Posted on 09/22/2005 8:25:42 PM PDT by Crackingham
A court case that begins Monday in Pennsylvania will be the first to determine whether it is legal to teach a controversial idea called intelligent design in public schools. Intelligent design, often referred to as ID, has been touted in recent years by a small group of proponents as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution. ID proponents say evolution is flawed. ID asserts that a supernatural being intervened at some point in the creation of life on Earth.
Scientists counter that evolution is a well-supported theory and that ID is not a verifiable theory at all and therefore has no place in a science curriculum. The case is called Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Prominent scientists Thursday called a teleconference with reporters to say that intelligent design distorts science and would bring religion into science classrooms.
"The reason this trial is so important is the Dover disclaimer brings religion straight into science classrooms," said Alan Leshner, the CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and executive publisher of the journal Science. "It distorts scientific standards and teaching objectives established by not only state of Pennsylvania but also leading scientific organizations of the United States."
"This will be first legal challenge to intelligent design and we'll see if they've been able to mask the creationist underpinnings of intelligent design well enough so that the courts might allow this into public school," said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), which co-hosted the teleconference.
AAAS is the world's largest general science society and the NCSE is a nonprofit organization committed to helping ensure that evolution remains a part of public school curriculums.
The suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of concerned parents after Dover school board officials voted 6-3 last October to require that 9th graders be read a short statement about intelligent design before biology lessons on evolution. Students were also referred to an intelligent design textbook to learn more information about the controversial idea. The Dover school district earlier this month attempted to prevent the lawsuit from going forward, but a federal judge ruled last week that the trial would proceed as scheduled. The lawsuit argues that intelligent design is an inherently religious argument and a violation of the First Amendment that forbids state-sponsored schools from funding religious activities.
"Although it may not require a literal reading of Genesis, [ID] is creationism because it requires that an intelligent designer started or created and intervened in a natural process," Leshner said. "ID is trying to drag science into the supernatural and redefine what science is and isn't."
I am aware that afer several centures of successful science, philosophers have attemped to rationalize what it is that scientists do. They haven't been very successful. there is no philosophical definition that helps scientists create new techniques for investigation.<<
I'm so happy to find that scientists ignore logic and reason.
My friends are really going to be on the floor on this post.
DK
That comment made everyone in the house laugh out loud.
I love the term supernatural. If it is a phenomenon that occurs and is inexplicable, by current standards, it is still a phenomenon.
OTOH, if it is not observable, by current standards, it is not a phenomenon. It is not a very useful term. The reason ID is accused of invoking supernatural causes is precisely because it doesn't deal with phenomena. It examines a state -- the existence of complex objects -- and posits a history that cannot be studied or described or subjected to any kind of evidentiary search.
If ID produces an actual hypothesis, a history that can be tested for congruency with the laws of physics and chemistry, then it can claim to be a science.
> That comment made everyone in the house laugh out loud.
So, rather than answer the question...
No, really: are ROs trained in the scientific method? Are they forever doing experiments? This actually seems rather counter to the proper conduct of their jobs: making sure everything runs normally, and not screwing with things.
Or are we to just assume that just 'cuz they've got "nuclear" in their job title that that makes 'em scientists?
In either case it's a bit disturbing to hear that some of the people tasked with the proper operation of nuclear reactors believe that miracles are as proper an explanation for the way it works as any other...
Re your post 48, I have no problem banning Christianity in public schools, being of the opinion that this is instruction that should take place in the home and church. My problem is, as I said in another post, that certain religious instruction is favored in public school, such as Islam, "in exclusion" of Christianity. Generally, but not always, the "establishment clause" is invoked only regarding Christianity, not religious instruction generally.
Logic and reason are useful editing functions, but they do not produce original ideas. They just weed out bad ideas. Science is a work of imagination, not logic. Computers are kings of logic. They do not (yet) produce original ideas.
I would not be at all surprised to see your friends rolling on the floor.
The term 'nascent' was used by Spencer in Psychology, 1855.
Ever thought about quitting while you're losing?
A computer scientist that has been working on software since the 70's to solve our unsolved problems has come up with solutions.
The proof has to be under 100 steps (in order to be verifiable) etc.
He was successful. Or rather his program was.
Of course logic and reason are useful editing functions. But you claimed philosophy trailed science and was not useful.
>>I am aware that afer several centures of successful science, philosophers have attemped to rationalize what it is that scientists do. They haven't been very successful. there is no philosophical definition that helps scientists create new techniques for investigation.<<
Your words, not mine.
>>Science is a work of imagination, not logic. js 1138<<
or
>>Genius is one per cent inspiration and ninety-nine per cent perspiration. Thomas A. Edison <<
Who to believe, JS1138 or TAE?
Tough choice.
DK
My friends are going to be laughing for HOURS.
Yes, we are so trained. And miracles never explain how something works, but it can explain why somethings happened.
I'm sure Thomas Edison was highly trained in Epistomology. That is why he was so successful. Every day before breakfast he read a few verses from Kant for inspiration.
In fact every great scientist and inventor was a flop before acquiring a degree in philosphy. In fact, Science could hardly crawl across the floor before Kuhn.
Does that really sound like a good attitude for someone playing with nukes? Where do you work?
From Wiki: Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony.
The use of cc or ck is immaterial since it is a translation of a name into a language that did not then exist. Quit nitpicking the useless.
Amino acids won't all line up any which way in any length. Only some combinations work. Those small combos that work build upon themselves. Those that don't work either fall apart, or never happen in the first place.
see 135
Explain poison.
The idea that poisons evolved over millions of years is based on faith rather than scientific data. It isn’t rational to think that animals accidentally stored poisons in their bodies for use against enemies without accidentally poisoning themselves. Why would creatures evolve resistance to their own poisons before the poisons evolved? If the poison evolved before they evolved a resistance to it, they would die from their own poison. Poison doesn’t make sense from an evolutionary standpoint. No scientist has ever seen a non-poisonous snake evolve into a poisonous one. The only reason for believing that poison evolved is blind faith in the evolutionary myth.
You moved too soon. The tension hadn't built up high enough to release the secret weapon. I fear we may not get as many now as we could have with that single volley.
I'm sure Thomas Edison was highly trained in Epistomology. That is why he was so successful. Every day before breakfast he read a few verses from Kant for inspiration.
In fact every great scientist and inventor was a flop before acquiring a degree in philosphy. In fact, Science could hardly crawl across the floor before Kuhn.<<
I can tell who is a big flop without a degree in Philosophy! (if you have one, I apologize, it isn't showing)
You have to have a degree in philosophy to use logic and reason?
Can you say logical fallacy?
DK
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.