Posted on 03/13/2004 11:53:26 AM PST by js1138
In primary education that's a problem. Things can't get off the ground when the beginning principles are not believed. But skepticism is also problematic in higher education everywhere. There too, the popular acceptance of a democratic rights ideology (e.g. free speech arguments for anything) hampers effective critical challenges even in higher education.
When there are two or three major debates being entwined, it's no surprise things are complicated and agitating. And one party's misunderstanding of another's theory is not cause enough to take and run with a presumed autonomy of fields of thought and pass judgment where that autonomy ceases to exist--while at the same time contending that education is content neutral. A real scientists tries not to do that.
The threads of influence and consequence are often many to count. But some of the larger strands entwined as part the movement should be clearly seen. One larger strand is the idea of neutrality in the public sphere. Another is the requisite autonomy of fields of study. A third is the misunderstanding of parties, a fourth is the purposeful disinformation of parties. None of these threads are unique to evolution debates. That they get tangled is obvious. The constant tension between content neutrality and theoretical autonomy seems to imply another larger strand.
The IDists like to think this. There is no indication that this new approach has yielded anything yet. No new insights, no new theories, no explanations, no new evidence. So, instead of tweaking their approach to make it work, they blame an imaginary monopoly that scientists hold over scientific inquiry (as if!). And they try to destroy the current system by destroying science education and by inundating the public with volumes of demogoguery.
I'd say it is under more. If you don't think so, you don't read much science. What you won't find, however, is constant scrutiny of the shape of the earth. Some things are established.
The problem with "challenges" to evolution is that they are at the level of challenging the shape of the earth. The real work in evolution has moved on.
You think the Theory of Evolution is under more scrutiny than any other theory? That may be so. I would not be surprised. The news seems to bear that out, too.
I'm nervous about any "science" that has as it's premise or goal to shoot down the Theory of Evolution. If the Theory of Evolution is ever discredited it should be by way of the standrd methods of observation, testing, etc.
Otherwise I'm sure you know very well that I find the Theory of Evolution, insofar as it supposes any proofs beyond its capacity for observation, to be a preposterous faith.
I don't think it is kind or fair to reduce the work of those who have proposed thoughtful critiques to the level of "challenging the shape of the earth." I have yet to see you post any detailed rebuttal of their claims. And I certainly have yet to see a satisfactory explanation of how so much intelligence and design could spring up in the universe without an intelligent designer.
I've tried to say that this issue may involve a scope that is larger than merely a propagandist's and unscientific dislike of what constitutes the consensus of scientific knowledge, paying less attention to the particular kinds of people that are involved in this event in Ohio.
And so they should quit thinking?
The only thing "new" about their approach is that it is asking questions based on observations that may bring to light that indeed, God does exist. I'd like to know what questions they're asking and see what evidence they would propose. Some folks (whom I am more inclined to equate with torch and pitchfork types) wish to deny them a hearing altogether.
Science is looking for intelligent life in outer space. Shall we accord them the same courtesy of mocking their pursuit? Shall we disallow any and all discussion of their observations and expression from the classroom?
You know I made no such claim, and as your link makes clear, the issue is being addressed with considerably more care than your remark about the shape of the earth.
I am not sure what you are driving at here.
It's nothing. Pay no attention.
Jokes, mocking, and satire rarely univocal.
All but the first of these statements are constantly challenged on FR and at hundreds of creationist and ID websites.
There are some interesting fringe theories in science, such as ones concerning the origin of petroleum. One of the things that makes them interesting is that they are subject to experiment. Even ESP is subject to experiment. Oddly enough, people continue to experiment in those fringe areas where it is possible to experiment, even though they are sometimes ridiculed.
What makes ID a non-credible idea is that it is impossible to frame an ID experiment in a way that makes it different from a mainstream experiment. There is simply nothing about ID that makes it different from science except its assertion that traditional science can't explain certain things. This is an assertion which, when made sufficiently specific, is constantly in retreat. What makes it maddening to scientists is that there is an implied moral imperative not to attempt to explain certain things.
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.