Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 226 of 305 (455362)
02-12-2008 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by CTD
02-11-2008 10:50 PM


Re: Read carefully
CTD writes:
Can astrology be stated as a valid hypothesis and tested using scientific methods? Yes.
Only up to a point. The effects of Astrology can be tested, but given that astrology does not posit any material means for the transmission of its influence the underlying mechanism of astrology can not be tested.
Even if there was a 100% correlation between astrological predictions and outcomes we would still be no nearer to identifying how astrology works.
In this sense it can be regarded as non-science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by CTD, posted 02-11-2008 10:50 PM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by CTD, posted 02-13-2008 1:57 PM RickJB has replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 227 of 305 (455363)
02-12-2008 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by CTD
02-11-2008 11:44 PM


CTD writes:
Experiment - check
Observation - check
analysis - check
Um...none of this is actually true, is it?
What eperiment/Observation has lent support to ID?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by CTD, posted 02-11-2008 11:44 PM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by CTD, posted 02-13-2008 3:36 PM Larni has replied

Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 228 of 305 (455367)
02-12-2008 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by CTD
02-11-2008 10:50 PM


Re: Read carefully
You're getting mixed up with hyopthesis and theory. We have a hypothesis, we test it scientifically. If it passes it may just become a theory and we can teach it. Astrology is a hypothesis, we test it scientifically AND IT FAILS therefore it is not a scientific theory, therefore we don't teach it as such.
Behe, knowing this, has proposed a definition of scientific theory WHICH ENCOMPASSES FAILED HYPOTHESES!!
No-one is suggesting that Behe lied, just that his definition of scientific theory will encompass failed hypotheses. He also volunteered that his definition would encompass the ether theory of light propagation which has been discarded. Do you really want to teach childen hypotheses which have been shown to be erroneous?
As for your statement
So who was it provided the obviously erroneous extrapolation that all falsified scientific theories must be taught in the classroom as 'science'? And what adjectives are appropriately applied to such persons?
Behe accepted the extrapolation to falsified scientific theories. If you can't see that this proposed definition of scientific theory will cause all sorts of problems, I don't know how I can help you.
Let's try this. The whole point of the definition is to determine what counts as science and cn be taught in science class. When you define a word or term, you have to make sure that everything which that definition encompasses should be encompassed. Behe's definition, by his own admission, encompassses astrology. Should astrology be encompassed within the definition of scientific theory? I suggest the answer is "No", so that shows that there is a problem with the proposed defiiton. The problem is that if the definition is tightened up, ID becomes a casualty as well as astrology.
Can you come up with a definition of scientific theory which encompasses ID, but not falsified hypotheses. In doing this, remember to take into account the difference between hypothesis and theory. If you can, you should let Behe and the ID movement know because they have been hunting for one for a long time without any success.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by CTD, posted 02-11-2008 10:50 PM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by CTD, posted 02-13-2008 2:50 PM Trixie has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 229 of 305 (455368)
02-12-2008 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Cold Foreign Object
02-06-2008 5:40 PM


quote:
Commentary presupposes that genome similarity indicates proof of descent from chimpanzees. The same is an interpretation of said evidence based on the supposition that evolution has occurred, and based on the supposition that Genesis is false. Of course, suppositions are not evidence but filters that interpret evidence.
Do you accept the validity of DNA paternity tests?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-06-2008 5:40 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 230 of 305 (455369)
02-12-2008 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Beretta
02-12-2008 4:20 AM


