It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SCI/TECH: Judge Bans Teaching Intelligent Design in Dover PA

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Some of the responses in this thread confirm that many people don't understand what science class is supposed to teach. Science is such a large topic and covers such a wide range of fields that is is impossible to teach it all. The subject matter simply cannot all be covered.

As I said in an earlier post, what science class is supposed to teach is the scientific method. Once this method is known, it can then be applied to any field of study. Scientific Method is a rational, systematic way of analyzing physical phenomena. It is a system that enables different views and theories to all be held to the same standards of reliability and accuracy. Some different fields are covered in science class, mostly to show how the scientific method can be applied to different fields of study, in the same systematic, logical way with estabished knowledge being used as building blocks to achieve knowledge of higher level and more complex phenomena.

To understand the internal cumbustion engine, a complex system, you first must understand that gasoline burns. A smaller and simpler chunk of knowledge, yes, but required to understand the larger system.

Science is about the method, no matter what the subject matter is. Anything to which this method cannot be readily applied, has no business in a Science class.




posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling
Charles Darwin recanted everything he'd said of evolution.


No, he did NOT.


Originally posted by Wikipedia
Charles Darwin recounted in his biography of his grandfather Erasmus Darwin how false stories were circulated claiming that Erasmus had called for Jesus on his deathbed. Charles concluded by writing "Such was the state of Christian feeling in this country [in 1802].... We may at least hope that nothing of the kind now prevails." Despite this hope, very similar stories were circulated following Darwin's own death, most prominently the "Lady Hope Story", published in 1915 which claimed he had converted on his sickbed. Such stories have been heavily propagated by some Christian groups, to the extent of becoming urban legends, though the claims were refuted by Darwin's children and have been dismissed as false by historians.


[edit on 22-12-2005 by Dr Isaac Yankem DDS]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Yes, we are in agreement there.

Another noteworthy moment in ATS history then!



The Wedge Document outlines the Discovery Institute's plans pretty clearly. Scott has also been following these movements for a while and her opinion on the matter deserves some weight.

While I don't wish to turn this into a 'Wedge' discussion per se, and I'll go so far to agree (
) with you about certain aspects of the 'Wedge' document not fitting into my own personal beliefs about science. Though when I do try to evaluate it objectively, I don't believe that the DI or their philosophies, etc present any danger again to science per se. But then again, I do believe that ID is perfectly capable of operating within the realm of methodogical naturalism and producing meaningful data. Again, this discussion is best reserved for other threads. But this could color my objectivity re: the whole situation, so I thought it noteworthy.


I'm not saying that they wrote new standards and then re-wrote them, but that the front talk is about Intelligent Design as a scientific theory, and then we start hearing about creationism, god, anti-evolutionism, but not "Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design" or actual curriculae that work through intelligent design.
I mean, think about what you'd like to write up as coursework for studying intelligent design, and compare it to what we've actually seen come out of these boards and lawsuits, like:

Okay... I understand what you're saying. Basically, you're saying this idea of 'teach the controversy' or talk about in ID, but the de facto examples have in fact led to the teaching of biblical creationism, etc.

A well made point
Good Job!

It just further illustrates why education shouldn't be politicized in this manner. Essentially, these movements are trying to enforce non-existant information into text books, and discuss topics that are completely inappropriate for the audience. As I mentioned as an origins theory, ID certainly doesn't belong in pretty much the K-12 classrooms. Those classrooms are for teaching about the scientific method and science as a process via well established scientific concepts, and even I would have to argue with anyone who said that ID was a 'well established scientific concept.' The important thing at this level, is not that the information be necessarily the most up-to-date, etc., but that they understand how we came to believe what we did.

In fact, perhaps no origins theories, naturalistic or otherwise belong in the realm of 'science.'



