Posted on 05/03/2006 8:23:06 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
When you get something that stands up under scrutiny as science, it can go into science class.
Holy SH!T, brilliant deduction. Who'd you think IDers were talking about when they said someone intelligent designed it, Al Gore?
"All you have to do is get yourself some evidence and you'll have a chair at the big boys table."
It is this arrogance, as displayed in your response that is at the core of my point. IT IS THEORY....and those who express ANY reservation, even SCIENTIST who vary from the narrow lock step orthodoxy are attacked and branded as "unscientific", rubes, relgious zealots..etc
I do not hold to the view that ID should be taught in schools...I hold to the view that THEORY should be labeled as such and not presented as unquestionable fact.
Now, juding by the ever declining vote totals for LIBERTAINS, I would think, (thank Intelligent Design), that this little arrogant species will soon be extinct.
Gravity can be proven...
A couple points:
They label, without any qualifications, as FACT all facets of evolotion theory, defending it as SCIENCE, and suggesting that ANYTHING (not just ID) that does not rubber stamp their views is NOT science....
I don't know of any scientist that has labeled as fact every facet of evolutionary theory. Specific points that are more controversial are modified as new data is gathered. ID has not met even a tiny fraction of the burden of predictive evidence that evolutionary theory has.
However, evolution is NOT a fully proven theory...compelling yes, but not 100% established...
No theory in science (outside of pure mathematics) is ever 100%, fully proven; not gravitational theory, not the chemical theory of periodicity; all you can say about any well-established theory, including these or evolution, is that enough evidence has been gathered to give us extreme confidence in the general form of the existing models.
Yet, the education establishment does not treat the subject as theory, but as fact, and they atack ANY descent...even from evolution scientist....
I assume you meant dissent - descent would help evolution, right?! (Kidding around - I'm sure I've made a few spelling errors today myself)
Look, I'd welcome any dissent, if it could actually make it through the same channels and burdens that any other supposed breakthrough in science has to undergo - so far there's just no demonstrated need for a paradigm shift in this area of science; at least not one that's scientifically motivated.
<thunderous appause!>
No it can't. Not per se, else Einstein would have big BIG trouble. It has been revised many times. Observing something falling down is just an observation. Why it falls down continues ot be a theory.
Before you go further on this line, read: this
Once you understand what a theory (and isn't) is we will have the basis for discussion.
I can still recall Father Conagher pounding his fist and saying everything can't be exactly literal in the Good Book. Then he'd read very rapidly in Latin as we tried to stay awake. Then he'd pound his fist again and wake us all up.
Just come off of reading DUmmie FUnnies? p-j would be proud! ;)
ID had its chance. They had a six-week trial, and every opportunity to put their best foot forward. This is the result:
[After a page of references to expert testimony] It is therefore readily apparent to the Court that ID fails to meet the essential ground rules that limit science to testable, natural explanations. (3:101-03 (Miller); 14:62 (Alters)). Science cannot be defined differently for Dover students than it is defined in the scientific community as an affirmative action program, as advocated by Professor Fuller, for a view that has been unable to gain a foothold within the scientific establishment. Although ID's fa ilure to meet the ground rules of science is sufficient for the Court to conclude that it is not science, out of an abundance of caution and in the exercise of completeness, we will analyze additional arguments advanced regarding the concepts of ID and science.Source: Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al.[snip]
The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications. Both Drs. Padian and Forrest testified that recent literature reviews of scientific and medical-electronic databases disclosed no studies supporting a biological concept of ID. (17:42-43 (Padian); 11:32-33 (Forrest)). On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." (22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. (21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25 (blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe's argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe)).
After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science. Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents', as well as Defendants' argument that to introduce ID to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum. Moreover, ID's backers have sought to a void the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation. However, we commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true "scientific" alternative to evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science.
< /Luddite Mode>
Opinions vary. But not by much.
Stating that He formed man from the dust of the ground precludes the idea that God formed man from an animal by mutation. There would be no reason to breathe the breath of life into man if man came from an already living creature.
Thanks for the ping; and I agree. This kind of article is good news due to the associated implications.
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.