Posted on 11/10/2005 4:43:24 AM PST by Nicholas Conradin
In an election in Pennsylvania this week, voters tossed out eight members of the Pittsburgh school board who wanted Intelligent Design theory to be taught alongside evolution in school. But should Intelligent Design -- the theory that living organisms were created at least in part by an intelligent designer, not by a blind process of evolution by natural selection -- be taught in public schools? In one way, the answer to this question is simple: if it's a scientific theory, it should; if it's not, it shouldn't (on pain of flaunting the Establishment Clause). The question, however, is whether Intelligent Design (ID) is a scientific theory.
Opponents dismiss ID's scientific credentials, claiming that the theory is too implausible to qualify as scientific. But this reasoning is fallacious: a bad scientific theory is still a scientific theory, just as a bad car is still a car. There may be pedagogical reasons to avoid teaching bad scientific theories in our public schools, but there are no legal ones. The Constitution contains no interdiction on teaching bad theories, or for that matter demonstrably false ones. As long as theory is science and not religion, there is no legal barrier to teaching it.
To make their case, opponents of teaching ID must show not just that the theory is bad, but that it's not science. This raises a much more complicated question: What is science? What distinguishes genuinely scientific theories from non-scientific ones?
In one form or another, the question has bothered scientists and philosophers for centuries. But it was given an explicit formulation only in the 1920s, by Karl Popper, the most important 20th century philosopher of science. Popper called it "the problem of demarcation," because it asked how to demarcate scientific research and distinguish it from other modes of thought (respectable though they may be in their own right).
One thing Popper emphasized was that a theory's status as scientific doesn't depend on its plausibility. The great majority of scientific theories turn out to be false, including such works of genius as Newton's mechanics. Conversely, the story of Adam and Eve may well be pure truth, but if it is, it's not scientific truth, but some other kind of truth.
So what is the mark of genuine science? To attack this question, Popper examined several theories he thought were inherently unscientific but had a vague allure of science about them. His favorites were Marx's theory of history and Freud's theory of human behavior. Both attempted to describe the world without appeal to super-natural phenomena, but yet seem fundamentally different from, say, the theory of relativity or the gene theory.
What Popper noticed was that, in both cases, there was no way to prove to proponents of the theory that they were wrong. Suppose Jim's parents moved around a lot when Jim was a child. If Jim also moves around a lot as an adult, the Freudian explains that this was predictable given the patterns of behavior Jim grew up with. If Jim never moves, the Freudian explains -- with equal confidence -- that this was predictable as a reaction to Jim's unpleasant experiences of a rootless childhood. Either way the Freudian has a ready-made answer and cannot be refuted. Likewise, however much history seemed to diverge from Marx's model, Marxists would always introduce new modifications and roundabout excuses for their theory, never allowing it to be proven false.
Popper concluded that the mark of true science was falsifiability: a theory is genuinely scientific only if it's possible in principle to refute it. This may sound paradoxical, since science is about seeking truth, not falsehood. But Popper showed that it was precisely the willingness to be proven false, the critical mindset of being open to the possibility that you're wrong, that makes for progress toward truth.
What scientists do in designing experiments that test their theories is create conditions under which their theory might be proven false. When a theory passes a sufficient number of such tests, the scientific community starts taking it seriously, and ultimately as plausible.
When Einstein came up with the theory of relativity, the first thing he did was to make a concrete prediction: he predicted that a certain planet must exist in such-and-such a place even though it had never been observed before. If it turned out that the planet did not exist, his theory would be refuted. In 1919, 14 years after the advent of Special Relativity, the planet was discovered exactly where he said. The theory survived the test. But the possibility of failing a test -- the willingness to put the theory up for refutation -- was what made it a scientific theory in the first place.
To win in the game of science, a theory must be submitted to many tests and survive all of them without being falsified. But to be even allowed into the game, the theory must be falsifiable in principle: there must be a conceivable experiment that would prove it false.
If we examine ID in this light, it becomes pretty clear that the theory isn't scientific. It is impossible to refute ID, because if an animal shows one characteristic, IDers can explain that the intelligent designer made it this way, and if the animal shows the opposite characteristic, IDers can explain with equal confidence that the designer made it that way. For that matter, it is fully consistent with ID that the supreme intelligence designed the world to evolve according to Darwin's laws of natural selection. Given this, there is no conceivable experiment that can prove ID false.
