divine and worship a divine being or beings according to that understanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

"Religion ÔÇösometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief systemÔÇöis commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine; and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions and rituals associated with such belief. "

ID does NOTHING of the sort. It tries to say, based on uncovered EVIDENCE thus far, there might be an intelligent intervention into the scientifically prove process of evolution.

That it lacks the empirical evidence to be taught as law, I agree. However, it is, as Zane has stated, worthy of discussion in a scientific forum. If we completely prohibit future scientists from doing that, how can it ever be proven or disproven?

What you are doing now is essentially the same as what people did to scientists back in the dark ages.

"We don't like the path your taking with this! Cease and desist, lest we burn you at the stake!"

No scientific evidence will EVER exist if society steadfastly prevents scientists from pusuing the theory.

quote:

Evolution makes NO claims that it is random, and NEVER has....

Evolution is not random. That is not what I was saying. I was talking about that with out a Intelligent designer, the RULES of the universe were the result of randomness, not structure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The intelligent designer is god, there is no one else it could be, no matter what god you worship.

God did it, is a religious statement, NOT a scientific one.

ID has no place within a science class, nor the scientific community.

It is NOT a theory, it is not even a hypothesis.

It makes NO predictions..

It is NONfalsifiable

There has NEVER been a scientific paper of ANY sort written up on it.

It has never been peer reviewed, and when a scientist has taken a look at it, via Pubished books, NOT scientific papers, it has been torn to shreds, which is why it is taken to popular culture and NOT the scientific community.

Scientists discuss this ALL the time, but it has NO place within a publicly funded science class.

NONE, if scientists wish to discuss it, GREAT, but being taught the basics of science, should not include ID, because it changes the definition of science completely. And a student that is taught a fundamental definition of science like that, will never truly understand what the scientific proces is, nor what the TRUE definition of science is.

College level, hey have a ball, the basics have already been taught, within a research facility, hey GREAT, the scientists know what they are doing, but students that have NO idea what science ACTUALLY is, being taught that ID is a scientific theory, are being LIED to.

This debate should be done within the scientific community, NOT the public one.

And I know EXACTLY what the scientific community thinks, it is a religious dogma, trying to pass itself off as somehow being scientific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am considering the facts objectively, that is thew way I come to the conclusion that ID is Creationism dressed up as "science".

It's backers, the way it has been brought to the American people, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

If it were an ACTUAL scientific theory, it would have gone through the normal scientific channels, but it didn't, why not?

Because there is NO way that it could have pass the peer review process etc, etc, because it is NOT scientific.

A belief in a creator, or an intelligent designer if you wish, is just that, a BELIEF, a religious BELIEF, not a scientific causation.

Again, in science, God did it, cannot be used, intelligent designer cannot be used etc, and still be scientific.

Using a nonfalsifiable causation makes it RELIGION, NOT science.

Religion does NOT belong in a science class...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, to be fair, ID has had one peer reviewed paper published, but the IC agrument had to be taken out...

And being discussed in a scientific forum is very different then trying to get schools to teach it.

Plus ID has the bad tendency to go:

"Powerful beings created us!"

"How did they come into being?"

"More powerful beings created them!"

"How did they come into being?"

"Even more powerful..."

Ad nausem

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, you guys are really going at it.

A few points:

To Nomad's posts following mine: Excellent opener! Now we can discuss since we're talking about the content of the argument. ID's basic contention is irreducible complexity, which means that because Natural Selection can only select for those traits that confer a survival advantage, then for systems that fail to do so, they cannot be inherited. ID theorists point out that there are biological systems that only become advantageous once they have achieved a specific degree of complexity, which means they must be fully present (not gradually acquired and adapted) or they cannot confer the survival advantage that will allow them to be inherited. How then can the gradual process of evolution select for these complex systems?

Also, you'll recall that my earlier point about the Miller-Urey experiment was that he didn't select the chemistry of the experiment on the basis of theories about geo-chemistry in the early earth, but rather he put together those compounds that he believed might produce life. If we look around at the chemical composition of any other planet of which we are aware, all of them (the terrestrial planets, to be fair) contain toxic chemical concentrations sufficient to doom any form of life from emerging on them. That is an empirical observation note, and I wonder why we should think that Earth should have been any different than her solar neighbors.

Jag, you've confirmed my earlier point. You're not arguing the merits of the idea, you're telling us it's religion because religious people are behind it. On a related note, the entire concept of a holiday was invented by religious people, and the days of the week are named for Norse gods. Because we all use those names, are we all viking pagans now? Should we forfeit all our holidays since that would de facto lend support to religion? I'm using a little hyperbole here, but I hope I'm showing just how silly this kind of argument is. If you're suggesting that there are political winds that American Christians are trying to navigate and ID is friendly to their views, then good luck to them; but to then read their views into a theory I have yet to see you show any actual reading of makes you yourself a good candidate for your own politics of suspicion. (Why won't he read? Why wouldn't he actually debate the issue rather than just throwing stones at the people who support it? Must be [insert completely speculative, groundless, superfluous explanation here].)I'll concede the point that many ID theorists are Christian. However, I am still waiting for you to tell us how ID is religion, not just a philosophy of science that is friendly to it.

