22 Dec 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZPardon the correction, but the idea came from Chuck, not the source you quote. Chuck hypothesized against his own ideas early on, prior to a clearer understanding of the workings of life at the molecular level, essentially eliminating the possibility of his overarching theory, should organization and order be found in an irreducible complex system.
Behe's hypothesis (NOT theory) of Irreducible Complexity.[/b]
Behe saw a chink in the armor and went for it.
22 Dec 05
Originally posted by WulebgrJefferson kicked ass.
There is no "separation of church and state" clause in the U.S. Constitution. Rather, the term separation of church and state is judicial doctrine that developed in the practical application of the "establishment" and "free exercise" clauses of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting th ...[text shortened]... ent of the framers" as decisive on other matters, but not on this one. It's all about results.
22 Dec 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerLet me clarify my statement on 'mainstream science'. What I said was not that science is restricted to what is popular amoung scientists but rather what is taught in schools should be mostly restricted to what is accepted as reasonably accurate by most scientists. What university students choose to study and what scientists choose to study is up to them but they should be able to convince at least a large proportion of scientists that what they have proposed is not only scientific but also does not have any major flaws before it is taught as science in schools.
Second - the questions around what constitute 'mainstream science' were intended for twitehead. His comments seemed to suggest that science was more a question of popularity among scientists than accuracy or, as you've pointed, utility.
Newtonian mechanics can be seen as an approximation of Einstiens laws when dealling with day to day speeds and sizes. I believe that even Einstiens laws are only an approximation and model but good enough to be more than a bit usefull.
Irreducible Complexity could be called a proposition but anything put forward so far as evidence for its existence has been shown to be fundamentally flawed and this has been accepted by proponents of the proposition themselves. Now you propose teaching in schools every proposition even when it is accepted that it is flawed?
The fact that every proponent of ID and irreducible complexity has a self declared religious agenda makes things even worse.
22 Dec 05
Originally posted by twhiteheadDisagree. Earlier post revealed the concept came from Chuck himself. Also, there are more than just Christians/Jews/theists who have expressed support of the physical world being designed, or created.
The fact that every proponent of ID and irreducible complexity has a self declared religious agenda makes things even worse.
I would also dare say that the machinery 'protecting' the propogation of evolution looks dangerously close to a religion, itself.
22 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBH"I would also dare say that the machinery 'protecting' the propogation of evolution looks dangerously close to a religion, itself."
Disagree. Earlier post revealed the concept came from Chuck himself. Also, there are more than just Christians/Jews/theists who have expressed support of the physical world being designed, or created.
I would also dare say that the machinery 'protecting' the propogation of evolution looks dangerously close to a religion, itself.
What machinery? The theory of evolution does not need belief - merely people who understand statistics and probability. It becomes irrefutable at that point....
22 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBHPlease give more details on non-Christian supporters of ID or Irreducible Complexity. And how exactly can anyone who is not a theist express suport for the physical world being designed, or created?
Disagree. Earlier post revealed the concept came from Chuck himself. Also, there are more than just Christians/Jews/theists who have expressed support of the physical world being designed, or created.
I would also dare say that the machinery 'protecting' the propogation of evolution looks dangerously close to a religion, itself.
However you must also realise that to believe that the physical world was designed, or created in no way supports ID nor does it falsify evolution. ID attempts to proove the existence of a designer or creater and Irreducible Complexity attempts the same thing. They both rely on one core fallacy, that if we cant find a reasonable explanation other than the existence of a creator for the existance something then there must be a creator. Not only is it flawed logic but proponents go further to give examples of things which do actually have reasonable explanations other than a creator.
I would also dare say that the machinery 'protecting' the propogation of evolution looks dangerously close to a religion, itself.
Most scientists believe that science is important for our civilization and that the more people who understand it the better off we all are. They therefore do try to encourage it to be taught and disseminated as widely as possible and try to discredit anyone who attempts to discredit it. This does not apply only to evolution. There have been many other attempts to discredit science either for monetary or political gain (as the US government appears to be doing in some fields) or for religious reasons and in all cases when this starts to affect scientists and the general publics view of science then people start to try and defend thier position.
22 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBHPlease post detailed rebutt the links between ID and Religion in the 139 page document I linked to. Can you?
Disagree. Earlier post revealed the concept came from Chuck himself. Also, there are more than just Christians/Jews/theists who have expressed support of the physical world being designed, or created.
I would also dare say that the machinery 'protecting' the propogation of evolution looks dangerously close to a religion, itself.
22 Dec 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhat is your definition of a major proposition? I cirtainly would not put ID or irreducible complexity in that category. And why teach propostions even after they have been proved flawed from the start? I would say that a flat earth was at one time a major proposition, should we teach it and its flaws?
No - I propose teaching the major propositions (at least the one's they're likely to encounter in the real world) and its flaws.
22 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI don't see anything wrong with teaching ID--as a model of bad science. Future scientists must be prepared to deal with such shenanigans!
No - I propose teaching the major propositions (at least the one's they're likely to encounter in the real world) and its flaws.
22 Dec 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe problem is we are talking here about elementary and/or secondary school Biology courses with a LOT of ground to cover in a 1/2 or at most, 1 year. At best, a student in such classes is going to get a basic overview of evolution before he gets into the nuts and bolts of classification, speciation and everything else. How much time should be spent on something that is utterly rejected by the scientific community in a beginner's course in Biology?
No - I propose teaching the major propositions (at least the one's they're likely to encounter in the real world) and its flaws.