Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action

American Society for Clinical Investigation ^ | 01 May 2006 | Alan D. Attie, Elliot Sober, Ronald L. Numbers, etc.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Good, then we can tell some scientists that they can stop telling everybody that God used evolution to create mankind."

Name one evolution acceptor who wants that taught in a government classroom.

[Revolting cat!]

Don't teach the children "Creationism", "ID" or whatever it's called. Teach them whatever's the capricious, up-to-date, arbitrary definition of science. OK, great. And outside of "science" classes, just teach them scepticism, I say, that's all, so they'll be prepared to challenge the looney assertions of the true believers of either side.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Now see what you've done
Got me talking to myself"

There's no accounting for taste.

[WKB]

Were you included in my first post on
this matter?

[Stultis]

Why we don't say that science doesn't consider the supernatural, and leave it at that?

I agree that it is, and essentially always has been to date, a factually accurate statement to say that no (successful) scientific theory or principle has included the supernatural as a mechanism, or in any substantive way "considered" the supernatural.

However, as a philosophical fine point, I wouldn't necessarily "leave it at that". I might, and in fact would, recommend leaving it at that. But if somebody wants to try constructing some kind of scientific theory or principle that includes the supernatural, I'd say they're welcome to make the attempt.

I can't imagine how this project would possibly succeed. It would certainly seem that any theory with a supernatural mechanism must be invincibly ad hoc, unless you simply assert that the supernatural mechanism will behave according to set rules, which then would make it indistinguishable from a natural force or principle.

Nevertheless I hold that the "nature of science" always has been and always will be determined by the content of science, in that if a successful and genuinely useful scientific theory emerges which somehow violates our current understanding of the nature of science, it will always be incorporated into science and thus change our understanding of what constitutes the nature of science.

The flip side of this concession is that it is useless for antievolutionists to whine about science excluding the supernatural. All they have to do is create a genuinely useful scientific theory that includes the supernatural, and they can change this.

[Dimensio]

Were you included in my first post on this matter?

I was not. This does not answer my question. You have launched an accusation against two posters. I do not find it unreasonable to expect you to support this accusation with evidence.

[WKB]

Were you included in my first post on this matter?
I was not.



Then that means I wasn't talking to you
Therefore I have nothing to say to you.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Except that
3 posts in 1 minute responding to the same post (115) by metmom plus two more immediatley
And that is supposed to count as a critique of those posts?

"just looks mighty suspicious."

To you. :)

"Not that I would ever accuse anyone of ganging up of course. BTW you misspelled immediately"

Um, no, you did though. :) I didn't even use the word. :)

[trashcanbred]

Why do you think get fooled by Turing tests?

Because I am in such awe of Alan Turing's replies to the objections to the test itself that my subconcious just wants to prove him right./sarc

Like the "Heads in the Sand Objection"
We don’t want to think of ourselves as mere machines.

Reply - we should still explore the possibility

[Stultis]

Oh look, WKB galloping in on on a white horse.

Maybe now, having "rescued" the utterly non-imperiled metmom, he can use it to ride down manbearpig?

[metmom]

I didn't say anything about it being taught in the classroom. There are still plenty of posters here on the evo threads that use that argument. That's how they reconcile creation and evolution.

[Liberal Classic]

Hey everybody look all the big bad brave evos
ganging up on metmom.
Is anyone really surprised?

Hello. If you have something to say about one of my posts, please make your point plainly. Thank you.

[WKB]

Giddy up
Giddy up

Well I’m a long tall texan
I ride a big white horse
(he rides from texas on a big white horse)

Well I’m a long tall texan
I ride a big white horse
(he rides from texas on a big white horse)

[WKB]

I'll keep that in mind ...next time.

[Liberal Classic]

There's no better time than the present.

[WKB]

save your keystrokes guys
I am going to bed.

[Havoc]

all of that is bunk. The evidence is not in dispute. The spin is. Try again.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I didn't say anything about it being taught in the classroom."

Then why do you want to "...tell some scientists that they can stop telling everybody that God used evolution to create mankind." if it is not done in a government classroom? Why would you forbid someone from saying that the physical evidence is consistent with Christianity but not with a literal reading of Genesis? Who do you think you are to tell someone what they can or can't say when they are outside of a government classroom?

[Dimensio]

Then that means I wasn't talking to you Therefore I have nothing to say to you.

Curious. It appears as though you are employing a double-standard. Not one of the people to whom you were replying had directed their posts to you, yet you responded to them. Are you being intentionally hypocritical?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Are you being intentionally hypocritical?"

Not necessarily. While some people do intentionally embrace positions that are hypocritical, some don't. Some are just constitutionally incapable of holding a consistent position. Others have a mental disorder that enables them to hold positions that are mutually exclusive. We don't know exactly what his situation is, and it would be wrong to assume we knew which one it was.