To Marvin: You're correct that science doesn't accept metaphysical entities, but that sentence should finish "as objects of study." Science is not the tool with which we study what, if anything, exists beyond the natural world. That is outside the scientific discipline. However, the word metaphysics is properly a philosophical term. I've here been using it to mean simply "whatever is real but not empirically sensible." That may include God, angels, demons, souls, and other elements of a religious worldview, but it also includes the principles that must be true of the world (both metaphysical and natural) for us to make any sense of it at all. The notion that the world is an orderly place, that physical laws and principles will remain constant, and that other people have minds similar to mine are examples of metaphysical truths that are not possible to prove empirically, but which we normally take ourselves to have confidence in as settled knowledge (whatever one's level of certainty).

For another example, as you read this, you maintain the belief that you parked your car outside earlier. This is not based on present empirical perception, (even if you can see it from where you're sitting right now), but on a non-empirical memory which is not available for empirical inspection. Do you know that you parked your car outside? I do, and I'll bet you do too, but neither of us knows that on the basis of our present sense experiences. Metaphysics is like that. It's stuff you know, but which, while not empirically known, may in some cases be real nonetheless. If God's existence and nature are a point of metaphysical enquiry, that's not because metaphysics is the word we use when something's a fairy tale, but because it's simply the word we use when we have to describe things that sense experience. If there is no difference between those categories, then you're a materialist, and I've already ceded the point that if this is so, then I can see where ID would not interest you.

To clarify: Evolution in its materialist form requires randomness as a precondition. If Jag wants to debate this, then he's not talking about the materialist form of the theory. If he claims that he is, and maintains that randomness is not part of it, then I don't know who he's reading and would genuinely like to if he'd be so kind as to include any citations he has.

Again people use the word belief to denote something not known by the senses, and less valid or invalid as evidence. Belief is a precondition to knowledge (since you don't fail to also believe that which you know), and if a belief is true, then quite often we call that conjunction knowledge. If Jag wants to tell us all that religion is just beliefs, then we can fairly reply that so is science, and so is anything else that we think we know. At that point, we're going to have a discussion about truth (or at least try) and see which of our beliefs may in fact be knowledge.

Make no mistake friends, this is a philosophical discussion we're having about what counts as knowledge, and what, if anything, is true beyond the merely physical. You cannot answer those questions by saying "a majority of scientists don't think so" because they're not trained in those fields of knowledge that their discpline presupposes. That's no sleight against them, and it doesn't mean we're now in the "realm of religion," but it does mean that they're no longer authorities on the subject. This is why, again I repeat, if you're a materialist, you'll see things one way; if you're not, you'll see it the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are NOT discussing materialism, or any other ISM, we are talking about what is, and what is NOT science.

NONfalsifiable causations are NOT scientific.

As long as there is NO proof of the existence of an Intelligent designer, then it will NOT be scientific.

Irreducibly Complex, forget about it, every time that Behe or Dembsky try that, they get toasted, by REAL scientists.

ID is not and never has been scientific, and never will be, it's main tenet, INTELLIGENT design is untenable, it is a NONfalsifiable causation, and therefore UNscientific.

Again, we are not talking about materialism or any other ISM, we are talking about what is, and what is NOT science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jag, all you have to say right now is "I'm politicizing science." If the best you can do is a sneer and an smear, then I'm not going to try to reason with you if you're not willing to produce actual reasons and reasoning. Cite some actual scholar ship man! Don't you read? Let us know what you're reading if you in fact know all that you say you do. At least take a lesson from Nomad, who is at arguing substantively.

By the way, who said metaphysical claims are unfalsifiable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they were not nonfalsifiable, they wouldn't be metaphysical now would they?

THis is common sense guys, this is what science is.

If it cannot be falsified in some way shape or form, it cannot be used in science.

EVERYTHING in science must be able to be falsified, this is a BASIC fact of science.

If you don't know that, then there isn't a lot I can do for you.

The main characteristics of a scientific theory are the following.

quote:

Characteristics

In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e., it

1: is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,

2:is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,

3:makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory,

4:is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting certainty, and

5:is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed
entities
or explanations, commonly referred to as passing Occam's Razor.

This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, evolution, etc. Theories considered scientific meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is; those that meet only several or none at all, cannot be said to be scientific in any meaningful sense of the word.


Now notice, these are VERY basic characteristics of a scientific theory...

You will notice that ID does NOT attain ANY of them, and I mean ANY...

1: It is NOT consistent with evolutionary theory, as a matter of fact, it tries to add something to the theory, that it has NOTHING to say about, and that is ORIGINS. It is also not verifiable, there are NO peer reviewed papers, verifiable and repeatable experiments etc....

2: It is NOT supported by many strands of evidence, it is a throw up your hands, give up, and say "god did it".

3: It makes NO predictions whatsoever.

4: It claims certainty, irreducible complexity, is claimed to be certain, Nope, doesn't pass #4 either.

5: Whoops, claims that the Intelligent designer did it, there goes the no entities part.

