Intelligent Design ruling

[spacedteddybear]

Just because something lacks a clear scientific explanation at this time doesn't mean that it won't have one in the future. IMO, humans are far (far, far) away from understanding the universe. I think that humans tend to think at any given point in history that they've got it all figured out, only to be continuously proven wrong as time progresses.

The scientific method has only been in existence for the past 300 years. As our understanding of the universe expanded beyond " God did it", which had been quite the popularly flawed reasoning to begin with before the scientific method was adopted, we began to correct many assumptions made by early natural philosophers ( IE Aristotle). Some of those early philosophers lived in a time where the majority of the population was a bunch of illiterate goat herders. But never has there been any conclusion to a hypotheses made in the scientific community since then that had not been backed up by empirical data. Just because there is something that cannot be 100% explained, doesn't mean that you can make an arbitrary assertion and claim it is an explaination to the problem.

ID is at best, an assertion. It's not an explaination because to be given one, means that you now know more about a particular subject or system that you did before it was given to you.

 

[Adam]

Just to clarify, I'm not arguing for or against intelligent design. However, I do think that someone arguing for science should have the facts straight. To preface this, I'm not at all trying to attack you personally. Not at all. I just like the discussion.

The scientific method has only been in existence for the past 300 years.

Not according to some quick research on the internet that would indicate that scientific methodology has been in existence for at least 1000 years. Doesn't mean that research is correct, but I doubt that scientific thinking has only been around since around 1700 A.D.

Some of those early philosophers lived in a time where the majority of the population was a bunch of illiterate goat herders.

Really? Over 50% of the population would herd sheep? Hmmm. I don't believe it, but I'm open to discussion. That, and illiteracy doesn't equate to stupidity or lack of reasoning.

But never has there been any conclusion to a hypotheses made in the scientific community since then that had not been backed up by empirical data.

Okay. I'll call you on that, because I don't believe it. Even if true, doesn't mean the data was correct. Every scientist should know that it's human nature to make the data match the hypothesis. Yes, I've been there.

Just because there is something that cannot be 100% explained, doesn't mean that you can make an arbitrary assertion and claim it is an explaination to the problem.

Of course you can. I agree, though, that isn't good science.

 

[avaserfi]

Not according to some quick research on the internet that would indicate that scientific methodology has been in existence for at least 1000 years. Doesn't mean that research is correct, but I doubt that scientific thinking has only been around since around 1700 A.D.

This depends how you define scientific thinking. There has always been scientific thinking, of sorts. Within literature this scientific thinking has essentially gone through three main phases: Greek, Renaissance (15th - 18th century) and Modern (19th century - current).

As time progressed scientific thinking needed to focus less on philosophy for all the answers as the tools of physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics were formed. Along side this, the philosophers and scientists of the relative future had their predecessors mistakes and achievements to reflect on.

If one refers to scientific theory as creation and testing of a hypothesis this can be seen as far back as the Greek days, even if only in a primitive form, with Pythagoras and his belief that nature can be defined via forms [geometry]. In studying acoustics of sound (yes, really ) he was able to prove his theory right, by the standards of the day. One important thing to note is that today rather than prove right, science seeks to disprove - if a hypothesis cannot be tested, it cannot be disproved making it poorly constructed by current methodology standards.

If you are actually interested in this subject R.G. Collingwood's Idea of Nature is an informative read.

 

[itschris]

I don't see why both viewpoints aren't presented to students--along with some of the strengths and weaknesses of each position. IMO, neither the evolution nor the intelligent design stance has been proven.

Personally, I believe that God used the process of evolution to create the life forms that exist today. Why can't religion and science live in harmony?

Well said. I think the best way to teach children is to allow them access to as many viewpoints, presented in their correct context and allow them to form their own opinions as they mature. Where is the harm in that?

I'm saying that one is right over the other, but c'mon. By excluding one, you're say the remaining theory is the defacto explanation. That's just not right.

 

[avaserfi]

The fundamental issue with teaching intelligent design in public schools involves constitutional separation of church and state coupled with intelligent design's inability to be treated as a [dis]provable scientific theory and its direct relation to religion. Any theory, no matter its following or logic, is not considered good, in the scientific sense, if its basic hypothesis cannot be tested and retested in an attempt to [dis]prove it. On the other hand, evolution is able to fulfill these terms and has done so over the years in such a fashion that it has not been successfully disproved thus making it a valid scientific theory.

The religious relation to intelligent design and its inability to be treated as a proper scientific theory is why it does not belong in state/federally funded schools. Rather, it can be taught in appropriate settings such as at home, church or anywhere else that does not violate the constitution.