The ARN, specifically David DeWolf and Steve Meyer, published this book,
Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula:A Legal Guidebook

I am familiar with this document. And I think we stand in agreement re: the conclusions of this document, ie: both Nygdan and mattison currently do not support ID being taught in public school science classes. I can take this a step further and state that irrespective of our differing opinions re: IDT, we both agree on criteria re:when ID deserves mention in texts.

But the question I asked was related to the ID movement as it currently exists, deliberately trying to backdoor biblical or other doctrinal creationist movements into public schools. I can't read this entire document now at work, but I have read it in the past, and I don't recall concluding this when I finished reading it. Do you think this document is evidence that the ID movement has no interest in science but wants to backdoor doctrinal creationist ideas into public schools? Why?



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Intelligent Design is, in my opinion, not science.


Lots of scientific theories start as being 'not science' in
people's minds and then as investigation and information
come forward, then those non-science theories become
plausable.

Saying that God created us through some
process doesn't take away from science. Acknowledging that
there are other powers and/or beings besides people in the
universe IS science.

When astronomers see that planets
are acting a certain way, they know that there is another
planets gravity interacting with the first planet, even if they
can't see it. There are clues in science to things we can't see.
It just takes time to find them all. (I have black matter in
mind when I'm saying this - just a hunch).

Intelligent Design isn't just 'God created people'. There are
many other intelligences that could be involved in Intelligent
Design

I do believe that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory. For all
we know, we could be a big scientific experiment for an 8th grade
classroom on some alien planet. 'Gee, let us introduce some
interesting DNA into this primordial oooze and sit back and see
what happens'.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling
I beg to differ BH.


You can differ all you want. I didn't invent scientific methodology, so arguing with me about it is useless.



Take out the religious aspects of ID and you'll have the theory that we were created by EBE's.


So, instead of God, we're supposed to teach our children that we were created by extraterrestrials? In science class? Where's the proof of that? Again, you're using the word 'thoery' to mean speculation instead of scientific theory, which is explained in my link above.



Besides, Intelligent Design is very much a scientific theory IMO.


Yes, in your opinion. That page on geocities is also using the common meaning of the word theory, and throwing around scientific terms, but at the same time talking about belief and creationism. And when they don't have the answer, they say something like "it must be like this... It can be no other way." That's an assumption. That cannot be tested.

And finding fault with evolution has nothing to do with proving ID as a scientific theory. IDers always use evolution in their arguments, speculating that evolution is flawed here so ID must be true. That's just sloppy 'psuedo-science'.

It's all fine and good to conclude something by seeing a watch on the ground, but unless you can test that conclusion, you have no scientific theory. You have a hypothesis, which requires further testing and repetiveness to become a scientific theory.

I don't care what anyone personally believes. As I said, I don't have anything 'against' the IDEA of Intelligent Design, I just don't want it taught in the public schools unless and until we can prove that God or ETs or something else had a hand in it all. And I'm going to wait for the scientists to do that. I don't take the word of theologians regarding science.

I also don't want ancient prophesies, John Titor, mythical beasts, astrology, ETs, UFOs and telepathy taught in science class, either. They, like ID, are not science. Arguing that any of these should be taught to K-12 as science is useless.

From your link:


Framework

The following is the framework from which IDT theory and its implications in culture, science and theology are being studied and discussed.

1. A scientific and philosophical critique of naturalism, where the scientific critique identifies the empirical inadequacies of naturalistic evolutionary theories and the philosophical critique demonstrates how naturalism subverts every area of inquiry that it touches.

2. A positive scientific research program, known as intelligent design, for investigating the effects of intelligent causes.

3. A cultural movement for systematically rethinking every field of inquiry that has been infected by naturalism and reconceptualizing it in terms of design.

4. A sustained theological investigation that connects the intelligence inferred by IDT with the God of Scripture and therewith formulates a coherent theology of nature.


These people have an agenda. Science is neutral.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Lots of scientific theories start as being 'not science' in people's minds and then as investigation and information come forward, then those non-science theories become plausable.