ID does NOT pass ANY of these criteria, it cannot even be considered a hypothesis, because it is NOT scientific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yahoo news

quote:

Vatican Official Refutes Intelligent Design By NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press Writer

41 minutes ago

VATICAN CITY - The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.

The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.

"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be," the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

His comments were in line with his previous statements on "intelligent design" ÔÇö whose supporters hold that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.

Proponents of intelligent design are seeking to get public schools in the United States to teach it as part of the science curriculum. Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism ÔÇö a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation ÔÇö camouflaged in scientific language, and they say it does not belong in science curriculum.

In a June article in the British Catholic magazine The Tablet, Coyne reaffirmed God's role in creation, but said science explains the history of the universe.

"If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best of modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly."

Rather, he argued, God should be seen more as an encouraging parent.

"God in his infinite freedom continuously creates a world that reflects that freedom at all levels of the evolutionary process to greater and greater complexity," he wrote. "He is not continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves."

The Vatican Observatory, which Coyne heads, is one of the oldest astronomical research institutions in the world. It is based in the papal summer residence at Castel Gandolfo south of Rome.

Last week, Pope Benedict XVI waded indirectly into the evolution debate by saying the universe was made by an "intelligent project" and criticizing those who in the name of science say its creation was without direction or order.

Questions about the Vatican's position on evolution were raised in July by Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn.

In a New York Times column, Schoenborn seemed to back intelligent design and dismissed a 1996 statement by Pope John Paul II that evolution was "more than just a hypothesis." Schoenborn said the late pope's statement was "rather vague and unimportant."


WOW, even the Roman Catholic Church agrees with me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Id is Religion, trying to disguise itself as science.

It is religion, no matter how you look at it, because there is NO scientific evidence of an intelligent designer.

Until that is done, which is HIGHLY doubtful, then it cannot be and will not be considered scientific.

Let the discovery institute try and scientifically prove the existence of god, in the meantime, science will never answer the question.

ID is a religious doctrine, NOT a scientific one, so yes, a disclaimer like that SHOULD be unconstitutional.

There is NO scientific evidence of the Big Bang Theory either, is that a religion too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the saga continues:

LAWRENCE, Kansas (AP) -- Creationism and intelligent design are going to be studied at the University of Kansas, but not in the way advocated by opponents of the theory of evolution.

quote:

College course seeks to debunk intelligent design

Proposed religion class labels creationism as 'mythology'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

*sigh*

Professor beaten; attackers cite KU creationism class

quote:

LAWRENCE - A professor whose planned course on creationism and intelligent design was canceled after he sent e-mails deriding Christian conservatives was hospitalized Monday after what appeared to be a roadside beating.

University of Kansas religious studies professor Paul Mirecki said that the two men who beat him made references to the class that was to be offered for the first time this spring.

Originally called "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies," the course was canceled last week at Mirecki's request.

The class was added after the Kansas State Board of Education decided to include more criticism of evolution in science standards for elementary and secondary students.

"I didn't know them," Mirecki said of his assailants, "but I'm sure they knew me."

One recent e-mail from Mirecki to members of a student organization referred to religious conservatives as "fundies," and said a course describing intelligent design as mythology would be a "nice slap in their big fat face." Mirecki has apologized for those comments.

Lt. Kari Wempe, a spokeswoman for the Douglas County Sheriff's Department, said a deputy was dispatched to Lawrence Memorial Hospital after receiving a call around 7 a.m. regarding a battery.

She said Mirecki reported he was attacked around 6:40 a.m. in rural Douglas County south of Lawrence. Mirecki told the Lawrence Journal-World that he was driving to breakfast when he noticed the men tailgating him in a pickup truck.

"I just pulled over hoping they would pass, and then they pulled up real close behind," he said. "They got out, and I made the mistake of getting out."

He said the men beat him on the head, shoulders and back with their fists, and possibly a metal object.

Wempe said Mirecki drove himself to the hospital after the attack.

Mirecki told the student newspaper, the University Daily Kansan, that he spent between three and four hours at the hospital. He said his injuries included a broken tooth.

"I'm mostly shaken up, and I got some bruises and sore spots," he told the Lawrence Journal-World.

Wempe said Mirecki described the suspects as two white men between 30 and 40 years of age. One of the men was described as wearing a red, visorlike ball cap and wool gloves. Mirecki said the men left in a large pickup.

Wempe said the department would investigate "every aspect," but couldn't discuss specifics.

Andrew Stangl, president of the Society for Open Minded Atheists and Agnostics at the university, described the attack as "bizarre and terrifying." He said Mirecki, who is the group's faculty adviser, was adamant that the beating was related to the recently canceled course.

"That absolutely shocked me," he said, "because people don't do that in a civilized society."

State Sen. Kay O'Connor, a Mirecki critic, said there is no excuse for someone physically assaulting the professor -- regardless of their politics.

"I have zero tolerance for thugs," she said. "There is never an excuse to behave in such a manner. This was just thugs. They used a flimsy excuse, if they had one, to behave as thugs. They can talk about the ID (intelligent design) course if they want to, but that's not an excuse."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...