Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   One small step for science...maybe?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 9 of 29 (508862)
05-16-2009 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Whateverman
05-16-2009 8:01 PM


ID as science?
I don't necessarily think that ID in schools is a bad thing. Assuming nothing changes, I would simply object to the idea that it belongs in a science class.
ID is religion lite, creationism with the serial numbers filed off in the hope of fooling school boards and legislators. It is a direct descendant of the creationism --> creation "science" --> "What do we do now?" problem as those previous attempts failed to fool the courts.
If you look at it, the impetus for ID is not from scientific research, such as private industry or the universities. It is from a few scientists already committed to creationism, and from organizations such as the Discovery Institute, staffed more with lawyers and PR flacks than research scientists. And the Discovery Institute's whole approach was shown to be dishonest by their Wedge Document, when it leaked to the internet. Their goal is not to do better science, but as follows:
We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

See anything remotely like the scientific method in there?
No, you don't. Their goal is not to follow the data wherever it leads, but to end up with science as we know it eliminated, and a new science subservient to Christian and theistic masters in its place (sounds like they would favor a theocracy, eh?).
So no, ID is not science. It is anti-science from its beginning, a deceitful Trojan horse aimed at the science classes first, and the general population afterwards.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Whateverman, posted 05-16-2009 8:01 PM Whateverman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2009 8:36 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 12 by Fallen, posted 05-16-2009 9:40 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 13 of 29 (508870)
05-16-2009 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Fallen
05-16-2009 9:40 PM


Re: ID as science?
So, I guess you would classify the ancient Stoics as "creationist lite" for arguing that nature indicates an intelligent designer?
The ancient Stoics aren't trying to sneak a fundamentalist religion into high school science classes after it has repeatedly been excluded by the courts.
IDers are.
Just look at the Wedge Document, which was never intended to leak out to the internet, for their true goals.
(Those goals are not the promotion of science, but the elimination of science as we know it. ID is certainly not science!)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Fallen, posted 05-16-2009 9:40 PM Fallen has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 19 of 29 (509207)
05-19-2009 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by jaywill
05-19-2009 11:40 AM


Re: Truth
How do you use the scientific method to prove that truth can be known only through the scientific method ?
What makes you think science is seeking truth, Truth, TRUTH, or TRVTH?
Those are the province of dogma and belief, while science works with data and theory.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source
Intelligent design, on the other hand, starts with its conclusions and seeks to support them by cherry-picking from scientific data, while ignoring or distorting anything that doesn't fit.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by jaywill, posted 05-19-2009 11:40 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by jaywill, posted 05-19-2009 12:06 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 23 by jaywill, posted 05-19-2009 12:11 PM Coyote 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