Do you have an example of one of these?



Saying that God created us through some process doesn't take away from science.

Correct. And speculating that a God would have used science (that includes evolution) in creation does not take away from religion.



When astronomers see that planets are acting a certain way, they know that there is another planets gravity interacting with the first planet, even if they can't see it.

But cosmology and stellar mechanics tells us it's there by the influence it has. It's a known, measured, and quantifiable effect.



Intelligent Design isn't just 'God created people'. There are many other intelligences that could be involved in Intelligent Design

I have several design flaws (human back, skin, eyes, teeth, feet, knees, hips) which make me wonder about the intelligence of the "intelligent designer".



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
For all we know, we could be a big scientific experiment for an 8th grade
classroom on some alien planet. 'Gee, let us introduce some interesting DNA into this primordial oooze and sit back and see what happens'.


Sure, that could be true, but should we teach your 'theory' to our children in science class?



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   
BH ... sure. Why not? It's as good of a theory as Evolution.
It has just as much proof as evolution does.

Natural selection has proof. Absolute undeniable scientific proof.

Evolution - where one species changes into another - has no scientific
proof.

Intelligent design, with 'intelligence' being other worldly creatures,
has no scientific proof.

Intelligent design, with 'intelligence' being God or a supreme
spiritual being, has no scientific proof.

Teaching children that Evolution is an absolute truth is wrong.
It is just one of many different theories about how people
came to be on the planet. All the plausable theories deserve
equal time in the classroom.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 09:19 AM
link   
www.rael.org...
A completely atheist movement that believes an alien race created us in their image. We mistranslated their name over the years and ended up refering to them as God.

ID is not a theory of christian fundamentalists, it is a theory that someone / thing created us and everything around us and did so with a concious meaning to do so.

To bash it is the same as bashing the big bang, a controversal and incorrect theory of how we came to be.

Both are merely theories and that is all they will ever be.
We will never go back in time to wittness either directly, and the evidence we see can be explained by both!

Quit fighting back and forth about it

I say it was wrong for the teacher to ban teaching it for the same reason banning books is wrong.
Censorship is wrong.
Perhapps children are not ready to comprehend how we came to existance.
Why not take all mention of anything that has to do with how we got here out of the schools and place it where it belongs, in colleges!

Science should be taught in the classroom, untestable theory should not be
Before you argue that, these kids that it is being taught to have no possible way to test the theory and as such will learn nothing from knowing about it.

You want to study religion, fine pay to do it at college
You want to study how the universe evolved, fine pay to do it at college

I am sick of my tax dollars being used to fan the flames of hate between the 2 camps

School should prepare you for every day life.
College is what educates you about how the universe works!


[edit on 22-12-2005 by mrjones]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   
SO I am surprised by your request o provide examples of theories that were not considered to have been science.
How about:
The Theory Gravity
The Theory that the Earth was round
The Theory that the Earth was not the center of the universe
The Theory that the Earth circles the sun.

People who theorized the above ideas were ridiculed in thier day. The "Scientific Community" as well as the religious leaders who were in charge back then, all stated that the above theories were crackpot theories and were not based on scientific principles. Today, all of the above are considered to be (near) scientific facts.
What I am saying is what is scoffed at today can turn around and become accepted as fact by later generations.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Do you have an example of one of these?

Germs. When the theory of germs first came about everyone
laughed and said it wasn't science. Afterall, the theory suggested
that people became sick and died from something they couldn't
see. It wasn't until microscopes and other scientific instruments
became available that people started to understand that germs
really existed and that the theory wasn't bunk.

Heck ... the birth of birds had a wrong 'absolute' belief for a very long
time. People believed that trees gave birth to birds. Any other
belief than this was thought to be ridiculous ... afterall, it was plain
for everyone to see that baby birds flew out of trees and no one
had ever seen a bird give birth. This absolute belief was held all
the way until 1200 in many parts of the world, including Europe.


