Posted on 08/13/2005 3:49:15 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
The cover story of the August 15, 2005, issue of Time magazine is Claudia Wallis's "The evolution wars" -- the first cover story on the creationism/evolution controversy in a major national newsweekly in recent memory.
With "When Bush joined the fray last week, the question grew hotter: Is 'intelligent design' a real science? And should it be taught in schools?" as its subhead, the article, in the space of over 3000 words, reviews the current situation in detail. Highlights of the article include:
While Wallis's article is inevitably not as scientifically detailed as, for example, H. Allen Orr's recent article in The New Yorker, or as politically astute as, for example, Chris Mooney's recent article in The American Prospect, overall it accomplishes the important goal of informing the general reader that antievolutionism -- whether it takes the form of creation science, "intelligent design," or calls to "teach the controversy" -- is scientifically unwarranted, pedagogically irresponsible, and constitutionally problematic.
No. Science by nature is not a "case closed" practice, a point that seems to elude you and your cheerleaders to no end. It seems that with some points of view (namely intelligent design) your notion of science is so narrow as to demand only the tightest strictures, while with other points of view (that suit your fancy) reasonable conjecture is as good as science. You are conflicted. Discombobulated. Biased. One-way. Unreasonable by insisting your point of view is alone worthy of consideration both scientifically and philosophically.
"Quite detailed?" What does that mean? How much is "quite?"
I'd say, go dig up some fossils. Got to be scads of them in Saskatchewan. I bet you have mammoth fossils galore up there. Then you could get on the NCBI website and look up gene sequences. You can download free software and do maximum parsimony cladograms on them. By the time you've compared ten proteins and found in every case that whales are closer to people than they are to fish, you should be ready for a brew, having satisifed yourself that you're not the victim of a cruel practical joke by a million or so biologists. I know I was relieved. So much so, in fact, I had another beer.
Put some chocolate in your microwave and watch the speed of light in action. Employ noodly appendage accordingly.
But just a few posts earlier, you said it is unscientific to present a philosophy as closed case science when one has undertaken only cursory verification of the propositions he is given to believe. It appears now you believe science is never closed case, so the previous post was nonsensical.
You are conflicted.
Chuckle.
Not at all. Neither a philosophy nor a cursory verification of propositions makes for science, unless it happens to fit one's point of you.
But there are other possibilities. You can examine the *reasoning* and decide whether it is correct without actually repeating the experiments yourself. Then you have to decide if those doing the actual measurements from which the reasoning is derived are lying about what they found. I suppose every mainstream physicist, geologist, astronomer, paleontologist, cosmologist, geneticist, biologist etc could be engaged in a giant conspiracy to fake their results to match the experimental predictions of an old earth with common descent of all biological life but I don't have to duplicate all their results to reject that; I know that a 200 year global conspiracy on that scale could never be maintained.
A demand on your part that all prior results be personally repeated before they can be believed suggests to me that in your heart you know where rational consideration of the physical evidence leads, and you don't like it, so you rationalise an excuse for rejecting the evidence.
For example rational consideration of the observations from SN1987A shows us that
a. It is more than 100,000 light years away (established geometrically)
b. Light-speed has been constant since it left SN1987A
c. Nuclear decay-rates have been constant since SN1987A exploded
I don't have to repeat the measurements of the angle subtended by the gas-rings and the time delay between the main event and their illumination and the decay curve of the gas-cloud myself. I trust that the scientists making those observations aren't conspiring to defraud me (a conspiracy that would bring no scientist any benefit whatsoever)
If you read my words carefully you will see I have made no such demand. What I have done is point out the extent faith plays out in dealing with propositions. (Strange things is, the more details we know about the physical world, the less certain it becomes.) The more observation, testing, and repeatability that can be brought to bear on the physical world, the more certain we can be in our understanding of the same. When placing faith in a 4.5 billion year old earth, there is a fundamental lack of observation, testing, and repeatability, unless one is talking about repeating other people's words without checking into their foundation.
