Posted on 03/13/2004 11:53:26 AM PST by js1138
All the more reason to take up the analogy that math and language go together much like properly guided religion and science.
I realize there is a need, or so it seems, to compartmentalize education to a degree for the sake of focus, but maybe we should be asking ourselves "why do we do that?" I consider it to be a wholesome thing when the disciplines of language, math, history, science, citizenship, and properly guided religion manifest themsleves in an individual, because any of these disciplines can, and will, come into play at any given point.
Not everyone is agreed on what a "hypothesis" is, either. But I will happly accept the dictionary definitions of "intelligence" and "design" as a starting point in this case, too.
Perhaps Amelia would be willing to do a cut and paste from the same source she used for the word "hypothesis?" That would be helpful indeed.
If one wishes to forfeit the proposition that intelligence and design are fundamental properties of the universe in which he exists, as well as fundamental properties of a hypothesis, then let him also have the honesty to forfeit the right to intelligible communication.
But to hear one communicate in a universe in which the same considers either of these to be "empty air" unless scientifically verified or defined "in a non-circular way" (as if those adjectives apply) makes him appear as a dog walking on its hind legs or a woman preacher. It's strange, to be sure, but one is surprised to see it happening at all.
I did not expect such a comment from one who is here for the sake of honest debate. If it's alright with you, I'd like to be consistent in the use of sources. If I am working with Amelia's definition of "hypothesis" from a particular source she is presenting, then I would appreciate having the same source to work with in defining "intelligence" and "design" in a way we can agree upon.
Okay?
Your personal assessment of my intent is sorely lacking in accuracy, but I know what you mean as far as how folks have a tendency to use the dictionary as a club. In this case, however, you've asked to use a definition we can all agree upon, and to that end I figured a dictionary would be just the right resource, because it represents common understanding.
If you want to propose your own definition of "intelligence" and "design" that's fine with me. Here are my own elementary definitions. Try not to laugh.
INTELLIGENCE (n.): 1.) the capacity to observe and evaluate sensory data. 2.) a body of data
DESIGN (n.): 1.) the quality of having purposefulness.
If we want to participate in this dialogue in a mutually edifying way I really think it would be in our best interests to decide upon dictionary definitions rather than our own, despite the otherwise rancorous history pointing to dubious motives.
So I am asking you as one who has patiently endured my meanderings on the subject, is it okay if we use dictionary definitions as we proceed from here?
I don't know if I have any problem with definitions of intelligence, but I would like you to explain what you mean by purposefulness. Could you possibly describe a test for purposefulness?
I'm not surprised.
If I would have a single, basic argument to put forth in the controversy it is that the General Sciences need to allow the inquiring mind an opportunity to challenge all information with which it is presented. Science is not preaching.
Attendant to that argument, WRT practical implications, I think it is acceptable to admit the possibility of intelligent design into the classroom without entering into specific religious teachings.
Lastly, as a point of personal observation, I have yet to see science and the Bible disprove each other. They fit together like hand in glove. Both make propositions to be accepted by faith, and both give evidence enough to be accepted as true.
Well of course that is always allowed - but the information must be challenged with evidence, not opinions.
I think it is acceptable to admit the possibility of intelligent design into the classroom without entering into specific religious teachings.
Students are welcome to believe what they wish. I'm not sure we want science teachers speculating on things outside the realm of science, even if they do fit our preconceived notions.
If we're talking about government, do you want the liberal teacher teaching his or her personal beliefs, or would you rather the teacher try to teach the facts in as unbiased a way as possible?
Both make propositions to be accepted by faith, and both give evidence enough to be accepted as true.
You continue to demonstrate your total lack of understanding of what science is and includes.
I must have missed something. How does that answer this:
What "preposterous proposition" are you talking about?
Some say that if one were to traverse a straight line away from earth for an infinite time and/or distance one would once again return to the point of origin. If that is true of space it may also be true of time, in which case last Thursday is as much the present moment as 14 billion years from now or 14 billion years in the past.
Another non-sequitur change of subject.
If you have a point here, why don't you quit dancing around and make it. Or troll somewhere else.
And most scientists disagree with you.
And I suspect that most people would disagree with your political machinations to achieve that end if they suspected that even more fantatics would press on to have their brand of BS taught in schools right alongside ID/IOT.
Science can't "disprove" ID. ID doesn't make any claims that can be investigated by science. You have demonstrated that by participating in a 600 post thread without listiong a single claim of ID that could be supported or disproved by an experiment.
Meanwhile, the physical sciences are entirely hung out. Any evidence in geology or physics or astronomy that contradicts the age of the universe or the age of the earth bring the thing crashing down. There are innumerable places in biology where an unexpected bit of evidence could cause trouble for evolution.
There is a dearly departed freeper who has assured us this will happen, and has specified where in the human/chimp the smoking gun will be found. This is at least a claim that will eventually be tested.
But this is a claim of evolution which will be put to the test in the foreseeable future. ID makes no comparable claims. ID is not science. I will grant that some people who believe in ID may be perfectly qualified to do science, and probably are doing competent science. But they can't say they are studying ID, because ID makes no verifiable claims.
No. At least not a test that would satisfy the strict scientific definition of testing. Does that mean the word "design" should be left out of scientific inquiry altogether?
Is it just me, or are you here equating evidence with "proof?"
Without an operational definition, it ain't science. What would logic dictate?
How do you inquire without methods and procedures? How do you inquire without asserting the expected results of an experiment or controlled observation?
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.