‘Intelligent design’ faces first big court test

the only thing i have to say is: evolution in all aspects that ive observed when being tuaght, has never been taught as a theory. the teachers also teach with complete biased towards it and demean any student that doesnt consider evolution as something that is possible. the way ive noted it taught is that it has been taught as "truth" and as a "fact". is that right, i believe no. is what the church did in the middle ages right, i dont believe so. but going through science class a person should be tuaght ID, evolution, and watever else will inform a student and help him form his own thoughts and opinions. that is what teachers are suppose to do.
 
[toj.cc]WildBillKickoff said:
I think that part of the problem is the word "theory". Gravity is a theory, as well, since we don't have the ability to "prove" it into a law and don't know exactly how it works on all levels. Evolution, still being in question, IMO should still be a "hypothesis", since there are still many strong scientific challenges as to it's validity. Teaching it as a "theory" puts it on the same plane of certainty as gravity, which even the most ardent evolutionists will admit is simply not the case.
Click to expand...

And where, pray tell, would you place ID when you can't even challenge it in a scientific manner?
 
Atown said:
the only thing i have to say is: evolution in all aspects that ive observed when being tuaght, has never been taught as a theory. the teachers also teach with complete biased towards it and demean any student that doesnt consider evolution as something that is possible. the way ive noted it taught is that it has been taught as "truth" and as a "fact". is that right, i believe no. is what the church did in the middle ages right, i dont believe so. but going through science class a person should be tuaght ID, evolution, and watever else will inform a student and help him form his own thoughts and opinions. that is what teachers are suppose to do.
Click to expand...

As I have already mentioned, Christianity has had a stranglehold on science for centuries. Teachers weren't allowed to discuss any theory other than Creationism, and there was a time when doing so was punishable by death.

As I have, again, already mentioned, I am not against ID being taught. I AM against it being taught as science, because it is not. Teach it as part of the philosophy curriculum where it belongs alongside other creation theories.
 
[toj.cc]WildBillKickoff said:
I think that part of the problem is the word "theory". Gravity is a theory, as well, since we don't have the ability to "prove" it into a law and don't know exactly how it works on all levels. Evolution, still being in question, IMO should still be a "hypothesis", since there are still many strong scientific challenges as to it's validity. Teaching it as a "theory" puts it on the same plane of certainty as gravity, which even the most ardent evolutionists will admit is simply not the case.
Click to expand...

Actually, I rather thought that Gravity was a Law and not a theory.
 
I'm not answering the question because I don't know enough about what the ID movement is based on-- all I've heard are biased opinions, and never facts. I don't know whether it can be taught in science class, but I do know enough about evolution to know that it should be taught as a hypothesis and not a theory.
 
For the record:

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
Click to expand...

If both theories and hypotheses are explanations, what's the difference between them?

A hypothesis is a provisional or working explanation, assumed true only to guide experimentation or for the sake of argument. A theory is a well established explanation.
Click to expand...

A large part of the confusion stems from the fact that there is a big difference between how the word "theory" is used in science and how it is used in ordinary conversation. A hunch, conjecture or an educated guess can become a hypothesis. But a theory is much more.

In science, a theory is an explanation that binds together various experimentally tested hypotheses to explain some fundamental aspect of nature. For an idea to qualify as a scientific theory, it must be established on the basis of a wide variety of scientific evidence. Its claims must be testable and it must propose experiments that can be replicated by other scientists.

ID, on the other hand, is not a theory. It is a hypothesis, but it is not even a scientific hypothesis because there is no way to experimentally verify its central claim that a Supreme Being intervened in the creation of life on Earth.

Like religion, ID is a belief. And while many people take their religion as fact, science would go nowhere if it operated that way. Many of the great discoveries—from disease cures to advanced technologies and trips to the Moon—would never have been possible without the rigorous scientific process that carefully distinguishes between belief and testable fact.
Click to expand...

In the sciences, a theory is a framework used to describe and understand the world around us. Such a framework is recognized as a theory only after a firm empirical basis for its body of knowledge has been established. This is done through such things as extensive and long-term experimentation, observation and intense peer review.

A theory is often initially generated from a hypothesis - a proposed explanation for an observed phenomenon or set of phenomena. This differs from conjecture, which is at best an untested guess based on anything from nonrepeatable experiments to common sense to religious mysticism to that ache in your grandmother's knee.
Click to expand...

I could go on and on, but I think that's enough to defend evolution defined as a theory.
 
Gen, that page is titled, Evidence For Design In The Universe, but it doesn't do ANYTHING to prove design.

You could remove the title and rename it Things that Happened by Accident in the Universe to Sustain Life on this World and nothing would change.

Slapping EVIDENCE at the top of a page doesn't make it evidence.
 
The reason for the link is...at least for me and my apparently not-so-scientific-mind, it detailed some reasons for the ID truth (err oops, theory) in a nice, easy to read format

Gen
 
I think the court guys should all shut up. Give a kid 2 options, evolution and creationism. Simple as that, I would choose evolution though.

Think about it, no one would get all whiny if kids had curriculum choices. I'm a genius no need to thank me, friends. :)
 
People are supposed to choose AFTER they've been educated in the choices, not before.

Nobody's saying "Don't put ID on the curriculum.", they are saying "Don't put ID on the science curriculum to be taught as an equal to current evolutionary theroy."

ID theory is not falsifiable, it's not academically, intellectually or, frankly, morally robust. It is an obvious halfway house to Creationism.
 
But what if a atheist family don't want their child learning creationism? They should make the choices, not the education board or some upperty christian feminists league. The parents and the students should decide what they should learn.
 
But what if a atheist family don't want their child learning creationism?
Click to expand...

What are they afraid off?

Those who believe in Creationism learn about evolution, take the tests and pass them just fine. Are you saying that creationists are superior over evolutionists because they don't fear learning about competing life history theories?
 
Last edited:
Genesis1315 said:
The reason for the link is...at least for me and my apparently not-so-scientific-mind, it detailed some reasons for the ID truth (err oops, theory) in a nice, easy to read format

Gen
Click to expand...

But, as I have pointed out, they are not ID truths. Nor do I believe it is intellecutally honest to call that list evidence.

Those points are simply there to show that a small change would disrupt the ability of this world to support life.
 
The Shaman said:
I think the court guys should all shut up. Give a kid 2 options, evolution and creationism. Simple as that, I would choose evolution though.

Think about it, no one would get all whiny if kids had curriculum choices. I'm a genius no need to thank me, friends. :)
Click to expand...

I think your genius falls well short of the mark :)

This isn't a black/white issue. Why stop at two choices? Why not teach ALL of man's creation myths/stories/theories?

Just don't do in a SCIENCE class.
 
Gods_Peon said:
What are they afraid off?

Those who believe in Creationism learn about evolution, take the tests and pass them just fine. Are you saying that creationists are superior over evolutionists because they don't fear learning about competing life history theories?
Click to expand...

Exactly!

Crap, I just agreed with Peon, it must be another sign of the apocalypse!
 
Dark Virtue said:
Exactly!

Crap, I just agreed with Peon, it must be another sign of the apocalypse!
Click to expand...

Ever wonder how much of our appearant animosity towards each other is really nothing more then a deep seeded desire to cause each other to simply dig deeper?

enough thread hijacking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top