Yes, we have tons of fossils here, including T-Rex, Albertasaurus and every type of Hadrosaur you could imagine. I'll have to have a brew for every one I find (including coprolites). Then I won't care much about parsimonious proteins.
Yes, we have tons of fossils here, including...Albertasaurus
That seems so wrong, somehow...
You've been shown, by a number of people, that the requirement - and by the wording of your statement it is a requirement - for personal testing to verify the age of the earth is unnecessary and that the radiometric tests, which are based on physics, could not have been affected by a change in decay rate, the speed of light, or the colour of your shorts. Through observation of your recalcitrant refusal to accept the findings of radiometrics, it is quite obvious you desire to pin the 'philosophy' tag onto any science that would force you to question your 'young earth' paradigm.
A number of people have made assertions to that effect, but I do not believe (or "demand)) it is necessary for someone to run all the tests for themselves in order to believe the results or their implications. I do believe however, that unless or until one runs the tests for himself, he is placing faith in what others say.
I happen to base my knowledge on the biblical texts first, and then weigh whatever other evidence and propositions come my way in light of the same. You have another guide, whatever it is. You apparently have difficulty dechiphering it or expressing it. Regardless, you're outside of science as usual, and dedicated to propping up a philosophy as if it were science. Good luck.
There so all you cry baby evolutionists can really have something to ball about.
Oh perfect!! Pure ID reasoning.
While we're at it, why don't we ban Einstein, Newton, Planck, Bohr, Rutherford, Curie, etc. etc. as well. Then we can make sure we have absolutely no science.
(Since you are an IDer, that was sarcasm).
Banning science does not help students. Unless they want to get their degrees from a mail order house like the Discovery Institute.
Of course, maybe science education isn't the object. Indeed, we can teach them ID and they will be perfectly qualified to clean toilets.
If you can get it read the opinion page of mondays USA Today.
No Darwin is not a legitimate science, it does far less to advance dna, gene science or anything. Animal Husbandry, cross pollination. selective crops were around before darwinism and if you want proof of ID start looking at those. Human intelligence has done more to effect "evolution", with actual evidence, than darwinism has with anectodatal evidencen or by a chemical accident or chemical accidents billions of years ago.
1) What do you consider a 'philosophy' to be and which fields of science do you consider nothing but philosophy? Why?
2) Which sciences, in your opinion, do not verify hypothetical propositions?
3) Are we, as users of science, supposed to verify propositions before trusting that science?
Of course, maybe science education isn't the object. Indeed, we can teach them ID and they will be perfectly qualified to clean toilets.>>
To quote Hank Hill, thats asenine. So teaching a challenging view point qualifies all who learn of it of only toilet cleaning?
Might as well say teaching evolution only qualifies you for ditch digging.
"That seems so wrong, somehow..."
We ran out of Saskatchewan-o-saurs. Something about everything running downhill to Ontario.
No, that's a degree in archaeology!
If I misinterpreted your statement, I apologize.
I do not have 'faith' in what others produce in the same sense the religious use that word. Based on the number of corroborating publications and the use of that evidence to further the analysis of other evidence, I 'trust' that the evidence published by science is as accurate and truthful as possible. I 'trust' that there is no conspiracy within science to trick me into blindly believing them. I 'trust' that the technology I use is based on the science that it claims. I 'trust' that science is the best method of acquiring knowledge, despite the individual personalities involved in it.
There is a difference between the definition of faith that states it to be belief in spite of evidence to the contrary and the definition that equates to trusting the evidence from credible sources.
"I happen to base my knowledge on the biblical texts first, and then weigh whatever other evidence and propositions come my way in light of the same. You have another guide, whatever it is. You apparently have difficulty dechiphering it or expressing it. Regardless, you're outside of science as usual, and dedicated to propping up a philosophy as if it were science. Good luck.
I base my knowledge on my personal experience, my education, my comprehension of various written sources, and information from trusted personal sources. I consider new information using that prior knowledge, sources of information that I have come to trust and my ability to logically evaluate its believability.
Where is the computer described in the bible?
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.