But cosmology and stellar mechanics tells us it's there
by the influence it has. It's a known, measured, and quantifiable effect.
Sure. Because we have learned how to see that which
can be measured. Prior to that ... it was just a theory.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
The Theory Gravity
The Theory that the Earth was round
The Theory that the Earth was not the center of the universe
The Theory that the Earth circles the sun.

Those all started as a hypothesis by persons with science in mind.

The original statement from FlyersFan, "Lots of scientific theories start as being 'not science'" implied that some science didn't start that way. All of these examples started as science (but may have been suppressed by religious leaders).

I've noticed (also) that you used "theory" for all of these. Does this mean that for proponents of Intelligent design, these are "just theories". There may not be gravity? The earth may not be round? The earth may be the center of the universe?



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
BH ... sure. Why not? It's as good of a theory as Evolution.
It has just as much proof as evolution does.


I'm sorry. That statement is incorrect. And as you are putting forth this new hypothesis, I won't believe that we are a science project of 8th graders on another planet until I see scientific proof. And I won't entertain it as a viable 'scientific theory' until I see the solid scientific methodology supporting the theory. I'll be awaiting your dissertation.



Natural selection has proof. Absolute undeniable scientific proof.


I have no argument with that.



Evolution - where one species changes into another - has no scientific proof.


You mean 'morphing'? I submit you don't fully understand evolution. I'm not going to go into evolution as a scientific theory any deeper. Even if evolution isn't true, that has little to do with teaching ID in schools. As I tried to say before, discounting evolution does not prove anything about ID. This is not the Evolutes vs the Designers in the big game of the season, where only one will prevail! If people want ID to be accepted, it has to stand on its own (not to mention, pass scientific methodology, which it does not).



Intelligent design, with 'intelligence' being other worldly creatures,
has no scientific proof.

Intelligent design, with 'intelligence' being God or a supreme
spiritual being, has no scientific proof.


At least here, we agree.




Teaching children that Evolution is an absolute truth is wrong.
It is just one of many different theories about how people
came to be on the planet. All the plausable theories deserve
equal time in the classroom.


1 - Evolution isn't taught as absolute truth. It's taught as a scientific theory.

2 - I can only assume that you don't know what scientific theory means (as opposed to 'speculation') and I suggest you read my earlier posts in the thread and follow the link on scientific theory, because of all the 'speculations' on how we arrived here, evolution is the ONLY one that meets the criteria of "scientific theory".



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Those all started as a hypothesis by persons with science in mind.
... implied that some science didn't start that way.

You've confused me. What I THOUGHT I said (and may have not
said clearly) was that many things that we take for granted as
scientific fact started out as nothing more than theories. This is
where I put Evolution and Intelligent Design. Neither has absolute
scientific proof and therefore both are just theories. Neither one
has an 'up' on the other as far as I'm concerned.


Does this mean that for proponents of Intelligent
design, these are "just theories"


I'm sure that there are those who believe it to be 'fact' just as
there are those who believe evolution is 'fact'. That doesn't
change the real fact ... that these need to be presented as
theories and that neither one has a leg up over the other.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 09:42 AM
link   
I used the Theory designation since that is what they were considered to be back then. Gravity still has the designation of only being a theory. Although, I for one would not be jumping off any bridges any time soon to try and debunk that theory



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And I won't entertain it as a viable 'scientific theory' until I see
the solid scientific methodology supporting the theory. I'll be
awaiting your dissertation.

Then you stand in good company with those who didn't believe that
germs existed, which is fine. That's how these things work. Some
folks have a theory and they set out to prove that theory. Which is
what Evolution is ... a theory. I have no problem with it being taught
in school. Actually, Id have a problem if it WASN'T taught in school.
But it must be taught as a theory .. not an absolute. THAT is where
the problem is ... that it's being taught as an absolute in many
places. It's being taught as the only game in town, which it isn't.