A quality example of a logical theory that cannot be tested is Talcott Parsons AGIL paradigm within sociology which is extremely intuitive, but completely untestable making its scientific use virtually nonexistent. At the time when Parsons created this paradigm Parsons realized there was no statistical method, yet invented, that could possibly test his theory. Because of this the theory created without regard to testablility. However, during Parsons lifetime the statistical power to test such a theory has been developed, rather than make the theory testable Parsons wrote an essay saying that his theory was so well logically devised that it need not be tested, merely accepted. The inability to test Parsons theory, despite its brilliance, is one reason why it is rarely used today in actual practice and is rather taught in classical theory courses as a background in sociological thought and growth.

 

[majorloser]

Well, it is hard to resist after something resurrects

This is one thread I hated to follow and moderate when it was first started. And now it's reared it's ugly head again

I hate discussions of religion and politics. It always gets ugly and nobody is ever right.

 

[MinusTheBear]

I hate discussions of religion and politics. It always gets ugly and nobody is ever right.

You are going to have to begin to charge AH overtime majorloser. These types of threads are starting to become a staple amongst the community.

 

[Adam]

I hate discussions of religion and politics.

I gotta admit, I normally like them. At least, as long as they stay civil. I think that this forum has a number of intelligent and educated folks on it, and it's nice to engage in discussion.

Sure, I know that this is an A/V forum, and I like discussing that stuff and trying to help people out. However, it's nice for me to have some mentally stimulating discussions in between the usual "how to connect," "what should I buy," or "why isn't it working" threads.

 

[zhimbo]

Well said. I think the best way to teach children is to allow them access to as many viewpoints, presented in their correct context and allow them to form their own opinions as they mature. Where is the harm in that?

Why is it I never seem to hear this argument for history, physics, math, etc? Only biology. And then, only evolution.

Including I.D. is harmful, because it doesn't meet the basic qualifications of a scientific theory, and is clearly religious in intent.

I WAS taught about an alternative to Darwinian evolution in school: Lamarckism. That was helpful and educational. I.D.? Not so much.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Well said. I think the best way to teach children is to allow them access to as many viewpoints, presented in their correct context and allow them to form their own opinions as they mature. Where is the harm in that?

That argument would make sense in reference to two competing scientific theories. In this case, however, you are referring to one scientific theory and one steaming pile of religious BS.
Presenting these to children as though they were of equal (or even comparable) merit is more likely to confuse them than to help them make intelligent decisions.
Kids who grow up accepting nonsense over truth become adults who believe in alien abductions or join suicide cults.

 

[Sheep]

The fundamental issue with teaching intelligent design in public schools involves constitutional separation of church and state coupled with intelligent design's inability to be treated as a [dis]provable scientific theory and its direct relation to religion. Any theory, no matter its following or logic, is not considered good, in the scientific sense, if its basic hypothesis cannot be tested and retested in an attempt to [dis]prove it. On the other hand, evolution is able to fulfill these terms and has done so over the years in such a fashion that it has not been successfully disproved thus making it a valid scientific theory.

The religious relation to intelligent design and its inability to be treated as a proper scientific theory is why it does not belong in state/federally funded schools. Rather, it can be taught in appropriate settings such as at home, church or anywhere else that does not violate the constitution.

A quality example of a logical theory that cannot be tested is Talcott Parsons AGIL paradigm within sociology which is extremely intuitive, but completely untestable making its scientific use virtually nonexistent. At the time when Parsons created this paradigm Parsons realized there was no statistical method, yet invented, that could possibly test his theory. Because of this the theory created without regard to testablility. However, during Parsons lifetime the statistical power to test such a theory has been developed, rather than make the theory testable Parsons wrote an essay saying that his theory was so well logically devised that it need not be tested, merely accepted. The inability to test Parsons theory, despite its brilliance, is one reason why it is rarely used today in actual practice and is rather taught in classical theory courses as a background in sociological thought and growth.

ZOMG, you're so awesome!

SheepStar

 

[jamie2112]

ZOMG, you're so awesome!

SheepStar

No Sheep you are awesome.....

 

[mtrycrafts]

I gotta admit, I normally like them. At least, as long as they stay civil. I think that this forum has a number of intelligent and educated folks on it, and it's nice to engage in discussion.

Sure, I know that this is an A/V forum, and I like discussing that stuff and trying to help people out. However, it's nice for me to have some mentally stimulating discussions in between the usual "how to connect," "what should I buy," or "why isn't it working" threads.

Yes, absolutely. And, don't forget, this is the 'steam vent.'

 

[mtrycrafts]

From Wikipedia: The term supernatural or supranatural (Latin: super, supra "above" + natura "nature") pertains to entities, events or powers regarded as beyond nature, in that they lack a clear scientific explanation.

