|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 20 years of the Creation/ID science curriculum | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5011 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
CTD writes: Experiment - checkObservation - check analysis - check Um...none of this is actually true, is it? What eperiment/Observation has lent support to ID?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3726 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Do you accept the validity of DNA paternity tests?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Do you accept that DNA paternity testing is valid?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4210 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4165 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Beretta writes: 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". What about the fossil record... 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4165 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Beretta writes: 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. As for ID, the evidence matches the theory which is why it is infinately more satisfying a theory.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4621 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2190 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Do you accept that DNA paternity testing is valid?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024