This is not the Evolutes vs the Designers in the big game
of the season, where only one will prevail!

With the exception of the creation theory, evolution and intelligent
design CAN fit together very well. God, or ETs, or some other intelligence
very well could have ordered things toward evolution.


of all the 'speculations' on how we arrived here, evolution
is the ONLY one that meets the criteria of "scientific theory".

I will accept your thought that perhaps I don't understand the
difference between speculation and theory. Perhaps I do. Perhaps
I don't. As far as my understanding of it all goes - I firmly believe
that it is bad business to push evolution as the only theory and
that it is absolute. History has shown that people make too many
errors this way ... teaching theories as absolutes only to find out
later that they were all wrong.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   
You seem to be ignoring what Ambient Sound, Skeptic Overlord and myself are pointing out and you keep coming back and saying "They're all theories"! And, according to science, THEY ARE NOT!

The word theory has a different meaning in laymen's term than in scientific terms. Do you understand that?

Please, please, please read this. It's one small easy-to-read page and it will clear up (hopefully) our communication disconnect.

Scientific Law, Hypotheses and Theory



Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:



Originally posted by FlyersFan
Some folks have a theory and they set out to prove that theory.


No they don't! They have a hypothesis and they set out to methodically make it into a theory. It's called scientific method.



I will accept your thought that perhaps I don't understand the
difference between speculation and theory.


Then PLEASE read about it at the link I've supplied. It's an easy distinction. Until we're speaking on the same terms it's useless and a waste of both of our time and energy to debate the issue.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
What I THOUGHT I said (and may have not
said clearly) was that many things that we take for granted as
scientific fact started out as nothing more than theories.


The Theory Gravity

Things fall.. this was observed.

The Theory that the Earth was round

"Why haven't we fallen of the edge of the earth yet? Why can't we observe ships a hundred miles away?"

The Theory that the Earth was not the center of the universe
The Theory that the Earth circles the sun.

Astronomical observations.
Notice how all of these theories/hypothises [sp] begin with observations and facts and do not exclusively rely on faith like ID does? That is why it is not a science.. research starts with a question not an answer.

This is where I put Evolution and Intelligent Design. Neither has absolute scientific proof and therefore both are just theories. Neither one
has an 'up' on the other as far as I'm concerned.

As far as actual science is concerned evolution as both been observed in real time, through fossils and through genetics. ID has no scientific evidence to support it.

Facts verses mythology.. I applaud this judge for making the common sense decision rather than being bullied into turning science into a religious puppet. If he hadn't of done so and ID became 'fact'.. the next step would have been teaching the existance of a 'designer' [god] as scientific fact [the point of it] as well.

[edit on 22-12-2005 by riley]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Is evolution a theory ? I think there is ample evidence now to show that it is no longer a theory. It's been proven.

However, it contradicts those who believe in the Theory of God. Unlike evolution this has no evidence. This really is just a theory.

So therefore those believers in the Theory of God have developed a new hybrid theory called "intelligent design". This is just simply pseudo religious doctrine.

I feel really sorry for the millions of sensible Americans who have to spend important time debating this in the 21st century.

But on the bright side it is giving the rest of the world a good laugh. Have you got any idea how stupid this makes Americans look ?


If you want a sociological view, I'd say that this is a moral issue. I think the USA is split on whether comforting falsehoods which bolster morality through religion are better than scientific truths which leave mankind without doctrinal guidance.

Truth is you don't need to warp science to have a good society



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 10:33 AM
link   
The purposeful mishandling of the word "theory" in context within a discussion of science is clear evidence that the ID/creation crowd must rely on lies, confusion, and misinformation to further their agenda.

In science, a "theory" is as good as fact until significant evidence causes an adjustment or other correction.

In the lie-infested disinformation of ID/creation proponents, a "theory" is just a haphazard idea subject to the whim of anyone.

It's disheartening that even here on ATS, the meaning of the word "theory" is misused to further a disinformation agenda.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join