Just because something lacks a clear scientific explanation at this time doesn't mean that it won't have one in the future. IMO, humans are far (far, far) away from understanding the universe. I think that humans tend to think at any given point in history that they've got it all figured out, only to be continuously proven wrong as time progresses.

Yes, but what is beyond the natural universe? If there were something, it must be part of nature.
So, it is convenient to to come up with a word to stamp something that is not explainable today. But then, I haven't seen any of these entities, events or powers that is beyond nature. We do see nature, therefore if we see something it is nature, perhaps not yet classified but still part of nature.

 

[unreal.freak]

If the theory of evolution is true, where are the people that are evolving from apes? I mean... the half ape, half human people. Also why are there still monkeys/apes. wouldnt they all be evolved into humans by now? ive never studied evolution any further than what was tought in school. I cant understand how this is possible. I would like an example of how this theory was proven to be true.

Also..... what if you are wrong, and after you die you realize it. Its too late then.

Flip side..... what if you are right, and lived a Christian life. You still havent lost anything, you just lived a Christian life and you and the world are a better place because of it.

Peace,
Tommy

 

[spacedteddybear]

Not according to some quick research on the internet that would indicate that scientific methodology has been in existence for at least 1000 years. Doesn't mean that research is correct, but I doubt that scientific thinking has only been around since around 1700 A.D.

Methodology similar the scientific method was around in ~1000A.D in Muslim countries in the area of present day Iraq. A Muslim guy who wrote a book on optics had formulated a lot of the concepts of the scientific method, but strictly speaking, it is not the methodology used by scientists. A lot of methodologies of scientific endeavors had been in existence for hundreds of years before Galileo's time, but it doesn't mean they were proper methods.

Really? Over 50% of the population would herd sheep? Hmmm. I don't believe it, but I'm open to discussion. That, and illiteracy doesn't equate to stupidity or lack of reasoning.

If they herded sheep, it meant that they were farmers, or people who cultivated the land. Given that crop yields compared to today were quite small , it would make sense that the majority of the population would be farmers. Here's a reference, though I do not have the time to see how valid the data is: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~blanch/CharlesDW/OpeningScene2.htm
First sentence of the 7th paragraph.
Literacy, and critical/logical reasoning skills do go hand in hand. Though they are not mutually exclusive.

Okay. I'll call you on that, because I don't believe it. Even if true, doesn't mean the data was correct. Every scientist should know that it's human nature to make the data match the hypothesis. Yes, I've been there.

I never said that the data had to be correct, or that there might be some human intervention that would make the data look more favorably presentable ( Happens most notoriously in the field of medical drugs). The fact is that the there was proper testing done in the first place. If there was any error involved whether through purposeful human intervention or not, there is still the matter of independent peer review to get through. I always like to say that Nature produces the conclusions, it's just simply our job to interprete it, and see if it verifies our original premise.

Of course you can. I agree, though, that isn't good science.

There's no such thing as "good science" or "bad science". If it's good, it's called "science" if not, than it should not the word 'science" associated at all. If I could of fudged all of my lab results, some of my labs would have gone so much smoother without having to take a drink or two before entering the lab.

 

[spacedteddybear]

If the theory of evolution is true, where are the people that are evolving from apes? I mean... the half ape, half human people. Also why are there still monkeys/apes. wouldnt they all be evolved into humans by now? ive never studied evolution any further than what was tought in school. I cant understand how this is possible. I would like an example of how this theory was proven to be true.

You are assuming that the monkeys we see today are the EXACT same species of monkeys and apes that existed over 100,000 years ago. All apes and monkeys share a common ancestry with ancient primates. If you were to teleport every species of apes and monkeys back over 100,000 years ago, we would look drastically different than the ones inhabiting the world at that time. However, we would share common physical traits, traits that only our "little" group have that no one else in the animal kingdom would have. Namely opposable thumbs, and our inability to produce vitamin c.

Whew.... ok. Back to WoW.

 

[Adam]

You need to go back further than 100k years to be dramatically different. Check the web for the origins of modern humans.

 

[spacedteddybear]

You need to go back further than 100k years to be dramatically different. Check the web for the origins of modern humans.

Hey, I did say over 100,000 years ago didn't I?

 

[mtrycrafts]

Also..... what if you are wrong, and after you die you realize it. Its too late then.

Flip side..... what if you are right, and lived a Christian life. You still havent lost anything, you just lived a Christian life and you and the world are a better place because of it.

Peace,
Tommy

Once I die, there is nothing to realize Why are only the things that can realize, us humans, are the only ones caught up in this predicament? The rest of the universe just keeps on ticking, being born, and die

I don't know or heard of anyone who made it beyond nature