Here, why not grab at these while you're at it?
Posted on 08/04/2005 10:31:34 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
WASHINGTON - "President Bush, in advocating that the concept of 'intelligent design' be taught alongside the theory of evolution, puts America's schoolchildren at risk," says Fred Spilhaus, Executive Director of the American Geophysical Union. "Americans will need basic understanding of science in order to participate effectively in the 21st century world. It is essential that students on every level learn what science is and how scientific knowledge progresses."
In comments to journalists on August 1, the President said that "both sides ought to be properly taught." "If he meant that intelligent design should be given equal standing with the theory of evolution in the nation's science classrooms, then he is undermining efforts to increase the understanding of science," Spilhaus said in a statement. "'Intelligent design' is not a scientific theory." Advocates of intelligent design believe that life on Earth is too complex to have evolved on its own and must therefore be the work of a designer. That is an untestable belief and, therefore, cannot qualify as a scientific theory."
"Scientific theories, like evolution, relativity and plate tectonics, are based on hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification," Spilhaus says. "The President has unfortunately confused the difference between science and belief. It is essential that students understand that a scientific theory is not a belief, hunch, or untested hypothesis."
"Ideas that are based on faith, including 'intelligent design,' operate in a different sphere and should not be confused with science. Outside the sphere of their laboratories and science classrooms, scientists and students alike may believe what they choose about the origins of life, but inside that sphere, they are bound by the scientific method," Spilhaus said.
AGU is a scientific society, comprising 43,000 Earth and space scientists. It publishes a dozen peer reviewed journal series and holds meetings at which current research is presented to the scientific community and the public.
I know nobody who thinks science can provide answers to metaphysical questions. That's why it's called 'science' and not 'metaphysics'. And that's why metaphysics is not a branch of science.
Yeah, him and Carl Sagan.
Can't be any worse than what they'll hear when they take economics or psychology in college.
In the entire country, UFOs, whether Elvis is deceased, and alien abductions are also controversial. I don't think we should 'teach the controversy' about these matters, either.
Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis.*
* Definition taken from Talkorigins.com
As I indicated before, ID, at best is for the religious classroom and NOT the science classroom.
The fact that quite a few philosophers do not make that assumption surely proves this incorrect.
At some point ID intersects with the panspermia thesis. Your typical Darwinian approach to evolution ignores panspermia, and some advocates argue that there's no way panspermia happens ~ "Impossible" they spout.
So, should I object to the "religious" origins of the Creationists (who some folks mistake for the entirity of ID) or should I object to the "little Earth is all there is" origins of the devout evolutionists?
How about we make sure our kids are educated enough that they are open to new ideas?
Well, enough on this, I'm going to go back to sea and do a bit of gene mining. Might get rich Fur Shur!
If you're talking about the History Channel show, I'm afraid you'll be sadly disappointed if you expect it to treat evolution as controversial.
'Your trypical Darwinian' usually just argues that panspermia transfers the origin question to another planet, but does not solve it.
I don't know anybody who'll admit to having taking steroids. Nevertheless, we know that scientists and their Hellelujah Chorus in the media and the education establishment (present company excerpted, as usual) like or tend to dismiss metaphysical, and yes, existential questions as invalid, "non-scientific", and not worth much asking. And that, in my opinion, is the essence of the entire conflict, without getting into the discussion of evolution or the origins of the universe. Let's teach philosophy and theology that ask those questions, and let the scientists butt off!
The lack of common sense and morals does more to put children at risk than what the president has advocated here. Perhaps these scientists need to get themselves to some English classes before they couch their arguments in words like "puts (kids) at risk."
He also gave his opinion that the children should be exposed to the arguments on both sides. "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes." That's not teaching ID. Teaching it would be presenting it as fact rather than one side of an argument.
The religion of Humanism has the sole right to teach their dogma as scientific fact. Don't confuse the poor kids by mentioning that Evolution is only a theory. To be proven, it has to be observed. The only account of the origins of life that has a recorded observation is Creation. If the poor chil'ren are taught that Evolution is not a proven fact, what will be next for them to doubt? The view of History and Social Studies with no moral right and wrong? That Abortion is not the only answer? That there is no such thing as "safe sex?" That the NEA and Democratic Party are not interested in their welfare after all?
I'm not a biologist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Isn't that natural selection? Bug A gets eaten because he tastes good, Bug B does not. Bug A goes extinct, Bug B survives. That Bug A gets eaten is not by chance, but because he's yummy.
I don't advocate that ID is a scientific theory, just that it's a very reasonable question to ask. Proving the existence of God is a tall order, but disproving the existence of God is even more difficult.
You have a point :-)
Here, why not grab at these while you're at it?
So, if you wanted to teach that Jesus Garcia lived in Ponce in the 20th Century, you could use a phone book if you wished, but if you meant Jesus Christ in the 11th Century, it would take something more inasmuch as they didn't have phone books then. In fact, they didn't have phone books in the 1st century ~ at least not here at any rate.
Archaeological evidence usually proceeds from a discovery that can be juxtaposed against some other item about which we have some confidence. We then "speculate".
On the other hand, the second we have a written record, we are engaged in history, and speculation must take a different course.
So, which century do you want Jesus to appear, and what evidence will you accept regarding that finding?
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.