"heh henh...heh henh...he said..."Testables"...heh henh...heh henh"
Posted on 09/30/2005 9:17:50 PM PDT by indcons
Four months ago, when evolution and "intelligent design" (ID) squared off in Kansas, I defended ID as a more evolved version of creationism. ID posits that complex systems in nature must have been designed by an intelligent agent. The crucial step forward is ID's concession that "observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building" not scriptural authority define science. Having acknowledged that standard, advocates of ID must now demonstrate how hypotheses based on it can be tested by experiment or observation. Otherwise, ID isn't science.
This week, ID is on trial again in Pennsylvania. And so far, its proponents aren't taking the experimental test they accepted in Kansas. They're ducking it.
The Pennsylvania case involves a policy, adopted by the board of the Dover Area School District, that requires ninth-grade biology teachers to tell students about ID. According to the policy, "A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations." So far, so good.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Great read from Slate on why ID does not use scientific rigor.
over here
he's right. Until ID actually comes up with some type of evidence, it's all conjecture. Regardless of what many of you think, Evolution --as a theory -- does have a lot to back it up.
The ID movement is frankly an embarassment. Not to mention it isolates 40-50% percent of scientists in the nation (happen to be Christians). ID is not science, it barely even rises to pseudoscience. If they would just admit it, then I would have no problem with it being taught in a philosophy or comparative religion class. But you can't play science.
That's right - which is why questions about God belong in religion class, not science class. Ditto creationism - and ID, for that matter. If it isn't scientific, it doesn't belong in science class.
(Which is not to say that a lot of stuff taught in science classes these days is science, either - global warming, for example.)
Little Jeremiah and I agree on most things. I really hate to disagree with him on this issue as I respect the man.
"Bother..." said Pooh, as he took a cricket bat to what was left of his computer after he shot out the monitor. "No more bloody crevo threads."
Nobody can prove either side of the debate, so it all comes down to where you place your faith, in the scientist's "Big Bang" theory or in religion and God. So this is one of those issues that definately tends to "separate the wheat from the chaff".
Then it does not have a place in the science class, right?
I think maybe the point was one in which ID can be studied as a concept as much as the THEORY of evolution IS studied as such. Both can be scientifically examined on the context in which they dwell.
"You can't scientifically prove that God exists, doesn't mean that he doesn't exist."
True, but you can remove teachings about God from school. I think seperation of church and state is an excellent idea.
It may not be in the Constitution (apparently is not) but I would support the passage of laws to the effect that religious subjects cannot be taught in schools, once we get a real Supreme Court that will no longer invent law. This law they invented is a good one, though the process of law from the Court is wrong in principle.
I also would also support a carefully written Constitutional ammendment separating Church and State.
The weaknesses and deterioration in our society are caused by Leftist infiltration of our institutions, prominent among them educational institutions. The answer is for conservatives to wake up and remove these leftists from control of our schools. Not add religion to schools.
Mixing in religion and government (such as government support of faith based initiatives) is a huge mistake. Government will have a corrutping effect on religion, not a strengthening one.
Please, someone, demonstrate how that can be done by evolution as well.
How do you scientifically examine ID? If ID is a theory, you have to be able to test it. This article addresses that point, and basically says that you can't actually test ID, and therefore you can't "scientifically examine" it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.