Dover trial on evolution in schools

[5stringJeff]

Now you're getting the point. Only testable theories, like evolution, are scientific. UNtestable theories, like ID, are not.




I've always found it amusing that the very same people who claim evolution is untestable spend a considerable amount of time attempting to disprove it.



The scientifically minded, however, make no attempt to disprove ID, as it is untestable and therefore non-provable and non-disprovable.

To you, and all the others who cannot quit repeating the mantra that "ID is not science," I say this: science is not the only source of truth. Just because something cannot be proven by science does not mean that it is not true.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Now you're getting the point. Only testable theories, like evolution, are scientific. UNtestable theories, like ID, are not...

I said "unprovable". One more time: If schools choose to teach unprovable theories on the origin of life, the door is open to other unprovable theories. Oy vey.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

To you, and all the others who cannot quit repeating the mantra that "ID is not science," I say this: science is not the only source of truth. Just because something cannot be proven by science does not mean that it is not true.

I wholeheartedly agree. But that doesn't legitimize it's place in the science classroom; it only legitimizes it's placement in another classroom, say religion or philosophy or perhaps even history.

 

[5stringJeff]

I wholeheartedly agree. But that doesn't legitimize it's place in the science classroom; it only legitimizes it's placement in another classroom, say religion or philosophy or perhaps even history.

And on that particular point, I would agree.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

And on that particular point, I would agree.

Then we have reached an accord! Cue the old-timey music!

 

[Powerman]

To you, and all the others who cannot quit repeating the mantra that "ID is not science," I say this: science is not the only source of truth. Just because something cannot be proven by science does not mean that it is not true.

I would agree with you 100%

But that is not a valid reason for teaching something that isn't science in science class. I just don't see the point of brining supernatural events into science which deals with the natural world. The idea is simply ridiculous.

 

[no1tovote4]

I wholeheartedly agree. But that doesn't legitimize it's place in the science classroom; it only legitimizes it's placement in another classroom, say religion or philosophy or perhaps even history.

This type of discussion belongs in a Science class so that people will understand the process of science. Why something doesn't fit in science even when some scientific process is used would be helpful to a great many people. That somebody can find evidence of stuff outside of the scientific process would be helpful for people to know as well.

That the discussion is actually about the scientific process itself brings it into a place that it actually does belong in a classroom of science.

Too often people misunderstand the scientific process, the limitations of it as well as the strengths. All knowledge does not come from science.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

This type of discussion belongs in a Science class so that people will understand the process of science. Why something doesn't fit in science even when some scientific process is used would be helpful to a great many people. That somebody can find evidence of stuff outside of the scientific process would be helpful for people to know as well.

That the discussion is actually about the scientific process itself brings it into a place that it actually does belong in a classroom of science.

Too often people misunderstand the scientific process, the limitations of it as well as the strengths. All knowledge does not come from science.

I disagree. I could expand on your argument and say that I want to talk about geopolitics in math class because they're not mathematical, and I want people to understand that geopolitics isn't math. Class is about teaching the subject material, not teaching non-subject material.

 

[Powerman]

I disagree. I could expand on your argument and say that I want to talk about geopolitics in math class because they're not mathematical, and I want people to understand that geopolitics isn't math. Class is about teaching the subject material, not teaching non-subject material.

Correct. And if you teach people what the scientific method actually consists of then they will understand why ID can not be taught in science class. Apparently a lot of the basic definitions of science weren't taught to several of the board members here.

 

[archangel]

I disagree. I could expand on your argument and say that I want to talk about geopolitics in math class because they're not mathematical, and I want people to understand that geopolitics isn't math. Class is about teaching the subject material, not teaching non-subject material.

always seems to revolve around finance and economy I would find it okay to teach in a economics math class! or basic business math class for that matter...therefore your point is moot!

 

[archangel]

Correct. And if you teach people what the scientific method actually consists of then they will understand why ID can not be taught in science class. Apparently a lot of the basic definitions of science weren't taught to several of the board members here.

if one actually boils down what science is...It is the study to prove or disprove theories...so Id can be studied to prove or disprove this theory...IMO

 

[no1tovote4]

I disagree. I could expand on your argument and say that I want to talk about geopolitics in math class because they're not mathematical, and I want people to understand that geopolitics isn't math. Class is about teaching the subject material, not teaching non-subject material.

However geopolitics have nothing to do with mathematical process and could not further your knowledge of that process. A discussion on how some things do fit in the process, how they do not fit, or how they are lables psuedoscience can further your knowledge of the scientific process.

The process itself is ignored to have kids quote a bunch of 'facts', leaving them with a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Such a discussion as this can help them fit those things that are within scientific process properly into perspective. If this type of discussion were held in a science class it is doubtful that we would have had some people attempting to redefine science and to place this into a science class as a competing Theory, which it isn't.

Discussing the limits of scientific process would also be beneficial in understanding science.

To say that it is like talking geopolitics in math class is an absurdity. To say that a discussion of what the scientific process is, what it isn't, how things fit within it, etc. does not apply to science is also an absurdity.

A discussion of 'evidence' of ID should be held in a philosophy class, a discussion of how ID does not fit within the scientific process should be held in a science class.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

always seems to revolve around finance and economy I would find it okay to teach in a economics math class! or basic business math class for that matter...therefore your point is moot!

Weren't you the one who was complaining about people nitpicking?

 

[archangel]

Weren't you the one who was complaining about people nitpicking?

anymore off the cuff remarks?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

However geopolitics have nothing to do with mathematical process and could not further your knowledge of that process. A discussion on how some things do fit in the process, how they do not fit, or how they are lables psuedoscience can further your knowledge of the scientific process.

The process itself is ignored to have kids quote a bunch of 'facts', leaving them with a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Such a discussion as this can help them fit those things that are within scientific process properly into perspective. If this type of discussion were held in a science class it is doubtful that we would have had some people attempting to redefine science and to place this into a science class as a competing Theory, which it isn't.

Discussing the limits of scientific process would also be beneficial in understanding science.

To say that it is like talking geopolitics in math class is an absurdity. To say that a discussion of what the scientific process is, what it isn't, how things fit within it, etc. does not apply to science is also an absurdity.

A discussion of 'evidence' of ID should be held in a philosophy class, a discussion of how ID does not fit within the scientific process should be held in a science class.

While I suppose I might be able to agree with your overall point, I disagree that it should be put into practice. I don't believe you'll sell the injection of ID into science classes merely to prove that it's not scientific to many people who support ID. And I think if you're trying to teach about what science is and is not, you shouldn't use something as controversial and hot-button as this issue, because it can be entirely too easily bastardized by a teacher with an agenda. In short, I don't think that discussion of ID is the be-all and end-all to the understanding of the scientific process, and I think it can be accomplished without touching that issue.

I also take issue with your claim that

If this type of discussion were held in a science class it is doubtful that we would have had some people attempting to redefine science and to place this into a science class as a competing Theory

I think there is a slippery slope argument that can easily be made. I think that they very easily will be trying to redefine the scientific process so that ID fits. This particular statement, in contrast to the rest of your argument, I feel to be quite naive.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

anymore off the cuff remarks?

Sure.

You have a penchant for missing the point, kind of like how that pencil looks after you try to use your ear as a sharpener.

Would you like another?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

always seems to revolve around finance and economy I would find it okay to teach in a economics math class! or basic business math class for that matter...therefore your point is moot!

So you think that politics should be part of the lesson plan in an econ class. Brilliant.

 

[MissileMan]

Discussing the limits of scientific process would also be beneficial in understanding science.

A discussion of 'evidence' of ID should be held in a philosophy class, a discussion of how ID does not fit within the scientific process should be held in a science class.

There are hundreds of "real" scientific theories that can be used to teach scientific method. You could also make up an infinite number of unscientific theories to use as those that fail muster. The idea of adding ID to class discussions as an example of what science isn't is amusing though. Maybe we should add it to all classes, after all, ID isn't algebra, grammar, or history either.

 

[archangel]

Sure.

You have a penchant for missing the point, kind of like how that pencil looks after you try to use your ear as a sharpener.

Would you like another?

this sounded something like what one of your professors told you! :teeth:

 

[no1tovote4]

There are hundreds of "real" scientific theories that can be used to teach scientific method. You could also make up an infinite number of unscientific theories to use as those that fail muster. The idea of adding ID to class discussions as an example of what science isn't is amusing though. Maybe we should add it to all classes, after all, ID isn't algebra, grammar, or history either.

However, the controversy breeds discussion and interest. To show why this particular one doesn't fit into the scientific process, while sometimes using scientific methodology certainly is fitting to be discussed in a scientific setting. Most philosophy teachers simply don't have the knowledge that would be necessary to show where and when it steps away from scientific method.

It is my belief that a misunderstanding of the scientific method leads people to believe that this is a Theory when it clearly isn't and fails several of the tests. Showing where it fails the test would be helpful in showing why, when and what falls under scientific method. It hasn't been helpful in the past to discuss Theories that are accepted only in science class as evidenced by the clear misconceptions that some have over what is and isn't science.

Showing somebody math problems that are incorrect, showing them why, and helping understand how to do things correctly is fundamental in the teaching of math, why would it be so illogical to include such discussion as it pertains to scientific process and to particular competing ideas?

I think it is only 'illogical' to you because you simply don't want it discussed at all, even to prevent further misunderstandings of this type. I guess most people really want this argued out in courts all the time so that they can simply show how superior they must be because of their more full understanding of the process.