|
Post by shypsychologyguy on Nov 30, 2005 1:13:48 GMT -5
My proffesours say they are against it because if there is nothing to research or question then there is not science. "as long as there are questions there is science"
my argument is that intellegent design can still be tested to an extent and done so in a scientific way.
I dont believe in telling kids God made the earth in science class but I am for teachers presenting arguments for a young earth more atune to that of the biblical timeline which can be done with or without biblical references.
for example if there was a world wide biblical flood there would be ways to explore that through science. Though it is not popular there are some scientists that use things like the mount st helens explosion and grand canyon to challenge popular beliefs.
here are some things that could be taught to argue against the belief in a billion year old planet. 1 amount of solar dust on the moon 2 magnetic field of the earths depletion rate 3 exponential growth of people - a world wide flood would have interupted the growth trend and made it start over.
it seems that any argument against evolution becomes religious.
so to conclude we should teach evolution as a theory , criticize it and present alternative theories as long as they have some suport from science and are not strictly a religious statement.
|
|
|
Post by Bodhi on Nov 30, 2005 1:39:25 GMT -5
You state three examples of things that refute the belief in a billions of years old planet. Can you elaborate on those, because I'm not familiar with the reasons why they are relevent.
As for intelligent design, I don't mind it if the theory is referring to what designed the big bang and the laws of physics. I think that is where science ends and one can explore philosophical reasons that the big bang happened and the universe exists at all. Yet the way I see it being used is to disprove evolution and promote a creationist/biblical theory of how the universe started. If the biblical theory is correct though, then all sciences that explore the earth before five or six thousand years ago are bogus.
One thing I don't get, people criticize the theory of evolution because they say there is not enough evidence to prove it is true. Yet then their alternative is the Bible?? What evidence is there that that is true except one book. How can you replace a theory for lack of evidence, when its replacement lacks even more evidence? It would be like someone saying, "You know, there are some holes in Quantum Physics, therefore my thoery that the laws of the universe are governed by a secret alien organization that lives on Venus and wear giant red top hats must be true. "
|
|
|
Post by GreenFerret on Nov 30, 2005 1:53:07 GMT -5
I should do my homework so I don't have time to enter this particular debate, but rest assured SPG, this post provoked a good ten minute google hunt and discussion with Scotslad on the correct spelling of the word "intelligent." ;D
|
|
|
Post by GreenFerret on Nov 30, 2005 2:07:18 GMT -5
It would be like someone saying, "You know, there are some holes in Quantum Physics, therefore my thoery that the laws of the universe are governed by a secret alien organization that lives on Venus and wear giant red top hats must be true. " btw... hahaha!! at that ;D ;D But it is written! Right there! All that is written must be so. I am a multimillionaire! And invincible! *happy dance*
|
|
|
Post by Paulinus on Nov 30, 2005 4:15:10 GMT -5
it seems that any argument against evolution becomes religious. so to conclude we should teach evolution as a theory , criticize it and present alternative theories as long as they have some suport from science and are not strictly a religious statement. Are there any people pushing forward the intelligent design theory not religious, I doubt it. Hence I believe that this particularly theory has just been brought up to get religion in science classes through the back door.
|
|
|
Post by Paulinus on Nov 30, 2005 4:17:54 GMT -5
It would be like someone saying, "You know, there are some holes in Quantum Physics, therefore my thoery that the laws of the universe are governed by a secret alien organization that lives on Venus and wear giant red top hats must be true. " btw... hahaha!! at that ;D ;D But it is written! Right there! All that is written must be so. I am a multimillionaire! And invincible! *happy dance* You mean something like the giant spaghetti monster ;D www.venganza.org/
|
|
|
Post by anxiousairman on Nov 30, 2005 6:06:25 GMT -5
SPG the problem I have with ID is NOT using VALID, REPUDABLE, SCIENTIFIC PROCESSES The theory of evolution has millions of different caviates, and thus millions of different ideas to attack. ID...has no explanation of anything (except a book written by men 2000 years ago when people still believed the earth to be flat and the center of the universe) or the assertion that a 'higher power' did it so science isn't needed As for your arguments pointing towards a young earth: 1)Solar dust: go to a CREATIONIST WEBSITE and they are saying 'OPPS!': www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v7/i1/moondust.asp - "...Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system." I'm not gonna bother trying to refute a conclusion that even ID supporters can't begin to stand by 2)Magnetic field: Yes, the dipole is decreasing, but the energy is not disipating. Take a look at the Sun for instance! The Sun's polarity has an 11 year cycle... Here is what NASA has to say about the Sun's polar-reversing maneuvers: "...The dipole field steadily weakens as oppositely-directed flux accumulates at the Sun's poles until, at the height of solar maximum, the magnetic poles change polarity and begin to grow in a new direction..." science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast15feb_1.htmIs it so hard to fathom that the Earth might behave somewhat the same? Furthermore, these facts coupled with MILES of rocks along the borders of techtonic plates showing crystals forming with decreasing strength then reversing polarity seems to eliminate one more item off 'The Little Psuedo-Science for Suckers' list (granted it is still a long list). (BTW, not alot of complex, multi-varible dynamic sciences have ever been able to rely on a simple linear regression equation) Sorry OVER SIMPLIFIED!(one step more and we would need a magic wand and a barrell of pixy dust) 3)"exponential growth of people - a world wide flood would have interupted the growth trend and made it start over." But there is no VALID, REPUDABLE, SCIENTIFIC INCLINATION toward this being the case! Evolution is able to answer this VERY eloquently! Natural Selection, Unique niches, Food supply, Adaptability. These all play a roll in either allowing rapid expansion, balancing or dying off. This is OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE and MATHIMATICALLY FACTUAL...no faith required! Thousands of years ago, we were not the dominant creature of the land...we coexisted with everything else (ie, killing and being killed). Now we are removed from nature where that is much less of a problem and we are inproving our technology.(that was just a 'for-instance' and not a complete rundown on WHY) "it seems that any argument against evolution becomes religious." WHy do you think that is? So far all of the alternatives have been lead or backed by religous zealots. First mark of disreputability: referencing a religous book or text as evidence or proof.(It should be obvious why that is disreputable in the scientific community....everything can be explained by one big supernatural 'occurance' without any actual facts) Second: Over-simplifying data or magnifying a varible's impact alters the context of the experiment This is what most arguments usually fail to respect. (As in the Magnetic field arguement) Third: Drawing conclusions based on limited evidence if any at all. (As in the "Exponential Growth of people"...It is more a hypothesis explaining our current population. Without ANY evidence pointing towards that conclusion) "my argument is that intellegent design can still be tested to an extent and done so in a scientific way" Show me one test that shows ID is PROBABLE over evolution. Wheras there are LITERALLY THOUSANDS of tests that show evolution being accessable in actrual science. As soon as people start talking about a "higher power", that is code word for 'we have absolutly no proof of our argument, therefore this is how it happened' No thanks...I'll stick to REAL science
|
|
|
Post by thedman05 on Nov 30, 2005 9:47:25 GMT -5
I just want to explain evolution to everyone who might not understand it, or who thinks it is some 'magical' force that scientists conjure up. After all, it can seem not that far removed from believing God created everything. It is not magical. It is actually quite simple to explain. (At least, I hope it is) I'll use an example: Imagine an early form of big cat that preys on prehistoric horses that are slow and lumbering. The cat runs at a herd of these horses. At the front of the herd are the fastest, sleekest horses, and at the back are slower, bigger horses. It is the ones that are slower that get caught by the cat, thus making the population of horses faster, on average. It is the faster horses that mate and reproduce as the slow ones are all dead. So the new horses get the 'fast', 'sleek' genes (with some variability thrown in, I mean no animal is exactly the same as any other). Still the slower of this new generation are killed off and the population keeps on getting faster and sleeker. But now only the fastest cats can catch the horses, the slower cats begin to starve and die off, leaving the faster, sleeker ones to mate and reproduce. (Can you see a pattern here ) Now imagine the same scenario but with a difference. Imagine the cats being the same as modern domestic cats, in that they have a lot of variation in the colour of their fir. Now, it is the cats that blend in with the landscape more that catch the horses and mate, and the more colourful varieties, that are seen by the horses, that die off. Or maybe it's the horses that change. A horse is born with faint stripes (natural variability). The cats find it harder to judge the distance to the horse because of its stripes and it is able to escape (this does happen, during WWII navies used this technique on their ships, to fool the enemy). Over several generations more and more horses get stripes (thanks to the promiscuous activities of the first stripy horse ), which become more pronounced as the less stripy horses get caught. Voila! You now have a zebra!! Evolution in action.
|
|
|
Post by shypsychologyguy on Nov 30, 2005 9:57:23 GMT -5
don't forget the laws of thermodynamics.
Albert Einstein believed in intellegent design by the way and he was not a christian.
what is so bad about presenting scientific arguments that challenge whats popular and present another theory. If evolution is so strong than the students will naturally choose that over intellegent design.