Re: Old evolutionist's tales
quote:
What about the fossil record -what does it show? Sudden appearance and stasis with variation within fairly narrow limits.Extinction for some or continuance to this day relatively unchanged over hundreds of millions of years. The only things that really change a lot are the things evolutionists imagine are related but that is only because they have this apriori adherence to naturalism so they must all be related -after all they have a common ancestor don't they -anyone with a brain knows that, don't they?
No I'm afraid the evidence is against gradualism -it's not the tree of life, it's a lawn of life with some blades shorter than others.
So in this case, evolution is the type of pseudoscience you must be talking about -the evidence is against it.As for ID, the evidence matches the theory which is why it is infinately more satisfying a theory.
The postulate IS feasible -Helloooo!
Do you accept that DNA paternity testing is valid?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Beretta, posted 02-12-2008 4:20 AM Beretta has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 231 of 305 (455432)
02-12-2008 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Beretta
02-12-2008 4:20 AM


Re: Old evolutionist's tales
beretta
So in this case, evolution is the type of pseudoscience you must be talking about -the evidence is against it.As for ID, the evidence matches the theory which is why it is infinately more satisfying a theory.
The postulate IS feasible -Helloooo!
Show me one piece of evidence that shows ID is correct.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Beretta, posted 02-12-2008 4:20 AM Beretta has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 232 of 305 (455441)
02-12-2008 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Beretta
02-12-2008 4:20 AM


Re: Old evolutionist's tales
Beretta writes:
What about the fossil record...
Your knowledge of the fossil record and how it us used in evolutionary biology is obviously quite lacking. It's not as simple as "Look...a fossil that looks like this other fossil, they are therefore related".
But let's step back from actual science for a bit and see if we can get you to FINALLY provide a testable I.D. hypothesis...like the one you alluded to way back in post 114 (I believe).
Continuing to ask for this is getting a bit bothersome. It's almost as if you can't find one, and just keep ignoring the question. That's not really what you're doing, is it Beretta? Certainly you have the I.D. hypothesis. What say you provide it to us in your next response...OK?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Beretta, posted 02-12-2008 4:20 AM Beretta has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 233 of 305 (455449)
02-12-2008 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Beretta
02-12-2008 4:20 AM


Re: Old evolutionist's tales
Hi Beretta,
This thread isn't about how wrong evolution is or how wonderful ID is, but about what public school science education might look like 20 years after ID is allowed into the classroom. That's why people are asking for some details about ID. After you finish saying, "The evidence matches the theory which is why it is infinitely more satisfying a theory," then what do you say in the rest of the lesson?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Beretta, posted 02-12-2008 4:20 AM Beretta has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 234 of 305 (455465)
02-12-2008 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Beretta
02-12-2008 4:20 AM


Re: Old evolutionist's tales
Beretta writes:
As for ID, the evidence matches the theory which is why it is infinately more satisfying a theory.
And just so we're clear, I started asking you to provide a testable hypothesis for I.D. way back in post 64 (I came to this thread a bit late). Now, including my original post, I have asked for this I.D. hypothesis seven times (and RickJB has asked at least three or four times), but you have yet to provide it to us.
And here you are proclaiming I.D. to be a theory.
In case you are unaware of how the scientific method works, Beretta, you first need to supply a test and a null hypothesis, perform experiment after experiment after experiment, wait years and years until such time that so many valid tests have confirmed so many testable hypotheses that the concept can "become " a theory. You don't just skip over the "hypothesis formation", and "repeatable experimentation" stages and go straight from "observation" to "theory". It doesn't work that way...sorry.
So how about you slow down...take a deep breath...and before you proclaim the validity of I.D. as a theory, finally (after 233 posts...and remember, we only get 300), provide to us the I.D. hypothesis. Come on, give it the ol' college try there Beretta.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Beretta, posted 02-12-2008 4:20 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Beretta, posted 02-13-2008 7:40 AM FliesOnly has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 235 of 305 (455469)
02-12-2008 2:12 PM


Will we even know what ID is ?
What I find completely amazing is that even ID supporters won't agree on what ID is - or even with the leaders of th ID movement.
Michael Behe insists that evolutionary mechanisms are limited and the designer has to step in. But he accepts common descent.
CTD insists that even that isn't ID - ID has no objections to evolution at all.
Beretta argues against even common descent.
I suggest that this shows what will happen if ID wins. Well short of the twenty years the ID movement will implode due to its major internal divisions. And IMHO the YECs will probably win. Firstly because they are the major power base and secondly because the grass roots pay no attention to the leaders - except when its convenient.

