U of I president:teach only evolution in {University}science classes (Connection to PA court fight)

KGW ^ | 6 Oct 2005 | AP

[Ford4000]

I didn't say science can answer everything. Please reread what I said.
"They can never admit, for example, that any cause of evolutionary change is unknown or unknowable. "
Why admit to something that is false?

That is exactly what you are saying. If science cannot answer something it is because it is not knowable for some reason. If course, science can speculate endlessly but I don't consider that type of "science" to be worthy of the credibility we rightfully give to the hard sciences.

[Ford4000]

You obviously can't tell propaganda when you hear it. Mein Kampf is a work of political propaganda.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"That is exactly what you are saying"

No it wasn't, reread it again. I never said science can answer everything. It CAN however answer a great many things, like whether common descent is correct and what processes evolution most likely used. It cannot *prove* these things, but then again no science can prove it's claims.

"If science cannot answer something it is because it is not knowable for some reason."

No, it means we don't know the answer yet. ID says that we will never know the answers, but provides no evidence to back this up. I don't know what the limits of human knowledge are, and nobody else does. We certainly haven't approached those limits yet though. ID would have us throw up our hands and say *We will never know*. It's defeatism at it's worst, giving up without trying.

"If course, science can speculate endlessly but I don't consider that type of "science" to be worthy of the credibility we rightfully give to the hard sciences."

Which is why ID is not science and has no place in a science classroom.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You obviously can't tell propaganda when you hear it. Mein Kampf is a work of political propaganda."

It was his personal feelings. It is the best look we have at his sick mind; his later pronouncements really don't contradict what excerpted anyway. You obviously can't handle the truth; Hitler was a creationist.

[Diamond]

It has nothing to do with philosophy but the clear difference between empirical observation and mere conjecture.

1) The practice of science is impossible without an underlying philosophy of science. Your positivistic assumptions are neither themselves empirically verifiable nor logically undeniable. 2) If scientific methodology were strictly restricted to what is observable, then you couldn't even call much of theoretical physics that refer to unverifiable and unobservable things like forces, fields, and universal laws, "scientific", but the postulation of such entities is no less the product of scientific inquiry because of that. A design postulate is no less scientific than is a evolutionary postulate when it comes to making inferences about the unobservable past. Both rely on indirect observation and inference, as opposed to direct observation.

Cordially,

[Diamond]

It has nothing to do with philosophy but the clear difference between empirical observation and mere conjecture.

1) The practice of science is impossible without an underlying philosophy of science. Your positivistic assumptions are neither themselves empirically verifiable nor logically undeniable. 2) If scientific methodology were strictly restricted to what is observable, then you couldn't even call much of theoretical physics that refer to unverifiable and unobservable things like forces, fields, and universal laws, "scientific", but the postulation of such entities is no less the product of scientific inquiry because of that. A design postulate is no less scientific than is a evolutionary postulate when it comes to making inferences about the unobservable past. Both rely on indirect observation and inference, as opposed to direct observation.

Cordially,

[Ford4000]

In any practical sense we will never know what caused like to appear as it does. The strawman auguement that no science can be proved is really an attempt to elevate evolution science far above what it deserves because hard science can be reproduced in the lab while the history of a few million years ago cannot - certainly not to the level of being called (in its entirety) a fact worthy of silencing all other inquiry.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with critiquing evolution in the classroom as long as it is acedemically serious.

[Ford4000]

If course, a power-mad genocidal maniac would never LIE to achieve power. Get a grip.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"If course, a power-mad genocidal maniac would never LIE to achieve power. Get a grip."

He wouldn't be lying if he believed it. There is no evidence he didn't. There are just your feelings. Sorry, doesn't cut it.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"In any practical sense we will never know what caused like to appear as it does."

I assume you mean to say *life*. In a practical sense we can know a great deal about what caused life to appear as it does, your incredulity not withstanding.

"The strawman auguement that no science can be proved is really an attempt to elevate evolution science far above what it deserves because hard science can be reproduced in the lab while the history of a few million years ago cannot - certainly not to the level of being called (in its entirety) a fact worthy of silencing all other inquiry."

It's not a straw-man, it's a fact. No theories in science are ever proved.

"There is absolutely nothing wrong with critiquing evolution in the classroom as long as it is acedemically serious."

ID isn't academically serious. It's a joke, on both science and religion.

[Ford4000]

"No evidence he didn't."

What lame nonsense. Hitler was attempting to exploit popular prejudices like as politicians do today. The philisophy is called utilitarianism.

[Ford4000]

It's not a straw-man, it's a fact. No theories in science are ever proved.

Dance all you want, evolution is not Boyle's Law.

[orionblamblam]

> What happened can never be determined with any accuracy so it is all a waste of time

Are you refering to criminal forensic investigations as well?

"No convictions without a confession."

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"What lame nonsense. Hitler was attempting to exploit popular prejudices like as politicians do today. The philisophy is called utilitarianism."

No, he believed it. He got these beliefs from the Viennese Christian Social movement. You're inability to face reality is not evidence, and is such lame nonsense.

BTW, the philosophy you were searching for is not *utilitarianism*. That's the greatest good for the greatest number.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Dance all you want, evolution is not Boyle's Law."

It's just as strong. Boyle's *law*, BTW, has not been proved.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" This is opposite to applied science, which evolution would be a subset of."

Evolution is both a *pure* and *applied* science, like all the ones you listed for both sides are. It's an artificial distinction.

[Diamond]

My point is that Bacon believed in limiting the science to essentially experiments that could be done in a lab. He didn't take into consideration that the scientific method does extend beyond the lab and beyond to the immediately observable. Historical sciences are just as valid. They make testable predictions. Astronomy, cosmology, geology and paleontology all fit this description.

I totally agree, but for the very same reasons regarding the historical character of origins science I disagree that "science will have to change to incorporate the supernatural for ID to fit." It is simply circular to exclude the postulation of nonmechanistic (mental or intelligent) agency in scientific origins theories based soley on an exclusively naturalistic definition of science. All historical theories depend on making inferences based on indirect observations in an attempt to reconstruct past conditions or causes from present facts. Excluding intelligent agency in an objective historical investigation a priori based merely on a naturalistist philosophy makes about as much sense as saying that a homocide detective is not being scientific because he attributes the cause of the dead body to some intelligent agency rather than the result of some accidental mechanism. One hypothesis or the other may turn out to be true, but one cannot say that either hypothesis and/or the investigation is not a scientific one, or using a scientific methodology. In fact, if the detective ruled out any possiblity of agency a priori he would never find the murderer, if indeed the death was the result of murder.

Cordially,

[jonathanmo]

Seems to be a lot of crickets chirping ... well done, sir...