Several comments on several posts (seperated by a line):
commike37 in msg#8 on {A chance to be a pro-science activist!} thread writes:
The Center for Science and Culture reports that "Intelligent design theory is supported by doctoral scientists, researchers and theorists at a number of universities, colleges, and research institutes around the world.
creationist love to play the numbers games, and now this "form" of "evidence" appears to be moving into the IDist conceptual arena.
For numbers compare you list to "The Steve List"
http://www.ncseweb.org/...ticles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp
This lists all the scientists who have endorsed the following statement:
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
Note that they include id with creationism as a pseudo-science. This means that the {idea\concept} is either badly formulated or incomplete from a scientific point of view or that it cannot be tested and invalidated.
Note also that the list is restricted to scientists whos name is steve or a derivative of steve (this is to honor the memory of Steven Jay Gould), and that it is even still much more extensive than your listing.
What this does is show the ridiculousness of citing a number of "authorities" as justification for any point of view -- it is the logical fallacy of the argument from authority, and is invalid no matter how you cut it.
Forbidden
commike37, ibid, writes:
Even if intelligent design does not have as much evidence, would that be enough to justify outright exclusion?
Zero qualifies as "not much"? Even the concept of IC has been invalidated as a marker of intelligent design: it has been observed evolving in at least one instance (and one instance is enough to invalidate this concept). Every other scrap of argument reduces to the argument from incredulity and is not supported by any factual evidence. There is more evidence for
neo-Lamarkism than there is for ID.
If we are truly going to open up the store to "all points of view" then we have to add in every fringe {science\pseudo-science} (even including "creationism") that can stand up longer than 10 minutes and systematically
review the validity of each one as it relates to the science of biology and the change in species over time (evolution).
Then, once the invalid concepts, the untestable concepts, the concepts with no supporting evidence, and the concepts that are lacking any predictive test of validity are eliminated, we can proceed with the science involved. While this may indeed be instructive to students (and could probably be covered in a one hour lecture), it would hardly produce the results you seem to anticipate (imho of course).
commike37, ibid, writes:
If you cover evolution more, you reduce the breadth covered on a different theory.
We should also be able to argue that the course itself needs to be expanded considerably within the schools to better allow {all the different
scientific views} to be adequately presented and discussed, a move I would applaud as it would increase the amount of time spent on evolutionary biology aspects. As it sits now this kind of science is being pushed more and more into AP ("advanced placement") courses where only those planning on going on to college or exhibiting true scientific curiousity will take the courses.
Of course many students could profit more from a basic course in logical thinking, whether they are scientifically inclined or not, and perhaps this would be a better place to expend increased curriculum time.
commike37 msg#10 on {A chance to be a pro-science activist!} thread writes:
I'll quote the Center for Science and Culture ... "However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, a purposeless process that 'has no specific direction or goal, including survival of a species.' (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges."
The fact that there is "no specific direction or goal" in
any science should be a clue that science is not about finding
purpose or possible
directions or
goals of the universe no matter what the
cause ultima of such would be. This statement also employs a mis-statement of evolution (strawman) to further it's pointless purpose: evolution is not "driven by natural selection" it just happens. Thus for ID to "challenge" a false concept is hardly a challenge to the science itself in reality.
Flatly: ID is not a theory in the scientific sense: it isn't based on evidence, it doesn't have an explanation that provides a better answer to the evidence for evolution, it doesn't have a testable prediction that would validate or invalidate it differentially from evolution. Until it can provide those scientific benchmarks -- demanded of any theory in any science -- then it doesn't belong in an education curriculum, at any level, and it certainly doesn't belong in an early introduction course that barely has time to cover the broad basics of the scientific material available.
If it doesn't belong in a university course, why on earth would anyone think it belongs in a high school course?
commike37 msg#128 this thread writes:
On the proportion of evidence available for both theories:
1. Measuring it by the amount of scientists or evidence available to each side would be very fuzzy numbers. It's hard to make a somewhat accurate estimate on that area.
2. If only evolution is taught even with its criticisms, then its evolution vs. itself, which would inevitably grant a "sacred dogma" position to evolution.
3. Having competing theories creates an overall benefit. If each theory has to adapt itself to the challenges of the other theory, then both theories are improved as a result. Whereas if you run a monopoly, very bad things can start to happen (ie: Microsoft).
Science is not a majority, or dependant on majority view to be correct. Comparing it to business is invalid.
There are a number of theories within the science of evolution on exactly how things occur in different areas and at different times. There is little enough time to cover even the basics of these actual competing theories within an introductory course without introducing fringe concepts into the mix.
ID is not a scientific theory, it is just an (as yet) untestable concept: it is untestable because as yet it has not done the scientific homework to develop a validation test that would differentiate it from the results of evolutionary theories.
qs=commike37, ibid, writes:
Arguing that ID and evolution are compatible doesn't make much sense.
Therefore ID needs to develop a validation test to differentiate it from the results of evolutionary theories or it is a pointless exercise.
qs=commike37, ibid, writes:
unless you want to argue that the web page from the Center for Science and Culture is internally inconsistent
internally inconsistent or inconsistent with real science? any mythology can be internally consistent, that doesn't make it a valid view of {"life, the universe and everything"}.
And it
is inconsistent with real science. All one needs to do is search the site for "Irreducible Complexity" and you will find a number of articles like
Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions | Discovery Institute
The concept of IC has been invalidated as a marker for ID, thus real science would have dropped this concept, or note in passing that it is no longer valid. Instead it is still played as a valid concept: that is not science, that is not truth, that is not something to put into science classes.
That hardly took 5 minutes.
enough for now
enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel
AAmerican
.Zen
[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
™ Version 4.2