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Beretta, posted 02-13-2008 7:29 AM PaulK has replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 236 of 305 (455625)
02-13-2008 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by PaulK
02-12-2008 2:12 PM


Re: Will we even know what ID is ?
Well short of the twenty years the ID movement will implode due to its major internal divisions.
No, I think you're wrong -there are divisions about what may have happened but we all agree on one major point -that mutation and natural selection cannot account for the complexity of what exists -we all agree that saying that random change accounts for everything is wishful thinking and is not supported by evidence -in short it is a naturalistic belief system, not science.
There is no reason to teach that belief system to kids as if it is fact if it is not proven to be true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by PaulK, posted 02-12-2008 2:12 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2008 7:40 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 239 by Vacate, posted 02-13-2008 7:42 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 242 by PaulK, posted 02-13-2008 7:58 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 243 by Percy, posted 02-13-2008 8:15 AM Beretta has not replied

Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 237 of 305 (455626)
02-13-2008 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by FliesOnly
02-12-2008 2:01 PM


Re: Old evolutionist's tales
In case you are unaware of how the scientific method works, Beretta, you first need to supply a test and a null hypothesis, perform experiment after experiment after experiment, wait years and years until such time that so many valid tests have confirmed so many testable hypotheses that the concept can "become " a theory.
And so in the meantime in the absence of evidence for the creative power of mutation and natural selection, you think that it is good enough to teach evolution as fact? How about leaving it as an hypothesis in the meantime?
ID says it is not good enough, the fossil evidence does not confirm the evolutionary hypothesis. how did the cambrian explosion occur. Where are all the intermediates that are absent in vast numbers? It's no good saying 'well the evidence is missing but because we are naturalists, we are sure we know what happened in any case.'Maybe you should face the fact that 'science' has not discovered how complex organisms could have developed and then keep looking into all the possibilities instead of just the naturalistic one.
If you say that naturalistic explanations are the only ones that are allowed, you may have shut out what really happened -is that science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by FliesOnly, posted 02-12-2008 2:01 PM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by nator, posted 02-13-2008 7:48 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 241 by nator, posted 02-13-2008 7:54 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 244 by Percy, posted 02-13-2008 8:17 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 245 by RickJB, posted 02-13-2008 8:33 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 246 by bluegenes, posted 02-13-2008 9:13 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 247 by FliesOnly, posted 02-13-2008 10:03 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 273 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2008 5:37 PM Beretta has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 238 of 305 (455627)
02-13-2008 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Beretta
02-13-2008 7:29 AM


Re: Will we even know what ID is ?
but we all agree on one major point -
So you will be united in denial of evidence, but won't have any unifying vision.
There is no reason to teach that belief system to kids as if it is fact if it is not proven to be true.
Well so much for modern medicine, physics, chemistry, metallurgy, computer design ... I guess that only leaves ...
... ignorance.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Beretta, posted 02-13-2008 7:29 AM Beretta has not replied

Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 239 of 305 (455628)
02-13-2008 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Beretta
02-13-2008 7:29 AM


Re: Will we even know what ID is ?
There is no reason to teach that belief system to kids as if it is fact if it is not proven to be true.
Doesn't your statement imply that we should simply stop teaching science? What exactly is a true and factual belief system within science?
If we base what is taught on what is proven to be true, should we not first get rid of the Theory of Gravity given it has the least amount of proof?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Beretta, posted 02-13-2008 7:29 AM Beretta has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 240 of 305 (455630)
02-13-2008 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Beretta
02-13-2008 7:40 AM


Re: Old evolutionist's tales
Do you accept that DNA paternity testing is valid?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Beretta, posted 02-13-2008 7:40 AM Beretta has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024