Skip to comments.
Grow Some Testables: Intelligent design ducks the rigors of science.
Slate.com ^
| Sept. 29, 2005
| William Saletan
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 ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: crevo; crevolist; darwin; evolution; jesussaves; junkscience; unintelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-156 next last
To: coloradan
Exactly - questions about God and ultimate origins belong in a religion or comparative philosophy class. They have no place in science class. If Intelligent Design is a scientific hypothesis, it deserves to be evaluated through the scientific method. Only then can it be considered a valid explanatory model.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
41
posted on
10/01/2005 3:49:08 AM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: Junior
42
posted on
10/01/2005 4:10:21 AM PDT
by
PatrickHenry
(Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
To: taxesareforever
Slapping the word "research" on it doesn't make it science.
To: ReignOfError
"Slapping the word "research" on it doesn't make it science."
Well couldn't one "research" the minds of the evolutionists made possible by these evolutionary protection threads?
I think a case could be made based upon the method of operation of the evolutionists mind, now somebody thought it a great victory to post a "Fast Eddie" Rendell support of evolution thread.
There is plenty of EVIDENCE that is certainly TESTABLE left by the minds of the evolutionists....
To: indcons
Is SETI science?
As I understand things, serious ID is heavily oriented towards math, probability and information theory. It could probably exist as a field of rigorous study without much immediate "testable" implications. For example, what is the minimum size family of specified complexity criteria that would warrant calling something the product of design? That would be applicable to any number of practical fields (forensics, archeology, and SETI, say), but offer no obvious hypotheses in and of itself. And if some biologist applies those criteria to some natural phenomena, well ... so what? The natural phenomena meet the criteria or not. That is not IDs problem, except insofar as the criteria are theoretically sound, which has nothing to do with the specific hypothesis being put forth by the practical researcher. I frankly fail to see the non-political controversy of ID.
45
posted on
10/01/2005 4:52:59 AM PDT
by
chinche
To: psychoknk
How does one test the Darwinian model? What is the null and what is the alternative? What evidence might cause one to reject the null?
46
posted on
10/01/2005 4:55:02 AM PDT
by
chinche
To: Just mythoughts
LOL....nice try. Didn't work.....try again.
47
posted on
10/01/2005 8:21:29 AM PDT
by
indcons
(How about rooting for our side for a change, you liberal morons?)
To: Wormwood
Tell you what. You go back in time and record evolution happening, and I'll "believe" it.
Darwinsism is a flapping corpse. Non agenda driven scientists would be happy to have people question their theories, it would help them sharpen their wits and try to further broaden their knowledge.
In one or two generations, it'll be all over except for the growling in the corners.
So you're complaining that ID doesn't necessarily have another explanation for the existence of life and varying life forms. So therefore they aren't allowed a little question or two.
Odd. I though scientists welcomed questions. Agenda driven scientists don't.
Have a nice day.
48
posted on
10/01/2005 8:35:14 AM PDT
by
little jeremiah
(A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
To: goldstategop
How about this: In a science class, a book such as "Darwin's Black Box" is discussed, and the questions Behe brings up are defeated or dissected. What would be wrong with that?
49
posted on
10/01/2005 8:47:27 AM PDT
by
little jeremiah
(A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
To: little jeremiah
That's what I think would happen if the IDers force their way into the classrooms by legal means. Science teachers would take such delight in exposing ID for the claptrap that it is that the IDers would then scream to get it taken *out* of the classroom.
50
posted on
10/01/2005 8:55:57 AM PDT
by
blowfish
To: indcons
Oh for cryin' out loud.
Will you crevo maniacs please get this settled? Please?
51
posted on
10/01/2005 9:01:41 AM PDT
by
Skooz
("Political Correctness is the handmaiden of terrorism" - Michelle Malkin)
To: TheCrusader
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.
False equivocation and false dichotomy.
52
posted on
10/01/2005 9:05:21 AM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: TheCrusader
Evolution, on the other hand, is held entirely as a theory
What else would be? What other kinds of explanations for phenomena are there in science, what are more certain than "theory"?
53
posted on
10/01/2005 9:07:28 AM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: chinche
How does one test the Darwinian model?
If you find Precambrian rabbit fossils or a transposon in whales and cows that does not also appear in hippos, you've just thrown a monkey wrench into common descent. There's your test.
54
posted on
10/01/2005 9:09:27 AM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: little jeremiah
In one or two generations, it'll be all over except for the growling in the corners.
Yep.
Any day now....
55
posted on
10/01/2005 9:10:13 AM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: indcons
Evidently the Slate crew doesn't use spellcheck??
56
posted on
10/01/2005 9:11:15 AM PDT
by
Salvation
(†With God all things are possible.†)
To: little jeremiah
And in an astronomy class, we present literature from moon landing deniers. And in history class, we present information from holocaust deniers. Just to give students a balanced view of all sides of the respective debates.
57
posted on
10/01/2005 9:14:08 AM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: little jeremiah
Here's a suggestion. Why can't science teachers spend a few minutes, after or during a discussion on evolution, say something like this: "There are some scientists and others who have some criticisms of the theory of evolution. They say there are holes in its arguments. If anyone would like to read about their criticisms, here are some books they have written. You're welcome to read them after school." There are fringe criticisms of every theory in science. Should we treat all of them the same way?
But I am currently reading Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and recently finished "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" by Richard Milton.
Have you ever read a good description of evolution, written by an evolutionist?
To: little jeremiah
59
posted on
10/01/2005 10:16:02 AM PDT
by
LiteKeeper
(The radical secularization of America is happening)
To: little jeremiah
Until very recently, I never ever (well, hardly ever!) visited any evolution threads. No point. And I plan not to in the future. But I am currently reading Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and recently finished "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" by Richard Milton. Why not have a discussion of the arguments they raise? What could be the harm? If authors such as those two (and there are others) are rejected out-of-hand because they don't accept Darwinist evolutionary theory, then what kind of truth is science searching for?Since you're in a reading mood, I suggest you pick up one or two other books, written by conservatives: Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller, and Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart.
60
posted on
10/01/2005 10:18:07 AM PDT
by
jennyp
(WHAT I'M READING NOW: my sterling prose)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-156 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson