Discrimination On Scientists That Back ID

[The ClayTaurus]

If you come to the wrong conclusion, then you arent using only logic.

Certainly there are many situations where logic can lead you to multiple conclusions, no?

 

[Powerman]

Certainly there are many situations where logic can lead you to multiple conclusions, no?

Yes. Which was my point earlier. Logic can you lead you to wrong conclusions.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Yes. Which was my point earlier. Logic can you lead you to wrong conclusions.

Not wrong conclusions so much as wrong answers.

 

[Powerman]

No I didnt. I just stated that the situation is such that no competing theory is allowed in.

This is where you are confused. Competing theories are allowed in. There just isn't one right now. And if there is it's not mainsteam yet.

As far as evolution goes there is no competing theory. There isn't even a close second. In the minds of people who know little of science you might think that ID is a competing theory but it's not.

 

[Powerman]

Not wrong conclusions so much as wrong answers.

Well we're mincing words now but yes. Wrong answers.

You can't prove something by using a logical proof. Depending on how you start and what path you choose logical proofs can lead you all sorts of places. If anyone would like to take a stab at a logical proof that proves something I'll happily counter it promptly with a logical proof that says something different if not the exact opposite.

 

[MissileMan]

Your proof? FAct is, without a competing theory, it HAS to have leading status. A race of one has no loser.

So your argument is introduce a competing theory, even one with no evidence, so that evolution isn't the only theory?

so all alternatives have to have some evidence to include it in a learning arena? Isnt it possible to come to a proof through logical deduction?

Are you so desperate for an alternate theory to evolution that you think putting forth notions derived from stories is an acceptable solution?
Without evidence, such notions are nothing more than guesses.

And hence you prove my point why evolution has leading status.

Well, hey! Maybe we ought to force Sunday Schools to teach evolution as an alternate theory for Genesis.

 

[Powerman]

Are you so desperate for an alternate theory to evolution that you think putting forth notions derived from stories is an acceptable solution?
Without evidence, such notions are nothing more than guesses.

Which begs the next question. Why are Christians only interested in meddling with science theories that are in conflict with Genesis and not interested in anything else?

Personally I'd be more worried that they are still teaching the Newtonian theory of gravity when Einstein's theory obsoleted it 90 years ago.

 

[no1tovote4]

By definition, though, the supernatural has no role in science. It would fall under another category, right?

This has already been stated, you have begun to repeat yourself without effect. The argument is that science is not the only tool one can use to arrive at the truth. Scientism is as much dogmatic as faith-based religious organizations and regards all other information to be worthless solely because it was arrived at through differing methods. The current question is whether one can arrive at the truth through other methods than the scientific process and whether those methods might be as methodical and logical as the scientific process. You seem to deem all other methods as worthless regardless of methodology or reason. This lends credence to the understanding that you floccinaucinihilipilificate agreeable to the dogma of scientism.

 

[no1tovote4]

Because there is only so much time in the day. If they wanted to make it an elective for highschool kids I could deal with that. But people need to be learning all the basic science, reading, math skills as possible.

It was an elective in the Public HS that I attended. This assumption that ID is only religion is also presumptive and incorrect. It would be better taught in philosophy and if your HS had no philosophy courses then you went to one poor HS indeed.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

This has already been stated, you have begun to repeat yourself without effect. The argument is that science is not the only tool one can use to arrive at the truth. Scientism is as much dogmatic as faith-based religious organizations and regards all other information to be worthless solely because it was arrived at through differing methods. The current question is whether one can arrive at the truth through other methods than the scientific process and whether those methods might be as methodical and logical as the scientific process. You seem to deem all other methods as worthless regardless of methodology or reason. This lends credence to the understanding that you floccinaucinihilipilificate agreeable to the dogma of scientism.

You've completely misrepresented my position on this issue. I never once said that science was the only way to truth, nor that all other methods are worthless. And would you stop with the floccinaucinihili stuff? We get it.

 

[no1tovote4]

You've completely misrepresented my position on this issue. I never once said that science was the only way to truth, nor that all other methods are worthless. And would you stop with the floccinaucinihili stuff? We get it.

If the word fits...

Anyway, disregarding any idea that even a portion of ID theorizing (one can have theory outside of scientific process and disproving theory is as much part of scientific process as collecting evidence) can be within scientific process and therefore it shouldn't even be mentioned in science classes is disregarding such methodology.

It should be mentioned while teaching Evolution in science that groups work to disprove the Scientific Theory of Evolution, what those groups are, what their methodology that fits in the process is. To ignore it is simply disregarding facts that do not fit into a dogmatic presentation of a Theory. I agree that ID is not a Scientific Theory, and should not be taught as such, and would argue on your side on that on every occasion. However I do believe that portions of the theorizing (philosophical theorizing is also theorizing) are within the processes of science and should therefore receive a mention. Ignoring portions of the scientific process to make Theory into truth is not scientific process and leads people to believe that science has a certain infallibility that it doesn't actually possess.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

If the word fits...

Anyway, disregarding any idea that even a portion of ID theorizing (one can have theory outside of scientific process and disproving theory is as much part of scientific process as collecting evidence) can be within scientific process and therefore it shouldn't even be mentioned in science classes is disregarding such methodology.

It should be mentioned while teaching Evolution in science that groups work to disprove the Scientific Theory of Evolution, what those groups are, what their methodology that fits in the process is. To ignore it is simply disregarding facts that do not fit into a dogmatic presentation of a Theory. I agree that ID is not a Scientific Theory, and should not be taught as such, and would argue on your side on that on every occasion. However I do believe that portions of the theorizing (philosophical theorizing is also theorizing) are within the processes of science and should therefore receive a mention. Ignoring portions of the scientific process to make Theory into truth is not scientific process and leads people to believe that science has a certain infallibility that it doesn't actually possess.

I would agree with what you're saying, however I would have that discussion in another class at the same time or just after evolution is taught. I don't think I would even have a problem with saying "here is evolution, it is the most accepted within the scientific community. There are other, non-scientific theories as to creation, which will be discussed in philosophy class (or theology or whatever). Evolution, however, is currently the most (or only) widely accepted creation theory within the scientific community."

I also think that science class should teach the definition of hypothesis and theory more effectively so that students understand what "theory of evolution" encompasses from a theory vs. fact standpoint.

 

[Powerman]

It was an elective in the Public HS that I attended. This assumption that ID is only religion is also presumptive and incorrect. It would be better taught in philosophy and if your HS had no philosophy courses then you went to one poor HS indeed.

ID certainly isn't only religion. But it is no coincidence that the religious groups clingn on to it as their saving grace in hopes of battling evolution. It's just a hope of using it as a back door to sneak the creation story into the classroom eventually.

 

[Said1]

I went to Catholic school and they taught both, but in different classes. Don't ask me how it was presented, I usually wasn't paying attention.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I went to Catholic school and they taught both, but in different classes. Don't ask me how it was presented, I usually wasn't paying attention.

Probably with hockey sticks, if I know Canada...

 

[Said1]

Probably with hockey sticks, if I know Canada...

And would explain my lack of interest.

 

[no1tovote4]

I would agree with what you're saying, however I would have that discussion in another class at the same time or just after evolution is taught. I don't think I would even have a problem with saying "here is evolution, it is the most accepted within the scientific community. There are other, non-scientific theories as to creation, which will be discussed in philosophy class (or theology or whatever). Evolution, however, is currently the most (or only) widely accepted creation theory within the scientific community."

I also think that science class should teach the definition of hypothesis and theory more effectively so that students understand what "theory of evolution" encompasses from a theory vs. fact standpoint.

I would also find it acceptible to state that while ID Theorizing is mostly outside of scientific process portions of it, such as those that work toward disproving Evolutionary Theory, are within the scientific process. Thus acknowledging that some portions have actual scientific relevance rather than dogmatically suggesting that since it resides within more than one sphere of thought process it must be irrelevant. It should also be mentioned that they have in no way disproven the theory at this time. Thus showing that dogmatic belief of scientific theory can lead one astray and that some theories have, in the past, been disproven.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I would also find it acceptible to state that while ID Theorizing is mostly outside of scientific process portions of it, such as those that work toward disproving Evolutionary Theory, are within the scientific process. Thus acknowledging that some portions have actual scientific relevance rather than dogmatically suggesting that since it resides within more than one sphere of thought process it must be irrelevant. It should also be mentioned that they have in no way disproven the theory at this time. Thus showing that dogmatic belief of scientific theory can lead one astray and that some theories have, in the past, been disproven.

Could you expand upon what portions of ID fall within the scientific process, and how? I'm not understanding what you're referring to.

 

[Powerman]

Could you expand upon what portions of ID fall within the scientific process, and how? I'm not understanding what you're referring to.

The only portions of ID that might be considered scientific are the ones that do nothing other than attack the holes in evolution. But none of that has anything to do with an intelligent designer.

 

[no1tovote4]

Could you expand upon what portions of ID fall within the scientific process, and how? I'm not understanding what you're referring to.

People who work to disprove theories are within the scientific process. Gathering evidence to disprove a theory is as much a part of the scientific process as attempting to gather evidence in support of a theory. Those people who work in those boundaries are within the scientific process.