Posted on 10/20/2005 9:13:56 AM PDT by gobucks
Intelligent design is as unscientific as the flat Earth theory and should not be taught in school science classes, a coalition representing 70,000 scientists and science teachers has warned.
Yesterday they expressed "grave concern" that the subject was being presented in some Australian schools as a valid alternative to evolution. Proponents of intelligent design claim that some living structures are so complex they are explicable only by the action of an unspecified "intelligent designer".
But the scientists and teachers say this notion of "supernatural intervention" is a belief and not a scientific theory, because it makes no predictions and cannot be tested.
"We therefore urge all Australian governments and educators not to permit the teaching or promulgation of intelligent design as science," they say in an open letter to newspapers.
"To do so would make a mockery of Australian science teaching and throw open the door of science classes to similarly unscientific world views - be they astrology, spoon bending, flat Earth cosmology or alien abductions."
Advertisement AdvertisementThe signatories to the letter include the Australian Academy of Science, the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies and the Australian Science Teachers Association. The coalition was brought together by the executive of the faculty of science at the University of NSW, led by its dean, Professor Mike Archer.
The president-elect of the Australian Science Teachers Association, Paul Carnemolla, said concern had been sparked by the strength of the intelligent design movement in the US, which has the backing of US President, George Bush, and the availability of slick American DVDs presenting the concept as science.
Australian science teachers were not opposed to it being taught in religion or philosophy classes. "But we felt it was important that, as scientists and science educators, we made it very clear to students and parents where we stood on this issue."
At Pacific Hills Christian School in Dural intelligent design is taught in science classes. The school's principal, Ted Boyce, said he was not persuaded by the Australian scientists' and teachers' stance and it was appropriate to teach it as an alternative explanation for the origin of humanity.
"We believe it is as valid to do that as to teach evolution. It would be unacademic and unscientific not to do so," Dr Boyce said.
The chief executive of Christian Schools Australia, Stephen O'Doherty, said intelligent design was likely to be discussed in science classes in many Christian schools and this was beneficial for learning.
It was a complex issue, he said. "The idea that there is an unexplained scientific hole in evolutionary theory … is a debate some scientists are having. To have that discussion in class is good and leads to questions like: how does scientific method work and what is science?"
The Federal Minister for Education, Science and Training, Dr Brendan Nelson, alarmed scientists earlier this year when he said schools should be able to teach intelligent design, but he later clarified his position, saying it should be restricted to religion or philosophy classes.
Australian Nobel laureate Peter Doherty told the Herald recently that intelligent design had no place in science classes.
Ah, that's an interesting point. Should we keep our high school students ignorant of alternate explanations? I wholeheartedly agree about teaching method. But frankly if we can't stimulate an interest in HS students we'll continue to fall further behind the rest of the world. Perhaps a little controversy is just the ticket.
ID is not religion. Or rather it doesn't have to be. As I said in a previous post, a stimulating debate is just what our kids need. Bored as they are.
"ID is not religion. Or rather it doesn't have to be. As I said in a previous post, a stimulating debate is just what our kids need. Bored as they are."
If it's not religion then it is utterly unsubstantiated fringe theory and still doesn't belong in high school science class.
If you can't prove them wrong, then shut up.
Here are some definitions:
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true
Explanations, on the other hand, have no such formal standing. I would put explanation below hypothesis, as hypotheses, at least, should propose something to be tested.
ID is essentially a belief, that is, something held as true (but without the background, science, evidence, data, etc.). There are no intermediate steps between here and there. Divine revelation is not scientific evidence. Neither are tarot cards, opinion polls, astrology, palm reading, phrophesy, or what the neighbors think.
Then you agree with Mr. Behe's testimony today that your tax dollars be used to teach school children that God the intelligent designer may be dead?
Mr. Behe did testify that astrology was a science ...
Only domestic animals have categories called breeds. If the Great Dane and chihuahua were wild animals that existed as seperate populations then they would be classified as seperate species.
Many species in nature are more close to one another in appearance than the great dane and chihuahua are to one another. Many bird species can only be told apart by experts for example.
As for interbreeding, many seperate species in nature can interbreed with one another (lions and tigers for example), and in most cases tests haven't even been done. For example I doubt interbreeding tests have been performed between all 300 species of mouse out there.
All that would be needed for Great Danes and chihuahuas to be considered seperate species is for them to found seperate populations in the wild. Ie a population of Great Danes and a population of chihuahuas with little to no gene flow between them. Just as there is little gene flow between tigers and lions.
Now obviously this hasn't been done, so it isn't known if various dog breeds would form seperate populations. In all likelyhood chihuahuas would not be able to survive in the wild and would die out.
