Three Questions for the Evos.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
The only problem is that is sort of an argument from authority in itself. Here's an interesting article that's kinda related:

​

http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?program=CRSC&command=view&id=1170

---

Yeah, it is something of an argument from authority; but argument from authority is only a fallacy if you appeal to an authority in an unrelated subject. That is, you make the appeal to someone who isn't really an authority-- like asking a famous mathematician to explain why abortion is murder, or like asking Einstein to comment on God. They may be brilliant in their fields, but it doesn't mean that they are qualified outside of it. Asking Einstein to comment on relativity is not a logical fallacy.Besides which, a near unanimous consensus among scientists is about the best we can get. Remember, I am not arguing that we teach the opinions of one or two scientist.The argument in the link you posted depends on the "mounting evidence that evolution is wrong" There ain't no such evidence. At least, to be fair, all of the evidence I have seen is smoke and mirrors and easily discounted.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLPx:
My problem with that is that I don't think public school children (ages 10-17 or so) have the wherewithal to determine what the most appropriate conclusions are. Prime example - you can tell a teenager that smoking causes cancer, etc., but they will still smoke.

---

So are you saying that 10-17 year olds are inacapble of forming a
reasoned opinion on data presented to them ?Tell a teenager NOT to do anything and they'll do it ... its
rejection of authority not a lack of understanding of the issues.I'm sure there are debators on this site who would object to
your suggestion that they are too young to form their own
opinions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:

So are you saying that 10-17 year olds are inacapble of forming a
reasoned opinion on data presented to them ?

​

Tell a teenager NOT to do anything and they'll do it ... its
rejection of authority not a lack of understanding of the issues.

​

I'm sure there are debators on this site who would object to
your suggestion that they are too young to form their own
opinions.

​

---

A precious post I made on this topic could be taken to mean that I agree with SLPx, so I want to clarify.Kids can certainly make informed decisions about a great deal of things, but this isn't the point as I see it. The point of education is to pass along the sum-- the sum, not all of the minute calculations-- of human knowledge, thus allowing the student to build upon past research. Presenting students with raw data prevents this cumulative effect, as does presenting students with theories which have been rejected by the vast majority of those working in the appropriate fields.No one can sift through all of the raw data and dead theories, perform all of the calculations, analyze the theories, and come to a conclusion. Humans simply do not live long enough.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

That's fine by me, I don't see the problem with
presenting evidences for the subjects taught in the
science class though.You let the kids that are interested do some work on
their own if they're interested enough.My objection was to the suggestion that kids of that age
were incapable of the reasoning required.Case in point, my nephew, who is 10, asked me how life got
here so I said ... 'Well, some people think ...' and launched
into an abiogenesis followed by evolutionary answer, then said
'and other people think that God created everything.'And he said 'Well he could have, couldn't he ? No-one knows
for sure.'And I had to say 'Yes, that's exactly right!'I don't beleive in any gods, but I, personally, am unwilling to
impose my belief on anyone. I would rather put forward the
ideas and leave them to simmer.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[b]I would like to ask three simple questions:If you came to the conclusion that Intelligent Design/Creation had more evidence than evolution, would you-A.) Believe it?If it had more evidence, then I would accept the evidence. But it's kind of a non-question, because ID isn't set up in such a way to provide the kind of observable, repeatable, falsafiable (scientific) evidence which would get my attention.

quote:

---

B.) Consider it a scientific theory?

---

See above. It would have to be formulated in such a way as to be a scientifi theory before I would consider it a scientific theory. [QUOTE]C.) Be OK with the idea of it being taught in public schools?[/b][/QUOTE]Sure, but I again think the question is moot, because I can't see how ID can ever be scientific.There is no positive evidence in favor of ID. In fact, the ID proponents can't even tell us what positive evidence for ID would look like.All ID boils down to is "We don't understand X, therefore Godidit."God of the Gaps, plain and simple.I'll tell you when I will begin to take ID seriously as science. When the ID folks can answer the following...How do you tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and one which arose naturally but that we don't understand yet, or don't have the intellectual capacity to understand?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"