It is sometimes complained that IDers resemble the Marxist historians who always found a way to modify and reframe their theory so it evades any possible falsification, never offering an experimental procedure by which ID could in principle be falsified. To my mind, this complaint is warranted indeed. But the primary problem is not with the intellectual honesty of IDers, but with the nature of their theory. The theory simply cannot be fashioned to make any potentially falsified predictions, and therefore cannot earn entry into the game of science.
None of this suggests that ID is in fact false. For all I've said, it may well be pure truth. But if it is, it wouldn't be scientific truth, because it isn't scientific at all. As such, we shouldn't allow it into our science classrooms. At least that's what the Constitution says.
The writer teaches philosophy at the University of Arizona.
Exodus 20:20-21 is the word of God.
The Literal translation of the verse is more like this:
`And when a man smiteth his man-servant or his handmaid, with a rod, and he hath died under his hand--he is certainly avenged; only if he remain a day, or two days, he is not avenged, for he is his money. (Exo 21:20-21 YLT)
Do you believe any of the Bible? If so, on what authority do you pick and choose verses that you believe are not the Inspired Word of God?
Is your Moral sense better than that of the God of Moses?
Do you believe in the God of Moses?
We see slavery in our times as an evil. Other nations, to this day, do not. In fact, often, death was the alternative to being enslaved. Which is better, slavery or death? As an evolutionist, you have but one answer.
Why would we add unmeasureable entities into the equation? And how is God variable? Does the sun rising every morning takes 12 God-units, while the smell of a flower represents half a God-unit?
So far, science has tried to work without worrying about how much force God applies to individual physical processes. Gravitational theory is written without worrying about if it's God or not doing the pushing ...
I'm wondering how you are trying to convince someone that words inspired by God take precedence over words he's receiving directly from God?
The Literal translation of the verse is more like this:
`And when a man smiteth his man-servant or his handmaid, with a rod, and he hath died under his hand--he is certainly avenged; only if he remain a day, or two days, he is not avenged, for he is his money. (Exo 21:20-21 YLT)
First, I don't think that's the translation that has been accepted for many hundreds of years.
Second, if you accept that there can be translations that significantly change the meaning of God's 'Word', then how can you be sure the 6 day creation translation isn't an inaccurate translation?
Third, the treatment of the subject is essentially the same, only the name has changed from 'slave' to 'man-servant or his handmaid'.
You choose to override what you know in your heart in favor of a few thousand words penned by men two-and-a-half millennia ago. In your heart you know we are all children of God, and a father doesn't favor one child over another. Or maybe you don't. Whatever. If you want to believe that God only talks to a select "special" few, then go ahead. To each his own. Belief does not change reality, though.
The message of the Old Testament is explained in the New.
God wasn't thrilled about divorce or multiple marriage, but he permitted it. The same with slavery. It becomes clear in the New Testament that it is not the ideal
What do you think was his purpose for permitting those things?
Do you keep Saturday (the Sabbath) holy?
Who says it? He does. Which means I'm wondering how you're trying to convince him otherwise ... he's probably wondering why you don't believe he's hearing from God, instead trusting some old book.
I mean, it's an amusing conversation between you two, to be sure, but I don't think it's going to lead anywhere.
Peer review means replication of your experiments or observations. If such replication holds up under peer review, then it passes. Have the IDers submitted anything for peer review?
This was beautifully written. Thank you. :)
What is your point?
The Words of the torah bible are 6 hundred thousand, , not a few thousand.
I just said, God talks to .his flock daily.
Now, I am going to go watch that stupid "Survivor" show. Why, I dont know. I cant remember from week to week who those idiots are, or why I care. later, gator After awhile, crocodile
Translation is a critical issue. Anything that makes it more accurate is important.
The Apostle Paul, however, said: "1Co 7:21 -
Were you called while a slave? It should not be a concern to you. But if you can become free, by all means take the opportunity. "
We see slavery in our times as an evil. Other nations, to this day, do not. In fact, often, death was the alternative to being enslaved. Which is better, slavery or death? As an evolutionist, you have but one answer.
What? 'Which is better, slavery or death? As an evolutionist, you have but one answer.' Your going to have to explain this statement. What's that have to do with the following
Exodus 21:20-21: "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property"
And I repeat...Since this is the literal word of God and God says 'the slave is his property' it's follows that God thinks slavery is OK. There is no condemnation of slavery here.
Or medication. I'm a firm believer in better living through chemistry. However, I think I'd miss the voice in my head if that were to happen.
What is your point?
As I already stated....If you accept that there can be translations that significantly change the meaning of God's 'Word', (example, that slavery is OK) then how can you be sure the 6 day creation translation isn't an inaccurate translation?
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.