I think the physical differences between dog breeds shows the flexibility of the genome is easily able to account for speciation.
Explanation has the same requirement of cogency as theory, though theory may imply more formalism. I'll grant you that. I however, was not going for formalism. I'm content with explanation. That said, I've seen theories put forth with less foundation than a good explanation. :)
Paradigm shifts happen despite well-founded formalisms.The gauntlet is down, now. The Evo side must prove ID wrong, while ID must fight to stay on its feet. Get to work.
At one time it was.
Seems like a non-sequitur. How did you arrive at this question?
Sorry. I thought you supported ID.
"My point is that the process by which that differentiation was rolled out to us, the end user of the symbol set, (a set which contains words like 'science', faith, theories, etc) is a process that is 'owned'."
Yes, proponents of gay marriage make the same sort of argument. Personally, I have less of a problem redefining marriage then redefining science, though I'd prefer that neither of them redefined just to make people who are not wholly comfortable in their lifestyles or religious faith feel better about themselves.
"I wish Matrix Theory was indeed taught in class, for no other movie more clearly reveals the true intentions of materialists"
Whatever. If most people didn't notice the metaphors then what does it matter? What I am really interested in knowing is whether or not you are willing to have "The Matrix" theory taught side by side with ID as an alternative theory to evolution? Why should ID be promoted and not "The Matrix?"
Paradigm shifts happen despite well-founded formalisms. The gauntlet is down, now. The Evo side must prove ID wrong, while ID must fight to stay on its feet. Get to work.
Thanks for the reply.
If you are doing science, you must follow the rules of science. "Theory" is a specific thing, a well-defined entity. Explanation is a ... what? Explanation is nice, but what is its standing in the methodology of science? "The moon is made of green cheese" is an explanation, but in science it is not a theory, let alone a well-supported theory.
You note that you've "seen theories put forth with less foundation than a good explanation" and that might be. But how were they treated by scientists, as opposed to others? The vernacular term "theory" is different from the scientific term--and generally implies a guess. That is not the same!
You note "The Evo side must prove ID wrong, while ID must fight to stay on its feet."
Wrong! Evolution is a well-supported theory. It has seen 150 years of challenge and has withstood that challenge. It has seen the development of archaeology, genetics, most of paleontology, geology, and biology, and a host of other disciplines and it has survived the challenge of new data. What more do you want?
ID must show that it has any science going for it just to get a foot into the door. So far it has not done so. There is no science there. No predictions, no data, no nothing. Just the final answer, which is a spin-off of divine revelation in sheep's clothing.
ID appears to be a spin-off from creationism, which is based on divine revelation. It was developed following the Supreme Court decision of the 1980s and now is attempting to hide its creationist roots.
So far, nothing I have seen on these threads has led me to believe otherwise; a large percentage of IDers end up quoting the bible! What am I to believe is their motivation?
It is really a sad case that all these creos support a movement whose chief scientist believes in evolution an thinks that school children should be taught that God the intelligent designer may not even exist now.
Please do.
especially the part about church spires ...
(He hates the spires! </Steve Martin > )
< view Replies >
No replies.
Those IDers claim to be VERY good at calculating odds. I wonder if they predicted the odds of my question getting an actual answer were zero.
"Why should ID be promoted and not "The Matrix?"
A better question is this: why should the idea of design not be discussed at all?
From the perspective of someone who was worked a great deal w/ computers, understands how to write code, knows what a user interface is, knows what a compiler does ...
All I know is the basic argument boils down to this: I am sold the idea that DNA randomly organized itself to eventually create this functioning human known as GoBucks.
But the evidence for this, the experiments which show the basic inevitable steps for DNA and RNA to organzie themselves, reproducible experiments in the lab, are missing.
There is no evidence - create life in the lab, why, bang, you have got some evidence; from From E. Darwin to today, no such thing as happened. Just like there is no 'evidence' for a designer. There is just aftermath forensics and rhetoric.
It would be different if the evo proponents were evenly mixed with regards to their faith spectrums. But no: I've met too many of these people, and they are monolithically matriarchalists. Thus, there are motives to avoid looking at 'design'.
This evo/ID fight is a religious fight in disguise. Period.
And to fail to teach kids the true nature of the fight is akin to saying that kids going to Madrassas are being treated as fairly .... because it is part of their culture.
It is a leftist argument, protecting a leftist culture, promoting a leftist agenda. It is bs.
And the fact you ignored what I said about scientists kowtowing to lawyers you totally ignored. You must be a lawyer, with too little time for golf.
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.