What bothers me is that evolution is being taught as fact and there are many axioms involved that do not have support. Yet, in one state the courts struck down a group putting stickers on books saying evolution is a theory. That is a true statment and it did not say evolution is wrong or say a religious statment.
are you guys against reminders that evolution is a theory.
each religion has its own beliefs about the origin of the earth and for the athiests its evolution.
|
|
|
Post by thedman05 on Nov 30, 2005 10:37:59 GMT -5
don't forget the laws of thermodynamics. Albert Einstein believed in intellegent design by the way and he was not a christian. what is so bad about presenting scientific arguments that challenge whats popular and present another theory. If evolution is so strong than the students will naturally choose that over intellegent design. What bothers me is that evolution is being taught as fact and there are many axioms involved that do not have support. Yet, in one state the courts struck down a group putting stickers on books saying evolution is a theory. That is a true statment and it did not say evolution is wrong or say a religious statment. are you guys against reminders that evolution is a theory. each religion has its own beliefs about the origin of the earth and for the athiests its evolution. It is a theory. It is also possible that it is wrong (after all, there have been some almighty cock-ups in the past). Evolution is taught as a fact, but religions teach creationism as a fact. You can choose what you want to believe in this day and age (at least people have never been tortured and executed for not believing evolution).
|
|
|
Post by Bodhi on Nov 30, 2005 10:51:56 GMT -5
don't forget the laws of thermodynamics. Albert Einstein believed in intellegent design by the way and he was not a christian. what is so bad about presenting scientific arguments that challenge whats popular and present another theory. If evolution is so strong than the students will naturally choose that over intellegent design. What bothers me is that evolution is being taught as fact and there are many axioms involved that do not have support. Yet, in one state the courts struck down a group putting stickers on books saying evolution is a theory. That is a true statment and it did not say evolution is wrong or say a religious statment. are you guys against reminders that evolution is a theory. each religion has its own beliefs about the origin of the earth and for the athiests its evolution. If you want to put a sticker on biology textbooks reminding us that evolution is a theory, then its only fair you put a sticker on the Bible. I think it should read, "The factual basis of this book is very uncertain. Please do not believe every word in this, it is not absolute fact."
|
|
|
Post by GreenFerret on Nov 30, 2005 11:42:11 GMT -5
don't forget the laws of thermodynamics. I feel like this is a joke I've heard before but didn't get. Umm... wasn't he Jewish? Because Intelligent Design doesn't make a lick of sense. It's making up a solution and trying to make the facts fit, rather than observing and measuring the facts in order to draw a conclusion. It's backwards science--it's not valid. That is just absurd. It's like the old assurance that "if you're not guilty, you have nothing to fear from the law." It's very smug and sounds good and it's hard to argue against it, but nevertheless it's total BS. There are a lot of theories in science. Do they all need stickers, or just the ones that contradict literal creationist teachings? It used to be acceptable for a man to beat his wife, in many cultures. Does it's widespread character make it right? Is it justified because a long time ago people did it, and they wrote about it? But much more importantly--that only atheists believe in evolution is just unjustifiably false. It's hard to believe creationism is actually going to be taught in some schools in the US in the guise of being just as plausible as evolutionary theory. Kind of scary.
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Nov 30, 2005 12:54:48 GMT -5
The current fight of teaching ID in schools is clearly a religious one. The importance of science has been underminded in the american society. And its going to bite. Unless people feel the importance of science on their skin (like it happened in the 60s when soviet union launching a man into space before the americans, which was a shock) we will have proliferation of politically/religiously/(whatever other lobby) motivated pseudoscience. No one really cares about the truth. Technology and knowledge don't make people happy. Thats the moral of the story.
It doesn't matter that evolution is the foundation of biology and allows us to make things like bird flu vaccine and that creationism has no scientific value whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by shypsychologyguy on Nov 30, 2005 13:01:46 GMT -5
true there is gap theory which basically says God started evolution
the diference between putting a sticker on a bible and textbook is that a textbook is required reading.
Im not sure if intellegent design in schools would even use the bible.
as long as intellegent design and evolution are taught as theories then there is no issue and students are not having religion forced on them.
however if intelligent design is taught alone and or as a fact then religion is being pushed .
the same holds true for evoluntion which until it can be proven is a religious belief.
|
|
|
Post by gSteve on Nov 30, 2005 13:10:20 GMT -5
As far as I'm concerned evolution is fact, there is evidence everywhere for it. Intelligent design just seems ridiculous, it is religious people refusing to believe the facts and holding onto an outdated theory that there is no evidence for.
|
|